Quod Scripsit

A Liberal and Conservative debate Iraq, Terrorism, and the intentions of Militant Islam

2008-05-15T09:39:00.004-04:00

May 14, 2008 Richard and Eques engaged in a mini debate via email. It is very possible you too have been involved in this debate concerning Iraq, Terrorism, and the Intentions of Militant Islam. Eques is reasonably hopeful that you will find some of the points made familiar to you.

Here follows a Liberal versus Conservative point counter point exchange, enjoy.

To: Eques,
I'd say last night pretty much finished off Hillary's chances

Richard

To: Richard

Sweet home West Virginia))))))))))))))))

Eques

To: Eques
I think, even though I believe Obama will win the nomination, that Hillary is correct that Obama won't be able to win in November because he won't capture the white/blue collar vote, and West Virginia is the latest example of that.

Richard

To: Richard

I would not count Obama out of wining in November. I for one would never vote for Hillary, but I would for Obama. I find McCain dull and although a war hero I do not see him having a vision on the future. You have actually answered your own question; Hillary is staying in hopping in some way to still get the nomination. She will fight for the Florida and Michigan delegates and she will call in chips of super delegates. Because she believes that she alone can beat McCain. I think she is mistaken but that is why she remains...she will not quite until the last delegate vote
is cast at the convention. It could be a real Convention for a change and not a "rubber stamp
party."

Respectfully

Eques

To: Eques

Really????? Is it because you like him or because you don't like McCain? I didn't think you were really serious about voting for Obama! I agree about Obama being able to win in November. But mostly because the polls indicate the republicans are going to lose seats in congress and the public generally wants a change in the white house.

I like his views on a lot of things. For instance, I thought he was correct about the gas tax holiday. You are correct on all counts here, I was expressing why I may actually Vote Obama...it could get very interesting.

In addition to trying to get the Florida and Michigan delegates, have you noticed she's been playing up this "popular vote" notion? I think she's going to go to the convention claiming a popular vote win, even thoughthat's not how the nominee is chosen. Quite clever, wonder if she can pull it off.

I agree about Obama being able to win in November. But mostly because the polls indicate the republicans are going to lose seats in congress and the public generally wants a change in the white house.

Richard

To: Richard,

I do not think McCain can beat Obama and I think it is time to shakethings up...Conservatives are perhaps better at political philosophy thangoverning. Regan being the exception to the Rule. He was in my mind exactlywhat the country needed then. Perhaps Obama will do the same from adifferent starting point. As a conservative I will retain the option of critique. But the USA image around the world could use a Charisma Makeover.Obama can provide that. I foreign relations "Bella Figura" is essential right now we are "Fascia Bruta." I also think that a liberal democrat will be able to get congressional support for a vigorous defensive posture that they would automatically reject from a Republican President, politics trumping national security.

As much as I dislike the Iraq war and no matter how big a mistake it may have been, it has accomplished one thing most Democrats refuse to acknowledge. It has drawn the fire and wrath of Al Qaida on our military there and away from civilian targets here. Why do you think there has been no attack on USA soil since 2001? It is not because our security is so good;
the airport hassle is a ridiculous and useless policy of closing the door after the horses are out.

We are safer here because our troops are there. Most liberals lack realistic view of how dangerous and mean the world really is. They sincerely believethat if we are nice to other countries they will be nice to us. HA! Nations make decisions on their best interests. Terror organizations look for targets of opportunity. In my view universities have failed the nation by
not teaching history as historical science and instead using it as a propaganda tool for Liberal ideology, to which they have sold their souls, including so called Catholic Colleges.

Keep in mind the reality of Original Sin when evaluating potential behavior of opposing states. The goal is what is best interests of state X, as defined by the power elites of that nation state. Peace, Justice, and Charity, is at best means to an end, not values in themselves.

Respectfully

Eques

Dear Eques

I really couldn't disagree more about what fighting in Iraq is accomplishing.

The fight with al Qaida, in Iraq is a very small percentage (I've heard about 3%) of the overall violence. In fact, most of the violence we read about right now is the fight with Sadir and his militias. Al Qaida is to some extent working with the Sunnis, and very much against the Shiites.
Sadir is a Shiite. The other thing to remember is, al Qaida "in Iraq", is not part of the al Qaida operation run by Bin Laden. As much as Dick Cheney would like us to believe there is a connection, President Bush himself has acknowledged (unwillingly) that the two groups are independent of each other. So, taken as a whole, the war in Iraq has little to do with the war
on terror. Never did, never has. If we haven't had an attack on American soil since the Iraq war began, it's not because we are fighting that war, it's because our security is better. President Bush is famous for his straw man arguments, and one of them is "if we're not fighting them there, they will come here." First of all, Bin Ladin's Al Qaida isn't even there, so why hasn't he come here? And since the majority of violence in Iraq is sectarian in nature, why would they leave to come here once they've settled their civil war?

Richard

To: Richard,

Here the conservative liberal divide is to be found. Your observations make perfect sense IF Islam was a western phenomenon that approached situations with the logical and rational categories of Westerners. The philosophical and theological differences are so profound that to base predictive outcomes on western logic fails. You conclude "And since the majority of violence in Iraq is sectarian in nature, why would they leave to come here once they've settled their civil war?" Your implication is that once the civil war in IRAQ is over peace will follow and they will have no reason to come over here." Well why did they come here on 9/11/2001?

Most liberal thinkers say because the USA is unfair to the Palestinians and because we insist on having forward military bases in Arab Islamic Countries, Osama ordered an attack on New York, the Pentagon, the White house and the Capital Building. So the solution then is for us to be even
handed with the Palestinians and withdraw our forward bases in the Middle East. If even there was a total misreading of the intentions, design and motivation of the opposition this is it.

It totally dismisses and disrespects the stated goals of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al quida, and militant Islam. They need no excuse or reason to wage Jihad in the form of terrorism outside of what the Koran, the Hadith, and Sharia law gives them. They are duty bound by their understanding of Islam to wage war against the infidels (us Christians and Jews) and non-believers, secularists
of all types, agnostics and atheist. In fact as at least one left wing liberal of impeccable credentials Christopher Hitchens, believe that iberals and secularists should be the most hawkish in IRAQ, IRAN, PAKISTAN, and anywhere militant Islam raises its banner. He holds this opinion because
he takes Islam seriously when it says it will but people like him, left wing, liberals, and secularists to the sword, because they are the worst sort of unbelievers who think God does not exists or is irrelevant to modern life. This why 9/11/2001 happened and why the only reason that the groups you mentioned are not fighting us is that at the moment they are too busy fighting a fratricidal war in Iraq, If that is ever resolved or if there is a hegemony established in Iraq by one side or another. I can assure you that Islam will find ways to continue Jihad against the west. We can expect to be(we are) targets of opportunity and planning anywhere in the world.

As far as arguing that the reason we have not been 'attacked here since 9/11 2001 is a direct result of our increased security measures is difficult for a liberal to maintain, and still criticize the Bush administration for neglecting the war on terrorism by fighting in Iraq. There is no need to
attack us here if they can kill Americans on a daily basis there.

Finally there may be no organizational connections between Al quida in Iraq or anywhere else, there does not need to be. The connection will not show up on an organizational chart. This is another error in western thinking,which mistakenly concludes that if there is no organizational connection there is no real connection. Wrong, there is a much stronger connection that
needs no infrastructure or chain of command. The connection is Philosophical and Theological, it is found in the philosophies of the several organizations, and in their unquestioning belief in the words of the Koran. It provides the motivation and the raison d'être of these various Islamic militant groups and individuals. The verse of the sword "Slay the infidels where ever you find them."

Respectfully

Eques

The Papl Vist to USA, the wrong and right questions

2008-04-16T12:30:00.006-04:00

Eques writes from his annual spiritual retreat guided by the Fathers of the Priestly Fraternity of the Holy Cross. It is during these very days that our dear Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI is making his first visit as Pope to these United States.

There is a heightened apprehension and speculation on the part of the secular media, as to what political impact the Holy Father’s pastoral visit will have on the imminent primary election, in the largely Catholic state of Pennsylvania, and on the Presidential election itself.

It is indicative of the nature of secular journalism in our times that the first and foremost question, the fundamental question is not being asked, the question that would assist them and the nation in answering the above secondary questions. The Holy Father is making a pastoral visit to the members of his flock and like Christ to those who are not of his flock to whom Christ and hence his Vicar is also sent, “that there may be one flock one shepherd.” The primary question is what impact the pastoral visit of the Pope will have on the faith of Catholics here in these United States.

If this question was asked and answered the secular media would have a considerably improved opportunity to comprehend and predict the answers to the secondary political questions.

The Roman Catholics in the United States have generally embraced the popes of their times with love, affection and respect. However, they have not always listened to the voice of Peter or followed his teachings. Americans have all too often incorrectly applied their love for democracy and national anti-authoritarian political principles to their relationship with the church and its anointed leaders. The relationship of a Catholic to the teaching Magisterium of the church, to his pastor, bishop, and pope, has been culturally adulterated. The relationship of a Catholic to his church is and ought to be of an entirely different nature from his relationship to his state.

The state is a human creation and entity, properly governed by the citizens, for citizens. Its laws are humanely established and may be humanly disestablished. It is a thoroughly natural institution. It derives its authority from the people and is ultimately responsible to the people. It has no authority that the people have not granted it. It is a rational enterprise hierarchical in structure but horizontal in nature.

The Catholic (universal) Church is an entity of an entirely different order than the state. The model of dealing and thinking about the state by its Catholic citizens cannot properly be applied to their relationship with their Church. Several organizations of lay folks have sprung up around the Church and the contemporary fault line of hot button political and human issues such as same-sex unions, abortion, and the clergy-sex-abuse crisis, as well as around internal church controversies such as the ordination of women, and married clergy.

All of these organizations claim to be Catholic because their membership is Catholic. All of them wrongly attempt to apply the secular model of political philosophy to the governance of the Church. Americans believe they can alter the nature of the church the way they influence the actions of the state by bringing political pressure on church authorities.

What is wrong with this assumption? Actually, there is a great deal wrong with it. The Church is by nature a divinely constituted entity. Our Lord and savior Jesus Christ himself established the church on Peter the rock, (Mat 16:16-19).

16: Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17: Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Holy Spirit guides and governs the church through its anointed leaders. The church is a Faith and Reason enterprise hierarchical in nature and vertical in orientation. Through the ministry of the church sacramental and sanctifying grace is mediated and administered to all the faithful. Its role is to bring God to man and man to God; it is thus vertically oriented. It is hierarchical in that Christ himself chose the twelve and the seventy-two and placed Peter at their head and the head therefore all disciples. The church is the preeminent top down institution for it comes from the Holy Trinity to man to save, serve, teach, and govern. The divine law has been revealed in and through Jesus Christ. It is the role of its hierarchy to deliver this revelation to the faithful in pristine form. The authority of the Church comes directly from God, not form the ordained or lay members. The mission of the Church was mandated by Christ himself before he ascended to the Father, go and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 29:19-20

19: 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,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

and (Mark 16 :15-16)

15: He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.
16: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The Church can only be reformed by the Holy Spirit working through the structure mandated by Christ himself that is through the Holy Father, who holds the Petrine office and thus the power of he keys, in collegial union with the Bishops of the church.

No self appointed or free association of Lay or Ordained faithful have the divine mandate to change either the structure of the church, it doctrine, or dogma. Catholics for Pro-Choice can not possible be a Catholic organization, because it has not been divinely constituted nor has it received the approbation of the Holy Father and Bishops in council. The members are by definition dissenting from the authentic teaching of the Church, and have no standing within the church, apart from their baptismal dignity, which they themselves jeopardize by their public defiance of the moral and implicitly ecclesiastical teachings of the church.

Similar conclusions can be drawn concerning other reforming and dissenting organizations that campaign for the ordination of women and sacramental same-sex marriage.

A special word of warning is in order for another self-appointed reform minded organization, the so-called Voice of the Faithful, or VOTF. It is particularly note worthy concerning this organization that they sprang from a sincere concern for the victims of sexual abuse by clergy. This was a praiseworthy concern and advocating for the human well-being of the children of God is both a spiritual and corporal work of mercy, indeed a road to holiness.

The VOTF, however, even in its gestation process began to mutate in to a self-appointed deconstruction corporation dedicated to the democratization of the church and lobbyists for lay-investiture. In the first instance, the name Voice of the Faithful was a self-aggrandizing appellation. The members of the VOTF were not elected by the majority of the faithful to represent or speak for them. The VOTF is no more the “voice of the faithful” than “the Democratic People’s Republic of China” is democracy for or by the people or a Republic. It is not without irony that an organization that desires to democratize the Catholic Church and claims to have the mandate of the Second Vatican Council to do, essentially non-democratic.

When Vatican II expressed a desire for lay experts to share their knowledge and experience with the bishops of the church, it hastened to include the directive “through existing structure.” The hierarchy of the Catholic Church should not hesitate to consult those laity with particular skills, arts, and knowledge that will further its mission as church to the world. Lay experts should seek to work with their bishops to enhance the mission of the church through the existing structures established by the bishops for this purpose. These structures are canonical such as Finance Committees, and ecclesiastical such as Pastoral Councils. They are not organizations that establish themselves without any hierarchical or canonical connection to the church. The expressed goal of the VOTF and other such organizations is to alter the teachings or the structure of the church. The logical conclusion that the VOTF, Catholics for Pro-choice, Call to Action, or any like minded organization is not Catholic must be drawn.

Now we rightly pose the question, what effect will the papal visit have on the Roman Catholic Church in these United States; this is the essential question. We Catholic citizens are challenged by the presence of our Holy Father to examine our consciences, asking ourselves if we are Catholic citizens or Citizens who happen to be Catholic. Have we become so American that we believe the American way must also be the Catholic way? Are we capable of renewing our Catholic Perspective? Are we able to order our priorities? Our nation would be enriched by Catholics bring their unique Catholic perspective to bear on the myriad of issues and crises facing it today.

In Pope Benedict XVI, we have Peter in our midst. He brings to us the authentic teaching of Christ and His Church. He brings a special presence of Christ in our midst as His Vicar on earth. Let us embrace both with love. Let us follow the admonition of his wise and saintly predecessor John Paul the Great, “be not afraid” opening wide the doors of our hearts and minds to Christ.

Is Intelligent Design a threat to Liberal Ideology? UPDATED

2008-03-28T10:54:00.014-04:00

Updated Saturday 27 April, see additional response at bottom.

The following trailer of Ben Stein's upcoming film EXPELLED has been making its way around cyber-space. The film attempts to make the case that there are those in academia who do not want the idea of "Intelligent design" considered by the scientific community. It smells like religion to them and runs contrary to neo-Darwinian dogma, which considers us and all creation a cosmic accident!

Check out the trailer see what you think http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf

Eques

Thanks for your note.

Despite Ben Stein's worried comments, I do not believe there exists some secret cabal specifically targeting ID. For better or worse, professors with weird, heterodox beliefs are ridiculed all the time by their colleagues. For instance, a Marxist in an economics department is not going to be well liked and will be the target of his or her colleagues' ridicule and censure. Proponents of ID are not special targets.

I noticed that, in the preview for his film, Stein decided to show clips of people like Dennett and Dawkins. But, why should we be impressed if Dennett and Dawkins, people who have an axe to grind against theism, dismiss ID without consideration? They do not speak for the scientific community.

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a publication on science and religion in the classroom aimed at reaching lay persons. I have been reading it, and thus far I am happy to see that it is both accessible to the general public and that it emphasizes one need not see scientific findings as a threat to his or her religious convictions. The text, Science, Evolution, and Creationism is available online here:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876#toc

Cheers,

Timothy

Eques replies;

Dear Timothy,

As usual, your reply is well thought through and argued. Eques found the trailer interesting. He knows that many people share Ben Stein’s opinion, IF it is true what then. Eques seldom believes in organized conspiracy or cabal theories.

He experienced the turbulent 60’s and 70’s. As a Northeastern University student Eques never thought that there was some kind of organized conspiracy among different anti-war groups in the USA with the North Vietnamese Communist. Everyday, however, the philosophical “comradeship” among these groups was certainly recognizable. This shared philosophy was potent. Any international organization was superfluous.

The Students for a Democratic Society ( who were neither democratic or students) still supported the Viet-Cong over our troops, the “Weathermen” still robed banks to support their incipient terrorist activities and Jane Fonda still felt righteous about visiting North Vietnam and posing with an anti-aircraft gun that shot down our planes and pilots.

Philosophy is far more powerful a bond than any institution because it can only be combated by an equally or more powerful philosophy.

The real question is, “are there academics who think that ‘Intentional Design’ is the camouflaged nose of the religious camel under the edge of their tent.” Eques suspects there is. Perhaps Stein’s film will shed some light on this question.

In addition, it is the opinion of Eques that the liberal elite ideologues in academia and government are verily afraid of ID, for it could up set their entire relativistic, nihilistic, philosophical house of cards. For this reason, those who tolerate everything begin to look very much like reactionary neo-Darwinists, when it comes to ID.

Sincerely

Eques

A second thought by Eques after a look at the Science, Evolution and Creationism brochure.

The Science, Evolution, and Creationism brochure makes the following argument against “Intelligent design.”

“However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproved by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes. For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria. There are many types of flagella, some simpler than others, and many species of bacteria do not have flagella to aid in their movement. (Emphasis by Eques) Thus, other components of bacterial cell membranes are likely the precursors of the proteins found in various flagella. In addition, some bacteria inject toxins into other cells through proteins that are secreted from the bacterium and that are very similar in their molecular structure to the proteins in parts of flagella. This similarity indicates a common evolutionary origin, where small changes in the structure and organization of secretory proteins could serve as the basis for flagellar proteins. Thus, flagellar proteins are not irreducibly complex.”

Despite the closing sentence of the above paragraph, Eques would argue that the relative infinite variety of life at every level of sophistication could indeed argue for “intelligent design.”

The Science, Evolution, and Creationism brochure argues that the more variety the less possibility of “Intelligent design,” does that necessarily follow. Does not effective variety, many ways of accomplishing the same thing, speak of even greater genius. Is this not more evidence for ID?

Tielhard De Chardin, paleontologist and Jesuit, would argue that the more “complex” something becomes the greater the “consciousness” until evolution becomes conscious of itself, in humankind. De Chardin fully accepted evolution, but most definitely appreciated its spirituality, what he referred to as its “within.” The principle of evolution he called “Complexity Consciousness.” The “within” is the active and conserving presence of God. He argued that evolution has a goal, a beginning, an Alpha point and an Omega, a telos, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8) St Paul “wrote all creation groans” (Romans 8:22) until it reaches its completion in Christ the point of perfection, the Word, “Fiat Lux” (Genesis 1:3) through which all was made and for which all was made.

None of this is contrary to Evolutionary thought except it moves Evolution from accident to purpose. The jump is also relatively infinite, as is 0 to 1. It explains not only what is happening Evolution, it also answers the most human and perhaps the most Evolutionary question possible WHY is it happening.

Perhaps someday down the road, the divorce between science and faith will be perfectly healed and real wisdom achieved. Eques does not believe true knowledge can be reached using only part of our mind. Once again the greater Catholic gift of the little word “and” will bring wisdom unachievable by Sola Scientia aut Sola Fides, sed Scientia et Fides.

Genesis 1:1-5

1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. 5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.’

Is the Roman Catholic Church a bulwark of democracy?

2008-03-19T15:07:00.009-04:00

Updated with new Response from Dr Art Kyriazis

Salve readers,

Quod Scripsit is very interested in the critique of our Western Civilization/Culture and the direction(s) it is taking. The basic premise is "Resolve, Western Civilization” is a product of Christianity and the Roman Catholic and Protestant riff in particular which ushered in the Enlightenment and made the "horrors" of the French Revolution possible.

Art Kyriazis Harvard Class 80/81 comments below.
Eques’ response follows Art's argument on the resolution. This exchange is going on the "Harvard Alumni Association Discussion Groups" website as well.

Dear Eques

Hi, Art Kyriazis 80/81' writing here.

I'm a molecular biologist now but an old social studies major so I can't resist taking a chop at your comment on the list serve here.

(1) I just watched the movie " Elizabeth : the Golden Age" with Cate Blanchett, Clive Owen etc. The central thesis of this movie, which centers on the defeat of the Spanish armada by the English, is that the defeat of catholic Spain by Protestant England was something quite important for the development of trade and freedom in the world. as with the defeat of the Persians at marathon and salamis by the ancient Greeks, one can surely argue that the English protestants carried with them traditions of freedom, law and liberty (and parliamentary rule) that later took root in the new world (not to mention Canada, India and many commonwealth nations); not to mention that many historians and social theorists suggest that the Spanish economy was largely feudal and mercantile (as Commodore Perry our old professor at Harvard was wont to
argue) due to its catholic nature hoarding gold and exploiting the new world for the state instead of allowing numerous private companies as did the Dutch and English (Weber's notion of the protestant ethic and capitalism).

(2) corollary to this is the notion that England enjoyed a better nationalism due to the union of their church with the king
(Cesaro-Papism) while the laws resided with parliament, while the catholic powers of the continent were weakened by the church authority residing in Rome while the secular power resided with each king. This weakened Spain , France and the holy roman empire in turn, and was not fully resolved until the French revolution and the Napoleonic conquests which drove the inquisition from Spain and disenfranchised catholic property and dominion in France , leaving in place strong nationalist states in France and finally allowing Germany to unify.

(3) the ottoman empire was very powerful during this entire time, and they certainly enjoyed a union of state and church, in that the sultan was both the secular and spiritual leader of all Islam as well as of the continuing jihad from 1453 until the end of the sultanate in 1922. In addition, he was also after the fall of the roman empire with the taking of Constantinople in 1453, the roman emperor as well as the ruler of the Rumi-Orthodox--the roman christian subjects of his land, who of 12 millions who lived in the ottoman lands, fully 4 million at any one time, Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, etc. all answered to one orthodox christian patriarch ensconced in Constantinople, loyal not to the pope, but to the sultan. While modern nationalist histories portray the sultan and the ottomans in a bad light, the truth is that the Greeks, Armenians and Jews who had no religious liberty in the catholic states prospered in the ottoman empire as bankers, traders, seamen etc, building up large trading cities in Smyrna, Skopje etc. and living in large mansions. The economic contributions of non-Muslims to the Muslim empire were not inconsiderable, and many of these peoples were driven to live in ottoman countries due to the fact that all of the Sephardi Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492; the Greeks (Rumi) felt more welcome in ottoman rumeli and Asia minor to practice their religion as orthodox than they did in Italy, which had but one Greek church in Venice; and the Armenians certainly were tolerated until very late in ottoman history.

(4) The Chinese and Mogul empires in China and India were powerful during the 16th and 17th centuries, as were the Japanese feudal warlords who were quickly assimilating western ways and weapons before they shut the country off from the west.

(5) It is difficult to say what propelled the west to the top of the heap civilization wise. The fall of Constantinople was certainly critical, as it sent a number of Greek and Latin scholars of Greek ancestry to Italy, along with their books, to disseminate original Greek and Latin knowledge to the humanists.
This has been the thesis of Burckhardt in his work on the renaissance and of jb bury for many years. more recently works on George of Trebizond have also cited the critical role of Greek scholars in the revival of Greek study. Certainly the establishment of a chair in Greek studies in England in the early 1500s was a turning point in English science and literary affairs, and led directly to Newton, Shakespeare, Marlowe, and the king James bible as we now know them all. From Newton, all else follows, including Maxwell, Einstein and the atomic bomb.

(6) it's hard to say that the humanists were devoutly catholic.
Galileo was at odds with the Jesuits; Copernicus was afraid to publish his findings; in many ways, the inquisition and the Jesuits were opponents of humanism and of scientific progress. In time, the English developed the faster, lighter ships with more cannon and better engineering because they had freedom of thought and freedom of scientific inquiry--Bacon, Raleigh, drake--all were encouraged to think, to travel until England had reached every corner of the globe with mercantile trade by the time of Elizabeth.
They feared nothing and least of all their own inquisition or Jesuits, because the catholic faith had been suppressed in England.

(7) Two of the greatest crimes in history in the middle ages have to be ascribed to the catholic church, the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the 4th crusade, and the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathari of Southern France (Provencal France) in 1209). These were not isolated events. Throw in the crusade less than a hundred years later against the knights Templar sanctioned by the pope and you have a picture of what the inquisition was really all about.
In Constantinople, they burned 2/3 of the classical works that had been preserved in the library and melted down the original ancient sculptures, preserved for centuries unharmed, for bronze; and they took all of the holy relics of Christ, which had been carefully collected by the roman emperors over the years, including the crown of thorns and holy lance, and used them as collateral for loans from Italian bankers, and when the Latin emperors defaulted on the loans, the relics were sold and dispersed to the various emperors of the west, included the holy grail itself, which was lost. The Cathari, who had developed Provencal literature and the cult of the troubadours, were silenced forever, and a literary and cultural tradition was forever lost.

(8) On the plus side, the Vatican has managed to keep a large number of items in its own library intact.

(9) The current pope seems anxious to effect another union (more permanent than the councils of Lyon or
Florence) with the eastern church, which now boasts 500 million strong. However the eastern church only recognizes the seven ecumenical councils through the 8th century ad; the western church lists all of the Lateran and Vatican councils, as well as papal encyclicals, as being of importance somehow. Moreover, Vatican II, which the western church ratified and announced, which revoked much of the bad and harmful intolerance that had characterized Catholicism for centuries, is seemingly now being chipped away at by neo-conservatives in the Vatican. It would seem that one pre-requisite for there to be union between the Vatican and eastern church, is strict adherence to Vatican II.

these are just a few points.

--Art Kyriazis ab 80/81
Eques Responds

Salve Art,
Well reasoned response, which I do not have the necessary time to respond to, this being holy Week. I would like to comment in the near future on:
1. That "protestant England at first was not Protestant but schismatic. One could argue that until the 19th century with the exception of the "puritan revolt" the Anglican Church considered itself catholic. Cardinal Newman attempted to prove such, but much to his surprise found that over time, the "Catholic Faith" in England had been corrupted by Protestantism, but he claims it did not begin that way. Therefore, the growth of the British Commercial Empire early still found its roots in what they themselves believed was Catholic but not Papists."
2. I believe that the worse thing to happen in Western and European history was the French Revolution, as Edmund Burke and Dickens (neither Catholic) would agree. It brought to the world the first Modern Totalitarian State , guillotine, secret police, state religion, (as opposed to a nationalized version of Catholicism as in the East and England) and global war, the real First World War being the Napoleonic Wars.
3. No Conservative, Republican, or Roman Catholic philosophically or theologically could rightly support a totalitarian state. Also the international character of Roman Catholicism makes it the only Church capable of resisting oppression form such states globally, in such places as Philippines, East Timor, Sudan, Central America, Poland, Hungary, and many more places in many other times, including the French Revolution and its after math.
4. I do believe that the lingering feudalism in Spain, with its protection of the aristocracy and hence the lack of industrial development, was in part a by product of conservative Catholicism that was leery of democracy, as were all the crown heads of Europe until it was thrust upon them by the debacle of the "First World War." I would also have to attribute this at least in Spain to other cultural factors, which were I admit, rooted in Catholicism.
5. I believe you err in your characterization of the "Two of the greatest crimes in history in the Middle Ages have to be ascribed to the catholic church, the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the 4th crusade, and the Albigensian Crusade against the Cithara of Southern France (Provencal France) in 1209). These were not isolated events. Throw in the crusade less than a hundred years later against the knight's Templar sanctioned by the pope and you have a picture of what the inquisition was really all about."
a. The "Sack of Constantinople" was a horror to the Pope. It was never contemplated by the church; it was the direct result of Crusader kings and Barons looking for a quick buck.
b. The Albigensian or Cithara heresy was seen as a direct threat on the political stability of medieval Europe. Catholic princes, though they may have cared little for their Catholic Faith believed as Constantine did that there could be a unified state only with a unified religion. Heresy of all kind was not only an attack on the faith but also on the state, moderns have difficulty grasping this aspect of the medieval mindset; it was true then of Orthodox, Muslim, and later Protestant States, and princes.
Remember England is one of the few nation states today that still has an established church, and it was not until the early nineteenth century that the penal laws were relaxed against Catholics and The Catholic hierarchy restored. This was also in part due to the continued Anglican Bishops claim that they were the Catholic Bishops in England right up to the Mid-nineteenth century.
c. The suppression of the Order of the Poor Knights of St John of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Knights Templar was first in no way a crusade. It was the direct result of the greed and debts of King Philip IV of France, who had acquired an enormous debt to the Templars. He eyed their international treasury housed in guess where? The Bastille, as the solution to his problem, therefore he had the usual charges of various heresies, sins drown up against the Templars, and pressured the Pope to allow the arrest and trail, wherever in his realm they could be found, while encouraging the other kings to do the same with the aid of the Bishops he controlled. He was able to do this because he also controlled the Clement V, who was a Frenchman that Philip IV whose election as pope was manipulated by Philip IV. Clement V was the first of the Avignon Popes, and thus at the mercy of Philip IV.
Therefore, what you characterize as a crusade by the power of Catholic Church was an example of what happens when the Church was not independent or sovereign. The suppression of the Templars was the direct outcome of a Pope and Catholic Church that was controlled by a powerful king. The Church would fight this, I believe rightly so by insisting on an Independent and Sovereign Papal State, so that the church could not be manipulated so easily by powerful kings, emperors, or dictators in the future. The Popes fought this battle right up to 1870 when Rome was illegitimately seized by the newly created Italian Monarchy under Victor Emanuel II. The Popes remained “prisoners of the Vatican ” until the Lateran Council of 1927 negotiated by Mussolini for the King of Italy and the House of Savoy. This concordat recognized the sovereignty of “yle="">Stato Della Citta Del Vaticano,” and various other extraterritorial possessions of the Holy See and paid reparations to the Holy See for the seizure of Rome and the Papal States in the previous century, hence in effect legitimizing the Pontifical claims of 1870 to its sovereign status.
d. Therefore, I believe it erroneous to say that any of the events were the result of Church authority but rather the lack of and examples rather of what continues today attempts at the powerful of the world to manipulate the Church for its own purposes.
e. As along as the church does not have the coercive power of the state, that is the power to punish with incarceration, or death, rights it actually only exercised in the Papal States themselves (a necessary embarrassment for a Church, that was also a state with a population, that was in need of all the laws and order of any other state at that time) I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the greatest institutional and moral guardian against the rise of the totalitarian super state.
Art, thank you for your thoughts, I await your retort.
Vale et Pax
Eques

Dr Art Kyriazis answers

(Dr Art does not use upper case letters, it is as he wrote it unedited.)

will state here that I am of the orthodox faith, so my holy week is deferred this year, but I understand there are ecumenical discussions and negotiations underway to at least unite the Easters of the Western and Eastern Churches, which would be a wonderful thing indeed.

I would start with common ground. I believe the passion of the christ and the mysteries of easter and the resurrection of the christ is for me, and for billions of people in the world, one of the most important touchstones of faith in their devotion to god. There is little question that this is my favorite service of the year and of course, our theological calendar begins and ends at easter and the pentecost and the ascent.

I find myself agreeing with the fine points you make. England was indeed quite schismatic; as I point out in my other response, they had a tendency to export dissent to the new world rather than simply supress it. This does not encompass fully the irish question, which is a shameful episode in their history.

The horrors of the french revolution i fully share revulsion for. As I am fundamentally a conservative, Burke has always been one of my touchstones. While I don't agree with all of the points you make extending from the french revolution, I agree it was a horrible event. I would add that it lit the fuse for all of the nationalist uprisings of the 19th and 20th century, starting with the Greek Revolution of 1821-1830, to the bosnian nationalist who shot the archduke of austria and started world war I, to the disintegration of the ottoman empire along nationalist lines and the eastern problem. even the russian revolution.

plus my personal favorite word, "the thermidorean reaction".

I certainly agree that modernly catholicism, especially since vatican II, has been a liberating force against totalitarianism, especially in places like poland behind the iron curtain. however there remains the problem of the concordat of 1938 with hitler, and the complicity of the church with the croats against the serbs in wwII, and other similar scenarios which played out, along with their role vis a via Mussolini.

we agree about spain.

On the 4th crusade and albigensian crusade, your arguments have been made by certain historians, and are well-supported, but so have been mine, and we will agree to disagree. There are a plethora of recent studies on the subject, plus of course the original sources such as Villardhouin, which I have read and re-read. There are both crusader and greek accounts.

On the knights templar, let's leave that one alone. it's been overdone with movies etc.

the pope for many years had a secular state and an army==the papal states. for much of history the pope had coercive means at his disposal and the ability to ally with military forces. there are many works and sources on this point. Obviously france and the holy roman empire have intervened on numerous occasions either to interfere with the pope's secular power or at the pope's invitation; also spain for many years was involved in the affairs of italy. before the arrival of the normans, the byzantines were rulers of southern italy and sicily. Many powers have been involved in italy. If you re-read your machiavelli and other italian writers, you will see the secular role the pope played for many centuries.

i agree modernly the pope, and especially recent popes, have been champions of freedom. i think the recent pope who died should be beatified.

--dr arthur kyriazis

Homeschooling and Parental Rights Under Attack in California

2008-03-13T16:45:00.007-04:00

The following article was first published by the Acton Institute. It is so important to Catholic Citizens we post it here at Quod Scripsit. You are encouraged to visit the Acton Institute site.

By Chris Banescu

Declaring that “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” the Second District Court of Appeal for the state of California recently issued a ruling that effectively bans families from homeschooling their children and threatens parents with criminal penalties for daring to do so. According to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) this court decision has made “almost all forms of homeschooling in California” a violation of state law. Once again, our judicial system moves to restrict religious and personal liberties, severely limit parental rights, and significantly increase the power, scope, and control of the state over our lives.

There are approximately 166,000 homeschooled children in California. With the stroke of a pen, the appellate court criminalized the lawful educational choices of tens of thousands of innocent families across the state, subjected them to possible fines, and labeled their children as potential truants. This activist court chose to bypass the will of the people and legislated from the bench based on anecdotal evidence and its own clearly biased and subjective opinions about the constitutionality of parental rights and the quality of a homeschooled education. This decision attacks the freedom of parents to decide on the best educational environment for their children, restricts their religious rights to practice their faith without governmental interference, and violates their freedom to raise their offspring as they see fit without the ideological pollution and atheistic/leftist indoctrination so prevalent in our public school system.

In a state that allows minors to have abortions without parental notification and consent, having the court complain about the welfare and safety of children who are homeschooled is laughable. The court also conveniently turned a blind eye to the increasing levels of violence and murder in many California public schools, as well as the abysmal quality of education in those very same schools. With California ranking near the bottom in the quality of its public education system, a state-wide illiteracy rate of approximately 24 percent, and drop-out rates hovering around 30 percent, the California public education system is not the shining example and standard the courts should be applying and measuring against.

Case history

The appellate court reviewed the decision reached by a juvenile court regarding the quality of education provided to homeschooled children of the Phillip and Mary Long family. The children were homeschooled by Mrs. Long with assistance from the Sunland Christian School (SCS), a private religious academy in the Los Angeles area. According to its website, SCS “is a private school in the State of California and is an accredited home school program offering independent home schooling study, correspondence home schooling, and online home school.” The Long children were enrolled in the independent study program at SCS. While the lower court had concerns about the quality of the education received by two of the eight children, the trial court did not order the parents to enroll their children into a private or public school, and stated in its opinion that “parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home.”

Rather than confine its ruling to the specifics of the Long case, the court of appeals instead chose to considerably broaden the scope of its decision, further strengthen state power over individuals, and deny California parents the right to homeschool their children. In his written opinion, filed on February 28, 2008, Justice H. Walter Croskey, joined by the other two members of the appellate panel, categorically asserted that: “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children.” Furthermore, in the section ominously named “Consequences of Parental Denial of a Legal Education” the judge states:

Because parents have a legal duty to see to their children’s schooling within the provisions of these laws, parents who fail to do so may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines... Additionally, the parents are subject to being ordered to enroll their children in an appropriate school or education program and provide proof of enrollment to the court, and willful failure to comply with such an order may be punished by a fine for civil contempt.

“Breathtaking” judicial activism

The totalitarian impulses of the court were further evidenced by the arguments it used to justify its decision: “A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism, and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.” As someone who has lived and suffered under a communist regime (I grew up in Romania), the “good citizenship,” “patriotism,” and “loyalty to the state” justifications have struck a little too close to home. These were precisely the kinds of arguments the communist party used to broaden the power of the state, increase the leadership’s iron grip on the people, and justify just about every conceivable violation of human rights, restrictions on individual liberties, and abuses perpetrated by government officials.

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, got it right when he said that the “scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking. It not only attacks traditional home schooling, but also calls into question home schooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private schools.” The sentiment was echoed by Michael Smith, president of HSLDA: “California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home,” he said. This is exactly what the judges have done and the precedent they have set for California and possibly for the rest of the country.

Homeschooling effective

The appellate court also chose to ignore the many studies and solid research data showing that homeschooling is a well-established and exceptional method of education that overwhelmingly produces superior academic results and well-adjusted individuals. According to David Barfield’s review of the available data on home education, “dozens of studies have yielded the consistent result showing home educated students average 15-30 percentile points above the national average. Research demonstrates that, unlike their public school counterparts, the performance of home educated students bears little correlation to family income, the degree of state regulation of homeschooling, teacher certification, the educational level achieved by parents, sex, or race.” In another study by Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI) he shows that “home educated students excelled on nationally-normed standardized achievement exams. On average, home schoolers outperformed their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects.”

Similar studies documented by the HSLDA also confirm that the poor “socialization” objection by the court is a red herring. Numerous studies have shown that homeschooled youngsters have excellent social skills, are active in groups and community activities outside the home, engage in many extracurricular activities and sports, are exceptionally prepared to deal with the real world, interact better with adults and a variety of age-groups, and take their civic duties more seriously than their public school counterparts.

Pushing back

Fortunately the people of California and homeschooling associations across the country, outraged by these latest developments, are taking steps to proactively deal with and redress the situation. Many homeschooling families are determined to fight for their parental rights and countermand the court’s decision. The HSLDA has followed a two-prong approach to help. It has advised the Long family to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court and it will file “an amicus brief on behalf of our 13,500 member families in California” arguing that the proper interpretation of California statutes allow parents to teach their own children under the private-school exemption. The HSLDA will also seek to have this decision “depublished,” which can only be done by the California Supreme Court. According to them, depublishing the case “would mean that the case is not binding precedent in California and has no effect on any other family.”

Even Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has issued a statement in full support of homeschooling families. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will," he said.

It remains to be seen if reason and common sense will prevail in this latest battle for the individual God-given liberties and freedoms of American families. The relentless march towards full government control of all areas of our lives must be halted. The people must push back. Our children’s lives and their future are too precious to surrender to government bureaucrats and teacher’s unions. For their sake and ours, freedom must prevail.

Chris Banescu is an attorney, entrepreneur, and university professor. He is an ethics and business management specialist, and manages the conservative Web site and blog at OrthodoxNet.com.

Religion in 2008 Campaigns

2008-03-09T15:58:00.003-04:00

Recently Michael from NYU had the following to say about the role of Religion in the 2008 presidential campaigns. I concur with his analysis and add a perspective of my own below.

As an aside if you are a young man I would encourage you to check out the post just prior to this entitled Notes on becoming a young Catholic gentleman, It may prove helpful to you. Your comments as usual are always welcome and read.

Dear Eques,
I find it so fascinating how religion comes up in some form or another in each election, but this year, the manner in which the topic has been approached is so different from other years. This year, barely any emphasis was put on Clinton or McCain's religion, while Romney and Obama's religion has received full press coverage.
Romney is a Mormon and it is interesting how some people feel that his Mormonism would have a dire effect on his presidency. I felt bad for him because his religion does not comprise his entire character or completely control his policy decisions. The voters who looked at his religion as the only factor in voting for him were wrong I believe. They were being prejudiced and hateful. Who are they to say that Mormonism is a bad or wrong religion. After all, everyone remembers, just as the article mentions, that Kennedy was a Catholic, and at the time, many in the country were against having a Catholic as president. From history, we now know that a president is not going to make every decision based on religious affiliation.Religion plays a part in the decision making obviously because for most people, religion plays a very important part in their character. In no way though should a person be judged solely on their religion.
In a recent conversation I had on the topic of Obama, religion came up. Two things shocked me. The first is that this person I was having this conversation with believed 100% that Obama was a Muslim. I couldn't believe how someone could get their facts so wrong. Obama has said time and time again that he is not a Muslim and is in fact a member of the United Church of Christ. Why has Obama's religion been reported so wrongly? I am not sure I will ever understand this completely. This is one of those things that shocks me today. In the modern age, religion, whether it is Romney's or Obama's or anyone else's, should not be a reason to hold a prejudice against that person. religious intolerance seems to be the new racism, and it is only growing, not receding.
The second thing in this conversation that shocked me was that this person said they would never vote for Obama because he is a Muslim. This is not just this person's view though, many in the country hold this view, just as on the Republican side, voters used the same rationale to vote against Romney. Why would someone not vote for a person based solely on the fact that they are Muslim. This idea completely baffles me. Why does Islam have such a stigma attached to it in some people's minds?

On another note, I voted for Clinton in the primary. If you don't mind me asking, who did you vote for?

Michael

Eques Responds

Dear Michael,

I agree with your analysis completely. I also had a rather heated exchange with of all people Mr Grace who insisted that Obama was a Muslim. I could not convince him other wise. I believe that this information or disinformation actually originates form the blogosphere. The recent studies of media coverage show that the major networks had reported overwhelmingly favorable regarding Barrack Obama. NBC is reported to have covered Obama in a positive light 90% of the time. The other networks CBS and ABC were in the neighbor hood of 75-80% favorable reporting. The reporting regarding Mrs Clinton was just the opposite.

They have not reported him to be a Muslim but that “disinformation” has been all over the blogosphere and has come up on talk radio. Even though no news agency says said it is so, and have reported that he is a Christian, people still assume by his name that he is a Muslim. His middle name is Hussein, a Muslim name. His father was a Muslim. His mother was not. He was raised by his mom. He did attend, some report, a Muslim “hadras,” or school. However, he has claimed Christianity as his religion and he and his wife have belonged to the same church for many years.

One thing that hurts him still is that his pastor. He is known to have preached that America itself was at fault for the 9/11 attacks. The pastor has also given some kind of an award to Louis Farrakhan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan] the head of the Nation of Islam, whose rhetoric has been extremely anti-American foreign policy. Obama is very close to his pastor. He is part of Mr. & Mrs Obama spiritual life as a pastor should be.

These men of course have a right to their opinion but some have used the relationship of Obama with his pastor to cast a negative light on him and claim him as some kind of closet Muslim. He is not a Muslim, nor is he in any way anti-American. He is just more liberal than Mrs. Clinton is in her foreign policy. I do not believe for a minute despite the oratory that any of the current presidential candidates would deliberately place our nation in security jeopardy. They see different ways of achieving security. I do believe that Mrs. Clinton would be better for national security than Mr. Obama would. McCain would be better than either in this regard.

I however, voted for Romney in the Massachusetts primary. I thought he was the Republican with the best chance to win the White House. I have always been a registered Republican since I was old enough to register and vote. I also voted for him because he was a Mormon. He was our governor in Massachusetts. He was not great but he was good. As a Catholic, I have a lot more in common with him than Mrs. Clinton.

Like you, I was upset because people did say they would not vote for him because he was a Mormon. In the early 1970’s I meet Mormon young men in Kentucky at Fort Knox during basic training as an Army Reserve Officer Candidate. They were very moral young men. Although university students as me, all but one was already married and that young man told me, how sad he was because he was not yet married. Most Mormons are expected to marry young. It is their way of curtailing sexual promiscuity so common among college men then and now. This was very important to their religious fidelity. They were very patriotic; this was significant because it was during the Viet Nam war. There were more Mormons in my company than any other religion. I was a faithful Catholic as a boy and college student when it was not fashionable to be so. My Catholicism and their Mormonism on many moral issues fit.

The best friend I made at the time however, who remains a friend to this day, was a Methodist form Alabama. He was a student at the Alabama University Law School. He like the Mormons was already married. I was committed in my heart to be a priest at the time, although I was attending Northeastern University and studying Criminal Justice. He was a Christian and Republican. In addition, he was a conservative thinker like me. We met over a copy of National Review magazine as we rode the bus from the Louisville, Kentucky airport to Fort Knox. National Review is conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley Jr. who has just passed on to his eternal reward. Buckley was a faithful Catholic and the founder of the modern conservative movement. He was an inspiration to me for some time and gave me the intelligent conservative thought that allowed me to pass through NU when drugs and sexual acting out was as common as candy at the corner store. My Alabama seat mate could not believe a Bostonian could be reading National Review. I explained that it was very natural for me because my grandfather and father were Republicans and Catholics, just as Buckley was. It all made sense to me. From that, moment on, to name drop, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and I were conservative Republican allies and friends. You may know that Jeff is one of two Republican U S Senators from Alabama. (A bit of vanity on part there, with apologies.)

The point is this Catholic (me) found alliances with a Southern Methodist, and Mormons at a time when the other Catholics in our company barracks were vocally hostile to their own faith and church. Therefore, I see no reason not to vote for or vote against any candidate based on his religion alone, unless that religion is openly hostile to my or my nation’s existence, and the candidate embraces that openly hostile religion. Given that proviso, even though the religion of the candidate informs every decision he/she makes whenever his conscience is involved, by definition a religiously informed conscience, I would rather vote for such a person. I would expect he/she would more likely implement consistently the policy and platform articulated during the campaign. This candidate would have meant what said and said what meant. Romney was for the most part like this. He did shade himself on the moderate side becoming elect-able as governor of ultra liberal Massachusetts. He did shade himself more conservative to run for the Republican nomination, but essentially, he was consistent with his stated beliefs. He sincerely labored to fulfill his campaign promises once elected Governor.

I remember first hand the Kennedy Vs Nixon election, my mom voted for Nixon, because she thought he was better qualified. Religion played no part in her decision. I was in 7^th or 8^th grade and did not think politically at the time, I wanted her to vote for Kennedy so that we could have our first Catholic President. In hindsight, Kennedy was not very Catholic, and although he had loads of charisma and was very intelligent, we really do not know if he was a great president. Mythology grew so rapidly around him post his assassination that the judgment of history is still not clear. Nixon was a competent president but a much-disliked even despised human being; this clouds our vision of him as well. However, my mother provided an important decision-making lesson. Religion is only one factor in judging suitability of a candidate for office. It is certainly not a reason for automatic dismissal that would contradict our great American tradition of religious liberty and tolerance. An ideal that even found its way into the declaration on religious liberty DIGNITATIS HUMANAE approved by the Bishops and Pope Paul VI during the Second Vatican Council. < http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html>

Sincerlry

Eques

The Church can not be an instrument of the State. The Conversation Continues

2008-02-05T13:18:00.000-05:00

Tim Responds,

Thanks for your note. While I appreciate your discussion, I remain unconvinced by the points you raise. So, I would like to address them in turn.

You write, "The Congress and by virtue of the 14th amendment the States can make no law that requires the Church to do anything that violates its own well established constitution and Code of Cannon Law, including who to hire or fire." This is not the legal meaning of separation of church and state. The establishment clause does not make the church outside the state's juristidiction or immune to the laws it passes through legitimate democratic means. Instead, the establishment clause prevents the state from forming an official religion, from endorsing or denying religious doctrines.

Consider the following scenario. Imagine a morally perverse form of religion deeply rooted in racism, a neo-Nazi church, if you will, came into prominence in this country. Things grow worse as the clergy of this church, in conformity with their well-established canon law, support the murders of people of color by participating in the murders, arming the murders, hiding them from police, and bribing corrupt jurors or other members of the court so as to prevent a meaningful public trial of captured church members. Are you still willing in this case to say that the Congress, and by virtue of the 14 amendment the States, can make no law requiring the church to do anything that violates its own well established constitution and code of canon law? Indeed, the state has both the right and the duty to regulate the actions of religious institutions so as to bring them into conformity with publicly recognizable, liberal standards of justice.

Moreover, you contend, "In as much as the State does not intend in any way to subsume the Church as an organ or instrument of the state what you wrote above cannot be true. If this where [sic] true then the State would have to desist from giving any aid whatsoever to any church organization." This is, I believe, incorrect.

I wrote, "in so far as religious institutions receive state financial support, they become an extension of state policy and action..." I did not claim that the Church, by receiving state financial support, the Church is wholly subsumed by the state and no longer an independent institution of its own.

For example, if I do a favor for you, then I become an extension of your will and your wishes for the purposes of that favor -- that doesn't make me your slave or nothing more than the executor of all of your commands! Similarly, if the church receives state funds or special powers from the state, such as when schools receive subsideies or other state monies, or when the Church arranges the adoption of children, it acts as a proxy for the state. Any proxy of the state, however, is subject to the same legal restrictions and liberal principles as the state itself. Thus, if a religious organization desires public funding or special powers -- public funding or powers which comes from citizenry who may themselves not adhere to the doctrines of that religious institution -- it must conform to the liberal principles which govern public institutions and their proxies.

Yours in Christ,

Timothy

Eques Replies

Dear Timothy,

Thank you for challenging me intellectually. I admire your ability to reason and argue clearly, even when I disagree with you.

You raise excellent points. The problem that I see with the hypothetical racist or Nazi type church is that this in fact has already occurred. The states did not compel southern churches to integrate racially their Congregations. They may have integrated on their own but the state did not attempt to force them to do so. They had no legal way to do so. As late as 1994, I witnessed very clear white and black congregations in Alabama among some Baptists.

Secondly, this may sound like special pleading, which actually it is, the Catholic Church is in fact a unique institution in the history of the West. The very “classical liberal” rights you rely on have their origins in the Roman Catholic Church, the Enlightenment not withstanding. You might want to see How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Ph.D. or What’s So Great about Christianity by Dinesh D’Souza, or We Hold These Truths by John Courtney Murray, S.J.

This unique Church has in fact for two millennium fought for the rights it now claims. Being beyond the reach of governmental interference in the way it governs itself is one of them. Compelling the church to violate its own Cannon Law has been tried through out history. Repeatedly the Church has refused to do so. One example from history concerns Henry II and St Thomas Beckett. Henry wanted Thomas to hand over two priests charged with murder, for trail by the crown; Thomas absolutely refused to do so. The priests would be tried according Cannon Law in church courts. Thomas gave his life defending this principal, as Henry sent four knights to murder Thomas in his own Cathedral. This controversy has been renewed in our day.

In Dallas, in 2002 the American Bishops agreed to become mandatory reporters of their own priests in regards possible criminal behavior. This has the effect of making the Bishops Assistant Attorneys General. The Vatican vigorously objected to the agreement.

“Vatican insisted on major revisions. Vatican officials complain that this contradicts the statute of limitations provided for in canon law, and we concede that it raises enormously difficult questions. The statute of limitations aside, zero tolerance also challenges the church's belief in recovery and redemption.”

”http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E7DE123CF937A15753C1A9649C8B63

The Vatican informed the Bishops that they erred regarding Cannon Law by establishing lay review boards that would sit in judgment of clergy and that the Bishops themselves violate the canonical relation between their priests and themselves by becoming mandatory reporters.

The point being that the Catholic Church qua Catholic Church still maintains the rights long established by Cannon Law, International Law, treaties, and concordats. The Catholic Church among all churches alone has long established rights in law. The USA or any other Country is not free to violate them, as it presently argues in Colorado. For this reason, established law is in fact on the side of the Catholic Church. Archbishop Chaput stands firmly on internationally recognized and established jurisprudence.

The United States is not allowed to violate international law without an argument for other sovereign nations, which is why there has been international objection and controversy concerning the violation of the principal of Habeas Corpus at Guantanamo Bay, not to mention the question of torture. The Holy See is among those sovereign nations who have objected to the violation of human rights and dignity of detainees there.

On an historical basis, no other church can claim the international status or the legitimate sovereignty that The Holy See enjoys, which also makes the question of the hypothetical churches spurious. These would be new phenomenon and enjoy no historical claims. The Catholic Church is exactly what the lawyers for the State of Colorado will argue it is not, an exceptional institution not subject to State or Federal Laws that attempt to interfere with its own Cannon Laws or ecclesial nature, which is unique in the world.

The Church does recognize the states right to regulate those things that do not touch on its law or nature. Let the renovation and expansion of St Catherine of Alexandria church in Westford (St CA), which you witnessed, stand as an example. In the process of construction, the town of Westford attempted to interfere in a number of ways with the project, telling St CA what it could do or not do with the building or property. Our lawyers and I had to remind them that they had no authority over church property. They could not require us to build or not build anything on the property that belonged to the Archbishop of Boston, because of the rights and privileges it enjoyed under cannon and state law. The town of Westford could only expect us to adhere to the laws that pertained to safety and conservation. Needless, to say the planning board did not appreciate the reminder that they had no jurisdiction over Church property.

Another example, the state could require that St CA comply with all the employment laws that pertain to taxes and social security, but it could not govern whom St CA would hire or fire, if the person in question did not represent essential church teachings. Even, Universities have the right to hire or fire professors (whom they have not already granted tenure) based on their particular philosophy, we place this under the rubric of Academic Freedom, a right, which finds its origins in the Catholic Church and the universities it was the first to create.

The essence of my argument is that the Roman Catholic Church is a unique church with a body of laws and a nature well established in jurisprudence and international agreements that predate the United States and its Constitution by nearly 1500 years. "Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Sincerely Your In Christ

Eques

A friend of Quod Scripist "Behind Enemy Lines" joins the conversation
http://thisoldchurch.blogspot.com/

The framers of our Constitution had no concept of the Separation of Church and State as it is understood today; infact as a side note, it's such a permeating ideology that the majority of Americans think it's some statute or Amendment. However, on the contrary, the Government has no right whatsoever to infringe on the just practice of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law which establishes a religion, either from scratch, or as being higher than another, and that the Government shall not make any law abridging the free exercise of any religion.

If this is not enough, any corporation could not and would not hire an employee which shared the values, ideals and goals of the company itself. If an employee were to be hired and then, whether by action or omission of action, to undermine the mission of a corporation and to bring about the failure, humiliation, and destruction thereof, that would be grounds for termination. If this were known before the hire occurred, why would the applicant even be hired? As long as a Corporation does not infringe on the rights of others (please see Tim's argument on murder, evasion, bribery and aiding and abetting known fugitives, which are all against various other laws and statutes of long-established jurisprudence) while protecting it's own viability and interests, this corporation is free to continue to operate as such. As a person does not have the intrinsic right to work in a particular institution (as opposed to a person's rights to life, liberty, speedy trial-by-jury and basic human Justice), and that core-beliefs can be valid reasons for incompatibility in a workplace, the hiring and firing based upon ideologies can not be prohibited.

Now, on the question of the Church becoming an arm of the State...
Simply because a laboratory receives Government funding, does not make it a Government laboratory, simply that the Government acknowledges that it's intended research is worthy. The same could be true of the Church's charities. It is when the Government begins to regulate these Churches and charities, restricting how they can operate that the relationship becomes perverse; this is painfully evident in the forced-closure of the Archdiocese of Boston's Adoption Services when it was mandated to allow non-traditional (read: homosexual) couples to adopt. This went firmly against the history, Teachings and Traditions of the Catholic Church as a faith-system and as a charitable organization. The State does not have the mandate, nor the authority to contravene the just-exercise of Religion wherein the rights and privileges of individuals are not violated.

A married couple nor a homosexual couple has the right to adopt, no more than do they have the right to stand in my living-room uninvited (baring some dire need superseding my right to personal property). The adoption process is to benefit the child more than the adopting couple; this couple having gone through rigorous screening processes to determine whether or not is it a suitable match, based upon the understandings and prejudices of the adoption agency. To enforce particular standard of suitability is socialist at best, tyrannical at worst. Getting married within a Catholic Church, you publicly vow that you will be open to children, and you will bring them up Catholic. Why would you get married in a Catholic Church if you didn't feel that you could uphold this standard of behaviour? By the same token, insofar as the Catholic Church believes that homosexual action is a moral evil, and that homosexual unions are a perversion of traditional family values, why would the Church be forced to perform ceremonies, "marriages" if it were against the grained teaching of the Church? Therefore, why would the Church be forced to condone such "behaviour/lifestyle choice/orientation et al." by granting adoption privileges to such a couple?

Moving on. The Boy Scouts of America is a non-governmental organization which receives Government funding. The mission is wholesome and "American." However, the BSA forbid homosexuals from being in leadership positions, and infact from being even in the ranks of its members. The mission of the BSA is a worthy mission, one which the Government finds appropriate and deserving of financial assistance.
Ought the Government pull funding, or demand "equal rights" for membership applications? But I digress... Eagle Scouts of the BSA are mandated-reporters in the same respect as priests/bishops/doctors/teachers. While this is a noble title, endeavouring to protect the youth, for a religious institution which founds itself on forgiveness and recovery such as the Church, this is a dangerous concept. The requisite reporting of any allegation or even slight issue would render these two essential, core beliefs null, as modern society does not act within "innocent until proven guilty," no it acts more on "guilty even if proven innocent."

There are flaws in our Government. There are flaws in our Church members and leaders. Let's not multiply these flaws by combining them.

Behind Enemy Lines
http://thisoldchurch.blogspot.com/

The Church can not be an instrument of the State

2008-02-04T10:37:00.000-05:00

Joseph Kosten of the Acton Institute: for the study of religion and liberty recently has commented on the current legal arguments between the Archdiocese of Denver, Colorado (ADC) in the person of its Archbishop Charles J. Chaput and the State Legislature. The proposed laws the ADC maintains would interfere with vital rights of the Church and require the Church to higher those who disagreed with the teachings and policies of the Church.

You will want to read the commentary of Mr. Kosten before proceeding, after which return to Quod Scrpsit site for some debate of the issue. http://www.acton.org/commentary/427_
religious_liberty_anti_discrimination.php

First Comment:

I will summarize my position by stating that unless I read incorrectly, the proposed legislation does not force you to hire someone but it does prevent you from rejecting someone from employment based on discriminatory grounds. I believe that regardless of belief, or faith religious institutions are led by human beings that have proven to have faulty characteristics.

JOSE

Second Comment:

It looks like Mr. Kosten distorts the proposal of the Colorado House Bill. He writes, correctly, that, "The freedom to hire without government interference is vital to the survival of religious institutions. In order to effectively promote the message of the organization, both the individual and the message must be in harmony." However, the Colorado House Bill will only, as Mr. Kosten acknowledges, "limit the applicability of the exception from compliance with employment nondiscrimination laws... that are funded with government funds" (my emphasis). In so far as religious institutions receive state financial support, they become an extension of state policy and action, and the (classical) liberal principles on which this nation is founded require that instruments of state policy not restrict free speech. Accordingly, if a religious institution desires public funding -- funding which comes from taxpayers who may themselves not adhere to the doctrines of that religious institution -- it must meet the participatory standards of the public at large.

TIM

Eques Responds:

Given your observations, we may conclude that this is the reason that the Archdiocese of Boston has already opted out of the adoption business, thus avoiding state interference in Church polity.The Archdiocese of Boston chose not to argue the point. The ADC has risen to the challenge. Siding with the ADC I do believe that the states interpretation of this ecclesial and governmental relationship is unconstitutional. Strict constructionists might opine that when the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; that it means just that. The Congress and by virtue of the 14^th amendment the States can make no law that requires the Church to do anything that violates its own well established constitution and Code of Cannon Law, including who to hire or fire. The Church can never become an instrument of the State.

It seems some folks want a high wall of separation between Church and State permitting the State alone to reach over adjusting the polity of the Church to correspond with its notion of justice. The wall of separation should separate each from each equally. If anything, given the first amendment, the Church has presumptive rights from governmental interference. The State of Colorado et alii presumes it can legislate for the church unless prevented by subsequent court reversals.

“In so far as religious institutions receive state financial support, they become an extension of state policy and action, and the (classical) liberal principles on which this nation is founded require that instruments of state policy not restrict free speech. Accordingly, if a religious institution desires public funding -- funding which comes from taxpayers who may themselves not adhere to the doctrines of that religious institution -- it must meet the participatory standards of the public at large.”

I disagree with the above statement. If this is true than the Church becomes an instrument of the State and the wall of separation is most definitely breached. In as much as the State does not intend in any way to subsume the Church as an organ or instrument of the state what you wrote above cannot to be true. If this where true then the State would have to desists from giving any aide whatsoever to any church organization. It would be a “prima face” violation of the Constitution. What the state is claiming is the authority to dictate policy to church organizations because they receive state aide. This violates Cannon Law.

The Church cannot be by its ecclesiological nature “an instrument of state policy.” The Church has fought this battle many times through the centuries under the heading of “lay investiture,” in which kings, emperors, and princes of all kinds attempted to control church policy by claiming the right to appoint bishops and approve lower clergy. This battle is still being fought in the Peoples Republic of China, and other totalitarian regimes.

Today it seems that several states are attempting to do the same by placing conditions on monies given for social services, this would make the church an instrument of state policy. This would violate Cannon Law and the Church would have to forgo many of its social services, which would then fall back on the states, something the states do not want. I believe that Archbishop Chaput will win this legal battle, historical precedent being on the side of the Church. Otherwise, the relationship and cooperation between the Church and the State will be seriously altered. the first stress fractures have already appeared in Boston over the “adoption rights” issue.

Eques

The Joy of Forgiveness

2008-01-27T16:28:00.000-05:00

Have you ever seen or experienced real “joy” that great spiritual reality that is much deeper and last much longer than momentary pleasure or even happiness. “Joy” reaches to your soul and fills you with a great peace and sense of security in the “knowledge” and love of God. Last Thursday I experienced that “joy” vicariously. A young man in his twenties who I had not seen in several years paid me the honor of a visit. Divine providence had unexpectedly brought us together in the dentist waiting room. H accepted an invitation to meet later on in the week, for a conversation. It was my hope that I might hear his story, what he was studying, how life at home and school was proceeding for him and how or if he was practicing his faith.

He arrived punctually, always a good sign. The conversation was very fruitful and quickly became spiritual direction. He went on to make an honest, complete, and worthy confession after having stayed away from the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Eucharist for a considerable length of time.

After his confession, he was so full of joy he virtually glowed. Words failed him in his efforts to describe how wonderful he felt. His “joy” was diffusive. When he departed, he was full of God’s grace, joy, and true spiritual peace.

A “you have gotten to be kidding me” moments followed, as an affirmation of what he had courageously chosen to do, God spoke to him through the last Chinese fortune cookie left over after a family dinner. When he opened it he read, well we will allow him to tell the tale in his own words:

“Friday night my mother got us all Chinese food for dinner. I came back… late that night and saw that there was one fortune cookie left on the table so I decided, "Hey why not see what my fortune is!" I had a weird feeling in my gut it was going to say something important. "You achieve great peace of mind when you talk with an old friend." That was my fortune! Once I read this I was like, "I can’t wait to tell Father!” I think that was the Holy Spirit letting me know I made the right decision to come and see you, and old friend. Just wanted to tell you that! Keep in touch Father.”

I have heard many confessions during my 26 years of priesthood, but I have seldom seen a more powerful and obvious out pouring of God’s grace on a penitent. This young man received these awesome graces because he opened his heart to God’s healing touch. He did not hold back he humbly and truthfully confessed his sins. God greatly rewarded him with forgiveness and “great peace of mind.” Do I believe God speaks through fortune cookies? Well, He certainly did this time. God of course can use any means He wishes to communicate with us. This time it was through a left over fortune cookie, God certainly does work in strange and marvelous ways.

One of the things that helped this joyful young man to make such an effective confession was the meditative examine of conscience that we shared prior to his confession of sins. Below, I have attempted to recreate this examination of conscience based on a reflection of the seven deadly sins. It is not by any means an extensive or thorough exposition of the seven deadly sins, but it will provide at least a framework or starting point for each of us to examine our own conscience and prepare our souls for an honest, complete, and worthy confession. It will assist us in opening our hearts to the forgiving and healing touch of Our Lord, who washes away our sins in His blood. Perhaps He will also fill our hearts with the “great peace of mind” and joy that he filled the heart of young man in question.

I am ever more convinced in the enormous power of the Sacraments especially the Sacrament of Reconciliation coupled with the worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist. These are the most powerful weapons against the darkness in our lives and in the world, which He has overcome.

“Induamur arma lucis” Rom 13:12,

“Let us put on the armor of light”

Eques

(for a more detailed explanation of the Seven Capital Sins and their opposite virtues you might want to see the June 5 2007 post on this blog site. The reflection below is proposed as a means of examining ones conscience as a preparation to receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation.)

The Seven Capital Sins

1. Pride: We sin by pride when we think that somehow we are superior to others, because of our own gifts, talents, or estimation of ourselves. Conceit, is a manifestation of Pride. Putting others down, ridicule, and disrespect for others is also a manifestation of this Sin. Pride is actually at the root of all sins, because ultimately we put our judgments and will before the law and will of God for us. E.g., refusing to obey our parents or legitimate authority, putting our will before God’s, being disrespectful to others, are examples of sins of pride that violate the First and Fourth Commandments.

2. Anger: We sin by anger not by feeling anger but by acting out that anger in inappropriate ways, we may do so verbally, physically, and by other actions or omissions intended to hurt the other with whom we are angry. E.g., Acting out verbally or physically toward others because of ones wrathful feelings is an example of the sin of anger, it can also lead to the violation of the Second, Fourth, and, Fifth Commandments.

3. Envy: We sin by envy when we harbor jealous feelings in our heart and wish we had what others had and want to deny them what they may have. We sin by envy when we wish sadness or disappointment on others. E.g., Jealousy acted or spoken out are the most common manifestations of the sin of Envy, the Ninth and Tenth Commandments are often broken by this sin.

4. Greed: We sin by greed when we refuse to share the good things, gifts, and talents God has bestowed on us. When we hoard things for our own selfish satisfaction, selfishness and self-centeredness are manifestations of Greed. E.g., a refusal to share our good fortune, or putting money or possessions ahead of God and everyone else in our lives is a typical sin of Greed. It can violate the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth commandments. It can all so be found in the violation of the other commandments because it can motivate a host of other sins, such as lying, and stealing, and jealousy.

5. Gluttony: We sin by gluttony when we eat more than is healthy for us, when we abuse alcohol, or drugs, or put anything in our bodies that harms rather than nourishes us. E.g., obviously overeating, “pigging out,” intoxication, by drugs or alcohol are typical examples of this sin. It violates the First, Fourth, and Fifth Commandments and can lead to the breaking of all Ten Commandments.

6. Sloth: We sin by sloth or laziness when we fail from inertia to fulfill our duties and obligations, to God, to our families, our friends our studies, our work, or to any other entity to which or for which we are responsible. E.g., refusing to get out of bed in the morning when we have obligations to God or others, not doing assigned homework, or lack of responsibility at home or work, not taking care of our health or hygiene, can be manifestations of this sin. Sloth or Laziness can also lead to the violation of several of the Ten Commandments such as the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and perhaps the Sixth as well.

7. Lust: We sin by lust when we use our sexuality for pleasure in a way other than how God intended it, for the transmission of life and love in marriage. E.g., this sin manifests itself in the use of vulgar and sexualized conversations, jokes, or comments, the use of pornography, masturbation, premarital sexual relations, and extra-marital sexual relations, and all deliberately non-procreative sexual relations. The Sixth Commandment is broken by any of these sins. This deadly sin is among the most deadly because it often involves other deadly sins such as Gluttony, Sloth, Pride, and leads to the violation of other commandments, or directly violates other commandments such as the Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth.

Synopsis: examples of deadly sins

Pride:

Boasting,

Bragging,

Ridicule,

Belittling others accomplishments

Anger:

Cursing

Swearing

Fighting

Destructive behavior

Self-destructive behavior

Lack of self-control

Envy:

Jealousy harbored or expressed

Resentment of others success

Spiteful speech or actions

Greed:

Refusing to share

Lack of Generosity

Inability to give

Hoarding material things

Inordinate focus on money and things

Gluttony:

Over eating

Abuse of alcohol

Abuse of Drugs

Wasting food or drink

Abuse of food or drink

Sloth:

Laziness

Over sleeping (more than our body needs)

Neglect of Health and Hygiene

Not fulfilling responsibilities or duties

Lust:

Sexualized conversation, jokes or comments

Use of another for sexual gratification in fantasy or fact

“Objectifying” a “subject”

Use of Pornography

Masturbation

Pre-marital or extra-marital sexual relations

Fundamentalism and Islam

2007-12-12T10:46:00.001-05:00

Michael has written his paper "Fundamentalism" and asked for comments. What follow are my observations on “Fundamentalism,” especially as it is applied or misapplied to Islam, as in “Islamic Fundamentalists.” (awaiting permission to post Michael's paper)

Westerners in general, our State Department and perhaps your sources or professors have difficulty getting their minds around “ISLAM.” There is the natural attempt to understand it according to western categories. In the West even in the height of the middle ages when the Roman Catholic Church was at its apex of political influence, it did not govern nation states. Spain, England, or Germany, were Monarchies or Principalities with an established that is an official church that being the Roman Catholic Church, but with rear exceptions where some Bishops were actually princes, the Bishops did not rule, govern the nation state. The king and his court did, these states were not Theocracies. They were not governed by religious laws and clergy. The only true Theocracy in the West was the Papal States the remnant of which today is Vatican City State. The pope is the sovereign of this tiny city-state.

This is not true with Islam; Islam is a Religio-Political system and ideology... IRAN is de facto (in fact) and de jure (in law) a Theocracy. It is governed by Sharia, Islamic religious law, and its sovereign is a Muslim religious leader, the President of Iran Ahmadinejad is elected but he is not the supreme authority of Iran.

Islam which means, “submit” was founded by Allah through his Apostle Mohamed (according to the Qu’ran) to subdue the world, to bring all people to the true faith in Allah. It is the divine mission of Islam to bring the entire world to “submit’ to Allah under Sharia, Islamic Law. This is the only road to salvation. Jihad, war against infidels, is considered a manifestation of the mercy of Allah, because it provides them the opportunity to embrace Islam and save their souls. This is the mission of Islam as revealed to the Prophet Mohamed, practiced and taught by him, and continued after his death. Within a generation of Mohamed’s death, Islam had subdued everything from Persia, (IRAN) through the middles east, along the north cost of Africa, up to northern Spain. These were not “fundamentalists” these were the practitioners of Islam. These were the Jihadist, the Mujahedeen. They are the early heroes of Islam. The Qu’ran proclaims in:

Sura 9:5. “Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But, if they repent {accept Islam} and perform As-Salta {the Islamic ritual prayers} and give Zakat {alms} then leave them their way free.”

Non-believers have these choices, fight, convert, die, or pay the jizya, which is a heavy tax up to 50% of all earnings of non-Islamic peoples within the territories conquered by Islam and under Islamic Law, Sharia. These peoples were to feel subdued. Those Christians and Jews (people of the book) who wish not to convert, or leave Islamic territory, may live as second-class citizens, with very limited rights and pay the jizya. Pagans, atheists, secularists have only two choices, convert (submit, Islam) or die. That is why there are absolutely no Christian Churches, or Synagogues in Saudi Arabia. Catholic Military Chaplains in Saudi Arabia must celebrate mass for the troops in secret, they are officially forbidden to do so under Sharia in Saudi Arabia. They and the troops are not permitted to wear crosses or any Christian symbols.

The war to spread Islam in the seventh and eight centuries, in the twelfth to the seventh-tenth centuries, ending at the gates of Vienna (please notice the date) SEPTEMBER 11^th, 1683, and its modern manifestations in terrorism “officially” commenced by Osama Ben Laden on SEPTEMBER 11^th, 2001, is called Jihad, literally “struggle.” It is the responsibility of every Muslim to engage in Jihad, to struggle to bring their communities, nations, states, under Sharia. The participation of some in violent Jihad can excuse others, but all are expected to support Jihad in some way. Therefore, there is plenty of financial support for Jihad, in its modern terrorist manifestation. This is why there is virtually no end to the supply of suicide bombers.

Westerners would like to argue that all this is simply a manifestation of “fundamentalists” Muslims. It is very difficult for westerners to believe that other human beings could actually behave this way. What westerners, even secular westerners, do not understand is that they are thinking like Christians, and more specifically Catholics. Nothing in the Gospels or in the example of Jesus justifies the killing of innocent, men, women, or children, or blowing oneself up to spread Christianity. Therefore, anyone who does this by definition must be some type of fanatic fundamentalist.

A Christian Martyr is one who imitates Jesus. He lays down his life for his faith, not in combat, but in personal sacrifice. History is full of these saints and they exist today, in China, North Korea, and Cuba. They died in Nazi concentration camps and Communist gulags. A Martyr for Islam is one who dies in combat for Islam and Allah. This is sanctioned and approved by the Qu’ran and Mohamed’s life and teaching. Mohamed is considered the ideal man who is to be imitated to achieve holiness, he waged Jihad, and a Muslim must do the same. You perhaps have noticed how appealing Islam is to young men. It is a very macho religion. It encourages behaviors in young men that are forbidden to young Christians. It is truly impressive to see so many men young and old praying in the videos of Mosques. Catholic Churches are certainly not filled daily with men as mosques regularly are. This degree of fidelity among men is very attractive to other young men.

None of this relies on a “fundamentalist” reading of the Qu’ran. It is not based on some perverse translation of the Qu’ran, because Muslims are forbidden to read the Qu’ran or pray in any language except the original Arabic, in which the Qu’ran was written. The Qu’ran was dictated by Gabriel to Mohamed in Arabic, therefore Allah chose Arabic to communicate with Mohamed therefore that is the only language allowed in which to read what Allah communicated and to worship Allah.

Now this may seem very bizarre to westerners. The evidence leads inevitably to the conclusion that Islam is essentially “Fundamentalist.” That is Islam is not a religion of Faith and Reason, but only of Faith. Islam clearly teaches submission to Allah not theological study of him, which is a rational endeavor. Allah has spoken; he has given his Law, he has made his will known to mankind through his Apostle Mohamed, therefore, it is up to each man and woman to embrace Islam, to SUBMIT to Allah.

If you wish to read more on this subject and these assertions, you may want to consult:

Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t by Robert Spencer

Religion of Peace? Islam’s War against the world by Gregory M. Davis

America Alone, by Mark Steyn

God’s Continent by Philip Jenkins

Pax Tecum

Eques

2007-11-17T15:24:00.000-05:00

Recently the following question was put to me by a bright college freshman at NYU. Michael is a former Altar Server of mine. He presently is working on a paper concerning Fundamentalism in the USA and abroad. His questions are below and my replies follow.

What are your thoughts on fundamentalism and how do you think it shapes society in the United States and how the United States deals and should deal with it in other countries?

-Michael

Dear Michael,

My definition of FUNDAMENTALISM can be briefly stated as Faith without Reason. This means that Fundamentalism is actually NOT CHRISTIAN and certainly not CATHOLIC. Catholicism always contains a very important little word “and,” Faith and Reason, Word and Sacrament, private devotions (such as the Rosary) and public worship (Liturgy, mass).

This is not true with Islam, Islam is fundamentally “fundamental.” That is to say, ISLAM is not a religion of Faith and Reason but Faith Alone; this has been true from its inception. Unlike Christianity there is no ISLAMIC THEOLOGY, there is no development of dogma, there are schools in which to study the Qur’an and Sharia, but the highest scholarship for Islam is the memorization of the Qur’an, and the discussion on how best to practice the Islamic law. It was actually to this characteristic of Islam that Pope Benedict was directing his remarks at Regensburg University. You might want see these links [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy]; [http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={9592215A-31CD-4548-879D-1C8F8A29FA81}]

"Islam" is a religion of 'submission" to Sharia, God’s Law! It is for this reason that Muslims desire the state they inhabit to be ISLAMIC. There is only one way to live Islam that is by following the Law. It is in the nature of Islam to be Fundamentalist and to insist on the Theocratic State. In the Middle East, one sees that there are generally two kinds of Islamic states. Those that are Theocratic like Iran is and Afghanistan was, or like Pakistan were certain Pakistani and Taliban elements are already fighting to transform Pakistan into an Islamic Theocracy. Secondly, there are those, which are Authoritarian, such as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and as Iraq was, which has been so far the only alternative to the Islamic Theocratic state. Democracy in a state with an Islamic majority is likely to devolve rapidly into a Theocratic state.

What we are seeing in Pakistan is the struggle between the governing Military junta that is trying to prevent Islam from becoming the state, which is complicated by a third minority trying to resurrect a democratic state. If you note Pakistan’s neighbor India, the largest democracy in the world, is inching its way towards modernity. It is not Islamic, it has an element of Hindi fundamentalism, but there is no serious threat of India becoming a Hindu Theocracy. While in Pakistan, where there was once also a democratic government, Islamic militants created so much chaos and violence that, the military was forced to size control to bring about some semblance of law and order, when the democratic government failed.

Terrorism is the method now used by Islamic militants to create such chaos in a particular nation to allow an Islamic Theocracy to arise as the solution to the problems that Islamic militants have created in the first place. In large measure, this is what is happening in Iraq, and why the USA has a difficult road ahead. In Iraq, the so called "insurgency" is really Al Qaeda which is not only killing Americans as a part of their global war of terrorism against the west, but it is also an attempt to destabilize and prevent the elected government from consolidating its legitimate authority over the nation. It is their hope that an Islamic government will emerge from the chaos they create. Recently there has been significant progress by American forces in suppressing this violence and restoring some semblance of order. Presently some Iraqi refugees are returning from Syria. The Shiite and Sunni elements are not only settling old and new scores but they are also have been battling to be the Islamic government. Iran is a Shiite state, Iraq has elements of both, but all other Islamic nations are overwhelmingly Sunni. Iran wants Iraq to be Shiite.

I will attempt some kind of summation to answer your questions.

What are your thoughts on fundamentalism? I believe that my definition of Fundamentalism above covers all types. It is faith in a set of beliefs that are not open to rational investigation, philosophical or theological and secondarily historical and scientific. For Christian Fundamentalists, God created the world in six 24-hour days and rested on the seventh day, no discussion, end of story. For Catholics, theology allows for a nuanced understanding of these days as symbolic numbers for the perfect amount of time and method God used. Catholics see evolution as the way God created the universe. Evolution does not contradict Catholic belief that God is Creator. Fundamentalists cannot make these distinctions.

"How to you think it shapes society in the United States?"

I believe that it brings with it good and not so good elements to the culture and political process. Fundamentalists can be allies in the anti-abortion efforts of the Catholic Church. However, they would be less helpful to the efforts of the Catholic Church to provide social services to the poor. Also, they have a tendency to can get involved in controversies in ways that are more harmful and helpful. They are capable of violent attacks on Abortion Clinics and vicious attacks on Gays that the Catholic Church would never condone, and which do nothing to promote pro-life issues or traditional Christian morality.

The present controversy over the teaching of Evolution and Creationism is a needless and confusing battle. There is no real contradiction between the two. Perhaps the best solution is to allow teachers to explain that evolution itself is strong evidence of an intelligent designer. Rather that require them to claim unscientifically that the universe and we are just accidents of evolution, which is as much as SOME scientist will say about the how and why we are here.

I do not see Christian Fundamentalism as a threat to the Republic, but they worrisome. Contrary to the conviction of some the Oklahoma City bombing, was not an act of a Christian fundamentalist. Timothy McViegh claimed that his religion was "Science," which actually would make him an Evolutionary Terrorist. I do fear the volatile combination of Christian Fundamentalism and neo-Nazi, Aryan race type movements that can increase the likelihood of violence. They are capable of death and destruction, but are not anywhere strong enough (at this time) to pose a security threat to the nation. It seems that US Law Enforcement is able to handle these criminals before they become revolutionary threats.

"How does the United States and how should it deal with it (fundamentalism) in other countries?"

This is a more difficult question. Presently the USA is making enormous sacrifices in men, capital, and material attempting to promote democracy in the Middle East. Democracy is the natural enemy of fundamentalism. Islam is fundamentally Fundamentalists. Can the USA succeed? The odds are against it. Is it possible to convince the majority of Muslims that democracy does not threaten their religion? If this is possible, it does not guarantee success on at least two fronts. It does not prevent the less malleable and accommodating Muslims from organizing a Fundamentalists party that will push on the political front for the adoption of Sharia and attempt to turn a developing democracy into a Islamic theocracy. Nor does it prevent the militant elements from using terrorist tactics to destabilize and topple the incipient democratic government. This process is already at work in Iraq, though millions of people voted for the new democratic constitution and for a representative government. This process has also been at work in Pakistan.

The greatest threat to American and western security is Militant Islam, which is fundamentalist in nature. In countries such as France there have already been wide spread riots, with putative causes, with the actual causes being the cultural clashes between the secular French government and Islam, which seeks “sacred” law and government of their own definition. Soon France will be 20% Muslim, this will only heighten the possibilities of cultural conflicts, greater violence and more demands for Islamic law to govern Muslims in France, thus creating a state within a state.

Pope Benedict XVI has his own solution to this problem, the re-evangelization of Europe. If Europe where to reaffirm its Catholic/Christian identity, it may actually help to lessen the pressure from Islam for theocracy. Islam is more adverse to SECULARISM than Christianity. Historically Christians have been allowed some degree of religious tolerance in Islamic countries. They become objects of violence when Islam feels threatened by outside forces. Iraq had a very ancient, small, robust community of Chaldean Catholics since the time of the Apostles. This community has suffered enormously since the commencement of Iraq War II. Many have been kidnapped, murdered, suffered terrorists attacks on their churches and been driven out of their country. Presently, there are Catholic Iraqi refugees in Rome, the USA and other countries. http://www.christiansofiraq.com/homelandJne186.html .

It is the hope of Pope Benedict XVI that a Catholic Europe would be far better able to resist “Islamification” by providing an alternative to the purely secularized culture that Islam detests. His Holiness is not looking to establish Catholic governments again in Europe. He is aware that Jihad is aimed primarily at the decadent west; perhaps a re-Christianized west would be more tolerable to Islamic immigrants.

What the USA can and must do is vigilantly keep the scourge of terrorism form our shores. We were caught off guard by 9/11/01, since then so far so good. Unfortunately, we have had to fight two wars to keep terrorists over there. Afghanistan was just and necessary. Iraq War II perhaps was not necessary. It is a gamble, an attempt, by those who believe that a democratic Iraq would change the balance of power in the Middle East acting as a bulwark against terrorism. This is still a question unanswered. Will we ever succeed in Iraq? We live in hope.

As long as Islam is Islam, I see no long-term solution to this problem. Islam is acting as Islam was designed to act to bring the infidels of the world to Islam by the sword. Financial, diplomatic, and strategic pressure must be kept on all nations that harbor and support terrorists, which is nearly every Islamic nation in the Middle East and in the world. Countries such as the Philippines have fought militant Islam for many years within its borders. The Catholic majority has been able to keep them at bay and support a democratic reform of the once Marcos Dictatorship, which arose in response to the communist and Islamic threats. The regime abused its power. It was eventually forced to abdicate by Catholic non-violent resistance. Islam will resist democracy and any other form of government that does not implement Sharia. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia survives because it governs by Sharia. Democratic reform is just not a viable probability. The USA then accepts a less than perfect situation, and supports the Saudi Princess. Who are suspected of supporting Islamic terrorists, in hopes of self preservation. The Alternative of another Islamic Theocracy with a knife in one hand to throat of the USA and its other hand on the oil spigot is unthinkable.

As you can surmise these are very difficult realities that we here at home in the USA and other nations have to deal with, without a great deal of hope that anything will change soon. The world is a dangerous place and we do well to remember that, when considering national and local elections, in the development of foreign policy, and military strength and capability. Fundamentalism in its Islamic incarnation is the single most serious threat to western civilization since the nuclear standoff between the USA and the former USSR. Let us pray and work to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of terrorists and out of the hands of Islam Theocracies. While we do all we can to prevent Islamic Theocracies from developing. This is my best guess as to how the USA should handle fundamentalism home and abroad.

Eques

In Conclusion

2007-10-29T13:25:00.000-04:00

Dear Dr. Lavin,

I will end with this, Charles S. Maier writes in Among Empires- American ascendancy and its Predecessors, “…according to John L. O’Sullivan, the Jacksonian editor who coined the phrase manifest destiny a half century later: ’The far-reaching, the boundless future will be the era of American greatness. In the magnificent domain of space and time, the nation of many nations is destined to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principles.’” (Emphasis mine) If we forget the ideals on which and for which we were founded, we will not find greater freedom and liberty, but tyranny and slavery to the darker elements of our nature. As a nation we will be a force for good or evil in the world, this seems unavoidable. Many in the world of Islam, not just radicals and terrorists, see us as a force for evil, as the decadence of our culture spreads around the world. Others perhaps see us as a beacon of hope this was at least partially true among some of the peoples of the former Soviet empire. I hope that our real manifest destiny is to be a source of good and hope for the world. If we choose not “to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principles” the alternative is not to manifest moral indifferentism, but moral decadence. We will be light or the absence thereof, but we are too powerful already to be just another dim bulb.

The founding fathers believed they were founding what Jefferson referred to as an Empire of Liberty. “From the outset, however, it was to be different from other imperial states: wiser, freer, benevolent, and peaceful…America, in short, would both expand and act as a force for good.” (Maier pp.1&2) Not moral relativism, but “for good,” the founding fathers were not ambivalent about this word. They new exactly what the “good” was because they all shared the same moral framework, which whether they acknowledged it or were even aware of it was unquestionably rooted in Judeo-Christian virtues; After Virtue by MacIntyre, I believe would support this “self evident truth.”

Pax Tecum

Eques

Dear Eques

Nice ending.

I suppose our difference really has to do with just exactly who should run this country. Not really whether it should be good, or whether its citizens ought to be religious or belong to this Church, or that Synagogue, or that Mosque.

And so my ending is that the American experiment, despite all the countless references to God, Divinity, Morality, and Good, at its deepest root, is a trial to see if a large nation can be ruled without God or King in charge, but with the people in charge. I see no other way to define it really. The proof is that at the moment, at least, we have no King, and no Priest, Rabbi, or Imam who represents God has any special say or power over the nation. This is the first nation in the history of humanity of any power or size to be in this situation, and it is this difference that defines what America is all about. You call for us to be a Christian Nation, but that is nothing new. How many Christian Nations have had a chance to rule their societies? Many. Most were ruled by Kings and Priests, and none seemed to have a history that distinguished them from the course of human history. At times they were great, at times magnanimous. Many of their citizens were extraordinary people. But at times they were cruel and at times brutal, many of their citizens were arch-villains. In short, just like all other human societies.

So it is not an argument about moral relativism, or whether the US should be good. It is rather an argument about a rather more mundane quantity- political power. Who shall own that? A hereditary elite? A King? An institution representing God? I actually favor having the people hold that power. We shall see if that is doable.

In the meantime, I will resist efforts to return political power to where it tends to reside- in Kings and with God.

Your vision is more likely to prevail, since that is how humanity has yearned to be ruled for most of its existence, but I still hold out hope that this American difference will continue to let the great potential of humanity to bloom, prosper, and help each other.

Pace,

Arthur

Christianity/Catholicism guarantor of our "inalienable rights" Continued

2007-10-20T22:13:00.000-04:00

Dear Eques and the C&S Group,

I think my main concern with your line of argument is a Copernican one. That is, people have argued for many thousands of years just where the center of things is.

Is the Earth the center around which the Sun revolves? Or is the Sun the center around which the Earth revolves?

In social realms, every entity of humanity from the 150-person tribe, to the 1 billion person state of China, has believed that they are the Center of the Universe.

Jerusalem is referred to as the Umbilicus Mundi, as is Rome.

How does one choose just who is the Center? Is it Rome, or is it Jerusalem, or is it Shiprock New Mexico, or a Buddhist shrine in Thailand, or even Fenway Park.

One philosopher captured the argument by stating that the fallacy of there being a Center is captured by the following statement:

"There are universal values. They just happen to be mine."

Perhaps we can blame Copernicus, and certainly Newton for bolstering this way of thinking. Newton's main contribution to human thought was coming close to proving that there is an absolute frame of reference. The universe, in other words, has a cosmic x, y, and z axis, and everything can be located on this one universal framework.

Galileo first proposed that there was no such frame of reference in space, so that if someone is moving at a constant speed, and everything around them moves at the same speed they cannot tell they are moving. This is familiar to all of us on Earth which is moving at 25,000 miles per hour, but since everything is it seems when we lie down in our back yard we are not moving.

Einstein added the observation that there is no fixed framework for time either, no universal clock.

So today's science has rejected the notion of a fixed framework, and with it the notion of a fixed Center of the Universe. There is no physical Umbilical Mundi.

And I believe the same is true in religion and other matters human. I consider the whole question of a Center in human groupings to be a deeply flawed, old habit of human mind that has caused nothing but trouble, war, and needless death and oppression.

Yet I do believe that the various, and quite abundant events of human grouping have created much of what is valuable in life. It is only when a group ascribes to itself a sense of unique value, that I find things go sour.

In fact, I can think of no example of a nation, religion, or ethnicity grabbing at a claim of exclusive value without suffering or causing some grave harm to itself and/or others.

And so I would state that your characterization of Catholicism as somehow uniquely central to Western Civilization fits squarely into this dangerous habit of mind. Who is really to say that the Catholic Church's contribution to human progress weighs more than other religion's, philosophy's, and/or polities? Again, no argument with the vast value the Church has given to humanity and the world, but that in no way protects it from the dangers inherent in claiming unique supremacy.

With respect to America, the central core of what America did differently was to say there is no Center, there is no group, religion, identity valued over another. All groups weigh the same here, or will try to. Jefferson's mention of the creator was simply a nod to the religious sensibilities of his time. His statement in the Declaration of Independence created a society that could release humanity from the shackles of groups that would claim domination over others. Each person became equally powerful and equally valuable in his formulation. God was not part of that valuing or formulation, except perhaps as the Power that got the whole process started, hence reference as creator. No particular religion is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence and God is not mentioned whatsoever in the Constitution. These are the first state papers in the history of humanity to not mention the state religion or God, and people noticed. The Constitution was criticized at the time for that omission, and the Founding Fathers made it clear it was not an omission, but an innovation. They clearly were trying to fashion a society in which neither God nor King was in charge, but rather the people.

Your call to make America a Christian nation, which it decidedly is not, but clearly could be, would essentially destroy nearly every initiative the Founding Fathers and Lincoln worked to achieve. It would make Christianity the nation's religion, establishing a State preference for singling out one approach, one group, as Central. The fallacy of one such group so much superior to all others would invite tyranny, it always has in history and always will.

I do not fault you for trying to push for the shift back to the way nations always have operated. After all, most innovations fail, and most long-lasting traditions succeed.

In this one instance, however, I do pray that the still novel concept of a government for the people, of the people, and by the people will prove in time to be a viable innovation, and that humanity can at last find its release from the forms of government headed by God or King that nearly always devolve into one form or tyranny or another.

Pace,

Arthur Lavin

Dear Dr Lavin and C&R group

As you requested I have posted your replies and our entire dialogue on HAA “Conservative and Republican” discussion group.

I believe we are beginning to talk past one another. I do not wish for the USA to be Christian Nation in any established sense. I wish to preserve the representative form of government we enjoy by virtue of arguably the noblest Constitution in the history of mankind. To do so I maintain we must rediscover the moral consensus that once existed in our nation, which most Americans took for granted for most of our history.

Alasdair MacIntyre, in After Virtue exquisitely observed that our culture has suffered at cataclysmic moral event that we somehow missed. We can see its effects in our loss of moral consensus. I am certain that some would see this as a desirable thing. However, I would argue that it is a disaster for our nation and our culture. We are now a nation that turns to our legislatures and courts to tell us what is right or wrong, no longer malum in se but rather malum prohibitum.<;/i>

The result is that we are reduced to the lowest common denominator. Our morality is reduced to, “as long as I do not get caught I can do whatever feels good or benefits me.” We have become moral monads. The moral chaos is not a recipe for the building, but for the deconstruction of our culture and civilization.

It is incumbent upon us as a people to rediscover our cultural roots, which again are a mixture, of Greek, Judeo, Christian, and western “pagan” elements, historically mediated and integrated by Catholicism, which of course means, “universalism.” There is a reason that oaths of office and in courts are taken in the name of God on the Bible. A ritual acknowledging that our entire governmental and legal system is biblically based. As you are aware as you enter the Supreme Court building above your head on the façade of the portico you are confronted with Moses and the Ten Commandments. It is possible to argue that this is purely a secularist nod to the historical importance of the Ten Commandments to the history of law. However, when these rituals and buildings were designed and constructed secularism was not yet on the horizon. These were traditional allusions and recognitions of our biblical heritage.

I do not desire a Catholic US of A. I do wish to renew our culture and this is only possible by returning to its roots, which is exactly what MacIntyre proposes. Although he is a bit more pessimistic than I. He suggests that the only thing we can do is to return to our faith communities and wait for a new St. Benedict, the father of western monasticism, who he credits with preserving the remnants of culture and civilization after the dissolution of the Roman Empire.

Allow me to repeat, I do not propose or support a Christian/Catholic US of A. It is necessary, however, that we rediscover the moral consensus, which makes government for and by the people possible. In addition, a moral consensus would act as a break on tyranny by the majority, or worse tyranny by an oligarchy such as the Supreme Court, which is now free to ignore the Ten Commandments, legal precedent, and the legislative process.

I anticipate the retort that this is just another form of Axis Mundi of moral and religious type. Yes it is. Just as the Sun is necessary for the survival not only of our world and life, as we know it, but for the very existence of OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, not every solar system but ours, Western Civilization will not survive without its particular Axis Mundi. Perhaps we are witnessing the decline and dissolution of Western Civilization and perhaps this is what most people actually desire. It follows that representative government is not likely to survive the end of the Civilization that produced it. No other culture had the ‘raw materials” that could or did produce it. Perhaps the noble experiment is ending; perhaps we are on the brink of a truly Imperial Presidency. Rome moved from city-state, to kingdom, to an oligarchic republic, to empire. Perhaps we are in a transitional historical phase that requires this moral shift in order to move to the Imperial phase our national history.

I am not a historical fatalist. I do believe it is possible to slow or even reverse this historical trajectory. However, a moral renaissance is essential in order to save what you and I both hold dear, our representative form of government.

Pax Tecum

Eques

Christianity/Catholicism gurantor of our "inalienable rights"

2007-10-19T10:40:00.001-04:00

The following is an ongoing conversation with the Harvard Alumni Association "Conservative and Republican" online discussion group. The responses to Eques proposition "That Christianity and Catholicism is a guarantor not the enemy of American Democracy and Western Civilization" are worthy of your consideration. You are invited to join the discussion.

Slave Omnes, Hello all members of the HAA "Conservative and Republican" group.

I am a Roman Catholic Priest. I am very interested in the critique of our Western Civilization/Culture and the direction(s) it is taking. My basic premise is that Western Civilization is a product of Christianity and the Roman Catholic and Protestant riff in particular which ushered in the Enlightenment and made the "horrors"of the French Revolution possible.

I am an Edmund Burke conservative politically, but a Catholic in all things. Therefore, I believe that Western Civilization is essentially Conservative because it is essentially Christian. As the culture moves away from its Christian roots we can discern the decline of Western Civilization and the decay of our culture. (I am convinced that the Roman Catholic Church has a major role to play in restoring and renewing Western Civilization/Culture.

I also agree with critique Alexis De Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" that American Democracy will flourish only if it conserves its Christian Soul. Contrary to the secularists Christianity is the guardian of democracy not its enemy.

Have I come to the right place?

Vale
Eques

Hello Eques,

I am sorry, I am not an intellectual, I don't know exactly what you mean by an "Edmund Burke" conservative, and I am not sure this fits me.

America was founded by those who believed in God, and those who felt they were Christians. But many were Deists who did not believe God would want to interfere with the workings of those who made prayers expecting some divine intercession. I am more of this view. I believe in God, and I was raised in the Catholic Church in a French speaking family, but, I am not a practicing Catholic.

But, I have seen families, loyal Catholics, who included priests and nuns in their circle of friends and their lives were enriched by having, so to speak, a moral and ethical guide in the form of a person dedicated to the Church and the moral life. It was easy for them to turn to a priest and ask "Father, I have a dilemma and I would like to ask your advice." And, it seemed to me that the advice was always forthcoming and on the mark as to what should be done. I miss this dialogue because I have left the Church for my personal reasons, and, I feel a certain loss in my life.

My wife and I spend five months a year in our home in Paris, and, I visited the Shrine of the Miraculous Medal there, and I attended the Mass in a wonderful old Church, and it awoke many old memories of my childhood. I am no longer a Catholic, but I am of the faith, nonetheless.

America is fundamentally a Christian nation, but the old testament is shared with our Jewish brothers and sisters and, I feel they too are an important part of our heritage. But, of all the religious groups I have met, I think the Buddhists are among the most civilized and tolerant. We have many Buddhist friends who show more tolerance and sympathy than I could have ever expected. The Religion is very foreign to us, but it deserves a great deal of respect.

I also have friends who are Muslims, not in this country, but those with whom I correspond over the Internet. I fail to understand this Religion and I am appalled at their attitude towards other religions, and, since I spend a lot of time overseas and I see how much they despise our systems of laws and our ethical values. It is very bad in the UK, and the politicians are total imbeciles to let the Muslims have free reign to subvert the laws and customs of the UK.

The Protestants fit in, the Jews fit in, the Buddhists fit in, the Muslims do not fit in. I wait to see what will come of the attempt of the Muslims to reach a conciliation with the great Judeo-Christian block, the Holy See, and the Orthodox Religions of the East. Our experiences with the Muslims, especially the Taliban in Afghanistan are truly horrifying and I fail to see how they can ever be reconciled.

But, perhaps you see things differently.

Arthur

Dear Arthur,

I concur with you concerning the dangers that Islam poses to Western Civilization and Europe in particular, which is in evidence in your beloved France. Your remarks actually fit with my basic Premise. Western Civilization and Culture is Catholic at its core and in its roots. The Catholic Church medicated and integrated many non-Christian western elements such as Germanic “barbarian” cultural elements and Greek Philosophy, and Eastern non-Christian religious thought, chief among these Judaism.

The following link will bring you to extensive essay that will explain, I think, the very issue you sense with Islam and the West, and in fact the World. < http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/10/islam-christian-europe-and-greek.html>.

I too am an 'Edmund Burke' conservative, but I wondered about your vision of the West. How do other religions fit in, in your view?
Best,
Andy

Dear Andy,
Please see my Response to Arthur above and Dr. Lavin, below.

Dear Eques, and Greetings to All,

Thanks for the very interesting posting. It brings to mind a book I just read by the Nobel Laureate in Economics for 1998, and recently Master of Trinity College at Cambridge University, Dr. Amartya Sen:
IDENTITY AND VIOLENCE. This is the best book I have read on the issue of identity and how it provides something positive to human existence, but also what harm it can cause as well. The issue of how groups of humanity identify themselves and how that identification is at the root of much human violence is a compelling concern that Sen develops brilliantly.

I cannot speak for the group as to whether you have found the right place, but I always welcome the opportunity to understand what our potential as humans is and can be, and so I welcome your thoughts.

My response to your proposition is that Western Civilization, Conservatism, Catholicism, and Christianity are each and all vast and complex entities. I would find it hard to say that any one of these contains all of the other three. Certainly one would have to agree that there is much to Western Civilization that at its deepest roots as well as today's everyday situation, is derived from non-Christian sources, as well as non-Western sources. Sen is particularly brilliant in proving that much of "Western" civilization was created in the "East," and much of "Eastern" civilization was created in the "West." Surely one would have to admit that much of Christianity is not Catholic. One could also argue that not all Christianity is Conservative, many consider Jesus as one of history's most potent radicals, the very opposite of a Conservative approach to life. And certainly not all Conservatism is Christian.

And so I would rather argue that Western Civilization, Conservatism, Catholicism, and Christianity are each rich and invaluable parts of the human experience. That each have contributed essential aspects of human thinking, human virtue, human caring to the very core of what it means to be human. But to say that they are all one and the same, or that no other aspect of human experience has been as rich or essential seems to fly in the face of what has actually taken place since modern humanity emerged some 50,000 years ago.

Another point. To me, America is still one of the great experiments in human living. Abraham Lincoln captured that sense of experiment best.
He believed that it was a new idea to ask a large number of people to govern themselves without recourse to tyranny. He also believed that it was not yet clear if this could be done. I agree with Lincoln on both points today. When we look at the world today, we are reminded that for most of human history, at least since agriculture allowed formation of societies, the usual organization of society was tyrannical, the group would grant a king or priest power over the group's volition. These groups would almost always be defined by a religious or political identity and wars would rage between opposing identities. Most of human society existed under such tyrannies for nearly all of human history.

The Founding Fathers embraced a radical notion, that neither king nor priest should rule, but rather the people. It remains to be seen whether this is workable. But the record of the last 200+ years does contain some rather striking successes. Perhaps one of the most extraordinary success stories has been the ability of the citizens of the world to live together in peace in the United States. Surely old habits of prejudice have been active here, but consider how Italians, Greeks, Jews, Chinese, Arabs, Persians, Africans, Turks, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and any other group one might identify all live together in peace. Note how no American Muslim has ever been a suicide bomber, even though many countries in the "West" have sprouted their own. Not only do the various ethnic groups refrain from killing
each other in the US, but they also collaborate in releasing the most powerful blooms of human creativity. Think of the way in which a staggering diversity of people have been able to invent and create the American variety of business success, literature, etc.

It seems most apparent that two keys to American success have been:
1. The attempt to eliminate the inheritance of power, the state is ruled by an elected official, not a dynastic king. We are slipping a bit on this point with the Bush and Clinton dynasties and the concentrations of wealth, but the American vision is to let virtue and merit not wealth or parentage decide who rules.
2. The attempt to eliminate religious identity as a source of power.
This has created the following three advances that at the time of their creation which together were unique in human history:
a. A society in which each person could follow their religious heritage without fear of being persecuted.
b. A society in which no person could wield political power by invoking the power of the Divinity. Political arguments had to be won in open debate, no clergy could settle a political debate by acting as representative of God.
c. A society in which religious wars would not be fought. Not one major war the United States has been involved in has been religious sectarian in nature, a striking contrast to Europe's history.

And so although Western Civilization, Conservativism, Christianity, and Catholicism have been amongst the great treasures of humanity, I am not prepared to limit all of America to be only Western, Catholic, and Conservative. It has never been so, and if the vision of the Founding Fathers, and the hopes of Abraham Lincoln are ever to be achieved, it can never be so. This is a country of diverse humanity, whose politics were built to allow the best of humanity to bloom. To re-make America into a Catholic country whose only choices are Conservative would quickly dim the light of 300 million people thinking, creating, inventing. It would almost certainly invite the return of some religious hierarchy to the role of political power. This is an experiment currently in process in Iran, and being tried to be imposed across the Muslim world. Everyone in the world can see what happens when clergy are granted political power on the basis of their claims to speak for God. It would also likely lead to an inherited political elite, and completely end whatever hope for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

This may be the right place for your post, but these are a few thoughts that your ideas stimulate.

What does everyone think about these issues?

Arthur Lavin, MD FAAP
Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine

Eques Response follows

Dear Dr. Lavin and Greetings to all

Several of your points are worth comment.

1. I agree, “There is much to Western Civilization and Culture that at its deepest roots…is derived from non-Christian sources, as well as non-Western sources.” This is historically accurate. Christianity itself has it roots on the threshold of Asia in the Middle East and is itself rooted in Judaism. Western thought patterns are themselves rooted in Greek philosophy. However, the Catholic Church through the Apostles and early church fathers and missionaries, in particular through Paul who was himself an observant Jew and even a Pharisee, brought the gospel to the gentiles of the West. Catholic Scholars such as Augustine, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, mediated and integrated ancient Greek philosophy into Catholicism and therefore to the West.

2. Yesterday October 17 was the Feast of Ignatius of Antioch who was the successor to Peter in Antioch and Martyred in Rome as Peter was in 107 during the reign of Emperor Trajan. Ignatius was the first to refer to the Christian Church as Catholic. The Church was Catholic for more than a thousand years before the great schism before Easter Orthodox and Catholicism centered in Rome. The West remained Catholic until Luther’s formal break with Rome. So although “one would have to admit that much of Christianity is not Catholic” today, one would also have to admit that all Christianity was Catholic, and certainly all of Western Christianity was Catholic for about 1500 years. It was during this time that what we call Western Civilization was born and nourished by Catholicism when it was if not the only light certainly the brightest after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

3. This is of course my point that what we call Western Civilization is at it roots Catholic. Through which non-Christian and non-Western streams were mediated and integrated. I do not maintain that Western Civilization, Conservatism, Christianity, and Catholicism are at this time all one. They are not! However, Catholicism is the mother of them all. Therefore, I would maintain with De Tocqueville (a devout Catholic) that American Democracy is endangered by the cultural shift away for Christianity and its Catholic roots.

4. You maintain that in ancient times “the usual organization of society was tyrannical.” Actually, it was not. The societies where organized as where nuclear families. They were Patriarchal. The King, Pharaoh, Emperor, was the “father” of the nation. There was a high expectation among the people that the “father” of the nation would care for his children the people of his nation. They were of his blood; they were “family.” It is true that these organizational structures could be “tyrannical.”

However, so can “democracy” be tyrannical, “The Founding Fathers” did not embrace a radical notion. They were demanding the traditional rights of Englishmen. They demanded representation of the property classes in parliament. They were in fact afraid of the Tyranny of the Mob and designed the Constitution with as many safeguards against democracy, rule by the majority, as possible. The only branch of the federal government directly elected by the people, provided by the Constitution was the House of Representative, and here “by the people” means free Men only. The members of the Senate, a non-aristocratic “House of Lords” were elected by the State Legislatures. The election of the president was insulated from the demos by the novelty of the Electoral College, which was intended to be free to the elect the president according to their own best lights, as the College of Cardinals elect the Pope. Judges were appointed by the Executive Branch, with the approval of the Senate. These things have all been altered by amendments and practice. Also, remember the States where free at the time to place all kinds of restrictions on who could vote and who could not. Therefore, do say the Founding Fathers embraced a radical notion is not historically sustainable.

5. I agree with your keys to American success. “2. a” is I think the important aspect.

“Political arguments had to be won in open debate.” This exactly what I hope we are about even in this exchange. The argument that I would like to make essentially is that Christianity/Catholicism is the guarantor of our “democracy.” It is not as Christopher Hitchens argues its enemy. It is its guarantor, because democracy as we know it is a product of Western Political Philosophy, which is rooted in Catholic Theology and Greek Philosophy. We should not hesitate to argue with Thomas Jefferson, “that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, chief among these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” God is the origin of our rights, he is the ultimate lawgiver, and he guarantees our rights. He has created us and our human dignity is an essential of our human nature.

I am eager to know what others think of my line of reasoning. Thank you Dr. Lavin for this thought provoking and informative exchange.

Pax Tecum

Eques

The Separateness of the Priest

2007-10-13T12:18:00.000-04:00

If we look at the life of Christ as depicted in the Sacred Scripture we see a man who was both of his time and for all times. We see a man who was very different because he was also truly God. Jesus of Nazareth was also Jesus the Christ. He walked and talked, ate and prayed with the people of His particular time, faith, culture and place. Yet, He taught his closest friends and those who would be his disciples “to be in the world but not of it”. He is the Way for Christians to God and all that lies beyond this very temporal existence and experience of life. From among his disciples He choose, He set apart, He separated 12 to be His Apostles, that is those whom He would send out to all the world and on whom He would build the edifice of His church as on 12 foundation stones. He gave to one of these the Keys of the Kingdom to bind and to loose matters on earth and even in heaven.

Jesus, Himself distinguished among family, friends, disciples and apostles. All distinctions carry with them a degree of separateness. We can only call something distinct in itself if it is also separated in some way from others.

The Apostles themselves began very soon to separate some men from the Community of Faith (ecclesia: the church) to serve at table and to minister to the needs of widows and orphans. These were called Deacons (diakonos: servant). The proto –martyr St. Steven was among them. The Apostles also consecrated men to supervise and administer the churches they had founded on their missionary expeditions. These men were called bishops (episcapos: overseers). The bishops themselves soon began to consecrate priests (presbyteros: elder) to assist them in caring for the spiritual needs of the Community of Faith, so that the Word and the Sacraments might be preached and administered to all the faithful. These bishops and presbyters very quickly began to see themselves as the priest of the New Covenant, replacing those of the Old Covenant who sacrifices had come to an end with the permanent destruction of the Temple by the Roman Empire in 70 ad.

The selection of these men to ecclesial office was understood as a consecration, a setting aside of these men for the sacred, exclusive service of God.

It was for this reason that bishops and priests were expected to separate from their wives, and live chastely as though they had no wives. When Paul instructs in, first Timothy 3:2, that men who are to be set apart for the episcopacy should be married but once, in order to demonstrate that they can indeed live chastely. The remarriage of a man after the death of his first wife was taken as a definitive sign that he could not live a celibate chaste life.

First Timothy 3:2

2 Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.

The ordained is separated not only from the world by his episcopal or presbyteral consecration, but he is also separated from his wife for the sake of God and His Kingdom. The marriage vows were not broken by this new reality. The bishop or priest was still responsible for the livelihood of his wife, if she lived, and children, if he had any. He was, however, expected to live separately from them, from this moment on husband and wife was to become like brother and sister.

The letter to the Hebrews speaks eloquently of the separation of every “high priest” by God from the people for the sacred role of offering the sacrifice to God for the salvation of the people. It compares each priest to Jesus Christ the great High Priest of the New Covenant who, when in the flesh was able to offer the sacrifice of His own suffering by which “He became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him”.

Hebrews 5:1-10

Every high priest is taken from among men and made their representative before God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

He is able to deal patiently with the ignorant and erring, for he himself is beset by weakness

and so, for this reason, must make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people.

No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.

In the same way, it was not Christ who glorified himself in becoming high priest, but rather the one who said to him: "You are my son; this day I have begotten you";

just as he says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."

In the days when he was in the flesh, he offered prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered;

and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him,

declared by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

It is therefore accurate to claim that separateness is essential to the Priesthood. When a man is consecrated to the presbyterate by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, he is set apart. He is separated from his fellow men, so that he may be an instrument for their salvation. He is consecrated, set apart, for exclusive sacred use. He is no longer to beget children of the flesh, but myriads of children of the Spirit. He will become father of many by being father of none. This separateness is truly ontological and fruitful.

It is likely that individual priests will experience this separateness in different ways. It should be expected that each will have different emotional, psychological and spiritual manifestations of this reality in their own flesh. Consistent with this new reality the priest would experience himself as somehow different. Contrary to this new reality would be any attempt by the priest himself or others to suppress these differences or artificially to obfuscate the separateness. A priest therefore is no longer an ordinary man; rather he is an ordained man. Like a cup that has been consecrated and has become a chalice, so also the Christian gentleman has been consecrated by the Sacrament of Holy Orders and has become a priest; both now have a sacred nature and purpose.

It is altogether proper, therefore, for the priest to live apart and to bear witness to the sacred by his manner of dress and his comportment. It is his proper role and sacred function to pray and to offer the sacrificial meal of the Eucharist. He is to model by word and example the faith of Christ for all believers and non-believers alike.

Unfortunately, there are those who wish to trivialize or eliminate the differences between clergy and laity. This is a disservice to both vocations. The laity is called by virtue of the sacrament of Baptism, to holiness and to sanctify the world by their work, witness and prayer. The priest is called by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders to serve the spiritual needs of the faithful. He is now an alter Christus, another Christ. He is to teach, preach, and offer the sacrifice in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). All distinctions are to flow from and be commensurate with these different but complementary roles.

These distinctions are matters of neither power nor privilege, but of consecration and service. The priest as father of the faith community is to lead gently the faithful entrusted to him by his bishop in the manner of Christ who was meek and humble of heart. He is to be careful not to break the bent reed or quench the smoldering wick, yet he is to be bold and brave in protecting his community of faith from the powers of darkness that seek to blind them to the Light of Jesus Christ, who alone can save them.

The priest is a man who is called to live for Christ, to serve Christ in his Body the church, the people of God. . St Thomas wisely taught that grace builds on nature. Therefore the priest is first to be a good man, healthy in mind and body. He is to be emotionally and psychological mature and open to further growth and development. He is to be physically healthy enough to carry out the work entrusted to him by ordination. In this way he can be good soil for the many graces of ordination to take deep and lasting root in him. As a man he will know that he is imperfect and a sinner. Hebrews also reminds us, “He is able to deal patiently with the ignorant and erring, for he himself is beset by weakness and so, for this reason, must make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people.”

Recalling once again the words of the letter to the Hebrews, “No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God, just as Aaron was”. For those who are called, for those who are invited by Christ to “come and follow me” as his priest, there can be no greater life no greater vocation, than that of being a Priest of Jesus Christ. It is a pearl of great price worth being set apart for.

Eques

2007-07-12T15:29:00.000-04:00

The Catholic Perspective on Homosexuality

Eques

Revised Post July 12, 2007

Currently there is a great deal of media coverage and interest on subjects dealing with homosexuality and gay rights. The intention of this reflection is to provide a Catholic/Christian perspective on this controversial and sensitive subject. I hope that it will provide sufficient information, better understanding and deeper
appreciation of the teachings of the Catholic Church, enabling a more comfortable and confident participation in the continuing debate. This paper will focus on single young people both Catholic and secularist, who are faced with difficult but possible moral choices.

The Catholic Church (CC) respects the human rights of all men and woman. We are all created by God who loves each of us unconditionally. We in turn are challenged by God’s love and the example of Jesus Christ our Lord to love all our brothers and sisters unconditionally.

Unconditional love is not synonymous with permissiveness. It does not prevent us from correcting or challenging each other in lives of virtue. On the contrary love often calls upon us to teach and correct our brothers and sisters as true friends when their behaviors are manifestly self-destructive this is often referred to as tough love and it is difficult for the corrector and corrected. We can easily see a manifestation of this in the love of a parent for a child. The parent does not hesitate to correct and teach a child in order to protect him from a variety of dangerous behaviors and situations.

Good or evil can be known by understanding our human nature and its requirements as created by God. It is fundamental to this task to ask why God has created us. The old Baltimore Catechism (OBC) gave a very succinct answer to this question. God made us that we may know, love, and serve Him in this life and be happy with him forever in the next. The CC teaches that, we are all called to be “saints.” All those who enjoy eternal life in heaven are in fact “saints.”

The call to “sanctity” which we all share is our starting point (St Paul in 1 Tim 2:4 “God wills all men to be saved”). This universal vocation to holiness points to a set of conclusions that differ from those proposed by our
secular culture. We may express the secular starting principle as “the pursuit of happiness” without any reference to God or eternal varieties. This foundational secular starting point includes what may be called “self fulfillment and expression or self actualization.” “The pursuit of happiness” cannot strictly be called a “vocation,” for there is no “caller” outside of the individual. This starting point recognizes no absolute truths but relies on the individual’s freedom and ability to decide for himself what is true or best for him. This principle of moral reckoning can be named “relativism” or “nihilism” or more benignly “secularism.”

“Secularism” implies relativism or nihilism because it recognizes no “truths” or “behaviors” as “malum in se” (evil in itself). Truths or actions are judged relative to their perceived usefulness to the individual. These decisions are not made relative to “human nature” because no such thing is recognized to exist. Many media and campus debates revolve around these very different starting points. The result being that the debaters do not really engage one another in a building dialectic but rather attempt to win points with their audience. What must be engaged in order to reach any fundamental understanding are the starting principles. These principles must be examined for their interior and exterior logic. Are they internally consistent and logical? Are there expressions truly good for the individual or society and why?

Here we will examine the interior and exterior logic of the CC teaching on “homosexuality” in the light of its definition of “human nature” and fundamental teachings efficiently expressed in the OBC. “God made us to know love and serve Him in this life and to be happy with him eternally in the next,” this is our fundamental call to “Sanctity” that comes from God who created all of us, and all things.

All of us, who hold and teach the Catholic faith, do so by the grace of God. Faith is a theological virtue, which is a gift from God that enables us to be in a loving relationship with God, who we call Father. Faith then enables us to “know” God’s will for us as church and as individual members of that church. Our faith teaches us that we are called to be “saints” we are called to know, love, and serve him in this life, so that we might enjoy eternal life with Him. Logic supports the statement that the imperfect cannot be united with absolute perfection without first being relatively perfected. The Sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist, and Reconciliation enable us to begin this journey in this life and give us Hope (another theological virtue and gift from God) that it will be completed in the next after a purification also begun in this life and completed by the grace of God as we pass into the next life. More simply expressed in faith language we may need to pass through “purgatory” in order to be fully united to God in heaven. We hope but cannot be certain that we will pass from this life already having achieved the perfection we call “sanctity”; this is in keeping with our vocation to sanctity, i.e. holiness.

How do we journey toward sanctity in our lives? We do so by doing God’s will in this life “perfectly”, “ you must be perfect (holy) as your heavenly Father is perfect (holy)” (Mt 5:48). This could immediately discourage us, because as human beings we know that we can do nothing perfectly. However, God our loving Father knows our weakness and has provided the remedies in the Sacraments of Baptism, by which we are perfected in God’s grace. If death were to follow Baptism before sin, “sanctity” is achieved as pure gift from God. The perfection of grace exists in that person and eternal life is assured. It is in a sense already present in the newly baptized. Historically you may recall that the first Catholic Roman Emperor, Constantine deliberately deferred Baptism until his deathbed, because as emperor he believed deadly sin was inevitable. After Baptism, the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Reconciliation feed and heal us in our sinful imperfections.

The Catholic asks how do I know and act on God’s will for me today and throughout my life. In contrast, a person with a secularly informed way of life asks what, do “I” wish to do today or with “my” life. The secularist is directed by his own resources accepting no judge of his well-being outside of himself, or no guide that does not conform to the interior logic of his basic premise “the pursuit of happiness” as self defined.

The Catholic believes that God has a particular will for him. He believes that God has established the CC through His only begotten Son who entrusted Peter and the apostles with the keys to bind and loose His disciples. All of this is subject to the basic project of striving to be saints, to be holy. The Catholic wishes to do nothing deliberately that will put his pursuit of holiness, his reason for existing, in jeopardy. If he does sin out of personal weakness or failed logic, he does not seek to justify his sins but to confess them honestly, sincerely and contritely in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Having been properly catechized by his church, the Catholic is aware of the self-destructive nature of sin. Sin always presents itself as an apparent “good,” as pleasurable in some way that is actually an “evil,” and thus destructive to the sinner.

It is through the practice of virtue that the Catholic gradually develops habits of grace and avoids habits of vice. Where does the Catholic learn what is virtuous and what is vicious? There are several ways this is achieved. First the CC teaches him what has been revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the fullness of revelation. He learns through the proclamation of the Gospel how Jesus lived and died and rose again. He learns what Jesus taught and he learns ultimately that Jesus is the way the truth and the life. The Catholic conscience is therefore instructed in the truths of the Catholic faith and is able to make moral decisions based on the logic of these truths. He also has another advantage. In times of doubt and confusion, in times of emotional or moral crisis, he has the rock of the CC to lean on and turn to in faith, believing that the CC is the arbiter of God’s truth in this life.

Practically thinking and speaking the young Catholic who is in the process of becoming a Christian man or woman has a clear guide as to what is the best way to live the life of grace and to become that person that God wills him or her to be. In this way he or she finds true happiness and joy in this passing world, as well as eternal life in the next.

Meanwhile the “secularist” has only personal resources on which to make those moral decisions that are intended to bring happiness. These choices may only bring passing pleasure along with self-destruction in the end. Admittedly these young people may certainly seek out advice and guidance from others who are also “secularists”. However, the advisor himself has only personal experiences or his accumulated knowledge on which to rely and can appeal to no “higher” authority. In addition, the enquirer will most likely accept only that advice that fits with his particular logic and worldview, which is ultimately dependant on himself. A monadic and less than reliable system is constructed. This can be compared with drawing your own map of a country you have never visited, in order to navigate that landscape when you get there. Because the “secularist” in effect creates his own world, there is no one who has been there prior to himself who can provide a reliable map. The Catholic has the advantage of 2000 thousand years of communal accumulated knowledge, historical conscience, and experience, thoroughly examined and tested in the light of the reliable word of God, incarnated in the Catholic Church.

Perhaps, the above has provided a thumbnail portrait of the secular and Catholic moral reasoning processes. It is in the fundamental differences of these basic premises that the moral debate occurs.

The Catholic argument may be presented in this manner. , e.g., our subject is a single young man or woman, who is aware of his call to holiness. He has been taught the minimal requirements of the 10 commandments. He has learned from his church, scriptures, and tradition the more challenging teachings of Jesus that call him to perfection (holiness) in his life of grace. He is therefore aware that as a Christian he is called to sexual abstinence, chastity not only in a negative way, “Thou shall not commit adultery,” but also in the practice of the opposing positive virtues, for the sake of the kingdom of god in imitation of Christ. He strives to be Christ like in all his thoughts, words and actions that concern his sexuality and all other areas of his spiritual life. If he were to fall short of these ideals, he would recognize his sins and confess them completely, truthfully and humbly. His sexual orientation is not pertinent; he is called to purity and chastity whether he is heterosexual, homosexual, or ambivalent in his orientation. He is first an adopted son of God the Father by virtue of Baptism and he is called to holiness and a life of virtue regardless of his sexual orientation.

The “secularist” might argue that the young person in question is free to decide with whom he will engage in genital activity based on mutual consent. For him there is no higher purpose or value to sexuality. The virtues of purity or chastity have no inherent value in fact they are not recognized as virtues at all. These would be defined as unfortunate states of deprivation.

This manner of moral reasoning has permeated our secular culture. It is reinforced in countless ways in both what is referred to as “high” and “pop” cultural.

The counter cultural values are proposed almost predominately by the CC and by more evangelical/fundamentalist Christian churches. Unfortunately, the young Catholic absorbs the secular philosophical panoply of amoral reckoning with little or no awareness, unless he regularly participates in Sunday worship and deliberately seeks out the teachings of the CC. This results in moral confusion in reckoning and behavior, for the inadequately informed Catholic. It is therefore more difficult for him to resist sexual and other temptations, virtue fails and sin is common. Adding to these sins, the secular reasoning effects the evaluation of sin itself. Having committed serious sin the young catholic may appeal to secular reasoning for self-justification. Secular thinking sees no necessity to confess these actions. These are not sins to the “secularist.” They are natural expressions of sexuality. The commingling of secular thought with Catholic values in the minds of young Catholics all too often results in self-justification. It rationalizes away the healing benefits of naming and sacramentally confessing the darkness in their lives. This matrix of thinking and behavior produces spiritual bluntness or callousness, often with accompanying physical, emotional, and psychological harm.

It is a difficult proposition to break through this spiritual bluntness, sometimes referred to as “a callused conscience.” The individual so afflicted becomes insensitive to spiritual and faith based argumentation. His conscience has been overcome by the secular, relativistic, and nihilistic philosophical principles. In thought and action, the young person no longer thinks or acts according to Catholic values.

Not all is lost however, because there is in the secular argument an inherent weakness, “contra factum non valet argumentum,” (“against the facts there is no valid argument”). What facts are we speaking of, the “facts” are the fruits of “sinful” behavior. The secularist does not consider these acts as “sin,” but as acts of self-expression and freedom. They expect to find not only pleasure in the homosexual or premarital heterosexual act but also human fulfillment.

Genital-sexual activity outside of marriage is prone to promiscuity and even addiction. This is especially true in the casual almost anonymous sexual relations that young people seek in the hook-up culture of our times. The demonstrable truth is that casual and promiscuous sexual relations provide a transitory emotional high, followed often by feelings of meaninglessness and emptiness in unfulfilling human relationships. This in turn creates a desire for more sexual activity and a cycle of momentary erotic highs and their consequent emotional lows tend to produce a dependency like any mood altering substance or activity. The “facts” then are that the “secularist” approach to moral reasoning does not achieve the self-actualization or fulfillment that it promises. The “facts” are that casual and or promiscuous sexual activity is emotionally and psychologically harmful and medically risky. Accepting (without approval) for the sake of argument the relativistic and nihilistic starting point of secular thinkers, it is possible to demonstrate with “facts” that it does not deliver on its promises. “Contra factum non valet argumentum” therefore the secularist, relativistic and nihilistic argument fails. It is not a reliable map for human fulfillment. It is an argument that makes the individual the measure of all things, resulting in isolation, self-absorption, and self-destructive behaviors. [For more details concerning the destructive nature of homosexual acts, please see the Statement of the Catholic Medical Association: Homosexuality and Hope .

The Catholic argument for purity, chastity, or any virtue is based on faith and church teachings. Jesus Christ the Son of God came to earth as the God/man to set us free from our sins, not to encourage us to be enslaved by them. The false “Christian Prophets” of our day are very busy attempting to convince other Christians that homosexual feelings are “normal” and homosexual acts are thus perfectly legitimate expressions of these feelings. The scriptures Hebrew and Christian consistently condemn homosexual acts, (the sin is condemned the sinner called to a new life in God). The CC has always considered and still does consider homosexual acts disordered in relation to the natural and God given design of human sexuality. The CC’s teaching contains a very realistic understanding of human nature, tested over millennia, which makes for a happy, well-adjusted, self-disciplined, and responsible person. It delivers on its promises. It is philosophically consistent. It provides a map for the young person provided by countless men and women who have gone before them “marked with the sign of faith” (from Eucharistic prayer II of the Roman missal). It is not self-generated, but part of a consistent ethic and tradition. Thus, it is highly reliable.

The opposition responds, “You cannot tell me what to do or not do. You can not tell me how I may use my body or who I may or may not have sex with.” In a way these statements are true, one individual can not tell another individual any of these things, but independent facts and a long standing and reliable tradition of faith and morals can make a powerful argument as to what is good or evil, what is healthy and what is not for the individual human person.

In the case of homosexual genital acts, it is possible to argue from faith for the Catholic young person that this is just as sinful as heterosexual genital acts outside of marriage. It is also possible to argue from the facts that homosexual genital acts are unhealthy and risky business. “Some homosexual acts are physically harmful because they disregard normal human anatomy and function. These acts are associated with increased risks of tissue injury, organ malfunction, and infectious diseases. These and other factors result in a significantly shortened life expectancy.” (Page 1, Statement by the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, Both arguments involve sexual activity outside of marriage and are by definition disordered and sinful. They are disordered according to the revealed design and will of God. Sexuality is ordered to love and life within the Marriage union of husband and wife, “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Mt 19:5) and “what therefore God has joined let no man put asunder” (Mt 19:6). “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) It is here that the question of sexual orientation comes to the fore. A young Catholic or Christian can readily understand that sexual union is intended by God for the sanctification of husband and wife by their co-operation with the creative power of God. Even if he or she may have difficulty and struggle to be pure and chaste before Marriage and to live the purity and chastity necessary for fidelity in Marriage. The teaching of Christ and His church is very clear and understandable.

Here the “secularist” argues for “equal rights” for those of Homosexual orientation. They too should be allowed to marry to form life long unions, in this, way promiscuity, casual anonymous sex is eliminated, and fidelity to a life long partner is possible. In a purely secular context, this argument appears to have merit. It appears to be the lesser of two evils fidelity to a monogamous homosexual relationship being preferable to multiple transient sexual relations with all the accompanying dangers. However, the dangers and risks stated above are still present.

In the Catholic and Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian context, however it is untenable. In order for sexual intercourse to be truly a marriage act and to be spiritually fruitful for the couple, it must be open to “Love and Life” (see Paul VI, “Humanae Vitae”). The sexual union of a same sex couple is not open to life, even if the partners truly love one another and there is no reason to impugn this possibility, the sexual union is still sinful. They cannot enter into a Sacramental Marriage. Their sexual union is not procreative as God intended. It is according to its nature, disordered. The CC however, greatly values chaste same sex and opposite sex friendships in which many saints were formed, e.g. St John Bosco and St. Dominic Savio, St. Francis and St. Clare, St. Ambrose and St Augustine. The teachings of “Humane Vitae” have consequences for the validly married heterosexual couples as well, for it requires that their sexual union be open to Love and Life, neither contraceptive nor abortafacient and most certainly not coerced. Only in this way are they spiritually fruitful and share in the Sacramental character of Marriage.

The secularist argues this is discriminatory. How can Christians argue for sexual relations to be limited to marriage and at the same time prohibit same sex couples from entering into marriage? This would require all homosexuals to be celibate, pure, and chaste. Yes indeed, it would, as it also requires all single heterosexuals to be celibate, pure, and chaste. The heterosexual however does indeed have the capacity for Sacramental Marriage, barring any preexisting impediments (such as consanguinity or impotency). However, homosexuality, an exclusively same sex orientation, is an impediment to marriage for how can they “be fruitful and multiply.” The CC opposes same sex “civil marriage” because it desires to preserve both the traditional definition of marriage and in the larger context the vestiges of the Christian ethic that once guided our civic polity. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, same sex marriage is now a reality. There is no need however for the CC to stop or alter its teaching.

The Catholic must always be mindful that God’s grace is never lacking for those who seek it. History and human experience testifies that what is difficult is not necessarily impossible. Although a young person may experience same sex attractions, it is not required that he or she act on those feelings and desires. Here we begin to touch on the mystery of the cross and its centrality to Christian life. The CC understands its responsibility to support all those who carry this cross like any other cross with its Sacraments especially Reconciliation and the Eucharist and with making psycho-spiritual counseling and direction available to assist all those who seek it. Despite statements to the contrary science has not isolated “the homosexual gene” (Page 1 part 1, #1, Statement of CMA . The CC teaches from its experience that same-sex attraction is resistible and preventable by assuring that “the emotional and developmental needs of each child are properly met by both family and peers” (Page 2 part 1, #3, Statement of CMA .

Here again the Catholic, Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian homosexual is able to understand the clear traditional teaching of his faith. The difficulty is found in the efforts to be pure and chaste. Here we return to the fundamental call of all Christians to holiness by virtue of their baptism. Remember we are all created by God to know love and serve Him in this life and to be happy with Him forever in the next. This is true for the Catholic or Christian without exception. The heterosexual young person may be called to holiness in Marriage or in some form of celibacy lived out for the sake of the kingdom of God. The homosexual young person is also called to holiness, to sanctity, lived out in celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God. Certainly, for the Catholic homosexual person the road to holiness is lived out in part in the struggle for purity and chastity. This can be seen as a sharing in the cross of Christ and like all crosses that the Christian carries, it has its own blessings that come from God in the midst of suffering. If the homosexually oriented young person by God’s grace can embrace this cross that life presents, the road to Sanctity is difficult but open. Keeping in mind that God’s grace is never lacking and the reality that all vocations to holiness entail the cross no one need be envious of, or impugn another’s call or road to holiness. Accepting the crosses fashioned for us in our universal call to holiness and our individual vocations opens the road to holiness for each and all.

The secular way of thinking cannot appreciate or accept this faith based reasoning. The CC becomes then the voice crying in the wilderness and the light in the midst of darkness. In the face of an unbelieving society, it must continue to pass on what it has received from God. The CC also has history and medical realities on its side. The witness of Catholics young and old who fight the good fight living out their vocations to holiness may provide the strongest arguments. Witness can speak louder than well-reasoned words.

Where do Priests come from?

2007-06-15T14:20:00.000-04:00

Eques

Where do priests come from? In the not so distant paste there seemed to be more than enough priests to go around. Those who are old enough to recall immediate post World War II America can remember dioceses building more and bigger seminaries to accommodate the seemingly vast number of men seeking the priesthood. It seemed to diocesan authorities at the time that the swelling river would never run dry. We entered the 60’s and the bountiful vocational rains ended. The river dried up. The Church in the United States began to experience a prolonged drought, and a vocational dust bowl. The great harvest of vocations failed. Is this the beginning of the end of the Church in the USA or is there hope?

What is the eternal fountainhead for the inspiration and nurturing of priestly vocations?

The latest statistical study by CARA concerning the sources of priestly vocations provides us with valuable statistical information. CARA, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate based at Georgetown University, Washington DC, has produced a “2007Survey of Ordinands to the Priesthood A Report to the Secretariat for Vocations and Priestly Formation, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.” This survey concerns Ordinands of the USA only; the study was initially developed in 1998 by the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Vocations and Priestly Formation.

The following highly significant statistics concerning the ordination class of 2007 in the USA are harvested form this survey. The statistics are not age specific unless otherwise indicated. 282 Ordinands responded to the survey. This represents a response rate of approximately 60 percent of the 475 potential Ordinands reported by theologates and houses of formation. These 282 Ordinands include 221 Ordinands to the diocesan priesthood and 60 to the religious priesthood.

80% of all those ordained were encouraged to consider the priesthood by a priest.

76% had been Altar Servers

78% had attended some type of vocation programs (offered by their diocese or religious orders)

70% received encouragement from one or more parent

20% were discouraged by family members (mother, father, or other)

7% were discouraged by priest or other clergy

77% reported they were Caucasian (of some European descent)

77% were United State citizens by birth

94% were Roman Catholic since infant Baptism

83% had parents who were both Roman Catholic

35% entered the Seminary from High School

64% entered the Seminary after some College

19% entered the Seminary with post Graduate Degrees

89% achieved Academic Honors in High School

37% achieved Academic Honors in College

35% graduated form College with honors (Magna or Summa Cum Laude)

51% attended Catholic Elementary School

36% attended Catholic High School (64% Public or other private schools)

44% attended Catholic College

68% had some full time work experience before seminary

20% had some Military Experience in the US armed forces.

72% listed Reading as a hobby or extra-curricular activity

57% listed Music as a hobby or extra-curricular activity

50% listed Exercise as a hobby or extra-curricular activity

44% listed Sports as a hobby or extra-curricular activity

It would be fair, given this report and other previous surveys, to conclude that the parents of most diocesan priests in the USA are both practicing Roman Catholics. The ordained mostly received Baptism as infants, attended Catholic School at some point in their education, were Altar Servers, and were involved in several other parish ministries or programs. They were encouraged to become priests by some significant person in their lives especially by priests and family members. They are intelligent and enjoy reading, music, and some sport. They also had some sort of work experience before entering the seminary. They are likely to have entered the seminary after some college education, while about a third entered immediately after high school.
(1% attended High School Seminaries).

Catholics throughout the United States are presently experiencing the shortage of priests at the parish level. They observe fewer and fewer priests are available to provide the services to which they have become accustomed. Parents and grandparents know that fewer young men are entering the seminary than when they were young. Some worry about the future of their local parish, because of the perceived priest shortage. They wonder where the priests they need come from will. Some hope older men that are more experienced will fill the void.

What about “delayed vocations” or second career vocations, will single men either widowed or never married answer the call? Will they perhaps retire from one profession or leave a profession to follow the call to priesthood they hear in the later hours? Certainly, there are such men, these vocations are to be sought out and encouraged. Blessed John XXIII National Seminary (BJNS), in Weston MA, is dedicated to the formation and education of these men leading to priestly ordination. The above survey includes these Ordinands as it includes all Ordinands in the USA in 2007. They are not an alternate source of priestly vocations beyond the scope of this survey. Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston founded this seminary in 1964, today 526 alumni priests serve in 94 dioceses across the United States. There are approximately 46,000 Catholic Priests in the USA. The active alumni of BJNS comprise about .011% of the total number of Priests serving in the USA.

In 2007, 476 priests were ordained in the USA. For example, seven priests were ordained for the Archdiocese of Boston in May 2007 one of these attended BJNS. The total ordination class of 2007 for BJNS was 16 priests for 13 dioceses and 1 religious congregation. These 16 Ordinands are .034% of the class of 2007. It is clear that the priests provided by “delayed vocations” are important for those dioceses and that religious congregation. Although, the number of priests ordained from this source for the United States is statistically tiny. Presently, “delayed vocations” do not provide large numbers of priests for the USA, nor are they likely to in the future, however this source deserves the full support of the Church.

The statistics of this survey do provide some useful information, that assists us to answer our question “where do priest come form” and what is the fountainhead for priestly vocations. We find priestly vocations among the Altar Servers of our parishes. They are among the intelligent active boys who are involved in this ministry. They are among those attending mass regularly, and having at least one supportive Catholic parent. The richest mine for vocations is where it has always been, among the Catholic families of our parishes whose sons are Altar Servers. Unfortunately, it is increasingly more difficult to mine for these vocations among fewer and fewer male Altar Servers.

Vocation directors and those interested in fostering priestly vocations have known for a very longtime that most priests were former Altar Servers. However, some current factors have almost closed this mine. The sexual abuse scandal and crisis in our church in the USA has created particular problems for the promotion of vocations. Reportedly, parish priests no longer feel free to mentor a promising young man in his vocational discernment.

Encouraging the participation of boys in the life of the church certainly remains possible, but it requires a specific charism. Not all parents, priests, teachers, coaches, and activity directors, have an ability to work with or understand the unique needs of young males. William Pollack, PhD in his New York Times bestseller, Real Boys (RB), and Dan Kindlon and Michael Thompson, PhDs in their book Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys argue that boys have their own particular emotional and spiritual challenges and needs. They convincingly demonstrate that not all educators or systems are conducive to their healthy psychological, spiritual, emotional, and educational development. In light of these needs and realities, it appears the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has made some decisions with the best of intentions that already and will continue to affect the number of young men entering the seminary.

US Catholic Bishops prior to the sexual abuse crisis had for years acted very much like all other institutional administrators, when faced with members, or employees, who were accused of sexually abusing young in their care. They minimized the effects the abuse would have on the victimized youth and maximized their efforts to protect the institution. This is exactly how one would expect bureaucracies to respond. The Church bureaucracies reacted like other bureaucracies. However, the Church holds itself to a different standard of perfection based on humility and truth incarnated in Jesus Christ the Lord, which it failed here to achieve.

The result of the sex abuse scandal, significant for a bountiful harvest of priestly vocations, is that parents are far less willingly to encourage their sons to become Altar Servers. They are less likely to entrust the spiritual growth and development of their boys to priests. The Cara Survey leads us to anticipate greater challenges promoting and developing vocations to the priesthood. This is of course compounded by the culture milieu in the USA with its exaggerated materialism and moral relativism already affecting the spiritual and religious lives of the young and their families.

To recapitulate, statistics confirm that the fountainhead of vocations to the priesthood is the Catholic family, which actively participates in the faith community, and which encourages the involvement of their sons in the ministries and activities of the parish especially the ministry of Altar Server. Fewer Catholic families are attending the Lord’s Day Eucharist and participating in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and fewer of these are encouraging their sons to be Altar Servers. Therefore, there are fewer Altar Servers. Unfortunately, this means fewer priests.

Although the numbers of priests being ordained seemed to have bottomed out and even in some places begun a slow but steady recovery, it is far from replacement levels. Fewer priests are being stretched further and further. This has unfortunately led to the clericalization of the laity as necessity forces them to fill in the gaps created by the lack of available priests, impacting negatively on the lives and mission of the laity.

Vatican II identified the proper role of the laity in the life of the Church. The church calls on her people to bear the light of Christ in those places and areas of responsibility that are not properly that of the clergy, such as within the family, civic community, work place, the realms of arts and sciences, and the athletic field. As St Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer would say, it is the vocation of the laity to preach the gospel in the “street.” The involvement of the laity in appropriate apostolates for their particular call to holiness is essential to the mission of the Church as the introduction to Apostolicam Actuositatem (AA) states “In this decree the Council seeks to describe the nature, character, and diversity of the lay apostolate, to state its basic principles, and to give pastoral directives for its more effective exercise. All these should be regarded as norms when the canon law, as it pertains to the lay apostolate, is revised.” In chapter, 1 the document quickly defines the apostolate of the ordained and the laity in its diversity and origins.
#2, c-d, “In the Church there is a diversity of ministry but an oneness of mission. Christ conferred on the Apostles and their successors the duty of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling in His name and power. However, the laity likewise shares in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore has their own share in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the world.
They exercise the apostolate in fact by their activity directed to the evangelization and sanctification of men and to the penetrating and perfecting of the temporal order through the spirit of the Gospel. In this way, their temporal activity openly bears witness to Christ and promotes the salvation of men. Since the laity, in accordance with their state of life, lives in the midst of the world and its concerns, they are called by God to exercise their apostolate in the world like leaven, with the ardor of the spirit of Christ.”
Consequently, the assumption of those roles proper to the ordained by the laity is not a desirable outcome, such as presiding at “Communion Service” in the absence of priests. This has the undesirable effect of providing a false witness, that priests are not essential to the Celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy. Nor should the ordained assume roles, proper to the laity, distracting priests form their apostolate “the duty of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling in His name and power.” (AA, 2, c) It results in a confusion not only of the roles of the laity and ordained, but provides a disincentive for young men of generous hearts to offer themselves to the Lord in the priesthood. The priest shortage appropriately calls the local community to pray, work for, and encourage priestly vocations in their midst.

Now arises another serious difficulty, one that never before existed prior to 1995 in the Catholic Church. Its nature is different from the response of the Church to the sexual abuse of its children. However, it is a real disincentive to participation of boys in the ministry of Altar Server a spiritual and vocational gold mine. Introducing girls into this ministry, an exclusively male ministry predating the third century martyrdom of the boy Acolyte St. Tarsicius, has curtailed the number of boys willing or able to serve at the Lord’s Altar. Although this is not a zero sum problem, this reality requires a delicate balance, between the participation of girls in this ministry and the needs of the Church.

Some believe that the boys should be firmly corrected for their hesitancy or discomfiture. They should be encouraged to accept the participation of their sisters as Altar Servers. Yes, they should. Yet, there are very real reasons for these feelings among the boys and for loss of boys to this ministry.

The practical problem of numbers of Altar Servers is limited only by the organizational skills of the adults in charge. Therefore, the number of girls participating in the ministry does not necessarily mean that fewer boys can participate unless an artificial number is imposed on the program. There are deeper and more difficult obstacles for the boys to overcome.

Most males perceive religion and participation in church as feminine. They have a very deep spirituality, it is however, more difficult to get at than that of females who generally tend to be more openly spiritual. Boys require more encouragement and support in the habits of religion. They thrive on affirmation and wither on shame. It follows from Real Boys by William Pollack, PhD that the “Boy Code” of the USA and Western Culture in general is in part responsible. They are encouraged by this code to be tough and not to show their sensitive side. Pollack writes that pre-adolescent or adolescent “boys begin to harden themselves and to avoid any person or situation that might bring them shame. Perhaps an adolescent boy suffers the greatest humiliation when he violates the ‘Boy Code.’” (RB p.158) The same dynamics would apply to boys participating and competing with girls as Altar Servers.

As long as the ministry of Altar Server was a male prerogative, it was easier for a boy to participate in this ministry. It was a boy thing. This provided them with the necessary protection from their less religious peers. Altar Servers programs were developed by some priest to stress the sacrifice and service that this ministry required. Priests could even encourage the boys with titles such as Knights of the Altar or Knights of Christ. As demonstrated by the Boy Scouts boys love titles, visible signs of rank and reward. It became far more difficult to do this for the boys with the advent of girls as Altar Servers. Now their less religious peers who already doubted how masculine it was to attend church could harass them and shame them for being, shall we say, less than masculine. The language of their peers would be far more graphic and designed to cut deep. The temperature in the “peer pressure cooker” as Pollack refers to it could be turned way up. He writes, “Peers will (also) reproach or reject them if boys act in ways that appear feminine or that could possibly suggest homosexuality.” (RB p.158)

It is true that these harassments were hurled at boys before the scandal and before girl Altar Servers. However, some boys withstood the onslaught because the ministry of Altar Servers was something that they could do for God in a safe boys’ only club, similar to the Boy Scouts, but only church related. They had the support of their fellow Altar Servers. As an Altar Server, they could climb the ranks to positions of leadership and responsibility among their peers.

In addition, the findings of these psychological experts verify these observations.
Doctors Pollack, Kindlon, and Thompson all point out that the lower academic achievement of many boys of this age is due in part to their fear of competing for academic honors with or against girls. If they succeed, their peers will immediately ridicule them for being “girly boys.” It is not cool for boys in co-educational settings to try too hard to excel academically. All three doctors maintain that the co-educational public school system sets boys up for academic failure. They agree that boys perform academically better in an all boy educational environment. Many parents and teachers fail to consider this, when wondering why their intelligent son or student will not give school his best effort. It is safer for him to stay below the radar academically in middle school and high school. “’Once you’re thirteen or older, you can’t be the same person at school as you are at home. It’s not considered cool’” (RB p.158) There is a less shameful price to pay at the hands of disappointed parents and teachers than form the cruel enforcers of the “Boy Code.”

The result of all this is very predictable and understandable. There are fewer and fewer boy Altar Servers and hence a statistically shrinking pool of candidates for the seminary and the priesthood. Here is an illustrative example. Recently, an extremely fine priest celebrated a mass of thanksgiving for his sixtieth anniversary of ordination. Nearly seventy priests, two bishops and perhaps one thousand parishioners, family, and friends packed the church. The worthy Monsignor at the end of his homily told the assembly that he had hoped for three things during his 26 years as pastor. He hoped the Red Sox would win the World Series. Monsignor is a life long fan. They did win in 2004. He hoped to pay off the $3,300,000.00 debt on the new church. They still owed $900,000.00. Finally, he hoped that some young man from the parish would enter the seminary. In the long history of the parish no one had entered the seminary or been ordained form that parish. There still is none. Not one young man from that parish entered the Seminary during the 26 years of his pastorate. As Monsignor related this sad truth, the 5 Altar Servers sat and politely listened, four girls, and one boy.

Meanwhile, in another parish, with very similar demographics, during the recent six-year term of that pastor, two Altar Servers answered the call. One is already in seminary and one who will enter in September. They are from a parish that had not had a seminarian for the Archdiocese of Boston in its existence since 1855. Remember that the two Altar Servers who entered the seminary from this parish did so after and despite the “scandal” and the introduction of girl Altar Servers. Which indicates it can still be achieved. What made the difference? The Altar Servers’ program at this parish played an essential role in the development and discernment of the vocations of these two young men. It was a well-structured, disciplined, uniformed, spit and polish organization and the boys relished and thrived in it.

The task for priests and others interested in promoting vocations have been greatly compromised by the “scandal” and complicated by the introduction of girl Altar Servers. Girls began serving in the mid-nineties after the US bishops had received “permission” form Rome. The bishops, however, did not consider the affect it would have on the boys and the future of the priesthood. It was in their eyes a matter of fairness. It was un-American to discriminate against the girls. There were unintended effects.

In the USA, it is becoming ever more common to see only girls serving mass. Perhaps anecdotally, but also illustrative, St Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican has only boy Altar Servers, in Italian Chierechetti or Piccolo Clero, both meaning “little cleric.” As they have for centuries, some of these boys will one day become priests. (Inside the Vatican, by Bart McDowell, National Geographic Society, Book Division, 1991, pages 18-21) No doubt, well intentioned bishops and chanceries wanted to include girls in this important ministry. Many Americans saw their exclusion as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church towards girls and women. Traditions become such because over time they are seen to be meaningful and effective. They stand the test of time and experience. At least some traditions are in place for very good reasons. The tradition of male Altar Servers in the church grew out of its proximity to the priesthood. Boys and young men for centuries served mass for the ordained and frequently they were later ordained. Long before there were seminaries to educate and prepare young men for ordination, there were priests and altar servers. This rich vocational source is now seriously compromised.

The argument could be made that although there are fewer boy Altar Servers it does not necessarily follow that there will be fewer priests, because there will remain other points of contact with the boys and young men for vocation directors and the promoters of priestly vocations. For example, about 43% of all diocesan priests surveyed had some Catholic education on some level. This is true. However, it is made clear by the report that the respondents had multiple contacts with the church via family, mass attendance, serving mass, parish priest, and school. There is one place where multiple statistics intersect. That is at church. If a family faithfully attends Sunday Eucharist, and their son serves the liturgy the parish priest is much more likely to know him and his family. The priest is more able to recognize the possibility of a priestly vocation in that young man. This is certainly the experience of many priests as priests and as servers. Interestingly, young men who enter religious congregations and are ordained probably did so because that particular religious congregation taught at one of his schools. He would become familiar with it and with the Brothers and/or Priests teaching and administering the school. The statistics support this, 13% more Religious priests report having attended Catholic high school. However, 12% fewer attended Catholic colleges. The overall percentages are a statistical dead heat.

Attendance at Catholic School*
All Priests Diocesan Priests Religious Priests
Elementary 50% 51% 50%
High School 36 33 46
College 42 44 32
*Percentages sum to more that 100 because respondents could select more than one category.

It remains fair to say that the statistics support the conclusion that the real locus for vocational development and nurture remains the family and the local parish, and particularly the interaction of the Altar Servers with their priests. Conclusion, the advent of girl Altar Servers and the sexual abuse scandal- admittedly in very different ways- leaves the Roman Catholic Church in the USA vocationally challenged. The fewer families attending mass results in fewer boy Altar Servers and logically leads to fewer priests. While, girl Altar Servers tends to depress the number of boy Altar Servers and makes it more difficult for priests to encourage priestly vocations among them.

What are we the Church to do? In regards to girl Altar Servers, returning to the status quo ante is “politically” volatile. A few pockets of resistance exist here in the USA. (Two dioceses in the USA maintain the tradition of male only Altar Servers.) Those interested in promoting vocations to the priesthood will have to develop parish based Altar Server programs that take the nature, spirituality, and reality of the life of boys into consideration. At the same time, ministering to the spiritual needs of the girls and assisting them to find roles in the Church that take into consideration their femininity and their particular gifts and individual abilities.
“In the name of liberation from male "domination,” women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine "originality.” There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not "reach fulfillment,” but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth.” (Emphasis in original)
Thus writes the great John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, (MD) chapter IV, section 10. What might this look like? What might a program that will encourage priestly vocations among the boys and at the same time include girls according to “their essential richness” look like?

Borrowing form the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts there would be a definite course of advancement in rank and responsibilities. An Altar Server might first be taught how to be crucifer (Cross bearer), then acolyte (candle bearer), book bearer, how to set the altar and how to assist the priest or deacon with the water and wine and the hand washing ritual. As the Altar Servers learned these elements of ministry, they would be recognized and given appropriate rank and title, e.g. Crucifer, Acolyte, Second Server, First Server. The servers in consultation with the priest or other adult coordinator could have input in choosing the head Altar Server, usually titled the Master of Ceremonies, or as at the Vatican the Dean of the Altar Servers. The girls would be included in this, which will cause some boys to hang back. However, structures like these appeal to boys and may assist them in overcoming their hesitancy. They will require constant and intentional affirmation by adult males. The priest and other involved laymen can provide this effectively for the boys. Older boys who have achieved the higher ranks and honors can in turn encourage and teach the younger ones. This is exactly what Baden Powell the founder of the Boy Scouts intended and how St John Bosco organized his “boys’ town” in Turin, Italy, which he referred to as the “Oratory,” a place for prayer.

The role of Dean or Master of Ceremonies could be reserved for one of the older boys. The vesture of the girl and boy Altar Server could be distinctive. The cassock (and surplice for liturgy) the traditional vesture for clerics and by extension of Altar Servers (Chierechetti, little clerics) could be retained as the church intends. The girls could be vested in albs or other vesture that they themselves would find more appealing and of similar appropriateness and quality.

All of this would be very much in line with the ancient traditions of the Church.
Redemptionis Sacramentum states the following:
“[44.] Apart from the duly instituted ministries of acolyte and lector, the most important of these ministries are those of acolyte and lector by temporary deputation.”
“47.] It is altogether laudable to maintain the noble custom by which boys or youths, customarily termed servers, provide service of the altar after the manner of acolytes, and receive catechesis regarding their function in accordance with their power of comprehension. Nor should it be forgotten that a great number of sacred ministers over the course of the centuries have come from among boys such as these. Associations for them, including also the participation and assistance of their parents, should be established or promoted, and in such a way, greater pastoral care will be provided for the ministers. (Emphasis mine) Whenever such associations are international in nature, it pertains to the competence of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to establish them or to approve and revise their statutes. Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.”
“This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned. From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004.” (Emphasis mine)
Remptionis Sacramentum encourages the preservation of the tradition of boys or young men serving at the altar and it recognizes the “acolytes” or “servers” as an ancient source of priestly vocations.
Let us reiterate what we are attempting to achieve, the promotion of priestly vocations among the boys of our parishes, while including girls in the ministry of Altar Server. The chief concern of those wishing to cultivate vocations to the priesthood should be both natural and supernatural solicitude for the human growth and development of the boys, among whom vocations to the priesthood will be found. Care for their human well-being precedes and is the foundation for the development of their universal call to holiness.
Remember as St Thomas Aquinas teaches grace builds on nature. Assisting the youth, male, and female, of our parishes to recognize and live out their universal call to holiness is one of the major responsibilities of the pastor and his collaborators. A fortiori how eager should the parish be in fostering priestly vocations among its boys and young men? Those among them who recognize their universal call to holiness will become the good soil in which the seeds of a priestly vocation can germinate. These can in turn be transplanted to the seminary, literally a place for seedlings.
The parish priests and their collaborators for the good of the Church will also be sensitive to the special needs of the girls and encourage them to follow their particular vocations. Encouraging them to be faithful to the teaching Magisterium of Church, which will lead them to find their proper roles in the Church, modeled on the indispensable role of Mary the mother of God. We can do no better than consider the words of the late great John Paul II in Mulieris Dignitatem.

“7. We must (now) focus our meditation on virginity and motherhood as two particular dimensions of the fulfillment of the female personality. In the light of the Gospel, they acquire their full meaning and value in Mary, who as a Virgin became the Mother of the Son of God. These two dimensions of the female vocation were united in her in an exceptional manner, in such a way that one did not exclude the other but wonderfully complemented it…
“Man cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of self… Motherhood… brings about - on the woman's part - a special "gift of self “
“20. In the teaching of Christ, motherhood is connected with virginity, but also distinct from it… On the basis of the Gospel, the meaning of virginity was developed and better understood as a vocation for women too, one in which their dignity, like that of the Virgin of Nazareth, finds confirmation. The Gospel puts forward the ideal of the consecration of the person, that is, the person's exclusive dedication to God by virtue of the evangelical counsels: in particular, chastity, poverty, and obedience.”

It would be of incalculable value to families, civil society, and the Church, for girls and young women to receive catechesis, concerning their singular and necessary vocation as future mothers or consecrated religious. Integrating their lives into the spiritual and sacramental life of the Church will also open up for them the rich possibilities of lay apostolate. Religious Education, Youth Ministry, along with Sacramental preparation, for First Communion, Reconciliation, and Confirmation all have a place in the spiritual development of the youth of the parish, therefore also in the promotion of vocations to the priesthood and religious life.

Boys need encouragement, form older males, and their peers who are already Altar Servers, to dare to serve the Lord at His Altar. If they are convinced, they are being brave and are fighting a spiritual battle against evil they will respond. Boys love uniforms, pomp, and circumstance the church has plenty to offer them in this regard. St John Bosco always stressed frequent Holy Communion and Confession with his boys, we should not be afraid to do the same. Catechizing the all Altar Servers concerning the Eucharist and Liturgy will enhance their understanding and participation. The encouragement and good example of frequent confession will enrich their lives of grace, assist them in developing a Catholic conscience, and is essential for their vocational discernment and salvation.
Although the promotion of priestly vocations is far more difficult today for all the reasons argued above, it is still by God’s grace possible. It is needed now as much as at anytime in the history of the Church. Some parishes are producing good vocational fruit; they are the branches vitally connected to Christ the vine. These faith communities pray constantly for priestly and religious vocations, at liturgy and in private devotions.
There is an opportunity here to reestablish the dignity and reverence that were once important characteristics of the ministry of Altar Servers. This in itself will benefit all of the young people involved. It will also produce the harvest of vocations promised by our Lord himself, who has asked us to pray to the master of the harvest, to send workers into His vineyard. There is reason to hope, God will not abandon His church.
Where do priest come from? They come from good Catholic families and especially from their sons who are dedicated Altar Servers, involved in faithful and prayerful parish communities. Although statistics demonstrate that most Altar Servers will not enter Seminary College, the spiritual and religious formation provided for them during the years of ministry will enable them to navigate more successfully their college years. It will assist them in the discernment of God’s loving plan for them and prepare them to accept the grace of a priestly or religious vocation if it has been placed on their hearts by the Lord. Let us continually entreat the Lord of the harvest to provide us all with the grace to achieve His will. The Lord continues to call generous young men to follow Him as priests. Let us do what we can to support and encourage them. As Don Bosco would say to his boys “Corragio,” take courage.

Hell on Earth:

2007-06-14T12:46:00.000-04:00

A second look at the events at Virginia Tech

Eques

We Americans are problem solvers and fixers. We are pragmatic and practical. Our technologies afford us an unprecedented standard of living that nearly stretches to he outer margins of our society. It is true that poverty stubbornly exists in our nation; however, it traps a smaller proportion of our neighbors than at anytime in history. We are among the wealthiest nations. By classic military reckoning, we are the most powerful nation in history. We have seldom been afraid to tackle big problems. Our success has been phenomenal, our development in historical terms, rapid. Yes, these are generalities, but generally, they are true.

We are however an impatient people, this is a result of our sudden successes. We expect to do everything quickly and efficiently. We complain when we have to wait in line for anything. Our lightening victory in the Gulf War led us to believe that we could achieve similar victory in the Gulf War II. Our military actually completed its mission, despite communication difficulties, confusing and problematic ROE (Rules of Engagement), troop, and equipment shortages, preparation for conventional tank warfare with the Republican Guard, while having to fight asymmetrical warfare with the Fedeyen of Saddam Hussein.
Unfortunately, the nation builders it seems made disastrous decisions after the rapid fall of Baghdad, such as total demobilization and dissolution of the Iraqi army and antiseptic de-Bathification of the civil service. These decisions are painfully pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.

Presently, our collective impatience is on display in the aftermath of the hellacious slaughter of 32 Virginia Tech (VTech) students with their professors and the wounding of 15 others. Commencing only hours after this hellacious event, we rushed to explain why or how something like this could happen in Blacksburg, Virginia. How could this happen on a college campus? How could this happen in the USA? The day following this heinous act, news commentators were already reporting our desire to put this hellacious historical moment behind and move on. Grieving is a process, healthiest when neither rushed nor prolonged.

Immediately and collectively, we looked for someone or “someone’s” to blame. The State of Virginia failed us; it does not have tough enough gun laws. The VTech administration failed us; it waited too long to alert the campus. The courts failed us; they did not commit the subject to a psychiatric hospital. The perpetrator’s parents failed us; they did a lousy job raising him. America failed us; it is a violent fascist society. This approach is neither helpful nor healing. None of these answers is even close to satisfactory. Worse, they lead us in the wrong direction. Assessing blame does not solve the problem. Society’s eagerness to place blame on someone, to punish someone, is its attempt to regain the illusion of control over its environment. Will this somehow give us closure and make us safe? Will it bring healing and peace?

No, it will not. It is humanly impossible to provide the degree of safety that we are presently demanding from whomever we consider responsible for such arrangements. For example, the security protocols that are now in place intended to make our air flights safe from terrorists are little more than placebos. Build a better mousetrap and you educate the mice. United Flight 93 did more to make flying safe than all of the ground security and technology, which was impotent to prevent airliners from flying into the intended targets of suicidal terrorists. Do any of us believe that the locks we place on the doors of our homes really make us safe? They give us a feeling of security but it is an illusion. Such things do not deter the determined thief. Locks help keep honest people honest. True, we should not rush to dismiss their anxiety relieving properties. They enable us to function in a world that seems so randomly dangerous. However, our pursuit of perfect safety is problematic when we engage in pathological hunts for scapegoats. We need understanding not blame. Blame is not a healing balm.

There is only one person responsible for the hellacious murders at VTech. Cho Seung –Hui pulled the trigger he is responsible. The question we need to answer is how did this young man become the greatest mass murderer in the history of our nation? The pursuit of greater understanding and the answer to this question requires a very different approach and a very different analytical tool. Theology is that tool. This is essentially a theological and anthropological question.

We live in an increasingly secularized culture. Let us define the term “secularized” as a set of values, mores, and behaviors biased against any public role for theology, religion, or God. Western culture, the putative culture of Europe, the United States, Canada, and Mexico increasingly marginalizes and decreasingly refers to its Christian roots for determining its mores and values. (I do not believe this is so in other South American countries.) As a people, we in the USA find it evermore difficult to acknowledge the historical reality that our nation once had a moral consensus based on the Judeo-Christian tradition; it was actually a bible-based ethic. This cultural disintegration is even further along in the nations of the European Union.

It was on the strength of this traditional ethic that Thomas Jefferson claimed the unalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence. It is on this traditional ethic that the founding fathers constructed our republican form of government enshrined in the US Constitution. It was to this ethic the abolitionist movement appealed. It was on this ethic that Martin Luther King, Jr. based his claims for civil rights “for all God’s Children.” It is on this ethic that anti-abortion pro-life voices base their hope. Certainly, our moral consensus is now shattered. As Alasdair Mac Intyre points out in After Virtue, the West has experienced a cultural cataclysm that somehow went unnoticed. We now live on the shattered remains of Western Christian culture. Does this biblical Judeo-Christian tradition, preserved by the remnant, still have anything to offer us in these morally desperate times? Can it assist us in our attempts to understand the significance of the hellacious murders at VTech on the morning of April 16, 2007? It most certainly can.
Purposely and continually, we have referred here to the murders of that day as “hellacious.” For that is exactly what they are. They are a manifestation of Hell on earth. For those 32 people who faced the muzzle of a gun in the last moments of their lives, for the 15 others who were wounded, and could have been murdered, for the parents, siblings, extended families, friends, and fellow students of those who were slaughtered and wounded and for the nation it was and is hellacious.

“Hellacious” how was it so? Metaphorically, yes but far more than that. What is hell? Does hell exist? Yes, Hell exists if there is a God. However, there is a God. Therefore, hell exists. Those who are in absolute union with God are “in heaven.” More precisely, they are in the “state of being” in union with infinite love, which is God. Those absolutely separated from God are “in hell.” More precisely, they are in the “state of being” absolutely separated from infinite love, which is God. We can experience heaven and hell on earth. We are not only rational beings. We are also relational beings. God fashioned us in His image. According to Christian theology, God is an infinite Trinitarian relationship of love among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God created us in his own image for loving relationships with one another and Him. Christ commanded us to live in this love.

The secular authorities seek to lay blame. Who was responsible? How many were involved? What should they have done? All of this is accomplished with 20/20 hindsight. What was unpredictable is infallibly explained. Secular experts rely on sociological and psychological sciences to provide rational answers. They point out that the perpetrator acted irrationally. They declare he who acts in this manner as mentally ill. They affix an appropriately label and prescribe a course of treatment. The professionals may attempt an explanation of the etiology of this particular pathology, pointing to genetics or environment, the old nature versus nurture debate is restated. However, they cannot tell us exactly why other similarly afflicted folks do not act out in a similar fashion. They cannot answer this question accurately, because mental illness is not the ultimate cause of this hellacious behavior.

There are other factors involved that secular scholars cannot address. These factors belong to the spiritual realm. They lie just beyond the grasp of sociological and psychological analysis. Theology alone is capable of examining these spiritual factors and providing answers to the ultimate question, why. Theology provides the possibility of a deeper more satisfactory explanation. The examination of the reality of Sin in creation, which God declared “good,” is beyond the scope of social science. The theological concept of Original Sin is capable of making evil intelligible and providing a remedial diagnosis. Original Sin is a perfectly rational theological explanation for the presence of evil in the world. We have the ability under the rubric of Original Sin to understand the presence of evil in our hearts and in a world created by a loving God. Original Sin, the original willful disobedience of Adam and Eve separated them and their progeny from God. Sin is a separator. We have been separated from God by Original Sin and our personal sins. Therefore, the entire world and we stand in need of Salvation. We need a Savior. God Himself promised that He would send one. Christians believe that Jesus Christ, the son of God is that Savior.

The founding fathers of our national independence and our constitution at a minimum were sympathetic to this theology, if not believers themselves. The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution were fashioned by men who understood both the strength and weaknesses of their fellow citizens. The Declaration of Independence pointed out the abuses of power and the violation of their rights by the British Crown. The Constitution was an inspired attempt to establish ordered liberty, in which freedom of religion could flourish. This right was so important that it was specifically enumerated in the first of ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. However, even this noble document was infected. Although, many founding fathers understood the inherit evil, they felt the need to compromise for the sake of the commonweal. It would take a bitter bloody civil war to right this wrong of constitutionally sanctioned slavery.

Even with a Savior, we are still able by our own choices to separate ourselves form God and to do so absolutely. This is the definition of Hell. Total separation form love, which is God. God does not condemn us to Hell, everlasting separation from Him; we sentence ourselves by our own choices.

Cho Seung-Hui was an example of a human being who was already in hell on earth in as much as he had separated himself from all relationships with God and with humanity. He had separated himself from love. Sources consistently described him as completely isolated. High school classmates of Cho, whose name they did not know, never observed him speaking to anyone nor acknowledging the presence of others around him. Reportedly, he associated with no one during his high school years. Those who saw him in high school and later at VTech saw him as a young man without any friends whatsoever. Not even the three students who shared the dormitory quad with him at VTech knew his name. He signed into class with a question mark (?). The little he participated in his classes frightened and disturbed others.

It is difficult for us to imagine the torment in which Cho lived. We all know how it feels to loose a friend due to a misunderstanding or an offence perceived or real. We have all felt isolated or unloved at times. Have we ever been alone without any relationships? Cho lived in this void for most of his life, if the facts related are accurate. He was utterly alone. He experienced hell on earth. He was in a hellacious state of being. His choices put him there long before he pulled the triggers of his semi-automatic pistols. He had literally excommunicated himself from the company of God and man. Was he irredeemable? It is too late to know. However, it seems that he was on an irreversible course for several years.

His total isolation tormented him. Cho blamed those around him for this excruciating spiritual pain. Eventually this agony became insufferable. He had to end it. His pain had reached critical mass. He desired self-annihilation. He planed his death. Some theologians reason that the greatest suffering for the devil is its being. The evil one sees in its being the image of being itself, which is God. The devil would self annihilate if it could, in order to destroy the image of God in its own being. As a spiritual being, it cannot. Therefore, the evil one seeks to destroy the image of God in creation, in us. Cho desired to destroy himself and to take with him his perceived tormentors.

He left us a record of his “justification” that accused his fellow students as self-centered debauchers, the cause of his pain, and the reason for his actions. It was their fault. He accused them before God. They would pay.
“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night.’” Rev 12:10 NAB

Cho Seung-Hui purchased his weapons, planned the day, and with complete detachment and inexorable determination executed 32, wounded 15 then he calmly turned the weapon on himself. It is highly unlikely that anyone could have anticipated exactly what form this young man’s self-destructive behavior would take. However, if we can make room for theological thought and analysis in the public forum, as once our founding fathers did, we will (I believe) be better able to recognize in others and ourselves the signs of the spiritual darkness that surrounded and separated this young man from God and his fellow human beings. It provides us with a vocabulary that will enable us to describe, discuss, and understand the otherwise indescribable and incomprehensible. Why are there suffering, tragedy, and death in the world? Why did these young people suffer such a horrible death?

Suffering and death entered the world with Sin, not as a punishment but consequently. God did not create us to suffer and die, but to live with one another and with Him in love forever. Sin disrupted God’s plan for us and for all creation. Suffering became necessary for our salvation.

“For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. “ 2Cor 5:21

Bad things happen to good people, because Sin has entered the world. People do not always treat one another with love as Christ taught. Sin is corrupting. It does not destroy our nature, but it greatly affects it. Sin isolates us form our true self, form one another and from God. Ultimately, all suffering is due to Sin, often because of sinful men, at other times due to disharmony in nature. Original Sin has affected all creation and all creation was redeemed in Christ.
“For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” Rom 8:19-23

The corruption of Sin also has entered creation. It is no longer a harmonious whole subject to the spirit of God. A disconnect exists as in man qua man with God. Man is part of nature; therefore, nature as well is disconnected from God. In man, body wars against intellect and intellect against man’s will and his will against God. The proper harmony and hierarchy can only be restored by grace through Christ, who is God’s son become man and thus part of creation as well. What has been assumed by the incarnation has been redeemed.

The consequences of Sin appear in the headlines of our daily paper and are now visible 24 hours a day on cable news stations. We usually fail to recognize the underlying evil and sinfulness until an event of monstrous proportions such as this one wrenches us from our spiritual unconsciousness. Theological analysis of culture and current events has the potential also to facilitate constructive engagement with adversaries. As it, assisted Gandhi and the cause of independence for India, and as it assisted Martin Luther King Jr. in his righteous civil rights movement.

Obviously, we live in a culture that rejects too readily the things of the spirit as having no relevance to our civic lives. Our nation’s history and hellacious events such as these make the opposite claim in a terrifyingly powerful way.

Why Confess?

2007-06-14T10:21:00.000-04:00

A Reflection on the Sacrament of Reconciliation

Eques

In the original spiritual saga, “The Quest for the Holy Grail” 150 knights set out from King Author’s court in search of the Holy Grail. Only three succeeded, only three achieved the “Grail.” Why was this? Before all these marvelous knights set out on this highest of all quests, the “white monk” addressed all the knights with these words.

“Hear my words, my lord knights of the Round Table, who have vowed to seek the Holy Grail! Nascien the hermit sends you word by me that none may take maid or lady with him on this Quest without falling into mortal sin; nor shall anyone set out unless he be shriven or seek confession, for no man may enter so high a service until he is cleansed of grievous sin and purged of every wickedness. For this is no search for earthly things but a seeking out of the mysteries and hidden sweets of Our Lord and the divine secrets which the most high Master will disclose to that blessed knight whom He has chosen for His servant from among the ranks of chivalry: He to whom He will show the marvels of the Holy grail, and reveal that which the heart of man could not conceive nor tongue relate.”

The three knights who achieved the Holy Grail were sirs Galahad, Percival, and Bors. They among all their peers were successful because they heeded the instructions of “Nascien” from the lips of the “white monk.” They confessed their sins before beginning their quest and kept themselves pure and chaste throughout their Quest for the Holy Grail. They took every opportunity during their journeys and adventures to receive absolution, confessing their sins and to receive the Holy Eucharist from the hands of every priest that God placed along their path. This enabled them to resist all temptations to act impurely or unchastely, and to act honorably in all their adventures. Sir Galahad was considered the most holy of all the knights because he never sinned against purity or chastity, neither before nor during his quest. He was the most honorable of knights in every situation. He was seen as a reflection of the perfection of Jesus Christ the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Percival and Bors confessed their sins against purity and chastity and conquered all temptations against all holy virtues during their quest and for the remainders of their lives.

The lessons here are very powerful especially if we consider the other 147 knights who failed in their Quest for the Holy Grail. Most perished in their attempts or returned to court in shame. Each of us is actually on the same quest as the knights of the Arthur’s Court. Baptism was our first commissioning sending us forth in life to seek holiness all the days of our lives. We were strengthened in our Quest by the anointing of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation. The best of spiritual guides urge us to receive frequent and regular absolution for our sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and at least weekly the Sacrament of the Eucharist on the Lords Day. In this way, we imitate Sirs Galahad, Percival, and Bors. All Catholics have an obligation to seek holiness. They are encouraged by the church to confess their sins regularly and to confess all serious sins as soon as possible to be “worthy” to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Our individual quests though different are at the deepest level the same. Essentially, we seek perfection in the particular call we have received from God be it as layman or priest, which is the quest for the grail, the quest for holiness.

It is very difficult for us at times to confess our sins. The reasons are common to all. We are generally afraid to confess our sins because we are ashamed. This is a trick of the evil one to keep us from God’s forgiveness. The evil one tempts us to think that our sins are too awful to confess to a priest. He sometimes tempts us to rationalize our sins away, to excuse our failings, or to believe that our sins are not sins at all, because so many others do the same things. Remember that the evil one is the father of lies. Satan and his minions both human and fallen angelic are not dedicated to the truth. They are committed to convincing us that there is no truth. Therefore, we can decide for ourselves what is good and evil. “The serpent,” which tempted Adam and Eve, has tempted all men and women born in original sin, in this same manner. Adam and Eve committed the primal offence against the majesty of God the only author of Truth. We have inherited this sin in our damaged nature. We repeat this sin whenever we refuse to confess our sins or deny their very existence.

Here are some reasons that may keep us from the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
1. Fear and shame, keep us away from this healing sacrament because we are afraid of what the priest might say or how he may react to our sins. We some how have convinced ourselves that the priest will be angry with us or scold us for our sins. We are ashamed of our weakness manifested by our sins. Truly, anger is a rare response of any priest. It is actually a good idea for this reason to confess our sins to a priest who knows us; he will realize that we are more than our sins.

2. We have convinced our selves that our sins are not sins. We rationalize them away and try to convince ourselves that the church, which has 2000 years of knowledge and experience concerning human nature, is wrong and some how “I” am correct. This is very much in the evil spirit of the Original Sin that we are tempted to commit repeatedly. In this way, the evil one keeps us from the forgiveness of God and His healing grace. We can combat this with humility, which enables our consciences to reveal the truth to us and enable us to humble our selves before the priest who in Persona Christi lovingly and mercifully waits to absolve our sins.

3. We have been away from confession for so many months and even years that we cannot bring ourselves to overcome the inertia or the accumulative resistance of our shame and guilt. It is time for us to remember that shame and guilt does not come form God but from ourselves and the evil one who scripture says stands before God day and night (always) accusing us. The evil one wants us to be in this petrified condition for as long as possible even unto death, so that we will never ask for forgiveness for our sins and thus be his forever, separated form God by our sins for eternity.

All of the above are related and intertwined. The remedy as always is the grace of God. Relying on His grace, we can overcome all these obstacles to the forgiveness of our sins. We need only ask for that grace. The Lord will indeed hear and answer our prayers for the strength and humility to confess our sins. The priest will certainly be impressed with the courage we exhibit in confessing our sins completely and sincerely not holding anything back from the light and forgiveness of Christ.

Let us pray for one another that we will have the grace to confess our sins allowing no place in our hearts and souls for sin to hide or evil take root. Let us shine the light of Christ into the hidden corners of our souls and allow no darkness to remain. We will then experience the joy of forgiveness and the healing of our souls, just as the prodigal son who returned to His loving Father. Our Father in heaven stands waiting, and watching for our return home with arms wide open to embrace us with His love and forgiveness.

Romans 13:9-14

2007-06-14T10:14:00.000-04:00

For your Reflection, the foundational scripture for the Equiets Lux Sacra

Romans 13: 9 - 14

9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10
Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.
11
In addition, do this because you know the time; it is the hour now for you to awake from sleep. For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.
12
The night is advanced the day is at hand. Let us then throw off the works of darkness.
Let us put on the armor of light.
13
Let us conduct ourselves properly as in the day, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in promiscuity and licentiousness, not in rivalry and jealousy.
14
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the desires of the flesh.

A Reflection on the Seven Deadly Sins

2007-06-14T10:12:00.000-04:00

Eques

The Church entreats us for the well-being of our souls and selves to “turn from sin and cling to the Gospel.” In the secularized world in which we live and act, it is very difficult for us even to know when we sin. The world frequently encourages us to “sin,” pointing out the alleged benefits of this or that “sin.” It does not of course call it sin. Very little is forbidden. Although our secularized culture is not monolithic, if it were, it would be totalitarian in nature. Most morality is legalistic. What is not prohibited by law is generally acceptable or approved. Nothing is malum in se. Some things are malum prohibitum. For public ethics, God is largely discounted. For the individual some personal notion of God is relevant; however, the individualized notion of God, a designer God, does not result in a moral consensus for the culture at large. God is what “I” believe he/she/it is. In effect, the individual creates God. Genesis has been inverted. The result is an individualized notion of good and evil. Man is now the measure of all things the promise of Original Sin moral kaos is fulfilled.

This moral kaos is reflected in the media saturated culture that is always selling more than is advertised. The world encourages us in almost every advertisement to pamper ourselves, to acquire this or that thing and to maximize our sexuality to attract the super model (or partner of our choice). If we purchase this car, these clothes, and this cologne, we will be so attractive that we will be “chick magnets.” Restaurants often advertise all you can eat specials and super portions. Television programs and movies often present “get even” plots. It seems at times that our entire socio-economic system is based on “get all I can for me and the He*& with everyone else.” While it encourages us to do only what we absolutely need to do as if idleness is the ultimate achievement, “oh to be able to do nothing.”

In reality, that is reality in relation to God, all these things are temptations leading to the Seven Deadly Sins, sins that truly have the potential to deaden our souls by separating us from our true selves and form God. It seems the Seven Deadly Sins no longer terrify us. They are so common that we may not even be aware of them. They have become so much of our “post Christian” culture that they present themselves as “virtues” rather than self-destructive vices. (We assume that Christianity no longer informs our culture. We now live in a secularized or “post Christian” culture.) Perhaps it would be well for us to review the Seven Deadly Sins and their contrary Virtues that will help us courageously confess them and combat them in our daily lives. This is no esoteric exercise. The Seven Deadly Sins are truly deadly to our spiritual lives. They are extremely self-destructive. We can observe this in the wasted lives of many young people who have been incarcerated or who wonder our streets homeless, addicted, and exploited by those who prosper from their misery.

We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ has by his death and resurrection conquered this world and the evil one. We are not afraid, because His grace is available to us powerfully in the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist. We are His by virtue of our Baptism, which makes us members of the body of Lord Jesus Christ. For the Christian the origin of morality is found in this membership. We are no longer our own, by Baptism we belong to Christ, our bodies are members of his body, and so we are called to act accordingly.

We are to live in the light and not the darkness. Yet, the darkness is alluring to our “fallen nature.” Something in us because of Original Sin makes us susceptible to its dark charms. To overcome the darkness we must name the darkness. To name the darkness is to have power over it. If we know sin for what it really is, we are empowered by God’s grace ultimately to conquer it in our own lives and to help one another to do the same. This is truly an adventure of faith, hope, and love worthy of the Christian.

Therefore, we name the darkness, the Seven Deadly Sins, without fear. They are Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed, and Sloth.
The contrary virtues are Humility, Kindness, Abstinence, Chastity, Patience, Generosity, and Diligence.

The first of these is PRIDE. Pride is the root of all sin. In fact, it is the Original Sin of Adam and Eve; as such, it lurks behind every sin. Adam and Eve believed the serpent who told them that if they ate from the tree of knowledge they would be like God. They would know for themselves what is good and evil and therefore could decide for themselves what would be good and evil, without reference to God. This is the ultimate sin of PRIDE. All sin finds its purchase in our desire to decide for ourselves what is right or wrong, good or evil. Perhaps PRIDE is the sin that is most characteristic of our age. Our “post Christian” culture emphatically proclaims that there is no absolute truth, no absolute good, or evil. This renders God irrelevant. “I” will decide for me what is sinful and what is not. We claim this prerogative of God for ourselves. This has actually become a duty, a modern right of passage. Young people in their formative years are encouraged to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. They are not encouraged to discover the truth, which is to be found in the eternal verities, rather than in their fleeting emotions or passions. In Paradise Lost, Milton rightly characterizes the sin of Lucifer as pride. The formidable “Non Serviam” of Satan echoes from eternity through history and is found in the essence of all deadly sin.

Guided by faith reason comes to know the truth, which is Jesus Christ. Faith allows us to have a high degree of confidence in the Church founded by Christ on Peter and the Apostles, which teaches and proclaims an ethic based on His truth. Ps 34:2 “My soul makes its boast in the Lord; let the humble hear and be glad.”

HUMILITY is the antidote to pride. HUMILITY is the virtue that we can exercise little by little to overcome pride the root of all sin. What is HUMILITY? HUMILITY is truth. It is seeing ourselves as God sees us. It is not self-degradation; it is not a denial of our gifts and talents. It is recognizing that all the good in us is from God, to whom we are grateful and all evil in us is from us, which we pray God to assist us to defeat in the spiritual combat. HUMILITY grows like a muscle. The more it is exercised the stronger it becomes, if properly feed by prayer and the sacraments.

ENVY the Second Deadly Sin is closely allied to pride. ENVY finds its roots in pride, because it desires the status or abilities of others so that it may be greater then they. ENVY cannot stand the subordinate position. It cannot tolerate the achievements of others. ENVY is a zero sum vice; it views every success and achievement of others as an insufferable failure and loss for itself. It therefore harbors and nurtures resentment and revenge. The other must be minimized so that ENVY may be maximized. ENVY is never satiated. The other is always a potential threat.

KINDNESS and humility can overcome envy. A truly humble person rejoices in the accomplishment of others and looks for ways to assist others in their search for perfection. KINDNESS anticipates the needs of the other. A humble and kind person is free to enjoy their own successes and achievements as well those of the other without resentment or jealousy. A humble and KIND person is joyful. He knows who he is before God and rejoices in God’s kindness to him. He is thus empowered by grace to be KIND to others.

GLUTTONY in food and drink is the Third Deadly Sin. GLUTTONY has its stomach as its god. Those who are blessed with abundance can misuse and abuse it ruining their physical and spiritual health. There are countless examples in our over indulgent culture of addictions to food and drink. The GLUTTONOUS have lost their ability to manage the quantity and quality of the food and drink they consume. They have perverted what was intended to sustain life and make it pleasurable. The secular culture encourages us to indulge in all sorts of culinary and liquid delights. Food and drink is necessary for our physical wellbeing. Dinning with friends is socially beneficial and nearly sacramental. Jesus himself performed his first public miracle at a wedding reception turning water into fine wine. John 2:9-10” When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now."
The abuse of the good characterizes many deadly sins.

ABSTINENCE is the virtue that can counter the abuse of food and drink that is gluttony. Temperance is an aspect of ABSTINENCE. From time to time for the good of the soul, abstaining from certain food or drink may strengthen the will, promote temperance, and enhance their proper and healthy enjoyment. There is a growing awareness in our culture that “gluttony” known by a gentler name “over eating” is a health risk. Many products come with warnings concerning their consumption. These changing attitudes in our secular cultural is neither the recognition of the vice of gluttony nor of the virtue of ABSTINENCE, but rather a result of our cultures “worship” of the physical body. It is a purely secular movement to improve our health and make us more attractive. It is not intended to assist growth in virtue or holiness. The goal of “body worship” for some is to become more desirable as objects of the Fourth Deadly Sin.

LUST according to Jesus himself is certainly a deadly sin. Mt 5:28 “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
In our culture, this saying of Jesus has become a joke. However, Jesus was deadly serious. It is well to remember that according to Jewish Law in the time of Jesus adultery was a sin punishable by death. Jesus wants us to be aware that LUST leads to spiritual death. We can easily recall the story of the women caught in adultery who Jesus saved from being stoned to death, forgave her sins, and told her Jn 8:11 “Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."
St Paul warned the Corinthians, 1Cor 6:9-11 do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Our secular culture deceives many into thinking that LUST is to be encouraged and gratified. Paul lists sins of gluttony and greed as cohabiters with LUST. Where there is LUST, the other Deadly Sins are not far behind. This vice has become a way of life in our culture. It is common to find “couples” living together and “enjoying” the privileges of marriage without being married. Fornication (pre-marital sex) has been discounted as sin. Euphemisms take the edge off sin. Couples are no longer “living in sin,” they are simply “living together.” To have a “boy friend” or a “girl friend” often means to have a willing sex partner. Virginity no longer means abstaining from sexual relations (for the sake of the kingdom of God), it means limiting sexual relations to oral sex, mutual masturbation, and all forms of sexual activity other than vaginal penetration. It is arguable that those who desire to live according to the teachings of Jesus in this age find it more challenging than in any previous age. One of the myriad reasons for this is the Internet. The internet has the potential for tremendous good and proportionally tremendous evil. The vicarious gratification of LUST is only a website way. The sites dedicated to enabling masturbatory activities are as numerous as the stars. What is a Christian to do in the midst of this world of “available” flesh?

CHASTITY has become a discredited virtue. Some contemporary thinkers consider CHASTITY “unnatural.” They characterize it as a negation of our “natural” impulses, instincts, and desires. What has been forgotten is original sin, which disorders our desires. All sin flows from the effects of original sin, because our bodies created “good” by God are no longer properly ordered to our minds. Our minds are no longer properly ordered to our wills, and our wills are no longer properly ordered to the will and design of God. Remember pride is the original sin. Adam and Eve by this original sin of pride declared their independence from God. We now are likewise tempted to decide what is right and wrong, good and evil for us. There is perhaps nowhere that this decision is more evident than in our own self-designed individualized sexual morality. 2Tim 4: 3 “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” CHASTITY is properly understood as that virtue that empowers us to follow God’s design and will for our sexuality, and the sake of the kingdom of God, our spiritual growth, and development, and for the sanctification of husband, wife, and children in the CHASTITY of marital fidelity. This virtue grows like all virtues by exercise. Every time a lustful thought is resisted, every time a lustful temptation is restrained, we grow in CHASTITY and in grace. St Paul and many other saints such as St Augustine, St Francis, St Thomas Aquinas, St John Bosco, and the teenage St Dominic Savio, all understood that without CHASTITY there is no spiritual growth. Lust truly deadens the soul.

As St Paul wrote (1Cor 6:9-11 above) many deadly sins accompany lust, pride, envy, gluttony, and sloth are all fellow travelers. At times, they even prepare the way for lust. Abuse of drugs and alcohol often lead to lust in thought, word, and deed. Sometimes these other vices are the purposeful means to the lustful end.

Christians, however, are called to a different “Way.” Rom 13:12-14”The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh (NIV has “sinful nature”).”

In the medieval spiritual classic The Quest for the Holy Grail, the Knights of the Round Table are admonished and advised by the white monk that unless they live Chaste lives and receive the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist often that they will not achieve the Grail the object of their Quest.

In Rom 13:12-14, we again see St Paul associate other Deadly Sins with sexual immorality; one, “dissension” is related to ANGER the Fifth Deadly Sin. ANGER or WRATH is that vice that prefers fury to love and forgiveness. The emotion of ANGER or WRATH is not the sin. Rather the preference for fury or the acting out of this ANGER in a violent or destructive manner is. ANGER is capable of consuming and even destroying the one who is ANGRY as well as the object of the ANGER. All too many so-called reformers are actually proud, envious, and ANGRY people, who in their self-righteousness demand the pound of flesh of The Merchant of Venice. They will not be deterred from their revenge forgetting the word of the Lord. Rom 12:19 “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.”

We are familiar with the modern Star Wars saga. A reoccurring and unifying theme through out the episodes is the necessity to resist the “Dark Side,” the ANGER. Anakin Skywalker gives into the “Dark Side” and becomes the personification of evil, Darth Vader. While his son Luke Skywalker eventually resists the Anger, the “Dark Side” and by the virtuous use of the “force” saves himself and his father. The perfect example of not giving into ANGER, even when “justified” is Jesus Christ our Lord Himself who despite all of the ANGER and WRATH directed against him during his public ministry climaxing in his scourging and crucifixion refused to curse His enemies. Instead, He prays Lk 23:34 "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
Jesus saves the world by not giving into ANGER. His infinite patience with his persecutors and with all of us sinners makes our salvation possible and gives us an example of the remedial virtue.

PATIENCE empowers us to withhold our anger and wrath. “Patience is a virtue,” says the oft-quoted proverb. Pr 19:11 “A man's wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense.”
God does this for us always, so that we may do the same for each other. The parable of the impatient and greedy servant who had no patience with his fellow servant, although his master was patient and forgiving with him is instructive. Mt 18:28 "But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.”
The consequence of his impatience and greed was his punishment by his master. We can also nurture PATIENCE by little steps. Thomas a Kempis the author of the spiritual classic The Imitation of Christ counsels that the man who can control his tongue will have control over his whole body. PATIENCE begins with managing our tongues. Keeping quite when we would like to lash out at others is an excellent ascetical practice that can lead to growth in the virtue of PATIENCE. Note that the evil servant in the quote from Matthew above had no PATIENCE with his fellow servant because of his GREED the Sixth Deadly Sin.

GREED, AVARICE, or COVETOUSNESS puts material acquisition and consumption ahead of all spiritual considerations. A very common expression of GREED in our avaricious culture is the excuse “I do not have time to go to church on Sunday because I have to work.” There may be legitimate and necessary reasons to work on Sunday morning, but since the Second Vatican Council, the Church has made it increasingly easier to Worship by providing masses on the eve (Saturday) and the night (Sunday) of the Lord’s Day. Despite this fewer people attend Mass on a regular basis now than prior to the Second Vatican Council. This is not the fault of the Second Vatican Council, but rather the result of the overriding demands of our materialistic culture. The secular culture in the last fifty years has lead to “liberalized” laws permitting trade on Sunday. The secular culture is no longer, as it once was, interested in our spiritual welfare. Its laws now encourage us to be less attentive to Sunday as a day of rest set aside for God and family. This was the case for nearly two millennia. Our lack of historical and spiritual perspective has allowed revolutionary changes to occur in our culture with very little notice. There is a new priority; it is no longer the Kingdom of God, but rather the kingdom of man on earth. Wealth is pursued for the sake of wealth. GREED has become a part of our culture. We reward it, “The one who dies with the most toys wins,” reads an ironic bumper sticker. The one with the biggest house, the best cars, and the fattest wallet is now encouraged to think of himself as the best man. We are no longer judged as Martin Luther King, Jr. hoped by the content of our character but by our degree of wealth and celebrity status. However, there is still a noticeable cultural cross current. The best of secular culture promotes philanthropy, but in a non-biblical way. We all are encouraged to give form our surplus. Giving from our surplus is considered praise worthy and honorable. Jesus had a very different idea however of giving. He proclaimed a contrary virtue to GREED that demonstrates a dependence on God not on our wealth, but on our poverty.

GENEROSITY is the virtue that combats greed. Jesus taught that those who gave from their need, their poverty, were GENEROUS, while those who gave from their wealth, their surplus were barley fulfilling their duty. They were full of pride, because they believed themselves GENEROUS, when in fact they were stingy and miserly, because they had so much more to give. Mark 12:41-44 “Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But, a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on."

Noblisse Oblige, nobility has its obligations. Wealth itself is not evil, but with wealth comes enormous responsibilities to those in need. It is here where vice and virtue wait. The wealthy man cannot feel himself justified before God because he has given from his surplus. Rich and poor are called by virtue of their Baptism to give in a sacrificial manner.

Maurice Keen in his significant book Chivalry names and explains five qualifications or characteristics of nobility or knighthood. A knight by definition is noble but not all nobles were knights. These in the order he presents them are 1) Princely Recognition, 2) Vocation, 3) Wealth and Life Style, 4) Virtue, 5) Descent of Blood, Lineage.

The third quality Wealth and Life Style of a medieval knight included “liberality” that is GENEROSITY to a self-sacrificing degree. Some noble knights were so GENEROUS as to drive themselves into poverty, foolish in the eyes of the world, perhaps saintly in the eyes of God.

If this all sounds like a great deal of work, it is. Holiness is a difficult Quest, but no life-altering Quest is easy. The Quest that does not lead to ultimate transformation of the self that does not lead to holiness is not worth pursuing. The vice that can stop this journey before it begins is the Seventh Deadly Sin.

SLOTH physical or spiritual laziness or inertia is truly deadly because it prevents us from taking that very first step on the Quest for the Holy Grail, which is of course the Quest for holiness. SLOTH binds us so firmly to the world, the flesh, and the devil that we cannot commence our spiritual journey and we are in fact dragged backwards into sin. “Non progredi regredi est” (not to progress is to regress). If we are too tired to get out of bed on Sunday morning to go to church because we spent Saturday night involved in those behaviors St Paul warns us against, then we are truly SLOTHFUL. Again, you will notice that this deadly sin is enabled by others. Gluttony in food and drink can produce such stupor in our wills that we cannot motivate ourselves to do what is good for our souls such as pray and participate in the Eucharist. SLOTH and PRIDE can combine to keep us from the Sacrament of Reconciliation. They can also turn a potentially worthy confession into the grave sin of sacrilege by preventing us from courageously and honestly acknowledging and confessing our sins. With the grace of God, we can overcome SLOTH and all its deadly relatives. We need only ask God for the grace. If we cannot ask for it, perhaps we can only want to ask, God will still and readily grant it to us. DELIGENCE is the conqueror of SLOTH.

DILIGENCE, DETERMINATION, or PERSEVERENCE, is the beginning of our journey. To be holy we must be determined with God’s grace to be holy. We must desire it above all “things.” It must be for us the pearl of great price. We must be willing to sacrifice everything to achieve our Quest. We will be continuously tempted to comprise, to take the easier road, to do only the minimum. These are signs of sloth encroaching on our efforts. DILIGENCE, PERSEVERENCE to the end is required. 2Tim 4:6-8 “I am already being poured out like a libation (NIV has “drink offering”), and the time has come for my departure. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, and I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day--and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.”

The Good News is that we do not run this race, or take up this Quest alone or unaided. 2Cor 12:7-10 “To keep me from becoming conceited…, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times, I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. However, he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties, for when I am weak, and then I am strong.”

All Christians are so empowered by the grace of God through the infinite merits of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. These graces are available to us for the asking, especially in the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist. They enable us to overcome our laziness and our pride, to live according to our Baptismal promises that we renewed in our Confirmation to reject Satan and all his works. With Diligence and humility we put way the deeds of darkness Rom 13:13 “orgies and drunkenness… sexual immorality and debauchery… dissension and jealousy.” Rom 13:12 and “Instead… put on the armor of light!”

Induamur Arma Lucis
Eques

Note: Scriptural quotes are generally taken from the
New International Version as found in the Crosswalk Concordance http://bible.crosswalk.com any changes is noted.

Note: Some of the information above is taken form the
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition; 2003, Thomas Gale, in association with
The Catholic University of America; Washington, D.C.