Sunday, September 22, 2013

Sky View: Pope Francis and the Spardo Interview

Sky View: Pope Francis and the Spardo Interview

Pope Francis and the Spardo Interview

Sept. 22, 2013
Fr. Thomas Berg's most recent column The Pope Francis – Antonio Spadaro Interview: Three Reflections puts into context, I believe, what Pope Francis said about moral issues in his recent interview with Spadaro. At the same time, however, I have spoken with a few Catholics that got just a "little nervous" with this interview; principally because it gave aid and comfort to many secular organizations known for advancing an agenda contrary to the Gospel. But if you read what the Holy Father has to say, he delivers a message that sorely needed. Yet again, it is not so much what is said that makes many a little uncomfortable but what is not said.

In any case, this is the response I submitted to Fr. Thomas Berg. I wanted to share it with Sky View readers. Hopefully, this will bring more clarity to Pope Francis' interview:

Thank you Father for a well-balanced column. Although I think that when the comments of our Holy Father are taken out of context- hence making the mission of pastors, evangelists and teachers that much more difficult -it is true, nevertheless, that the moral commands of our Lord never stand alone in the Gospels. In the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, his teachings on adultery and lust is advanced within the greater context of Christ and his New Covenant Law fulfilling the Mosaic Law. 

I think Pope Francis is trying to make the point that the context or the story of Christ cannot be omitted when speaking of moral issues. But I think what made a lot of Catholics nervous (the ones I talked to anyways) is that not only the "context or story" is missing in the Church as the Holy Father rightly states, but so is the mention or teaching of sin (or specific sins) omitted or downplayed during sermons at Sunday Mass or the instructions Catholics may hear classrooms and parish programs. It's a "both-and" approach. St. Paul, to name one Saint, knew how to talk about Jesus and tell his story. Yet, he never downplayed the specifics of sin; most notably when he wrote to the Corinthians: 

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9-10) 

I'll say this in addition to my response to Fr. Berg:  The love of Christ is one that liberates. Yet, in order for Jesus Christ to belong to us completely and in order for us to enjoy the peace that he has to give us, there are conditions. One condition that rises about all is that we accept him into our lives on his terms. And one such term that redounds throughout the Gospel is that discipleship involves a new life and that new life- in order to take hold -needs rich soil to plants itself in. In other words, repentance always precedes true and lasting conversion.

Sherry Weddell, author of Forming Intentional Disciples, recently gave a conference at a local diocese. During her talk she shared a shocking statistics (shocking, if it is accurate). Not too long ago she was at the Vatican when Cardinal Stafford shared with that 70 percent of people that enter the Church leave (or stop coming back) within the first year. This, I believe, speaks to what Pope Francis spoke to when he suggested that the story of Christ has to be told, not just its moral imperatives. But what is also true is that repentance from sin as a precondition of being a disciple of Christ (our Lord makes this point very clearly in Luke 14, beginning with verse 28) needs to be reintroduced into our parishes and dioceses. Restoring families, marriages and souls in Christ can only had when these two components are being advances side by side.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

A Gay Icon Falls? - Matthew Shepard


A Gay Icon Falls?

NEW YORK, September 20 (C-FAM) UN and other foreign policy makers will have noticed that the parents of Matthew Shepard have become leading spokespeople for the rights of gay people around the world.By Austin Ruse
They have appeared at the UN and also recently took a tour of European capitals under the auspices of the US State Department, which has made LGBT rights a primary focus of US foreign policy.
Matthew Shepard was a young man who was brutally murdered in October 1998. Almost immediately global attention turned to the speculation that Shepard’s killers tortured and murdered him out of animus that he was gay. His killers tied him to a fence outside of the tiny town of Laramie, Wyoming and his death was compared to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Within days of his death Shepard became the face of gay rights in America and around the world. A New York Times editorial from that time suggested Shepard was the representative of gay rights the movement had needed all along. He was young, handsome and innocent.
All along there were naysayers to the Shepard narrative. Social critic Camille Paglia wrote in Salon that Shepard had a taste for what is called “rough trade” and that he could have died from that. Detectives at the time suggested that his death was more than likely tied to drugs rather than his homosexuality. An ABC 20/20 segment several years later explored that possibility.
However, a new book out by award winning gay journalist Steven Jiminez goes much further than previous critics of the Shepard narrative. Jiminez went to Laramie many years ago to conduct interviews for a movie script about the life and death of Shepard. Almost immediately he began to hear stories about Shepard that had never been reported and that flatly contradict the notion that he was killed because he was gay.
In The Book of Matt reveals what townsfolk knew all along, that Shepard was very involved in the Laramie drug scene, may have been an occasional drug dealer himself, and even more importantly, he knew his killers. More than that, he and his killers had sex together.
One of the conceits of the dominant narrative was that Shepard did not know his killers, that his killers walked into the Fireside bar that night at 11:45 and somehow got a total stranger, Shepard, to leave with them 15 minutes later. According to the Jiminez book, Shepard knew his killers well. The book speculates that Shepard was killed because he had a new stash of methamphetamine and the killers wanted it. The book also reports that his main killer, Aaron McKinney, was on a five-day meth binge, a state given to maniacal violence.
The new book has been reported in the gay press and also in the conservative press but does not seem to have broken into the mainstream, not yet anyway. Things may change when the book is finally released on October 1. But the question remains, will this new story change in any way the dominant story that has aided the gay movement so well? If Matthew Shepard was killed strictly because of drugs by his sometime gay sex partner, what will that do to his martyr status in the gay community and in the larger world including at the United Nations?

Denied Holy Communion, A Necessity


Cardinal Burke: Nancy Pelosi ‘must’ be denied Communion


LOUISVILLE, KY, Sept. 20, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a wide-ranging interview, Cardinal Raymond Burke has issued an emphatic call for pro-abortion Catholic politicians like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to be denied Communion.
The cardinal also spoke about the rapid advance of the homosexual agenda, the decline in catechesis that, he says, has crippled the Church’s response to pressing moral issues of the day, and the growing danger of Christian persecution under an increasingly “totalitarian” government.
The cardinal, who heads the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura and is America’s most senior prelate, made the comments in an interview published earlier this month by The Catholic Servant, a Minneapolis-based newspaper, and republished by The Wanderer.
Asked about Pelosi, he said, “Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied.”
Canon 915 states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
“This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic,” the cardinal said. “I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.”
The cardinal also urged the faithful to practice “much prayer and fasting” to counter the growing threat of the homosexual agenda.
“The alarming rapidity of the realization of the homosexual agenda ought to awaken all of us and frighten us with regard to the future of our nation,” he said. “This is a work of deceit, a lie about the most fundamental aspect of our human nature, our human sexuality, which after life itself defines us. There is only one place these types of lies come from, namely Satan. It is a diabolical situation which is aimed at destroying individuals, families, and eventually our nation.”
“The fact that these kinds of ‘arrangements’ are made legal is a manifestation of a culture of death, of an anti- life and anti- family culture which has existed in our nation now for some time,” he said.
Catholics have not engaged the battle for the family effectively, he said, “because we have not been taught our Catholic Faith, especially in the depth needed to address these grave evils of our time.”
“This is a failure of catechesis both of children and young people that has been going on for fifty years,” he continued. “It is being addressed, but it needs much more radical attention.”
“There is far too much silence — people do not want to talk about it because the topic is not ‘politically correct,’” he added. “But we cannot be silent any longer or we will find ourselves in a situation that will be very difficult to reverse.”
The Cardinal said Catholics risk facing increasing persecution, such as the inability to even work in fields like education and healthcare, if the government remains on its present course.
“If the present government, which can be described in no other way than totalitarian, is not held back from the course it is on, these persecutions will follow,” he said. “It will not be possible for Catholics to exercise most of the normal human services whether in health care, education, or social welfare because in conscience they will no longer be able to do what the government demands: to cooperate in grave moral evil. We are heading in that direction and even see it now.”
He urged Americans to take the example of France, where the people have reacted strongly to government imposition of same-sex “marriage.” “The French people are out on the streets in protest — one demonstration had upwards of two million people,” he said. “There has arisen in France among the people the will to resist the government and that is what we need in this country.”
Asked how Catholics can reconcile the fact that they are told not to vote for political candidates who support grave intrinsic evils, while these same politicians are given honors at Catholic universities and public Catholic funerals, he said, “You cannot reconcile it.”
“It is a contradiction, it is wrong, it is a scandal, and it must stop!” he said. “We live in a culture with a false sense of dialogue — which has also crept into the Church — where we pretend to dialogue about open and egregious violations of the moral law.”
“Can we believe it is permissible to recognize publicly people who support open and egregious violations, and then act surprised if someone is scandalized by it?”
See the full interview with Cardinal Burke at The Wanderer here.

Attacks on Archbp. Nienstedt reveal a deep and diabolical and successful campaign

Attacks on Archbp. Nienstedt reveal a deep and diabolical and successful campaign


Attacks on Archbp. Nienstedt reveal a deep and diabolical and successful campaign

The other day I wrote about how Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis delivered tough love about homosexual unions and that the deception in the same-sex marriage argument is from Satan.
He is right.
Nienstedt is being viciously attacked in the liberal press.
He must be doing something right.
It is no surprise that he would be attack in the liberal press, but I want to point to the subtle and yet slimy rhetorical underbelly inherent in the liberal, pro-sodomy attacks on Nienstedt and on the Church.
Here are a couple example.
To begin, take the coverage from the New York Daily News.
There are two photos.
First, look at these two wonderful, elated happy “gay” men, husband and husband, in the rotunda of the Minnesota Capitol.
Aren’t they wonderful?  Aren’t you happy for them?  Look at the joy breaking through the pain!
And now, Archbishop Nienstedt from the same article.
Doesn’t he look mean?  How stern! How cold!
What a meanie!
Marshall McLuhan pointed to the fact that the visual trumps all other media.  The medium is the message.
For decades our society has been slowly but surely and purposely shifted by those in control of the mainstream media and entertainment industry. At first, because of the rise of AIDS, active homosexuals were constantly portrayed as innocent, though perhaps quirky, victims. Once the notion of homosexuality was shifted from its moorings and a new status was created in the minds of the public, another shift took place in the media. Now, TV shows and movies are saturated with homosexuals who are far more sophisticated, with it, intelligent, good looking than their more dysfunctional heterosexual counterparts. Victim time is over. It is cool to be “gay”.
For years an artificial sub-culture has been carefully crafted.  It is busting out into a “new normal”.
Twenty years of TV has successfully created an image of the homosexual as the ideal parent.
Let’s move on.
At HuffPoo there is equally slimy coverage of what Nienstedt said… or rather didn’t say.
First, this paragraph:
In Nienstedt’s opinion of course, “family” means specifically a union “comprised of one man and one woman.” Delivered one day after Minnesota began issuing same-sex marriage licenses, the Napa Institute speech is consistent with the archbishop’s public statements condemning gay marriage, notes The New Civil Rights Movement.
What “family” means is not just Archbp. Nienstedt’s opinion. It isn’t just his opinion. Furthermore, he is right. Moreover, see the name of that organization? Remember: the “gay” marriage thing is NOT a civil rights issue.
Next,
In October of 2012, Nienstedt found himself at the center of a similar controversy when a letter he wrote surfaced in which he tells the mother a young gay man that she must reject her son or go to hell herself.[?!? Is this what Archbp. N said?  Really?]
“I write to inform you that the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, as described in paragraphs 2357 and 2358 and 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is rooted in Scripture and based on the Natural Moral Law,” Nienstedt wrote, according to ThinkProgress. “Catholics are bound in conscience to believe this teaching. Those who do not cannot consider themselves to be Catholic and ought not to participate in the sacramental life of the Church… Your eternal salvation may well depend upon a conversation of heart on this topic.”
There is NOTHING in what Archbp. Nienstedt wrote that suggests that he thinks a mother should reject her son or go to Hell.  What he is saying that Catholics are obliged to accept the Church’s teaching on faith and morals.  We are obliged to form our consciences according to the mind of the Church.  This is a serious obligation.  If we reject the Church’s teachings, we endanger our souls.  At the same time, we also accept the Church’s obviously sound and charitable teaching that, while we reject homosexual acts, we treat homosexuals with charity and compassion.  Reject the sin and not the sinner is the classic way to put this.
What’s the take away?
The MSM has successfully, brilliantly generated sympathy for lifestyle choices that are not just against the Church’s teachings, but against the ecology of the human person.  This sympathy and approval is now deeply rooted vast numbers of people, with the result that when people encounter a Christian Catholic message, in its clear and raw form, they think that what they are hearing is cruel and partisan and ideological.  They have been instilled with how sensitive and with-it and cool and chic and thoughtful and friendly and compassionate the anti-Christian lifestyle is.
While Holy Church cannot compete head-to-head with the MSM in creating images that stick in the minds of a vast public, her shepherds had better get savvy and soon about what the MSM is doing and how it works, how it uses images and language through powerful visual and aural media to reshape cultural mores and perceptions.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

The Joy of Repentance

The Joy of Repentance
FR. DWIGHT LONGENECKER

What Augustine teaches us is the practical joy of repentance.

We celebrate this week the life of that most famous of sinner-saints, St Augustine, who said, "Lord make me chaste, but not yet."  Augustine's lust for love and his desire for God are tied together with his passionate approach to life.  "Love is the beauty of the soul!" he cries.
What Augustine teaches us is the practical joy of repentance.  Repentance is simply the heart felt realization that one is a sinner.  So often this realization is linked with guilt — as if feeling guilt is a bad thing.  But guilt is simply the pain one feels at the realization of the deep wound of sin.  If I have cancer and feel pain a good doctor tells me I have cancer and I need an operation and that may cause me more pain, but it also brings me to face reality and brings me to the point of a possible cure.  The pain was therefore a necessary evil.  So guilt reminds me of the cancer of sin in my life and that I need the radical surgery from Doctor Jesus to be healed.
That transaction takes place through repentance.  When I say "I'm sorry" I become most fully real because I am facing reality.  When I say "Mea Culpa — It's my fault" I achieve freedom.  When I cease to blame others and say "What's wrong with the world: I am."  I am taking responsibility and when I take responsibility I take charge.  My will is engaged.  I am suddenly mature and fully human.
This is why repentance is joyful — because I am facing reality and accepting freedom.  Repentance requires humility, and another quote of St Augustine's is, "Do you wish to rise?  Begin by descending.  You plan a tower that will pierce the clouds?  Lay first the foundation of humility."  This action has built into it our need for God, for why would we repent unless we were asking forgiveness and why ask for forgiveness unless we trusted in the only one who has power to forgive?  This step of humility is also a step of good humor, for when we know we are weak we are most strong, and that paradox is a joyful, hilarious realization.
Repentance also lays the foundation for experiencing the truth.  When we repent we admit that we know nothing and it is only at the point that we admit that we do not know that we can begin to learn what we do not know and then learn what we need to learn.  Repentance is growth.  The Eastern Orthodox teach that the soul is closest to God not when he is receiving consolations or is experiencing some great miracle or wonder, but it is when he truly and honestly utters the words, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on me a Sinner."  At that point the soul takes a great leap towards God and is then the closest to his love.
Before this  moment of realization and return, before this moment of repentance our hearts are restless — always searching for an answer and yet at the same time always running from the answer, for our hearts are truly restless until they rest in God, and that rest in God can only come on the other side of repentance.  Then the soul is not only at rest, but it enjoys a quiet and joyful rest that is the radiance of the Divine Mercy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Father Dwight Longenecker. "The Joy of Repentance." Patheos (Standing on My Head) (August 26, 2013).
Reprinted with permission from Father Dwight Longenecker. Standing on my head is the blog of Father Longenecker on Patheos.

C.S. Lewis paid a penalty for being an outspoken Christian

C.S. Lewis paid a penalty for being an outspoken Christian
PAUL MCCUSKER

In the 1940's, while Lewis became a best-selling author, lecturer and broadcaster, his co-workers at Oxford University were not pleased.

Inasmuch as my life is still consumed with projects related to C.S. Lewis, I've been thinking about a little-known aspect of his life: the penalty he paid for being an outspoken Christian.
In the 1940's, while Lewis became a best-selling author, lecturer and broadcaster, his co-workers at Oxford University were not pleased.  For them, Lewis had broken an unwritten code by talking publicly about his faith.  Not because they were specifically anti-Christian — though many were — but because it was considered unseemly.  J. R. R. Tolkien once told Lewis scholar Walter Hooper that Oxford dons could be forgiven for just about anything except writing outside of their subjects or "writing popular works of theology."
As early as 1933, when Lewis wrote The Pilgrim's Regress, his fellow academics belittled him for daring to write openly about something as personal as his faith (or maybe they were annoyed because his book satirically attacked their philosophical views).  Their consternation increased seven years later with the release of The Problem of Pain, in which Lewis tackled the subject of suffering from a layman's point of view.  Next came The Screwtape Letters, his very wry and insightful look at temptation from a demon's point of view, which lambasted many of their cherished ideas.  Then the BBC enlisted him to voice a series of talks about Christianity, which later became the book Mere Christianity.  It was overtly evangelistic which, for his colleagues, was even worse than the others.  It was one thing to write dispassionately, it was another thing to try to persuade people to one's faith.
In 1947, Time magazine did a cover story on Lewis — the reporter calling him a "heretic" among academics for daring to believe in God.  That reporter got it right.  Some professors accused Lewis of having a religious mania.
Lewis had been teaching at Oxford since 1925.  As late as 1951, he was outvoted for Oxford's prestigious Poetry Chair by 194 votes to 173.  Lewis' older brother Warnie noted in his diary how surprised he was by the "virulence of anti-Christian feeling" toward Lewis at Oxford.  Warnie was informed that one elector had voted against Lewis simply because he'd written The Screwtape Letters.
On one occasion, after being warned that his Christian writings would destroy his academic career, Lewis quoted General William Booth of the Salvation Army, who had famously proclaimed:  "If I could win one soul for God by playing the tambourine with my toes, I'd do it."
According to a colleague, that was precisely what some people thought Lewis was doing.
Yet Lewis persevered even while being passed over again and again for advancement at Oxford.  He was not given a full professorship until he left that university for Cambridge in 1954, almost 30 years after his career began.
Like C.S. Lewis, we live in an age when great pressure is put upon us for daring to proclaim our faith publicly. 
God grant us the courage to do as C.S. Lewis did.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Paul McCusker. "The Penalty of Faith." Roman Catholic Spiritual Direction (September 4, 2013).
Reprinted with permission from Paul McCusker.  The original article can be found here.

Sky View: St. Robert Bellarmine's Theology of Government

Sky View: St. Robert Bellarmine's Theology of Government

Reposting for the feast day of St. Robert Bellarmine: September 17, 2013

Below, are four basic principles from the treatise On Civil Government (17th century writing) by St. Robert Bellarmine which provides us a Catholic (and American) understanding of the State/government:

• Human nature was created by God in such a way as to require civil authority for its well-being, order and protection. As such, the authority of the State originates from the wise counsel of God. Human beings cannot co-exist without this higher principle of civil authority.

• Although civil authority finds its origin in God, it is not directly communicated to any one particular individual or group of individuals. The notion of the "divine right of kings" was a doctrine which arose out of Protestantism that held that God's power to rule was given to each king directly. This led to a kind of an oppressive monarchical system that Colonial Americans rebelled against. The truth is that the authority of the State resides in human nature, that is, in the people because it is for them that this authority exists to begin with. 

• Since the people or the citizens of a nation are the purpose or end for which civil authority is ordained, it follows that it is the people’s prerogative to choose not only the form of government they see fit but the system through which their leaders are determined or chosen.

Before moving on, I want to add that in the supernatural order, religious authority works differently. It is, contrary to civil authority, conferred directly by God on specific men. For instance, Jesus Christ gave to Peter and the Apostles to power to bind and loose, to forgive and retain sins. In turn, this apostolic power was conferred on specific bishops  the Apostles deemed to be worthy of the office. Indeed, the sacramental grace of Holy Orders is communicated to particular individuals directly from the “hands of God” but through the mediation of consecrated hands. 

Now, from this Catholic perspective, if the State exists for the citizen, then the citizen can be also considered to be the customer of the State. A customer chooses what kind of services it wishes to receive and from whom it wishes to receive it. And according to Catholic political theology, people have the inherent right to choose what form of government they wish to be subject to. Furthermore, depending who they want to be ruled by, they also have the right to elect those political rulers of their choosing.

By virtue of this right, citizens can elect to create a government that invokes God and one that observes the principles of his Catholic Faith. After all, they are the customers of the State and the very purpose of the State is to serve their needs. Just as important, every man has spiritual needs that cannot be compartmentalized apart from his civic life. If the authority of the State comes from God- which the Catholic Church affirms that it does -then like the individual, the State is obligated to pay homage to its Creator. Yes, give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God. What is commonly overlooked, however, is that Caesar belongs to God!

A complete separation between Church and State is a like severing the body from its soul. Such a radical division leads to death. Why? Because society itself is of a material and spiritual nature. The Catholic Church does hold to a kind of separation of Church and State in that they are distinct from one another. However, these two entities, like the body and soul, are to collaborate and interact with each other so that the common good of society may be brought about. The proposition that there should be a radical separation between these two institutions is what Pope Leo XIII referred to as a "fatal theory." To repeat, such a dichotomy leads to the death of the commonwealth.

Now, if civil authority is a mere invention of man without any inherent God-given purpose, then it can be defined by the powerful or the rich as they see fit. Instead of the State having the welfare of its citizens as its goal, the State can turn into an end in itself. Indeed, the purpose of government can be defined to mean that the people exist for the State; that the multitude ought to serve the interests of the few. As Pius XI said in his encyclical on communism, “There is no recognition of any right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog-wheel in the Communist system.”

This perversion of power- so common in world history -explains why the twentieth-century was riddled with atheistic or communistic dictators who killed more of its own people than all the wars put together. In the absence of God then, the State becomes supreme and rules according to its own whim. Cardinal James Gibbons, in his pastoral letter to the US Bishops in 1919, issued the following warning about the State taking the place of God:

“It lies in the very nature of man that something must be supreme, something must take the place of the divine when this has been excluded; and this substitute for God, according to a predominant philosophy, is the State. Possessed of unlimited power to establish rights and impose obligations, the State becomes the sovereign ruler in human affairs.”

Joblessness, a down trodden economy, serfdom, and human rights violations are but the sad results of State supremacy. But throughout history, it was the Catholic Church and her moral authority that restrained the strong arm of the State, ensuring freedom for citizens. She confidently assumed a prophetic role in holding the State accountable to the divine and natural law. As such, St. Thomas Aquinas’ saying is wonderfully fulfilled: A government which governs least, governs best. But a government can only govern least if the laws of God are daily impressed upon it.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Gossip is a form of murder, Pope Francis reflects :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Gossip is a form of murder, Pope Francis reflects :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)


.- During his morning Mass homily in Santa Marta, Pope Francis focused on the topic of gossip – saying that when we participate in this sin, we imitate Cain's gesture in killing his brother Abel.
The Pope began his homily Sept. 13 by echoing the words of Jesus in the gospel reading, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
He spoke for a few minutes on the virtue of humility, adding that Jesus addressed those who practice the opposite and who foster “that hateful attitude towards one’s neighbor when one becomes a 'judge' of his brother,” calling them “hypocrites.”
“Those who live judging their neighbor, speaking ill of their neighbor, are hypocrites, because they lack the strength and the courage to look to their own shortcomings.”
Pope Francis said that the “Lord does not waste many words on this concept,” and that “he who has hatred in his heart for his brother is a murderer.”
The Pope added that in his first letter, John the Apostle emphasizes that “anyone who has hatred for his brother is a murderer, he walks in darkness, he who judges his brother walks in darkness,” and that those who judge or speak ill of others are “Christian murderers.”
“A Christian murderer…It’s not me saying this, it’s the Lord. And there is no place for nuances. If you speak ill of your brother, you kill your brother. And every time we do this, we are imitating that gesture of Cain, the first murderer in History.”
During this time when there is so much debate and discussion about war amid cries for peace, the pontiff pleaded that “a gesture of conversion on our own behalf is necessary.”
“Gossip,” he cautioned, “always has a criminal side to it. There is no such thing as innocent gossip.”
Quoting St. James the Apostle, the Pope imparted that the tongue is designed to praise God, “but when we use our tongue to speak ill of our brother or sister, we are using it to kill God...the image of God in our brother.”
He said that although there are some who believe certain persons deserve to be gossiped about, that is not the case. Rather, he encouraged the Mass attendees to “Go and pray for him! Go and do penance for her! And then, if it is necessary, speak to that person who may be able to seek remedy for the problem. But don’t tell everyone!”
“Paul had been a sinner, and he says of himself: 'I was once a blasphemer, a persecutor, a violent man. But I have been mercifully treated.'”
Pope Francis challenged those present, saying that perhaps none are blasphemers, but that “if we ever gossip we are certainly persecutors and violent.”
“We ask for grace so that we and the entire Church may convert from the crime of gossip to love, to humility, to meekness, to docility, to the generosity of love towards our neighbor.”

Satan Has Many Disguises


Satan Has Many Disguises

It would be easy if Satan came as he is often portrayed, with horns and a pitchfork. We would naturally flee this ugliness.
Alas, he often comes cloaked in beauty, in sheep’s clothing. He claims to offer us freedom and autonomy from an unreasonable God and Church, liberation from rules and being “told what to do.”  He cloaks himself in the false righteousness of being “tolerant” and “not judging others.” He exalts us by telling us we have finally come of age and can disregard the “hang-ups” and “repression” our ancestors had of sex and pleasure. He flatters us by extolling our scientific knowledge and inflates us by equating it with wisdom and moral superiority over our “primitive” fore-bearers. He reassures us by insisting we are merely the victims here, victims of biological urges, bad parenting, economic injustice, that we are not depraved, just deprived. He humors us by making us laugh at sin, making light of it in comedian’s routines, sitcoms, music and otherwise turning sin into a form of entertainment. He anesthetizes the pain of guilt and sin by sending us teachers who tickle our ears and assure us that what we know deep down to be wrong is actually fine, even virtuous. He affirms us by insisting that whenever shortcomings in us have been called to our attention it is simply unfair since other people are surely worse, that self esteem is something owed to us and others who lessen it are unkind.   He  sings us the lullaby of presumption assuring us that consequences and judgment will not be our lot and with this lullaby we drift off into a moral sleep of indifference and  false confidence.
But in the end, there is a wolf under the sheepskin. Satan is ugly. He enslaves, condemns, ridicules and ensnares. His “reassurances” bring pain and grief as the awful effects of sin unwind: hatred, fear, resentments, revenge, suffering, disease, addiction, bondage, strife, divorce, estrangement, war, insurrection, disloyalty, scorn, bitterness, depression, anxiety, depletion, poverty, loss and deep, deep sorrow. 
Beware, Satan has many disguises and he seldom presents as he really is. The movie The Passion of the Christ brilliantly presented Satan in the Garden. At first there was almost a strange beauty. But a closer look revealed increasingly hideous details: cold, fixed eyes, sharp and discolored nails, sickly pale skin, suddenly androgynous qualities, and a disgusting maggot crawling in and out of the nose. An audible moan came from the audience in the theatre where I first saw it. Would that, beyond the movie, we could sense this revulsion and clarity as to the evil of Satan and his truest reality.
Here is a very powerful video on the disguises of sin:
t

Monday, September 16, 2013

A Lesson in Three Conversions


A Lesson in Three Conversions

THE GREAT AWAKENING

A Lesson in Three Conversions

The Year of Faith began with a challenge from the Holy Father Emeritus: “We cannot accept that salt should become tasteless or that light be kept hidden.” During this last intense year of renewal, Catholics have been reminded again and again that our age calls for vigilance. For the embers of Western Civilization glow but dimly now, and the “profound crisis of faith” identified by Benedict XVI can hardly be ignored. Today, perhaps more than ever, we need the freshness and clear conviction of converts to the Faith.
As the prolific Catholic historian Henri Daniel-Rops once noted, France lived through a spiritual crisis of her own in the seventeenth century, and while the long-term result of that crisis was—for all practical purposes—the death of a once-great Catholic civilization, the age also witnessed dozens of inspiring conversions. “It would be impossible,” wrote Daniel-Rops, “to compile a list of all the converts” of the age. Among the most illustrious of them were Jean Racine, Blaise Pascal, and Louise de la Vallière. All three were raised Catholic, went astray for a season, and as adults returned to the Father’s house with hearts brimming over with the love of God.
The fall from grace of Louise de la Vallière has a horrid, contemporary feel to it. Her idyllic childhood was rudely cut short by the death of her father when she had just gained the age of reason. Her mother remarried a man of rank who took the family to the royal court. The lovely Louise was only seventeen when she there caught the eye of the great. “Very pretty, very sweet, and very naïve,” was the impression she gave to one lady of the court; she was, therefore, perfect for a scheme by which the young king’s unsuitable regard for his brother’s wife could be shielded from view. The plan was for the young Louise to receive Louis XIV’s overt advances so that his pursuit of his cousin and sister-in-law the Princess could continue in secret. But passions unbridled will take their fatal course, and her virtue was soon compromised; she would eventually bear the king four children.
Blaise PascalBy the time her fifth pregnancy had ended in a life-threatening miscarriage, the luster of the affair had long since faded, and, internally, she had exchanged what she called “an entirely profane life full of pride and sensuality” for a still worse one in which, as she later said, “I labored only to fill myself with self-love and the spirit of the world, and in which all I did was to forget God, waste my time, and constantly risk my salvation by acquiring merely pagan virtues.” Five years later, in the sermon he preached when she took the veil as a Carmelite, Bossuet described the former condition of her soul in these terms: “Thus you see the rational soul fallen from her original dignity because she had abandoned God and because God abandoned her. She is led from captivity to captivity. She is captive to herself, to her own body, to her senses, and to pleasure, captive to everything that surrounds her.” What freed her from her captivity to sin? God’s invisible grace, first and foremost, but also the prayers, holy conversation, and witness of those few courtiers—including Bossuet—whose efforts eventually bore fruit in her beautiful transformation. At her death in the year 1710, she was one month shy of thirty-six years of religious life, and known among her sisters for her voluntary abasement and tranquility of soul.
Louise de la Vallière’s story is a retelling of the conversion of Mary Magdalene; Jean Racine’s was that of a prodigal son. The conversion of Blaise Pascal, however, does not fit into neat Biblical form, but it is famous for having given birth to one of the enduring classics of religious literature. Although his Pensées breathe the zeal of the convert, it is difficult to identify from what he converted. It was not from hardened vice, but instead from a state of character so much in outward conformity to the demands of virtue that although his sister called it “the worst-spent period of his life” one of his biographers, Father Marvin R. O’Connell, determined that it would better be spoken of as his “so-called worldly period.” The clues are scant, but we may reason backwards from the Pensées to the man.
When Pascal set out to write them, he had one goal in mind: to bring his readers to “God through Jesus Christ.” He knew that one of the chief obstacles to faith in his time was the influence of Montaigne’s Essays, then “read and reread,” as Marc Fumaroli observed, “as the ‘gentleman’s psalter,’ the antidote to servility and false piety.” As a Psalter, however, the Essays came up short. With only six references to Christ through their entire length, they breathed an air of self-sufficiency rather than of reliance upon Divine Grace. It was this worldly spirit that Pascal feared, because he understood its power from personal experience: “It is not in Montaigne,” he wrote, “but in myself, that I find everything I see in him.” As he emerged from his worldly period, Pascal wrote of his astonishment at the “blindness” in which he had been living.
One of his companions from that time provided an indication of what that blindness consisted in when he said that Pascal “was a great mathematician who knew of nothing else.” Professor Jean Mesnard summed up Pascal’s worldly period as an “attachment to science” colored by “a bit too lordly an awareness of his own genius.” Pascal himself would seem likely to concur. Amidst his lengthy discussion of diversions is included the example—as one to be avoided—of those who “sweat in their rooms to show the learned they have solved a problem in algebra that had not as yet been solved.” Confessing that he had “spent a long time in the study of abstract sciences,” Pascal explained that he learned that they “were not proper to man, and that I was straying farther from my own condition by trying to penetrate them.” Coupled with these indications, the directness of his imperative—“Let us labor, then, to think well. This is the principle of morality.”—suggests that Pascal’s final and definitive conversion was one of mind, in which, for the first time in his life, his “every thought” was “taken captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).
Pascal’s conversion was accompanied by a dramatic mystical vision, an account of which he carried on his person until his death. Thanks to that little scrap of paper, we know that he experienced the presence, as he put it, of the “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of philosophers and scholars.” In contrast, the conversion of Jean Racine, the greatest of French playwrights, is so hidden from view that its reality has regularly been contested by his secular admirers.
Orphaned at a young age, Racine was educated and, to a great extent, raised at the abbey of Port-Royal, where a female community of Cistercians had been joined by a group of unusually zealous Catholics, the ‘solitaries’ of the nascent Jansenist movement, a group of clerics and laymen known for their austere life and serious pursuit of sacred learning. The education that Racine received from them, building upon his own natural gifts, made him into one of the greatest masters of the French language, then and since, and gave him an indelible love for poetry. In those days, the theater was locked in mortal combat with the pulpit for cultural authority in France. Racine’s decision to become a poet and playwright was, accordingly, a direct rejection of the instruction and guidance he had received. From the early-1660s to the mid-1670s were his lost years: hardly any documents, not even letters, remain to allow a conclusive retelling of his story. He is rumored to have had two successive long-standing affairs with leading actresses, and, as his fame was just beginning, he wrote a stinging rebuke to his former master, Pierre Nicole, declaring that “each of us must follow his vocation.” Racine then thought that his was for worldly fame. The tragedies he composed during his lost years are still considered unimpeachable from a poetic point of view, but they have little to offer to a thoughtful Catholic audience.
Racine’s conversion coincided with the deepening of his art; his masterpiece, Phèdre, was a critical examination of the passions which, he declared, “portrayed [them] merely in order to show the aberrations to which they give rise.” AfterPhèdre, Racine put his personal life in order, becoming an exemplary husband and father. His fame as a writer had gained him the prestigious and comfortable post of an official chronicler of the deeds of Louis XIV. In the last quarter-century of his life, he turned to poetry only to compose serious subjects: the Biblical dramasEsther and Athaliah and the brief, but stirring Spiritual Canticles.
The thread that joins the lives of these converts is that the faith of each faltered for a time, as each was led astray by the world under one of its guises. As Pascal explained, commenting on St. John’s account of the three concupiscences (1 John 2:16), “there are three orders of things: flesh, mind, and will”:
The carnal and rich men, kings: they have as object the body.
The curious and scholarly: they have as object the mind.
The wise: they have as object righteousness.
This last point is framed in terms that may mislead; by “righteousness” Pascal was signifying the good at which the proud man says he aims. His account, then, agrees with that of Aquinas, who explained that St. John’s phrase “pride of life” refers to an “inordinate desire for arduous goods.” Just as Racine sought excellence as a poet without regard to the proper measure of that excellence, so also did Pascal and Louise de la Vallière seek their chosen goods without subordinating them to, and integrating them within, the life of faith and of Christian moral virtue. Pascal spoke for them all when he summed up the lesson he had learned in his conversion in five memorable words: “God must reign over all.”
Author’s note: For a judicious and readable introduction to Pascal, one cannot do better than Marvin R. O’Connell’s Blaise Pascal: Reasons of the Heart (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). The quotations from Pascal’s Pensées were taken from the recent and commendable translation by Roger Ariew (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2005).
Editor’s note: The painting above is a portrait of Blaise Pascal.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Sky View: To Purchase a Soul

Sky View: To Purchase a Soul

To Purchase a Soul

Love covers a multitude of sins. The more disposed the soul is in making sacrifices, the more that soul can absorb sin and its effects upon the soul. St. Paul said as much when he told the Corinthians, “So death is at work in us, but life in you.” The Triumph of the Cross lies in this. 

Meet Elisabeth Leseur, a Cross bearer for her husband: 

On July 31, 1889, Elisabeth married a wealthy man by the name of Felix Leseur. Felix was a diplomat and a well-known doctor in France. At the age of thirty-two, after they got married, Elisabeth experienced a kind of second conversion. As such, she took her faith in Christ much more seriously. 

In fact, she carried out charitable projects for the poor and helped fund other charities. More importantly, Elisabeth’s deep spirituality was one that included spiritual sacrifices (acts of self-denial for other people’s conversions). One source describes her spirituality this way: 

“She organized her spiritual life around a disciplined pattern of prayer, meditation, reading, sacramental practice, and writing. Charity was the organizing principle of her asceticism. In her approach to mortification, she followed Francis de Sales who recommended moderation and internal, hidden strategies instead of external practices.” 

As Elisabeth was becoming more Catholic, her husband was becoming more atheistic; more than atheistic, he had developed an aversion to the Catholic priesthood and the Church as a whole. But before they married, Elisabeth noticed that Felix was no longer a practicing Catholic. By all appearances, he seemed to have lost his faith. Nevertheless, he promised her that he would not undermine her faith. Needless to say, the more Felix became fervent in his atheism, the more he disregarded that promise. 

Although they were believed to be happily married, the two spouses became rivals in many respects. Elisabeth built up a Catholic apologetics library in their home while Felix added to his collection of atheistic and anti-Catholic literature. In fact, he wrote against Lourdes, the 1858 Marian apparition site, saying that it was a fraud. His views were published in an anti-Catholic newspaper in Paris. 

What words could not accomplish, spiritual sacrifice could. Elisabeth would have to do something other than rely on persuasive arguments against atheism. The incision required, had to go deeper. ----Our Lord once told Saint Faustina, “You will save more souls through prayer and suffering than will a missionary through his teachings and sermons alone.” And it was the power of prayer and suffering that Mrs. Leseur put into effect for the spiritual welfare of Mr. Leseur. 

To make a long story short, Elisabeth was diagnosed with cancer in 1905. From there, it went downhill for her: ----“In 1907 her health deteriorated to the extent that she was forced to lead a primarily sedentary life, receiving visitors and directing her household from a chaise lounge. In 1911 she had surgery and radiation for a malignant tumor, recovered, and then was bedridden by July of 1913.” 

Less than a year later, the hour of her death approached. Elisabeth, on her deathbed, made this astonishing prediction to her husband Felix: 

"I am absolutely certain that when you return to God, you will not stop on the way because you never do things by halves.... You will someday become a priest.” 

Felix, however, reassured her that his atheistic convictions had not changed. Still, she repeated what she had said and died. Elisabeth died of cancer in May of 1914. ----After her death, Dr. Leseur came across a note written to him in her papers. It said: 

“In 1905, I asked almighty God to send me sufficient sufferings to purchase your soul. On the day that I die, the price will have been paid. Greater love than this no woman has than she who lay down her life for her husband.’" 

Incredulous, the atheistic, anti-clerical doctor dismissed this as pious sentiments of a dying woman. Nevertheless, he grieved her loss by visiting Lourdes, one place they had visited during their honeymoon. It was then, that the unexpected happened.

Meet Dominican priest, Fr. Felix Leseur:

The once proud atheist and anti-Catholic doctor received the fullness of the gift of faith when he visited Lourdes shortly after Elizabeth’s death 

A few years after his wife’s death in 1919, he became a Dominican novice. He was then ordained to the priesthood in 1923 and spent a good deal of his life speaking about his wife, Elisabeth, spiritual writings. 

Fr. Felix Leseur gave a retreat for Bishop Fulton Sheen in 1924. And when Sheen told this story, he concluded by saying: "I tell you, it is not often you hear a priest say: 'As my dear wife once said…'”

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Fox Sports football announcer fired over 2011 remarks on homosexuality

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fox-sports-football-announcer-fired-over-2011-remarks-on-homosexuality


Fox Sports football announcer fired over 2011 remarks on homosexuality

LOS ANGELES, September 9, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) – Thou shalt not refer to homosexuality as “a choice” – at least not if you ever want to work for Fox Sports. 
That’s the lesson announcer Craig James learned this week when he was fired from his job covering college football after just one appearance, because of remarks he made on the campaign trail during his unsuccessful run for U.S. Senate back in 2011.
During a Republican primary debate for the Texas nomination, James criticized one of his opponents, former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, for marching in gay pride parades, saying, “I think right now in this country, our moral fiber is sliding down a slope that is going to be hard to stop if we don’t stand up with leaders who don’t go ride in gay parades.  I can assure you I will never ride in a gay parade.  And I hear what you’re saying, Tom, but leaders - our kids out there, people need to see examples.”
The moderator then asked him, “Do you think people choose to be gay?”
James answered, “I think it’s a choice, I do.”
“It’s not in the genes?” the moderator asked.
“I think that you have to make that choice,” James replied. “But in that case right there, they are going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions.  We should not give benefits to those civil unions.”
Now, two years later, James has paid for those remarks with his livelihood.  After only one appearance on Fox Sports, he was abruptly yanked from their lineup, with an anonymous Fox executive telling Sports Illustrated columnist Richard Deitsch that the hire “had not been fully vetted at the highest levels of Fox Sports management.” 
On Friday, another unnamed Fox executive confirmed to the Dallas Morning Newsthat James’s statements during the debate two years ago were the reason for his firing. 
“We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department,” the Fox spokesman said, adding, “He couldn’t say those things here.”
Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.
James isn't the first sportscaster to be fired over remarks on homosexuality. 
On May 10, 2011, top Canadian sportscaster Damian Goddard tweeted that he “completely and wholeheartedly” supports “the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage.” Rogers Sportsnet immediately distanced themselves from the tweet, and then fired him within 24 hours.