24 December 2008

Answers to supporters of women's ordination (UPDATED)

I recently received an email from a young religious asking me to help him answer objections to the Church's infallible teaching that women cannot be ordained to the Catholic priesthood.

Here's my stab at it. . .

First, notice the origin and ground of the objections. All of them are based on one or more of the following mistakes:

a) Priesthood is about power
b) "Access" to the priesthood is about rights and justice
c) The "exclusion" of women from the priesthood denies humanity of women. . .
d) . . .and it denies their proper place as potential "Christs for others"
e) All exercises of Church authority are excluding
f) Tradition is always about male privilege
g) Women would make better priests because of their natural empathy and compassion
h) Jesus' exclusion of women from the priesthood was culturally based and therefore reformable
i) Scripture is silent on the nature of the priesthood b/c it is a third century invention of males
j). Women report feeling called to the ordained priesthood, therefore the Church ought to ordain them.

Let's answer (briefly) each in turn.

Priesthood is about power. No, it's not. Priesthood in the Catholic Church is about service. Do priests often mistake their office of service as a privilege in the use of power? Yup. But that's an abuse of the office and in no way changes the actual nature of the office. Men are ordered to Christ, Head of the Church, to serve his people as he did: sacrificially in leadership. When supporters of women's ordination (WO) claim that women must be allowed to share in the governance of the Church as priests, they mistake the office for a political one.

"Access" to the priesthood is about rights and justice. Wrong again. The only right a Catholic has as a Catholic in the Church is the right and duty to serve others. Justice is getting what one deserves. No one--not even men--"deserve" to be ordained, to serve as ordained priests. To claim that ordination is a right is bizarre given that men are called by God and confirmed by the Church to be priests. This use of democratic rhetoric is attractive but misplaced. You cannot be the subject of an injustice if you have no right to that which you have been denied. I am not being treated unjustly b/c I cannot vote for the next Italian presidential election.

The "exclusion" of women from the priesthood denies their humanity. In fact, the Church's teaching on ordination reaffirms the humanity of women by clearly laying out what it means to be human, male and female. To be fully human as a creature is to submit one's will to the will of our Creator and cooperate with His grace to achieve our perfection AS men and women; that is, I am perfected as a male creature. My mother is perfected as a female creature. Often this objection is rooted in a modernist notion that one's sex is socially constructed. We are MADE male and female by our Creator and not pieced together sexually by social forces.

The "exclusion of women from the priesthood denies their proper place as potential "Christs for others." This would be true if the only means of being Christs for others was to be a priest. Fortunately, our Lord had to foresight to make sure that there were other means of becoming the sons and daughters of the Father in His service for others. Ordination is one way that some men are called by God and confirmed by the Church to "work out" their salvation. No one is denied their perfection in Christ b/c they are not priests. All the baptized serve the Father by being priests, offering themselves in sacrifice for others.

All exercises of Church authority are excluding. Wrong. If an exercise of Church authority excludes, it does so in order to liberate through a declaration of the truth of the faith., thus including everyone in the knowledge of truth. To be excluded is not in and of itself an injustice or a violation of human dignity. There are many perfectly beautiful options open to all Christians to which I am excluded in virtue of my ordination, e.g. marriage and biological fatherhood. In the case of WO, the Church has used her authority to recognize a limit of her own power. In effect, the Church has recognized that she is excluded from considering the ordination of women.

Tradition is always about male privilege. Tradition has certainly been misused to prop up abusive practices that privilege males. That we have seen these abuses in no way changes the fact that Tradition is the handing on of a living faith, the "living faith of the dead." The faith of the Church never changes. It cannot change. Our understanding of the faith can and does change. However, WO is not a change in understanding but a radical revision of some of the most basic threads of the Christian narrative. To alter these threads does more than "open the priesthood," it unravels the faith whole clothe.

Women would make better priests. I concede this readily. But we have to be clear about what we mean by "better priests." The objection assumes that the vocation of the priest is simply about empathy and compassion. It's not. Sometimes what the priest must do is show firmness, rectitude, and unwavering direction. . .even if empathy and compassion seem to be set aside in doing so. If the only vocation of the priest were to be empathetic or compassionate, then women should be ordained. However, as we have seen in the Episcopal Church and the Church of England, women priests and bishops (at least for now) seem to be more inclined to the destruction of the living faith than its preservation. Each time a stone in the catholic faith has been removed by female clergy and their male supporters in these ecclesial communities, it has been removed on the grounds of justice, rights, empathy, and compassion--all understood in strictly secular terms. The results have been disastrous.

Jesus' "exclusion" of women from the priest was culturally based and therefore reformable. This objection assumes as true a number of false premises. First, it assumes that Jesus was not who he clearly said he was and is: God. God is not constrained by cultural prejudices. Second, it assumes that Jesus was disinclined to break social taboos. In fact, he broke any number of cultural taboos in teaching and preaching the Good News, causing a great deal of scandal. Why not break the taboo against women as priests/rabbis? Third, this objection also assumes that cultural change should guide Church teaching. Cultural change should and often does guide our understanding and application of the faith in the world, but the world is irrelevant when it comes to determining the content of our faith. A danger for WO supporters here is that the way they understand many of the Church's cherished social justice positions are undermined by this objection to the Church's teaching. If we can alter the faith to follow cultural change and ordain women, why can't we examine many of Jesus' legitimate justice teachings in the same light and alter them as well? Maybe our modern culture and social norms should be used to override the historical Christian concern for the poor. Surely, the recent collapse of the economy can be blamed in part on a misplaced concern for the poor and homeless.

Scripture is silent on the nature of the priesthood. This is a particularly odd objection for faithful Catholics to be making. It is largely a Reformation objection and ignores volumes of Patristic teaching on the origins and development of Christian priesthood. It is simply false to say that the Catholic priesthood is an third or fourth century invention. There are elements of the priesthood as it is enacted in the world that came about in later centuries, but the core nature of the priesthood was infallibly established at the Last Supper when Christ commissioned his apostles and friends as those who would lead the community in prayer and the breaking of the bread, to "do this in memory of me." He had every opportunity to include women in this moment, but he didn't. The key here is to understand that the Last Supper was a Passover meal, a family meal, one that reinforced the bonds of paternal authority in the ancient Jewish tradition. of liberation from slavery. Even with women present at a Jewish Passover, the men are commissioned to perform the rite. Does this mean that women are excluded from the liberation Moses brought and the Passover celebrates? Hardly.

Women feel called to the priesthood. In the paragraph directly below this one I note that all of the objections to the Church's teaching on WO are rooted in modernist, feminist ideology. This objection is a perfect example. What this objection assumes is that the call to priesthood is a subjective experience immediately deserving a positive response from the Church. What can be more modernist than the triumph of personal experience over objective truth. The truth of the matter is that the call to priesthood comes from God through the Church, who is the Body of Christ. To say that a particular person (male or female) receives a call outside the Church assumes that Christ speaks to a member of his Body from outside his Body. However, all calls to serve the Body come through the Church and are therefore verifiable by the Church. Most of us believe we are called to all sorts of vocations for which we do not have the requisite gifts or authentic vocation. I feel called to be a regularly published poet, yet my poetry is regularly rejected. The poetry community (i.e., the Church of Verse) regularly rejects my claims to being a poet. Years of personal experience, strong conviction, earnest effort, and multiple academic degrees cannot make up for the lack of consent by the poetry community to my alleged call. I can call myself a poet. I can rail against the perceived injustice of not being regularly published. I can even accuse my tormenters of bias, hatred, and lack of taste. I'm still not a poet. Think for a moment of the implications if the Church bowed to the "I feel called to priesthood" objection and answered these claims positively. On what grounds could we reject anyone from the ordained ministry? My application to be made a postulant for ordination in the Episcopal Church was rejected. Had the vestry of my parish not done their job of proper discernment and oversight, I would be an Episcopalian priest right now. Thank God they listened to the Holy Spirit!

It is important for faithful Catholics to understand how many of these objections are based on modernist, feminist theories of justice, gender, the social construction of reality, and postmodern identity politics. None of which have a place in the faith of good Catholics. All are deeply rooted in 19th and 20th century liberal democratic ideas about freedom, liberty, and rights. None of them pull from the tradition of the Church or her ancient philosophy and theology. None of them are scriptural or magisterial. I have yet to read a single objection to the Church's infallible teaching against WO that does not rely exclusively on ideas and argument entirely alien to our faith. The canonical objections I've read are little more than legalistic sophistry and grounded in a "hermeneutic of suspicion" that starts with an antagonistic attitude toward truth and quickly devolves into relativism and subjectivism--little more than minute loopholes.

Probably the best book on this subject was written by Sr. Sara Butler, MSBT, The Catholic Priesthood and Women: A Guide to the Teaching of the Church, Sr. Sara started her life as a religious as a supporter of WO and has since looked carefully at the scriptural, tradition, magisterial, and archeological evidence for that position and changed her mind. This book does a much better job of defending the Church's teaching than I ever could, and I highly recommend it.

It is vitally important that women understand that the Church's lack of authority to ordain them to the priesthood is not based on the notion that they are inferior or damaged or in any way "less than men." Yes, some medieval theologians, including Thomas Aquinas, put forward certain metaphysical explanations for an all-male priesthood that few of us will applaud now. But these are merely explanations of any already existing teaching and their dubious nature in no way detracts from the truth of the faith. In other words, Aquinas, et al did not invent the all-male priesthood based on medieval notions of biology and metaphysics. They took up the question in light of the sacaramental theology then current and the already existing reality of the all-malle priesthood and attempted to explain the truth of the priesthood in the light they had. Demolishing Aquinas' argument for the all-male priesthood does not demolish the Church's infallible teaching against WO.

A note on the question of the infalliablity of Pope John Paul II's document, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. This 1994 document was issued by the Holy Father in order to settle forever the question of whether or not the Church has the authority to ordain women. Drawing on scripture, tradition, and centuries of papal magisterial teaching, he concluded that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. It is very important to understand that the Pope did not say that the Church will not ordain women or that the Church does not feel like ordaining women. He wrote: "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women. . ." The Church CANNOT ordain women. The Church also cannot declare that Jesus is not the Savior. The Church cannot declare that Mary was not the mother of Jesus, etc. In other words, the failure of the Church to ordain women is not based on a lack of will or inclination or patriarchal prejudice. If every bishop in the Church, including the Pope, laid hands on a woman, performing the entire sacrament of ordination on her in St Peter's Bascilica in front of the College of Cardinal with their wild applauses, she would still be a laywoman. And she would be a laywoman if every Catholic in the world believed that she was a priest.

Is this teaching infallible? Yes, it is. The Pope wrote in full: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Now, some theologians claim that this teaching is not infallible. They want to make a fine distinction between the content of the teaching and this declaration of the teaching. They want to say that OS itself is not infallible; in other words, they want us to believe that the Pope's declaration that the teaching is infallible is not itself infallible. This is typical modernist sophistry and a confusion of terms. All the Pope did in this document is repeat an ancient truth: women cannot be ordained. This is not new. Imagine the Pope issuing a document tomorrow declaring that Jesus is the Messiah. Such a document would be pointless because the Church has always believed this. There is no need for an infallible teaching on the question. How odd would it be then for some theologians to assert that the document is not infallible when it asserts that the teaching that Jesus is the Messiah is infallible. Simply bizarre.

Reread the highlighted phrases above. Those are the words required for an infallible teaching. Period. OS as a document, OS per se does not have to be infallible, just as a document declaring Jesus as the Messiah would not have to be infallible. The content of the teaching is without error regardless of the magisterial/canonical status of the document. What the supporters of WO want us to believe is that the Pope is not interpreting the ancient teaching correctly. That he is merely repeating what has always been the case in the Church seems to be irrelevant to them. It seems odd to me that the Pope would issue this document "so that all doubt might be removed" and then have some claim that he did so in order to set the stage for future women's ordinations! We had a professor in my seminary who taught exactly that. Fortunately, none of us fell for the deception.

Fr. Joseph Fitzmeyer, quoting a supporter of WO, Rev. Herman Pottmeyer, "According to Pottmeyer, 'O.S. is an instance of ordinary (i.e., non-infallible) magisterium, declaring that the church’s unbroken tradition with regard to ordination is irreformable.' In saying this, he may be right, even though the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith subsequently explained that the doctrine about women’s ordination belongs to the deposit of faith and has been constantly held in the church’s tradition and infallibly set forth by the ordinary and universal magisterium." Fr. Fitzmeyer concludes his critique of Rev. Pottmeyer, "Pope John Paul II stated in O.S. that 'the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women' (No. 4). He did not mean that 'he could not himself change tradition in this matter.' He spoke rather of Ecclesiam facultatem nullatenus habere. If it is so, that the church has no ability to change it, then the Pope cannot invite everyone to prayer and dialogue as he would summon 'a council to make a final decision.' If 'the church' cannot do it, then a council cannot do it, no matter what 'signs of the times' may be or what 'faithfulness to Jesus' might seem to call for in Pottmeyer’s estimation."

Best book on the history and theology of the Church's teaching authority: Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ.

This link from the USCCB helps to clarify a number of issues.

NB. This post will be revised and updated.

23 December 2008

CHANGE! we can all envy. . .

HOPE & CHANGE goes on Christmas vacation for a mere $3,500 a day. . .

I'm surprised that the lapdog press reported the story at all but not at all surprised that the rental listing was deleted from the web once the story broke. The link above takes you to a cached screenshot of the Obama family Christmas extravaganza.

Yawn. . .as I have said from the beginning: The One is just another politician.

Speaking of false messiahs. . .

22 December 2008

Fat Friar Wear

Thomas Peters of American Papist fame has his own line of A.P. gear. . .check it out!

. . .hmmmmm. . .what would Hanc Aquam gear look like, I wonder. . .?

Would have to start small and go LARGE!

We could start here.

No, Bishop, kids really do want the faith. . .

This post from the Curt Jester about the English bishop who thinks he knows what Catholic youth REALLY want reminded me of my post from last year. . .

Kids These Days: what they don't want from the Church!


Someone send his excellency the link. . .

Amazing!

Turn the volume WAY up!



H/T: Rocco

Natale a Roma!

It's final. . .I will be in Rome for Christmas. . .ah well. . .

I was trying to finagle my vacation budget and take a quick trip home to surprise my parents on the 24th.

But. . .flights to the U.S. are running at about $1,300 and that's with two and three stops along the way. I've traveled enough to know that you increase exponentially the chances of problems with every stop you add.

So, instead I'm going to go home over the Easter break (Apr 4-19). That way I can visit with the family; take a trip to Irving to rummage around in the storage building for books I need for the dissertation; see my doc for the needed RX's, etc.

This will be a much more relaxed visit b/c I will have longer to hang around. . .

Any suggestions for Midnight Mass? (other than St Peter's!)

20 December 2008

New arrivals

A few new book arrivals from the WISH LIST to report:

Sabine N. (2), Will D. (1), and Catherine T. (1).

Grazie mille! Mille grazie!


Makes it all worth it. . .

The following was sent to me anonymously as a comment. . .it deserves a post all its own:

Father,

I just don't have the time to read every comment in detail and ponder every point you have made. Can I just say this. . .? I am a "modern, educated" woman who has had the experience of contracepting, trying to be Protestant, and now, currently living in a Catholic, sacramental marriage with a Catholic man.

Trying to be humble, trying to integrate the beauty of Church teaching with the reality of Originl Sin and the fall from grace... isn't easy, simple, or a done-deal. It's a daily battle.

But. . .I THANK GOD for good priests like you, and good husbands like mine, imperfect as they may be (like mine), who help me to understand that I am not at war with my spouse, my fertility, my children, or patriarchal humanity; what I am at odds with is satanic influence (yes, it exists as surely as the molecule), and with my own lack of humility and fall from grace.

I love men who, while battling their own concupescience, acknowledge the grace of God, the beauty of His plan, and embrace fertility, fidelity, and children. This is the way to combat the sorrowfully deficient arguments of Tony Blair's wife, and those who would like to embrace God's beautiful plan for the complemetarity of humanity yet are held back by. . .well. . .sin.

18 December 2008

Fr. Philip's comments on Cherie Blair's Angelicum lecture

Below you will find excerpts from Cherie Blair's talk at the Angelicum conference held here last Friday. I have chosen to focus on the more controversial parts.

The Church and Women’s Rights: time for a fresh perspective? (full pdf text)

[. . .]

It is clear that the way Jesus related to women indicates that he did not expect the main role of women to be to enchant or be subjects of admiration for men. Matthew’s Gospel describes, for example, his interaction with the Canaanite woman whose daughter he eventually healed. He first tries to brush off the woman when she asks him to intervene with a brusque “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to little dogs.” But the woman was no shrinking violet. Matthew’s describes here reply as a retort as she says: “Ah yes, Lord; but even little dogs eat the scraps that fall from their masters’ table.” Jesus was not all dismayed by her outspokenness but replied instead: “Woman, you have great faith. Let your desire be granted.” Scripture reveals that to be a woman of faith is to be a woman confident and assertive of herself, and her female desires and perspectives.

Given the broader context of this passage in the talk, these comments may be a quibble on my part, but I feel bound to point out that this particular interpretation of Jesus’ encounter with the Canaanite woman is theologically bankrupt. In order for this reading to be true, we must accept that 1) Jesus is unaware of his mission as universal savior; 2) that Jesus is not who he himself says he is—God; 3) that the man who will later go willingly to the Cross for the salvation of the world is here rejecting one of those he will later die to save; 4) that a human being, one person somehow teaches the Messiah a lesson; and 5) that the woman’s assertiveness is the focus of Jesus’ praise. The text of the meeting between Jesus, his disciples, and the Canaanite woman can be very easily interpreted in a way that makes sense of everything that Jesus has said about himself and everything the Church has subsequently taught based on these revelations. Briefly put, Jesus and the Canaanite woman engage in something like a skit in order to teach the disciples who Jesus is. Jesus knows who he is. So does the Canaanite woman. It is the disciples who appear to be struggling with Jesus’ identity and mission. Jesus takes this opportunity to demonstrate to his disciples who he is by giving the Canaanite woman the opening she needs to point out the universal salvific mission of the Messiah. Imagine Jesus looking at his disciples as the woman pleas with him and giving them a look that says, “Hey! Even she gets it. . .are you listening, blockheads!?” Jesus praises the woman’s faith, her trust, and by extension her love for her daughter. Nowhere in the story does Jesus praise her assertiveness, her confidence, or her desires as Blair asserts. The Canaanite woman is a woman of faith, that’s her power. I have preached about this ridiculous reading of the Canaanite woman several times: here, here, and here.

By drawing on the example of the confident women who have found their rightful place in the church in earlier times, women today can shape their role in the church and help interpret its fundamental truths in a way speaks with relevance to the modern world. What John Paul II wanted to see in Mulieris Dignitatem, the twentieth anniversary of which we also celebrate this year, was that the full human potential of women should be released, for their benefit and for that of the whole of society. For that to happen, along with access to property and to education, the Church has also rightly recognized the need for couples to exercise their fertility responsibly. We know better than ever before now, thanks to modern science, that life begins at conception with the contribution of both man and woman.

The phrase “to exercise their fertility responsibly” makes me nervous. To deny the implicit claim of the phrase would be ridiculous. However, what we mean by “responsible exercise” must be carefully unpacked. I know that there are faithful Catholics who believe that the responsible exercise of fertility means not using NFP because they consider it a form of artificial birth control. And I know Catholics who advocate the immediate sterilization of husband and wife in order to foster zero population growth in defense of Earth. Most Catholics, if the media are to be believed, stand with most Americans in their stalwart support for the moral use of contraception and medical necessity of abortion. All parties, when acting on their moral principles, believe that they are acting “responsibly.” So, the question for Blair at this point needs to be: “What standard are you using to judge the exercise of your fertility as responsible or irresponsible?” This question is answer in part in the following paragraphs. . .

I know that for myself, not least through the wonderful surprise of becoming a mother again for the fourth time at the age of 45. The Church rightly makes a clear distinction between controlling fertility and terminating a life once conception has occurred. I experienced that myself when I refused to have an amniocentesis test which was regarded as automatic for an elderly mother such as myself when I found myself pregnant with my fourth child. Two years later I was more than conscious of a life lost when I miscarried a second late pregnancy.

This paragraph makes four important points. First, Blair describes her fourth pregnancy at age 45 as a “wonderful surprise.” Not the phrase we would expect for a pro-abortion ideologue. Second, Blair makes a distinction between “controlling fertility” and “terminating a life once conception as occurred.” This is a dodgy distinction where the Catholic faith is concerned. Yes, there is a difference between controlling the use of one’s fertility and aborting a child. However, the question is: what is the responsible use of one’s fertility? Not having sex is one responsible means. Surgical sterilization is an irresponsible means. This distinction is the set up for Blair’s later assertion that the Church makes a grave error when she links contraception and abortion. In other words, it appears that Blair denies any link between “preventing conception” and “terminating conception.” This distinction throws a very suspicious light on her commitment to the Church’s single teaching on the sacredness of life. Third, unspoken but strongly hinted at in her admission of refusing the amniocentesis test is a rejection of any possibility of having an abortion. For a woman of 45 years, a pregnancy can mean giving birth to a child with Downs Syndrome or some other birth defect. As I understand it, it is quite common in the UK to abort children when they show any signs of congenital birth defects. Blair is telling us here that by refusing the test, she never considered abortion as an option. Fourth Blair reports that a fifth pregnancy was lost in a miscarriage and that she is conscious of having lost a human life in that tragic event. Clearly, Blair believes that human life begins at conception and is sacred from that moment on.

The Church’s current teaching on responsible parenthood is summed up in Article 3 of The Charter of the Rights of the Family, It says “The spouses have the inalienable right to found a family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number of children to be born, taking into full consideration their duties towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society, in a just hierarchy of values and in accordance with the objective moral order which excludes recourse to contraception, sterilization and abortion.”

Here Blair freely admits the Church’s teaching against the use of contraception, sterilization and abortion, categorically excluding their use as a means of exercising responsible fertility. However. . .

And while I am on record as having had difficulties with accepting the current teaching on responsible parenthood [. . .]

Here we enter the land of ambiguity. In the paragraph Blair quotes the Church excludes the use of contraception, sterilization and abortion in the development and exercise of responsible parenthood. When she says that she is “on record as having had difficulties with accepting the current teaching on responsible parenthood,” is she saying that she has difficulties with contraception, sterilization, abortion, all three, or some combination of the three? This is unclear. It does not help her pro-life case that she follows this ambiguous admission with the following. . .

[. . .] I do recognize that much of what Paul VI predicted could happen in Humanae Vitae as a result of the wide and indiscriminate use of abortion has been borne out particularly in relation to baby girls as the birth ratios of boys to girls in some countries testify. What those lost girls demonstrate is that across the world we lack widely held sense that the contribution of women is important to society in its own right. The situation of too many women in the developing world shows that we are still so far away from women being regarded as of equal worth to men.

We might want to jump in here and note that a truly pro-life Blair would be horrified at any abortion regardless of the sex of the child or its nationality, socio-economic status, etc. But we must remember that she is presenting at a conference on women and human rights, so she is simply connecting the particular point to the theme of the conference. I doubt very seriously that Blair is only concerned about the aborting of poor Indian girls to the exclusion of all other nationalities, etc.

Here, the overwhelming problems are economic, education and health-related. The British Independent newspaper, commenting on the 1994 UN Population Conference in Cairo singled out the Catholic Church for praise. It persuasively argued that by being one of the leading providers of education to girls across the developing world, the Church was making a powerful contribution to improving the lives of women, to lifting them out of poverty and enabling them to reduce levels of childbirth which can be dangerous to their health. History teaches us that improving the general economic situation and women’s educational levels gives them more power in society and helps them to exercise more responsible fertility.

Taken as it is written, there is nothing objectionable here. Women’s education and access to property rights is a basic human rights issue and one that the Church is right to support. Improved economic conditions, etc. are always a good thing. My sneaking worry here is that Blair is making an Obama-esque move toward the argument that we ought to focus our pro-life attention on improving overall economic conditions as the primary means of reducing the number of abortions. Again, on the surface, what’s objectionable about improved economic conditions and a reduction in the number of abortions? Nothing. The difficulty lies in the priority given to the socio-economic over the juridical. Abortion must be outlawed as an expression of our nation’s horror at the killing of children. If someone argues that the numerical reduction of abortion needs to be our goal and not the outlawing of abortion, ask them: Why do you want to reduce the number of abortion? In other words, why do you consider abortion to be that sort of activity that needs to be reduced? We outlaw rape, slavery, murder, kidnapping, etc. in order to dissuade people from committing these heinous acts. We also outlaw them in order to define who we are as a people who respect human life and freedom. So long as we continue to move toward lifting all legal restrictions on abortion; eliminating all moral and religious objections to abortion; and then making tax dollars available to pay for abortions, we cannot expect to see any reduction in the number of abortions.

We are all on a journey here. Just as there has been a journey from hostility to acceptance in relation to the Church’s teachings on human rights. I think we will see the Church continue to develop and refine some of its teachings regarding the specific issues which arise from women’s rights, always on the basis of an ever-deeper entering in to the witness and teaching of Christ and into his love for humanity.

Again, I am struck by the desire to shout Yes! and at the same time Wait! Clarification is needed here. Yes, we are all on a journey. A journey to the perfection that is Christ Jesus. And this journey to Christ Jesus is clearly and carefully defined by objective moral and ethical standards that brook no violation in the honest pursuit of holiness. To say that “we are all on a journey” is true but hardly profound if what is really meant is “all these moral standards are subject to the whims of history and will disappear on our journey soon enough.” Being on a journey in no way excuses the sojourner from his or her responsibility in traveling the narrow way though the eye of the needle. Of course, we will venture off the path, but those moments of getting lost have reasons not excuses. And we must always be on guard against making the short-cuts, the off-trail adventures, the off-road expeditions the norm. It is entirely too easy and too dangerous to excuse one’s moral error with a flippant “well, I’m on a journey.” I don’t think this is what Blair is doing here, but I find it necessary to flash the warning.

Those who predicted the death of religion have been disappointed. In the 21st Century, faith for many hundreds of millions of people remains an integral part of what it is to be human. And the Church has a critical role to play in discussions about what true equality must mean.

So, the question remains: is Blair pro-life or not? Here’s my considered conclusion given this talk, her answers after the talk, and her public associations. The easy conclusion: Blair has no difficulties with artificial contraception. She openly advocates for its use contra Church teaching and argues that the Church makes a serious error when she links contraception to abortion. She holds that the Church’s moral authority in opposing abortion is seriously weakened by its opposition to artificial birth control. On this issue she opposes the Church’s pro-life teachings and fails to understand the intrinsic link between a respect for the dignity of the human person and the proper moral use of our reproductive faculties. Though strictly speaking, contraception is not abortion, the two are inevitably tied to the destruction of the sacred links among love, sex, and procreation. Blair acknowledges that Paul VI was correct in predicting the destructive result of legalized abortion. It is very odd that she fails to see how artificial birth control has de-valued women globally by undermining any legitimate progress for women’s liberation from cultural oppression and leaving women more isolated and alone than every before in human history.

On abortion, I am ready to believe that since Blair admits that life begins at conception, she holds that abortion is the termination of a human life. It seems fairly apparent to me that she is opposed to abortion for the sake of birth control and that she would be happy to see a reduction in the number of overall abortions or even their elimination altogether through improved education, economics, and the liberal use of contraception. Given Blair’s public associations, International Planned Parenthood, for example, it is impossible for me to say that she is categorically opposed to abortion as a form of murder. In other words, I do not believe that she accepts without qualification the Church’s teaching that abortion is the direct killing of innocent life, and because it is so, abortion is always, everywhere, and in all circumstances a morally evil act. The answers she gave to questions after her talk clarified very little of the confusion. She reacted against the accusation that she is not a good Catholic. She asserted again that she follows Church teaching—this is manifestly untrue in the case of contraception. She said that she could not understand how pro-life advocates so misunderstand her own pro-life position and she seemed genuinely upset that she is misunderstood. I am hesitant to call this upsetedness disingenuous, however, it strikes me as odd that she is so puzzled about the opposition when she belongs the Planned Parenthood and supports the UN treaty on the elimination of discrimination against women, a document that clearly and forcefully calls for the establishment of “reproductive rights” as a human right. At the very least, Blair must admit that her critics have something to worry about when they look over her C.V. and see so many national and international groups that vigorously support abortion.

Despite the ambiguity of Blair’s pro-life credentials, I want to say unambiguously that I fully support the decision of Sr. Helen Alford and the Angelicum administration to invite Blair to speak at this conference. Catholics have absolutely nothing to fear from the truth. No one that I know here at the Angelicum came away from this event emotionally scarred, spiritually disenchanted, weakened in the faith, or magically converted to a pro-abortion position. Our job here is to teach the truth. Sometimes the best way to do that is to point to error and say, “See. That’s wrong. And here’s why…” We cannot turn a Dominican university into a Sunday school class. No one at the Angelicum advocates for abortion. There are legitimate disagreements about how best to address the evil of abortion. These are tactical and strategic differences. Not differences with the Church about core teaching.

Some will object that Blair was not properly challenged in the question and answer period. I agree. This was not a conspiracy of silence but rather a consequence of our limited time. For those of us who go to conferences regularly, we soon learn that a common feature of these gatherings is the lack of sufficient time for questions and discussions. They are structured occasions for professionals to discuss topics of interest not casual gatherings of friends for debate. Often questioners give long-winded speeches before asking a dull question, or ask a good question that gets lost in the subsequent discussion.

Go read the full texts for yourself and make up your own mind.

On the event itself. I’ve read some very dodgy news reports and blog posts about the reaction of the audience to Blair’s talk. It is obvious from the slant given in these descriptions that the reporters/bloggers need for Blair to be seen as a pro-abortion advocate and anyone who invites her to speak as secret pro-abortion supporters.

Let me say here with all the clarity I can muster:

--there were no standing ovations for Blair as has been reported.
--the applause was polite not enthusiastic.
--the laughter was “yea, we know what you mean” and not appreciative.
--most all of the friars who attended came away noting Blair’s ambiguity.
--none of us were in any way “duped” by Blair’s talk.

No doubt this conversation will continue for a while longer. . .in the meantime, I believe that we are bound to pray for Cherie Blair and her husband, asking God to work overtime in converting their hearts to an unambiguously pro-life stance, propelling them to work as hard for life as they work for other social justice goals supported by the Church.

15 December 2008

When YES leads to despair

3rd Week Advent (T): Zep 3.1-2, 9-13; Matt 21.28-32
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS Domenico e Sisto, Roma


For those who wander in the desert, relying on one another for survival, relying on family and friends to live day to day, relying on the providence of God to flourish where they find themselves, for these folks, the city, with all its complications and distractions, represents everything that can go wrong with the human spirit. The city is clogged with unnamed faces. It’s dirty, polluted with waste. Filled to the brim with crime, sin, disease. Souls are detached from one another. There is no communion, only commerce. No peace, no silence. Only racket, wrecks, riots, and the tyranny of loneliness. For those who wander in the desert, relying on family, friends, and the Lord, their God, the city is Sin given architecture and a population. The city is a disobedient mouth, gaping in the desert, shouting up at God, “rebellious and polluted,” a mouth both defiant and desperate, shouting up at God, “I WILL NOT!” This is the start of loneliness, the beginning of despair: the first step is to shout NO! at God.

The first son shouts, “I will not!” when asked by his father to work in the vineyard. The second son, when ordered to go to work among the vines, says, “Yes, sir!” The defiant son, his disobedient mouth twisted with rebellion, resolves his heart and mind and goes to work despite his first wrong step. The compliant son, his obedient mouth ready with yes’s and sir’s, has no resolution in his heart or mind and goes ahead instead to do his own will. Jesus asks the chief priests and elders, “Which of the two [sons] did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus agrees. The first son took the first step to loneliness and despair by defying the will of his father. But he repented and did as he was told. The second son also took the first step to loneliness and despair. Even though his compliant mouth said, “Yes, sir”, his rebellious will said no, leaving him set aside, detached, without the help of his father.

Jesus tells the chief priests and the elders of the people that they are like the second son, obedient in word, mouthing yes yes but doing nothing, believing less, watching the rebellious prostitutes, the loathsome tax-collectors change their defiant NO’s to loving YES’s, and yet, even with John coming to them “in the way of righteousness,” they do not believe; they do not act. And so they stand together in their loneliness and despair, poking around for visions and signs and wonders, wandering the desert of the sinful city, rebellious and polluted with yes on their lips but the heavy darkness of no in their hearts.

Our Lord comes. If your mouth says yes, let it come from a heart and mind given to the Lord. If your mouth says no, let it come from a heart and mind willing to change, willing to repent. The rebellious and polluted city is no place for a son or daughter of the Lord.

14 December 2008

Heresy and Mass Intentions

Aight! I feel bad for all those who answered the heresy question correctly but didn't have the advantage of the good time zone. . .the perils of living at GMT +1 with an audience at GMT -6.

So, if you correctly guessed the Name That Heresy question, send me your intention, and I will offer that intention at Mass over the next few weeks.

Please note: my family, friends, book benefactors, men and women seeking vocations all get lifted up every Mass. . .I tend to storm the gates of heaven when I say Mass and receive communion!

Send away. . .I will keep track. If you don't want me to publish your intention, say so.

13 December 2008

CD's for Christmas!!


Since Christmas is fast approaching, check out this new CD by two University of Dallas students--brother & sister team, Joe and Ellen.

Joe took a theology class with me one summer. . .buy a CD, buy several. . .I wanna be able to say someday when they are famous, "Oh yea. . .I knew them when they were just snotty nosed U.D. geeks!"

Name that heresy! (RESULTS)


This pic is a great illustration of a common Christian heresy. . .

Do you know what that heresy is?

Do you know why it is a heresy?

Do you know why so many of us fall into this heresy?

I will hold all comments until everyone has a chance to guess. . .

First one to guess correctly gets a Mass for their intentions!



RESULTS! Yes, the pic represents the heresy, pelagianism. . .the idea that man can not only do the good without God's grace, but can save himself through his good deeds. Augustine worked out the basics of our Catholic understanding of grace and free will while engaging the British monk, Pelagius in debate.


Looks like "The Shepherd" was the first to answer correctly. . .now, if The Shepherd turns out to be a bishop. . .well, I may have to go to the next closest lay answer. . . ;-)

I am very pleased with how many of you came up with the correct answer even if you didn't know the name of the heresy!

Thanks for playing. . .Name That Heresy!


12 December 2008

Is Blair really pro-choice/pro-abortion?

Just stepped back into my room from listening to Cherie Blair speak here at the Angelicum. . .

I will give a full report when I have had a chance to read the text of her talk.

Initial observations:

Great historical survey of human rights as they relate to women.

Good intro to the secular philosophy of the Declaration on Human Rights.

Good job placing the Catholic Church in the history of the struggle for recognition of human rights, though she said that the Church was not involved in the human rights struggle until well into the 20th century. Dominicans from the University of Salamanca fought against slavery in the New World in the 17th century using primitive notions of human rights and dignity.

Made several predictable and annoying points about "women's rights" in the Church; e.g., "more women in the curia would give the Church different priorities." The Church has one priority regardless of the sex of those who work in the curia: preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

From her remarks and her answer to questions afterward, I must conclude that Blair is pro-contraception but not pro-choice on abortion. This is a tentative conclusion on my part. I want to read the text itself before saying anything too firmly. Her political and charitable associations would make it very difficult to conclude that she is not pro-abortion; however, she seemed to reject outright any difficulty with Church teaching on this issue.

More later. . .

11 December 2008

'Lupe!

Our Lady of Guadalupe is the patroness of my priestly vocation. Today I will concelebrate the Mass and pray for the intentions of all those young men I know who are discerning vocations to the priesthood. I will ask our Lady to strengthen their hearts and clear their minds so that they can say YES! to the Lord's call to serve in his ordained ministry.

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer

Holy Mary, who under the title of Our Lady of Guadalupe are invoked as Mother by the men and women of Mexico and of Latin America, encouraged by the love that you inspire in us, we once again place our life in your motherly hands.

May you, who are present in these Vatican Gardens, hold sway in the hearts of all the mothers of the world and in our own heart. With great hope, we turn to you and trust in you.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us!

Oh, but they do carry pom-poms...

In the Jesuit tradition

Diogenes from Catholic Culture

The newly elected US Congressman:

* was once a former Jesuit novice, before realizing that his calling was to marriage and a secular career.

* remains an active Catholic layman-- in fact, served a term on the National Advisory Council to the US bishops' conference.

* won a special-election victory over an incumbent who is facing bribery charges.

* is the son of immigrants, whose father spent years in a Communist prison camp.

* has worked primarily as an attorney for immigrants.
* is solidly pro-life.

So why isn't Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao a poster boy for Catholic activism? Why isn't be being asked to speak on the campus of every Jesuit university in the country? Why aren't editors of America magazine shaking their pom-poms?

And please don't tell me that America editors don't carry pom-poms.

This guy cracks me up every time!

You just might need them some day. . .







If
you have any extra cash or transferable stock lying around, send them to these folks. . .

I have the distinct feeling that we are going to need their services quite often in the next, oh, four to eight years. . .

More on Blair

LifeSiteNews has more info on the on-going brouhaha over the Angelicum's invitation to pro-abortion Catholic, Cherie Blair.

Below you will find a response from Sr. Helen Alford, OP, dean of the social sciences faculty here at the Angelicum. I have made my position on this invitation clear in the post below and in the comboxes: Blair would not be my first choice for a speaker; however, as a Dominican university engaged in the education of the Church's future lay and clerical leaders, I believe we are duty-bound to demonstrate to our students the Order's ancient tradition of disputationes, that is, the public airing of differences so that the Truth may be shown triumphant.

I am truly confused by the negative reaction to this invitation. The university is in no way honoring Blair. She's not receiving an honorary degree. She's not being asked to speak at commencement. She's not being asked to raise money. . .no buildings or rooms or hallways will be named after her. . .no momuments, plaques, gardens or gazebos will be dedicated to her. She is here to lecture on an academic topic of interest to social scientists, and she will be balanced with another international speaker, a pro-life Catholic woman from Norway. There will be time for questions & challenges. Student attendance at the event is not required. I don't understand the problem.

If those opposed to Blair speaking at the Angelicum are seeking to punish her for her pro-abortion views, then I suggest you focus your attention on her bishop in the U.K. The idea that a Catholic university cannot tackle the disputed questions of the day is bizarre. The University of Dallas is one of the most traditional Catholic liberal arts colleges I know of and on faculty there are Jews, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, and even. . .GASP!!!. . .a Scotist or two (that's pushing the line, I'll concede.). Without a single negative comment from anyone I taught a senior/grad student seminar on "postmetaphysical theologies." We read Heidegger, Nietzsche, several deconstructionsist theologians, a few postmodernists-liberals, one postmetaphysical Catholic, and one or two so-called "death of god" theologians. The university survived the trauma.

And the Church will survive Cherie Blair's pro-abortion presence at the Angelicum.

09 December 2008

Has the fat friar sung yet...?

In response to a heart-felt and motherly admonition from a faithful reader, I am writing this follow-up to my recent request for prayer. . .

In the last week, I have been hit with several small "attacks" and one big one. Taken separately, these are really nothing all that serious. However, taken together, on top of feeling overwhelmed with the task of "catching up" on my philosophy reading and struggling with Italian, I have allowed the stress to become an excuse for me to grow a bit lax in my observance.

Laxity in observance leads to less immunity from attack. . .and so on.

A lot of what hit this week has come from my past. Old faces and personalities popping up in odd places. . .renewing long-lost friendships. . .some less healthy than others. . .getting myself stupidly embroiled in a conflict with another religious over a petty thing. . .having difficulty getting some of my meds through customs in Milan. . .having more difficulty getting one of my RX's rewritten in the States. . .continuing difficulty sleeping more than a few hours a night. . .all kinds of temptations against obedience. . .as I said, taken separately, none of these alone would be dangerous. . .but they all hit simultaneously! And when one tends to melancholy, introspection, cynicism, and crankiness already. . .watch out!!!

So, where I am now? Well, pretty much all of this is still on-going. I was told yesterday that I won a scholarship from the university! WooHoo! And I think there's some movement on the teaching front that looks good. I am excited about my writing project. . .though the thought writing another dissertation is somewhat intimidating.

Regardless, I am feeling stronger spiritually and more prepared to tackle the demons. No doubt this development is the direct result of the generous response I have received to my plea for prayer. For this I am very, very grateful. I didn't intend to worry any of you with my request. Being a gregarious introvert, sometimes my internal struggles sort of spring out sideways and tend to look more dramatic than they really are. I don't mean to downplay the stress I'm feeling. That would be counterproductive. However, I don't want to exaggerate either.

Last night, I took a break from reading and did two things that helped me tremendously. First, I watched an hour long documentary on the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Talk about having your problems put in proper perspective! Then, after this hour of depression, I watched about twenty minutes of Babies Laughing vids on youtube. The combo of genocide and babies proved therapeutic.

Again, sorry for the drama! And grazie mille for the prayers. . .

Fr. Philip, OP


08 December 2008

Back in Black (and White)!

I'm back! Had a rough weeks, but all is well. . .as usual. . .

Among four or five other smaller issues that popped up over the week, I found out that, contrary to initial reports, I will need the Ph.D. in philosophy BEFORE I can start teaching in Rome. My initial understanding was that I would complete the Ph.L. in philosophy and begin teaching as a regular faculty member, teaching in the undergrad core. The Ph.D. I hold already would serve as the fulfillment of the "canonical" pre-requisite for teaching on a pontifical faculty (along with the license, a pontifical degree). However, because the Vatican has recently signed on to the Bologna Accords, univeristry accreditation in the E.U. has become almost as restrictively categorical as it is in the States.

I have been assured that I can teach as an assitant to a professor in the department while I write the dissertation. Since there was never any instructions from my province to take the Ph.D. and since I have a Ph.D. already and since I have been a university teacher for 22 years, the prospect of serving (once again!) as a teaching assistant at 45 years old is not all that attractive.

Am I being prideful? Yup. Still working on it. . .

Now, if I have to write a doctoral dissertation in addition to the license thesis, you all know what this means, right? Exactly! Time to visit the WISH LIST! It's amazing what one little book will do to help a weepy Dominican dry his prideful tears. . .hehehe. . .not to mention help him with those ever-elusive secondary sources.

One a less whiny/shameless note. . .I concelebrated Mass yesterday (along with about 100 other priests) at the North American College with John Cardinal Foley! The NAC celebrated its patronal feast, the Immaculate Conception, and its 150th birthday. Had a great time with the seminarians, with some Texas friends, and of course, the food was great.

Three for the Big I.C.

Three homilies for the Immaculate Conception. . .

Most Dangerous Announcement
(2005)

Mary's YES is Our Mission (2006)

Mary: Deathless Mother, Church (2007)

When Idiots Do Theology

The Los Angeles Times, on its way to a financial bankruptcy to match its ethical bankruptcy, takes multiple potshots at the Church on its way (further) down. . .

And Newsweek, that bastion of biblical brainpower and unbiased Babel's Tower of integrity and grit, shows us how 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian scholarship is wrong and that the bible actually supports same-sex "marriage."

As I wrote to the Catholic friend who sent me the link: "The question I would love to ask the writer is: if your thesis is true, why in 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian religious history has there never been a single instance of a same-sex 'marriage' being celebrated as exemplary for Christians and Jews? You would think that if scripture is pressing the point that love and fidelity are more important that the sex of the couple, then one very powerful way of showing this would be to give us an example of a loving, faithful same-sex marriage. Yet, none exist. And we must be careful not to confuse same-sex friendships (Jonathan and David) with sexually active, religiously recognized, sacramental marriages celebrated in the Bible."

I believe it is Mark Shea who sensibly warns Catholics to run and hide any time the media purports to wade into religious discussions and provide "perspective."

07 December 2008

..and don't you forget it...

When temptation attacks. . .the walls of the convent are the sieves of freedom; the bars of the monastery the gates of liberty!

05 December 2008

Pray!

Please keep me in prayer this weekend. . .I received some news yesterday that has shaken me a bit. . .nothing tragic or earth-shattering. . .just some developments that might require some adjustments in plans.

These recent developments along with an interpersonal conflict, a difficulty with my medical insurance, a recurring temptation against my vows (no, not that), and a problem sleeping more than a few hours a night have left me scattered, testy, and open to more and more spiritual malaise.

In other words, business as usual. Pray hard.

[UPDATE: I just got a clear message from You Know Who that I am not capable of charitable discourse right now, so no posts this weekend. Not until I can get my act together.]

Angelicum dean responds to Blair inquiry

In response to my inquiry about the invitation to Cherie Blair to speak at the Angelicum, I received the following reply from Sr. Helen Alford, OP, dean of the school of social sciences:

Thanks for your message and your patience in waiting for a reply. As you can imagine, there is a lot going on at the moment.

Here's the bit I sent to EWTN this afternoon:

"Thank you for your interest in our conference. By inviting Mrs Blair, we, as a faculty of social sciences, are following the example of the Pope’s own social sciences institute, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, based in the Vatican itself. Mrs Blair was invited to make an address to its 2006 plenary assembly, which focused on children and young people. After her speech, as a spontaneous act of kindness, the Pope received Mrs Blair in a private audience, despite the fact that, as it was an unexpected invitation, she was not dressed in the protocol black. She was invited to speak in an academic capacity and was received by the Pope on that basis. Obviously, in doing so, neither the Vatican as a whole, nor the Pope personally, was in any way endorsing a pro-abortion point of view, and neither are we."

Here's the link to the Zenit article about this.

As you know from the conference programme, we have another main speaker, Janne Haaland Matlary, who has been a member of the Holy See delegations to various UN conferences with Mary Ann Glendon and others. She has been featured in Zenit on several occasions, including when she published her book on her conversion to Catholicism. You might be interested to know the abstract she sent me of her talk:

"JHM will address the importance of human rights for women at a time when they are discriminated against in severe terms in many places, in not being granted equality. She discusses how the UNHR of 1948 was quite revolutionary in establishing such equality, but also points out that fundamental human rights have become an instrument for Western feminism, imposed on the Third World. For instance, there is no human right to abortion, as there is no human right to have children. When human rights are used as political tools, also repressive states will be able to define rights as they wish."

There is also time for discussion and debate from the floor.

This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable explanation. I recommend it to you.

Father Elijah, Cardinal Newman, the Anti-Christ

When my eyes begin to blur and my head spin from reading too much philosophy & theology for the thesis, I turn to popular literature. Right now, I am reading Michael O'Brien's Father Elijah: An Apocalypse. In one scene, Fr. Elijah is on retreat and trying to figure out how he will carry out the Holy Father's request that he approach the Anti-Christ and try to convert him. To help him with these discernment, Father turns to the Advent sermons of John Cardinal Newman on the anti-Christ. I found them on-line. Here's an excerpt from Sermon One:

Malignant principle of Antichrist is always at work

2. Now, in the next place, what is told us about Antichrist by the sacred writers? This first of all, as has been already noticed, that he embodies a certain spirit, which existed even in the days of the Apostles. "The mystery of iniquity doth already work." "Even now there are many Antichrists." And what that spirit is, St. John declares in a subsequent chapter. " Every spirit that confesseth not that JESUS CHRIST is come in the flesh, is not of GOD; and this is that spirit of the Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world." Here we see what its doctrine is to be; but on that I shall not here enlarge. I am speaking of its working, which had begun in the days of the Apostles, and has doubtless continued ever since. Doubtless this malignant principle has been at work since from time to time, though kept under by him that "withholdeth." Nay, for what we know, at this very time there is a fierce struggle, the spirit of Antichrist attempting to rise, and the political power in those countries which are prophetically Roman, firm and vigorous in repressing it. What that spirit is, it would be beside my purpose here to attempt to ascertain, any more than to enlarge upon its doctrine; though certainly there is at this very time, as in the days of our fathers, a fierce and lawless principle every where at work,-a spirit of rebellion against GOD and man, which the powers of government in each country can barely keep under with their greatest efforts. Whether this which we witness be that spirit of Antichrist, which is one day to be let loose, this ambitious spirit, the parent of all heresy, schism, sedition, revolution, and war,-whether this be so or not, certainly the present framework of society and government, as far as it is the representative of Roman power, would seem to be that which withholdeth, and Antichrist is that which will rise when this restraint fails.

All four sermons are available at the link above.

Here's the text & podcast of my one of my "devilish" homilies. . ."With the Devil in the Desert " (1st Sunday of Lent 2006)

03 December 2008

More questions and a China story...

Random questions. . .

1). Tell me about your time in China.

Even though I was there for only five months, those five months could make a good-sized book. II finished my masters in English in May of 1989 and decided that the life of a student was getting to be frustrating and possibly even mentally damaging! Through a fellow grad student in my department, I arranged a teaching contract with the Chinese government to teach English, American literature, and literary theory. In the fall of 1990, I arrived in Changsha, Hunan to teach in the foreign language college of Changsha Institute, a university of about 55,000 students operated by the transportation department of the government. My contract stipulated that I would teach no more than five classes per term. That I would be paid in foreign exchange currency (FEC) and not the local "monolopy money." My salary was set at 1,300 Yuan a month. This was 13x's what an average worker made in year! That I would have access to a car and a driver when necessary. There were other items but these were the important ones for understanding why I left when I did. My room and board were free. I lived on-campus and ate my meals in the faculty dining room. Next door lived an older Swiss couple who spoke only French and Spanish.

The teaching was a HUGE challenge. First, the university broke its own contract by giving me nine classes with a total of 320 students. I taught everything from sophomore oral English to a graduate seminar in contemporary literary theory. I taught all "classes" of students, meaning first, second, and third class students--respectively, the future diplomats and party official,s the future college and secondary school teachers, and the tourist industry workers. My students ranged from "better than me in English grammar" to "can barely say hello and thank you in English." The third class students were herded into my classrooms, and I was expected to train them like seals to bark out polite English phrases. The first class students were the least interested in learning b/c their places in Chinese society were already fixed. The second class students were the brightest and most eager to learn. . .more so than even the grad students.

Outside the classroom, I was in demand to give public poetry readings, talks on American culture, music, politics; tell stories about growing up in the U.S.; even answer the occasional question on religion. At the time, I was an alienated Episcopalian and firm Marxist. I kept the Marxist label to myself b/c I would have lost credibility with the students. My social life was pretty dead. I was the only American, the only native English speaker in that part of the city (3.5 million in 1990). There was a large group of American undergraduates teaching at a middle school about 30 minutes away. On the weekends I was a welcomed guest. I made ten times the money these guys did and I had nothing to spend it one but food and beer. So, I was the sugardaddy for the weekend gatherings.

Problems began to arise almost immediately. First, the university was monitoring my every move. My mail arrived opened. My phone was tapped. I was followed off-campus. Books I checked out of the library were recorded. Visitors were registered before being allowed to come on-campus. Second, the university would not pay me in FEC. I got Chinese monopoly money instead. This meant that I could not exchange my outrageously high Chinese salary for dollars. Third, I was going crazy from lack of friends and regular social engagement. On a regular basis my students would disappear out of town. No warning to me. No word at all that I would be going a week without classes to teach. I would show up on a Monday morning and there would be no students. I would do this until they reappeared. So, I would go for days without seeing or speaking to another person. If the American undergrads would out of town or busy, I would go for several weeks. I had a Chinese university employee who was responsible for herding me around and he actually became a friend, but his superiors were constantly chiding him for spending too much time with me.

The final straw came in November when I called home and found out that my grandmother's surgery for cancer had failed and that she was dying. With everything going on in the university, without any emotional or spiritual support, without any way to stay in touch with my family, I couldn't imagine staying in China through my grandmother's death. I decided to leave. The university made an effort to keep me on, but there was nothing they could do about my family situation. I left on Dec. 1, 1990 and returned to Mississippi. My grandmother died in January 1991.

Looking back three things are pretty obvious to me now: 1) I was not emotionally mature enough at 26 to take on an overseas adventure that large, that foreign; 2) I was not spiritually strong enough to combat the forces allied against me in the guise of Marxist ideology and the frequent assaults of Protestant fundamentalism coming from some of the American "teachers" in the city; 3) my problems can run as fast as I can, and they have a better sense of direction. Interestingly enough, my name is on a list somewhere here in Rome as a friar with experience in China and a potential missionary for work in the PRC. Yea, not so sure about that. . .

2). Is the Catholic faith scriptural?

Of course. All of the teachings of the Church are based on scripture and none contradict it. However, it can't be said often enough that the Catholic faith is not a "religion of the book," but rather a living, breathing Church, the Body of Christ. Yes, of course, we take the bible seriously and look to scripture for the truths of the faith. But the Bible cannot interpret itself. It must be read, interpreted, and implemented in the real world. This is why Jesus gave us the church and gave the church the authority she needs to interpret and implement the teachings of scripture. When it comes to interpreting the Bible there are three choices: do your yourself, allow the church to do it for you, or do it with the Church as a member of the Body. The first choice is the Protestant way. The second is the cultist way. The third is the Catholic way. Be careful in discussions with non-Catholic Christians that you do not let me browbeat you into the "where is that in the Bible?" stick. If they try that, counter with: "Show me in the Bible where it says that that has to be in the Bible in order for me to believe it." The Catholic Church does not see the Bible as the sole means of divine revelation. There are three means--scripture, creation, Jesus Christ (the two natured person & his Body, the Church) and one source--God Himself. However, if for whatever reason you feel compelled to argue scripture with your Protestant friends, here's a great website to help you: Scripture Catholic. Just keep in mind: as Catholics we do not need scriptural proof-texts for our beliefs; so, the charge--"that's not in the Bible"--is really no big deal for us.

3). What do you think of Obama's cabinet picks?

Ugh. Politics again. Very briefly: I've said before on this blog that I believe Obama is a liberal Democrat, a typical politician. Nothing special as someone who runs and wins public office. That he is black and the first black to become President is a wonderful historical moment, but as a public servant, he's just a politician. His cabinet picks prove this. He appealed to the extreme left-wing of his party. Won the election. Now he is moving swiftly to the center. Predictable. Absolutely nothing surprising here. I think he's going to focus on the economy b/c his eyes are already scanning the deck of the 2012 re-election campaign. As long as the economy is bad, he will keep the SanFran/NYC liberals and their agendas at bay. He needs a Democrat Congress in 2010, and he know he will not get that if his main concerns become same-sex marriage and expanding abortion rights. So, let's see. I'm watching to see how he treats the Church when it comes to issues like publicly funded abortions and Catholic hospitals.

Also, I am waiting, no doubt in vain, for the MSM to start doing its job and providing the voting public with unbiased information about the Obama administration and its policies. All I'm seeing right now is talk show fluff, sycophantic doodling, celebrity-esque panting, and the very, very rare, "Hey, wait a minute. . .didn't he say something about change at one point?" Not enough. Not by far. With his leadership inexperience and his history of fraternizing with domestic terrorists and radicals, every decision he makes needs to be scrutinized in public with a microscope. I just wished we had a media willing and able to do this.


Rec's for pipe tobacco?

While we're on hats. . .any suggestions on a good pipe tobacco?

Something smooth, sweet that won't smell like burning trash. . .?

Arrivals & Haircuts (UPDATED)

More books have arrived. . .

Rachael K. (1), Jana (2), Paul & Mary H. (1), Bobby B. (1).

If I understand the way the post works here in the priory, the friar in charge of mailing letters, etc. takes them to work with him at Vatican Radio and mails them from the post office there. So, your Thank You notes may have the new Pope stamps and Vatican cancellations on them!

I am also looking forward to the arrival of some electric clippers from the U.S. With them I can buzz my own hair and spend the barber portion of my academic budget on books! WooHoo!

Speaking of short hair. . .I think I may end up needing a hat of some sort. Though I am rarely cold, it's possible that I could get sunburned. What kind of hat should I get?

[Update: It's strange. A couple of months ago, I posted a shortish piece on prayer and a much longer piece on religious life "behind the scenes." Both of those pieces got about five comments combined. Now, I have 21 comments about what kind of hat I should be wearing. You people are freaky! :-) ]

02 December 2008

Fr. Philip's Vocation Story

I was born a poor white child. . .in rural Mississippi. Sorry, couldn't resist. Nonetheless, it's true.

Both sides of my family are Mississippi delta cotton farmers. Though no one farms now, both of my grandfathers planted cotton. My mother and all of her sisters "chopped cotton." My dad drove a tractor. All of them went to church. My mother's family went to the Baptist Church and my dad's family went to the Methodist Church.

My first memory of church goes back to the sixth grade when my mom and dad sent me and my little brother to Vacation Bible School. Mostly I remember being the only kid that week who had not "accepted Jesus into his heart as his personal Lord and savior." Come Friday, feeling the pressure, I walked the aisle, said the necessary things, and walked back to my pew complete with Jesus. It didn't take.

For the most part my family back then was not a church-going bunch. We went occasionally, but mostly we spent Sundays working in the gardens, the yards, doing necessary work around the house and farm. Sometime my sophomore year, mom and dad decided to start going to church again. They chose a United Methodist Church in the largest town near us. It was the local "bankers' and doctors'" church. Lots of old money. Lots of nice cars. Lots of snooty glances at the rubes from the woods. I hated it. We stopped going after about six months.

That next year I went to Mexico with my junior Spanish class. We cut and sold firewood from my family's property to pay for the trip. Our teacher, a Catholic woman, helped us with the hard labor and with our Spanish. Up until we got to the National Cathedral and the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the trip had been a bust for me. My roommates were jerks. I didn't have much money. And my Spanish was rotten. When we arrived at the plaza in front of the cathedral, one of a hundred tour buses packed full of tourists, I stood up and started to the front of the bus like a robot. One more stop, one more site, snap a pic, get back on the cool bus. Little did I know. . .

The second I stepped off the bus, even before my foot hit the pavement, I notices crowds of older women in black on their knees slowly making their way to the shrine. They were praying with these necklaces in their hands. I turned to my teacher and asked what was going on. While she formulated an answer I was horrified to see that these women had bloodied their knees crawling on the gravel and pavement. What kind of religion was this?! My teacher said something about devotion and praying for sons in the drug world and some other things about Mary. I didn't really hear it all.

When we got inside the cathedral, I was overwhelmed with a sense of familiarity and comfort. Just this energetic boost of being home and welcomed. There was a Mass going on. I pestered my teacher for details. She explained what she could. She showed me how to make the sign of cross using holy water. How to kneel. She told me the names of all the fantastical objects in the church--the crucifix, the statues of Mary and the saints, the fonts and confessionals and altars. I was overwhelmed. It was like someone was reminding me of things I had known all my life.

As I look back on that day what I know now is that God trapped me with the sacramental imagination. He was showing me His presence in all the things of this sacred place. I "recognized" them as holy, as set-aside, because without having the words to articulate the feeling, I felt holy as well, loved, wanted. With this feeling still rattling around inside, we walked over to the newly opened Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe. I knew nothing about this. Nothing at all. The story, once I heard it, didn't impress me all that much. Sounded kinda far-fetched to me. The new basilica was ugly. Stark, angular, modern, cold. Nothing like the near primitive wonder of the cathedral. We saw the relic. Big deal. Move on.

With the vision of the bloody old ladies still in my head and the incense still in my nose. And maybe even a bead or two of holy water still clinging to my forehead, I got back on the bus and started in on my teacher. I pestered her some more about why she was Catholic and where I could get more information and could I come to Mass at her Church and did her Church have classes for people who wanted to be Catholics and on and on and on. . .she good-naturedly answered my questions.

We drove over the mountains to a village called Taxco. A silver mining town for tourists. Our hotel perched on the side of the mountain and my room had a balcony looking out over the valley. At midnight the local set off a stream of fireworks. I went to the balcony. It was very breezy and cold for a Mexican March night. Just standing there alone watching the fireworks I had this sudden sense that everything around me was rushing toward me, almost as if I were falling standing straight up. For just a few seconds I didn't hear anything. Going back to bed, I prayed--something I never did!--and simply asked God to tell me what to do.

I woke up the next morning convinced I should be a priest. After that I started having dreams.

I was vested in red and saying Mass in my high school auditorium.
I was teaching a class and a man called me out of the classroom to say Mass.
I was standing in a sacristy and couldn't find the right vestments.
I was in the middle of saying Mass and the sacramentary was all wrong, misprinted. . .

Eventually, I told my grandmother. She gave me a cigar box full of Catholic paraphernalia: a rosary, prayer cards, a small crucifix, and a "question and answer" catechism, which never left my side. I took it to school and embarrassed myself arguing with the Baptists. Even my teachers got in on the arguments! The stuff in that box became a tangible link for me to the Church.

When my parents found out that I wanted to be a priest, they were a little upset. They put up some resistance at first but eventually gave way. By this time I had gone off to college and joined the Episcopal Church. Why the Episcopal Church and not the Catholic? The E.C. in my college town was an old-fashioned brick building built in the 1830's. Stained glass. Brass fixtures. Beautiful hangings. The priests there wore their clerics. The music was thundering, beautifully sung. The services were "churchy." The Catholic Church in town was easily confused with a dentist office. Built in the late 70's, it was a box with those 7-11 glass doors and the whole "stripped bare" vibe. No statues. No tabernacle. No stained glass. No nothing that identified this building as a Catholic Church. The services were informal to the point of being just slightly more organized than a Baptist picnic. The music was folksy guitar, hand-clapping, tamborine banging. The priest wore ugly, ugly, ugly vestments. There was absolutely nothing solemn, nothing transcendent, nothing attractive about any of it. The choice to become Episcopalian was too easy.

I was baptized in the E.C. in 1982 and confirmed later that year. I immediately went to the rector and told him that I wanted to be an Episcoplian priest. I was 18. He told me to finish my undergrad studies, think about getting a masters, and come back when I was around 24 to discuss the whole thing again. 24?! That was middle-aged!! Anyway, I became very active in my parish. After a few years and well into grad school, I had a falling out with the rector. Being a good Protestant, I stopped going to church in protest. In the meantime, all sorts of ideologies, practices, philosophies, and personalities were drawing my attention.

Since the E.C. offered almost nothing in the way of solid teaching on moral deliberation or anything in the way of substantial intellectual formation, I fell prey to one dubious theology after another. Finally, in my last year of PhD studies, I was convinced that God did not exist. Despite this, I was convinced by a British prof teaching in my department that I should move to the U.K. and become a "red priest," that is, an Anglican priest who rejects theism but works in the church for "social justice" using Marxist/socialist categories as guides.

I decided to take a year out and teach English in China. That was a disaster. However, I came back to the States rededicated to my vocation to become an Episcopal priest. I started the formal discernment process in my diocese--a two year procedural grind that worked to discourage many people by its sheer complexity and futility. I served as the guinea pig postulant for my parish "discernment committee." The whole thing was a farce. At the time, I submitted to it out of a sense of wanting to collaborate and a sense that the Spirit would work through the committee to help me discern my vocation.

The details of the process would be book-length so I'll have to summarize: I spent two years meeting nearly weekly with nine lay people from the parish who asked the same questions over and over again. . .eventually they sent a positive recommendation to the vestry of the parish who then met with me to ask me the same questions over and over again. On the night of the vestry vote on whether or not to send my application to the bishop, every single member of the vestry looked me in the eye and told me that I had his/her support and vote. I went home confirmed in my vocation and ready to start seminary. At around 11.30pm, the rector called to tell me that the vestry had rejected my application. The reason: I had the stuff for making a good priest but just not yet mature enough. I was 28 at the time. The rector could not tell me why those voting against my application had lied to me earlier.

This rejection sent me into an anti-religious tailspin. It was during this time that I pursued my interests in the occult and became more and more enamored with Marxism. I spent two years finishing up doctoral coursework and preparing for comprehensive exams. After passing my orals, the prospectus defense, and suffering through several personal traumas, I left the academic world for a job in the psychiatric world. Once in place in my new home, I begain to pursue the priesthood again. This time in another diocese with another parish. At the urging of my parish priest, a woman from Mississippi, I took on a Catholic spiritual director, a Paulist priest in a local parish. Over a year with him I found my Catholic vocation again.

On the national scene, the E.C. was committing suicide with one disastrous lurch away from the historic faith after another. Finally, in 1995, I had had enough and left the E.C. to become a Catholic. I joined the RCC as a liberal High Church Episcopalian, meaning I was formally a Catholic but my theology and church politics were modernist and my liturgical tastes were medieval. I still didn't care for the informal, hippie-dippie Catholic liturgy, but the friendliness and community that the RCC had compared very favorably the chill I felt in the cliquey country club world of the EC.

Once confirmed, I immediately started the process for joining the Paulists. I spent two years in discernment with these guys. On the advice of the vocations director, I quit my excellent job at the hospital and moved home to spend the summer before entering seminary with my parents. I got a job in a local psych hospital and basically spent my free time getting "caught up" on all things Catholic and Paulist. In June of 1998, I came home from work and my mom told me that the Fr. John, the Paulist vocations director, has called and wanted me to call him back. I did. He told me that the president of the Paulists had rejected my application for admission. Fr. John would not tell me why. He said, "They're afraid you will sue us." Apparently, Fr. John should not have encouraged me to quit my job before the final decision about my application was made!

I was devastated. My mom wanted me to drop the whole idea of priesthood. I agreed. I walked around the house that day, saying over and over again, "What am I going to do?" My mom kept crying and telling me to just forget the priesthood, get a job, get an apartment, and be happy doing that. In the meantime, I was injured at work and got a staph infection in the injured site (first lumbar disc). I spent the next seven months in agony--both physical and mental, trying to deal with doctors, hospitals, insurance people. It was during that period of pain, dependence, helplessness, and rebellion that I finally found my niche. Accidently.

I was browsing an internet site that had an alphabetic listing of links to the websites of men's religious orders. Most of them I had never heard of. I spotted one that intrigued me "Discalced Carmelites." As I went to click on the link, I accidently clicked on the link for "Dominicans." I was taken to the order's main webpage and it took me all of three minutes to find the US provinces and the southern province. I contacted the vocation director via email and the next day he called to chat with me for two hours. About a week later he came from New Orleans to my parents' house in Mississippi to interview me. We spent six hours together. He offered me an application at the end of the meeting.

What was special about this discernment? Over the years I've complicated the whole affair into something it isn't. For me, the simple truth is this: the Dominicans wanted me. The Episcopalians didn't want me. The Paulist rejected me. The Dominicans wanted me, and they promised to make use of my gifts. I was accepted into the 1999-2000 novitiate class. My acceptance was contingent on my finishing the PhD before July 1999. I wrote furiously from Feb to July, finishing a first draft by the time my plane left. I graduated with the PhD in May of 2000. I was simply professed in 2000; solemnly professed in 2003; ordained deacon in 2004 and priest in 2005.

Smooth sailing the whole way, you ask. Ohhhhh, no. The novitiate was very hard. My studium years were extremely difficult. I made the move from being an ideological Marixist with religious pretensions to being an orthodox Catholic. The move has not been applauded by all of my brothers and sisters in the Order. Sometimes, I get the impression that there is some "buyer's remorse" about accepting my application! However, I have found many brothers and sisters in the Order (from the whole theological spectrum) who share St Dominic's zeal for preaching the gospel and witnessing to the power of God's mercy.

Plans? The phrase "Dominican plans" is an oxymoron. Of course, we plan. But I've rarely seen these plans actually pan out. If I could simply chose my path I would continue teaching undergraduate philosophy, theology, and literature. I am developing a course that brings all three fields together. The University of Dallas is developing a creative writing program that I would probably be willing to hurt someone to join. The Angelicum has a Templeton Foundation grant for a project called "Science, Theology, and the Ontological Quest." The grant brings in scientists, philosophers, and theologians to teach and research on the intersections of science and faith. I'd love to be a part of this. I am also dedicated to adult lay formation at the level of teaching basic theological/philosophical methods. However, preaching, as always, remains primary and any and all of this stuff I've mentioned here is directed solely to the improvement of the preaching. Without that, there is no reason at all for me to be here.

Fr. Philip, OP

P.S. I almost completely forgot to mention what happened with my high school Spanish teacher, Mrs. Mary Eddy! I went home to visit my parents right after I got back from Oxford in 2004. I had been ordained a deacon at Blackfriars and was preparing to move to Houston, TX for my internship. I went to Mass at the local parish, which had moved to a newer building. I went in clerics to the 9am Mass. When I got there I asked around for Mrs. Eddy. It didn't take long before she came running up to me to say hello! She was very surprised to see me and more surprised to me in clerics. She told everyone that she was responsible for bringing me into the Church. Yup, I'd say she was. Goes to show you what just a little encouragement for a young man with a vocation can do. . .right?

Cherie Blair invited to the Angelicum

LifeSite News is reporting:

ROME, December, 3, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – One of the most important institutions of higher learning in the Catholic world will host Cherie Blair, the adamantly pro-abortion wife of former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, later this month. The Social Sciences faculty of the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome [where I am currently living and studying], known popularly as the Angelicum, is hosting Mrs. Blair at a conference on women’s rights on December 12.

I've received email about this asking for more information. I really don't know anything about it. I sent an email to the dean of the social sciences faculty, Sr. Helen Alford, OP, asking for a little clarification. Let's see what happens.

You can read the website for the conference here. Be sure to check out the "Links" button. I am hoping that the organizations linked in this list are linked for informational purposes only. If they are being endorsed, this is a problem.


Being a signal to the nations

First Week of Advent (T): Is 11.1-10; Luke 10.21-24
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS Domenico e Sisto, Roma


For generations, prophets and kings failed to see and to hear. Though they waited faithfully, straining their eyes and ears against darkness and silence, they saw nothing; they heard nothing. In their anxious waiting they detected not one spark, not one whisper; yet, they waited. For whom did they wait? Isaiah tells God’s people that “on that day,” the day that their long patience will be rewarded; on that day, they will receive from the root of Jesse’s family tree, a sprout and then a blossom, and on that blooming sprout, a son, “the Spirit of the LORD shall rest. . .a Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, a Spirit of counsel and of strength, a Spirit of knowledge and of fear of the LORD.” This is the Son for whom they waited. And this is the Son we have seen and heard. Isaiah says, “On that day, the Gentiles shall seek out the root of Jesse…” That day, my fellow Gentiles, is today. Are you ready to see and hear the coming of the Lord?

Jesus, with his disciples, and in the middle of a crowd, lays claim to his inheritance as a prophesied son of Jesse. He says, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father.” As the inheriting son, the heir of the Father, Jesus lays claim to his father’s kingdom. Not so unusual. What is unusual is the claim immediately after: “No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.” Now, this is a truly priceless heirloom to inherit—the gift of revealing the Father! And Jesus wastes no time in making use of this gift. In private, he turns to his disciples and says, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see.” What do they see? The flesh and blood of Isaiah’s promise: the Spirit of wisdom, of counsel, of knowledge, and of strength, the Spirit of the Lord come among them as a man.

Are you ready to see and hear the coming of the Lord? The prophets and kings waited and waited only to end without seeing or hearing. Their efforts gave birth to a hope for the coming of the Messiah but their hopeful waiting bore them no Savior in their lifetime. It would be many generations later that a virgin girl would say yes to the Spirit and give birth to the Word Made Flesh, sending out to creation the very Word Who was spoken over the void, re-creating everything that is fallen, waking in everyone who is fallen that spark of the Father who seduces us back to His glory, so that we might live, against the defeat of death itself, a life everlasting, ever-blest, ever-joyous, a life that will be a signal to the nations that a justice and peace, the Father’s justice and peace, will rule.

Are you ready to wait on the Lord, all the while knowing that the Lord has come, is coming, and will come again? Are you ready to be a revelation of God to world, to one another? Are you ready to be a signal to the nations? You are given the Spirit of wisdom, strength, counsel, understanding, and the fear of the Lord, are you ready to greet him in the flesh? To offer him your life and work as a gift? To come to him like the kings of the east who saw and heard, who came to him, proclaiming him Lord and King? Are you ready? Are you ready?

30 November 2008

Archive: Christ the King & First Advent homilies

Since it looks like I will not finish this year's Christ the King homily anytime soon, here are the ones from the last two years and all three of my First Sunday of Advent homilies:

Who Is King of Your Heart? (2006)

Can a King Rule from a Cross?
(2007)

Waiting and Waiting Well (2005)

Advent is Scary (2006)

Do Nothing Special for Advent
(2007)

Are you ready? Are you sure?

First Sunday of Advent: Is 63.16-17, 19b; 64.2-7; 1 Cor 1.3-9; Mark 13.33-37
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Advent is to Christmas what Lent is to Easter: the time right before the arrival of an much anticipated divine revelation, a time when we make ourselves ready to be shown what God has to show us. Both Advent and Lent—though in profoundly different ways—prod us into remembering that not everything we can know about God and His will for us is knowable through argument, experiment, and rational deliberation. Yes, we are naturally graced in His image and likeness with every means we need to fine-tune our understanding of how we come to know, to sharpen the edges of what we know, to apply artfully, scientifically, technically the knowledge that we grow and harvest. But like children with little experience in the world of big things and predatory dangers—too ready to jump, so eager to do it on our own—we have to be shown, we have to be led to the show; however, what we need to know most is too bright, too sharp, so beautifully detailed and wondrously simple that to know it as it is would shock our natural apprehension, our graced comprehension, searing all our gifts of reason and will like food stamp baloney flash-fried in a hot buttered skillet. What we need is immeasurable holiness, Wisdom Himself. What we need to know of Wisdom is shown to us by Wisdom Himself. And like any adventure, like any enlightening quest we must be ready, fully prepared, wholly poised and trigger tight, at attention right on the blade’s edge set to see and hear and taste what Wisdom will expose to us. The days of Advent are the razor’s edge of the Incarnation, the blade against the skin of not-knowing-just-yet who comes to save us.

Though we are a month away from the solemnity of the nativity of our Lord, someone has already died for Christmas; or rather, someone has been killed at the beginning of another consumerist orgy before Christmas morning arrives. A stocker at Wal-Mart in Long Island, NY was trampled to death by shoppers rushing into the store to buy bargains. Every item bought in that Wal-Mart that day is an accessory to murder. What do we need to say about those who trampled him? Those who watched? Those who continued to snatch up the bargains? What a way for us to prepare for the coming of the Lord.

In some ancient pagan city long before the coming of Christ, this kind of human sacrifice might have been the perfect start to a holiday season of feasting and gift-giving, a raucous frolic of wailing and blood while waiting for the coming of a god in the flesh. Today, it is a headline. A link on Drudge. One of those news-of-the-bizarre items that we click on in order to watch the vid from Youtube, and then, bored with the shaky camera work and the lack of decent sound, we move on to the gossip about best-dressed or the least desirable relocation spot or top ten tips for knowing if he’s cheating on you. This man’s death is a passing moment, like a shampoo bottle over the laser-eye of the UPC scanner at the place of his death.

What do we need to know? Ask the question this way: what have we forgotten? We have forgotten too much. We have forgotten this: “You, LORD, are our father, our redeemer you are named forever.” And we are afraid to ask this: “Why do you let us wander, O LORD, from your ways, and harden our hearts so that we fear you not?” Why are we afraid to ask? Because we might hear this: “There is none who calls upon your name, who rouses himself to cling to you; for you have hidden your face from us and have delivered us up to our guilt.” If this doesn’t freeze your blood, you aren’t paying attention. The Lord has something to show us. And we are not ready. What do we need to see? What does the Lord want to show us? Our guilt. Yes, our guilt. Do you think that showing us our guilt is unnecessary? Or maybe you think that showing us our guilt is somehow unloving or unforgiving or mean-spirited? Maybe it is. For now. But we need to see it nonetheless. Why? Because if we see our guilt, if we give a knowing nod to our guilt, we recognize that at our roots, from our deepest selves, we are good people. Have we forgotten this?

If so, Advent is here to remind us. What will you wait for this next month? The opportunity to break out the carols? The tree? The Santa Claus cut-out? Or will you wait to remember that you are a loved creature, wholly prepared and waiting, anxiously anticipating and sitting on the blade’s edge, poised to be shown your perfection? Think: who is coming? Who is it that comes in the name of the Lord to take flesh and bone in the womb of the Blessed Mother to be born and raised as a man and to live as a teacher of the truth of his Father’s mercy to his passion and to his death on the cross and his burial in a fresh tomb and his rising again from the grave? Who comes? For whom do you wait? You say, “I wait for the coming of the Lord!” Really? Do you? Do you really wait for the coming of the Lord? Or do you wait for the coming of Christmas? For the sales? The stampedes? The chaos?

For whom do you watch? We are children too small and too fragile to see and hear what comes. But we must. We must be ready. Having spent at least a month praying for the coming of the Lord, we must be wholly prepared, entirely ready to receive among us the Son in the flesh, our means of becoming all that we were created to be. Our waiting is not simply about doing a duty. Our waiting is about sharpening, polishing, shining, clearing out, and making ready—what?—our heart, our minds, our souls. Making room, creating space and time, shoving aside in order to pull in. He Who Comes to us is the Child of the Spirit of God, the flesh and bone of the Mother, the Word given hands and feet to walk and do among us. This is as much as we can see and hear and taste. And maybe not even this. Maybe with all the preparation, all the time before, all the time we have to make ready for the revelation, even so, even still, we are not wholly still, utterly set to take in, to absorb, to stand under the event—the coming of the Son in the flesh. Emmanuel. He is with us. Our God is with us. For our sake, He is returned.

Now what? Are you different? Have you changed? If not, why not? Why did you wait? Why did you bother? Is your God with you? If so, who are you? Who were you before; who are you now? If for you Advent is about Christmas, about Wal-Mart and the stuff under the tree, don’t bother. Guilt will mean nothing to you anyway. Long ago you accepted that you are bad person. If, however, you feel the guilt, you feel the separation from God, rejoice! Yes, rejoice! Because your guilt means that you have an inkling of He Who Waits with you, for you. You know you need to know him. And He knows that you want to. Advent is not a stepping stone to Christmas any more than Lent is leads naturally to Easter. Advent is that long space before that makes Christmas into a feast about Christ. Without that, without the waiting, Christ’s coming in the flesh is a predictable miracle, a practiced trick of magic and rehearsed belief.

Make ready. The pan is hot. The butter is melted. Are you ready to be fried?