The weight of convincing truth

Look! A homily! Remember those. . .?

2nd Week of Easter (T): Acts 4.32-37; John 3.7-15
Fr. Philip N. Powell, OP
Convento SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma

If I were to tell you that I witnessed the student protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, while teaching English in China, you might want to know how I felt and what I was thinking. If I were to tell you that I witnessed the end of WWII, the surrender of the Axis Powers to the Allies in 1945, you might begin to wonder a bit about my age. If I were to tell you that I witnessed Pontus Pilate abandon Christ to the brutal mercies of the crowd in first-century Jerusalem, you would smile sympathetically, pat me on the shoulder, and then tell your friends, “That Fr. Philip is a really nice guy, but sometimes he lies.” If then, I were to bear witness to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection from the dead, would you believe me? What is it that gives our witness the convincing weight of truth?

Nicodemus, Jewish political and religious leader, wealthy, upright citizen, approaches Jesus at night and poses several questions about the nature and necessity of being “born again.” In the dark of his night, Nicodemus seeks Christ’s light. Unfortunately, Jesus’ answers lead to more questions. Eventually, Jesus chastises Nicodemus, saying, “[…] we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?” Jesus is putting the burden of belief on Nicodemus, chastising him for not accepting his witness to the truth of earthly things. But let’s look at it from Nicodemus’ view. What reason has Jesus given him to believe his testimony? What gives Jesus’ witness the convincing weight of truth?

Let’s bring this question home: why should anyone who does not believe the Church’s witness to Christ take our testimony about Christ as evidence for the truth of the gospel? Why should the non-believer believe you when you say, “Alleluia! Christ is risen!”? We have a hint in Acts: “The community of believers was of one heart and mind […] With great power the Apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus[…].” How did they bear this witness: “[…] no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common […] There was no needy person among them […].” In other words, the apostles and those with them lived the death and resurrection of Christ with one heart and mind, dying to selfish want and rising to a new life in the Body. Did this public witness prove the truth of the faith? Not to everyone. But living the witness we proclaim, and not merely proclaiming it, tilts the scale of credibility heavily in our favor.

If our witness is to one faith, one baptism, one Lord, and we live as if there were many faiths, lots of baptisms, and multiple lords—a limitless diversity of opinion and unlimited options—then no one should believe us. If we proclaim a gospel of one heart and one mind in Christ, and then live as if there are countless hearts and numerous minds in many different Christs, no one should believe us. And no one will. We must lift up the Son of Man, Christ Jesus, not only with our tongues but with our hands as well. No other way will give our witness the weight of convincing truth.

New Laptop. . .but which one? (UPDATED)

OK. . .spoke with The Boss recently and there's general agreement that if a new laptop becomes necessary. . .well, it's necessary.

So, here's the question: in the event that a new laptop is needed, which one do I get?

Keep in mind the following requirements:

1). $800-$900

2). 17" screen (my eyes can't see anything smaller w/o ramping up the font-size to 16pt!)

3). I use my laptop for writing papers, blogging, general web browsing, and the occasional DVD.

4). No heavy graphics, music, chatting, gaming, web design, or anything much beyond basic academic work and blogging.

5). Nothing ugly. (OK--not really a requirement, but if it can be nice, why not?)

6). Right now I have a 4.5 year old Dell Inspiron 9300. Meets all of my requirements just fine. I have had no problems with this model until just recently. Foxfire has been crashing a lot lately, but that's not DELL's fault.

So. . .Geeks of the Catholic blogosphere: what say YOU!?

UPDATE: I'm reading every comment and taking notes! Keep 'em comin'. . .

Cover and link to my Prayer Book!

Here's my book from Liguori Publications. . .Due out on Sept 15, 2009

Treasures Old and New: Traditional Prayers for Today's Catholic


Please link and spread the good news!

More Catholic stuff!

Here's some Good News! Orthodox Catholics are hopeful about the Church's future. "Progressive" Catholics are not. (This is not to be taken to mean that Progressive Catholics cannot also be Orthodox--they can.)

The Vatican fights back. . .calls Belgian parliamentary condemnation of the Holy Father's statement on condom use "an attempt at intimidation."

Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant?

Mater et Magistra. . .Archbishop Charles Chaput on the Church as Mother and Teacher (link fixed)

Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, OP on "Reading Genesis with Cardinal Ratzinger"

The 1962 Sancta Missa with text and audio!

Traditional Catholic books from Sophia Institute Press: $2.00!

Jimmy Akin's Internet Question Box: answers to all your Catholic questions

The MP3 Library: Gregorian Chant

Catholic radio, TV, and podcasts at Catholic Tuner

LCWR: prophets of futility & New Age gnosticism

Again, waiting for my bowl of coffee to kick in, I did a little browsing on the website of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). They have posted information about their annual assemblies, including the texts of the presidential addresses and keynote speeches.

I read through several of the keynote speeches, and I noticed a couple of themes (that's what we Old Lit Teachers do--look for themes). Here's just a few in no particular order:

1. "Mission": all of the addresses I read (four of them) exhort the sisters to mission. But never the mission of the Church that we would recognize as evangelization, that is, the preaching and teaching of the gospel that Christ gave to the apostles. The mission the sisters are exhorted to take up is always, always some form of left-liberal social engineering disguised as caring for Earth or insuring access to adequate health for women.

2). Insularity: despite the exhortations to "mission," all of the addresses I read include broad descriptions of the history of women religious as a way of "situating" the experience of these women within their own "mission," in other words, they spend a lot of page space on talking to one another about one another's grand innovations after the VC2 and how these innovations are radically different from anything that's come before. There's quite a bit of self-congratulation here, along with laundry lists of excuses why their missions have failed to produce global results. The villian in their failures, by the way, is always the hierarchy. Big surprise.

3). "Prophetic": as a corollary to their mission and insularity, the addresses harp on how "prophetic" women religious are in these innovations. As far as I can tell, "prophetic" means whatever they want it to mean. It clearly does not mean what the Church means by the term. If the examples used are typical, "prophetic" means something like "doing what we please and then accusing the Church of being too traditional, oppressive, and isolated from the world for not following our lead." Beware self-anointed prophets!

4). "We missed out": probably the most interesting theme is what I will call the We Missed Out theme. This theme arises in several discussions of the scientific and technological revolutions of the 20th century. Apparently, this theme is meant to demonstrate the superiority of a modernist worldview over and against a wholly Christian worldview. But what arises is a kind of lament that these women have somehow missed out on the revolutions and long to stir one of their own so as to feel somehow prophetic. I've found a similar theme in recent court opinions allowing same-sex "marriage"--judges too young to have participated in the heady days of near absolute judicial power during the civil rights era of the 60's invent a place for themselves in legal history by making what laws they can from the bench. We want to shine. . .but a light we ourselves generate.

5). Futility: without exception the addresses I read painted depressing portraits of women religious as a tiny rebel band fighting the Sheriff of Rome. As part of the insularity painted by these addresses is a tragic sense of loss and the futility of their "mission" in the face of overwhelming authoritarian oppression by men. Apparently, we are to believe that women religious in the U.S. are guerrilla-fighters engaged in a war of attrition against the Church. Unfortunately for them, the attrition is all on their side. Rhetorically, these portraits serve an important purpose: by painting themselves as righteous rebels fighting a losing battle agaist the Man, the sisters are able to both continue their rebellion and justify their material failures all the while claiming moral victory. Neat, uh?

6). Jesus ain't the Way: also without exception the addresses forthrightly deny Jesus' own claim that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. As a way of undermining the Church's legitimate mission of evangelization, Jesus becomes just another good guy with a really cool message of pacificism, egalitarian communal life, and a feminist concern for eco-politics. In one address, delivered by Joan Chittister, the arrival of mosques in historically Christian lands is celebrated as a great advance for liberty and the pursuit of religious diversity. She argues that worrying about the decline in numbers of women religious is a "capitalist question" and holds that the the decimation of covents and monasteries after VC2 is a good sign for the Church! Apparently, the complete loss of a discernible Christian identity among some women religious is to be celebrated as a movement of the Holy Spirit and a great advance in human-spiritual evolution.

7). Monotonality: the addresses are uniformly written and delivered by women religious who tell the gathered sisters only what they wanted to hear. There were no addresses that seriously challenged any of the preconceived notions held dear by these women. Without exception. the meme's of "We Are the Future and Our Agenda is of God" is heard in terms of ecclesial revolution and theological dissent. Not one address challenged the sisters to rethink their assumptions along orthodox lines. Not one address asserted a theme, idea, theology, or political notion that would upset or stir the secular feminist pot these women are stewing in. Despite the constant harping on the need for a variety of voices to be heard in the Church and the desperate need for new ideas among God's people, these addresses repeated in predictable loops one stale feminist cliche after another. Ironically, the obstinate refusal to listen to different voices is routinely described as a failing characteristic of the male-dominated Church hierarchy!

8). New Stories: as a result of the We Missed Out theme, the addresses pull on recent developments in cosmology to construct "new stories" about creation, space-time, human evolution, and the role of consciousness in our pursuit of holiness. Of course, none of these new stories read like anything found in scripture, tradition, science, or Church teaching. In fact, the purpose of the new stories is to lay a narrative foundation for a particularly gnostic-feminist view of the human person that "frees" us from the confines of patriarchal thinking by re-situating the human race as just another evolved species living and dying in a vast cosmos. Routinely, the addresses privilege "new cosmologies" over and against our biblical narratives of creation and the end of space-time, and undermine God's Self-revelation in scripture. Rhetorically, the new cosmologies give the sisters a means of defying our Judeo-Christian tradition with the authority of modernist science. Unfortunately, their grasp of the scientific details of cosmology is woefully inadequate, leaving them to play with a pathetic parody of actual cosmological theories.

Let me point out here that the LCWR is a leadership conference. By no means am I attributing these themes or attitudes to all women religious in the congregations that participate in the LCWR. I know sisters in LCWR congregations who fret about the feminist turn of their communities and lament the loss of their Christian identity to trendy New Age gnosticism. Younger women religious aren't buy this anti-Church junk food, choosing instead to nourish themselves on the vast variety of legit Catholic traditions well within the generous range of orthodoxy. My fisking here is directed at the addresses themselves and what they tell us about what the LCWR is hearing and/or wants to hear. As anyone who's a member of a large organization knows: leadership is often way, way out in front of those they lead. . .sometimes too far out. I think this is certainly the case with the LCWR.

I could go on. . .but it's time for another bowl of coffee!

Notre Dame prez will not "dialogue" with his own students

Apparently, Fr. Jenkins, president of Notre Dame, is prepared to "dialogue" with our Abortionist-in-Chief but not with his own students. Fr. Jenkins is prepared to subject this year's graduating class to a monologue from The One and call it dialogue, but he is not prepared to sit down with those he is charged with educating and assure them that N.D. is essentially Catholic.

. . .thus putting to death the excuse that The One's invitation to Notre Dame is all about "dialogue."

Feminism + New Cosmology = Jesus Doesn't Save

This is why the Vatican is performing a "theological assessment" of women's religious congregations in the U.S. . .

In the keynote address to the Leadership Conference of Religious Women, Sr. Laurie Brink, OP lays out four options for the future of religious women in the U.S. In one of these options, she reports (in part):

The dynamic option for Religious Life, which I am calling, Sojourning, is much more difficult to discuss, since it involves moving beyond the Church, even beyond Jesus. A sojourning congregation is no longer ecclesiastical. It has grown beyond the bounds of institutional religion. Its search for the Holy may have begun rooted in Jesus as the Christ, but deep reflection, study and prayer have opened it up to the spirit of the Holy in all of creation. Religious titles, institutional limitations, ecclesiastical authorities no longer fit this congregation, which in most respects is Post-Christian.

When religious communities embraced the spirit of renewal in the 1970s, they took seriously that the world was no longer the enemy, that a sense of ecumenism required encountering the holy “other,” and that the God of Jesus might well be the God of Moses and the God of Mohammed. The works of Thomas Merton encouraged an exploration of the nexus between Eastern and Western religious practices. The emergence of the women’s movement with is concomitant critique of religion invited women everywhere to use a hermeneutical lens of suspicion when reading the androcentric Scriptures and the texts of the Tradition. With a new lens, women also began to see the divine within nature, the value and importance of the cosmos, and that the emerging new cosmology encouraged their spirituality and fed their souls.

As one sister described it, “I was rooted in the story of Jesus, and it remains at my core, but I’ve also moved beyond Jesus.” The Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative for these women. They still hold up and reverence the values of the Gospel, but they also recognize that these same values are not solely the property of Christianity. Buddhism, Native American spirituality, Judaism, Islam and others hold similar tenets for right behavior within the community, right relationship with the earth and right relationship with the Divine. With these insights come a shattering or freeing realization—depending on where you stand. Jesus is not the only son of God. Salvation is not limited to Christians. Wisdom is found in the traditions of the Church as well as beyond it.

[. . .]

There you have it, brothers and sisters, the rotted core of "Post-Christian" theology among the detritus of religious feminism in the U.S.

It's not entirely clear from the address which of the four options Sr. Laurie prefers. The address is difficult to read b/c of its overall tone and protest-rally placard sloganeering. Sr. Laurie can't seem to decide if the Church spends most of its time and energy oppressing women or ignoring them. Or perhaps the Church is oppressing them by ignoring them? This indecision is revealed, for the most part, in the pervasive rhetoric of victimization and her choice to the repeat anti-Catholic stereotypes most often found on the pages of the NYT.

Sad.

UPDATE: For those wondering why the so-called "Sojourning Sisters" refuse to do the obvious and honest thing and just leave the Church that has allegedly made their spiritual lives so unbearable, here's my semi-professional diagnosis: "Rebels Without a Clue."

H/T to Mark Shea

Obama's torture loophole

For those who (mistakenly) believe that The One has ended or intents to end the Bush policy of using torture on enemy combatants:

Obama ready to ban harsh interrogations
Jan 16, 2009

[...]

However, Obama's changes [to the Bush policy] may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said. They said the intent is not to use that as an opening for possible use of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

[...]

For Obama, who repeatedly insisted during the 2008 presidential campaign and the transition period that "America doesn't torture," a classified loophole would allow him to follow through on his promise to end harsh interrogations while retaining a full range of presidential options in conducting the war against terrorism.

The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the manual, is designed to satisfy intelligence experts who fear that an outright ban of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques would limit the government in obtaining threat information that could save American lives. It would also preserve Obama's flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security.

However, such a move would frustrate Senate Democrats and human rights, retired military and religious groups that have pressed for a government-wide prohibition on methods they describe as torture. . .

[...]

Of course, The Loophole has to be classified.

Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Obama does some good

Probably the only good thing to come out of The One's election. . .

Update: Lord! Even the French think B.O. is a wimp. Next thing you know The One will be getting spanked by Luxembourg!

Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

The Devil is after my DELL!

AAARRRGGGHHHHH!!!

Another yellow line has appeared on my monitor. . .

I think the Devil is trying to prevent me from finishing this manuscript!

Pray H.A.R.D.!

Progress on the Book

The novenas are more or less done. . .

Just seven more litanies, and I'll be finished with the first draft of the book!

(oh, and all the editing, repagination, and revising. . .sigh. . .)

Keep those prayer coming, please!

More info than you can shake a rosary at...

While waiting for my first bowl of coffee to kick in, I compiled these links to useful info for Catholics. Enjoy!

Basic overview of Catholic teaching for Catholics, new Catholics, and returning Catholics

Church documents on the liturgy

Bible translations, original biblical language dictionaries, canon law texts

Tons of Catholic info regularly undated (recent papal appts., documents, liturgical calendar)

HUGE site linking all things Catholic

Info on Eastern Rite Churches in communion with the Holy Father

Articles about the "Latin Mass," i.e. the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite

What's wrong about liberalism

Huge list of novenas. . .if you pray one of these, don't forget your fav Dominican!

And let's not forget my favorite Dominican website. . .

Benedict XVI on the Resurrection

Excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI's Easter Vigil homily:

In the resurrection, we see the most sublime fulfilment of what this text describes as the beginning of all things. God says once again: “Let there be light!” The resurrection of Jesus is an eruption of light. Death is conquered, the tomb is thrown open. The Risen One himself is Light, the Light of the world. With the resurrection, the Lord’s day enters the nights of history. Beginning with the resurrection, God’s light spreads throughout the world and throughout history. Day dawns. This Light alone – Jesus Christ – is the true light, something more than the physical phenomenon of light. He is pure Light: God himself, who causes a new creation to be born in the midst of the old, transforming chaos into cosmos.

Leo the Great on the Resurrection

Sermon LXXII: On the Lord's Resurrection, II (Leo the Great, ca. 440-461)

III. The presence of the risen and ascended Lord is still with us.

And so, dearly-beloved, if we unhesitatingly believe with the heart what we profess with the mouth, in Christ we are crucified, we are dead, we are buried; on the very third day, too, we are raised. Hence the Apostle says, "If ye have risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting on God's right hand: set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. For when Christ, your life, shall have appeared, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory." But that the hearts of the faithful may know that they have that whereby to spurn the lusts of the world and be lifted to the wisdom that is above, the Lord promises us His presence, saying, "Lo! I am with you all the days, even till the end of the age." For not in vain had the Holy Ghost said by Isaiah: "Behold! a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God wire us." Jesus, therefore, fulfils the proper meaning of His name, and in ascending into the heavens does not forsake His adopted brethren, though "He sitteth at the right hand of the Father," yet dwells in the whole body, and Himself from above strengthens them for patient waiting while He summons them upwards to His glory.

Justin Martyr on the Resurrection

Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin Martyr on the Resurrection (Before 165 A.D.)

Chapter Nine—The Resurrection of Christ Proves that the Body Rises

If [God] had no need of the flesh, why did He heal it? And what is most forcible of all, He raised the dead. Why? Was it not to show what the resurrection should be? How then did He raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Manifestly both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but raised the body, confirming in it the promise of life. Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, "Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I;" and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He did eat honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that our dwelling-place is in heaven), "He was taken up into heaven while they beheld," as He was in the flesh. If, therefore, after all that has been said, any one demand demonstration of the resurrection, he is in no respect different from the Sadducees, since the resurrection of the flesh is the power of God, and, being above all reasoning, is established by faith, and seen in works.

Words of Wisdom from the 2nd Century

On the Resurrection of the Dead, Athenagoras of Athens (ca. 190)

Chapter One—Defense of the Truth Should Precede Discussions Regarding It

BY the side of every opinion and doctrine which agrees with the truth of things, there springs up some falsehood; and it does so, not because it takes its rise naturally from some fundamental principle, or from some cause peculiar to the matter in hand, but because it is invented on purpose by men who set a value on the spurious seed, for its tendency to corrupt the truth. This is apparent, in the first place, from those who in former times addicted themselves to such inquiries, and their want of agreement with their predecessors and contemporaries, and then, not least, from the very confusion which marks the discussions that are now going on. For such men have left no truth free from their calumnious attacks—not the being of God, not His knowledge, not His operations, not those books which follow by a regular and strict sequence from these, and delineate for us the doctrines of piety. On the contrary, some of them utterly, and once for all, give up in despair the truth concerning these things, and some distort it to suit their own views, and some of set purpose doubt even of things which are palpably evident. Hence I think that those who bestow attention on such subjects should adopt two lines of argument, one in defence of the truth, another concerning the truth: that in defence of the truth, for disbelievers and doubters; that concerning the truth, for such as are candid and receive the truth with readiness. Accordingly it behoves those who wish to investigate these matters, to keep in view that which the necessity of the case in each instance requires, and to regulate their discussion by this; to accommodate the order of their treatment of these subjects to what is suitable to the occasion, and not for the sake of appearing always to preserve the same method, to disregard fitness and the place which properly belongs to each topic. For, so far as proof and the natural order are concerned, dissertations concerning the truth always take precedence of those in defence of it; but, for the purpose of greater utility, the order must be reversed, and arguments in defence of it precede those concerning it. For the farmer could not properly cast the seed into the ground, unless he first extirpated the wild wood, and whatever would be hurtful to the good seed; nor the physician introduce any wholesome medicines into the body that needed his care, if he did not previously remove the disease within, or stay that which was approaching. Neither surely can he who wishes to teach the truth persuade any one by speaking about it, so long as there is a false opinion lurking in the mind of his hearers, and barring the entrance of his arguments. And, therefore, from regard to greater utility, I myself sometimes place arguments in defence of the truth before those concerning the truth; and on the present occasion it appears to me, looking at the requirements of the case, not without advantage to follow the same method in treating of the resurrection. For in regard to this subject also we find some utterly disbelieving, and some others doubting, and even among those who have accepted the first principles some who are as much at a loss what to believe as those who doubt; the most unaccountable thing of all being, that they are in this state of mind without having any ground whatsoever in the matters themselves for their disbelief, or finding it possible to assign any reasonable cause why they disbelieve or experience any perplexity.

Good Friday homilies: 2006 & 2007

Feverishly working on the book manuscript!

Here are my Good Friday posts from the last two years. . .please, forgive my re-posting.

Rejoice! He is dead! (2006)

Today death dies (2007)

2008? I was on a mission-trip with U.D. students during Holy Week.

Just Say NO to P.C. foot-washings!

Q: Any opinion on the yearly controversy over the rubrics regarding the Holy Thursday liturgy for foot washing?

A: I always dread this question! My iron-clad rule is: Say the black, do the red. In other words, read the prayers as they are written in the liturgical books and follow the rules as they are. Following this rule, the priest will wash the feet of twelve men from his parish.

Now, the controversy revolves around two elements of this liturgy: 1) who washes? and 2) who gets washed? Some say: everyone washes; everyone gets washed! Others follow the rubric requiring the priest to do the washing, but they usually try to mix and match the washee's to accommodate some weird need to use this liturgy to express the "diversity" of the parish (as if just looking around in the pews doesn't demonstrate this well enough).

The B.I.G. issue, of course, is whether or not women can be included as washee's. The rubrics clearly require that the washee's be men, males (vir). In the U.S., bishops are allowed to grant pastors an exception to include women. Most do, I would bet. Fine.

What this debate about rubrics usually misses is the whole point of the rite itself. Jesus washes the feet of his disciples in order to show them that he is not only their Master and friend but their servant as well. He will go to the cross as a servant for them (and for us all). The priest, acting in the person of Christ, washes the feet of twelve men in order to liturgically enact this revelatory moment.

This liturgy is not about diversity or tolerance or discipleship or community-building. This is the moment when Christ--fully God, fully man--begins to empty himself in preparation for his passion and for the cross. In one very important way, this liturgy is about who the priest is for his parish--since he is and acts in the person of Christ as head of the Church, the priest is symbolizing his servant-leadership of the community. To use foot-washing on Holy Thursday for any other purpose is simply perverse.

Some will argue that since Jesus tells his disciples "to go and do likewise" that this is reason enough to turn the liturgy in a podiatrical free-for-all. If this is the case, then let's follow the example of scripture precisely. Celebrate the liturgy as it is written and then "do likewise." In other words, the priest will wash the feet of twelve men and then another part of the liturgy can be devoted to the "doing likewise." Or maybe a foot-washing free-for-all liturgy can be planned for another time of the year, or even regularly scheduled during Lent. Not perfect solutions by any stretch, I know.

What is tiresome about this yearly debate is the constant refrain of prog liturgists that this event needs to "express diversity." No, it doesn't. There is no good reason for this liturgy to do any such thing. Why this liturgy should yield to the demands of liturgical political correctness is beyond me. There's no demand that baptisms reflect the parish's diversity. Diversity in confessions? Will every Latino couple getting married in the parish need to find an Asian couple to get married with in order to celebrate diversity? Can three black guys get ordained to the priesthood at the same time, or do they need to wait until at least one white guy is ready for ordination?

Of course, the other possibility is to simply skip it. It's optional.

Condoms (and the West) fail Africa

A bleak story about the failure of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. . .

Bleak Stories Behind Failed Condom Campaigns
by Chinwuba Iyizoba

Sub-Saharan Africa has two-thirds of the world’s HIV/AIDS cases. So you would think that Western journalists and politicians might condescend to ask us what we think about how to fight AIDS. But they haven’t. A pity, because they would have found that many of us support Pope Benedict XVI’s scepticism about the effectiveness of distributing condoms.

A few days ago, The Lancet, a leading British medical journal which regularly pontificates about public health, slammed the Pope for making “a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people”. I wonder if the editor of The Lancet has ever visited rural areas of Nigeria or South Africa. If he did, he would begin to see why fighting AIDS with condoms is like extinguishing a fire with petrol.

[. . .]

Read the whole piece.

"an incredible audacity under a mock semblance of humility"

Sent to me by an up and coming young Dominican. . .

Pius X, Pascendi Dominici gregis:

With all this in mind, one understands how it is that the Modernists express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished. What is imputed to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty. They understand the needs of consciences better than anyone else, since they come into closer touch with them than does the ecclesiastical authority. Nay, they embody them, so to speak, in themselves. Hence, for them to speak and to write publicly is a bounden duty. Let authority rebuke them if it pleases -- they have their own conscience on their side and an intimate experience which tells them with certainty that what they deserve is not blame but praise.

Then they reflect that, after all, there is no progress without a battle and no battle without its victims; and victims they are willing to be like the prophets and Christ Himself. They have no bitterness in their hearts against the authority which uses them roughly, for after all they readily admit that it is only doing its duty as authority. Their sole grief is that it remains deaf to their warnings, for in this way it impedes the progress of souls, but the hour will most surely come when further delay will be impossible, for if the laws of evolution may be checked for a while they cannot be finally evaded. And thus they go their way, reprimands and condemnations not withstanding, masking an incredible audacity under a mock semblance of humility.

While they make a pretense of bowing their heads, their minds and hands are more boldly intent than ever on carrying out their purposes. And this policy they follow willingly and wittingly, both because it is part of their system that authority is to be stimulated but not dethroned, and because it is necessary for them to remain within the ranks of the Church in order that they may gradually transform the collective conscience. And in saying this, they fail to perceive that they are avowing that the collective conscience is not with them, and that they have no right to claim to be its interpreters.

Postings around. . .

A quick round up of excellent blog posts. . .

US gives Italian earthquake victims $50,000. Maybe someone should tell The One that an abortion clinic was destroyed.

Mark Shea untangles the mess some make of papal infallibility.

Diogenes spanks the NCR on their story about why Bishop Morlino fired the feminist "pastor."

He also clears up the confusion over why The One was invited to Notre Dame.

Patrick N. Allit at Inside Catholic recounts the history of Catholic anti-communism.

As Americans we are not only free to speak but free to listen: Freedom to Listen.

Reiki goofiness banned at Catholic wellness center. Someone was listening!

"Misanthropic ecofascism" and The Revenge of Gaia (a book review)

Anna Arco tells us how the tolerant, diversity-loving Austrian "We Are Church" Catholics defied the Pope.

And a funny one from Jeff Miller. . .technology comes to Holy Week!

Bishops spank Notre Dame

Catherine Harmon of Catholic World Report has a round-up of bishops who have spoken out against Notre Dame's shameful invitation of The One to speak at commencement.

If you don't see your bishop listed, you might consider asking him what he thinks about this mess!

H/T: Tom Peters of American Papist

More abortionist folly. . .

The lengths pro-aborts will go to in order to protect their "right" to kill children:

Why A Botched Abortion Case Should, and Does, Inspire Outrage

Sherry F. Colb

For both pro-choice and pro-life advocates, the facts of this case are unsettling and even shocking.

An important feature of the facts that distinguishes what occurred here from abortion more generally is that if the narrative alleged by the prosecution and by Sycloria Williams is accurate, then Belkis Gonzalez – the woman who is said to have placed a live fetus into a biohazard bag – did something that goes well beyond what can be called "terminating a pregnancy."

Indeed, Gonzalez apparently had nothing to do with the termination itself: She did not dilate Williams's cervix or induce labor or otherwise play any role in removing the fetus from Williams's body. It was only after Williams had given birth to her fetus that Gonzalez cut the umbilical cord and deposited the allegedly live, writhing, breathing infant into a biohazard bag, along with gauze and other garbage.

One might argue, as some pro-life advocates have, that there is no meaningful difference between what Gonzalez did and what an abortion provider does, because in both cases, a fetus is killed. This argument, however, ignores one of the main premises of the right to abortion – the bodily-integrity interest of the pregnant woman. Particularly at the later stages of pregnancy, the right to abortion does not protect an interest in killing a fetus as such. What it protects instead is the woman's interest in not being physically, internally occupied by another creature against her will, the same interest that explains the right to use deadly force, if necessary, to stop a rapist. Though the fetus is innocent of any intentional wrongdoing and the rapist is not, the woman's interest in repelling an unwanted physical intrusion is quite similar.

Once the fetus is no longer inside the woman's body, though, killing it is not necessary to preserving the woman's bodily integrity. If Gonzalez had, instead of suffocating the infant in a garbage bag, placed it into an incubator with a respirator, for example, Williams would not have been any more pregnant than she was in the circumstances that actually unfolded. And once Williams was no longer pregnant, and thus no longer occupied by an unwelcome intruder, she had no more right to procure the death of her fetus than did anyone else, including Belkis Gonzalez [. . .]

Commenting on his own post, Chris Johnson notes: "The metaphor proposed is the stupidest ever offered about any subject. To equate an unborn baby with a rapist doesn’t even begin to work. A rapist has a choice of whom he rapes. A fertilized egg cannot declare, 'Oh, hey, I think I’ll park myself in that woman over there whether she wants me to or not.'"

H/T: Chris Johnson, MCJ

Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Yes, Rebecca, confessions are allowed during the Triduum!

Is your pastor telling the parish that there will be no confessions after Wednesday this week?

Is he claiming that this is stipulated by the Church?

I've heard this all my Catholic life! (Though I've known that it's not true.)

Fr. Z. says, "Nay! Nay!"

The Church does NOT forbid confessions after Wednesday.

The Book

The book contract with Liguori Press arrived in the mail this morning!

Back to work. . .

Quaking in Rome! (UPDATE 3)

credit: TIMES Online

Magnitude 6.3 Earthquake Hits Central Italy (Breibart)

ROME (AP) - A strong earthquake struck central Italy early Monday, killing [150+] people including four children, and causing buildings to collapse, officials and news reports said.

Several people were also reported missing in the area where the quake struck. The quake was felt in much of central Italy, including Rome.

The quake struck about 70 miles (110 kilometers) northeast of Rome at about 3:32 a.m. local time (0132 GMT, 8:32 p.m. EDT), officials said. The Civil Protection Department said the epicenter was near the city of L'Aquila, in the mountainous Abruzzo region.

The U.S. Geological Survey said the magnitude was 6.3, though Italy's National Institute of Geophysics put the magnitude at 5.8.

Four children died in L'Aquila after their houses collapsed, the ANSA news agency said.

Massimo Cialente, mayor of L'Aquila, told private Sky TG24 that two people were reported dead in the nearby small town of Fossa. He confirmed reports that another eight were missing in another small town.

The ANSA news agency said the dome of a church in l'Aquila collapsed, while the city's cathedral also suffered damages.

People were woken by the quake and ran into the streets, ANSA said.

The quake was the latest in a series of jolts that struck the area over the past two days.

UPDATE: Video from the BCC

UPDATE 2: Slideshow from the BCC

UPDATE 3: More pics from TIMES Online

Real Men for Christ!

To be a Real Man for Christ!

Drawing God's people to God Himself. . .

Obama Bowing and Scraping to Saudi King

I know quite a few of you really hate it when I post on overtly political subjects. If you are one of these, you will want to skip this post.

President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia (00:55):

Some will claim that this is simply diplomatic protocol. If so, why is Obama the only head of state bowing to the king? If so, why didn't he bow like this to Queen Elizabeth II? Heads of State do not bow to one another.

AND before someone writes it in the combox. . .yes, I know that Bush bowed to the Pope. . .more of a profound nod, really. . .but he should not have done so.

Conscience for me but not for thee

Obama Catholics in the Democratic Party continue to work hard to "reduce the number of abortions" by making them moral, legal, free, and now. . .mandatory! Mandatory for doctors to perform them, that is.

Washington D.C., Apr 3, 2009 / 09:13 pm (CNA).- Yesterday, a majority of Catholic Senators rejected a conscience protection law proposed by Senator Tom Colburn that would protect health care workers who object to abortions from participating in the procedure.

Conscience protection has become a topic of debate after President Obama announced that he was reviewing the law and could possible eliminate it. Colburn’s amendment states, "To protect the freedom of conscience for patients and the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions."

The amendment was voted down by a margin of 41-56, in which a majority of Catholic Senators voted against the amendment 9-16. The failure to pass this legislation now leaves the door open for the Obama Administration to rescind the law by executive order and force health workers to compromise their moral convictions.

[. . .]

Yet, 16 Catholic Senators still voted against the protection of these "human rights" including: Begich (D-AK), Dodd (D-CT), Kaufman (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Harkin (D-IA), Landrieu (D- LA), Collins (R-ME), Mikulski (D-MD), Kerry (D-MA), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Gillibrand (D-NY), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Cantwell (D-WA), Murray (D-WA).

The nine Catholic Senators that voted for the amendment were; Murkowski (R-AK), Martinez (R-FL), Risch (R-ID), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Vitter (R-LA), Johanns(R-NE), Voinovich (R-OH), and Casey (D-PA).

So, all that business we are constantly hearing from dissenting Catholics about "conscience" being the only rule and reason for every moral act only applies to those who agree with their politics. . .disagree with their politics "in conscience" and you are S.O.L.

Obama's upcoming revocation of the conscience clauses that protect health care workers from performing abortions is nothing more than a move against Catholic health-care. The abortion ideologues in his administration hate the idea that there are hospitals and doctors out there who do not bow before Moloch.

For you Catholics out there who voted for this moral monster, I have a question for you: any buyer's remorse yet?

Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Why someTHINGS and not noTHINGS at all?

Way back a hundred years ago, I made a "D" in ECON 202. That's when I decided that perhaps International Banking wasn't the right major for me! When I announced--quite proudly--to my family that I had changed my major to philosophy, my Banker Mom and Real Estate Dad asked, "What the hell is philosophy?" I'm sure my answer then wasn't very reassuring, but now I would say, "Philosophy teaches us to ask questions like: 'what the hell is philosophy?'" Reassuring? No, not really.

However, this question--on the nature of philosophy--is as common to philosophers as diverse in temperament and style as Joseph Pieper (Thomist) and Martin Heidegger.

Here's the opening paragraph to Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics:

"Why are there beings at all instead of nothing? That is the question. Presumably it is no arbitrary question. 'Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?'--this is obviously the first of all questions. Of course, it is not the first question in the chronological sense. Individuals as well as peoples ask many questions in the course of their historical passage through time. They explore, investigate, and test many sorts of things before they run into the question 'Why are there being at all instead of nothing?' Many never run into this question at all, if running into the question means not only hearing and reading the interrogative sentence as uttered, but asking the question, that is, taking a stand on it, posing it, compelling oneself into the state of this questioning."

People who ask this question--why is there any at all instead of just nothingness?--are philosophers. . .even if they think themselves Bankers or Real Estate Agents.

Heidegger continues:

"In great despair [. . .] when all weight tends to dwindle away from things and the sense of things grows dark, the question looms. Perhaps it strikes only once, like the tolling of a bell that resounds into Dasein* and gradually fades. The question is heartfelt joy [. . .] The question is there in a spell of boredom, when we are equally distant from despair and joy, but when the stubborn ordinariness of beings lays open a wasteland in which it makes no difference to us whether beings are or are not--and then, in a distinctive form, the questions resonates again: why are there beings at all instead of nothing?"

And I would say: in that open wasteland--there, right there--is exactly where we make our stand for or against Christ! Our "being here" is either being perfected in Being Himself (i.e., growing in holiness). or we are wasting as beings and making no difference at all.

*Dasein: an insanely complicated concept to translate. . .a human being who has become aware that his/her existence is a site where Being is made present to other existing things and all the subsequent weirdnesses of anxieties, etc. that accompany this awareness.

Prayer!

Please pray for my poor laptop!

Just this morning a vertical line appeared on the monitor. I asked one of our techie-friars about it. He asked how old my laptop is. . .five years. . .he shook his head, "Probably gonna die soon."

NOOOO!!! I have to finish the semester and get my book manuscript in. . .

So, pray! Please.

Thanks & Remember

As always. . .

. . .my deep appreciation and gratitude for the recent activity on the WISH LIST!

I have been blessed with many arrivals of new gifts in the last few days.

Thank You notes will go out tomorrow (4/01). Also, as always, my Book Benefactors will find themselves on my daily prayer list, including my Sunday Mass intentions.

Occasionally, I get emails about the List. . .please remember that I have three different areas of interest at the moment: 1). prayer in all its catholic forms; 2). the relationship btw faith and science; and 3) questions in the philosophy of religious experience.

The first corresponds to my upcoming book from Liguori Publications. The second to my academic work on the license/doctorate in philosophy. And the third in my overall preaching/teaching.

Any Dominican worth his salt has to juggle at least three intellectual/academic interests at one time!

No Garden, No Cross

Fifth Sunday of Lent: Jer 31:31-34; Heb 5:7-9; John 12:20-33
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Jesus is troubled. What should he say? “Father, save me from this hour” or “Father, glorify your name”? He chooses to glorify God’s name. Why? He says, “…it was for this purpose [to glorify God’s name] that I came to this hour.” By glorifying God’s name he fulfills his purpose. Does this glorification of God’s name accomplish any vital tasks other than praising the Father? Yes. Jesus says to the crowd at that time of judgment, “. . .the ruler of this world will be driven out. And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself." What Jesus says and does is the engine of our salvation; his word and deed makes us sons of the Father. What does he say? “Father, glorify your name.” What does he do? He dies. And then he rises from death to take us with him. So, why is Jesus troubled? To rise with him, we must die with him and our deaths must be in service to him. We cannot hope to escape the betrayal of Judas, the passion in Jerusalem, the nails and wood of the cross, and then expect to be part of a glorious Easter harvest. If we will follow Jesus up from the earth, we must follow him on the earth. This is what troubles our Lord: “. . .unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.” To rise, we must fall; to produce much fruit, we must die.

Are you ready to die? I mean, are you ready to follow Christ and produce the fruit he produced by dying on the cross? Most of us hope to avoid the kind of death that Christ died. And most of us will. At least in the particulars. Few of us will be scourged. Or forced-marched to a burning landfill and nailed to a cross. Few of us will be subjected to public ridicule and executed to spare the nation the wrath of its foreign military governors. Few of us will be accused of blasphemy, religious sedition. If we are killed for the faith, it will be incrementally. Slowly. Almost invisibly. The proverbial frog boiled by degrees of increasing heat. The Enemy’s strategy this time around is far more subtle. More understated and restrained. This time we will be accused of hating ourselves, our neighbors, our God; we will be accused of standing against truth, against the beauty of creation, against the goodness of our human natures. This time, we will be charged with being insufficiently humane, unremarkably merciful. And like all the other times, we will die. . .for preaching the simple truth of the gospel.

God’s will be done; therefore, we are troubled. So, what do we say: “Father, save us from this hour” or “Father, glorify your name”? We could ask our Lord to save us from this hour. We could. But why should we? Can we honestly claim we didn’t know what was in store for us? Can we look God in the eye and say, “Hey, this wasn’t in the brochure!”? No, to claim such a thing would be a lie. If you know what it means to be baptized into his death, then you know what it means to be resurrected into his life. If you will rise, you will die. Why would you beg God to save you from the very thing you signed on for? Yes, you were promised a garden. . .and you will have it! Look for the path marked “Gethsemane.” Ask yourself: why do I deserve a better life and death than Christ? You might say, “Didn’t Christ die so we wouldn’t have to?” No. No, he died so that we might have eternal life and have it most abundantly! That path—the Way to an abundant life, an eternal life—cuts straight through Gethsemane. There is no detour.

No detour, for sure. But there is hope; here it is: “…when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself." Though we may understandably fear the death we have signed up for, part and parcel of that death is the promise—the guarantee—the death is not the end; that is, death is not our end, our purpose. We were not created to die. We do not live to die. Though our bodies fail us, and we cease to live, we do not stop being exactly who God made and remade us to Be. In fact, in Christ, we are made perfectly who were first made to be. And only in Christ—perfect God, perfect Man—can we be perfectly who we are made to be for all time. When Christ dies on the cross, humanity dies with him. When Christ rises from the tomb—dead for three days, three nights—humanity rises with him. If you and I will be among those who rise with Christ, we must be among those who die with Christ. As Christ himself teaches us: “Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there also will my servant be.” If you see a detour here, you need to have your eyes checked.

Where are you? Whose path do you follow? Which Way do you go? You, like every man and woman ever created, will be offered a bag of thirty silver coins. The Powers of this world want one thing for this price: a simple, easy compromise; an answer from one who has chosen to follow the Way of Truth and Life—“So that the many may avoid persecution/pain/inconvenience/anxiety, tell us what we want to hear; tell us that this Christ is a fraud; tell us that his good news is simply one message among many equally valuable options; tell us that we do not have to suffer the cross in order to rise again; tell us that we can disobey and still reap the harvest!” At this moment, who are you? Where are you?

Before you answer. . .before you commit. . .hear again: “[Jesus] learned obedience from what he suffered; and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.” If you will learn, if we will be saved. . .we will first suffer. We will obey. And in obedience, we will glorify the name of God our Father!


Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Stats never lie, the Media usually do

Commenting on the post, More Condom Lies, reader Mark makes the following observations:

And the condomaniacs get away with it because John Q Public doesn't understand that probability is multiplicative, not additive; the odds (of preventing infection) go down as he continues his risk-taking.

NIH advertises an 86% effective rate for condoms in preventing pregnancy. Lets put that in terms we can understand:

Would you jump out of a plane with 99 others skydivers, knowing that 14 parachutes wouldn't open? then get in and do it again and again and... the probability of surviving 10 jumps is only 22%, 20 jumps and its down to 4%, and there is only 1% chance of surviving 30 jumps.

The probability of surviving 100 jumps is .0000282%.

Now, no one will tell you the probability of a condom's effectiveness preventing HIV infection (because to run a test would be highly immoral and even considered unethical by the secularists), so the only thing we can go on is the high failure rate of condoms in preventing pregnancy.

I deeply appreciate this sort of analysis because I need a calculator to add together more than three double-digit numbers. Sad, I know. . .but true.

What's also sad but true is the consistency with which the Old Media lashes the Church for its stubborn refusal to emerge from the dungeons of medieval alchemy and embrace the enlightened wisdom of postmodern scientism. That these very same squawkers repeatedly choose to ignore the facts that their much-vaunted science provides them in favor of politically-correct propaganda is telling. What does it tell us? It tells us that we can safely ignore their self-serving homilies extolling unbridled condom hedonism and pay attention to the facts.

And those fact are these. . .

--from Edward Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies:

“The pope is correct,” Green told National Review Online Wednesday, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”

“There is,” Green adds, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”

Green added: “I also noticed that the pope said ‘monogamy’ was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than ‘abstinence.’ The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates (the other major factor is male circumcision).”

To summarize both the Holy Father and Professor Green:

+ Condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of HIV at the level of populations.
+ Greater availability and use of condoms increases HIV-infection rates.
+ Monogamy reduces HIV-infection rates.

Our Betters in the Old Media (and some in the Church) would have us believe that monogamy and abstinence are impossible. Condoms are the only answer. These, of course, are the same people who tell us that abortion is perfectly moral and should remain legal. Why? Isn't it obvious? When the condom fails--and it will--they don't want all those cute, chubby little kids running around reminding the Great Unwashed that the Condom Gospel they have heard preached from the pulpits of the NYT, CNN, the White House was really just self-serving propaganda. Better to just get rid of the evidence. . .

Abortion is holy work: following our inner-Episcopalian

Chris Johnson of MCJ notes the recent selection of The Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale as the president of the ill-named Episcopal Divinity School. Johnson notes that Ms Ragsdale is a pro-abortion priestess of the Episcopal Organization. . .a rather radical supporter of abortion, in fact. He asks:

How radically pro-abortion is Katie Rags? This radically pro-abortion:

[From a Ragsdale homily]: "And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight — only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.

These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.

I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing – who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes — in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You’re engaged in holy work."

This is evil.

Please keep in mind faithful Catholics: this woman is a priestess in an ecclesial community that many of our own R.C. "Spirit of Vatican Two" brothers and sisters admire for its wonderfully relevant theology; its attention to "prophetic ministry;" and its democratic polity.

The E.O. didn't end up in the suicidal chaos it finds itself in now by accident. Progressives and radicals engaged in a systemic dismantling of the E.O.'s canon law and tradition with the irregular "ordinations" of 11 women in 1974 in Philadelphia. (Those Catholic women "ordaining" themselves on the boats are imitating these "ordinations.") But long before these acts of rebellion, the theological foundations of a once-beautiful ecclesial community were rotted away by modernist theological dissent on fundamental dogma; episcopal complicity with heresy in the ranks of bishops; compromise with sexual libertines and moral disease; and finally, the adoption of radical feminism and Marixism as legitimate Christian worldviews and foundations for church revolution.

The E.O. is hemorrhaging membership and money. They are mired in hundreds of lawsuits with orthodox dioceses and parishes over property and assets. The Presiding Bishop, a radical feminist, Ms Katherine Schori, is deposing and firing in violation of the organization's canon laws fellow-bishops who oppose her. The organization has been declared "out of communion" with almost 2/3 of the rest of the Anglican Communion for its diabolical violations of scripture and tradition (the E.O. ordained a divorced, "partnered" homosexual man as bishop of New Hampshire). It's venerable Book of Common Prayer is due for yet another overhaul and this time the plan is to scuttle the whole thing in favor of a three-ring binder designed to allow parishes to "cut and paste" as they see fit. One diocese has elected (yes, elected) as its bishop a man who is an Episcopal priest and also a Buddhist priest. Another diocese supports an Episcopal priestess who is also a practicing Muslim. . .this Episco-Muslim teaches scripture at Seattle University, a university "in the Jesuit tradition." And this once venerated ecclesial community has replaced its Christian moral theology with the dubious Utopian fantasy of the United Nations Millenium Goals--a grab-bag of Marxist, globalists "Genie in a Bottle" socio-economic engineering outcomes that will be achieved and administered by the highly efficient, penny-pinching, subsidiarists of the U.N.'s threadbare bureaucracy. Nothing to fear in that!

Folks, this is the folly Catholic dissidents would have the Roman Church imitate. This is where the Obama-Catholics would lead us.

Mark Shea, summarizing Ss. Augustine and Aquinas, says it best, "Sin makes you stupid." Once you have abandoned the possibility of objective moral standards and rejected the reality of intrinsically morally evil acts, preaching the holiness of child-murder is just a step away.

With Dominic at Santa Sabina

Fr. Benedict, OP; Fr. Michael, OP; three young men from Notre Dame, and I went to Santa Sabina this morning. FYI: Santa Sabina is the "motherhouse" of the Dominican Order, i.e. the curia of the Order, including the Master, lives there.

We toured the basilica--even got a chance to go into the old Imperial Roman ruins and the leftovers of Isis' temple underneath the Church! We met a wonderful group of Peruvian Dominican sisters.

The highlight: we celebrated Mass in St. Dominic's cell. I offered my Mass for the benefactors of the Order and especially for my Book Benefactors! You know who you are. . .

Fr. Philip

More Condom Lies

Diogenes gets it right...again!

Simon says, The Pope distorts science

[. . .]

Some of us can remember when AIDS was not yet a problem, back when the public health game was to get all young women on the Pill -- ostensibly to reduce pregnancy, in reality to justify the emancipated sexuality of the advocates. In that period Science (i.e., spectacled men in white lab coats grasping Erlenmeyer flasks) was droning on about the high failure rate of the condom. Condoms were ridiculed by public health advocates as a crude backwoodsy expedient that only the naive or the unscrupulous would employ. Has the science changed in the meantime? No, only the terms of flattering the People Who Count.

Take a look at the persons who really care, as opposed to persons for whom "caring" is an ideological posture. Mother Teresa's nuns have been running AIDS hospices in Manhattan, San Francisco, and elsewhere since the 1980s. The caregivers are nuns who come mostly from third world backgrounds; their patients come mostly from first world cities. The nuns are chaste and healthy; yet it's their patients, not they, who came of age surrounded by free condoms, sex ed, and the full force of the public health propaganda machine. If the Lancet were right it should be the other way around: the little sisters would be wasting on the cots and the Manhattanites would be tending to them. Can't help but think that what the Lancet calls the "Pope's error" is a very felix culpa.

Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Reiki: Not Science, Not Christian

Glance around many of the Catholic retreat centers in the U.S. and you won't find a cross, a crucifix, a rosary, or even a tabernacle. What you will find is a labyrinth, dream-catchers, Mother-Goddess statues, and a Reiki room. What is Reiki? Well, for the most part, among disaffected (i.e., "bored Baby-boomers") U.S. religious, it's the latest Let's Use Anything But the Prayer of the Roman Church liturgical craze.

The following document (excerpted) was issued today by the USCCB's committee on doctrine. It directly condemns the practice of Reiki in Catholic facilities.

Let the temper tantrums begin!

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING REIKI AS AN ALTERNATIVE THERAPY
Committee on DoctrineUnited States Conference of Catholic Bishops

A) The Origins and Basic Characteristics of Reiki

4. Reiki is a technique of healing that was invented in Japan in the late 1800s by Mikao Usui, who was studying Buddhist texts. According to Reiki teaching, illness is caused by some kind of disruption or imbalance in one's "life energy." A Reiki practitioner effects healing by placing his or her hands in certain positions on the patient's body in order to facilitate the flow of Reiki, the "universal life energy," from the Reiki practitioner to the patient. There are numerous designated hand positions for addressing different problems. Reiki proponents assert that the practitioner is not the source of the healing energy, but merely a channel for it. To become a Reiki practitioner, one must receive an "initiation" or "attunement" from a Reiki Master. This ceremony makes one "attuned" to the "universal life energy" and enables one to serve as a conduit for it. There are said to be three different levels of attunement (some teach that there are four). At the higher levels, one can allegedly channel Reiki energy and effect healings at a distance, without physical contact.

B) Reiki as a Natural Means of Healing

5. Although Reiki proponents seem to agree that Reiki does not represent a religion of its own, but a technique that may be utilized by people from many religious traditions, it does have several aspects of a religion. Reiki is frequently described as a "spiritual" kind of healing as opposed to the common medical procedures of healing using physical means. Much of the literature on Reiki is filled with references to God, the Goddess, the "divine healing power," and the "divine mind." The life force energy is described as being directed by God, the "Higher Intelligence," or the "divine consciousness." Likewise, the various "attunements" which the Reiki practitioner receives from a Reiki Master are accomplished through "sacred ceremonies" that involve the manifestation and contemplation of certain "sacred symbols" (which have traditionally been kept secret by Reiki Masters). Furthermore, Reiki is frequently described as a "way of living," with a list of five "Reiki Precepts" stipulating proper ethical conduct.

C) Reiki and the Healing Power of Christ

8. Some people have attempted to identify Reiki with the divine healing known to Christians. They are mistaken. The radical difference can be immediately seen in the fact that for the Reiki practitioner the healing power is at human disposal. Some teachers want to avoid this implication and argue that it is not the Reiki practitioner personally who effects the healing, but the Reiki energy directed by the divine consciousness. Nevertheless, the fact remains that for Christians the access to divine healing is by prayer to Christ as Lord and Savior, while the essence of Reiki is not a prayer but a technique that is passed down from the "Reiki Master" to the pupil, a technique that once mastered will reliably produce the anticipated results. Some practitioners attempt to Christianize Reiki by adding a prayer to Christ, but this does not affect the essential nature of Reiki. For these reasons, Reiki and other similar therapeutic techniques cannot be identified with what Christians call healing by divine grace.

9. The difference between what Christians recognize as healing by divine grace and Reiki therapy is also evident in the basic terms used by Reiki proponents to describe what happens in Reiki therapy, particularly that of "universal life energy." Neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on "universal life energy" that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will. In fact, this worldview has its origins in eastern religions and has a certain monist and pantheistic character, in that distinctions among self, world, and God tend to fall away. We have already seen that Reiki practitioners are unable to differentiate clearly between divine healing power and power that is at human disposal.

III. CONCLUSION

10. Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki therapy presents insoluble problems. In terms of caring for one's physical health or the physical health of others, to employ a technique that has no scientific support (or even plausibility) is generally not prudent.

11. In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers. To use Reiki one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science. Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, however, a Catholic who puts his or her trust in Reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one's worship of God by turning one's religious feeling and practice in a false direction. While sometimes people fall into superstition through ignorance, it is the responsibility of all who teach in the name of the Church to eliminate such ignorance as much as possible.

12. Since Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or scientific evidence, it would be inappropriate for Catholic institutions, such as Catholic health care facilities and retreat centers, or persons representing the Church, such as Catholic chaplains, to promote or to provide support for Reiki therapy.

Most Rev. William E. Lori (Chairman)
Most Rev. John C. Nienstedt
Most Rev. Leonard P. Blair
Most Rev. Arthur J. Serratelli
Most Rev. José H. Gomez
Most Rev. Allen H. Vigneron
Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Most Rev. Donald W. Wuerl

Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Two Summer classes at U.D.

I am teaching two second term summer courses at the University of Dallas: the sophomore core course, Western Theological Tradition, and a senior seminar in English, American Literature.

Reading list for American Lit.:

Twain, M. Huckleberry Finn
Hawthorne, N. The Scarlet Letter
Melville, H. Bartleby the Scrivner
Faulkner, Wm. As I Lay Dying
O’Connor, F. The Complete Stories
McCarthy, C. The Road
Poetry packet

Western Theological Tradition:

Augustine. The Essential Augustine (anthology of Augustine's work)
Davis, L. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787)
Hillerbrand, H. J. The Protestant Reformation (anthology of major Protestant theologians)
Pegis, A. Introduction to Thomas Aquinas (selections from the Summa theologiae)
Richardson, C. Early Christian Fathers (anthology of Patristic writings)
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum & Lumen Gentium

Being/Not-being: there is no question

4th Sunday of Lent: 2 Chr 36.14-16, 19-23; Eph 2.4-10; Jn 3.14-21
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Have you given much thought to the difference it would make in your self-understanding if you chose to believe that you are a cosmic accident rather than a created being? Assuming, of course, that you think of yourself as a creature—a wholly made person, made by a Maker—a creature gifted with not only biological life but an immortal soul made for life eternal; assuming you think of yourself in this way, how different would your life be if you decided this afternoon to believe that you are nothing more than the fortunate consequence of cosmic circumstance, an admittedly freakish development wrought from chance chemical reactions, advantageous climatic conditions, aggressive genetic survival, and the heir to all the fortunes an opposable thumb gives this world’s more advanced primates? Would you think, for instance, that this world, this universe needs you? Needs us? Would we have any reason at all to believe that we are any more necessary to the other biological accidents of this planet than if we believe ourselves to be creatures made for a purpose? I would say, we would have less reason to believe ourselves necessary, fewer good reasons for thinking ourselves particularly important. Accidents are accidents; by definition, random clashes of things tossed at one another by chance in circumstance. If you don’t think of yourself as an accident, what difference does it make to you then to read Paul writing to the Ephesians: “. . .we are [God’s] handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them”?

The great German poet, Rainer M. Rilke, in what is arguably the greatest modern elegy, the “Ninth Elegy” of his Dunio Elegies, asks my question this way: “Why, if this interval of being can be spent serenely/in the form of a laurel[…]: why then/have to be human—and, escaping from fate,/keeping longing for fate?...” His question is not an easy one; however, rather pointedly, Rilke is asking: since we have escaped fate by being human—our human choices design our futures not fate—, why continue to long for fate, for destiny? Why do we yearn for a purpose, a story already written out for us? He says, “Oh not because happiness exists,/[…]But because truly being here is so much; because everything here/apparently needs us, this fleeting world, which in some strange way/keeps calling to us. Us, the most fleeting of all.” Fleeting though we are, we are gifted with the use of words. Rilke argues that the ungifted things of this world need us to say the unsayable, to name those things that cannot name themselves, and not only name them but praise them as well, and in praising them, change them: “[…] transient,/they look to us for deliverance: us, the most transient of all./They want us to change them, utterly, in our invisible heart,/within—oh endlessly—within us! Whoever we may be at last.” Whoever we may be at last. . .

Who are we, at last? Paul says that we are God’s handiwork. This is who we are now and at last. Rilke tells us that “truly being here is so much.” And he is right. Truly being is so much. Too much, perhaps. Just being here is overwhelming—even as rational animals crafted to live immortally and knowing it to be so—simply being so, no more than being so, just this one thing right now, this can be too much. Forget doing. Forget thinking. Forget past and future. Just being exactly who and what we are—just being this here—can be too much. Being God’s handiwork, being made, created in Christ Jesus. . .each one of us composed, molded, drawn, built; from nothing, generated and blessed with breath and memory and intellect and will. And why? Why are we made? To name our inanimate cousins in creation? No. To take them into ourselves and change them? No. To propagate our DNA like herd animals, breeding like livestock? No. None of these is too much. None of these is truly being. Why, then?

Paul writes, “God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love he had for us [. . .] brought us to life with Christ [. . .] that in the ages to come He might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.” We were brought to life in Christ so that our Father might show us His infinite kindness through Christ. We were created in love for no other reason than to be loved. And we know that are loved by Love Himself when He shows us “the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness…” The oft-repeated and much-loved gospel reading says this perfectly: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” The ultimate demonstration of the Father’s infinite mercy, His immeasurable kindness. . .is His Son dying on a cross—a death that gave us birth to a new life in Christ. Prophecy and history meet to fulfill God’s will. That was no accident, no random clash of free-floating events!

So, if you don’t think of yourself as an accident, what difference does it make to you then that you are a creature created in love by Love? At the very least, you must think of yourself as the recipient of a divine gift; not only life itself, but every good thing that can given to one who lives faithfully in Christ. Read Paul again: “. . .we are [God’s] handiwork, created in Christ Jesus FOR the good works that God has prepared in advance, THAT we should live in them.” We are creatures created for the good works of Christ so that we should live in these good works. Do you live in the good works of Christ? If you do, then you do not live an accidental life, a life of chance, but rather a life of truth, as Jesus teaches us, “…whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.” Live in the good works of Christ, do these same good works, and your good works are seen as holy works done by God’s will.

Notice, however, what happens when someone begins to think of himself as the product of random processes. Paul says that we are created in Christ Jesus to live in his good works. But if you hold that you are a product rather than a creature, then you will not acknowledge Christ or the good works you were created to use and imitate. Jesus says, “Whoever believes in [Christ] will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned…” Already been condemned. How so? Random products of natural processes have no purpose, no end. Random products are not good, true, or beautiful. They just are. They cannot truly be as beings loved by a Lover. For them, there is no Lover. No love. Random products can feel passion, think rational thoughts, enjoy art, literature, and music. But can they do truly Good Things if they will not acknowledge they are the handiwork of Goodness Himself? To what—beyond their chanced, mechanical lives—does the true, the good, and the beautiful refer? What can love be but the pre-determined firing of neurons in the proper sequence to produce the physiological effect most often labeled “love”? Is this condemnation? Yes, of a sort. Life in Christ is life lived knowing you are living out a divinely-gifted purpose. Life without Christ is life lived knowing you are living until your body parts fail you—a very limited warranty indeed.

We can end with Rilke. . .knowing that we are creatures who “live and move and have our being” in God Himself, our God “who is rich in mercy [and] brought us to life with Christ,” knowing we are not products but sons and daughters, we can shout with Rilke: “Look, I am living. On what? Neither childhood nor future/grows any smaller. . . .Superabundant being/wells up in my heart.”


Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Homily Coming Soon!

Yes, there is a Sunday homily in the pipeline. . .it got weird, so some revision was necessary. . .and it is still a little strange.

New Faith + Science posts

Three new posts at my faith + science blog: suppl(e)mental.

Check 'em out!