Let astonishment seize you. . .(2nd Sun of Advent 2007)

[NB.  This is a repost.  I am running up against a deadline for my thesis, so blogging will be very light until Wed, Dec 9th.] 

[NB.  This is not the homily for 2nd Sun of Advent but the Monday after 2nd Advent Sun.] 

2nd Week Advent (M): Isa 35.1-10 and Luke 5.17-26

Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP

St Albert the Great Priory

In his 1944 existentialist play, No Exit, French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre declared, “Hell is other people.” On one of the last episodes of Angel, the main character, Angel, a vampire with a soul turned private detective, the one who dated Buffy on her show, acquires a magical ring that allows him to travel to Hell where he intends to confront Satan himself. In a not-so-Dantesque device, he rides a service elevator straight down to Hell itself. After a lengthy ride down, the doors open, our hero is poised to do battle with every kind of vile demon imaginable. Instead, when the doors open we see the exact same street scene we saw when our hero got in the elevator. Apparently, Hell is wherever you are and the demons we battle do not always live in That Special Place. One more: that wonderful Twilight Zone episode with Anthony Burgess.* Burgess plays an impatient, bespectacled misanthrope librarian who just wants to be left alone to read his books. War breaks out and he survives the destruction of mankind. He rejoices b/c, as the last man on Earth, he now has all the time he needs to read. While celebrating on the steps of the New York Public Library, he fall and breaks his only pair of glasses. Perhaps Hell is no other people.

Jesus teaches his disciples that there is a connection to be made between sin and sickness. He heals the paralyzed man by forgiving him his sins. This causes the persnickety Pharisees to fall all over themselves accusing him of blasphemy for daring to presume that he can forgive anyone’s sin. The point of the scene is to show us Christ’s healing power and to reinforce his claim that he is the Messiah. That’s evident. But what we might overlook is the small detail that makes this scene truly instructive. The paralyzed man is carried by his friends to the house where Jesus is teaching. Because they cannot reach him through the crowd, they climb over the crowd to the roof of the house and lower the man through the ceiling on a stretcher. The man’s friends lower him to rest directly in front of Christ as he preaches. Luke writes, “When Jesus saw their faith, he said [to the man] ‘As for you, your sins are forgiven.’” Did you catch that?

The genius of our faith is the bizarre religious notion we borrow from our Jewish ancestors that we are saved as a body and not as individuals—as a nation, a people, a tribe and not as Me Alone. We are in-corp-orated—that is, embodied—into the Body of Christ through baptism. We live out our spiritual lives by attending to the regularly celebrated public sacraments of the Church. Jesus heals the paralyzed man not because the man is particularly pious or holy or because he is a great benefactor of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus heals the man of his sin and sickness because of the faith of his friends! Their trust in God, their hope in the healing power of truth and mercy, their love of their friend moves Jesus to act.

Quite literally, the man’s friends “make straight the path of the Lord” and they walk that path straight to Jesus, carrying their paralyzed friend. So that the Pharisees might know that he is who he says he is, our Lord, says to the man, “I say to you, rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.” And he does, thus letting us all, all flesh, all nations see the salvation of God. Sartre would have seen these men and their love for him as Hell. Angel would have walked into that house and observed a mundane image of the devil’s lair. Our librarian friend with the broken glasses would regret his impatience and long for someone to read to him. In their isolation and despair, these men would find their “definitive self-exclusion from the presence of God.”

We cannot come to Christ alone. We cannot baptize ourselves. Forgive our own sins. Nor can we bear witness to God’s healing power if we stand alone. Therefore, let astonishment seize you and glorify God to all flesh, all nations. Though you have seen incredible things up til now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

*As a Nitpicky Reader points out, the actor's name is Burgess Meredith.  Get a job, Subvet!  :-)

Desecrating the Host: another try

OK. . .let's try this again:

A young man comes into my office and tells me that last Sunday he stole a host at Mass and intends to flush it down the toilet.  He will make video of the event and put it on Youtube.

I ask him why he wants to do this.  He reels off all the usual anti-Catholic junk about oppression of women, same-sex marriage, blahblahblah, and proudly proclaims himself to be an atheist.

Rather than trying to persuade him that he is mistaken about God and the Church, I simply ask him if he understands that Catholics will see his stunt as an act of desecration. He says yes, that's why he is doing it.  I ask him what he hopes to gain with the stunt.  He wants to draw attention to the Church's medieval oppression blahblahblah.  By flushing the host he claims he will symbolically flush the Church along with it.

I listen patiently and ask, "Do you believe that the host is the Body of Christ?"  He says, "Of course not.  That's not rational thinking."  I explain the Church's understanding of the Eucharist and why it is important to us that the host be revered and not desecrated.  He just giggles and shakes his head.

He leaves my office and proceeds to carry out his promise to flush the host and post the video on Youtube.

Now, what is the best public response that Catholics can make to this act?

Keep in mind:

He is seeking attention for his anti-Catholic whinings.

He doesn't believe that God exists.

He doesn't care that Catholics believe that the host is the Body of Christ.

He doesn't care that Catholics will be insulted/offended; in fact, he hopes we are.

This is not an argument about whether or not the host is still the Sacrament given his intentions.

My contention in the post below is that the sacramental status of the host is irrelevant to how we will respond publicly b/c Jesus can take care of himself.  God doesn't need us to defend Him.* My suggestion that the bishops' conference issue a statement about the host no longer being the Sacrament b/c of the guy's evil intent clouded the issue.  I should have known that the comments would focus on the issue of "when is the host Jesus and when isn't it."  That was my dumb mistake.

The desecrator doesn't believe the host is Jesus, and he is going to flush it precisely because we believe it is. He is counting on us to rise up in indignation to defend the Sacrament by loudly denouncing him. We can't stop the desecration b/c it has already occurred.  All we can do is choose how we will react publicly.

Here's my point:  if we do what he expects us to do (emails, petitions, demands for the video to be removed, etc.), he wins.  He gets what he wants.  More views on his Youtube account.  Angry, sputtering Catholics sending links over the internet.  Primo PR for his kiddie tantrum.  And how many (rightly) indignant and well-meaning Catholics are going to confirm the worst prejudices of anti-Catholic freaks by saying or writing something theologically dubious about the Eucharist?  I've been told by more than one non-believing friend that Catholics have assured him that a host put under chemical analysis will yield human DNA!  In fact, I was told once by a student that the Precious Blood can be blood-typed, but we dare not do it b/c it would test God.

Best approach:  shrug it off; ignore the whole thing; pray fervently for the descerator;  ask your pastor to celebrate a Mass of reparation, and let God defend Himself against atheist-wackos. 

*Defending our statements about how we as human beings understand God is a different thing entirely.

Desecrating the Eucharist: how Catholics should respond (UPDATED)

Question:  How should Catholics react/respond to Youtube vids of atheists and other anti-religious types desecrating the Blessed Sacrament?  

Two reactions seem to me to be perfectly reasonable. . .

First, a private reaction:  horror and then prayer for the individual who does such a thing.

Second, a public reaction:  ignore it.  Even better, a declaration from the bishops' conference stating that the Sacrament is no longer the Sacrament the instant someone intents to desecrate the species. [see note below]*

To understand the force of the second reaction you have to understand the adolescent attention-seeking mindset of the person who would abuse the sacred species to make anti-Catholic propaganda.

Traditionally, the point of desecration is to offer offense to the god(s) of the enemy.  It's a terror tactic used to demoralize a conquered people.  Essentially, destroying a temple or pulling down an idol is a way for the victor to say, "See!  Your god(s) have abandoned you.  We won because your god(s) is weak!"  Conquerors may not have worshiped the enemy's god(s), but they probably believed that this god(s) really existed.  Defeating the nation dedicated to the  offended god(s) proved the deity too weak to defend his/her people.  Such a god(s) deserves no worship.  

But the crybabies who desecrate the Eucharist do not believe in the Christian god.  They do not believe that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ.  In their own minds, they are not offering offense to Christ b/c they do not believe that Christ is who he says he is.  The point of desecrating the Eucharist is offend Catholics.  More importantly, the act of desecration is specifically designed to provoke Catholics into angry, indignant reactions that prove we are religious fanatics willing to defend bizarre Dark Age superstitions.

I would argue that the instant anyone steals the sacred species for the purpose of desecration the sacrament is no longer the Body and Blood of Christ.  If some idiot wants to nail a piece of bread to the wall or flush it down the toilet and post a video of the event on the internet, then more power to him.  I'm not offended b/c I don't believe that the host is the Body of Christ.

If the Holy Spirit can effect the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ through the agency of human intention and prayer, then there is no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit is powerless to revoke the effects of the transformation and leave the species perfectly ordinary in the face of human disbelief and the intention to desecrate.

Christ freely and willingly died for us on the cross 2,000 years ago.  He endured torture, humiliation, abandonment, and death so that we might be reconciled with the Father through his sufferings.  He has already suffered far worse than being peed on by some undergrad atheist looking for his 15-minutes of internet fame.  By telling the attention-seeking crybaby that we are not offended by his desecration, we deflate his self-importance; undercut the anti-Catholic propaganda power of his silly gesture; attract attention to the faith; and come out of the whole thing looking like adults patiently indulging a child in the midst of a public temper-tantrum.

Email campaigns, signing petitions, calling for new laws, filing lawsuits--all of these give the offender exactly what he wants and only encourages others to imitate him. 

So, the next time one of these bozos make the news with a desecration stunt, simply respond, "Um, dude, that host stopped being the Body of Christ the second you stole it with the intent to desecrate.  Why should anyone be offended that you are playing with a piece of bread on Youtube?"

[NB.  My purpose in this post is not to put forward a theology of the Eucharist but rather to address how faithful Catholics should respond to acts of public desecration.  Given that Christ doesn't need our protection--he can take care of himself--and that the purpose of the desecration is publicity for the Bozo Desecrator, the best Catholic response is to deny said Bozo the satisfaction of seeing us insulted.  One way to deny him the attention he craves is to tell him that the Sacrament is no longer the Sacrament b/c he stole it with evil intent.  Now, is this true?  Does it matter?  If Christ doesn't need our protection (and he doesn't); and Bozo doesn't believe in God (and he doesn't); and the point is to insult Catholics (and it is), then I don't think it matters whether or not the Sacrament is still the Sacrament.  However, if the Holy Spirit wills it, Bozo's desecration could be used as a means of grace for Bozo's conversion.  Say, it nails the Host to a wall and it starts bleeding!  Now there's a great conversion story.  PLEASE HEAR ME:  I am not saying it's OK to desecrate the Sacrament.  All I am asking here is:  what do we say to Bozo to take the wind out of his attention-seeking PR stunt?  Is desecration insulting to Catholics?  Of course!  But do we want to react in a way that encourages or discourages any future desecrations?  Let's be careful not to attribute our insult to God.  We are perfectly right to feel insulted.  But we do not speak for God.]

*This sentence (and the whole idea of the host reverting to bread b/c of evil intent) has turned out to be a distraction from the issue at hand.  It was meant more as a thought experiment, not serious sacramental theology.  Please see the post directly above this one, "Desecrating the host:  another try" for clarification.  

Feminism: men's secret plan to escape responsibility

Matt Patterson of PJTV will have to be drummed out of the "No Girls Club" for posting this piece, "Men, the Gender Wars are Over--We won."

In this expose of the male mastermind plan to free husbands, boyfriends, and men in general from the burdens of familial responsibility, Patterson lays out the basics of the conspiracy that the Club code-named, "Feminism":

Men, “Operation Feminist Movement” has worked, and more swiftly and completely than many of you thought possible. Mere decades ago, we spent endless hours and countless dollars before marriage courting and wooing; after marriage, we shouldered the entire financial burden for our families.

Now, after marriage, women can be expected to pay for half of everything, which is to the good, because video games are expensive. But, as more and more of you are discovering, why bother with marriage at all anymore? You can stay up all night, hang with your buds all the time, secure in the knowledge that on any given night you can be sure to find a willing woman, a woman who has likely been taught, conditioned even (by other women!) to expect nothing from you in return — and that this is a good thing.

Patterson, no doubt you will hearing from the Club Membership Committee.  Prepare to forfeit your de-coder ring and beer stein!

Read the whole thing.

Misc Questions

Quick Quick/Quick Answers. . .

1).  What?  No comment yet on the Anglican Constitution?

Ummmmm. . .no.  I've read it and the many commentaries available on-line.  I don't really have anything to add to the discussion except:  "WELCOME HOME!!!"

2).  The sexual abuse report from Ireland was released a few days ago?  Thoughts?

My thoughts/feelings/ideas on Christian clergy who sexually abuse children are not publishable.  Let's just say all three involve public whipping posts and small islands with lots of rocks that need to be moved. . .repeatedly. . .for years.

3).  Thesis update?  How's it coming along?

Thesis?!  What thesis?!  Nobody told me I had to write a thesis!  Seriously, the first rough draft is due Dec. 8th.  It will be done on time. . .unless I get sick or something (sneeze-cough-wheeze).

4).  Did you watch the President's speech on Afghanistan?

No, I've watched one B.O. speech.  Therefore, I have seen them all.  But I've read that he's sending 30,000 more troops and giving them 18 mos. to build a lot of exits out of the country.

5).  Did you see the bit about the San Francisco archdiocese having to fork over $14 million in taxes for transferring their own property to themselves?

Yea.  Expect more of this sort of thing.  The tax assessor is punishing the archdiocese for opposing same-sex "marriage."  I'm no tax lawyer (the Lord is good!), but my guess is that the decision will be overturned on judicial appeal.

6).  Spirit Daily has a thing up about pets in the afterlife?  What says the Dominican friar?

This Dominican friar says, "No."

7).  Do you know what the ITC [International Theological Commission] is studying this time around?

I don't.  My guess:  Dominican friar, Fr. Charles Morerod, is the secretary-general of the commission and his theological expertise is in theology of religions and ecumenicism.  So, maybe they are considering a question like, "How many Dominicans does it take to put a carton of milk back in the 'fridge?"  Answer:  we don't know b/c it's never been tried.

Now, off to bed. . .errrmmm. . .I mean, back to work!

Theological Interlude: meriting grace

Question: Over the holidays I got in to an argument with a Protestant friend about how the Catholic Church teaches that we can earn our salvation. I didn't know how to explain the teaching. How would you do it? 

Not the easiest teaching to explain, but I'll give it a try. This is a highly non-technical explanation, btw. . .

First thing to understand:  NEVER has the Church taught that salvation is earned.  Anyone who claims that the Church teaches that Catholics can buy their salvation with money or works has no idea what they are talking about.  Period.  End of discussion.  

Second:  Christ died and rose again in order that everyone might be saved.  Everyone.  All of us.  Buddhists, Muslims, raving materialist atheists.  ALL.  Now, to effect (to put into action) God's salvific will, we must accept His saving grace through Christ.   God will not force us to  accept His will. Catholics enter the Body of Christ through Baptism.  Nourish body and soul in the Eucharist.  And maintain a thriving state of God's grace by Confession.  However, even after Baptism, we can reject God's grace and live apart from Him forever if we so choose.* 

Third:   We do not merit grace in the sense that we earn credit for good works.  Our salvation is freely given.  Grace = gift.  A "gift" cannot be a gift if it is earned.  We call that wages.  What the Church means by "merited grace" is the additional blessing we receive when we do good works in response to God's freely given grace.

An analogy:  My mom and dad give me a $100.  No reason.  No occasion.  They love me and know I need it, so they just hand it over.  No strings.  No expectations.  When next I visit them, I decide the mow our rather large and unruly yard.  In my mind, I do this principally b/c I love my parents and want to make them happy.  But I also have in mind their generosity in giving me the much-needed cash.  By mowing the yard, I merit the $100.

Note well:  the $100 comes first.  I receive the $100 as a gift.  Later, I do some good work to merit the money.  Nothing has been bought.  Everyone is happy.  

If I had mowed the yard and then received the $100, it could have been seen as payment.  It could have been a bribe or a way of guilting me into doing the work.  But the money came first.  My work came second.   

God freely gave us His Son as a gift.  We receive His Son as a gift at baptism.  The work we do after this merits the grace. . .the grace is NOT purchased.  It is impossible to purchase a gift that has been given and received as a gift.  Gifts (graces), by definition, are freely given and freely received, i.e., not earned, purchased, extorted, or borrowed/loaned.

Hope this helps!  

*Keep in mind here that the sacraments are given to us for our use.  God is not limited by the sacraments.  He can work His grace anyway He chooses.  For Catholics, the ordinary means of grace is through the sacraments.

Kitty Surprise

I'm no fan of Cuteness. However, even my cold heart is (slightly) warmed by this vid.

Pray the Hours for Advent

HancAquam reader, Michelle, points us to the webpage of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. . .

Where we find an exhortation to pray the Liturgy of the Hours as a way of starting off the new Church year.

Excellent idea!  Check it out.

Coffee Bowl Browsing (Eco-scandal Edition)

The White House that was supposed to bring us policies based on the Eternal Wisdom of Science still believes that the "science" of global warming is settled.  Color me not surprised.

The Marxists behind the Copenhagen Conference. 

Green for thee but not for me:  celebrity eco-hypocrites. 

A Who's Who of the Climate Gate scandal (video)

Global Warming is like Lincoln and the slaves or Churchill and the Nazis. . .or something.

Hysteria and desperation from the Prophets of Carbon Doom!

"Peer-reviewed research" is not so much reviewed by peers as it is suppressed by ideologues.

A more perfect knowledge of God

1st Week of Advent (T): Readings

Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP

SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Rejoicing in the Holy Spirit, Jesus gives thanks and praise to his Father for hiding the divine truth from the wise and learned, yet revealing this same truth to the childlike. He says to the disciples, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. For I say to you, many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.” So, along with the wise and learned, prophets and kings are left in darkness, left to grope at the truth in their ignorance. As Dominicans and students studying at a Dominican university maybe we should be worried about this imposed darkness, just a little anxious about the glee with which Jesus consigns the learned to their adult cloud of not-knowing. Wasn't it our brother, Aquinas, who taught us how to treat theology as a science? Didn't he bring the pagan philosopher, Aristotle, into the mind of the Church and shape our faith with his metaphysical wisdom? Take a quick look at the courses we offer here at the Angelicum and decide if we—professors and students alike—belong to the wise and learned. Dialogical Theologies of Religion. Contemporary Philosophies of Theology. Nietzsche and Christianity. Gadamer's Hermeneutics. Heidegger's Essays. Whew! That's a lot of learning! But where are the courses on being childlike? Where do we learn the wisdom of a child's love for her mom and dad? Jesus prays, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father. 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.” Our childlike wisdom starts with God's revelation.

In case you are worried that your preacher this morning is preaching Christian anti-intellectualism, let me quote Aquinas, “We have a more perfect knowledge of God by grace than by natural reason” (ST I.12.13). Limited as we are in understanding our finite world, imagine the limits of what we can know about the infinite divine! Relying on reason alone—the learning and wisdom of this world—we can glimpse some small portion of the divine in creation. But it is only through a divinely-graced intellect that we can achieve a more perfect knowledge of who God is. Through Christ our Father reaches down to lift us up so that we might see what the childlike already see: true wisdom, the knowledge that passes all understanding, begins and ends in His love for us. This is not anti-intellectualism; this is an intellect super-charged with the grace of revelation.

Jesus tells the disciples that they are blessed b/c they see and hear what prophets and kings long to see and hear but do not. What accident or disease has left these pitiable prophets and kings deaf and blind to God's truth? Is it that they are simply stupid, intellectually ungifted? Maybe they are stubborn or just lazy? No, none of these. Jesus says that he reveals the Father to those whom he chooses. And no one else sees or hears except those chosen. Among the disciples are tax-collectors, fishermen, even a physician but no prophets, priests, kings, or professors. Jesus reveals the Father to the Average Joe's of Judea, knowing that it will be they who make the best witnesses, knowing that the faith gifted to them would flourish in the hard world of work, persecution, and scarcity.

If this is true, surely then, students and professors have nothing to say to the world about Christ. No, we have our own work, our own forms of persecution and scarcity. But what we say about Christ and what we do in his name begins and ends with the love he reveals from the Father. Philosophy, theology, science can all show us some small portion of the truth if and only if our most basic assumptions and methods rest firmly on the knowledge that we are creatures, made in the image and likeness of our Creator. From this knowledge we can unravel the truths of our purpose and love both freely and

Climate Gate does not hurt science

Some HancAquam readers are asking if the Climate Gate scandal undermines the authority of science in general. . .the implication being that science--often the arch-nemesis of religion in the public square, particularly Christianity--has been somehow fundamentally damaged and can now be safely ignored or ridiculed into silence.  Visions of booing the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens off the world-stage dance in our heads. . .

Generally, the question goes something like this:  "Doesn't this scandal prove that science is just another game played by elitists who want fortune and fame?" 

My unequivocal answer:  "Absolutely.  Not." 

The Climate Gate scandal reaffirms the truth of what every Christian ought to know from personal experience:  we live in a fallen world run by fallen men and women who do and says things that all too often prove to be sinful.   Scientists may be under a cloud of suspicion at the moment, but science as a means of investigating the natural world is as trustworthy has it ever been.  In the same way that the abuse scandals put the clergy under suspicion without touching the essential core of the faith, scientists themselves will have to endure heightened scrutiny while defending the basic integrity of their profession.  And defend it they must; first, by unambiguously condemning the CRU and those who deceived the public.  And second, by starting over with a new investigation into the basic assumptions of global warming.

Scientists, like theologians, freely admit that their knowledge is ultimately tacit, firmly held but subject to refinement upon further study.  Our knowledge of the world (or God) in no way alters the reality of that world (or God).  As John Polkinghorne argues, our sciences (whether it is natural or divine) are always a matter of verisimilitude, "truth-likeness."  For scientists, the truth-likeness of science empowers the discovery of new facts and the invention of new technology.  The bumper-sticker on the Good Scientist's car might be:  "Science.  It Works." 

What must be combated during this scandal is the rise of scientific equivalent of the Voice of the Faithful (VOTF).  This group was founded in 2002 as a lay-led reaction to the scandals.  Taking advantage of the chaos after the scandal broke, VOTF argued that the abuse of minors by priests and the subsequent cover-ups by bishops exposed the weaknesses of the Church's hierarchical structure and the need for radical reform.  VOTF pushed for changes in this structure that fit their dissident, Protestantizing agenda for the Church:  women's ordination, married clergy, more hierarchical power to the laity, etc.  Their push for these specific reforms ignores the fact that women, married people, and lay folks in other churches and even in non-religious professions sexually abuse children as well. 

Unfortunately, for the VOTF, they can not demonstrate how the hierarchical structure itself was responsible for the sexual abuse of minors.  No Church document approves child molestation.  Nothing in the tradition of the Church encourages it.  Canon law does not sanction it.  No Catholic conscience properly formed can tolerate it.  In fact, the exact opposite is true.  Everything the Church holds to be true and faithfully teaches explicitly condemns the sexual abuse of minors.  The abuse happened precisely because the men who populate the hierarchy failed to be diligent in their sacred responsibilities.  Had they followed Church teaching faithfully, the abuse would have never happened.  The teachers are at fault, not the teachings.

This goes for the Climate Gate scientists as well.  The Climate Research Unit scandal happened because the scientists involved did not faithfully carry out the basic procedures of the scientific method.  By destroying inconvenient data, lying to colleagues and gov't oversight bodies, by suppressing oppositional voices in the journals, and manipulating methods to reach pre-determined outcomes, these guys behaved more like religious zealots defending a ridiculous occult dogma than as scientists searching for the truth. 

Just as the sex scandals exposed a perversion of the Church's teachings and structures by fallen men, Climate Gate exposes a perversion of the scientific method by those bent on having their way in spite of the truth. 

Science is worthy of our trust.  Those abusive climate-scientists are not.

Vigilance for Christ NOT vigilance against fear

1st Sunday of Advent: Readings

Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP

SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma

If you search on Youtube for vids using the terms “wake up prank” you will find some hilarious pranks pulled on poor, sleeping souls. Pranksters use air horns, spiders, plastic lizards, flour, mousetraps, and Halloween masks to scare the living daylights out of their family members and friends. Asleep and soundly dreaming away the night, the victims are secure in their beds. Vulnerable, innocent, easy prey. When the assault comes, their reactions—screams of terror, wild jumping about, colorful (*ahem*) language—all come together perfectly in a flashing instant of surprise, a completely unexpected jolt back to the reality of the waking world. . .and the terrible laughing of their loved ones. After this dose of terror, how do they ever get back to sleep, waiting, as they surely are, for the next bucket of water, or the next fake machine gun blast? Do they know it's coming? Do they wait to be surprised again?

Speaking to the disciples about his return at the end of this age, Jesus says, “Beware that your hearts do not become drowsy. . .and that day catch you by surprise like a trap. For that day will assault everyone who lives on the face of the earth. Be vigilant at all times. . .” Like the victim of a Youtube wake-up prank, are we to live our lives in vigilant fear of being surprised by the trumpet blast, the roaring waves, the moon and stars shaken from the sky? After all, doesn't Jesus also tell the disciples that “people will die of fright in anticipation of what is coming upon the world”? Ours is a vigilance of hope not fear, of thankful anticipation not fret and worry about disaster and cosmic destruction. Yes, the Day is coming, but it is the Day our Lord fulfills His promise to us.

The world has been ending since it started. The Last Day of creation dawned with the First Day's sunrise. Can you count the number of world-ending scenarios you have lived through? For me: Soviet communism, DDT poisoning, acid rain, nuclear winter, HIV/AIDS, the new ice age, global suffocation from deforestation, flu pandemics, “dirty bomb terrorism,” worldwide economic collapse, and global warming—all secular apocalyptic scripts that narrate the reduction of our civilizations to utter ruin. Instinctively, it seems, we understand that as individuals and as a collective whole we will die. There will be an end. I will die. You will die. We might even die together. On a global scale, apocalyptic scenarios represent our individual anxieties about dying. Projected on the world-screen, these End of Days dramas are just one of the ways we humans play out our fear of dying. The trumpets of natural disaster, or nuclear annihilation, or environmental pollution blare from the four corners of the Earth, and we run around screaming, searching for some way—any way—to forestall our end. If the Church can be justly accused of using the bloody prophecies of Armageddon to frighten the vulnerable into submission to her power, then we can just as rightly accuse the secular powers of using scientific prophecy to scare us into a slavery to fear. Does it matter if the prophets of global destruction are dressed in vestments or lab coats? Whether they use cryptic scriptures or equally occult “science”? Neither of these schools of prophecy preach the hope that Christ came give to us. Neither encourages us to wait faithfully in the expectation of the day of promise. Neither points us to the need to live in love with thanksgiving.

Does this mean then that we can become complacent in our vigilance for the coming of the Lord? No, of course not. But if we are not to drown in worry and be surprised on the day of promise, we must understand that ours is a vigilance for the coming of Christ not a vigilance against our inevitable demise. As Christians, we have no fear of death. Death is dead. Yes, we will die. But we will not lie dead forever. Jesus is not warning the disciples against the coming end so much as he is telling them to live now as if he he had come again already. When secular apocalyptic scenarios splash across the media, we are told that there are solutions, outs, ways of avoiding the coming disasters. We are harangued and shamed into schemes to save the planet. Jesus says no such thing to the disciples. There are no solutions. He says simply, “I will return. And here is how you will know I am coming. . .” The advent of his coming is always upon us. He has come; his is coming; and he will come again. These are not reasons to fear an end, but reasons to hope for his inevitable rule.

Hope looks beyond anxiety, beyond disaster, beyond the always-already advent of an apocalypse. When we hope as we ought, we are not gambling against cosmic odds, but rather laying claim to the promise made by God to His prophet Jeremiah: “In those days, in that time, I will raise up for David a just shoot; he shall do what is right and just in the land.” That's not an angry threat but a divine guarantee.

Eco-totalitarianism & the Church

Melanie Phillips of the Spectator gets it exactly right:

[. . .]

All the manipulation, distortion and suppression revealed by these emails took place because it would seem these scientists knew their belief was not only correct but unchallengeable; and so when faced with evidence that showed it was false, they tried every which way to make the data fit the prior agenda. And those who questioned that agenda themselves had to be airbrushed out of the record, because to question it was simply impossible. Only AGW zealots get to decide, apparently, what science is. Truth is what fits their ideological agenda. Anything else is to be expunged.

Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally?

I think that the terrible history of mankind provides the answer to that question. Nixon was a crook. But what we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.

One element of the Globo-Warmist fraud that hasn't been covered is the impact these revelations will have on certain eco-dogmas that have seeped into the Church.  Many religious orders have wholeheartedly embraced "Saving Earth" as the 21st-century equivalent to "Saving Pagan Babies."

Orders as traditional and as worthy as the Dominicans have signed on the United Nations Millennium Goals and the scary-scary Earth Charter.  Both of these have laudable elements, elements easily and readily taken on by faithful Catholics (e.g., affordable medical care, education).  But both also have elements that defy basic Church teachings.  The UNMG has a well-hidden abortion/contraception agenda and the EC has an "equal rights" agenda that would require the Church to significantly alter basic moral teachings on marriage and family all in the name of "sustainability."  Environmental sustainability makes perfect sense to any reasonable person.  However, a major component of global sustainability is population control, i.e. abortion, contraception, and euthanasia.  

It takes about a minute of reading to see that both of these projects are inextricable bound to an internationalist-Marxist ideology.  In other words, all of our problems will be fixed when we destroy liberal-democratic capitalism for the sake of Earth (no definite article, please).  This is the totalitarianism Phillips is warning us about.  

So, the question is:  if Global-warming is a fraud, what do the religious groups that have embraced this fraud do with their support for the radical social-engineering agendas of the UNMG and the EC?

A joke from a friend...

An Irishman goes into the confessional box after years of being away from the Church.

There's a fully equipped bar with Guinness on tap. On the other wall is a dazzling array of the finest cigars and chocolates.

Then the priest comes in. "Father, forgive me, for it's been a very long time since I've been to confession, but I must first admit that the confessional box is much more inviting than it used to be."

The priest replies: "Get out. You're on my side."

US religious women closing the door on the visitation

NCR is reporting that US religious women are "almost universally resisting" the Vatican inquiry into the condition of their lives.

I was struck by several elements of this story.

First, participation in the Vatican inquiry is voluntary.  How does one resist voluntary participation?  You either take part or you don't.  "Resistance" is something you do when you are being coerced into some action you believe to be contrary to your will. Congregations were invited to participate not coerced.  The NCR article consistently uses the word "comply" and the phrase "not complying" to note the lack of participation.  One complies or fails to comply with an order.  One accepts or refuses an invitation. 

Second, the inquiry is an opportunity for women religious to tell the Vatican about their lives in their own words.  The LCWR frequently complains that the hierarchy doesn't listen to women religious.  What is accomplished by "resisting" this chance to tell the hierarchy how US women religious live?  Future complaints about the Vatican "not listening" will be met with the question:  "Did your congregation participate in the visitation?"

Third, by participating in the development of the visitation report, congregations reserve a place for themselves at the table when the report is issued.  Will those congregations that refuse the invitation to participate refrain from criticizing the report when and if it fails to represent their views on religious life?  Does it make sense here to say, "If you didn't vote, don't complain about the election outcome"?

Fourth, in an era when lack of transparency in secular governments and the scientific community is causing one scandal after another, LCWR criticized the Vatican for lack of transparency in the inquiry.  Yet, many congregations complained about questions in the visitation document asking for the average age of the sisters and information about their assets and current financial situation. The Vatican dropped these questions. Why would congregations want too hide these bits of information?  Isn't transparency a good thing?

Several quoted statements from sisters in the NCR article go a long way toward indicating some of the root problems in the LCWR.

"Vatican II took us out of the ghettos and into ecology, feminism and justice in the world," she said. "The Vatican still has a difficult time accepting that."  This ignores the fact that the Church has always called Catholics to faithful stewardship of our natural resources; that the Church has been at the forefront of elevating and defending women against secular culture; and that the Church produced the notion of "human rights" and has always called for social justice.  The real complaint here is that the Church has successfully resisted efforts by a radical minority to fundamentally mold the Church into a product of the '70's-'80's zeitgeist.

One said that it is "unlikely the Vatican wanted us to come out of this being more confident of our identity as self-defining religious agents, but that is exactly what has happened."  But we aren't "self-defining religious agents."  We are members of one Body who use our gifts for one another.  What happens to me if, as a self-defined religious agent, I define myself as something other than Catholic?  If I have any integrity at all, I leave the Church and join a like-minded group.  Catholics are defined by a tradition of teachings and practices that distinguish us as a group from other groups.  To be "self-defined" is to be "not defined by the group I voluntarily belong to."   If we are to be of one heart and one mind, we cannot be self-defining.

"At first, many women were asking, 'How do we respond? Then we were asking, 'How do we respond faithfully in keeping with our identity?' And soon we were asking, 'What is that identity?'" This is exactly the point of the visitation!  When a Dominican provincial or Master of the Order conducts a visitation of the friars, he is out to access the lived-identity of the brothers.  Do they know who they are as Dominicans?  Are they living out their vowed-identities faithfully?

All along, said one woman religious, the challenge has been to respond to the Vatican in a way that breaks a cycle of violence.  What "cycle of violence"?  This is hysterical rhetoric and cannot be taken seriously.  How exactly does a set of questions perpetrate violence?  I guess the visitator could have rolled the papers up and smacked someone, but I doubt this is what happened.  Calling the visitation "violent" is a fanciful way for congregations to paint themselves as victims of intimidation.  Again, how does one violently request voluntary participation?  I suppose the Vatican could have sent its cadre of albino Opus Dei ninja monks to kick in some convent doors. . .

One congregation, she said, cited a U.S. bishops' statement concerning domestic abuse in its response letter to Millea. "The point is, there have to be more than two choices: Take the abuse and offer it up, or kill the abuser."  We are supposed to believe that an invitation from the Vatican to voluntarily participate in a visitation is the moral equivalent of wife-beating?  Really?  Truly, some of these sisters are living in a highly rarefied and privileged world of the imagination.  To say, "I feel that these questions are violent" is not the same as saying, "These questions are violent."  I feel like Bill Gates owes me a billion dollars.  This does not mean that he does.  I worked at a battered women's shelter.  Labeling the visitation "violent" is an insult to women who suffer from real beatings at the hands of their out of control husbands and boyfriends. The women who came to the shelter with bruises, broken bones, bloody cuts, and real emotional damage would no doubt call B.S. on this statement.

It goes without saying that congregations are free to think and feel any way they choose about the visitation.  This goes for individual sisters as well.  But these statements--likely not representative--portray the sisters as privileged, disconnected, rhetorically irresponsible, and, frankly, a little desperate to hide their lives from review.  Do they see themselves as being above questioning?  Above reproach?  Isn't this the charge LCWR consistently makes against the hierarchy?  Secrecy, lack of transparency?  I doubt many of the "rank and file" sisters view the visitation as violent and intrusive.  How many sisters sent in private evaluations of their lives that contradict the official statements of their congregational leadership?  It is not uncommon in institutional structures for the leadership cadre to fear the frank evaluation of the "rank and file."  We see this in unions, political organizations, men's religious communities, the Church herself, and just about any sort of group where the leadership can become disconnected from those they lead. 

The visitation report should make very interesting reading.  And when I read a critique of the report from a sisters' congregation, my first question is going to be, "Did this congregation fully participate in the visitation?"  If not, the critique is going to ring hollow.