Benedict, Monkeys, RCIA...

Questions. . .

1). What's going on in the Vatican? Why all the tumult around the Pope?

There's always been tumult around the Pope. Even a quick glance at Church history will tell you that there's never been a pope who hasn't had to deal with an entrenched curia, disobedient cardinals, scheming advisers, and throngs of dissident insiders lusting for his downfall. Nothing has changed. This is a good time to remind Catholics that the Holy Father cannot fail in the only ministry of his that matters: teaching and preaching the gospel of Christ. He might not be the best administrator, or the best diplomat, or the best crowd-pleaser. So what? None of these are his principal task. Pope Benedict has made some controversial decisions lately and "professionally aggrieved grievance professionals" (Mark Shea's wonderful phrase) are using these decisions to hit at the Holy Father in an attempt to discredit his whole program of reviving a strong Catholic identity. Don't be fooled: the Pope is under attack b/c he is doing his job as the Vicar of Christ. Like Cardinal Ratzinger said one time: "If I don't read something in the press at least once a week attacking me, I don't feel like I'm doing my job." This too shall pass.

When reading any news story about the Holy Father or "the Vatican" in the secular press, always remember that the reporters know almost nothing about the Church or her faith. They are trained to see and report in purely political terms, usually leftist terms. Recent hysterical news stories about the SSPX and the LC's are evidence of this. They see the Holy Father as a democratically elected official--a prime minister or president--and then proceed to evaluate his "performace" based on criteria used to judge secular politicians. Also keep in mind when you see the phrase "a senior Vatican official says" that this phrase is utterly meaningless. There is no way of knowing who this person is or if there even is such a person. How easy is it to insert anti-papal wishful thinking into the mouth of a ficitious "official" and then report this official's criticism as fact? As I said to a fellow friar recently, "These reporters need to name names, or shut up." Fat chance.

Now, does any of this mean that the Holy Father needs to ignore criticism or fail to learn from mistakes? Absolutely not. Benedict is a brilliant man. He will listen, and he will adapt where he can. But as faithful Catholics, we need to separate out what matters to the faith from what matters to the anti-Catholic press and our perpetually whining internal dissidents. Recent controversies change nothing that is true, good, and beautiful about the faith as taught by the Church's magisterium. So, watch out for dissenting opportunists who will use the blood in the water as an excuse to push their private agendas. Administrative mistakes do not equate to doctrinal mistakes. There is no connection between the two.

2). What is "Monkey Mind"?

I've used this phrase often in describing my own persistent mental state. Basically, it is borrowed from Zen Buddhism and is used to describe a mind that swings rather wildly from thing to thing to thing. Think of a monkey swinging from tree branches, chattering, squealing, and just having a bit of fun. When Zen monks sit for hours on end in zazen (formal "sitting meditation") they are left with no other distraction but the flashing images of their minds. A large part of any mental discipline is mastering these images to the point where they no longer occupy the mind as distractions. I've noted before that I am plagued by both dyslexia and ADD. Fortunately, I found out about both of these well into my doctoral studies, so they never became excuses for me not to succeed in school. Still, I find it extraordinarily difficult to concentrate for even short periods of time. I've adapted my "learning style" to these realities by perfecting the art of procrastination! Papers, presentations, lecures, etc. all get done at the last possible moment b/c I need the pressure of a deadline to serve as a taskmaster. This system has always served me well. Yes, it causes me some anxiety and leaves me exhausted, but any paper I start too early in the semester becomes an unmanagable monster before it is finished. Of course, this method is useless for learning languages. . .foreign language acquisition requires a steady exposure to vocabulary, grammar, and reading. Frankly, I'd rather be beaten bloody than told to memorize verb forms! Seriously, if my dean told me that he would waive the French requirement for my license if I took three lashes from a leather whip. . .I'd think about it. . .I'd seriously consider it.

3). What to do if my parish's RCIA program is not very Catholic?

I've posted before about my own RCIA experience in 1995-6. Not good. The process as it is laid out in the relevant documents promises to be something of an adventure in learning to become a good Catholic. In the hands of a faithful pastor and a dedicated RCIA team, the process is wonderful. Unfortunately, too often the process leads converts into a world of pseudo-Catholicism, or worse, anti-Catholicism. The central difficult, I think, is that the pedagogy of the process places too much emphasis on "sharing the faith" and almost none of learning the faith. How can a group of people who know little or nothing about the Catholic faith share that faith with others who know as little as they do? This is not to say that they have nothing to share! Of course, they do. But RCIA is meant to be an introduction to the CATHOLIC faith not a year-long process of sharing feelings, impressions, and opinions about bullet-point theology and ecclesial politics. Many converts are left with the impression that the Catholic faith is simply a matter of joining a parish, signing up for duty as communion ministers, and occasionally going to Mass on Sunday. When the emphasis is placed on the subjective experience of the individual, the whole of the faith is lost in personal reflection and opinion. The strongest/weakest link in any RCIA program is the dedication of the teachers to the magisterium of the Church. Often these teachers are reluctant to present the more controversial elements of the faith for fear of being confronted by disagreement or disparagement. Tough. Teach the faith or find another ministry in the parish. I know a young RCIA convert who was shocked to discover when he came to U.D. that the Church teaches that Christians who struggle with same-sex attractions are called to celibate chastity. As one such Christian, he was told that the Church honors one's conscience on this issue and says nothing at all about the sinfulness of sexual behavior for homosexuals! In other words, he joined the Church believing that he could, as a homosexual, find a partner and live, in good conscience, a sexually active lifestyle. To his credit, he accepted the Church's teaching once he knew the truth. However, he signed up believing a lie told by his RCIA team. Why did they tell him this? Maybe they believed they were telling him the truth. Maybe they didn't want to risk controversy. Maybe they don't accept the Church's teaching on this issue. and use the RCIA program to teach error in the hope of undermining the teaching. Who knows? Whatever the reason, this young man was lied to and those who did the lying shouldn't be teaching the faith!

Ideally, you want to go through the RCIA program of the parish you will eventually join. If the program seems to you to be teaching something other than the Catholic faith, you might approach the pastor for clarification. You need to be open to the idea that your take on the faith might be wrong and that you have simply misunderstood what your RCIA teachers have told you. In other words, don't assume that you are being taught error simple b/c you disagree with what you have heard. Use the Catechism. Do a little research and find out. Ask faithful Catholics you know, or leave a comment here. I'm not shy about answering tough questions. If it seems as though something might be awry, bring it up in discussion and ask for clarification. Many articles of the faith are not easily understood and often lead to innocent mistakes. Also, orthodox teachings can be expressed in a number of legit ways. Don't assume that what you are being taught is mistaken simple b/c you aren't hearing it presented in a traditional way. In the face of learning and digesting 2,000 years of Catholic doctrine and dogma, a little humility goes a long way. I would resist the temptation to bail on a program and look for another one. Take what your program has to offer but understand that learning the faith is your responsibility. You are not absolved for ignorance when there are so many resources for you to consult.

If all else fails, use my Three-Year Plan for Faith Formation.

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

On purpose, with a purpose

7th Sunday OT: Is 43:18-25; 2 Cor 1:18-22; Mark 2:1-12
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma

[NB. This homily is an example of "Praedicator primum sibi praedicet" if there ever was one!*]

The Lord says to Isaiah, “…see, I am doing something new! Now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?” This astonishing exclamation by the Lord raises three questions: 1) what is this new thing that the Lord is doing?; 2) what does He mean by “now” when He says that this new thing is springing forth now?; and 3) do we perceive this new thing as it springs forth? As always, scripture is best read as both a history of the faithful response our ancestors to God’s grace and as a script for our own response to the identical grace. Given this, what are we to make of this revelation of immediate newness? On the eve of our Lenten trek, we think first of sin and repentance, the old and the new. Fair enough. Reading the story of the healing of the paralytic in light of Isaiah, let’s think as well on disease and healing, also, the old and the new. But let’s put all four of these themes (sin, repentance, disease, and healing) into a larger theme: as divinely-given purpose as creatures. Who and what are we as creatures—made things—of an all-loving Creator given a purpose beyond our creation? It is not enough to say that we are forgiven our sins upon repentance. It is not enough to say that we are healed of our diseases when we believe. The Lord is doing something new. And He is doing it now.

No doubt this sounds familiar: “You burdened me with your sins, and wearied me with your crimes.” How often do we hear God’s prophets tell us that our Lord is wearied by our disobedience, that He is fed up with our sin? And almost every time we hear the Lord’s lament, we hear something like, “It is I, I, who wipe out, for my own sake, your offenses; your sins I remember no more.” We sin. The Lord tires of it. He forgives us. And remembers our sin no more. Thanks be to God! Surely we are deeply grateful, but we must wonder why we are forgiven. Why do we find ourselves able to stand in the presence of the Lord washed clean of our willful disobedience? The Lord tells Isaiah: “The people I formed for myself, that they might announce my praise.” We cannot praise God while wallowing in our sin. Nor can we forgive our own disobedience, so God Himself, for His own sake, must forgive us our trespasses so that we might accomplish our purpose as His creatures: to praise Him, to bless Him, and to preach His Good News!

Think for a moment about what it means to be redeemed as a fallen creature. We can see this is a rescue from Hell. We can see this as establishing again our original relationship with God. We can also see our redemption as a kind of perfected health. What does the healing of the paralytic in Mark’s gospel tell us? Notice a few things about the story. Since the man is paralyzed, he cannot come to Jesus alone. He needs help. Four men lower him through the roof to Jesus. No mean feat of dedication or labor! Note that Jesus heals the man not only because of his faith, but also because of “their faith,” the faith of those men who worked so hard to get him to Jesus. Note as well that Jesus, in response to the kvetching of the scribes about blasphemy, draws a direct link between sin and disease, forgiveness and healing. He asks, “What’s the difference between me saying ‘Your sins are forgiven’ and ‘Get up and walk?’” Answer: none. In fact, Jesus says both to the paralyzed man: “Child, your sins are forgiven” and “…rise, pick up your mat, and go home.” Given back his mobility, the man rises and walks away. Miracle over.

Not quite. Notice one last thing. . .Mark reports: “He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone.” Not only did Jesus restore his health, he restores his purpose: to be a creature in praise of his Creator! In the sight of everyone, this healed creature amazes the on-lookers; he witnesses to the power of God’s forgiveness by doing what he was made to do. Mark reports: “They were all astounded and glorified God…” Through his faith in God’s mercy, the man is healed. In his healing, he is given new purpose. With his new purpose, he restores the purpose of those witnessing his healing: “They. . .glorified God, saying, ‘We have never seen anything like this.’" What God does for us, He does for His glory. What we do in response, we do in praise and thanksgiving. That is our purpose.

Think about your dis-eases. Not so much your physical afflictions but your uneasinesses, your anxieties and doubts. Aren’t these usually the doors through which you walk to sin? Uneasy about the future, you plan against God’s promise to care for you. Anxious about your current situation, you try to fix things according to your passions, your own dimmed lights. Or maybe doubting some truth of the faith, you decide against right reason and the teachings of the Church and go out into the world’s intellectual desert to find an answer more pleasing to your broken mind. Though we are certainly free to follow these leads, we are never freed in following them. In fact, we are always enslaved more tightly, made sicker, paralyzed more thoroughly when we turn from our divinely-given purpose and follow an attractively decorated but nonetheless deadly end.

We have one purpose: to praise our God with body and soul, heart and mind through time and space. And when we are no longer bound by any measures of movement or created expanse, we praise Him face-to-face, complete in our end, fulfilled in our purpose. Perhaps the best way for to think about sin/forgiveness, disease/health is to think in terms of whether or not we are living out our created purpose, whether or not we are living toward our divinely-gifted end. This is not to say that every scrape and bump, or cough and headache is a sign of disobedience. These are reminders of creation’s falleness and our participation in a world groaning after its own purpose. Our illnesses are opportunities to see a purpose beyond simply enduring pain for pain’s sake, beyond the experience of disease as a natural dysfunction of the body. Like the paralyzed man in Mark’s gospel, we are children faithful to a Father, and we are healed/forgiven when we trust that our dis-eases are not who or what we are as loved creatures. If we are not our diseases, then we are our sins either. What tumor or fracture or infection or mental disorder or willful disobedience praises God? They don’t. Their purpose is wholly-other-than, something else entirely.

We can smell the Lenten desert from here. It’s hot and dry as always. All the better for cleaning those nasty wounds. All the better for stripping away the dead flesh and draining those abscesses of sinful infection. Rather than obsessing on what’s wrong with our spiritual lives—our living day-to-day with Christ and his people,—focus instead on praising God. Fast from purposeless posing in Narcissus’ mirror. Fast from rending your religious garb and heaping ashes on your fallen head. Fast from beating your breast and making a show of piety. Instead, feast on forgiveness and showing mercy. Feast on praising God in His infinite goodness and love. Feast on giving Him thanks for His gifts of life, redemption, and eternal residence near His throne. He’s done, is doing, and will always do something new for us. Spend these forty days of Lent in the excessive luxury of gratitude, sparing no moment to self-indulgence, giving nothing to disease or anxiety.

Our wounds are healed. And even if we still bleed, even if we still hurt, our purpose is renewed. Bleed, hurt, cry…do it all “on purpose,” do it all for one purpose, the purpose you were made to complete: praise God; bless God, and preach His Good News.

*"The preacher preaches to himself first."

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

New podcast!

Lazy me. . .I finally got around to posting the podcast of last Tuesday's homily, "Resisting the world's leaven."

Check it out by clicking on the "Roman Homilies" link in the right side-bar.

Let me know what you think. . .good, bad, and/or ugly! I haven't listened it yet.

Fr. Philip, OP

Question for book benefactors

A question to my book benefactors. . .

Someone (or someones) recently purchased about six books from my Wish List. . .mostly the books on Eastern Orthodox prayer and spirituality.

My question: were these shipped to Rome or Texas? I'm asking b/c if they were shipped to Texas, I will need to find other sources for my prayer book since I won't be back in Texas 'til July. This doesn't mean the books won't be used. . .I have a second book brewing in my Monkey Mind that will make good use of these gifts!

Leave comments, please. . .I won't publish them.

Some navel-gazing. . .

BE WARNED: this is a fairly rambling piece of somewhat self-indulgent navel-gazing. . .

Normally, I am all-too aware of "where I am" spiritually--usually, somewhere around Not Quite Mortally Wounded Enough to Give Up Entirely but never Flying High Near the Throne. Like most struggling Catholics, I do as well as I can and throw my lot in with God's promise of mercy. This is as it should be. We struggle; we hope; and we get on with our day. Lately, something has changed, and I can't figure out what exactly is different.

Though I value the intellectual life, my basic instinct is intuitive; that is, most of my decisions/evaluations are deeply rooted in empathetic urgings, or fits and starts--maybe even leaps--of insight that push me onward and outward. I hate to admit it, but many of my choices in the past have been gambles rather than reasoned choices. For the most part, these bets against logic have worked out to my benefit. I vaguely remember someone once saying something about only children and fools rely on Providence. . .

Anyway, during my recent visit to the U.S., I was in touch with a strange sense of Something Isn't Right. There's nothing I can point to concretely as an example. Just a really bizarre, almost physical, twinging that I am in the wrong place spiritually. This isn't about being in Rome or about studying philosophy. . .it's more about my relationship to God and His Church, something more fundamental than what I am doing intellectually or vocationally and more about who I am as a priest.

During my three years as a campus minister at U.D. I was in a position to work as a priest on a daily basis. I celebrated Mass as many as five times a week. I was spiritual director to several students, a few staff members, some folks from the community. I heard confessions daily. There were even a few weddings and some baptisms. There's not much of that here in Rome. Two Masses a month. One spiritual directee. No confessions, baptisms, or weddings. Who is a priest without his people? Hmmmmm. . .

Though I taught literature and theology at U.D. the entire time I was there, these were academic exercises rather than strictly priestly ones. Teaching thrills me almost as much as preaching. . .I've learn more in front of a classroom than I ever have sitting in a desk. It's the give and take of a good discussion rooted in a text that stretches me intellectually not the solitary life of a scholar sitting in his room reading. The teaching I did stretched my spiritual muscles as well as my brain. But nothing strains against my naturally spiritual laziness like having to prepare five homilies a week. Of having to read, study, pray over, and preach about the scriptural readings for the ecclesial occasion. Add to that a poet's pride in needing to be original (i.e., not simply reaching into the file and pulling out a homily from three years ago) and you have a recipe for growth. I recently reviewed some of my earlier homilies and compared them to the few I've preached since October 2008. Though my more recent homilies are better focused and more clearly communicated, there's not as much energy there, not as much verve in the text or the delivery. Is that a bad thing? Maybe this is an indication that I am maturing, or maybe I'm feeling spiritually constipated. Stunted. Or held back. Who knows?

In many ways--despite my years in the academy--I was not prepared to be a student again. Sitting in a desk, taking notes, being examined. There's a different kind of discipline in being a teacher. Come to think of it. . .I've rarely been a student without also being a teacher. The typical model of university teaching is Master/Apprentice. Accomplished scholar imparts his/her mastery to those who want to attain competence in a field on the way to achieving expertise. From the beginning of my professional training as a reader/teacher of literature, I have been steeped in a different model: Coach/Athlete. Though I rebelled early on against the Marxism used to fuel this model (the so-called "pedagogy of the oppressed"), it best fits my personality. It is more dynamic, more intuitive, less authoritarian than authoritative, and it gives the teacher lots of room to grow. There's content to impart, of course, but the power of this model is the demonstration of a skill and the constant need to hone that skill.

Maybe my current spiritual discomfort has something to do with my academic discomfort? For Dominicans, study is a form of prayer. But I don't study well alone, or rather, I study best when studying is a communal activity, something done with others who need to sharpen their intellectual skills. What's a coach without his/her athletes?

So, I'm a priest without his people and a coach without his athletes. That goes a long way toward explaining my current malaise. Don't get me wrong here! I'm not unhappy or depressed or anything like that. Just. . .blah. Just tepid in all things spiritual and academic. The intellectual work I have ahead of me is daunting, even overwhelming. But that's not new. What's new, I guess, is that I feel little or no urgency to engage it or complete it. Why? I dunno. I'm reading. I'm thinking. I'm praying. Doing what I can to progress. But my heart isn't in it right now. I wish I could say that I'm being unduly distracted by more urgent problems. Nope. Or that I am being oppressed or burdened with third party problems. Nope. Yet, the sense of being stalled, of wading through molasses remains. Even my creative project--the prayer book--isn't moving my spirit to bigger and better things.

Who knows? It could be this Roman winter--cold, dark, damp. Could be that I am focusing on my health right now. Losing weight. Getting my HBP meds atraightened out. Or that I am too much concerned about where I will be this summer. It's easier to live in the future, isn't it?

What I need is a Coach standing over me yelling, "One more page, you wimp! Come on, you lazy bum! One more book! One more homily!" Ha! Yea, that's the ticket.

post-Pelosi announcement from the Vatican (Updated)

The Vatican Press Office published the following notice after Pelosi's visit with the Holy Father:

Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.

Will this have much influence on our nation's third-ranking abortion fan? I'm not holding my breath; however, hope springs eternal. . .even in politics.

A report from Breitbart:

VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday told U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic who supports abortion rights, that Catholic politicians have a duty to protect life "at all stages of its development," the Vatican said.

Pelosi is the first top Democrat to meet with Benedict since the election of Barack Obama, who won a majority of the Catholic vote despite differences with the Vatican on abortion.

The Vatican released remarks by the pope to Pelosi, saying Benedict spoke of the church's teaching "on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death." That is an expression often used by the pope when expressing opposition to abortion.

Benedict said all Catholics—especially legislators, jurists and political leaders—should work to create "a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Pelosi could not immediately be reached after the 15-minute meeting, which was closed to reporters and photographers [HA! So much for the photo-op. There'll be no campaign posters touting the Holy Father's visit with Pelosi flying around SanFran in 2010. Good for them]. The two met in a small room of a Vatican auditorium after the pope's weekly public audience.

A number of the bishops in the United States have questioned Pelosi's stance on abortion, particularly her theological defense of her support for abortion rights.

Benedict has cautiously welcomed the new Democratic administration, although several American cardinals have sharply criticized its support of abortion rights in a break from former President George W. Bush.

Pelosi had meetings with Italian leaders the past few days, including Premier Silvio Berlusconi.

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

Recent arrivals

Grazie mille! Mille grazie!

Recent book arrivals from the WISH LIST:

Metaphysics and the Idea of God

Aquinas: God & Action

Finite and Eternal Being

Science and the Spiritual Quest

"Work on Oneself": Wittgenstein's Philosophical Psychology

God? A Philosophical Preface to Faith

Vatican II: Renewal within the Tradition

Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages

Thank You notes go out tomorrow to all for whom I have a return address!

Resisting the world's leaven

6th Week OT (Tues) Gn 6.5-8; 7.1-5, 10; Mk 8.14-21
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Is Jesus surprised or disappointed? Is he exasperated or angry? Maybe all of these and more? Once again his best students and closest friends fail to “get it.” Having lived with him, traveled with him, listened to him, badgered him with questions, witnessed his miracles, the disciples seem to be as deaf, dumb, and blind as they were the day he netted them and pulled them into his ministry, gaping like fish for a breath. Exhibiting the same obstinance that the Pharisees seemed to favor when dealing with Jesus, his own students apparently need some sign, some miraculous konk on the head in order to see who Jesus is and to hear his saving Word. Fortunately, for the disciples, Jesus was with them, right there with them to continue teaching them, to continue showing them his unfailing Way. Two thousand and nine years later, what do we have to open our eyes and unstop our ears? When we clamor for signs and wonders, who steps up and reminds us that faith is first and always about trust, about throwing ourselves on the powerful mercy of God?

In the time it takes to cross to the opposite shore of the sea, the disciples had forgotten the lesson of the fishes and loaves. The Pharisees come forward after this miracle and demand signs from heaven to prove Jesus’ divine mandate, signs he refuses to give. Once on the opposite shore, Jesus warns his friends against the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod, warning them against the poisonous influence of legalism and worldly politics. They think that Jesus is rebuking them for failing to bring bread. Frustrated, disappointed, he says, “Do you not yet understand or comprehend? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes and not see, ears and not hear? And do you not remember?”

They do not understand. Their hearts may be hardened. They are blind to his signs and deaf to his Word. And surely they have failed to remember. They have Jesus among them to remind them of their failures and to enlighten their ignorance. What do we have now when we find ourselves in the same predicament? Thanks be to God, we have Christ among us as well! What else is the Eucharist but our present-day miracle of the loaves? What else is scripture but our spoken Word, divine words that open eyes and unstop ears? What else we are doing here this morning as the Body of Christ than being reminded of who Christ is for us? We do not merely remember a story or recall a lesson, we witness again in this breaking of the bread the cross and Christ’s sacrifice. What other signs could we possibly want or need?

When we allow the leaven of the Pharisees—the poisonous influence of religious legalism—or the leaven of the Herodians—the poisonous influence of accommodating the Church to the world’s philosophy—we risk forgetting who we are; we risk confusion, loss, hard-heartedness, spiritual blindness, and eternal death. We risk not only our own lives here and here-after, but we risk the lives of those we are sent to save through our witness to God’s mercy. We cannot risk ignorance of God’s Word, so we read, hear, and enact His Self-revelation in scripture. We cannot risk misunderstanding, so we listen to and follow His Church’s apostolic faith. We cannot risk hard-heartedness, so we care for the least among His people. We cannot risk forgetting, so we come together as one heart and one mind and we remember. And in remembering what he did for us in this Eucharist, we go out, out there, and we tell others what we have remembered and to whom we give thanks and praise for our salvation.

If you have seen God’s abundance at work, if you have heard His saving Word, you cannot fail to share what your eyes have seen and your ears have heard. To fail in this is poisonous. To you and to everyone you meet. Thanks to be God, you never need to forget; you never need to grow cold. You have us and we all have Christ with us, always with us.

Of many things. . .

Of many things. . .

1). Comments on SSPX controversy?

The canonical questions in this mess are beyond me., so I will leave those aside. I'm always delighted that those who have excommunicated themselves in disobedience find their way back to the Church in obedience. Bishop Williamson's holocaust denial is just dumb. However, we don't excommunicate Catholics (or refuse to rescind an excommunication) because they hold dumb ideas about historical events. I find it bizarre (and telling) that the very people who whine and carp about the Church excommunicating heretics, etc. are the same people demanding that the Holy Father exclude Williamson for his non-theological ideas. Make no mistake, this controversy is a media-made event designed to embarrass the Holy Father. Bishop Williamson needs to obey his SSPX superiors and recant his nutty notions of the holocaust.

2). Comments on the Legionaries of Christ controversy?

The Bible is pack full of sinners being used by God to put His Good News into the world. Think: if we only allowed living Saints to found orders, build churches, write theology, etc. how much could we get done toward preaching the gospel? Not much. That being said. . .I see two paths for the L.C. right now: 1). keep what is good, true, and beautiful about the L.C. spirituality and 2). rapidly distance the movement from the founder. The first is just good spiritual practice. The second is just good P.R. In philosophy there's a informal logical fallacy called "poisoning the well." In this fallacy an opponent will attempt to discredit an argument by pointing out that the defender of the argument holds indefensible positions or is somehow dodgy morally or intellectually. The idea is to cast doubt on the position under debate by poisoning the source of the offending argument. We see this a lot when debaters resort to comparing their opponents to Nazis, or pointing out that their opponents hold positions similar to some other undesirable ideology. That the founder of the L.C. was a sinner is plain. Who isn't? Does this discredit his spirituality? No. L.C. spirituality stands on its own quite apart from its author. In other words, L.C. spirituality is either true, good, and beautiful or it isn't. That it was composed and promulgated by a sinner is irrelevant. For P.R. purposes, the L.C. needs to distance itself from its founder, that is, quickly and irrevocably disconnect its spirituality from the man who founded it. This means apologizing, cleaning house for any co-conspirators, re-organizing, and basically starting from scratch in terms of promoting itself as a Catholic religious order. The Church needs the fervor and discipline that the L.C. offers. However, the L.C. does not need its founder in order to thrive.

3). Obama's stimulus package?

Pork. Pure and simple. Pork. Millions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing political groups and allies of the Democrats. I'm worried about something Mike Huckabee noted on FoxNews last week: the stimulus bill is fundamentally anti-religious in that it has a number of provisions that forbid the practice of the faith for those receiving money from the bill. Of course, the MSM has made no mention of this nor will it. I don't watch TV here in Rome, but I managed to get in a few hours of watching CNN while I was at home. Though I knew that the MSM is basically a televised Obama cheerleading camp, I had no idea the extent to which these "journalists" have abdicated their responsibility as our nation's fourth estate. On Lincoln's birthday, I watched a "report" on CNN that spent almost an hour comparing Obama to Lincoln. It was a fawning, saccharine, duplicitous Hallmark card of a show. Little more than a propaganda piece. An early Valentine's gift to The One. How can we have any sort of proper political debate when our media refuses to report the most basic facts about the political process? This is why I regularly visit Newsbusters. . .and you should too.

4). Increasing number of attacks on the Church?

This is old news. The Church has been under attack since the Holy Spirit visited the apostles in the Upper Room on pentecost. Nothing new in this. As an institution, the Church represents one of the few places left in the west that teaches personal responsibility and virtue. So long as we do this we can expect to be the targeted by the world's culture. Yes, we need to fight back. But not for the sake of the Church. The Church has been around for 2,000 years and will continue to be around until the Lord decides otherwise. Our fight is not against the culture but for those who cannot fight for themselves. Our job is to preach the Good News and teach the truth of the faith "in season and out." Those in the Church who would see us compromise or accommodate in order to get along are seriously deluded. I'm not suggesting that we become belligerent or aggressive. We don't need to be violent in order to speak the truth to the powers of this world. We just have to be persistent, unwavering in speaking the Word to those who will see and hear. Those that refuse to see and hear have condemned themselves. Remember: our treasure is not of this world. We can lose all of our stuff and still flourish as a Body. What the Church needs now more than anything are courageous leaders among the laity and clergy to stand up and assert what we know to be true: God has won this fight. From all eternity, God has won.

5). What's your book about?

If I manage to get a manuscript to Liguori Publications by May 8th, my book will be available in August 2009. Basically, all I am doing is adapting traditional litanies and novenas for contemporary use and writing several original litanies and novenas. The original prayers are taken from a variety of sources, including the works of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I'm also including some prayers based on the mystical works of Meister Eckhart, Aquinas, Dionysus, Gregory of Nyssa, and a few other Patristic sources. Right now, I am working on the original pieces, including a triology of novenas rooted in the creation theology of the Eastern and Western Catholic traditions. If this book does well, I am going to propose a second book that will be a set of short reflections based on Patristic texts. This will be more of a daily-use book for growing in holiness. We'll see how thing go!

6). Lots of books about Eastern Orthodoxy on your Wish List. Considering a move to the East?

No, I'm a happy Latin Catholic. The books about Orthodoxy on my Wish List are there for two reasons: 1). I'm using them for my own book of prayers and 2). I'm giving the lectures on Orthodoxy to the U.D. students during our March trip to Greece. Generally, the E.O. do a better job of unpacking a theology of the Holy Spirit than the West does. I appreciate the more literary approach of the East and find their style of writing (less rational, more poetical) more appealing. As a Dominican, I am commited to the use of right reason in theological discussions, but sometimes we miss the subtlies when we focus exclusively on the rational. More than anything, the East has a better understanding of how creation and deification work in our salvation.

7). How was the trip home?

All went really well! No airport delays. No problem getting the meds through customs. I was very happy about this. I was also delighted on my flight over b/c the plane was only 2/3 full. This meant I got an extra seat next to me to stretch out! The flight back was full, however, so I was cramped and couldn't sleep. Ah well, the price of paying cattle-car rates, right? I visited with Mom and Pop for about a week and then drove to Irving where I was greeted warmly by students and faculty. One of my former students and some of his friends threw me a party. I had a chance to visit with several guys considering priesthood. Spent some time in Wal-Mart stocking up on things I can't get in Rome. Ate too much fast food, so this week is dedicated to puring Burger King and Wendy's from my system. Yuck. Had an unexpected visit with my provincial while in Texas. . .always a pleasure. I watched too much TV while visiting in MS. My mom loves HGTV, so I am once again up on all the latest yard fashions and my armchair skills at renovating old houses and shopping for new ones are up to par. Took my two nieces to see "Hotel for Dogs" and was astounded at the political messge of the movie: animals are just like humans and animal shelters are evil. The personification of animals is nothing new in cartoons and children's movies, but the none-too-subtle message of this movie is that animals and humans are morally equivalent agents with freely acting souls. I also found it interesting that all of the evil animal control agents were white men while the sympathic public was a hodge-podge of racially mixed women. The main characters were racially mixed too, but without fail the evil in the movie had a white male face. Something else I noticed while in the U.S.: we are a really fat nation. I've struggled with my weight all my life, but returning to the U.S. after only seven months in Rome gave me a perspective I hadn't counted on. I can see why the world thinks of the U.S. has an all-consuming Mouth and Stomach. Granted, I contribute to this image just by walking around Rome! Sigh. Am I glad to be back in Rome? Yes. I was surprised to find myself looking forward to returning. This semester is going to be tough. . .all Italian classes, thesis-writing, finishing up the book, trip to Greece, etc. But I am pleased to be back.

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

Priests on American military bases in E.U.?

Request for info:

Anyone out there know anything about American military bases in Europe needing English-speaking priests?

I have a couple of months that I may be able to spend this summer serving as chaplain if the particulars (transport, housing, compensation, etc.) are right.

Let me know.

Back in Rome

I made it back to Rome!

Got back to the university at 9.30am local time.

Thanks for the prayers and the recent activity on the Wish List. . .

Now, back to bed!

New OP Blog!

A new Dominican blog!

Fr. Dominic Holtz, OP, a Central Province friar and prof at Aquinas Institute in St Louis, MO has started up a preaching blog: Specious Pedestrian.

Visit him often and tell him I sent you!

Quick Update

Just a quick update. . .

Travel has been perfect! All my flights were on time. I arrived in MS exactly on time. Amazing. I give thanks to God and to all of who prayed for me.

The family is doing well.

I'm in Irving, TX right now.

I've been working away on my book. My editor tells me that it will be out in August 2009 if (IF!) I can get a manuscript to her by May 8th. So, add prayers against procratination and equipment failure to your daily supplications.

I arrive back in Rome on Feb 15th and begin second semester on the 16th. This will be a difficult semester b/c all of my license-level classes will be in Italian. Fortunately, I will be able to take exams in English.

I've received permission from the Provincial to live in Irving for the summer (July-Sept), so I will be teaching literature and theology at U.D. second summer term.

A few new books have made it onto the WISH LIST. These would be very helpful in finishing up my own prayer book. I already have an idea for a second book!

God bless and keep those prayers going. . .Fr. Philip, OP

Pray4Me! :-)

I am leaving in the morning (Fri. Jan 30th) for a flight to Atlanta and then one to Memphis! Then driving to MS to visit with the parentals.

I'm returning to Rome on Feb 15th.

Please pray for a safe flight. . .especially for NO delays and NO complications at FCO!

God bless you all. . .Fr. Philip, OP

[NB. I've turned commenting off so I don't have 3,000 emails waiting for me when I get back!]

Homily for St Thomas Aquinas (repost)

To mark this feast day for St Thomas Aquinas, I am re-posting this homily from the 2008 Vespers Service celebrated at St Albert the Great Priory in Irving, TX.

+ + + + +

St Thomas Aquinas: Wis 7.7-10, 15-16 and Matt 23.8-12
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
St Albert the Great Priory

The Book of Wisdom wisely teaches us: “…both we and our words are in [God’s] hands…” It is wise that the Book of Wisdom teach us this b/c as a book this book would not want—if a book could want—to be left in the hands of a fool to be read by foolish eyes and taught by foolish tongues. The wisdom imparted here also reminds the potential fool that he or she does not read, teach, write, or research alone. Prior to any desire for knowledge, any longing to know, is the primal hunger for God, our preferred state of perfected union. Our intellectual and academic pursuits are marked from the beginning with the presence of God, Wisdom: “…I chose to have [wisdom] rather than the light, because the splendor of her never yields to sleep.” So even before the light is shone in the darkness, wisdom abides and seduces us to the humility proper before our Father in heaven.

What is wisdom? Aquinas writes, “According to [Aristotle] (Metaph. i: 2), it belongs to wisdom to consider the highest cause. By means of that cause we are able to form a most certain judgment about other causes, and according thereto all things should be set in order…[and in the second article] Accordingly it belongs to the wisdom that is an intellectual virtue to pronounce right judgment about Divine things after reason has made its inquiry…”(ST II-II.45.1-2). Slightly more simply put, wisdom is that habit of mind that seeks to discover and study the final causes of all things and put these things in their proper order given their final cause. Wisdom is not some goofy, spooky secret that floats around waiting for the right moment to possess someone. Nor is wisdom to be found among the sticky tomes of Retail Gnosticism that haunt Borders and Barnes & Noble. These “wisdoms”—usually some form of esoteric paganism muscled-up with pseudo-scientific jargon—these wisdoms tend to provide the weak ego with a boost of faux confidence and leads the newly self-minted guru to exalt him or herself. But here’s what we know from the wisest teacher of them all: “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

On receiving a gift, we say “thank you” to the giver, thus humbling ourselves before the giver as a sign of our dependence on him or her for that gift. We say grace over our food, giving thanks for our benefactors and our cook. Perhaps you woke up this morning and gave God thanks for one more day to serve Him. We are all here now offering the ultimate thanksgiving of the Mass. But do you thank God for your Reason, your ability to deliberate on moral problems, your sense of right and wrong given the limits of right reason, your ability to experience creation and deduce godly truths? Do you thank God daily for His wisdom? If not, I wonder who it is you call “Master”? I wonder what it is that moves you to think about anything at all. . .

To help his disciples maintain the humility necessary to grow in wisdom, Jesus tells them: “Do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.” He also says not to call anyone “father” or “Master” b/c they have one Father and Master. The essential point here is that there is a single source of Wisdom for us, just one origin for the understanding of all things made. This warning isn’t about titles or honorifics but about foolishly identifying someone created as the source of Creation. It is not difficult to see how quickly such folly grows into madness. And that madness into the exaltation of one who was created from dust. What is there in the human mind that precedes the wisdom of the mind’s Creator? Nothing. Thomas called it “straw.” Straw has its proper uses, for sure, and it is a good thing, but it is straw not enduring truth. Enduring truth starts for us when we come to understand that “…both we and our words are in [God’s] hand…”


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

Mom Update

Mama Becky Update:

Thank you all for the many assurances of prayer! Mom is always amazed at how quickly we Catholics can get the word out for prayer...just got off the phone with her...she has a bad case of pneumonia, not bad enough to be hospitalized, thank God. She has COHF and emphysema, so any respiratory infection is life-threatening.

Again, thanks for the prayer!

Repudiate Obama's Abortion Policy

As a priest and a Dominican friar, I would encourage all American Catholics to take a moment and publicly repudiate the recent decision of our president, Barak Hussein Obama, to spend federal tax dollars to pay for women in foreign countries to kill their unwanted children.

By authorizing the expenditure of tax dollars, he is indirectly implicating all American tax payers in the murder of unborn children all over the world.

If you oppose "abortion rights," then repudiating this action publicly ensures that you are not materially cooperative in this man's mortal sin. If you voted for him knowing that he is an abortion supporter, then now's your chance to repent.

Having been down the road of "pro-choice" ideology myself for many, many years, I can tell you without flinching: there's nothing there. Literally, nothing. Darkness. Death. Emptiness. Once you come to believe that murder is OK, nothing else seems quite so bad.

You do not want to get stained with Obama's darkened conscience. Repudiate his actions now and pray for him!

Leave a comment and I will add your repudiation to my prayer intentions for Mass tomorrow here in the convent in Rome!

NB. Only comments repudiating Obama's actions will be posted. Pro-aborts/pro-pills, go spew your evil somewhere else.

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

Update

Quick update. . .since not everyone is on Facebook. . .

Passed my first exam!

Finished my seminar paper, but I don't like it so I'm not gonna post it. . .yet.

Got my thesis outline back. . .prof said: excellent topic, WAY too big for license thesis.

Sent letters to Italian customs asking them to return my meds to the U.S. Who knows?

Headed to the U.S. one week from today!

Rec'd invitation from the Rome U.D. campus to accompany the students to Greece in March.

[Some few readers have somehow gotten the idea that I am flying to the U.S. simply to pick up some prescriptions from Walgreen's. . .No! All I am doing is taking my Easter vacation early. This allows me to get my med situation cleared up, and I will be here in Rome for Easter! So, no, I am not flyin' to the States on a drugstore run. . .though Wal-Mart will play a large role during my visit.]

Blog break

I need some rest. . .

So, BLOG BREAK!!!!

See you all on Feb 15th.

God, Mother Earth. . .same thing.

This is what forty years of "Spirit of Vatican Two" catechesis has given us. . .color me unsurprised:

La Paz, Jan 20, 2009 / 12:23 pm (CNA).- After attending a Mass in which he received Communion, Bolivian President Evo Morales said he was Catholic but that he still worships Mother Earth (“Pachamama” in the Quechua language). He also added that he was “disappointed” that some Christian groups are questioning parts of the new Constitution that will be subjected to a referendum on January 25.

“I am Catholic but I am very disappointed at some leaders of the Catholic Church, not those of the base church,” Morales said during an interview on Erbol Radio.

The Bolivia bishops have said they are not opposed to the new Constitution, but have outlined ten sections that dangerously open the door to practices such as abortion and the loss of parental authority.

“I believe strongly in the rites and in Mother Earth (Pachamama),” Morales said. “But of course I am a Catholic and an admirer of Jesus Christ.”

So, in other words, El Presidente would feel right at home among the other syncretistic ne0-pagans that fill Catholic religious orders in the U.S. and Europe. . .

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

Revised Travel Plans

Having surrendered to Italian Customs and quite probably consigned hundreds of dollars of imported medications to the Fiery Pits of Customs Hell by doing so, I have decided to take my Easter vacation early so I can visit my doctors and get this med situation straightened out for good.

I've re-arranged three final exams so that I can leave for my U.S. visit on Jan. 30th.

I will be with the Parentals in Mississippi from Jan 30th-Feb 7th.

In Irving with the friars and my U.D. friends Feb. 7-11th.

Back to Mississippi and leave for Rome on Feb 14th.

Second semester begins Feb. 16th!

Please pray for this trip's success. . .

Once White gets it right. . .

Fr. Z. has up the full text of Obama's first proclamation. Here's the conclusion:

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2009, a National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common purpose of remaking this Nation for our new century."

Sounds good. I'll buy it; however, maybe B.O. should show us how a day of renewal and reconciliation is done by repudiating and then apologizing for the "Reverend" he asked to give the day's benediction. DRUDGE has posted the text of Joseph Lowery's "blessing":

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around. . .when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen. . ."

Of course, we should be very glad that justice and love is still possible even when black, brown, and red do not embrace right. Or, is it that only whites fail to embrace right. . .? Or, is that justice and love is only possible when whites FINALLY come around to embracing right? Whichever.

I dunno. I'm not feeling very renewed or reconciled knowing that B.O. thinks this guy represents renewal and reconciliation.

This is an obnoxiously racist "prayer." Is this B.O.'s idea of a renewed and reconciled America?

Holy Exercise in God's Gold Gym

2nd Week OT(T): Heb 6:10-20; Mk 2:23-28
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Having long ago resigned myself to the fact that I am an unrepentant couch potato—a homebody and gloriously lazy—I find St Paul constantly nagging us about being energetic, eager Christians. . .well, let’s just say that I find his bubbly-enthusiasm for workworkwork to be more than just annoying, it’s depressing. What happened to peaceful contemplation? Serene silence? When did we become the People of the Frantic Work Day? The Church of Git ‘er Done or Die Trying? Paul would have us running races, meeting deadlines, flying into panicked work-fits, racing about like manic monkeys hopped up on a double-sweet, double expresso. Someone needs to write a book on how many times in his letters he uses words like “eager,” “readiness,” “perseverance,” “fervent.” It’s exhausting just reading those letters! We can excuse some of Paul’s jumpiness. He was a Pharisee before his trip to Damascus. His whole life was ruled by rules. His whole life was ruled by schedules, appointments, rituals, formulas. He was busy b/c he had much to be busy about. Our Lord was a busy man too. But he teaches us that time and work are sacred, our labor and its measure are holy if given first and only in the service of the Lord.

Paul writes to the Hebrews, “God is not unjust so as to overlook your work…by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones. We earnestly desire each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of hope until the end, so that you may not become sluggish…” So, here we have Coach Paul whipping the team into shape for the Big Game. Notice: work, serve, continue to serve, eagerly demonstrate, fulfill! Why? So that you don’t become sluggish, lazy! And, of course, this makes perfect sense if your eager service is to the benefit of the gospel. We have baptismal promises to fulfill. We have unplowed, unplanted fields to culivate and seed. To say nothing of the harvest!

So, yes, we must work. But we have a gospel scene this morning where Jesus “works” on the Sabbath and the Pharisees scold him for violating the law. Jesus easily rebuffs their attempt to catch him up by doing what he does best: showing them how his first commandment of love fulfills the law of Moses. Man was not created to make the Sabbath holy. Rather, the Sabbath was created to make man holy. A time for us to do the work of resting, to be with the Lord in solitude and peace when the first work of our daily work is done most ardently—in the human heart. Jesus teaches us that it is what comes out of our hearts that defiles us, makes us holy. Not what goes in. The Pharisees have confused merely obeying the Law with doing God’s work. Is there a quicker way to a heart attack than to work feverish for no purpose other than to get things done?

Obviously, Paul understands this. He’s not urging us to activity for the sake of activity. He’s urging us not to allow our hearts to become muscles ruined from lack of spiritual exercise. He writes that “we have as an anchor in our soul” the promise of Christ’s work on the cross. The heavy lifting of hope, the constant repetitions of love, the crunches of faith—these are the contant soul-building exercises of the Christian. Whenever you do them, you do them on the Sabbath.

Broken homes, broken lives?

These folks have it exactly right. . .

Scarce this week...

Light posting this week!

I'm starting to feel the bad effects of going w/o my HBP meds. Crankier than usual (is that really possible?)

Homily due for tomorrow's Mass. Look for the podcast too. . .

Last Sunday's homily due. . .

Paper due Thursday. . .

Weekend trip starting Friday. . .

Good News: my Liguori Press editor liked the proposal and the sample litanies I sent. If I can get the full manuscript to her by May, the book will be available August 2009!

Speaking of books, thanks for the recent activity on the WISH LIST!

Just another pro-abortion politician

Let's put to rest this notion that the Born Alive Protection Act was kind of devious GOP trick to force poor B.O. to vote against one of his largest bankrollers, the abortion industry. This vid is a side by side comparison of the Illinois state bill and the federal bill. In the vid B.O. states that he supported the federal bill (to assist infants who survive an abortion) but opposed the state bill b/c it was "constitutionally flawed." The vid clearly shows that except for a few P.C. touches on inclusive language, the two bills were identical.

So, why does he say that he supported the federal bill but not the state bill, which are identical bills? You have think like a politician. By supporting the federal bill--which he could not vote on b/c he was not in the Senate--he could come out and say that he supports medical care for infants who survive abortion. Good for him. By opposing the idential bill in the Illinois Senate--where he could vote and did--he could give his bankrollers what they wanted: the defeat of a law that would require them to spend more money on a second doctor for every abortion they perform.

What's really interesting here is that B.O. chaired the committee that ran oversight on this bill. He and the Democrats voted to add "Roe v. Wade neutrality langauge" identical to the federal bill, so nothing in the bill, if passed into law, could be construed as a infringement on a woman's "right" to abort her baby. Once this language was added--with B.O.'s vote to amend--he voted against the final bill. In other words, he voted in committee to make sure the bill would not be used to challenge abortion in the courts--just in case it passed the Senate--and voted against the whole bill when it was released from committee.

In another Youtube vid there is an audio of B.O. arguing against the bill on the grounds that requiring an abortion clinic to have another doctor on hand to treat the unsuccessfully aborted infant would be a burden on the woman's initial decision to abort. He says nothing about the burden of the surviving child as it dies without help.

And let's not forget that this is the same man who supports abortion b/c he doesn't want either of his daughters "punished with a baby."

Like I said: just another politician.

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

What!? No lashing out?! No cracking down?!

Imagine that!

An article from the leftie-media about the Vatican that doesn't contain the words "crackdown," "lashes out," "silences," or "condemns."

You can't trust anyone to be consistent these days.

I don't think the Demonic Overlords of the Decrepit Media are gonna be happy about this. . .

Insanity: me & Italian Customs (Updated)

Update (09/27/10):  PLEASE, help me understand why this post is getting hundreds of hits a week!  If you found this post thru a search engine or linked on another site, could you drop me a comment?  I'm very curious about why this post is so popular.

I am surrendering to Italian Customs and asking them to simply return my meds to the U.S.

Their demands for documentation proving medical necessity are obscene and even if I managed to put together the stacks of proof they want, I can only keep a one month supply of each med.

I give up.

75 days before I return to the U.S. I may just decide to stay.

Challenge: why reduce but not outlaw?

A quick challenge to those who support the "reduce the numbers but don't outlaw" with regard to abortion:

You hold that abortion should remain legal but that we should find ways to reduce the number of abortions. Why do you think the reduction of the number of abortions is a worthy goal?

For the sake of the argument, ignore the option of both outlawing abortion and working to reduce the number of abortions (this is the Church's position).


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

Done, doing, will be done. . .%$#@ posteitaliane

OK. . .

The thesis outline is done and submitted. . .the project I'm proposing is WAYYYY too big for a 70 page thesis. . .

The book proposal for Liguori Publications is due tomorrow. . .so, work, work, work. . .

Yes, there will be a Sunday homily. . .

And, just to brighten my day, I received another letter from Italian customs informing me that my latest shipment of meds from the U.S. is being held hostage in Milan. Just for the record: four shipments of meds have been sent from the U.S. since July 2008. I've received exactly one. I have already run out of one med. I'm quickly running out of a second, which is not prescribed in the E.U.

Pray for my sanity.

The Folly of a Pro-abortion Catholic

During the 2004 and 2008 Presidential campaigns, Kerry-Catholics and Obama-Catholics argued that Catholics could "in good conscience" vote for these two abortion rights extremists b/c both wanted to "reduce the number of abortions rather than outlaw abortions all together." This alleged reduction would be achieved through "eliminating the socio-economic pressures that make abortion attractive to poorer women." I still wonder how one reduces an undesirable behavior by making it moral, legal, and free of charge? Regardless, last November, some 48% of Catholics bought into this fantasy and helped to elect this nation's first promoter of infanticide to the White House. Yes, our soon-to-be Great Leader believes that it is morally and legally permissible to kill children and/or to let them die if they survive their mother's attempt to kill them.

Aquinas argues that we move from wisdom to folly as we sin. Each sin weakens the gifted-ability of the conscience to recognize the Good and the intellect/will's ability to choose the Good and do it. In other words, in the same way that choosing and doing the Good makes choosing and doing the Good easier and easier, sinning makes it harder and harder. At some point, the conscience is no longer capable of distinguishing between Good and Evil, and our inordinate passions consistently win the battle of conscience as we mire ourselves in folly.

Case in point: Eric McFadden, the former head of "Catholics for Clinton," "Catholics for Kerry," director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for Ohio's Democrat governor, former field director for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, past president of Catholics for Faithful Citizenship, most recently Hillary Clinton's State Faith & Values Outreach Director for Ohio, a Knight of Columbus who supported Obama, and a pro-abortion Democrat was arrested yesterday for running a prostitution ring that included minors.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics for Faithful Citizenship are both front groups run by former Democratic Party officials. Both groups provide "cover" for Catholics who support abortion under the conscience-killing rubric of "Catholics are not one issue voters," that is, it's OK to support pro-abortion politicians so long as those politicians support only those parts of Catholic social justice teaching that agree with the Democratic Party's socialist tendencies.

Once your conscience tells you that it is OK to kill your child, running a prostitution ring that includes children is easy-cheesy. The idea is that "on-balance" McFadden was attempting to reduce the number of child hookers by providing them a fair wage. I wonder if he let them unionize?

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

Report: Apostolic Visitation of US seminaries (UPDATED)

[NB. The link to the actual report is now fixed.]

In response to the sexual abuse scandals that hit the Church square-on in 2002, the Vatican initiated in the fall of 2005 an "Apostolic Visitation" of all American seminaries and schools of theology that teach seminarians.

The review boards interviewed seminarians and recently ordained priests in order to evaluate contemporary priestly formation in the U.S. Interviewers asked questions about academic work, moral formation, spiritual life, faculty fidelity to the magisterium, etc. I was interviewed for this visitation just six months into my priesthood.

The final report has finally been released. Overall, diocesan seminaries are given very high marks for substantial improvements, especially in the tightening up the loosey-goosey "it's-all-about-me" formation programs, for instilling a sense of priestly identity in the seminarians, and for appointing strong, faithful priests to serve as rectors.

I am embarrassed but not surprised that seminaries and schools of theology operated and staffed by religous orders are consistently thumped for not making the cut. The critical language of the report is very restrained in pointing out problems. However, that these schools were singled out at all is very, very telling. Like most official documents of the Church, if there's even a hint of negative critical language, it is carrying a very painful slap. . .even if the hand is covered in the finest silk.

Schools run by religious are smacked for hiring and retaining dissenting professors (two areas of dissent were noted: blurring the distinctions btw lay/ordained ministries and advocating for women's ordination); for allowing lay and non-Catholic members of the faculty to vote on decisions about ordination; for laxity in teaching orthodox moral theology; among others.

The report is interesting too for its proposed solutions to remaining problems. Listing the proposed reforms together and taking them as a program, you get the diocesan equivalent of a religious order's novitiate! Excellent.

Time will tell. . .the inevitable biological solution. . .if problems in religious order schools can be solved fraternally and to everyone's benefit, or if it's going to take the delivery of a whole bunch of pink slips.

[UPDATE] I want to draw your attention to Clayton Emmer's wonderful blog, The Weight of Glory. Clayton blogs extensively on issues related to Catholic seminary formation. Check it out!

Stopping the Marian madness (Updates)

Question. . .

I just read on the internet that the Holy Father is trying to curb claims about apparitions of the Blessed Mother. What do you think about this?

Answer. . .

Before I can say anything concrete about this story, I will need to read to the actual papal document from the Vatican's own website. Never, never, NEVER trust the media (not even FOXNews) to get a story about Christianity right, especially if the news item is about the Catholic faith. They are invincibly stupid when it comes to telling the simple truth about what we believe as Catholics. Check, check, and triple check again anything they say about the Church.

UPDATE: John Allen has a few more details on this story. Unfortunately, the link takes you the site of the NCR, so have holy water and the Padre Pio Shorter Prayer of Exorcism ready in order to clean your computer of dissenting mal-ware and the infamously destructive McBrien-Chittister Trogan Horse virus. (h/t: Allan).

Now, generally speaking, Marian apparitions are almost always false. . .they are reported by either perfectly wonderful Catholics who truly believe the Blessed Mother is speaking to them, or crackpots with some high priced rosaries to sell, or seriously mentally disturbed individuals in need of pastoral help.

Does the Virgin appear to people and give them messages? It is entirely within the realm of possibility. However, belief in the authenticity of the alleged apparitions and veracity of the alleged messages in no way impinges on the salvation of Catholics. In other words, you can be a perfectly good Catholic, fully redeemed, true, good, and beautiful and never once pay the least bit of attention to any Marian apparition. You can, in fact, actively disbelieve that they occur without eternal consequence.

Why? before any apparition can be considered authentic, the Church--the Body of Christ on earth--must investigate the claims of those allegedly receiving the messages and verify the orthodoxy of the messages. If a message is found to be wanting in terms of its orthodoxy, then we know the message is not from Mary and cannot be held as true. If the message is deemed orthodox, that is, fully in line with the tradition of the Church's teaching on divine revelation, then all Mary is doing is repeating what we already know to be true. If Mary is simply repeating what we already know to be true, then there is no point in claiming that we must all listen to the message. We already have the message.

You will object here and say, "But Father, shouldn't people listen to Mary?" Yes, they should. And she has plenty to say to us in scripture. But not listening to her as an apparition is not going to send you to Hell. Our salvation is determined by one thing and one thing only: the degree to which we freely choose to cooperate in the "once for all" salvific death/gift of Christ on the Cross and his glorious resurrection from the tomb. Nothing an apparition of Mary can say or do can change that.

Well, what about people who find comfort and strength from these apparitions? More power to 'em! Go for it! If an apparition brings you closer to God through Christ and his Church, then I say: buy those place tickets and pack your bags for a trip to see Mary. But you are no more "saved" for going and no less "saved" for staying home. If the Church has declared that a particular apparition is false or the messages delivered are errorenous. then you are obligated to avoid those apparitions. Mary, the woman who said YES to becoming the Mother of God, is the model of ecclesial obedience. She would never tell anyone to disobey those given authority by her Son.

What I have no tolerance for is the false claim that Catholics are required to believe in this or that apparition because the Church has approved the apparition. I was told once that belief in the Fatima message is required for salvation. The only thing the Church says about any Marian apparition is whether or not there is sufficient objective proof that the apparitions are supernatural in origin and whether or not the messages conform to infallible Church teaching. Church approval simply means that it appears as though the apparitions themselves are legitimate and that the messages delivered are free form error. Apparitions that deliver heretical message are ipso facto false. Nothing more can be assumed about this imprimatur.

Scripture, tradition, and right reason clearly teach that there can be no new revelation to the Church. None. If Mary appears and proclaims her Son to be the Messiah and asks all present to pray the rosary, fast, do charitable works. Great. But we already know to do all of that. If she appears and proclaims herself to be the Messiah and asks those present to start consecrating bread and wine to become her body and blood for our salvation, it's Satan, lying to them. There was a Marian cult in the U.S. a few years back that actually celebrated "Marian Masses" where the priest "changed" bread and wine in the body and blood of Mary in imitation of the real Mass. He and his cultists would take a "Marian communion" after the regular, sacramental communion. Some of my own Dominican brothers were involved in preaching the gospel to these people and bringing them back into the Church.

Mary herself was no doubt upset at this blasphemy againstg he Son.

No new revelation. Not from a priest. Not from a bishop. Not from a pope. Not from a angel. Not from the Mother of God herself.

Land of Lost Books

Couple of emails asking about whether or not books purchased from Ye 'Ole Wish List have arrived yet. . .

As far as I can tell, I've received most of the books you guys sent me back the first week of November. Thank You notes have been sent for all those books that included a shipping invoice with a return address on it.

I asked one of my former U.D. students whether or not he had received a note I sent him back in mid-December. No, he hasn't. So, if you haven't received a note, knowing posteitaliane, it will arrive in time for your summer vacation. I'm still waiting on three shipments of HBP meds sent to me from Houston between Sept 1st and Dec 10th. I've been spending my out-of-pocket gelato and Nutella money on heart medicine! Hmmmm. . .there's some irony there. . .

The books that I know were purchased but have not yet arrived are:

Wrestling With the Divine, C. Knight

Web of Belief, W.V.O. Quine

Historicity of Nature, W. Pannenburg

Science and the Spiritual Quest, Phillip Clayton

And one sent by my German Angel. . .I can't read my own handwriting from my list to decipher the title.

So, if you sent me a book and haven't received a thank you note yet, it's either b/c you sent one of the books above and I haven't received it, or the shipping invoice had no return address, or posteitaliane has struck again and the book is on a train headed to the Netherlands where it and tons of other holiday mail/gifts will be dumped into a landfill.

Don't they understand that I am only obligated to be patient during Advent? And then ONLY b/c I am waiting on the Lord!?

Coming attractions. . .

. . .this week at HancAquam:

A Dominican disputation: Is God dead?

An outline for my Ph.L. thesis at suppl(e)mental.

A quick look at the ethics of taking "brain booster drugs" at also at suppl(e)mental.

And an announcement about my book proposal to Liguori Press!

Keep checking. . .

Oh, and I got a very sad email from my WISH LIST elf. . .he's been very lonely lately. . .

Theosis: that we might become God

It is well past Christmas, but there's always a good reason to spice up the season with a wonderful essay on my favorite theological topic: theosis!

From Carl E. Olson at Ignatius Insight:

+

Theosis: The Reason for the Season
December 30, 2008

What, really, is the point of Christmas? Why did God become man?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in a section titled, "Why did the Word become flesh?" (pars 456-460) provides several complimentary answers: to save us, to show us God's love, and to be a model of holiness. And then, in what I think must be, for many readers, the most surprising and puzzling paragraph in the entire Catechism, there is this:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (par 460)

So that "we might become God"? Surely, a few might think, this is some sort of pantheistic slip of the theological pen, or perhaps a case of good-intentioned but poorly expressed hyperbole. But, of course, it is not. First, whatever problems there might have been in translating the Catechism into English, they had nothing to do with this paragraph. Secondly, the first sentence is from 2 Peter 1:4, and the three subsequent quotes are from, respectively, St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, and (gasp!) St. Thomas Aquinas. Finally, there is also the fact that this language of divine sonship—or theosis, also known as deification—is found through the entire Catechism. A couple more representative examples. . .[here is the rest of the article].

Never, Rarely, Always: Dominican Disputation (UPDATED)

In what is probably a doomed effort to tame my intemperate tongue and fiery typing-fingers, I have set myself on a course of re-learning and practicing the ancient tradition of Dominican disputation.

So, more for my benefit than your enjoyment, I present the Dominican method of disputation (in breve). . .

Early Dominican disputation was done in public, usually in universities for the benefit of students learning the crafts of philosophy and theology. The Master (professor) would give a lecture on some topic and then take questions from the students and other Masters. Once asked, the question would be answered first with a list of objections to the Master's real answer. So, if the Master's real answer was "Yes," he would begin by stating what all the "No" answers would seem to be. These are presented in the Summa theologiae as the "videtur" or "it would seem that."

After this, the Master would provide a sed contra, or a "to the contrary," a general answer to the objections that served to lay the foundation for his own answer to the original question. The sed contra was usually a quotation from scripture, a well-respected theologian/philosopher, or saint that directly or indirectly touched on the question.

Once the sed contra is announced, the Master would answer with a respondeo, the "I respond that." Here he pulls on the foundational principles taught to his students, employing basic logic, metaphsyics, common sense, and additional authorative sources.

In the respondeo, the Master would use a peculiarly scholastic technique in arguing his point. Summarized the technique is: "Never deny, rarely affirm, always distinguish." Thus, the scholastics' reputation for "multiplying distinctions."

After the respondeo, the Master would then apply his answer to each objection (the videtur) in a reply and show why each was incorrect given the sed contra and the logic of the respondeo.

Break down of the "Never deny, rarely affirm, always distinguish"

Never deny: this prinicple presupposes charity in requiring the responder to take seriously the objections made to any answer he might give; that is, by never outright denying a conclusion, the Master presumes the good will of the objector and averts any attacks on the person. By disallowing the outright denial of an opponent's premise or conclusion, the 'never deny' pushes us in charity to recognize that even an assertion erroneous on the whole may contain some partial truth. The next two steps in the method assure us of ferreting out whatever truth might be found error. (NB. This technique also tends to kill in its cradle the all-too-often virulent disease we call "flaming").

Rarely affirm: this prinicple frees the Master from the traps in the objections that might inexorably lead him to conclude that the objection is correct. It also serves to push the argument beyond merely polite agreement and force the debaters to explore areas of disagreement that could lead to a better answer.

Always distinguish: this prinicple allows the Master to accomplish the first two principles while still giving him plenty of room to disagree with the objections. By requiring the Master to carefully parse his words, this step in the argument recognizes the limits of language and logic when discussing any truth and acknowledges that there is some hope of finding better and better definitions.

So, in practice, you will hear those who use this method say things like, "If by X, you mean Y, then X" or "I would distinguish between X and Y" or "You are right to say X, but X does not necessarily entail Y" and so on. The goal is to parse proper distinctions with charity until there is some clarity with regard to the use of terms and their place in the argument.

I should add here another good principle of logic: "Where there is no difference, there can be no distinction;" that is, any distinction between X and Y must be based on a real difference between X and Y. For example, all teachers have heard some version of the following: "But I didn't plagiarize my paper, I just borrowed my roommate's paper and put my name on it."

No difference, no distinction.

Unlearning what we never learned in the first place

While digging around the internet for a review of a book I'm using in my thesis, I found over at First Things, this wonderfully "on-target" post by the recently deceased Fr. Richard John Neuhaus:

In March 1993, we published “Mainline Churches: The Real Reason for Decline” by Dean Hoge and his colleagues, who had done a careful study of the Presbyterian Church (USA). When all the other variables are taken into account, they argued, the real reason is a lack of belief. R. Scott Appleby, professor of history at Notre Dame, applies that analysis to contemporary Catholicism. “The challenge of Catholic education and formation in our media-driven, cyberspace age is no less than this: older Catholics must be restored to and younger Catholics introduced to a sense of Catholicism as a comprehensive way of life-as a comprehending wisdom and set of practices that bring integrity and holiness to individuals and to the families and extended communities to which they belong and which they serve.” The years after Vatican II, he writes, saw the rise of the first “post-ethnic generation” of American Catholics, people for whom Catholicism was no longer an intact culture (or subculture) but one choice among others in the religious marketplace. In addition, Catholicism today is marked by many voices-right and left, liberal and conservative-claiming to define what is authentically Catholic. “In the realm of ideas and Catholic self-understanding, change came most powerfully with the introduction of genuine pluralism into American Catholic theology once Thomism was supplemented, and in many arenas supplanted, by narrative, feminist, liberationist, and other inductive theologies grounded in experience.” The result is “a rich farrago of theological options, many of them rich and enlivening but experienced by Catholics piecemeal and without benefit of an overarching view of ‘the Catholic thing.’” In his address to the Catholic Academy for Communication Arts Professionals, Appleby concludes with this: “Catholic communicators must be leaders among those who package the faith, not as a series of discrete bits and bytes but as organic, interdependent sets of beliefs, insights, and practices by which one may lead a morally coherent and spiritually fruitful life.” Mr. Appleby’s cultural critique is, I believe, pretty much on target. He is also right in understanding our current circumstance in terms of a crisis of belief. But is the problem that a manualist Thomism has been displaced by narrative, feminist, liberationist, and other inductive theologies? In religious studies courses, perhaps, as well as in many departments of theology misleadingly called Catholic. Without discounting the influence of the systematic academic unlearning of Catholic teaching that students had never learned in the first place, most Catholics have never heard of the liberationist and other theological fashions Appleby cites. What they have heard and believed and internalized is that there is no such thing as authoritative Catholic teaching; that Catholicism is a matter of “discrete bits and bytes” to be accessed according to felt needs. We do not need communicators who will “package the faith” more attractively. We need teachers and exemplars-parents, priests, bishops, religious, academics-who invite a new generation to the high adventure of living the faith. That adventure is compellingly depicted in Scripture and living tradition, including Vatican II and its authoritative interpretation by the Magisterium, and not least by John Paul II. Mr. Appleby is right in saying that Catholicism is a comprehensive and coherent culture shaped by a story entailing truth claims that require a response of faith. What is missing from his account is any reference to where and how that story is authoritatively told. I am not sure that the faith can or should be “packaged,” but I am sure that no skills of the communication arts will make up for uncertainty about the faith to be communicated

Religious Priests and Diocesan Priests

My post below on questions for those discerning a religious vocation has prompted more questions about the differences between "religious priests" (RP) and diocesan or secular priests (DP).

In the Catholic Church there are two kinds of priests: religious and diocesan. The primary canonical difference between the two is based on who serves as an immediate ecclesial superior. For RP's the immediate ecclesial superior is the local prior, abbot, or major superior; that is, a member of that priest's order/monastery who exercises canonical authority in virtue of holding an office within the order/monastery. My immediate ecclesial superior is the prior of this convent. For DP's, the immediate ecclesial superior is always the bishop of the priest's diocese.

Practically, this means that a friar's/monk's/nun's ministry and life in the community is directed by a fellow friar/monk/nun who is elected to authority by the community. For DP's, their ministry and life in the diocese is subject to the bishop. Now, all religious orders within a diocese are subject to the bishop in so far as that bishop must approve any religious ministry in his diocese. Bishops have no authority over the internal workings of a community. So, if a priory or monastery elects as prior/abbot someone the bishop doesn't like, he is not empowered to dispose of that election. He can revoke the faculties of the priests in the house, or fire any offending religious who works for the diocese. But he cannot step into the internal affairs of religious.

There are other prominent differences between RP's and DP's. One big difference is the taking of religious vows. RP's are made religious priests by making solemn vows regarding poverty, chastity, and obedience. DP's do not make religious vows. At ordination, all priests promise chastity and obedience to an "ordinary" superior. For religious priests at ordination, we make these promises to both our immediate superior and the bishop. DP's do not take a vow of poverty b/c they are considered "self-employed" by the IRS. RP's usually have access to community cars, funds, medical care, room and board, and other essentials for daily living. DP's provide most of these for themselves as "employees" of the diocese. In practical terms, the vow of poverty is about not owning anything in one's own name. RP's cannot own a car. DP can. Same goes for houses, boats, etc.

Another big difference is spirituality. RP's often belong to order's with long traditions in certain kinds of spirituality. Think: Ignatian Exercises for the Jebbies. Or the spirituality of "prayer and work'" for the Benedictines. Dominicans consider our daily lives lived according to the constitutions to be our spirituality. There is a spirituality for DP's. The big difference is that DP's rarely live in community. There prinicple spirituality revolves around their ministries in direct service to their parish.

This brings up several other differences rooted in ministry:

DP's work within the limits of their dioceses (there are exception for academics and others)
RP's can work anywhere in the world where their order has a house.

DP's usually work in parishes or ministries that directly serve the laity (exceptions: ditto)
RP's often work in universities, hospitals, secular jobs, etc. where the focus is not necessarily on serving the parochial laity directly (exceptions: many RP's serve parishes)

DP's have fewer opportunities to "switch ministries" b/c their immediate superior (the bishop) has responsibility for ministries only within his diocese and parishes need priests
RP's have much more flexibility in this regard b/c their assignments are made by superiors who have responsibilities beyond a diocesan border (e.g. yours truly assigned to Rome rather than a university in my province)

DP's have fewer opporunities for advanced study b/c of the pressing needs of their dioceses
RP's are usually encouraged to pursue advanced study if there is need

DP's have a more flexible daily schedule and tend to be more available for one-on-one interaction b/c they do not have community responsibilities (cooking for six or more brothers, taking care of community cars, accounts, etc.)
RP's are much more restricted by community obligations in their daily schedule and availability (communal prayer, meals, recreation time, etc.)

One interesting development since Vatican Two is the blurring of some of these lines between RP's and DP's. It is not at all uncommon now to find DP's living in small communities in urban areas where parishes are clustered together. In fact, many younger DP's are insisting on living in community as a way of maintaining accountability and fostering fraternity. At the same time, many religious, in the name of ministerial necessity, have moved out of community life and set up house in apartments or rectories to live alone. For the most part, this development was a reaction to the perceived restrictions of the community rule that some felt stifled their ministries. This trend among male religious is waning fast and in some cases actually forbidden.

One simplistic way of understanding the essential difference between RP's and DP's is to think of RP's as a bunch of guys living in a fraternity house (shudder) and DP's as guys who live by themselves as single men. This image (though deeply flawed) at least points up the day-to-day differences that emerge from the differences in living by yourself and living with your family.