So – an end

After considerable amount of praying and thinking and more praying, I’ve come to the realization that I cannot continue with this particular blog. There is so much on my plate – and the need to establish priorities for my life and for my family’s well being – that in spite of my attempt at blogging on a more regular schedule, it is just too difficult to pull off.

And so – this one is the end for this blog.

Seriously??? This is an argument??

I kept seeing this graphic yesterday among Facebook friends that supposedly is some type of no-nonsense argument in favor of same-sex marriage by offering up examples of persons who themselves have failed or broken marriages … a sort of “if this, then that” kind of approach.

Here it is … Such rapier wit and incisive argumentation … this puts Cicero or Augustine or Aquinas to shame … don’t it? … Yeah – didn’t think so.

This just reminds me of small children pointing and whining … “you started it” … “no I didn’t” … “yes you did” …. nya nya nya.

The failings and outright failures of married couples don’t prove some point regarding the reality and nature of marriage in and of itself. 

It is not heroic to willfully pursue what you subjectively think is right. Simply put, that is called relativism.

Makes my ears bleed

So, this has been making the rounds among my Facebook friends … and my first response? a BIG YAWN … yet another hip 20-something who has it all wrapped up and figured out. Add a cool soundtrack and some decent production values and – voila! – here is the modern day equivalent to St. Thomas Acquinas or St. Augustine or St. Teresa Avila … NOT! As much as I could stand listening to this guy, I realized that much of his imbecilic ranting is anti-Catholic in its nature.

Here’s the deal, though … when you lie about religion and about Church and about … well … lots of other stuff, you make the Baby Jesus cry. And real Facebook friends will never let their friends post this junk.

Some have taken up the cause to rebut the rapping ninny. Jimmy Akin does a great job of pulling it apart. Check it thou out.

One of the best is this video response.

Then there’s this one … And … cue the Gregorian Chant …

Untitled from John Hollowell on Vimeo.

And for those who have been living in a cave or who do not have a Facebook page, here’s the inanity that started it all.

CAUTION: Do not listen/watch while drinking liquids of any kind. You will ruin your keyboard and/or choke. You have been warned.

Happy birthday to you …

I just learned that Father Georg Ratzinger, brother of Pope Benedict XVI,  and I share something in common … our birthday is January 15. Fr. Ratzinger turns 88. I, on the other hand, turn … well … um… let’s just say that I’m not 88 yet.

A resolution

Good golly! It has been far too long since my last posting.

So, I’ve resolved to post at least once per week during this year.

The boogey man that is “organized religion”

I’ve seen, read and overheard the same conversation time and time again … one that boils down to, “I’m not religious, but rather spiritual.” And once again I found it pop up in a recent Facebook thread (click it to see a larger version):

It’s unfortunate that this poster and so many others fall into the same paltry sentiment – for indeed, that is what this is much more than any kind of logic or reasoned approach. It is a minimalist sentiment (that only believing that Jesus died to save is sufficient to the exclusion of all else). The corollary in this minimalist sentiment is an assertion that all you need is “to be a good person.” (Of course, there is little to no definition of “being good” offered – it’s just assumed that everyone knows what that means)

But the main premise, as stated above, is that an organized religion (and by that I will assume the poster means a recognizable Christian church … and not any other religion – can’t imagine someone saying this of Islam or Hinduism and the like) is bad because it is filled with hypocritical people. Or to put it another way … people are just plain mean and inconsistent and, well, just mean; therefore, how dare they pretend to be Christian.

NEWS FLASH: All people have the ability to be hypocritical; and many (perhaps all) are hypocritical at one time or another … in short, everyone sins and falls short. This is news?!? And this is the cause for jettisoning a public, organized religion?!?

If perfection were the standard by which I determined whether or not to be Christian … and that necessarily includes being a member of Christ’s church … then no one would ever be one. Because being sinless is just not in the cards for us human creatures while here on earth.

Key to all of this is: since I believe in Jesus – that He is indeed the Son of God, Savior – then I must take ALL that he teaches and all that he did as part and parcel of my belief. Jesus wasn’t just a “good guy” asking us to merely be good. No! Jesus said and did things throughout his life on earth that are just not up for grabs.

And one thing he did was to establish His church. This isn’t some feel-good experience of being spiritual; this isn’t some sentiment of “let’s all just get along.” Christ’s church was established as a visible body – it is organized!

Therefore to be a Christian, one must (not an option!) be a member of His church. One is baptized into the church, not into some vague sentimental spirituality.

Look at the apostles and first disciples … they went out and established the church on earth. They organized and made it clear that such an organization was necessary (not optional).

When I see a post or hear a conversation like the one above I am saddened. Such a person is going to be sorely disappointed no matter which Christian communion he/she examines. But more importantly, the person is refuting the totality of being a Christian … of being a true disciple of Jesus … primarily out of seriously flawed logic and sentimentality because of some misguided need to be comfortable with themselves and with their minimalist philosophy.

People who claim to be Christians are hypocrites … fine … guilty as charged. That, however, is not sufficient reason to disregard Christ’s church.

So, Christians don’t always act like Christians – utterly shocking!

[heavy sigh] … reading status updates and such on Facebook and I come across:

It’s a link to an August 2005 Harper’s Magazine article titled “The Christian paradox: How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong,” which pretty much says that 1) a huge number of Americans who identify as Christian are quite ignorant of details like being to name all 10 of the Commandments, among many other such things and 2) because America is a vastly heterogeneous culture so too exist a great deal of differences among and between Christians in America and 3) inasmuch as we profess to be Christian … we sure don’t act like Christians all the time.

Oh goodness! Stop the presses! You mean to tell me that disciples of Jesus don’t always act like … well … disciples of Jesus?!? I am so appreciative of this Facebook friend for pointing that out by sharing this link to such an earth-shattering article.

And as a way to further explain, my friend offered this comment:

I stagger at the intellectual prowess and majesty of this comment; and I marvel at the astute conclusion offered as, “I do not believe I am a Christian for the very reasons pointed out in the article.” Sheesh! What reasons? That people aren’t perfect? That professed believers don’t live up to some standard established by you? or the Harper’s magazine author? Or that professed believers don’t live up to their own professed standards?

Well, I won’t be using this for my next class

It will be the second class in the new religious education school year. Usually during the first class I ask a whole lot of questions just to gauge what they know (or don’t know) about the faith and the Church. And this year’s crop of 8th grade students is not that much different from all the years past.

Now … one of the resources that we are given to use in my parish is a weekly little thing called, “Visions” which is published by Pflaum Publishing Corp. It has received both a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur, so it should be perfectly fine to use, right? … well … most of the time it is … but this week’s issue can present a bit of a problem.

The front page has a collage of photos with the title: “What Is Faith?” and underneath the title are sentence stems with two options from which the students can choose … for example:

Living as a person of faith is

• hard
• easy

But there’s a bit of a problem with one of the statements/options and with the collage of photos … that of indifferentism. The statement is:

Believe is an active verb that means

• I give my heart and commit to God or Jesus.
• I think my religion is just as good as yours.

These are young people who are not well formed in the faith and who are bombarded day in and day out with many messages from a wide range of sources that contradict and challenge the faith, what it really means to be a follower of Jesus, and what the Church really teaches. Unfortunately, there are many many Catholics, older than these young people and who are in positions of authority and power even, who have swallowed the misunderstandings and errors.

It is entirely possible … indeed, likely … that several of the students will choose the second option in the above statement: “I think my religious is just as good as yours.”

And I am equally sure that the bulk of their defense of making this choice will be akin to, “I’m not better than you or anyone else. It’s not right to say that I am better than others. And it’s just as wrong to say that you are better than me. We’re all equal under the eyes of God.” And there’s the rub. They will confuse the inherent dignity of each human person with the essential nature of truth as it has been revealed by God to us.

Or to put it another way … the simple truth is that I believe the Catholic Church to have the fullness of truth – it is the one true Church of Christ, which he founded and which he heads. None of that disregards nor negates the inherent dignity of each human person, whether or not they are Catholic or non-Catholic or even non-Christian. On that score, the kids would be right … when you boil it all down, I’m not better than my neighbor.

But my Church – the Church that Jesus himself established on earth and which He continues to head – is foundationally different than others. And in the sense that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic … it is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit … it is better than other churches and religious communities and religions. These others may have some of the truth – they may even have a great deal of truth – and God is the source of that truth, to be sure. But the only Church to have the fullness of truth is the Catholic Church. And it is in that essential quality that makes it unique and better.

But this is not to be confused with comparing individual people as either better or not … one from the other.

The photo collage on this front page, I think, will only serve to confuse the students further into indifferentism. It is a collection of 1) a boy receiving the Eucharist, 2) a Buddhist monk sitting in a meditation pose, 3) a group of young women wearing full head scarves and veils, and 4) men and boys in prayer shawls carrying the Torah. So there is a Catholic, a Buddhist, several Jewish men and some Muslim women. I am not better than any of them … each of them, merely by being a creation of God, is worthy of dignity and respect.

But my Church, my religion, is essentially different as it contains the fullness of truth. These other religions do not.

Yet this is a concept that is difficult for many adults to get … vastly more difficult for a 13 year old to be sure. So, I won’t be using this particular issue of Visions … until the children have a deeper and clearer understanding of the Church and our faith.

our “cheeky” pope

Michael Vorris at RealCatholicTV … who woulda thunk our Holy Father was so ‘cheeky’? Praise God for Papa B16!

LOL – is this sad but true?

As the start of the religious education year nears a new beginning, this just seemed too apropos …

Best comment of the morning

from a post titled ... morbid Catholics:

The Catholic Faith unnerves people not because it is morbid per se, but because it is so relentlessly realistic, and deals head-on with the full spectrum of spiritual and temporal realities. This unblinking, unflinching view of both the beauties and the horrors of the universe and the human condition makes most people uncomfortable, if not downright freaked out, and is why happy-clappy, "warm fuzzy Jesus" is always much more popular than the Faith in full, which fully considers and appreciates the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Absolutely!

Young Russian Soldier

(h/t The American Catholic)

This is an fascinating story: a Russian soldier who was killed on his 19th birthday in 1996 is being venerated in his home country as a martyr.

To be so young and strong in his faith! A model for all (both old and young)

Using every licit means

Skateboarding for Christ!  ... had these friars been around when I was a youngster and teen ... I had to suffer through some rather horrible *ahem* guitar masses filled with choice selections like "By My Side" from Godspell (yep!).

Awesome! Check it thou out! (to borrow a quote from Mark Shea)

Carl Olson's take on Joy Behar and Jehmu Greene's stupidity

Right here ... (http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/01/joy-behar-of-the-view-spews-sick-sexist-proabort-stupidity.html). The fact is that Tim Tebow's mother made her choice, which is what these dolts *ahem* "claim" to be all about. As one of the commentors posted:

This is clearly not about choice, and it never has been. That is why the movement is properly called the pro-abortion movement.

Proof that intelligence and maturity cannot be found at Columbia University

(h/t Jean Heimann) Such courage of the small-minded and sniggering adolescence typically comes out during Christmas and Easter. Betcha you'll never see a play of this ilk during .... oh .... I dunno ... Ramadan or Rosh Hashanah. Because that, of course, would be in bad taste.

a Reflection on the Murder of Jim Pouillon

The American Catholic has a "hit the nail on the head" post about the murder of the pro-life activist, Jim Pouillon.

Unlike those who called for restrictions on speech and guns in the wake of George Tiller’s death, however, my call is simply for those who engage in the same sort of work that Pouillon did to not give up or give in to this cowardly act of domestic political terrorism. Pray for his soul, pray for the soul of his murderer, pray that the daily and wide-scale violence of abortion one day comes to an end.

Be sure to read the entire piece.

The passing of a priest and pastor

Yesterday wasn't a great day in the homefront news arena ... got word of the passing of a priest and former pastor. Msgr Michael J Alliegro was instrumental in welcoming us to the parish we now call home and for which we are immensely grateful.

It was 1998 and we just moved to NJ from northern VA. The boy was nearly 3 years old and the move was prompted by a job transfer. The parish we had while in Virginia was vibrant and welcoming and everything we wanted; and we were all involved in the music ministry there. So we wanted to find a new parish home that was as similar as possible in terms of the parish life and to be able to participate in their music ministry as well (knowing that we'd never find an exact replica of our Virginia parish - but it was extremely important to us nonetheless).

We visited all of the neighboring churches. For one reason or another we were dissatisfied with them - some more so than others ... one parish wasn't welcoming at all regarding our toddler boy, another just seemed so disconnected as a community, and so on. Sadly we were told that our "legal parish" was the one closest to us and that if we ever wanted to register at a different parish we would need some letter from the Bishop's office allowing us to do so. Frankly, I hadn't heard of this before yet we knew it was important to be obedient to the local ordinary.

After several weeks - we decided to give one other church a try ... kind of a last ditch effort to find a parish home.

We arrived for mass to see quite a few people there ... quite a few young families - which we took as a good sign of course. One of the ushers, a Knight of Columbus - because he was wearing the lapel pin, extended his hand and welcomed us right off the bat.

A few minutes before mass was to start the cantor introduced a new song to the people, which was a 'call and response' style. The people's response being, "I say yes my Lord." So we were introduced to this song; and then the mass begins.

After the homily there was some welcoming ceremony for candidate and catechumens ... and this call and response song was sung. I felt a real sense of warmth and welcome and vibrant life at this church, and I was hoping that my wife was sensing the same thing. Glancing over to her I was getting the impression that she was feeling likewise.

After the song, our little boy leans over to me ...
"Daddy." in a not-so-hushed voice
"Yes"
"I say YES my Lord!" he blurts out

I'm hooked!

After mass my wife and I both agreed that this was the parish for us. And now we were preparing to swim through red tape to register given our understanding that this was going to require a letter of some kind.

The priest was standing outside greeting the people and wishing them well as they were leaving. We waited and then introduced ourselves and explained our situation. The priest, Msg. Alliegro, was the pastor of the parish and said to us that all we needed to do was call the parish office and explain to them that we've already spoken with him. His final words to us that day were simply, "Welcome."

And we've been a part of this parish ever since - ever grateful and thankful that we are.

Msgr. Alliegro remembered our names from that first day - which was quite a feat considering that the parish is made of nearly 2500 families. And he always made sure that we were welcomed by introducing us to other families and organizations/ministries in the parish.

We spent nearly five years with him as our pastor and remained in touch with him when he was reassigned as the rector of the St. Francis of Assisi Cathedral parish.

After fighting illness for a number of years, Msgr. Alliegro was finally called home on August 17, 2009.

To say that I and my family will miss him is an understatement, to be sure. He was a model priest and pastor and we are fortunate indeed to have counted him among our friends.

What price for change

Lots of news stories and commentary ever since Fr Jenkins announced and defended (continues to defend) the decision to honor Prez Obama with a degree in addition to speaking at the commencement. Lots of hash on both sides of the debate.  From the AP today - Abortion clouds Obama event at Notre Dame ...

To my mind, it is Notre Dame's identity as a Catholic university and Fr. Jenkins' obstinance that is the root of the scandal here.

Back to the AP article ...

A storm blew up immediately after Notre Dame invited Obama to address
Sunday's commencement exercises. It still rages, with anti-abortion
activists promising to disrupt the president's appearance, where he was
to receive an honorary degree.

It's the honorary degree that's the most troubling to me (and most I would imagine) in that bestowing such an honor is to hold the Prez up as an examplar with respect to the mission and goals of the university itself. You wanna invite him to speak on campus and even give the commencement speech? Fine! But did Fr. Jenkins and the board really have to take it that one further step with giving an honorary degree?
Be careful when reading this next quote - especially if you have a drink.

Obama supports abortion rights but says the procedure should be rare.
At Notre Dame, he finds himself at the vortex of the abortion rights
controversy that has riven U.S. society for decades.

Noooooooooo! The Dem platform removed rare from its plank regarding abortion. It now only says "safe" and "legal" when describing its vision of abortion. And I don't recall Prez O saying anything about his view of abortion being rare.
Even if this were true - here's my question ... what is it about abortion that makes you want it to be rare?
If it's safe and really nothing more than a privacy issue, then what's the big deal? Why should it be rare? Why not allow it to be as commonplace as possible?  Moving on ...

Recriminations against Obama's appearance in South Bend, Ind., have echoed across the Internet, on cable television and newspaper editorial pages.

This might be implied throughout the entire article; however it should be, I think, more clearly stated ... the issue is that Notre Dame (a premiere and prestigious Catholic university) is thumbing its noses at the US Bishops and causing scandal. The question (and the root of the recriminations mentioned in the article) is: to what Church does Notre Dame belong? Let's continue ...

The Catholic Church and many other Christian denominations hold that abortion or the use of embryos for stem cell research amounts to the destruction of human life

Ummmmm every embryologist acknowledges and all medical textbooks state that an embryo is indeed a human life. Therefore, its destruction as equal to the destruction of human life is a matter of science and simple math. This isn't a mere assertion of the Church.

The contrary argument holds that women have the right to terminate any pregnancy
and that unused embryos created outside the womb for couples who cannot
otherwise conceive should be available for stem cell research. Such
research holds the promise of finding treatments for some of mankind's
most debilitating ailments.

Bias in this article is apparent when pitting the words anti-abortion and the contrary argument against each other. But it's this last sentence that takes the cake ... embryo destructive stem cell research holds NO promise of curing or treating anything. 
But let's not allow science and reasoned thought to get in the way and cloud our reporting or political agendas ... 

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama in his commencement speech
"obviously would make mention of the debate that's been had" over
abortion, while emphasizing that "this is exactly the kind of give and
take that is had on college campus all over the country."

Great! Yet another chance for Prez O to claim to hear both sides and to appear as though he's wanting to engage in dialogue or some such whatever ... ya know, his actions just don't add up.

So far every single executive order or policy has been squarely pro-abortion (as in outright support of it).

Reconsidering and Re-engaging (Yeah, I'm Doing It Next Year)

The religious education school year is now officially over ... it sure seemed to be a shorter year than in the past.

And this was the year I decided to do some serious thinking about whether or not I'd return as a catechist. Admittedly, the whole reason why I started teaching religious ed was because my son was beginning in the program ... and I thought, "geez, I have to drive back and forth to drop him off - so, why not just stay and teach and save on the wear and tear and all that jazz."

Okay - not the kind of inspired desire to share the faith or anything ... purely pragmatic and utilitarian.

But the Holy Spirit sure works in strange ways!

No sooner had I finished my first year or two ... I got hooked ... I knew it was important to teach our faith (that was never a problem for my head) ...
Now I absolutely, positively, no-doubt-about-it felt and believed it to be important for me to be there ... my gut was engaged.

Hard work - sure it is! Yet a true joy as well ... it was clear that this was part of my vocation as a member of our parish community.

Now - fast forward to this year ... my son has gone through the program and has now completed all the years of formal religious ed at our parish. So, I'm thinking, "gee, maybe my time is done now, too. The boy isn't coming back - maybe I don't come back either."

But the Holy Spirit seems to have different plans ... In the past week I was approached by several parents - folks I'd never seen before - each of them expressing the requisite "thank you."  But two conversations stuck with me.

In both cases, the parent (mothers each of them) not only thanked me; they each expressed how much their children have been talking about the faith and about what we had been doing in class each week.  One of the kids here was soooooo quiet in class ... that she's talking seems out of character. 
Each parent also made sure to say how important they thought it was to have a man teaching their children in the faith. (I think I was the only male catechist in my session this year)

So, the Holy Spirit didn't have to beat me over the head (sometimes that has been necessary but not this time) ... He was telling me to continue in this work and ministry of catechesis. 

So, yeah - I'll be back next year ... with another group of 8th graders ...

We are such single-issue people ... Yeah Right

Jeff Miller in his blog, The Curt Jester, writes about Prez Obama's choosing Kathleen Sebelius as HHS Secretary. His statements regarding Sebelius and her staunch pro-abortion position, about Obama's arrogance in pushing her appointment forward, and about the support given Sebelius by faux-Catholic groups such as "Catholics for Sebelius" and "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good" are quite charitable. He doesn't dance around the truth ... calls it clearly as it is: disobedience.

It must touch a nerve, because one commenter writes:

Arrogance - The Curt Jester via kwout

Such a false dichotomy ... this is dishonest to say the least. And how many times have I heard this!?! Too many, quite frankly.
The first problem here is that one cannot even dream to receive a living wage unless one is actually - well - living! And what could possibly be a greater assault on social justice than killing a baby in what should be the safest place on the planet (its mother's womb)? Yet, all snark and sarcasm aside ... the argument presented by this commentor is simply false.

There is no distinction between the right to life insofar as our opposing abortion and the right to life insofar as everyone being worthy of diginity by having decent health care, a living wage, etc.

Bottom line here is that if one professes to be a Catholic (and a faithful one at that) then one must follow Church teaching obediently in its entirety. And it is the Church that presents the most complete, most comprehensive, and most compassionate teachings on the entirety of life and diginity of each person.

From my experience it is only those who are abortion supporters that make the very false distinction like this commentor.

Great Story from a Catholic Dad

(source: Catholic Dads)

We have a small crucifix that we didn't realize was in the range of
Kenny's growing reach. It disappeared one day this week and got mixed
in with his toys. A short while later, a two year old being a two year
old, the crucifix was launched from the living room and landed in the
dining room, separating the corpus from the cross. Rosey gathered the
pieces, explained to Kenny how we have to show respect for sacred
objects (and that, for that matter, throwing ANYTHING inside the house
isn't permitted) and assured him that I would fix it when I got home
from work. So what was I greeted with when I arrived home? Kenny runs
to me yelling: "Daddy puts Jesus back on the cross! Daddy puts Jesus
back on the cross!" I'm told he'd been repeating it most of the
afternoon.

Touche, my son. Touche! To be more precise, I helped put him there in the first place. But point taken. Bring on Lent.

The NYT Dunces on Indulgences - FAIL

Read this and your brain will turn to mush ... you will become stupid - guaranteed. If one of my students wrote this and turned it in they would get a big, fat, red F. That this article gets an okay from an editor is beyond the pale.

It's not even worth fisking because there's so little substance to it. There is, however, an attempt to state church teaching ... which Paul Vitello, the author of this terrible piece, gets gloriously and tremendously wrong ... as in this gem of ignorance:

According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the
confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they
still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter
heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in
special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or
erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament.

FAIL!

New rule - if you deign to use the phrase "according to church teaching," then you must consult church teaching via the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's not like this is some sort of hidden or secret book ... heck! you can even access it online!
So, let's look at what the CCC has to say:

[1471] What is an indulgence?
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guild has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church, which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfaction of Christ and the saints." (footnote 81: Paul VI, apostolic constitution)

There now ... that wasn't so hard ... was it?

The article just gets worse from there. Perhaps saddest of all are some of the comments from self-identifying "faithful Catholics" like this one (heavy sigh):

Here's a tip, if you are going to profess faithfulness to Christ's church, then you should learn what the Church indeed teaches and not rely on the poor catechesis you received from Sr. Kumbaya or Fr. I'm-Okay-You're-Okay-Just-Get-Along.

So, get off that cross already! - When even that wouldn't be enough

Patrick Madrid posted a video of how things looked at Fatima in 1917. I then went to YouTube to see it again.

Sometimes when I visit YouTube I'll look at the comments made by viewers ... I know that there will likely be some rather humorous or inane, if not outright stupid, comments - especially if they have anything to do with the Catholic Church. There was one comment for this video that had a lot to do with some discussions I've had with my students ... that of evil in this world. Here's the comment:

I was immediately reminded of the New Testament account during our Lord's crucifixion: "Let's see him come down from that cross and then we will believe in him." (Matthew 27:42) This commentor seemed to be of that same mind.
Part of the "yeah - but" line of thinking ... 'yeah, okay, this Jesus cured, healed, expelled demons, even raised his buddy from the dead; but we're still not sure ... hey! now if he were to get off that cross (something REALLY big!) then we might - just might - believe.'

Yeah right.

Not sure I understand why scandalous Catholics get away with this stuff

So, Speaker Nancy Pelosi did it again. American Papist has been reporting on this since it broke earlier in the week.

When she inserted her foot in it during last year's campaign - showing how utterly clueless she is regarding both Church history and Church teaching - it was nice to see many of our Bishops respond with letters rebuking her points of idiocy and scandal.

But here's what I don't understand ...

A non-Catholic friend of mine noted that he understood, although he is a Christian, is not allowed to receive the Eucharist because he is not in communion with the Church. He has some doctrinal differences of opinion, as it were. Since he does not profess to believe nor follow all of Church teaching, as he does not acknowledge the Magisterium, he is not in union with us ... therefore he cannot present himself to receive.
Got it ...

He went on to then ask why is it that a public official who clearly and obstinately dissents from the Church's teaching, which demonstrates that this official is not in communion with the Church (in a similar way as he is not in communion) ... that this official is unapologetic in dissent and this gives rise to a terrible scandal for others
Why is she allowed to present herself and receive the Eucharist?

Look - I'm not advocating that Pelosi (and Biden, Kerry, and others of their CINO brand) be excommunicated in a formal act (frankly I do not have any expertise in Canon Law at all!) of declaration by their respective Bishops. It does seem fairly obvious, however, that Pelosi and gang are not in communion (their public, persistent, obstinate, and scandalous statements and actions).

Inasmuch as I respect the approach of "individuals who are aware of being in a state of serious sin should not present themselves for receiving communion" in that no priest or extraordinary minister of the Eucharist has the right (morally, pastorally and juridically) to judge the state of someone's soul ... this same approach allows for so much relativistic wiggle room. Hence Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, and co. had no problems presenting themselves for communion during the Papal Mass.

Back the conundrum posed by my friend ...

As the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith and as it is the most precious gift from our Lord Jesus ... many martyrs and saints having defended the Eucharist, not because of any symbolic meaning but because it is truly and really the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ ...
When one receives the Eucharist, one is publicly stating that she/he is in full communion with the Body of Christ and His Church ... that the communion is in existence and not that it is a hoped-for reality ...

Why don't our Bishops - at least those who head the dioceses of Pelosi and gang - come out so clearly as to be plain that Nancy cannot present herself to receive. ... Period ... The End ...

If not, then, how can I even begin to answer my friend's question?

"Sincere faithful people" - huh?!?

So - this week started with euphoria for so many and ended with a "not surprised" for many others. It is not surprising that Prez OHB reversed the Mexico City Policy (and will very likely reinstate funding for UNFPA). And we who hadn't drunk the kool aid say, "not surprised."

OHB lied and will continue to lie.

And yet I get assailed by snarky remarks from other Catholic brothers and sisters who managed to convince themselves voting for OHB was not only acceptable but preferable in spite of his pro-abortion voting record both as a state senator and federal senator. I've also witnessed conversations in Twitter like this one on so many occassions:
... where a Catholic going by the Twitter id "noebie" resorts to a very common tactic I've witnessed over and over again ... he retorts that his faith is being called into question or that he is being judged in some malicious, or at the very least in a completely erroneous, way.
As though he and others of the Kmiec brand are martyrs for a just and worthy cause - that of full support for OHB who has shown time and time again an outright disdain for the unborn. It's a deflection - not a real response to the issue itself ...

Well, noebie, OHB has indeed now done something entirely objectionable (as you have snarked in your tweet above). I am not surprised that he did this and that he will continue to pass executive orders or lobby for legislation and such that are directly opposed to life and dignity of the unborn.
I'm willing to bet, too, that noebie's response (and many other OHB fans) will engage in more doublethink to appease their conscience ...
It will likely get dressed up in misguided rhetoric of 'concern for the poor' or other nonsensical dribble.

Barry's Reasons for Running, "what I want for every child in this nation"

Parade magazine posts an open letter from Barack to his two daughters ... giving his reasons for running for President. And Yahoo news reports the same.

Hmmmmmmm: "...In the end, girls, that's why I ran for President: because of what I want for you and for every child in this nation. ... I want every child to have the same chances to learn and dream and grow and thrive that you girls have."

Except, of course, for unborn children.

The open letter is replete with fine rhetoric; however, it remains to be seen that these are indeed the real reasons for his run for the White House. Rhetoric is one thing; records and actions are others - and these are for what I and many will be waiting.

Good luck, Mr Obama. I sure wouldn't want the job you now have.

Conversations about FOCA - part 1

I'm rarely surprised by the lengths to which people will go to avoid admitting mistakes or to paint others as nitwits, polarizers, idiots or alarmists. Such is the case with many recent discussions I'm having about the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which Obama had promised to sign into law as among the first things he'd do when President. That this will become law is really of little doubt in that it's something that both the House and Senate have already prepared ... And it would be quite easy for them to pass FOCA and present for Prez Obama's signature.

And yet, among those with whom I had conversations pre-election about why they'd vote for Obama I am having some interesting conversations with them now about FOCA. These conversations seem to fall into the following categories:

1. "I prefer to read the actual language and not rely on anyone's interpretation"
2. FOCA is not going to be signed into law given the current economic and terrorist problems
3. I and others like me are really alarmists because FOCA isn't really as bad as we make it out to be
   

The first point (the "I will read it for myself" camp) is nonsense. Every piece of legislation is interpreted ... whether by the Executive branch which has to come up with the regulations (which are indeed interpretations) to enact and enforce the law, or by the Judiciary which interprets the scope and boundaries of the law. There is just no way around this fact. Legislation is interpreted - period.
And what we have with FOCA is a record of what the legislative language could and likely be. Both the House and Senate have versions of their previous attempts; and it would stand to reason that the new language will be quite similar.
So, we are already able to apply possible interpretations. And frankly they don't bode well.

Slate: Back to the FOCA question » GetReligion via kwout

Like this guy's comments from a Slate article ... "can someone please show me the language ... that clearly delineates ... blah blah blah"

Ummmmm no such language exists per se; however, it is reasonable to interpret that this is precisely what FOCA would require.

The second part of the quoted section above is just obfuscation. FOCA makes no provision for conscience or faith objections. Abortion on demand, which would become a Federal right under FOCA, involves the intent to kill the child. Such is not the case when ministering to a mother with an ectopic, or tubal, pregnancy.

Yet somehow, in spite of the glaring fact that all laws are indeed interpreted I still have folks offer up the "I will read it for myself and not let someone interpret for me" argument. For me this is just personal pride in the face of an intrinsic evil being codified as an absolute right.