A Day in the Life
My 16 year old daughter teaches CCD to a very small group of 1st and 2nd graders. Sadly, our parish has a difficult time finding parents who are willing and able to teach religious education classes. My daughter is well versed in the faith for someone her age, and being young herself, seems to be able to hold their attention longer than most adults.
I normally get up early on Sunday mornings to drive my daughter to the church for the 9 AM class. Today, in commemoration of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, our parish was having a Eucharistic Holy Hour between 9 and 10 AM "in respect for the sacredness of all life" as Father stated it in the bulletin. I planned to drive her to her class and remain for Eucharistic Adoration.
As sometimes happens, my daughter and I started off the day on a sour note. She came out wearing a white knee-length knitted camisole over a black v-neck blouse and dark slacks. My daughter and I have clashed over this outfit before. She once wore it to school over a tube-top with spaghetti straps and an exposed belly-button. The open knit is easy to see through, and while the top she wore under it today was not as bad as the tube-top, it still had neckline unsuitable for church and the sub-zero temperatures outside, at least in a father's eyes. Furthermore, she wore her waist-length school letter jacket over the whole ensemble, making a very bazaar fashion statement.
I asked her if she didn't have something else she could wear. She said she did not and reluctantly, I decided to let it go today. Besides, we were about to clash over something else. I asked her whether she was going to take her CCD class to Eucharistic Adoration. She said no. I pointed out that Eucharistic Adoration is one of the most important gifts we have in the Church. "What message do we send to the children when we ignore an opportunity for Eucharistic Adoration?" I asked in a calm voice. With that, my daughter yelled, "Well then, YOU teach them." She stormed into her room and slammed the door. When it came time to leave for church, she refused to ride with me. Instead, she made her brother hurriedly get dressed to take her.
In my daughter's defense, the Holy Hour was not widely publicized beyond a small notice in last week's bulletin. She may not have seen it and didn't realize it would take place at the same time as her class. We all attended the Saturday vigil Mass last evening and Father never mentioned it. I could have suggested she take her students earlier, but it did not enter my mind. It was never my intent to anger her. My question about the message we send to our children was rhetorical. I often wonder what we can do better to catechize our children.
My frustration comes from seeing diminished reverence for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. We learned it from our parents, teachers and the example of other reverent Catholics. We genuflected on both knees and bowed our heads during exposition. The Church was filled and the choir sang for Benediction. So much of that is missing now. I acknowledge my own fault in not emphasizing the importance in my own family. I have tried to lead by example, but perhaps that is not enough.
When I arrived about five minutes early for Holy Hour, it had already begun. Despite the published 9 AM starting time, our pastor apparently decided to begin immediately following the 8 AM Mass, probably in an effort to keep more people in attendance. About fifteen people remained in the church and all but one left when the rosary ended about five minutes after nine. Eventually two of the CCD teachers did bring their classes in for adoration. As I watched many of them fidget in the pews, I thought of my Catholic grade school experiences when the Sisters would smack us from behind when our attention wandered.
Not to wander off topic, but nuns get a bad rap. Every Catholic seems to have a horror story about Sister so-and-so beating some poor defenseless child to within an inch of his life. In eight years of Catholic grade school, I remember very few incidents where corporal punishment was unduly applied. Yes, there were times when a child would be grabbed and manipulated into compliance. I don't remember ever seeing a child struck in Catholic School. I do remember more than one instance of students being paddled in public high school back in the 1960's. While I am not advocating undo corporal punishment, we have a serious discipline problem in all areas of education. I believe those who experienced the stern arm of the nuns grew up with much more moral respect than those who did not.
The inattention of the CCD students was a bit of a distraction, but I did not mind. At least they were in there in the presence of God, whether they understood or not. In our present church configuration, the Blessed Sacrament sits rather inconspicuously on the altar with no special lighting or adornment. Prior to the Vatican II remodeling of the sanctuary, bright lights were focused on the monstrance causing the gold and jewels to sparkle, only overshadowed by the bright white host in the center. As children, the spectacle drew our attention. We knew this was something special. Now, the host is eclipsed in shadows much like the new moon, and those in the church often seem oblivious to His presence.
During adoration, our pastor sat in the back of the church for awhile. He also took time to empty the money from the votive stands, put oil in the candle sticks, and interrupt my rosary to give me the organist's W2 form to pass on later. Yesterday, he asked me to prepare our organist for a possible time change for the current 10:30 Sunday Mass. The pastor of our neighboring parish is nearing retirement. Some newly discovered health issues may force this retirement any day now. When it happens, he will not be replaced due to the severe shortage of priests. Our pastor will cover both parishes.
Following Adoration, I spoke with our organist, giving her Father's message. She said the priest at another county parish where she plays earlier Sunday mornings, announced today that their parish and a neighboring satellite church may be closing soon. We could be going from four priests in our county down to two in a very short time.
Why is this happening? Not enough Catholics? No, we have sufficient numbers to sustain all of these parishes. Not enough priests? Yes, but why do we have so few? The real question lies within all of us. Why was our church practically empty today when a parish of several hundred families had an opportunity spend one hour in Eucharistic Adoration? If we truly believe Jesus, our God, our Creator, our reason for existence, is here corporeally in that monstrance to be adored, to hear our petitions, to give us His love, His life and salvation, why isn't the Church filled beyond capacity? When our churches close, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Post Script: This afternoon, I learned of the death of Johnny Carson. I grew up watching the Tonight Show. There were times in my life when I was plagued by severe anxiety that always seemed to rear its ugly head at bedtime. Johnny often became an hour or so of comfort as he could always make me laugh. One secret to his 30 year longevity on the Tonight Show was his knack for being funny when the material was not. When a bit was not going over, he would often pause to read through the rest of the script. Doc Severinsen would play Taps while Johnny set his copy on fire in the wastebasket. If one of the nightly monologues bombed, the piano player would launch into Tea for Two and Johnny would tap dance. I also learned much from watching his program. He was uniquely intelligent and often scheduled serious interviews with interesting guests. There has never been another like him. He was truly the King of Late Night. Thanks, Johnny, for all the laughs. May your soul rest in peace.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Christmas Day 2004
I love Christmastime. I love the entire season. From Thanksgiving to the Epiphany is my favorite time of the whole year. I love the preparations, the decorating, the lights, the shopping, the snow, the cold, the warmth, the music, the atmosphere, the togetherness, the food, the sweets, the hustle and the bustle. I love the tradition, the gift-giving, parades, preparing music for Midnight Mass, choosing the tree, the family gatherings, the memories, the time off work to spend with my wife and children, the tastes, the smells -- I love it all.
While it may seem like the true reason for our Christmas celebration gets lost, this should be a time a great celebration of when Our Savior became flesh and lived among us. I could launch into a diatribe against the secularization or commercialization of Christmas, or worse yet, the assault on Christianity by our so-called civil libertarians who want to eliminate Christ from Christmas. I could, but not now. I only hope that the judges who agree with this position are willing to remain on the job Christmas day.
Instead, I would like to dwell on the wide range of emotions that flash through my mind on this particular Christmas Day. Being personally involved with many elements of preparation leaves precious little time to concentrate on the plight of others. Having served on the local Park Board for some 27 years, I have assumed annual duties of repairing and hanging street decorations downtown, decorating the town park, and of course, performing similar tasks at home. As a Vincentian, I assist with coordinating the Angel Tree in our church where parishioners can adopt a needy family at Christmastime. Shopping, school programs, and other seasonal activities occupy most every evening after work.
With so much happening, we have little time to think. Then, all of a sudden Christmas Day arrives and it's over. Our loved ones depart for their homes and a certain melancholy feeling settles in. I seem to often find tears in my eyes on Christmas evening and this year is no exception. I think about my oldest son who comes to visit so seldom. He spent Christmas Eve in our home and most likely will not spend another night here until next Christmas, if then. We were so close when he was growing up, but now he seems so distant at times. When he was younger, we worked on projects together. We fixed things together. While our relationship once carried a strong bond of family and faith, something happened that I don't fully understand. How I wish I could fix this, and how I hate to see him drive away.
After spending some time feeling sorry for myself, I think about others who are so much worse off than I am. I think about my cousin who is spending this Christmas alone in a hospital so distant from his home in a desperate fight against the cancer that has ravaged his body. I think about another cousin who may be on the streets of Indianapolis this Christmas night when the temperature is expected to dip below zero. I think about my brother who is blind and confined to a wheelchair. I think about friends who lost their only child, a teenage daughter, to a tragic auto accident this past year. I think about all the families who have loved ones at war, not knowing whether they will ever see them alive again. I think about the elderly couple down the street who may be spending their last Christmas together after 63 years of marriage. I think about all the lonely souls in the Health Facility which we visit. Some of them have no family left to care for them. I wonder about all those who are silently suffering some personal grief this Christmas night with no one to comfort them.
I have so much to be thankful for. I have a wonderful wife, and three great children. We are all healthy and warm. I had two loving parents who were always there for me until they died. I have a sister I am close to and a terrific extended family. I cherish these Christmases because there is no telling how many of them we will have to enjoy together. I have my faith and my Church. I was born into the Body of Christ who was Himself born this day to save us. No amount of preparation or celebration is too much. Thank you God for giving me this Christmas day.
I love Christmastime. I love the entire season. From Thanksgiving to the Epiphany is my favorite time of the whole year. I love the preparations, the decorating, the lights, the shopping, the snow, the cold, the warmth, the music, the atmosphere, the togetherness, the food, the sweets, the hustle and the bustle. I love the tradition, the gift-giving, parades, preparing music for Midnight Mass, choosing the tree, the family gatherings, the memories, the time off work to spend with my wife and children, the tastes, the smells -- I love it all.
While it may seem like the true reason for our Christmas celebration gets lost, this should be a time a great celebration of when Our Savior became flesh and lived among us. I could launch into a diatribe against the secularization or commercialization of Christmas, or worse yet, the assault on Christianity by our so-called civil libertarians who want to eliminate Christ from Christmas. I could, but not now. I only hope that the judges who agree with this position are willing to remain on the job Christmas day.
Instead, I would like to dwell on the wide range of emotions that flash through my mind on this particular Christmas Day. Being personally involved with many elements of preparation leaves precious little time to concentrate on the plight of others. Having served on the local Park Board for some 27 years, I have assumed annual duties of repairing and hanging street decorations downtown, decorating the town park, and of course, performing similar tasks at home. As a Vincentian, I assist with coordinating the Angel Tree in our church where parishioners can adopt a needy family at Christmastime. Shopping, school programs, and other seasonal activities occupy most every evening after work.
With so much happening, we have little time to think. Then, all of a sudden Christmas Day arrives and it's over. Our loved ones depart for their homes and a certain melancholy feeling settles in. I seem to often find tears in my eyes on Christmas evening and this year is no exception. I think about my oldest son who comes to visit so seldom. He spent Christmas Eve in our home and most likely will not spend another night here until next Christmas, if then. We were so close when he was growing up, but now he seems so distant at times. When he was younger, we worked on projects together. We fixed things together. While our relationship once carried a strong bond of family and faith, something happened that I don't fully understand. How I wish I could fix this, and how I hate to see him drive away.
After spending some time feeling sorry for myself, I think about others who are so much worse off than I am. I think about my cousin who is spending this Christmas alone in a hospital so distant from his home in a desperate fight against the cancer that has ravaged his body. I think about another cousin who may be on the streets of Indianapolis this Christmas night when the temperature is expected to dip below zero. I think about my brother who is blind and confined to a wheelchair. I think about friends who lost their only child, a teenage daughter, to a tragic auto accident this past year. I think about all the families who have loved ones at war, not knowing whether they will ever see them alive again. I think about the elderly couple down the street who may be spending their last Christmas together after 63 years of marriage. I think about all the lonely souls in the Health Facility which we visit. Some of them have no family left to care for them. I wonder about all those who are silently suffering some personal grief this Christmas night with no one to comfort them.
I have so much to be thankful for. I have a wonderful wife, and three great children. We are all healthy and warm. I had two loving parents who were always there for me until they died. I have a sister I am close to and a terrific extended family. I cherish these Christmases because there is no telling how many of them we will have to enjoy together. I have my faith and my Church. I was born into the Body of Christ who was Himself born this day to save us. No amount of preparation or celebration is too much. Thank you God for giving me this Christmas day.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Aging Gracefully
Having spent considerable time with an elderly couple during the past year, I sometimes found myself wondering why God allows some people to live way beyond the normal lifespan. I watched their senses deteriorate, their awareness fade, and their health fail. After several falls and other medical emergencies, it became evident that they were no longer able to care for themselves. Fortunately, they were able to afford hiring fulltime live-in care-givers, but even with assistance, their quality of life continued to diminish.
Broken hips, cuts and bruises, surgeries, symptoms of Alzheimer's and daily dealings with pain and suffering made me think about what all of us may be headed for should we live that long. What will happen to those who cannot afford needed care? What will the future hold for the elderly in this society that seems to be losing respect for life? Will euthanasia become an accepted alternative when medical science keeps us going beyond our productive years? Why would God permit people to suffer like this? I wondered if this was their purgatory on earth, paying reparation before death for a faster road to heaven.
Despite all of their problems and being barely ambulatory, this couple insists on attending Mass together every weekend. Other church-goers often wince at the sight of these two octogenarians straining to climb the 13 steps to the vestibule. Sometimes, it appears they just won't make it. They stop, grasping the railing with both hands, reminiscent of Christ struggling to carry His Cross to Calvary.
They pray aloud before each meal, and one can sense a spiritual presence in their home. As various health care providers come to visit, conversation often turns to faith in God. Several of the live-in caregivers who were not particularly religious and had problems of their own, began asking me to pray for them. One of them who was raised Catholic, but had not set foot in a Catholic Church for 35 years, began attending Mass again.
As I witnessed all of this, something suddenly occurred to me. God was still using this elderly couple as an instrument in His hands to bring others closer to Him. These two old people, who many of us had written off as having lived beyond their years, are still doing more important work than any of the rest of us around them. Perhaps they are not even aware of the power of God acting within them, but because their relationship with Him is so alive, others are moved by this spiritual presence in the home.
I also believe that none of these encounters occur by accident. When we allow ourselves to be used in this way, God will bring us together as necessary. Suddenly, we see purpose in the daily struggles of the elderly. Good can come from it, not only through redemptive suffering, but by bringing about conversion in others. There is no more important work on this earth than saving souls, and we are never too old or too weak to allow God to work through us. Life can always have meaning and purpose when we nurture our spiritual relationship with Our Lord.
Having spent considerable time with an elderly couple during the past year, I sometimes found myself wondering why God allows some people to live way beyond the normal lifespan. I watched their senses deteriorate, their awareness fade, and their health fail. After several falls and other medical emergencies, it became evident that they were no longer able to care for themselves. Fortunately, they were able to afford hiring fulltime live-in care-givers, but even with assistance, their quality of life continued to diminish.
Broken hips, cuts and bruises, surgeries, symptoms of Alzheimer's and daily dealings with pain and suffering made me think about what all of us may be headed for should we live that long. What will happen to those who cannot afford needed care? What will the future hold for the elderly in this society that seems to be losing respect for life? Will euthanasia become an accepted alternative when medical science keeps us going beyond our productive years? Why would God permit people to suffer like this? I wondered if this was their purgatory on earth, paying reparation before death for a faster road to heaven.
Despite all of their problems and being barely ambulatory, this couple insists on attending Mass together every weekend. Other church-goers often wince at the sight of these two octogenarians straining to climb the 13 steps to the vestibule. Sometimes, it appears they just won't make it. They stop, grasping the railing with both hands, reminiscent of Christ struggling to carry His Cross to Calvary.
They pray aloud before each meal, and one can sense a spiritual presence in their home. As various health care providers come to visit, conversation often turns to faith in God. Several of the live-in caregivers who were not particularly religious and had problems of their own, began asking me to pray for them. One of them who was raised Catholic, but had not set foot in a Catholic Church for 35 years, began attending Mass again.
As I witnessed all of this, something suddenly occurred to me. God was still using this elderly couple as an instrument in His hands to bring others closer to Him. These two old people, who many of us had written off as having lived beyond their years, are still doing more important work than any of the rest of us around them. Perhaps they are not even aware of the power of God acting within them, but because their relationship with Him is so alive, others are moved by this spiritual presence in the home.
I also believe that none of these encounters occur by accident. When we allow ourselves to be used in this way, God will bring us together as necessary. Suddenly, we see purpose in the daily struggles of the elderly. Good can come from it, not only through redemptive suffering, but by bringing about conversion in others. There is no more important work on this earth than saving souls, and we are never too old or too weak to allow God to work through us. Life can always have meaning and purpose when we nurture our spiritual relationship with Our Lord.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Voting Catholic
Catholics all over the United States are being asked to view a video presentation this weekend on Faithful Citizenship, A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility. With much controversy in the Catholic Community about Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry's position on many moral issues, the Church has taken unprecedented steps to inform Catholic voters of their obligation to support Christian ethics at the polls.
John Kerry calls himself a Catholic, but he supports abortion rights and voted against the ban on partial birth abortion. He supports embryonic stem cell research, and opposes a federal law that would prohibit same-sex marriage. As an active accomplice to intrinsically evil acts, a number of bishops have banned Kerry from receiving Holy Communion. Incumbent President Bush, though not Catholic, stands much more closely aligned with Church teaching on all of these issues.
Traditionally Democratic Catholics find themselves in a dilemma. Any time President Bush tries to appoint a conservative, and presumably pro-life, federal judge, the Democrats block the nomination. Assuming one or two Supreme Court Justices could be appointed during the next four years, the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade may hinge on the upcoming election. It is probably no coincidence that Catholic Bishops have become uncharacteristically vocal about exercising moral responsibility at the voting booth.
Complicating the matter is the perception, mostly perpetrated by the Democrats and the liberal press, that President Bush grossly erred in leading the country into an Iraqi War where more than 1000 Americans have given their lives. Some Catholic priests and bishops have openly preached against the war, and by implication, against the current administration. Many consider their vote to be choosing between the lesser of two evils. Combine this fact with the effort by some to deny tax-exempt status for religious communities who have become too vocal in the political arena, and the result is a number of somewhat ambiguous mandates for political responsibility by Catholic voters.
The video presentation at our parish this evening took about eighteen minutes. It was followed by a discussion among the twenty or so participants, monitored by a parishioner well-known as a leader in the local Democratic party. He raised several questions about how we as Catholics can support all moral issues while not turning our backs on those who are less fortunate than we are. The implication seemed to be that while the abortion issue is important, that voting for the other candidate also carries its share of societal immorality.
Another parishioner, once a high ranking army officer, spoke on the abortion issue saying that the Church has always taught that it is wrong, and we must support this teaching if we are to be faithful Catholics. The moderator did not disagree, but kept coming back to the notion that choices are difficult when other considerations come into play. Our pastor made a remark about God's Law taking precedence over our Civil Law or something to that effect.
The video, like all other statements from the Church regarding the election, never mentions any candidate by name. Even those participating in the discussion were not mentioning names -- at least not until I spoke up! As the moderator seemed to be leading us into a consensus of a no-win situation, I pointed out that the abortion is the key issue here. The possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade is prompting all of this activism within the Church. During the next four years, one or two vacancies on the Supreme Court could occur. If George Bush is re-elected, the possibility exists that abortion rights could be limited or overturned. If John Kerry is elected, there is no chance it will happen.
Our Democrat moderator then asked me a question. "What if George Bush drops a nuclear weapon on Afghanistan and kills another thousand people?" I replied by saying first of all, George Bush is not going to do that. (Afghanistan was holding its first presidential election this very weekend, possibly unbeknownst to our moderator.) Secondly, we don't know whether our situation would be better or worse had John Kerry been president the past four years. An older woman sitting with her husband across from me snapped back that their grandson was serving in Iraq and he had no business being there.
I replied that it's easy to look back and say, 'we should not have done this' or 'we should have done that.' I asked how many lives are being saved because Saddam Hussein is no longer conducting mass killings of Iraqi citizens. The question now is, which of the two candidates more closely aligns themselves with Catholic teaching. The abortion stance is a good moral barometer for determining the basic character of the candidate, and likely indicates how that person will respond to the basic needs of those who are unable to defend themselves.
In view of Church teaching, no faithful Catholic can cast a vote for John Kerry. Doing so puts one in jeopardy of being an accessory to evil should Kerry's election result in the proliferation of abortion. (How's that for an oxymoron?) The non-choice for Catholics on election day is clear. Yet, George Bush did not follow Church teaching either in the invasion of Iraq. Can we make a distinction between him and his opponent in terms of moral responsibility?
One may certainly argue that had George Bush not invaded Iraq, more that a thousand American soldiers would still be alive today. So would hundreds of terrorists. An evil dictator would still be in power and his people would still be living in hopeless fear. Who knows how many others innocent people, now living, would have died at his hands? We just don't know. We do know that the President did nothing intrinsically evil, even by Church standards. The Church allows for Just Wars under certain circumstances. Whether the Iraq war can be justified is certainly debatable. The President did what he thought was the necessary thing to do in view of the information he had, and that decision was supported at the time by most others in Congress, including John Kerry. The real question involves which issues are subject to debate.
Catholic Answers, Karl Keating's lay apostolate, has published a Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics which lists five non-negotiable issues which no Catholic can support. Those five issues are Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, and Same-sex Marriage. The statement on their web site says, "It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues." These are five issues where debate is not an option for Catholics.
Generally speaking, the Republican platform comes closest to the Catholic position on all of these issues, while the Democrats typically stand in opposition. Never has this polarization been more evident. Pro-life Democrats exist, but they are few and far between, especially on the State and Federal level. The Florida Supreme Court recently declared that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube can be removed to allow the brain-damaged woman to slowly starve to death. Many states are now allowing homosexual unions, and a federal bill to prevent same-sex marriage was recently defeated in the Senate. Even human cloning is certain to become a divisive issue when someone figures out how to do it.
While much of the current political rhetoric focuses on Iraq, the Christian conservatives are quietly girding their loins in preparation for an election day attack on Kerry and like-minded liberals. For once, practicing Catholics may be following suit. Past social concerns that may have attracted them to the Democratic party, have been overshadowed by outrage over a 'Catholic' voting against a ban on partial birth abortion. With the polls predicting a close race, an unusually large Christian turnout is likely in November.
If we as Catholics are serious about our citizenship responsibilities, we must cast our votes for candidates who do not violate the basic principles of our Faith. To do otherwise is a grave sin. Many life-long Catholic Democrats justify their votes with concocted moral loopholes. They may say that both Presidential Candidates have moral deficiencies thereby allowing some justifiable discretion for staying within party lines. They may argue that John Kerry does not like abortion, but respects its legality under the Constitution whereas George Bush is a warmonger who is responsible for many unnecessary deaths. The fact is, any mistakes the President may have made were not motivated by an ideology rooted in evil.
Others may say that the President does not have the power to overturn Roe v. Wade anyway, so whichever candidate is elected will make little difference. This is simply not true. Presidents appoint federal judges. During the past four years, every conservative judicial nominee named by President Bush has been opposed by the Democrats. Many of these judges may someday be in a position to decide cases relevant to the non-negotiable Catholic issues.
The outcome of the November election will directly affect the moral direction this country takes. We can not support those who are allied with the culture of death. To do so contributes to the acceptance of evil in our society. We can put pressure on the Democratic party to moderate their platform to more closely conform to mainstream Christian values by sending a message in November. It is our duty as Catholic Americans.
Catholics all over the United States are being asked to view a video presentation this weekend on Faithful Citizenship, A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility. With much controversy in the Catholic Community about Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry's position on many moral issues, the Church has taken unprecedented steps to inform Catholic voters of their obligation to support Christian ethics at the polls.
John Kerry calls himself a Catholic, but he supports abortion rights and voted against the ban on partial birth abortion. He supports embryonic stem cell research, and opposes a federal law that would prohibit same-sex marriage. As an active accomplice to intrinsically evil acts, a number of bishops have banned Kerry from receiving Holy Communion. Incumbent President Bush, though not Catholic, stands much more closely aligned with Church teaching on all of these issues.
Traditionally Democratic Catholics find themselves in a dilemma. Any time President Bush tries to appoint a conservative, and presumably pro-life, federal judge, the Democrats block the nomination. Assuming one or two Supreme Court Justices could be appointed during the next four years, the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade may hinge on the upcoming election. It is probably no coincidence that Catholic Bishops have become uncharacteristically vocal about exercising moral responsibility at the voting booth.
Complicating the matter is the perception, mostly perpetrated by the Democrats and the liberal press, that President Bush grossly erred in leading the country into an Iraqi War where more than 1000 Americans have given their lives. Some Catholic priests and bishops have openly preached against the war, and by implication, against the current administration. Many consider their vote to be choosing between the lesser of two evils. Combine this fact with the effort by some to deny tax-exempt status for religious communities who have become too vocal in the political arena, and the result is a number of somewhat ambiguous mandates for political responsibility by Catholic voters.
The video presentation at our parish this evening took about eighteen minutes. It was followed by a discussion among the twenty or so participants, monitored by a parishioner well-known as a leader in the local Democratic party. He raised several questions about how we as Catholics can support all moral issues while not turning our backs on those who are less fortunate than we are. The implication seemed to be that while the abortion issue is important, that voting for the other candidate also carries its share of societal immorality.
Another parishioner, once a high ranking army officer, spoke on the abortion issue saying that the Church has always taught that it is wrong, and we must support this teaching if we are to be faithful Catholics. The moderator did not disagree, but kept coming back to the notion that choices are difficult when other considerations come into play. Our pastor made a remark about God's Law taking precedence over our Civil Law or something to that effect.
The video, like all other statements from the Church regarding the election, never mentions any candidate by name. Even those participating in the discussion were not mentioning names -- at least not until I spoke up! As the moderator seemed to be leading us into a consensus of a no-win situation, I pointed out that the abortion is the key issue here. The possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade is prompting all of this activism within the Church. During the next four years, one or two vacancies on the Supreme Court could occur. If George Bush is re-elected, the possibility exists that abortion rights could be limited or overturned. If John Kerry is elected, there is no chance it will happen.
Our Democrat moderator then asked me a question. "What if George Bush drops a nuclear weapon on Afghanistan and kills another thousand people?" I replied by saying first of all, George Bush is not going to do that. (Afghanistan was holding its first presidential election this very weekend, possibly unbeknownst to our moderator.) Secondly, we don't know whether our situation would be better or worse had John Kerry been president the past four years. An older woman sitting with her husband across from me snapped back that their grandson was serving in Iraq and he had no business being there.
I replied that it's easy to look back and say, 'we should not have done this' or 'we should have done that.' I asked how many lives are being saved because Saddam Hussein is no longer conducting mass killings of Iraqi citizens. The question now is, which of the two candidates more closely aligns themselves with Catholic teaching. The abortion stance is a good moral barometer for determining the basic character of the candidate, and likely indicates how that person will respond to the basic needs of those who are unable to defend themselves.
In view of Church teaching, no faithful Catholic can cast a vote for John Kerry. Doing so puts one in jeopardy of being an accessory to evil should Kerry's election result in the proliferation of abortion. (How's that for an oxymoron?) The non-choice for Catholics on election day is clear. Yet, George Bush did not follow Church teaching either in the invasion of Iraq. Can we make a distinction between him and his opponent in terms of moral responsibility?
One may certainly argue that had George Bush not invaded Iraq, more that a thousand American soldiers would still be alive today. So would hundreds of terrorists. An evil dictator would still be in power and his people would still be living in hopeless fear. Who knows how many others innocent people, now living, would have died at his hands? We just don't know. We do know that the President did nothing intrinsically evil, even by Church standards. The Church allows for Just Wars under certain circumstances. Whether the Iraq war can be justified is certainly debatable. The President did what he thought was the necessary thing to do in view of the information he had, and that decision was supported at the time by most others in Congress, including John Kerry. The real question involves which issues are subject to debate.
Catholic Answers, Karl Keating's lay apostolate, has published a Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics which lists five non-negotiable issues which no Catholic can support. Those five issues are Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, and Same-sex Marriage. The statement on their web site says, "It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues." These are five issues where debate is not an option for Catholics.
Generally speaking, the Republican platform comes closest to the Catholic position on all of these issues, while the Democrats typically stand in opposition. Never has this polarization been more evident. Pro-life Democrats exist, but they are few and far between, especially on the State and Federal level. The Florida Supreme Court recently declared that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube can be removed to allow the brain-damaged woman to slowly starve to death. Many states are now allowing homosexual unions, and a federal bill to prevent same-sex marriage was recently defeated in the Senate. Even human cloning is certain to become a divisive issue when someone figures out how to do it.
While much of the current political rhetoric focuses on Iraq, the Christian conservatives are quietly girding their loins in preparation for an election day attack on Kerry and like-minded liberals. For once, practicing Catholics may be following suit. Past social concerns that may have attracted them to the Democratic party, have been overshadowed by outrage over a 'Catholic' voting against a ban on partial birth abortion. With the polls predicting a close race, an unusually large Christian turnout is likely in November.
If we as Catholics are serious about our citizenship responsibilities, we must cast our votes for candidates who do not violate the basic principles of our Faith. To do otherwise is a grave sin. Many life-long Catholic Democrats justify their votes with concocted moral loopholes. They may say that both Presidential Candidates have moral deficiencies thereby allowing some justifiable discretion for staying within party lines. They may argue that John Kerry does not like abortion, but respects its legality under the Constitution whereas George Bush is a warmonger who is responsible for many unnecessary deaths. The fact is, any mistakes the President may have made were not motivated by an ideology rooted in evil.
Others may say that the President does not have the power to overturn Roe v. Wade anyway, so whichever candidate is elected will make little difference. This is simply not true. Presidents appoint federal judges. During the past four years, every conservative judicial nominee named by President Bush has been opposed by the Democrats. Many of these judges may someday be in a position to decide cases relevant to the non-negotiable Catholic issues.
The outcome of the November election will directly affect the moral direction this country takes. We can not support those who are allied with the culture of death. To do so contributes to the acceptance of evil in our society. We can put pressure on the Democratic party to moderate their platform to more closely conform to mainstream Christian values by sending a message in November. It is our duty as Catholic Americans.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
The Nature of His Presence
In my earlier efforts to emphatically describe the Reality of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, I sometimes said that He is physically present. By this, I meant to contrast the Protestant belief of a mere spiritual or metaphorical presence. I used the word physical to convey that we can perceive Him with our senses, though the appearance is bread and wine.
The September, 2004 issue of This Rock Magazine contained a letter to the editor from Richard Gaillardetz, the author of a book titled By What Authority, in response to a Book Review which appeared in This Rock last March. The reviewer criticized the book on several points and accused Gaillardetz of believing that Christ is present in the Eucharist "symbolically but not physically." In Gaillardetz's letter, he says that both Augustine and Aquinas insisted that the Eucharistic Body of Christ was not Christ's physical body. Rather Christ is present in a real but spiritual manner. Then he quotes an Aquinas commentary on Augustine to back his argument.
James Kidd, the author of the critical Book Review, responded in the September issue by acknowledging that "it is true that the Church does not teach that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist". This exchange forced me to reevaluate my description of the Holy Eucharist. The problem lies not in my misunderstanding the nature of the Eucharist, but rather in my misunderstanding of the word physical. The first definition in my dictionary says "of nature and all matter." To me, physical meant having substance or form, perceptible to the senses. While we often use the word in that way, it carries a deeper philosophical meaning which renders it inappropriate when describing the nature of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.
The July/August, 2000 issue of Envoy Magazine contains discussion on this topic in some detail, pointing out that the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, all avoid using the word physical when describing the Real Presence. The editor includes the following statement:
Whether Christ's real presence in the Sacrament is "physical" depends on how we choose to define "physical," since the Magisterium hasn't defined this term for us as a way of speaking about the matter. Some orthodox Catholic writers have used the word in this regard, and if we use it in the popular sense of "material" or "corporeal," then the Church does in fact affirm such a "physical" presence. On the other hand, if we define the term in such a way that we would argue against a "physical" presence, then we must make clear that in doing so we don't mean to imply that the presence is merely "spiritual," "symbolic," or "psychological."
This is where the confusion arises. I originally used the word physical to emphasize that Christ is Bodily present, and what appears to be bread and wine is NOT bread and wine. What we see, feel, hear, smell, and taste is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the same Body and Blood sacrificed on Calvary, made Present on the altar today. Yet, the accidents, or appearance of bread and wine normally remains, and philosophically, we must distinguish between the appearance and the substance. By proper definition, we cannot say the presence is physical because it is not natural. Rather, it is supernatural. The substance changes, but the accidents do not. Therefore, I used the term physical incorrectly.
As the Envoy editor points out, a problem arises when we Catholics try to describe the nature of the Holy Eucharist to our Protestant brothers and sisters. If we say the Presence is not physical, most will take us to mean it is symbolic. On the other hand, when I used the word physical during a discussion with an Evangelical Protestant, he thought I was claiming the Body and Blood could be discerned by laboratory analysis. How do we avoid the word physical and convey the reality? I can now empathize with the Council of Trent. Confronted with this dilemma in 1551, they coined a new word,
Transubstantiation, to describe what happens during the consecration. Today, we are still challenged to find English words to adequately explain what it means.
If Christ is not physically present, what term can we use? Substantially present? Sounds too much like mostly present. Really present may not adequately convey the change in substance that actually takes place. We can say that He is Sacramentally present, but non-Catholics will probably interpret this as a symbolic existence.
The Envoy magazine article noted above, quotes the Council of Trent's explanation. It says the following: "In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things." Perhaps the Council's repetitative emphasis says it best. What appears to be bread and wine, is truly, really and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ.
In my earlier efforts to emphatically describe the Reality of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, I sometimes said that He is physically present. By this, I meant to contrast the Protestant belief of a mere spiritual or metaphorical presence. I used the word physical to convey that we can perceive Him with our senses, though the appearance is bread and wine.
The September, 2004 issue of This Rock Magazine contained a letter to the editor from Richard Gaillardetz, the author of a book titled By What Authority, in response to a Book Review which appeared in This Rock last March. The reviewer criticized the book on several points and accused Gaillardetz of believing that Christ is present in the Eucharist "symbolically but not physically." In Gaillardetz's letter, he says that both Augustine and Aquinas insisted that the Eucharistic Body of Christ was not Christ's physical body. Rather Christ is present in a real but spiritual manner. Then he quotes an Aquinas commentary on Augustine to back his argument.
James Kidd, the author of the critical Book Review, responded in the September issue by acknowledging that "it is true that the Church does not teach that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist". This exchange forced me to reevaluate my description of the Holy Eucharist. The problem lies not in my misunderstanding the nature of the Eucharist, but rather in my misunderstanding of the word physical. The first definition in my dictionary says "of nature and all matter." To me, physical meant having substance or form, perceptible to the senses. While we often use the word in that way, it carries a deeper philosophical meaning which renders it inappropriate when describing the nature of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.
The July/August, 2000 issue of Envoy Magazine contains discussion on this topic in some detail, pointing out that the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, all avoid using the word physical when describing the Real Presence. The editor includes the following statement:
Whether Christ's real presence in the Sacrament is "physical" depends on how we choose to define "physical," since the Magisterium hasn't defined this term for us as a way of speaking about the matter. Some orthodox Catholic writers have used the word in this regard, and if we use it in the popular sense of "material" or "corporeal," then the Church does in fact affirm such a "physical" presence. On the other hand, if we define the term in such a way that we would argue against a "physical" presence, then we must make clear that in doing so we don't mean to imply that the presence is merely "spiritual," "symbolic," or "psychological."
This is where the confusion arises. I originally used the word physical to emphasize that Christ is Bodily present, and what appears to be bread and wine is NOT bread and wine. What we see, feel, hear, smell, and taste is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the same Body and Blood sacrificed on Calvary, made Present on the altar today. Yet, the accidents, or appearance of bread and wine normally remains, and philosophically, we must distinguish between the appearance and the substance. By proper definition, we cannot say the presence is physical because it is not natural. Rather, it is supernatural. The substance changes, but the accidents do not. Therefore, I used the term physical incorrectly.
As the Envoy editor points out, a problem arises when we Catholics try to describe the nature of the Holy Eucharist to our Protestant brothers and sisters. If we say the Presence is not physical, most will take us to mean it is symbolic. On the other hand, when I used the word physical during a discussion with an Evangelical Protestant, he thought I was claiming the Body and Blood could be discerned by laboratory analysis. How do we avoid the word physical and convey the reality? I can now empathize with the Council of Trent. Confronted with this dilemma in 1551, they coined a new word,
Transubstantiation, to describe what happens during the consecration. Today, we are still challenged to find English words to adequately explain what it means.
If Christ is not physically present, what term can we use? Substantially present? Sounds too much like mostly present. Really present may not adequately convey the change in substance that actually takes place. We can say that He is Sacramentally present, but non-Catholics will probably interpret this as a symbolic existence.
The Envoy magazine article noted above, quotes the Council of Trent's explanation. It says the following: "In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things." Perhaps the Council's repetitative emphasis says it best. What appears to be bread and wine, is truly, really and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Bringing Up Father
Our church building was erected in 1910. The architecture is modeled after the European Cathedrals of that era, being long and narrow with high ceilings and many steps. In those days, people were not so concerned with access for people with disabilities. Wheelchairs were large and unwieldy. Anyone confined to one would not even attempt to attend Mass. In recent years, the Americans with Disabilities Act has brought accessibility needs to the forefront.
A few people left our parish because our previous pastor refused to even consider modifying the church entrance for accessibility. Perhaps he had more insight than for which we gave him credit. Most parishioners with a penchant to opine, chastised him soundly for his unwillingness to help the disabled get to Mass. They rejoiced when his replacement was announced. Finally, we will get our ramp! Well, it did not turn out to be that simple. Two years later, the struggle continues.
Retrofitting such a structure to make it accessible can be difficult if not impossible. The biggest obstacle has been coming up with a design which serves the purpose at a reasonable cost. While a ramp may seem like a simple solution, it is not. To meet ADA requirements, it must be about sixty feet long. Once a wheelchair is transported to the landing at the door, one more four-inch step awaits. The landing is narrow and the closest doors are too small to accommodate a wheelchair. The brick walls and arches over the doors make them impossible to enlarge.
Our parish council has come up with three possible designs to make the church accessible. All three have downsides. Two involve ramps and one involves a lift. All three require drastic modifications to the front of the church. None provide access to the church hall downstairs. Better solutions exist, but they are expensive.
Compounding the problem is a pastor who has little aesthetic savvy. A proponent of post-Vatican II modernism, he would not hesitate to desecrate the old to conform to the new, squeezing square pegs into the round holes if necessary. His emphasis on horizontal worship surfaces in the accessibility debate also. A meeting of the parish council was held earlier this month where a vote to select one of the three proposals was to be taken. Father provided those in attendance with a written statement which contained the following passage:
"Evidently the many stairs that led up to the Church proper reflected the poor theological mindset of that day, that is, God is 'up there' in the Heavens or riding mysteriously on some cloud and everything and everyone else was below. Recall the picture that depicted the hierarchical arrangement of Heaven & Earth in the older Bibles? As people finally ascended the stairs and entered the Church building they were drawn to that concept with the adorned ceiling that displayed such artistry and celebrated the Tridentine style of worship as to where the focus was magically and mysteriously 'up there'. The Communion Rail and Choir Loft both served to enhance such a concept."
I wonder where we ever picked up that "poor theological mindset." Perusing the New Testament alone, I found 42 references to God being 'up there' in the heavens. Include other passages in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, Eucharistic Prayer I (Roman Canon), and the fact that we celebrate Christ's ASCENSION, it is not difficult to understand why we look up to seek God. Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord. Jesus Himself used this imagery frequently. Too bad none of the modernists were around then to correct Him.
Many Biblical accounts describe Jesus "looking up to heaven" when He performed miracles. (Mk 6:41, Mk 7:34, Matt 9:16, Matt 14:19) We read of angels descending from heaven (Matt 28:2), the Holy Spirit descending from heaven. (Lk 3:22) (John 1:32-33) "So then the Lord Jesus . . . . was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God." (Mk 16:19) ". . . . and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matt 24:30) "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." (John 3:3) "For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (John 6:33) And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself." (John 12:32)
There are many more. "For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead of Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." (1Thess 4:16-17) "What does 'he ascended' mean except that he also descended into the [regions] of the earth? The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things." (Eph 4:9-10) [All Bible quotations are from the New American Bible.]
Are skyward images of God figurative? Maybe. Maybe not. The point is, Scripture teaches us to think in these terms. This 'mindset' was taught by Jesus, and alarms should go off when someone tells us His mindset was theologically 'poor'. Even if this image is personification, a sort of Divinity for Dummies concept of God, we cannot go wrong adopting it as Jesus did. Only by imitating His Human Nature will we someday partake in His Divine Nature.
Our church building was erected in 1910. The architecture is modeled after the European Cathedrals of that era, being long and narrow with high ceilings and many steps. In those days, people were not so concerned with access for people with disabilities. Wheelchairs were large and unwieldy. Anyone confined to one would not even attempt to attend Mass. In recent years, the Americans with Disabilities Act has brought accessibility needs to the forefront.
A few people left our parish because our previous pastor refused to even consider modifying the church entrance for accessibility. Perhaps he had more insight than for which we gave him credit. Most parishioners with a penchant to opine, chastised him soundly for his unwillingness to help the disabled get to Mass. They rejoiced when his replacement was announced. Finally, we will get our ramp! Well, it did not turn out to be that simple. Two years later, the struggle continues.
Retrofitting such a structure to make it accessible can be difficult if not impossible. The biggest obstacle has been coming up with a design which serves the purpose at a reasonable cost. While a ramp may seem like a simple solution, it is not. To meet ADA requirements, it must be about sixty feet long. Once a wheelchair is transported to the landing at the door, one more four-inch step awaits. The landing is narrow and the closest doors are too small to accommodate a wheelchair. The brick walls and arches over the doors make them impossible to enlarge.
Our parish council has come up with three possible designs to make the church accessible. All three have downsides. Two involve ramps and one involves a lift. All three require drastic modifications to the front of the church. None provide access to the church hall downstairs. Better solutions exist, but they are expensive.
Compounding the problem is a pastor who has little aesthetic savvy. A proponent of post-Vatican II modernism, he would not hesitate to desecrate the old to conform to the new, squeezing square pegs into the round holes if necessary. His emphasis on horizontal worship surfaces in the accessibility debate also. A meeting of the parish council was held earlier this month where a vote to select one of the three proposals was to be taken. Father provided those in attendance with a written statement which contained the following passage:
"Evidently the many stairs that led up to the Church proper reflected the poor theological mindset of that day, that is, God is 'up there' in the Heavens or riding mysteriously on some cloud and everything and everyone else was below. Recall the picture that depicted the hierarchical arrangement of Heaven & Earth in the older Bibles? As people finally ascended the stairs and entered the Church building they were drawn to that concept with the adorned ceiling that displayed such artistry and celebrated the Tridentine style of worship as to where the focus was magically and mysteriously 'up there'. The Communion Rail and Choir Loft both served to enhance such a concept."
I wonder where we ever picked up that "poor theological mindset." Perusing the New Testament alone, I found 42 references to God being 'up there' in the heavens. Include other passages in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, Eucharistic Prayer I (Roman Canon), and the fact that we celebrate Christ's ASCENSION, it is not difficult to understand why we look up to seek God. Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord. Jesus Himself used this imagery frequently. Too bad none of the modernists were around then to correct Him.
Many Biblical accounts describe Jesus "looking up to heaven" when He performed miracles. (Mk 6:41, Mk 7:34, Matt 9:16, Matt 14:19) We read of angels descending from heaven (Matt 28:2), the Holy Spirit descending from heaven. (Lk 3:22) (John 1:32-33) "So then the Lord Jesus . . . . was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God." (Mk 16:19) ". . . . and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matt 24:30) "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." (John 3:3) "For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (John 6:33) And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself." (John 12:32)
There are many more. "For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead of Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." (1Thess 4:16-17) "What does 'he ascended' mean except that he also descended into the [regions] of the earth? The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things." (Eph 4:9-10) [All Bible quotations are from the New American Bible.]
Are skyward images of God figurative? Maybe. Maybe not. The point is, Scripture teaches us to think in these terms. This 'mindset' was taught by Jesus, and alarms should go off when someone tells us His mindset was theologically 'poor'. Even if this image is personification, a sort of Divinity for Dummies concept of God, we cannot go wrong adopting it as Jesus did. Only by imitating His Human Nature will we someday partake in His Divine Nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)