Bias time again

We were eating lunch one day with my son and his family when the conversation turned to plans for Thanksgiving.  My fifth-grade grandson remarked that Thanksgiving was a made-up holiday.  Is that what they teach you in school, I asked.  He said yes.  My wife, who happens to be on the school board said, “Did your teacher say that?”  My grandson replied in the affirmative.  He appeared to be learning a negative view of the colonization of America. 

A week or so later, my grandson was doing his Social Studies homework at our house.  When he was finished, I asked to look at the textbooks titled Indiana Social Studies, The United States: Making a New Nation. (Harcourt School Publishers).  I went to the index and looked for Catholic Church.  On page 133, I found a section on Missionaries to America.  Below is a transcript of five paragraphs from the textbook with my thoughts inserted in brackets and a few links added for contrasting viewpoints:

    “While the conquistadors were exploring the Americas, many changes were taking place in Europe.  Some people began to question the power [authority?] of the Catholic Church.  At the time, the Church forced [?] people [Catholics] to follow its rules [not teach heresy] and to pay taxes [?].  It even had its own courts [still do]. The courts could punish [admonish] people [Catholics] for disagreeing [teaching heresy] with Church laws [dogma].”

    “In 1517, A German priest named Martin Luther began to call openly for reforms, or changes, in the Catholic Church.  This period of reforms is called the Reformation.  Luther was forced out [excommunicated] of the Church, but he gained many supporters.  Those who protested the actions of Catholic leaders [magisterial authority] became known at Protestants.  They began new churches, including the Lutheran Church [and eventually many others].”

    “As a result, the Catholic Church made some changes.  It also tried to keep its power [maintain unity] through efforts now called the Counter-Reformation.  The Church banned books that went [promoted heresy] against its teachings.  People [Heretics] who protested Catholic laws were punished [admonished] in Church courts [or Councils].”

    “During the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church worked on spreading its power [Christianity] to the Americas.  Church leaders wanted to gain new followers [converts].  They also wanted to share in the wealth [prosperity?] of the lands claimed by European countries.  To do this, the Church sent religious teachers, or missionaries, to convert Native Americans to the Catholic Church.  Soon after coming to the Americas, missionaries held ceremonies [Baptisms?] to make [share the gospel with] Native Americans they met Catholic.”

    “It was not until later [?] that the missionaries actually started [continued] teaching them about Catholic beliefs.  Some missionaries forced [?] Native Americans to become Catholic and also enslaved them [No. See articles linked below].  Many Native Americans fought to hold on to their beliefs, but others were forced [chose] to change how they lived and worshipped.”

I’m no historian, but I know Protestant bias when I see it.  The textbook author paints the Church in a negative light whether intentional or not.  When human beings are involved, abuses are bound to take place, but this was not by decree of the Church.  The Spanish conquistadors encountered Aztec ritual human sacrifices and fought to stop the practice.  As I write this today on December 12, we celebrate the Solemnity of Our Lady of Guadalupe who by her miraculous appearance in Mexico brought about the conversion of some nine million Aztecs to the Catholic faith.  Of course, you will not learn this in a secular history textbook.  

Finally!

Thank God the election is over.  The barrage of annoying political ads have finally ceased, at least for a while.  I often wonder how stupid the candidates must think we are.  Unfortunately, they may be right.  People make bad choices every day.  Those same people help choose our leaders.    

I must say I was surprised by the result of the presidential election.  As I have stated before, the abortion stance is a litmus test for me.  While it may seem inconsequential for determining a candidate’s qualifications to develop foreign and domestic policies, I believe it is a strong indicator of one’s moral compass.  While I saw many more Trump signs in our conservative Indiana, I was also very aware of a strong dislike for him personally.  Several women I know view him only as a sexual predator and convicted felon.  I viewed the election as a choice between two platforms and how they aligned with my own ideals.  The candidate’s character, though important, was less important.

As a Catholic, I could not vote for someone who refused to place any limits on abortion.  In fact, I fail to see how any practicing Catholic could still consider themselves a Democrat these days.  Nonetheless, I know Catholics in my own family who voted Democratic.  They have their reasons.  I just disagree.  

The day after the election, my wife and I had lunch at a local café.  An elderly woman who works there part time was lamenting the fact that Trump won.  She brought up all the pro-choice talking points, rape, incest, and all the women who are going to die because they can’t get an abortion.  Another Mexican friend who has been an American citizen for many decades supposed that he would be deported.  So sad that so many people latch onto the incessant fearmongering. 

My wife was moved by the story of the Texas woman who died when doctors said they could not intervene in her miscarriage due to strict anti-abortion laws in the state.  She says she is against abortion but believes these decisions should be left to the woman and her doctors.  I might agree in the rare situations where the death of the woman or her child is imminent.  The problem, aside from the fact that the baby has no say in this decision, is doctors will protect their own interests.  They want to make sure the patient is aware of every possible bad outcome in a higher risk pregnancy even when those chances are minimal.  They are less likely to face a wrongful death lawsuit from the unborn baby than from the mother. Even in relatively routine minor surgeries, someone on the medical team will often make the patient aware of rare unintended consequences.  

My wife said she was disappointed in our citizens who would elect a convicted felon to the presidency.  Personally, I believe his conviction was politically motivated.  Maybe Trump inflated his property values to obtain loans, but his lenders are no fools.  They knew with whom they were dealing and were undoubtedly comfortable doing so.  His wealth and demeanor make him disliked by many, but it is hard to argue with his success as a businessman.

As a pro-life Catholic, I am encouraged by the conservative outcome on election day.  Yes, I wish the executive branch was manned by someone a little less egocentric, but no candidate is perfect.  Should vacancies appear on the Supreme Court, I am confident the Republicans will nominate justices who support the constitution rather than an ideology.  The next four years will be interesting.  I remain optimistic.  

Public prayer

October is the month of the Holy Rosary.  A few members of our parish take the opportunity to hold an outdoor Rosary Rally at a prominent intersection in our town.  Our pastor asked that everybody attend at noon on Saturday.  He said it is important that we be seen.   A question arose concerning whether such rallies held in the public square violate Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 6.

 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward.”  Matthew 6:5  RSVCE

The next verse says, “But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”  A footnote in the RSVCE says, This does not, of course, exclude public worship but ostentatious prayer. Merriam Webster defines ostentatious as attracting or seeking to attract attention, admiration, or envy often by gaudiness or obviousness.

Why is the Rosary Rally held in public view?  The warning in Matthew 6 seems to be directed to those who wish to attract attention to themselves.  I doubt that any of those saying the Rosary in public are doing it for their own aggrandizement.  Yet, why not then pray the Rosary in the church in front of the Blessed Sacrament?  There must be some purpose to praying in view of the public.  

Praying the Rosary in front of an abortion clinic in an effort to dissuade a woman from killing her unborn baby is a situation where being seen would be necessary.  Obviously not every instance of praying in public is prohibited by Matthew 6.  We need to read this passage in context.  The culpability of the person praying in public depends on intent.  Jesus was condemning men who were seeking praise for themselves.  

Getting back to our parish Rosary Rally, it seems those in attendance need to understand their reason for being there.  Is it possible some may come only hoping to be seen by their friends or neighbors?  It’s possible.  Our motivation can be disordered at times.  Is the rosary more efficacious prayed on a public street corner than in the church?  Does Matthew 6 say otherwise?  Is the answer yet to be seen?

Our rally had about a dozen people in attendance, including two priests.  They displayed a large banner from an organization called America Needs Fatima that says, “Pray the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary asking God to save America.”  The photo on the banner is the Our Lady of Fatima statue.  It is likely that most spectators passing by were non-Catholic.  If the rally somehow inspires someone to investigate the rosary prayer, that would be wonderful.  I fear it is more likely to reinforce the false protestant belief that we Catholics worship Mary more than Jesus.

Public displays of worship certainly have a place in our Catholic faith.  We have large open-air Masses on special occasions, Eucharistic processions of the Blessed Sacrament, even the Easter Vigil Mass begins outdoors in public view.  In those events, the larger numbers make individual identification less likely thus diminishing the opportunity for any hypocritical behavior.  Perhaps the most critical point here is that we not question the motives of others and continue praying, no matter where we are.  

 

Future Angst

I am very fortunate to be in relatively good health for my age.  In a few days, I will begin my seventy-fifth year on the planet.  I have all original parts minus one gall bladder.  My wife, on the other hand, had a hip replaced three weeks ago.  Taking care of her since then has given me a glimpse of what lies on the horizon for people my age.  Watching a once vibrant energetic woman hunched over a walker, grimacing as she tries to sit down or get into bed, has suddenly made me feel like an old man.  The guy in the mirror has aged significantly since earlier this summer. 

I have heard people say that age creeps up on you.  A sudden pain or an awkward fall can change one’s life in a heartbeat.   We avoid focusing on impending mortality until some episode brings it to the forefront.  Even if I live another ten years, much of that time could be spent alone in a nursing home or hospital.

Last month, we had a new roof put on our house.  I was interested in getting one of the new metal roof systems that look like conventional asphalt shingles.  They are durable and less likely to shed the little granules that tend to plug up my leaf guard gutter shields.  The downside is the cost, considerably higher than asphalt shingles.  I asked the salesman to price both types of roofing for the purpose of comparison.  The asphalt roof comes with a thirty-year warranty while the metal roof has a fifty-year warranty.

When it came time to deciding which way to go, I was set to choose the metal roof, but the salesman said, “Can I be honest with you?  Go with the asphalt shingle.  At your age, why spend the extra money for a fifty-year warranty?”  Ouch!  Of course, there could be reasons for doing so if the house will eventually be handed down to a family member, but that is no certainty.  I thought about it and agreed.  We now have a new asphalt shingle roof and a thirty-year warranty that will last until I am one hundred and five.

I have come to acknowledge my mortal existence.  While making plans for living is most desirable, we really need to prepare for dying.  Time passes so quickly and there is no going back.  Always be ready for that judgement day that may come unexpectedly.  

Speaking of an uncertain future, I watched the recent debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.  We are not talking Lincoln Douglas material here.  This was difficult to watch.  Who ever dreamed that a candidate in a presidential debate would bring up an unfounded rumor of Haitian immigrants eating dogs and cats in Springfield Ohio?  You can’t make this stuff up.  On second thought, I guess somebody did.  How incredulous can a person be!

Pope Francis said sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils when voting in an election.  As Americans, we should never have to choose between two people so completely unfit to lead our nation.  Both parties should be ashamed.  One of these two will likely be President of the United States for the next four years.

I have said this before, but my litmus test for a presidential candidate is his or her stance on respect for human life.  Harris is so completely pro-abortion that I could never vote for her.  Trump claims to be pro-life, but is also pro IVF which tells me he does not understand what true respect for life entails.  Unnaturally creating embryos, many of which will be frozen and never allowed to grow, is inconsistent with respecting life from conception to natural death.  

In elections like this one, I wish there were a way to cast a negative vote.  I may not want to vote for either candidate, yet I know which candidate is the lesser of two evils.  If I do not vote at all, I risk allowing the greater evil to prevail.  If I vote for the lesser evil, I am still voting for evil which violates my conscience.  By casting an anti-vote for the greater evil, my disapproving vote goes against the greater evil without violating my conscience.  Unfortunately, we don’t have that option.  

On election day, I often see people wearing those little stickers with the American flag that say, “I Voted!”  Similar looking stickers available on the internet say, “I Vomited”.  I may need to place an order!

Do you have life within you?

During this month of August, the Year B Lectionary is digressing from the Gospel of Mark at Sunday Mass.  Beginning on the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time and continuing for five weeks until the Twenty-first Sunday, we hear John, chapter 6, which includes the Bread of Life Discourse.  When instructing catechumens in the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist, John 6 is one of the go-to scriptural references. 

John 6:52-58

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying,

"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 

Jesus said to them,

"Amen, amen, I say to you,

unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,

you do not have life within you. 

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood

has eternal life,

and I will raise him on the last day. 

For my flesh is true food,

and my blood is true drink. 

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood

remains in me and I in him. 

Just as the living Father sent me

and I have life because of the Father,

so also the one who feeds on me

will have life because of me. 

This is the bread that came down from heaven. 

Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died,

whoever eats this bread will live forever."

I have never understood how Bible-alone believing Christians can read this passage and not take it literally.  How much more emphasis could Jesus have placed on His words?  I pose this question to our Protestant brothers and sisters: Do you have life within you if you do not eat His flesh and drink His blood?

The sacrifice of the Mass is a re-presentation of the same once and for all sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.  Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb of God.  Like the animal sacrifices offered under the Old Covenant, this perfect sacrifice in the New Covenant must be offered by a ministerial priest.  Where else besides the Catholic Church can one find a continuous line of ministerial priests to act in the person of Christ in offering the bread and wine that become the body and blood?

Normally when the bread and wine are consecrated in the sacrifice of the Mass, the accidents or appearances remain while only the substance changes into the body and blood.  The Church calls this change transubstantiation, the change of substances.  Last week in our OCIA (RCIA) class, we examined some of the rare occasions where the appearance or species of the host also changed.  Where those miracles have occurred and could be scientifically examined, the bloody substance was determined to be heart tissue from a heart that had suffered damage, the blood type AB.  Think about that next time you receive Holy Communion!

(See the Eucharistic Miracles of Buenos Aires, Lanciano, and others.).

Shifting gears

Since 2022, our parish has participated in a synod process ordered by our then bishop, the purpose of which was to evangelize Catholics, specifically those who had strayed away from the Church.  Our synod committee would meet once a month to plan a presentation to be given to our parishioners.  The monthly presentations usually consisted of a video on various topics about our faith, followed by discussion.  To entice attendance, there was always food and beverages provided.  

After taking a break during June, our committee met last week to assess our progress and plan for the future.  In doing so, we all agreed that we are no nearer our objective than when we started.  Oh, the monthly sessions were fairly well attended, usually by the same crowd that already attends Sunday Mass faithfully, along with whoever was assigned to bring the refreshments that day.  Pressed to name one Catholic who returned to the Church as a result of our efforts, we came up empty.

Someone then mentioned the often-used definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  We all decided to stop doing what we have been doing.  While those attending our presentations were benefitting, we were not reaching those who needed to hear the message.  It just was not working. 

One committee member said we need more person to person contact.  True, but how do we approach people about their faith?  Frankly, most of us Catholics aren’t very good at evangelizing.  Our pastor suggested something called the Friendly Visiting Guidebook.  I would cite the website he provided to us, but it seems to no longer exist.  A few days following our meeting, he gave me a printed copy of the Guidebook.  This is a program for building a relationship with the elderly.  Most of us on the Synod Committee are ourselves elderly!  Building such relationships is a great idea, but I still doubt it will help meet our goal.  

I believe the best strategy is to keep people from leaving the Church in the first place.   Keeping people involved is the secret to making them feel connected.  We need community.  We are social beings. The Catholic faith is very focused on Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  The catechism calls the Eucharist the source and summit of our faith.  When we walk into church, we address the Blessed Sacrament to the point of ignoring others worshippers around us.  Our worship experience is vertically oriented as opposed to the more horizontal social element of many non-Catholic denominations.  While this is a good thing, it doesn’t always lend itself to social interaction with our fellow worshippers.  A weak social structure can result in individuals feeling detached or alienated.

That is why parish organizations are very important.  This sense of community develops when people work with others to achieve a goal.  Ironically, the Synod Committee itself was beneficial to those on the committee because it provided an opportunity to work together in a social setting, even though the goals of the committee were never realized.  We have a very active Society of Saint Vincent DePaul Conference in our parish.  I cannot envision anyone in that group ever leaving the Church.

Our pastor started a men’s group in our parish several years ago.  It doesn’t even have a name; they just call it the men’s group.  At the synod meeting, Father said he never expected the men’s group to be as successful as it has been.  The guys get together once a month to study the faith and socialize.  There might even be a little alcohol involved.  

Knights of Columbus, Christian Mothers, Sodalities, Choirs, these are all organizations that can provide cohesiveness among parishioners.  The secret is to make these groups inviting, to ask outsiders to join or assist with a project.  I am reminded of the Charlie Brown Christmas cartoon where Lucy tells a depressed Charlie Brown that he needs involvement. We all need to be involved.  Growing in faith and commitment will naturally follow. 

God, please RSVP!

My internet news feeds overwhelm me with information every single day.  Rarely do I watch network newscasts anymore.  Email inboxes are filled each morning.  I spend way too much time just reading headlines and hitting delete.  One article did grab my attention this week.  The title read, “Wedding dilemma for many couples:  Should God be invited to the marriage celebration?”

My first thought was, how sad that modern day couples would consider such a question to be a dilemma.  How did marriage become so secularized to the point where God’s involvement is an afterthought?  Further evidence that our society no longer understands the true meaning of a marriage covenant. 

Fighting my impulse to hit delete, I did open the article and was pleasantly surprised.  Written by Fox News correspondent Lauren Green, the article cites family therapist Doctor Roxanne Louh who refers to marriage saying, “If you don’t have God at the center of that, holding you accountable to something much greater than your own feelings, then your feelings can become quite divisive.”  Doctor Louh is married to a Greek Orthodox priest, Father Nicholas Louh.  He is also quoted in the article saying, “You’re not a random act in history.  God has a purpose for you, whether you’re married or single.  And so, is that person in my life going to help me fulfill, or work toward the purpose that God has for me?”  

Last Sunday was Father’s Day.  In his homily, our priest reminded us that our most important job as fathers is to help our families get to heaven.  When God is not present in the marriage, the relationship can be fragile. Too many children are growing up without fathers in the home.  

It is refreshing to occasionally come across a secular source that expresses support for God-centered marriage.  For many young people, marriage is a relationship void of any religious significance.  The wedding has become a social event to put on a display.  I am glad the Catholic Church requires Catholic weddings to take place in a Catholic Church.  There is a good reason for marriage vows to be exchanged in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.  How much more God-centered could a wedding be?

Music and memories

I grew up in the 1960’s, still the best decade of music ever to be produced, at least in my opinion and the opinion of many others.  Among my favorites were the Four Seasons and the Beach Boys who had somewhat of an east coast – west coast rivalry prior to the British invasion.  The Four Seasons were the Jersey boys featuring the sound of Frankie Valli, and the Beach Boys mastered the California sound of surf and cars from the genius of Brian Wilson.  Both are still around, and both made the newspapers this past week.   

Frankie Valli turned 90 years old this month and is still performing concert dates.  Having had such a long successful career, one would think his worries would be over.  Unfortunately, a judge had to grant Frankie and his son Emilio, a restraining order against another son, Francesco, who Emilio said is addicted to opiates and has been selling Frankie’s personal property to fuel his addiction.  Frankie had been financially supporting Francesco, but made that support contingent on him seeking treatment for his addiction.  Subsequently, Francesco has been threatening violence toward Frankie and Emilio.  Sad that at 90 years old, Frankie still has to fear his safety from his own son.  Drug addiction is a terrible thing.

Brian Wilson also made the news this week when it was revealed that he suffers from dementia at the age of 81.  His wife Melinda had been caring for him but sadly, she passed away in January.  This past week, a judge placed Brian under a conservatorship at the request of his family.  His mental health had always been fragile and it is a blessing that he as survived this long.  The court ruled that Brian can no longer make health care or financial decisions in the state that he is in.  His seven children, including five he and Melinda adopted, signed a statement agreeing that the conservatorship is in Brian’s best interest.

Fortune and fame are no guarantees for a carefree life.  Addiction and mental illness affect people in all walks of life.  Music can be an avenue of escape for the realities that burden our thoughts every day.  I doubt that either of these men realize the joy they have brought to millions of people over the past 65 years.  I don’t remember where I heard it, but someone recently remarked that the day will come when no one on earth will remember we ever existed.  Successful recording artists stand to be remembered longer than the rest of us.  Their music will live on long after they are gone.

I wonder how long will I be remembered.  How long before there is no record or memory left of my existence on earth?  Things come into existence and go out of existence.  That is the reality of God’s creation.  At the second coming of Christ, will anyone understand what life was like in the twenty-first century or will the twenty-first century be ancient history by then?  The thought of it makes me wonder why I am bothering to write this!  The answer, of course, is because we believe in everlasting life.  While we will eventually be forgotten here on earth, God will not forget us.  Our corporeal and spiritual efforts help ensure that we will spend eternity in heaven. How long will be remembered here on earth?  God only knows, so let’s hang on to what we’ve got!

Indulge me for a moment

On Divine Mercy Sunday, we heard John’s gospel about Thomas coming to believe in the risen Lord only after seeing the evidence.  Thomas doubted the resurrection occurred until he had a revelation from Jesus himself.  Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me?  Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."  As Catholics, we accept certain tenets as a matter of faith without having visible evidence. We know the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ even though it appears to be bread and wine because Jesus said so.  Beyond God’s revelation, some Catholic practices and devotions have developed over the centuries from the private revelations of various saints.  

Our pastor used his Sunday homily to question why people do not take advantage of the plenary indulgence available to those who attend the Divine Mercy Sunday devotion, a devotion that can be traced to the private revelation to a saint.  Father lamented that only a dozen or so individuals would likely show up for the afternoon service.  People generally don’t like to be publicly chastised during a homily which, in my opinion, isn’t the best way to reach an audience.  Nevertheless, I pondered his question.  Why do so many Catholics dismiss the opportunity for a plenary indulgence?

Father sometimes refers to plenary indulgences as “get out of jail free” cards.  If only it were that simple.  There are really two factors here that may affect how Catholics respond to plenary indulgences and in particular those granted based on a private revelation.  Divine Mercy Sunday came about from the Lord’s revelation to Saint Faustina.  Her diaries are available to anyone who wishes to study them.  As Catholics, we are not required to believe private revelations, even those approved by the Church.  

From Catholic Answers:  In 2010, Benedict XVI explained: Ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation essentially means that its message contains nothing contrary to faith and morals; it is licit to make it public and the faithful are authorized to give to it their prudent adhesion. A private revelation can introduce new emphases, give rise to new forms of piety, or deepen older ones. It can have a certain prophetic character and can be a valuable aid for better understanding and living the Gospel at a certain time; consequently, it should not be treated lightly. It is a help which is proffered, but its use is not obligatory (Verbum Domini 14).

In the 1700s, Benedict XIV observed that the Church accepts these revelations only “as probable” and added, “It follows that anyone may, without injury to the Catholic faith, give no heed to these revelations, and differ from them, provided he does so modestly, not without reason, and without contempt.”

The lack of contempt is needed because one needs to show respect to the Church authorities who approved them, but if one thinks there is a good reason not to accept a particular, approved apparition, the Church holds that one is free to do so.  Even though Catholics are not obligated to believe private revelations, the visions of Saint Faustina have gained approval by the Church.  

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:  When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary to faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.  So, some Catholics may hold a certain skepticism about the authenticity of Saint Faustina’s visions which seemed to be very specific. 

The Divine Mercy Chaplet may sound strange to anyone not accustomed to this type of prayer.  Similar to praying the rosary, the chaplet decades are repetitive. “For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world” is said fifty times in the course of the chaplet prayer.  The final exhortation says, “Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”  The way we sing it in our parish always sounds ominous to me.  I find myself wondering if God really finds this devotion pleasing.

Then we come to the indulgence associated with Divine Mercy Sunday.  On the same day St. Pope John Paul canonized Sr. Faustina, he also established Divine Mercy Sunday as a feast day for the entire Church. Divine Mercy Sunday was officially established for the universal Church by a decree of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on May 5, 2000. 

A plenary indulgence, granted under the usual conditions (sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayer for the intentions of Supreme Pontiff) to the faithful who, on the Second Sunday of Easter or Divine Mercy Sunday, in any church or chapel, in a spirit that is completely detached from the affection for a sin, even a venial sin, take part in the prayers and devotions held in honor of Divine Mercy, or who, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed or reserved in the tabernacle, recite the Our Father and the Creed, adding a devout prayer to the merciful Lord Jesus (e.g. Merciful Jesus, I trust in you!")

The Church in its Divinely instituted authority to bind and loose certainly has the ability to speak for Christ in granting indulgences, but is a plenary indulgence even attainable for the average Catholic?  Who among us is saintly enough to be completely detached from the affection for even a venial sin?  Perhaps Catholics who do not actively seek plenary indulgences are actually more conscious of their sinful nature and therefore think a plenary indulgence is beyond reach under the required conditions. 

 

Is it proper to take part in a Divine Mercy Sunday devotion for the sole purpose of gaining an indulgence?  Can our motivation be misplaced?  Can thinking we have gained an indulgence be presumptuous on our part?  These are all questions that come to my mind.  Trying to meet all the conditional requirements to gain a plenary indulgence can seem misplaced, perhaps even bordering on superstition.  If I do this and say that so many times, this thing will happen.  Should the indulgence alone be the motivating goal?

As we were leaving the church after the Divine Mercy service, I overheard a woman asking our priest if going to confession at our Lenten Penance service (March 20th) was sufficient to gain the plenary indulgence on Divine Mercy Sunday (April 7th).  He said, “No.  Confession had to be the week before or the week after.”  According to the EWTN website, the Apostolic Penitentiary, the roman dicastery responsible for the administration of Indulgences, states that sacramental confession can take place within about 20 days before or after the indulgenced act, March 20 to April 7 is 18 days by my count.  It is understandable why we Catholics are sometimes confused when our priests give us conflicting information.

This is why I believe we may place too much emphasis on trying to accumulate indulgences.  Yes, we should attend Divine Mercy Sunday services and other devotional opportunities to ask God for His mercy, but not to be too concerned about whether we qualify for a reward.  Being overly obsessed with meeting procedural requirements can lead to superstitious behaviors. If we are properly motivated to seek Our Lord’s Divine Mercy and are granted an indulgence as a result, alleluia!   Pray, make frequent confessions, receive Holy Communion, and then say, “Jesus, I trust in you.”

 

Choosing right

 

Come November, it looks like we will be choosing between a doddering old man and an immature egotistical narcissist.  In a population of some 332 million people, is this the best we can do?  Surely there are American men and women better suited to lead our nation in the twenty-first century.  

 

I place great emphasis on choosing candidates who are pro-life.  If a person thinks it is okay to dismember defenseless babies in the womb, how can they be trusted to care for those of us outside the womb?  Showing such disregard for even the most basic human life forms says so much about a person’s moral character, or lack of it.  That being said, the egotistical narcissist is the only viable choice between the two even though I question the strength of his moral backbone.   

 

The Alabama Supreme Court recently ruled that frozen embryos qualify as children under state law and are subject to legislation dealing with the wrongful death of a minor.  Therein lies the problem with in vitro fertilization.  Seems like there are always multiple embryos collected and frozen.  What happens to the ones that are not used?  That is one reason the Church forbids IVF.  It also separates the unitive action from the procreative action of the marital embrace.  

 

The Alabama Republican House and Senate almost immediately passed a bill to protect providers and patients from prosecution for damage to frozen embryos.  So, the court says embryos are children, but the legislature says there is no penalty for destroying them.  The logical solution is to say they cannot be created in the first place, but that probably won’t happen. Once again, the Catholic Church in her infinite wisdom had it right from the beginning. 

 

Now, I thought the people on the left would be happy about protecting those who damage frozen embryos. Not so fast.  A personal injury lawyer from Minneapolis who has represented IVF clients who lost frozen embryos due to faulty equipment is concerned he will not be able to collect damages for his clients.  It seems the only losers in this whole situation are the frozen embryos themselves even though they qualify as children under Alabama state law.  Apparently, it is okay to kill them, just not by accident.  

 

Here in Indiana, the legalization of cannabis is a topic of conversation among candidates in the upcoming election.   Personally, I have no objection to cannabis for medicinal purposes if it proves beneficial to people who are suffering.  For such individuals, I believe it should be prescribed by a doctor and dispensed at a pharmacy like any other drug. 

 

I am against recreational cannabis.  Why do we need to go there?  What good can possibly come from it aside from a source of revenue?  Why do we need more ways to numb our brains?So many vices that were taboo just a few years ago are now flourishing in the mainstream. From drugs to gambling to artificial intelligence, we continue to look for ways to escape reality.  Will we eventually consider legalizing recreational meth or cocaine?  Stay tuned.

 

 

 

Managing side effects

I recently watched a clip of an interview with Jerry Seinfeld where he was asked why he left his most popular show while it was at the top of the ratings.  He said all productions hit a peak in quality and eventually start to taper off.  He wanted to end his show while it was at its best and before it began to lose appeal.  He related that even the best standup comedians may hold an audience for an hour and fifteen minutes, but they can cross that line where people begin to wonder when this is going to end.  At that point, the entire effort suffers.

 

Our most recent parish Synod presentation was on the Mass.  Unbeknownst to anyone, our pastor decided to show a two hour-long DVD at an evening meeting that most parishioners expected to last an about an hour. He seemed amused at how many in attendance actually fell asleep at their tables.  What positive effects, if any, came from this experience?  These were all older Catholics who had already been attending Mass for many years.  At the end of a long day, any lengthy presentation must be interesting to hold attention.  Once that inevitable fatigue line is crossed, there is no going back. 

 

The fact that most in attendance were likely wishing they had not come will make them less inclined to attend in the future.  The length and quality of previous meetings had already affected me personally as I elected not to attend this one.  It was the first Synod monthly meeting I had missed in the three years we have been doing this.

 

These programs for faith formation are beneficial if done properly.  When they become a boring chore, they are counter-productive.  We sometimes fall into a trap where we know we need to do something to help people grow in faith but we simply phone in the effort.  Yes, the parish put on a two-hour presentation on the Mass.  It looks good on the record when we report to the diocese, but have we really connected with anyone?  Have we turned people off?

 

I appreciate the effort.  Is it better than nothing?  I suppose so.  Maybe someone is inspired to do better.  The problem is we are not reaching those in most need of spiritual help.  It’s always the same old parishioners that come.  Somehow, we need to do better.  Our guests should leave wanting more, not wishing they had not come. 

 

Homilists should take note.  How often I have heard a priest make a great point in a homily only to have it lost by dragging his talk on forever.  I think we all prefer quality over quantity.  Some speakers may not realize that excessive quantity can destroy quality.  Always try to leave your audience looking for more instead of their watches.

 

In a time when Mass attendance is sporadic for some, the homily takes on special significance. The homily may determine whether a person desires to come back regularly or maybe never again.  This is especially important now that we are into Lent when some lapsed Catholics may be drawn back to the Church.  A priest who likes to use his homily as a public rant on the status of civilization will not gain favor with his audience even among those who may commiserate with him.  Extending the rant beyond twenty minutes seals the exasperation.  If a person decided to attend that day looking for hope or comfort, he will leave feeling worse than when he came.  

 

I am not saying a priest needs to tell us everything is peaches and cream.  A priest can use the same tough words with a tone of empathy and an occasional smile.  Try a friendly voice.  We can hear you without yelling.  He is more likely to get a positive response if people do not feel like they are being chastised for everything wrong in the world.  Some people take criticism very personally even if it was not directed at them.  Quality, length and tone are all critical elements of any effective presentation.  Homilists should ask themselves, is your message getting through if your demeanor turns people off or drives them away?

Class update

Leading an OCIA group can be a challenge.  Our class began with only six attendees.  Sounds simple enough, but all have varying Christian backgrounds.  Ages range from 20 to 80.  We have a lapsed Catholic and her Lutheran husband, a baptized Catholic who was never catechized in the faith, a grandmother who resents the strict Apostolic Christian household in which she was raised, a fundamentalist Baptist with some anti-Catholic ideas, and a young woman with no Christian upbringing at all.  Designing a lesson plan that meets the needs of everyone can be somewhat difficult when those needs vary from person to person.  A few are well versed in the Bible and others completely unfamiliar.   It’s a bit like teaching arithmetic and calculus in the same class.  

 

Complicating matters is the fact that we are now meeting two in our group remotely, not by Zoom or Facetime, but rather by cell phone on speaker audio.  They are wintering some 1500 miles away for the next two months.  Travel, foot surgery, and even a heart attack has limited attendance of others at times.  Only the young woman with no Christian background has been faithfully present every class.  She has been a blessing with her new-found enthusiasm for the Catholic faith.  

 

Despite everything, our group has been doing great, or so I thought.  Today, our fundamentalist woman sent me a text message right before class time saying she was dropping out.  Her attendance has been spotty and I sensed she had reservations about the whole process.  She said after reading the book on Catholicism, she could not bring herself to join.  I assume she was referring to Trent Horn’s book, Why We’re Catholic, which we had given each participant on the first day.  

 

I responded to her text, thanking her for her honesty.  I also asked if she would mind listing a few of her objections to the Catholic faith to help me prepare my classes in the future.   She gave me two main objections, those being praying to dead saints and confessing sins to a priest.  Now we had covered both topics in our sessions, but she was not always present for those discussions. Both topics were also covered in Trent Horn’s book, which she either didn’t read or didn’t understand.  Her response indicated she believed the priest determined the “wages or punishment” for sins by the amount of penance he assigned.  She said, “Only God can forgive/punish not man.”  Obviously, she has misconceptions about the sacrament.  

 

Wanting to answer her objections in a friendly brief text, I sent her a link to an article by Father Mitch Pacwa titled The Bible supports praying to saints.  Any hope of convincing her of Catholic belief would have to come from the Bible which she claims to read every day.  I also asked her how she interprets John 20:23 where Jesus gives his apostles the authority to forgive and retain sins.  She replied, “What john 20:23 says to me is that we are given the holy spirit from Jesus, and because we have the holy spirit, Jesus forgives us of our sins.  We don't need a man of any cloth we only need Jesus.” 

 

I am encouraged that we have a little discussion going now.   I answered by saying, “But in speaking to his apostles, and this is after his resurrection, he says whose sins YOU forgive are forgiven, and whose sins YOU retain are retained.  Jesus has given this ministry to his earthly representatives (or men of the cloth!).  How would they know what those sins are if they were not told?  And how would anyone know whether his sin was forgiven or retained unless his sin was absolved by a minister acting under the authority of Jesus?”

 

It has been a couple of days, and I have not received another response from her.  I am hoping she will give it some thought.  Some folks are so ingrained with their beliefs that any challenges to those beliefs are blindly rejected.  No evidence is convincing enough to change minds when those minds are not open to change. If I were in her position, I might act the same way.  She at least had the courage to approach a Catholic Church and begin an exploration.  I will keep praying for her and allow the Holy Spirit to take the lead.