Polite Conversation
Last week, I backed my pickup truck out of the garage and into the grill of my son’s car parked in the driveway. Someone had taken his usual parking spot so he pulled in behind me since there was no other space available. I had seen his car there earlier, but in my haste, I simply backed up without thinking or looking.
When I realized what I had done, I got angry. I immediately went in the house and told my son what happened. I told him I was sorry and would pay for the damage. (The car is in my name, and on my insurance policy.) As I brooded over the circumstances, I found myself trying to place the blame on someone else. If my daughter’s friend had not taken my son’s parking place, he would not have parked behind me. It’s always easier to direct anger at someone else rather than oneself. That didn’t last long, however. I knew I was the one who put the truck in reverse and backed up without looking.
Later that evening, the family lightheartedly rehashed the day’s events as we were going out to dinner after attending vigil Mass. My wife remarked that she was surprised to hear me tell my son I was sorry. This really shook me. “What do you mean?”, I said. “My life has been one continuous apology!” Actually, I got a little angry again. I have always considered myself ready to admit when I am wrong. I suggested that I have said those two words way more often than she has. Of course, I am probably wrong way more often than she is, but I didn’t say that. I joked about us getting into a huge argument in the restaurant we were about to enter, and then the conversation went on to other things.
The next morning, I spent an hour at Eucharistic Adoration. During some quiet time, I began thinking about what my wife said. Was she really surprised to hear me say, “I’m sorry”? Should I tell her I’m sorry for all the times I didn’t say I’m sorry? It is often not easy to admit we are wrong or have made a mistake. I always thought of myself as being somewhat generous with my apologies, but maybe others do not see me that way. Or could it be that members of my family do not see me that way?
I remember times when I have been in really bad moods for some reason, giving my family the quiet treatment, only to put my friendly face back on when guests arrive. Why would I treat strangers or acquaintances better than the people I love? Applying some self-analysis, I seem to want others to think well of me beyond what niceties may flow from me naturally. I may go out of my way to be polite to others, but become lax around members of my own family. I suppose it is natural to relax our efforts around people we are most comfortable with. This brings to mind the movie Love Story that popularized the line, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” I really have to disagree.
As a fan of the Chicago Cubs, I am a regular viewer of their baseball games on television. Former player and now Cub broadcaster, Bob Brenly, often jokes about the six key words that every husband should know for a successful marriage. They are: “Yes dear, you’re right, I’m sorry.” While always good for a laugh, he is actually speaking truth, provided those words are said with sincerity. Pride often keeps us from admitting when we are wrong.
Sorry is not the only word often going unsaid. What about thank you? We can never be too gracious, yet I am sure there are many times when I take for granted what others do for me. If memory serves me correctly, it was Msgr. Kenneth Velo during his funeral homily for Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, who told of the Cardinal sending thank you notes for thank you notes. How often during the coarse of a single day does someone else do something for us, and how often do we fail to show our appreciation? I’m sorry for all the times I didn’t say thank you.
It is particularly important for us Catholics to be ever gracious in our daily interaction with others, whether they be loved ones or perfect strangers. If we truly see Christ in every other human life, we should treat them as we would treat Him. Seeing Christ in the behavior of some people can be difficult at times. In those cases, it is all the more important that they can see Christ in us.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The Mary Mary Month of May
May is traditionally the month during which we Catholics give particular honor to our Blessed Mother. Our parish had a procession and crowning of the statue of Mary on Mother’s Day. We are also showing Marian videos in the parish hall on Monday and Wednesday evenings during May. Our pastor, Father Terry, asked me to preview the videos and set them up for showing at the scheduled times. I also make the popcorn.
The topic this month has centered on Marian apparitions, especially those of the twentieth century. I was familiar with Fatima, but many of the other reported apparitions were new to me. Among those were Garabandal (Spain), Betania (Venezuela), Kibeho (Africa), and Akita (Japan). Always being a bit skeptical, I wondered how many of these apparations were approved by the Church. A little Internet research proved to be very educational.
If the Church has a list of verified supernatural apparitions, I have yet to find it. Various groups have published lists, but they are not all in agreement. I found anywhere from 10 to 14 approved Marian apparitions in the twentieth century. Writing only from memory now, it seems like five or six reported apparitions are commonly listed as approved supernatural phenomena, but beyond those, lists varied. Part of the reason may be the way apparitions are classified. Studied apparitions may be classified as "not worthy of belief," "not contrary to the Faith," or "worthy of belief." They may also be termed as supernatural occurrences, that is, not of natural or demonic origin. Those compiling the various lists may be looking at numerous pastoral statements given over a period of time, which could account for some of the confusion.
From the information provided in the videos we watched, many of the apparitions contained similarities. The visionaries are often young people, children, humble and innocent. The Marian messages usually call for prayer, fasting, repentance, conversion, rejection of sin, and the more recent ones for an end to abortion. They sometimes foretell of miraculous signs and chastisement for those who do not heed God’s message. Some messages would seem to indicate these events will take place very soon. Of course, these are all private revelations and not necessarily messages to be accepted by everyone. Yet, even the unapproved apparition stories appeared quite convincing.
Our video series on apparitions was happening at the same time the Barrack Obama abortion controversy was taking place at Notre Dame. (See last month’s blog entry.) Those protesting Obama being given an honorary degree by Notre Dame staged massive prayer vigils for an end to abortion. This got me to wondering why Our Blessed Mother appears to innocent children, asking them to deliver her message, rather than appearing to the perpetrators of the sin themselves. I went to Eucharistic Adoration on the morning of Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, “suggesting” to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother that a well-timed apparition during his talk would be a really effective means of getting the President’s attention. Obviously, God has a better idea as the apparition did not happen as far as I know. Of course, even if it had, the liberal media probably would not have reported it.
A week has passed since Obama’s appearance. If Father Jenkins has experienced any reprimand for giving an honorary degree to an abortion friendly president, it has not been reported. I rather expected the controversy to subside after the ceremony with no action taken. So far, that seems to be the case. Perhaps, the Blessed Mother could pay him a visit too!
May is traditionally the month during which we Catholics give particular honor to our Blessed Mother. Our parish had a procession and crowning of the statue of Mary on Mother’s Day. We are also showing Marian videos in the parish hall on Monday and Wednesday evenings during May. Our pastor, Father Terry, asked me to preview the videos and set them up for showing at the scheduled times. I also make the popcorn.
The topic this month has centered on Marian apparitions, especially those of the twentieth century. I was familiar with Fatima, but many of the other reported apparitions were new to me. Among those were Garabandal (Spain), Betania (Venezuela), Kibeho (Africa), and Akita (Japan). Always being a bit skeptical, I wondered how many of these apparations were approved by the Church. A little Internet research proved to be very educational.
If the Church has a list of verified supernatural apparitions, I have yet to find it. Various groups have published lists, but they are not all in agreement. I found anywhere from 10 to 14 approved Marian apparitions in the twentieth century. Writing only from memory now, it seems like five or six reported apparitions are commonly listed as approved supernatural phenomena, but beyond those, lists varied. Part of the reason may be the way apparitions are classified. Studied apparitions may be classified as "not worthy of belief," "not contrary to the Faith," or "worthy of belief." They may also be termed as supernatural occurrences, that is, not of natural or demonic origin. Those compiling the various lists may be looking at numerous pastoral statements given over a period of time, which could account for some of the confusion.
From the information provided in the videos we watched, many of the apparitions contained similarities. The visionaries are often young people, children, humble and innocent. The Marian messages usually call for prayer, fasting, repentance, conversion, rejection of sin, and the more recent ones for an end to abortion. They sometimes foretell of miraculous signs and chastisement for those who do not heed God’s message. Some messages would seem to indicate these events will take place very soon. Of course, these are all private revelations and not necessarily messages to be accepted by everyone. Yet, even the unapproved apparition stories appeared quite convincing.
Our video series on apparitions was happening at the same time the Barrack Obama abortion controversy was taking place at Notre Dame. (See last month’s blog entry.) Those protesting Obama being given an honorary degree by Notre Dame staged massive prayer vigils for an end to abortion. This got me to wondering why Our Blessed Mother appears to innocent children, asking them to deliver her message, rather than appearing to the perpetrators of the sin themselves. I went to Eucharistic Adoration on the morning of Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, “suggesting” to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother that a well-timed apparition during his talk would be a really effective means of getting the President’s attention. Obviously, God has a better idea as the apparition did not happen as far as I know. Of course, even if it had, the liberal media probably would not have reported it.
A week has passed since Obama’s appearance. If Father Jenkins has experienced any reprimand for giving an honorary degree to an abortion friendly president, it has not been reported. I rather expected the controversy to subside after the ceremony with no action taken. So far, that seems to be the case. Perhaps, the Blessed Mother could pay him a visit too!
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Jeer, Jeer for Old Notre Dame
The uproar over the University of Notre Dame inviting pro-abortion President Obama to speak at commencement demonstrates the polarization that has arisen among members of the Church these days. A public confrontation pitting Catholic against Catholic is unfortunate. Making the situation even worse is the growing resentment between the two sides.
On one hand, we have orthodox Catholics who try to live their faith according to the teachings of the Church, especially when it comes to protecting human life from conception to natural end. They are rigid in their adherence to moral and ethical behavior, and hold other Catholics, both individuals and institutions, to high standards. They tend to be vocal when they see behavior they do not like, and therefore may be stereotyped as intolerant or self-righteous.
Being of the former bend, I find it more difficult to catagorize the other side. My guess is that most of them are more accepting of the secular world in which they live. It would be too easy to simply dismiss them as not living their Catholic faith, though I am sure that is often the case. They may still be good Catholics in their personal beliefs, but do not pass judgment on the diverse behavior of others. I suspect that deep down, they view acceptance of Catholic teaching a personal choice more than absolute truth. I also suspect they take a more humanistic view of Church hierarchy as opposed to being a Divinely-guided Magisterium. For this reason, they may be viewed as worldly or heterodox.
Judging from the outcome of the last presidential election and the acceptance of President Obama to be honored at Notre Dame by the administration and probably a majority of the students, those of us embracing the Catholic Faith to the fullest are in the minority. Being tolerant of opposing opinions is one thing, but providing a pulpit at a supposedly Catholic institution for those views when they promote intrinsic evil is unacceptable, especially when we appear to be losing the moral battle.
Students who do not expect or accept Catholic teaching at a Catholic University should probably be attending school elsewhere. In this case, those who do expect orthodox Catholicism should look elsewhere too. Why would anyone expect to get a first class education in any discipline from a Catholic University that cannot even profess the truth of its own Faith? Some might argue that universities can maintain their Catholicity while entertaining diverse or contrary thought, or that academic freedom requires open dialogue with dissenters. In the sciences, humanities, arts and other disciplines, this may be true, even in the case of theological science as long as it does not conflict with Catholic doctrine. But when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals, dissention should not be an option, and promoting or providing a public forum for such dissention is inexcusable.
In 1967, many Catholic Universities, including Notre Dame, signed what was known as the Land O’ Lakes Statement, so-called because it came from of a conference of Catholic educators held in Land O’ Lakes, Wisconsin. The meeting took place to address the issue of a perceived conflict between the Church and academic freedom. The gist of the statement can be summarized in the second sentence: “To perform its teaching and research functions effectively the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.”
Although the Land O’ Lakes statement also stressed the importance of keeping Catholic higher education distinctively Catholic, the barn door was now open and Catholicity was trampled in the academic stampede to freedom. Dissenting priests were given positions of authority at Catholic Universities where they cast doubt among believers and undermined Church teaching. Instead of lifting up the Catholic Church as a beacon of truth beyond reproach, many Catholic universities demolished the Faith by allowing the secular world to dictate curriculum and university policy.
In 1990, Pope John Paul II issued a lengthy document called Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church). Seen as a rebuttal to the Land of Lakes Statement, it defines what makes an academic institution Catholic giving bishops the authority to affirm or deny catholicity. Some Catholics are organizing an effort to have Bishop D’Arcy remove the Catholic label from Notre Dame. While the good Bishop is unlikely to go to that extreme, he said he will boycott the graduation ceremony, and may even take part in an organized protest.
According to an article by sportswriter Curt Rallo in the April 21, 2009 edition of the South Bend Tribune, Notre Dame president Father John Jenkins defiantly reaffirmed his decision at a celebration of 60 years of black student athletes. Defending the invitation of President Obama, Jenkins said, “He’s one of our great orators of our time, and we’re just so proud to have him.” It would be interesting to know how many of the students who cheered his remark are Catholic.
At my weekly catechism class earlier this evening, we got into a discussion of moral ethics. A number of hypothetical ethical dilemmas were proposed where object and means seemed to be at odds. One commonly used example involves lying in order to protect the lives of others. In my mind, the answer is obvious. I have lied for much lesser reasons. Yet I realize the morality of doing wrong to achieve a right deserves serious thought, and questions such as these are certainly pondered in academia. Then I wonder if Father Jenkins gave any serious thought to the moral consequences of inviting a pro-abortion president to speak at a Catholic university. I can understand some of Father Jenkins’ (and Obama’s) supporters speaking from ignorance, but Father Jenkins himself should know better. Even if he were right, the fact he chooses to ignore his Bishop demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the Church hierarchy.
Father Jenkins recently wrote that his invitation to Obama was in accordance with a 2004 statement by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops called Catholics in Political Life because Obama is not Catholic. This past week, Bishop D’Arcy responded with a letter to Jenkins, excerpts of which were released to the public. The Bishop cited one of the highpoints of the USCCB statement that says, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” How can Father Jenkins reconcile what he is doing with that statement?
Father Jenkins has placed his superiors, the university, and the Catholic Church in an awkward position. If he is disciplined as he should be with the loss of his position, Obama’s supporters will try to paint Catholics as intolerant racists. The local paper has printed dozens of letters in support of Jenkins, some of them from students, alumni, and at least one priest. One woman boldly stated that she was a Catholic who is pro-life and pro-choice. A man accused pro-lifers as being cafeteria Catholics because they are not as vocal about other problems in the Church. Another supports Obama because of all the hunger and starvation in the world, as if he will end it all and his opponents are the cause.
It’s only a matter of time before the mud-slinging starts. Non-Catholics smell blood in the water and join in the frenzy. A writer in today’s paper said, “When you discuss the sanctity of life, you may wish to skip over the Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of thousands of women as witches, the vile behavior of the Catholic priests who told their faithful to pay the English rents while their children starved during the Irish potato famine and the alleged collaboration of the Vatican with the Nazis.” Oh boy. Now, do we go off on another tangent and defend these charges, or just let it ride.
A pattern is evident in most of these letters. These are not people who hold Church teaching in high regard, despite some of them claiming to be “devout” Catholics. I wonder how many of the “devout” Catholics make frequent confessions, attend weekday Mass (or even regular Sunday Mass for that matter), spend time in Eucharistic Adoration, or pray the Rosary. These are things the rest of us should be doing for all concerned, especially the aborted children, President Obama, Father Jenkins and Notre Dame.
The uproar over the University of Notre Dame inviting pro-abortion President Obama to speak at commencement demonstrates the polarization that has arisen among members of the Church these days. A public confrontation pitting Catholic against Catholic is unfortunate. Making the situation even worse is the growing resentment between the two sides.
On one hand, we have orthodox Catholics who try to live their faith according to the teachings of the Church, especially when it comes to protecting human life from conception to natural end. They are rigid in their adherence to moral and ethical behavior, and hold other Catholics, both individuals and institutions, to high standards. They tend to be vocal when they see behavior they do not like, and therefore may be stereotyped as intolerant or self-righteous.
Being of the former bend, I find it more difficult to catagorize the other side. My guess is that most of them are more accepting of the secular world in which they live. It would be too easy to simply dismiss them as not living their Catholic faith, though I am sure that is often the case. They may still be good Catholics in their personal beliefs, but do not pass judgment on the diverse behavior of others. I suspect that deep down, they view acceptance of Catholic teaching a personal choice more than absolute truth. I also suspect they take a more humanistic view of Church hierarchy as opposed to being a Divinely-guided Magisterium. For this reason, they may be viewed as worldly or heterodox.
Judging from the outcome of the last presidential election and the acceptance of President Obama to be honored at Notre Dame by the administration and probably a majority of the students, those of us embracing the Catholic Faith to the fullest are in the minority. Being tolerant of opposing opinions is one thing, but providing a pulpit at a supposedly Catholic institution for those views when they promote intrinsic evil is unacceptable, especially when we appear to be losing the moral battle.
Students who do not expect or accept Catholic teaching at a Catholic University should probably be attending school elsewhere. In this case, those who do expect orthodox Catholicism should look elsewhere too. Why would anyone expect to get a first class education in any discipline from a Catholic University that cannot even profess the truth of its own Faith? Some might argue that universities can maintain their Catholicity while entertaining diverse or contrary thought, or that academic freedom requires open dialogue with dissenters. In the sciences, humanities, arts and other disciplines, this may be true, even in the case of theological science as long as it does not conflict with Catholic doctrine. But when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals, dissention should not be an option, and promoting or providing a public forum for such dissention is inexcusable.
In 1967, many Catholic Universities, including Notre Dame, signed what was known as the Land O’ Lakes Statement, so-called because it came from of a conference of Catholic educators held in Land O’ Lakes, Wisconsin. The meeting took place to address the issue of a perceived conflict between the Church and academic freedom. The gist of the statement can be summarized in the second sentence: “To perform its teaching and research functions effectively the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.”
Although the Land O’ Lakes statement also stressed the importance of keeping Catholic higher education distinctively Catholic, the barn door was now open and Catholicity was trampled in the academic stampede to freedom. Dissenting priests were given positions of authority at Catholic Universities where they cast doubt among believers and undermined Church teaching. Instead of lifting up the Catholic Church as a beacon of truth beyond reproach, many Catholic universities demolished the Faith by allowing the secular world to dictate curriculum and university policy.
In 1990, Pope John Paul II issued a lengthy document called Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church). Seen as a rebuttal to the Land of Lakes Statement, it defines what makes an academic institution Catholic giving bishops the authority to affirm or deny catholicity. Some Catholics are organizing an effort to have Bishop D’Arcy remove the Catholic label from Notre Dame. While the good Bishop is unlikely to go to that extreme, he said he will boycott the graduation ceremony, and may even take part in an organized protest.
According to an article by sportswriter Curt Rallo in the April 21, 2009 edition of the South Bend Tribune, Notre Dame president Father John Jenkins defiantly reaffirmed his decision at a celebration of 60 years of black student athletes. Defending the invitation of President Obama, Jenkins said, “He’s one of our great orators of our time, and we’re just so proud to have him.” It would be interesting to know how many of the students who cheered his remark are Catholic.
At my weekly catechism class earlier this evening, we got into a discussion of moral ethics. A number of hypothetical ethical dilemmas were proposed where object and means seemed to be at odds. One commonly used example involves lying in order to protect the lives of others. In my mind, the answer is obvious. I have lied for much lesser reasons. Yet I realize the morality of doing wrong to achieve a right deserves serious thought, and questions such as these are certainly pondered in academia. Then I wonder if Father Jenkins gave any serious thought to the moral consequences of inviting a pro-abortion president to speak at a Catholic university. I can understand some of Father Jenkins’ (and Obama’s) supporters speaking from ignorance, but Father Jenkins himself should know better. Even if he were right, the fact he chooses to ignore his Bishop demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the Church hierarchy.
Father Jenkins recently wrote that his invitation to Obama was in accordance with a 2004 statement by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops called Catholics in Political Life because Obama is not Catholic. This past week, Bishop D’Arcy responded with a letter to Jenkins, excerpts of which were released to the public. The Bishop cited one of the highpoints of the USCCB statement that says, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” How can Father Jenkins reconcile what he is doing with that statement?
Father Jenkins has placed his superiors, the university, and the Catholic Church in an awkward position. If he is disciplined as he should be with the loss of his position, Obama’s supporters will try to paint Catholics as intolerant racists. The local paper has printed dozens of letters in support of Jenkins, some of them from students, alumni, and at least one priest. One woman boldly stated that she was a Catholic who is pro-life and pro-choice. A man accused pro-lifers as being cafeteria Catholics because they are not as vocal about other problems in the Church. Another supports Obama because of all the hunger and starvation in the world, as if he will end it all and his opponents are the cause.
It’s only a matter of time before the mud-slinging starts. Non-Catholics smell blood in the water and join in the frenzy. A writer in today’s paper said, “When you discuss the sanctity of life, you may wish to skip over the Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of thousands of women as witches, the vile behavior of the Catholic priests who told their faithful to pay the English rents while their children starved during the Irish potato famine and the alleged collaboration of the Vatican with the Nazis.” Oh boy. Now, do we go off on another tangent and defend these charges, or just let it ride.
A pattern is evident in most of these letters. These are not people who hold Church teaching in high regard, despite some of them claiming to be “devout” Catholics. I wonder how many of the “devout” Catholics make frequent confessions, attend weekday Mass (or even regular Sunday Mass for that matter), spend time in Eucharistic Adoration, or pray the Rosary. These are things the rest of us should be doing for all concerned, especially the aborted children, President Obama, Father Jenkins and Notre Dame.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Bless me Father, for have I sinned?
Our new pastor has been here eight months now. At one of our Tuesday evening Catechism classes, he spoke of his disappointment in the low number of confessions he has heard since coming to the parish. He said he is almost to the point of nagging people to come to confession. I understand his frustration, but doubt that nagging will solve the problem. I believe most people are reasonable, and therefore, will respond to a reasonable argument. Having said that, I have been thinking about the problem of how to draw people to the sacrament.
I confess that I was not going to confession nearly as often as I should have been, but I did go, and with more frequency than many other Catholics I know. My new year’s resolution is to go much more often, and so far, I am sticking to one-month intervals. Yes, I feel a wonderful sense of relief after confessing in contrast with a definite dread before I go. The apprehension is only natural when we are forced to face our faults, and that is precisely why we need to go. Confessing directly to God is way too easy. Confessing to another human being acting in the person of Christ is another story. One is apt to think twice about repeating a serious sin if confessing that sin is going to be unpleasant.
So, why don’t many Catholics go to confession anymore? Good question. Catholic behavior changed drastically after Vatican II. Those of us who were in the Church pre-Vatican II remember when there were long lines at the confessional every Saturday and much shorter lines for Communion on Sunday. We had a greater sense of the need to be in a state of grace when approaching the Communion rail. 1 Corinthians 11:27 says whoever eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, but in the years following the Council, Catholics seemed to lose this awareness.
Saint Thomas warned that even when laws need to be changed, there is danger of reducing the binding power of the law as a consequence of the change. Prior to Vatican II, eating meat on Friday was considered a mortal sin. We had to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, kneeling with our hands under a cloth to make certain they did not come in contact with the host. The Mass was in Latin and the priest faced the altar. All of these things changed after the Council, and as a consequence, the binding power of Church disciplines diminished in the eyes of the faithful. Worship took on a more horizontal element, and a more “laid back” Catholic Church came into being.
Sin took on a more relative sense. If rules that were once steadfast can now be completely different, how much binding power did they have in the first place? Church disciplines suddenly seemed somewhat arbitrary and Catholics learned to rely on their own consciences in discerning which to follow, especially when it came to decisions on moral issues such as using birth control.
We were always told one of the Commandments of the Church was to confess our sins at least once a year. Now, we hear that we must confess MORTAL sins at least once a year. So, what sins are still mortal? Even the term “mortal sin” became obscure. We occasional heard references to grave sin or serious sin, but with the caveat that the disposition of the sinner affects culpability. The word sin itself disappeared from the priests’ vocabulary in many pulpits.
The manner of confession also changed with Vatican II. Instead of “Bless me Father; I have sinned”, we were now asked to use a form that required a response or two. What if there is no card in the confessional? What if I don’t do it right? What if I have to go face-to-face with the priest and I’m not comfortable doing that? All of these things contributed to keeping people away. When Catholics saw other Catholics avoiding the Sacrament, they too felt justified in doing the same.
The question becomes, how do we get people to come back? It won’t be easy. The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the parish priest, the shepherd of the local flock. Without nagging or sounding too harsh, he must gently reinstate the awareness of personal sin, and its affects on the state of grace in our souls. He must reassert the importance of being in a state of grace before approaching the Holy Eucharist. His best opportunity comes weekly during his homily.
One way might be to speak about the issue of Catholic public office holders supporting abortion. Several Bishops have ordered that such politicians be refused Holy Communion in their diocese. The priest could explain that allowing persons whose sin is publicly known to receive Communion not only profanes Our Lord, but also places the soul of those individuals in jeopardy. Refusing them Communion is also for their own benefit as it protects them from bringing judgment upon themselves. Allowing them access to the Holy Eucharist also creates scandal by giving the impression that the minister condones such action by his cooperation.
The homilist may also acknowledge the fact that Holy Communion should be refused any person in a state of mortal sin, but unless that sin is publicly exposed as in the case of the politician, the priest has no way of knowing. He might give examples saying he doesn’t know who in the Communion line is on birth control, or who missed Sunday Mass for no good reason, so he is in no position to protect that person from further harm to his or her soul.
Catholics also need a heightened awareness of less serious sin and the importance of bringing those sins to the confessional to attain the grace to overcome them. Many do not realize that actions that increase our separation from Christ are sinful. Sins of commission and omission affect most of us everyday. A good examination of conscience is essential for making us aware of sin, and that conscience needs to be properly formed. Catholics avoiding the confessional may think they have no sins to confess. Ignorance is not bliss. We have an obligation to grow in our faith, and to turn a blind eye to sin is a great disservice to God and to ourselves. All of these issues need to be addressed from the pulpit.
Lastly, Catholics need to feel confident that baring their souls to the priest is not an experience that will scar them for life. On the contrary, a good confession frees the souls from the scars of sin. If we really believe in God and the eternal life He offers us, we would take advantage of everything offered us to reach that goal, and we would rejoice in the comfort of knowing our souls are pleasing to God. Is confessing to the priest easy? Yes and no. If it were too easy, it would be less effective. Yet, considering the gravity of our sins and what is at stake, it is extremely easy to spend just a few minutes ridding ourselves of the pains of sin.
On the Second Sunday of Easter, April 17th, we will celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday. On that day, Catholics have an opportunity to receive a plenary indulgence, that is, complete forgiveness of sins and their punishment. Unfortunately, many Catholics are not even aware this opportunity exists. For the first time, our parish will celebrate this occasion with a novena beginning on Good Friday with daily praying of the Divine Mercy Chaplet. To receive the plenary indulgence, certain conditions must be met, including confession and reception of Holy Communion.
I addressed this topic of Confession once before (Confession Digression, 4-25-2004). At that time I said, at some point it will be necessary for priests to be blunt with the congregation. I think that time has finally come for our parish as our new priest mentions the importance of confession in nearly every homily. It will be interesting to see how many take advantage of this opportunity. Those who have avoided the confessional for many years will have a decision to make. When Divine Mercy Sunday passes, they will find themselves either closer to God or more detached. Simply maintaining their spiritual status quo is not an option. To ignore the opportunity is to deny one’s sins and need of reconciliation. Denying the need for Divine Mercy is itself a sin of pride.
I have sympathy for those who have not been to confession for many years. Yes, it takes some courage to fess up to the priest who gives you Holy Communion every Sunday that your last confession was twenty or thirty years ago, but this is an occasion for celebration. The priest views your return as a time for rejoicing. He is there as Christ’s ambassador of reconciliation. A heavy burden will be lifted from your shoulders when he gives you absolution. Now is your chance to take this step along with many others in the same situation as you are. Don’t let the opportunity pass you by. Just do it!
Our new pastor has been here eight months now. At one of our Tuesday evening Catechism classes, he spoke of his disappointment in the low number of confessions he has heard since coming to the parish. He said he is almost to the point of nagging people to come to confession. I understand his frustration, but doubt that nagging will solve the problem. I believe most people are reasonable, and therefore, will respond to a reasonable argument. Having said that, I have been thinking about the problem of how to draw people to the sacrament.
I confess that I was not going to confession nearly as often as I should have been, but I did go, and with more frequency than many other Catholics I know. My new year’s resolution is to go much more often, and so far, I am sticking to one-month intervals. Yes, I feel a wonderful sense of relief after confessing in contrast with a definite dread before I go. The apprehension is only natural when we are forced to face our faults, and that is precisely why we need to go. Confessing directly to God is way too easy. Confessing to another human being acting in the person of Christ is another story. One is apt to think twice about repeating a serious sin if confessing that sin is going to be unpleasant.
So, why don’t many Catholics go to confession anymore? Good question. Catholic behavior changed drastically after Vatican II. Those of us who were in the Church pre-Vatican II remember when there were long lines at the confessional every Saturday and much shorter lines for Communion on Sunday. We had a greater sense of the need to be in a state of grace when approaching the Communion rail. 1 Corinthians 11:27 says whoever eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, but in the years following the Council, Catholics seemed to lose this awareness.
Saint Thomas warned that even when laws need to be changed, there is danger of reducing the binding power of the law as a consequence of the change. Prior to Vatican II, eating meat on Friday was considered a mortal sin. We had to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, kneeling with our hands under a cloth to make certain they did not come in contact with the host. The Mass was in Latin and the priest faced the altar. All of these things changed after the Council, and as a consequence, the binding power of Church disciplines diminished in the eyes of the faithful. Worship took on a more horizontal element, and a more “laid back” Catholic Church came into being.
Sin took on a more relative sense. If rules that were once steadfast can now be completely different, how much binding power did they have in the first place? Church disciplines suddenly seemed somewhat arbitrary and Catholics learned to rely on their own consciences in discerning which to follow, especially when it came to decisions on moral issues such as using birth control.
We were always told one of the Commandments of the Church was to confess our sins at least once a year. Now, we hear that we must confess MORTAL sins at least once a year. So, what sins are still mortal? Even the term “mortal sin” became obscure. We occasional heard references to grave sin or serious sin, but with the caveat that the disposition of the sinner affects culpability. The word sin itself disappeared from the priests’ vocabulary in many pulpits.
The manner of confession also changed with Vatican II. Instead of “Bless me Father; I have sinned”, we were now asked to use a form that required a response or two. What if there is no card in the confessional? What if I don’t do it right? What if I have to go face-to-face with the priest and I’m not comfortable doing that? All of these things contributed to keeping people away. When Catholics saw other Catholics avoiding the Sacrament, they too felt justified in doing the same.
The question becomes, how do we get people to come back? It won’t be easy. The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the parish priest, the shepherd of the local flock. Without nagging or sounding too harsh, he must gently reinstate the awareness of personal sin, and its affects on the state of grace in our souls. He must reassert the importance of being in a state of grace before approaching the Holy Eucharist. His best opportunity comes weekly during his homily.
One way might be to speak about the issue of Catholic public office holders supporting abortion. Several Bishops have ordered that such politicians be refused Holy Communion in their diocese. The priest could explain that allowing persons whose sin is publicly known to receive Communion not only profanes Our Lord, but also places the soul of those individuals in jeopardy. Refusing them Communion is also for their own benefit as it protects them from bringing judgment upon themselves. Allowing them access to the Holy Eucharist also creates scandal by giving the impression that the minister condones such action by his cooperation.
The homilist may also acknowledge the fact that Holy Communion should be refused any person in a state of mortal sin, but unless that sin is publicly exposed as in the case of the politician, the priest has no way of knowing. He might give examples saying he doesn’t know who in the Communion line is on birth control, or who missed Sunday Mass for no good reason, so he is in no position to protect that person from further harm to his or her soul.
Catholics also need a heightened awareness of less serious sin and the importance of bringing those sins to the confessional to attain the grace to overcome them. Many do not realize that actions that increase our separation from Christ are sinful. Sins of commission and omission affect most of us everyday. A good examination of conscience is essential for making us aware of sin, and that conscience needs to be properly formed. Catholics avoiding the confessional may think they have no sins to confess. Ignorance is not bliss. We have an obligation to grow in our faith, and to turn a blind eye to sin is a great disservice to God and to ourselves. All of these issues need to be addressed from the pulpit.
Lastly, Catholics need to feel confident that baring their souls to the priest is not an experience that will scar them for life. On the contrary, a good confession frees the souls from the scars of sin. If we really believe in God and the eternal life He offers us, we would take advantage of everything offered us to reach that goal, and we would rejoice in the comfort of knowing our souls are pleasing to God. Is confessing to the priest easy? Yes and no. If it were too easy, it would be less effective. Yet, considering the gravity of our sins and what is at stake, it is extremely easy to spend just a few minutes ridding ourselves of the pains of sin.
On the Second Sunday of Easter, April 17th, we will celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday. On that day, Catholics have an opportunity to receive a plenary indulgence, that is, complete forgiveness of sins and their punishment. Unfortunately, many Catholics are not even aware this opportunity exists. For the first time, our parish will celebrate this occasion with a novena beginning on Good Friday with daily praying of the Divine Mercy Chaplet. To receive the plenary indulgence, certain conditions must be met, including confession and reception of Holy Communion.
I addressed this topic of Confession once before (Confession Digression, 4-25-2004). At that time I said, at some point it will be necessary for priests to be blunt with the congregation. I think that time has finally come for our parish as our new priest mentions the importance of confession in nearly every homily. It will be interesting to see how many take advantage of this opportunity. Those who have avoided the confessional for many years will have a decision to make. When Divine Mercy Sunday passes, they will find themselves either closer to God or more detached. Simply maintaining their spiritual status quo is not an option. To ignore the opportunity is to deny one’s sins and need of reconciliation. Denying the need for Divine Mercy is itself a sin of pride.
I have sympathy for those who have not been to confession for many years. Yes, it takes some courage to fess up to the priest who gives you Holy Communion every Sunday that your last confession was twenty or thirty years ago, but this is an occasion for celebration. The priest views your return as a time for rejoicing. He is there as Christ’s ambassador of reconciliation. A heavy burden will be lifted from your shoulders when he gives you absolution. Now is your chance to take this step along with many others in the same situation as you are. Don’t let the opportunity pass you by. Just do it!
Monday, February 16, 2009
Church in the Cross Hairs
From subtle digs to downright vicious attacks, the secular media often fires pot shots at the Catholic Church these days. Certainly some of the past criticism of Church officials has been deserved, but I am talking about attacks on the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church regarding faith and morals. Publicity on the Church’s stance against abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia have placed the Church in the cross hairs of liberal self-centered thinkers.
Especially disconcerting is the lack of support for Church teaching from Catholics themselves. We all know about the Kennedys, Pelosis, and Bidens who proclaim their Catholicism and somehow try to justify their anti-Catholic positions. The damage they do goes way beyond what they generate through legislation. Their public voice lends legitimacy for other misguided Catholics to share their views.
On February 3, 2009, the South Bend Tribune published an opinion piece submitted by an unfortunately typical contemporary Catholic. The writer’s name is Joseph Zavisca. This was more than a succinct letter to the editor. It was nearly a quarter page in length and published as a "Viewpoint". Whether the content expresses the views of the editorial board of the newspaper is unknown, but I would be surprised if it did not.
The piece was titled Catholic leaders out of touch with beliefs of the flock. That heading alone says much about the problem we face. How did we reach this point where some Catholics believe that Church teaching should be determined by the “beliefs of the flock”? The real problem is that the flock is out of touch with the Church.
I am going to refrain from further use of the writer’s name so as not to give his opinion any more credibility than it deserves. His only qualification listed was that he is a resident of South Bend. He began by quoting Father Jay Scott Newman, the South Carolina priest who told his parishioners they “should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion.” The writer goes on to say, “This is only a recent example of the ongoing attempts of the official church to insist that its followers subscribe to moral dictates more and more at odds with reality.”
That is quite a statement. The abortion reality is sinful intrinsic evil. How dare the Church insist that we be at odds with evil? I wonder if this writer ever stops to think about what he is saying. Does he believe that if enough people succumb to a sin, then the Church should reverse its teaching and make it okay? Granted, I do not know whether Father Newman went too far in saying Catholics who voted for Obama should not receive Holy Communion. Their culpability would seem to depend on individual factors not generally known. I am sure the good priest was trying to make a strong impression that being an accomplice to evil is a serious sin.
The writer goes on to rail against the Church teaching on artificial birth control saying it is “the same official church that still prohibits divorces, while providing annulments to anyone who wants one.” Statements like this exude ignorance. Annulments are not provided to anyone who wants one. Canon law regarding what constitutes a valid marriage is quite clear, and a marriage determined to be valid cannot be annulled. Of course, circumstances surrounding individual situations may fall into gray areas where tribunals must make judgment calls, but the oft-repeated tale of anyone with sufficient money being able to get an annulment is a lie. And regarding artificial birth control, all Christian denominations forbid it prior to 1930. Again, the writer believes that because many have fallen into sin, it should now be acceptable, and apparently the majority of Protestant denominations would agree. Only the Catholic Church holds firm in her teaching and all Christians should heed that fact.
From the writer’s point of view, Church “rulings” are inconsistent. He says, “Divorce is prohibited but annulment is okay; they’ll still let you in the door and take your donations, but will not let you take communion if you vote for Obama (but only in certain places, not everywhere.) Trying to follow the logic or the sense of it all is difficult.” In reality, Church teaching is quite clear, but the human element makes the application uneven at times. Making sense of it all is not difficult if one sets aside his skepticism and accepts the fact that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church to all truth, and what the Church binds here on earth will be bound in heaven.
Submitting to the Church should be a source of great comfort, not dismay. Understanding the reasonableness of Church teaching requires some effort on the part of each Catholic. Learning the history, reading the Church Fathers, studying the Scriptures, and growing in the Faith will eventually lead to the realization that the Catholic Church is divinely instituted and we have not been left as orphans to fend for ourselves.
Since the election where Catholics apparently voted in the majority for Obama, I have been trying to understand how contemporary Catholics, many of them seemingly good respectable Christians, justify their positions. The writer of this opinion piece provides some insight. He says he was raised Catholic and is “comforted by its rituals.” He says he worships as a Catholic and prays as a Catholic, “but the various moral dictates that the church ‘requires’ of those who call themselves Catholics hold no moral sway over me.”
Again, this is quite a statement. I am an American, but the laws of the land do not apply to me. I don’t have to pay taxes or obey the speed limit because the government holds no sway over me. Guess what? If you choose to ignore the dictates of the civil law, there will be consequences. Similarly, if you choose to ignore the dictates of the moral law as taught by the Church, you will also suffer consequences. One thing of which we can be certain in this world is the Catholic Church teaching on Faith and Morals. It is infallibly defined. Without that certainty, everything falls apart. We cannot even have confidence in the Scriptures without an infallible Church. Choosing to stand in opposition to that Church is spiritual suicide.
In his conclusion, the writer says the Church should be more concerned with the corporal works of mercy than abortion, birth control and divorce. In his mind, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and visiting the imprisoned is more important than protecting babies in the womb. To support his point, he ironically quotes Matthew’s Gospel where Jesus says, “What you did for the least of my people, you did for me.” He really needs to give that some more thought.
From subtle digs to downright vicious attacks, the secular media often fires pot shots at the Catholic Church these days. Certainly some of the past criticism of Church officials has been deserved, but I am talking about attacks on the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church regarding faith and morals. Publicity on the Church’s stance against abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia have placed the Church in the cross hairs of liberal self-centered thinkers.
Especially disconcerting is the lack of support for Church teaching from Catholics themselves. We all know about the Kennedys, Pelosis, and Bidens who proclaim their Catholicism and somehow try to justify their anti-Catholic positions. The damage they do goes way beyond what they generate through legislation. Their public voice lends legitimacy for other misguided Catholics to share their views.
On February 3, 2009, the South Bend Tribune published an opinion piece submitted by an unfortunately typical contemporary Catholic. The writer’s name is Joseph Zavisca. This was more than a succinct letter to the editor. It was nearly a quarter page in length and published as a "Viewpoint". Whether the content expresses the views of the editorial board of the newspaper is unknown, but I would be surprised if it did not.
The piece was titled Catholic leaders out of touch with beliefs of the flock. That heading alone says much about the problem we face. How did we reach this point where some Catholics believe that Church teaching should be determined by the “beliefs of the flock”? The real problem is that the flock is out of touch with the Church.
I am going to refrain from further use of the writer’s name so as not to give his opinion any more credibility than it deserves. His only qualification listed was that he is a resident of South Bend. He began by quoting Father Jay Scott Newman, the South Carolina priest who told his parishioners they “should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion.” The writer goes on to say, “This is only a recent example of the ongoing attempts of the official church to insist that its followers subscribe to moral dictates more and more at odds with reality.”
That is quite a statement. The abortion reality is sinful intrinsic evil. How dare the Church insist that we be at odds with evil? I wonder if this writer ever stops to think about what he is saying. Does he believe that if enough people succumb to a sin, then the Church should reverse its teaching and make it okay? Granted, I do not know whether Father Newman went too far in saying Catholics who voted for Obama should not receive Holy Communion. Their culpability would seem to depend on individual factors not generally known. I am sure the good priest was trying to make a strong impression that being an accomplice to evil is a serious sin.
The writer goes on to rail against the Church teaching on artificial birth control saying it is “the same official church that still prohibits divorces, while providing annulments to anyone who wants one.” Statements like this exude ignorance. Annulments are not provided to anyone who wants one. Canon law regarding what constitutes a valid marriage is quite clear, and a marriage determined to be valid cannot be annulled. Of course, circumstances surrounding individual situations may fall into gray areas where tribunals must make judgment calls, but the oft-repeated tale of anyone with sufficient money being able to get an annulment is a lie. And regarding artificial birth control, all Christian denominations forbid it prior to 1930. Again, the writer believes that because many have fallen into sin, it should now be acceptable, and apparently the majority of Protestant denominations would agree. Only the Catholic Church holds firm in her teaching and all Christians should heed that fact.
From the writer’s point of view, Church “rulings” are inconsistent. He says, “Divorce is prohibited but annulment is okay; they’ll still let you in the door and take your donations, but will not let you take communion if you vote for Obama (but only in certain places, not everywhere.) Trying to follow the logic or the sense of it all is difficult.” In reality, Church teaching is quite clear, but the human element makes the application uneven at times. Making sense of it all is not difficult if one sets aside his skepticism and accepts the fact that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church to all truth, and what the Church binds here on earth will be bound in heaven.
Submitting to the Church should be a source of great comfort, not dismay. Understanding the reasonableness of Church teaching requires some effort on the part of each Catholic. Learning the history, reading the Church Fathers, studying the Scriptures, and growing in the Faith will eventually lead to the realization that the Catholic Church is divinely instituted and we have not been left as orphans to fend for ourselves.
Since the election where Catholics apparently voted in the majority for Obama, I have been trying to understand how contemporary Catholics, many of them seemingly good respectable Christians, justify their positions. The writer of this opinion piece provides some insight. He says he was raised Catholic and is “comforted by its rituals.” He says he worships as a Catholic and prays as a Catholic, “but the various moral dictates that the church ‘requires’ of those who call themselves Catholics hold no moral sway over me.”
Again, this is quite a statement. I am an American, but the laws of the land do not apply to me. I don’t have to pay taxes or obey the speed limit because the government holds no sway over me. Guess what? If you choose to ignore the dictates of the civil law, there will be consequences. Similarly, if you choose to ignore the dictates of the moral law as taught by the Church, you will also suffer consequences. One thing of which we can be certain in this world is the Catholic Church teaching on Faith and Morals. It is infallibly defined. Without that certainty, everything falls apart. We cannot even have confidence in the Scriptures without an infallible Church. Choosing to stand in opposition to that Church is spiritual suicide.
In his conclusion, the writer says the Church should be more concerned with the corporal works of mercy than abortion, birth control and divorce. In his mind, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and visiting the imprisoned is more important than protecting babies in the womb. To support his point, he ironically quotes Matthew’s Gospel where Jesus says, “What you did for the least of my people, you did for me.” He really needs to give that some more thought.
Friday, January 23, 2009
An Obamanation
As Catholics, we were warned. Many concerned bishops issued strong statements prior to the election. The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics was well publicized and readily available to anyone willing to read it. Yet, Catholics on the whole voted pretty much along the same lines as the rest of the population, helping to elect a president who openly supports the killing of unborn children.
Earlier this week, I received a letter from my Congressman, Joe Donnelly, a fellow Catholic, who warned that President Obama would likely discontinue the “Mexico City Policy” which prevents taxpayer dollars from going to foreign non-governmental organizations that perform, support, or lobby for abortion. The policy was enacted by President Reagan in 1984, lifted by Clinton in 1993, and reinstated by Bush in 2001. Donnelly is a Democrat, so his pro-life stand is somewhat unusual.
President Obama was inaugurated last Tuesday. On Friday, one day after the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, he rescinded the ban. He delayed the reversal one day so as to not seem “combative”, according to some news reports. Once again, our tax dollars will be subsidizing abortion abroad.
The next four years could spell disaster for the pro-life movement. Obama will likely appoint abortion-friendly justices to the Supreme Court. He may sign legislation such as the Freedom of Choice Act, which would create a fundamental right to abortion that could not be limited. Even Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors may face attempts to legally force them to perform abortions.
Our nation has chosen a dark path to follow. Our biggest problem is not the economy, health care, enemy governments or terrorist attacks, but rather the moral cancer growing within. Catholics, and in fact all people of faith, must unite in support of our unalienable right to life.
My congressman’s pro-life letter contained an invitation to sign up for his newsletter by going to his webpage. When I did so, I was directed to select my areas of interest from a list of thirteen. None of them mentioned the right-to-life issue. The closest was “values” which is rather vague. Despite his supposed pro-life stand, I could find no mention of it anywhere on his webpage, a fact that I have brought to his attention. Silence can be interpreted as endorsement when it comes to issues like this. Now more than ever, we must make our position known.
As Catholics, we were warned. Many concerned bishops issued strong statements prior to the election. The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics was well publicized and readily available to anyone willing to read it. Yet, Catholics on the whole voted pretty much along the same lines as the rest of the population, helping to elect a president who openly supports the killing of unborn children.
Earlier this week, I received a letter from my Congressman, Joe Donnelly, a fellow Catholic, who warned that President Obama would likely discontinue the “Mexico City Policy” which prevents taxpayer dollars from going to foreign non-governmental organizations that perform, support, or lobby for abortion. The policy was enacted by President Reagan in 1984, lifted by Clinton in 1993, and reinstated by Bush in 2001. Donnelly is a Democrat, so his pro-life stand is somewhat unusual.
President Obama was inaugurated last Tuesday. On Friday, one day after the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, he rescinded the ban. He delayed the reversal one day so as to not seem “combative”, according to some news reports. Once again, our tax dollars will be subsidizing abortion abroad.
The next four years could spell disaster for the pro-life movement. Obama will likely appoint abortion-friendly justices to the Supreme Court. He may sign legislation such as the Freedom of Choice Act, which would create a fundamental right to abortion that could not be limited. Even Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors may face attempts to legally force them to perform abortions.
Our nation has chosen a dark path to follow. Our biggest problem is not the economy, health care, enemy governments or terrorist attacks, but rather the moral cancer growing within. Catholics, and in fact all people of faith, must unite in support of our unalienable right to life.
My congressman’s pro-life letter contained an invitation to sign up for his newsletter by going to his webpage. When I did so, I was directed to select my areas of interest from a list of thirteen. None of them mentioned the right-to-life issue. The closest was “values” which is rather vague. Despite his supposed pro-life stand, I could find no mention of it anywhere on his webpage, a fact that I have brought to his attention. Silence can be interpreted as endorsement when it comes to issues like this. Now more than ever, we must make our position known.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)