Translations translations translations

Folks, today I worked mostly on translations into Spanish of articles I consider important for my Spanish readers to know. The first translation was of the original article in English Why’s the smile of elder Joseph of Vatopedi from eternity? that informed the article published here, Why is this monk smiling? As soon as the blogger from Vatopedi Friend blog makes available the Spanish translation, I will link to it from Vivificat en Español.

Also, I translated a brief but very good review that Dale Hudson wrote of Bill Donohue’s recently published book, Secular Sabotage: How Liberals Are Destroying Religion and Culture in America. The review was entitled, Bill Donohue Takes Aim at the Secular Left. The Spanish translation, En la mirilla de Bill Donohue la izquierda laicista, is already available. Please share it with those Spanish readers you know that you think will benefit from reading it.

I declare myself brain-fried for today, I'll see y'all tomorrow.

Free Audio for St. Augustine’s Day at Maria Lectrix

Folks, I stumbled upon this great website called Maria Lectrix, specializing in collecting “public domain audiobook podcast – for people with catholic tastes.” I think this is great. I love the title, I love the graphic of Our Lady reading, and I love the concept, particularly since I am on the road so much and have lots of time to listen to audiobooks.

As you know, yesterday was St. Augustine’s Day and my fellow blogger listed the following audio Augustinian files for our education, formation, and inspiration. To quote the blogger:

• The City of God, a book about practically everything. Read at a brisk but quite comprehensible pace by a single reader, and totally unabridged. Very interesting, whether you like Roman mythology and folklore, politics, or theology. If Charlemagne thought it was fascinating, you’ll like it too! From our friends at Librivox.
• The Enchiridion, a treatise on Christian piety, faith, hope, and love. Also from Librivox.
• The Confessions, St. Augustine’s autobiography. Coming soon from Librivox.org, already available in part.
• From me, of course, Of the Catechizing of the Unlearned and On Christian Doctrine. Oh, and the contemporary Life of Augustine by personal friend St. Possidius.
• “The Petition of St. Augustine”, a really nice five-minute choral setting by Dr. Erik Reid Jones of something St. Augustine wrote about singing and perseverence in the Christian life. The MP3 link on the page covers the whole piece. The group singing is the choir the composer directs: The Master Singers of Virginia.
• “St. Augustine’s Pears” by that old Christian Rock band, Petra. Not bad.
• “I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine” by Bob Dylan.
• Mike Aquilina on St. Augustine, on the Catholic Men’s Podcast.
• Fr. Z discusses St. Augustine’s sermon to newly baptized Christians.
• Fr. Kubicki on St. Augustine, at archive.org.

I hope that you enjoy your files and make Maria Lectrix a part of your regular Catholic blog surf!

Why is this monk smiling?

Folks, as you observe the image, the main three things you ought to know about the elder pictured here is, first, that he's Elder Joseph, a monk from Vatopedi, one of the Greek Orthodox monasteries at Mount Athos, and second, that he's dead or rather, his body is. Last, his smile did not become fixed as he died, but at least 45 minutes after his passing. There is a photographic record of his transformation.

The facts are intriguing and I rather direct you to the blog detailing the remarkable story here.

The story also alludes to various Orthodox Christian beliefs regarding death and the afterlife which you might not be familiar with, but that belong to our common deposit of faith, though seldom explored by us ("On the one hand all the spiritual fathers say that the time of death is horrifying for man. On the other hand we read in the book of the Sayings of the desert Fathers that even the most advanced ones , out of humility, did not let down their guard before enter eternal life, where there is no longer any danger.") Nevertheless, I will present to you the photo and the link and allow them to tell their story.

- Check the entire photo sequence here: Why’s the smile of elder Joseph of Vatopedi from eternity?

- Read also Funeral of Blessed Elder Joseph of Vatopedi: A Smile From Eternity.

Today we remember St. Augustine of Hippo, Doctor and Father of the Church

From today's Office of Readings
A reading from The Confessions of Saint Augustine

Urged to reflect upon myself, I entered under your guidance the innermost places of my being; but only because you had become my helper was I able to do so. I entered, then, and with the vision of my spirit, such as it was, I saw the incommutable light far above my spiritual ken and transcending my mind: not this common light which every carnal eye can see, nor any light of the same order; but greater, as though this common light were shining much more powerfully, far more brightly, and so extensively as to fill the universe. The light I saw was not the common light at all, but something different, utterly different, from all those things. Nor was it higher than my mind in the sense that oil floats on water or the sky is above the earth; it was exalted because this very light made me, and I was below it because by it I was made. Anyone who knows truth knows this light.

O eternal Truth, true Love, and beloved Eternity, you are my God, and for you I sigh day and night. As I first began to know you, you lifted me up and showed me that, while that which I might see exists indeed, I was not yet capable of seeing it. Your rays beamed intensely on me, beating back my feeble gaze, and I trembled with love and dread. I knew myself to be far away from you in a region of unlikeness, and I seemed to hear your voice from on high: “I am the food of the mature: grow, then, and you shall eat me. You will not change me into yourself like bodily food; but you will be changed into me”.

Accordingly I looked for a way to gain the strength I needed to enjoy you, but I did not find it until I embraced the mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who is also God, supreme over all things and blessed for ever. He called out, proclaiming I am the Way and Truth and the Life, nor had I known him as the food which, though I was not yet strong enough to eat it, he had mingled with our flesh, for the Word became flesh so that your Wisdom, through whom you created all things, might become for us the milk adapted to our infancy.

Late have I loved you, Beauty so ancient and so new, late have I loved you

Lo, you were within,
but I outside, seeking there for you,
and upon the shapely things you have made
I rushed headlong – I, misshapen.
You were with me, but I was not with you.
They held me back far from you,
those things which would have no being,
were they not in you.
You called, shouted, broke through my deafness;
you flared, blazed, banished my blindness;
you lavished your fragrance, I gasped; and now I pant for you;
I tasted you, and now I hunger and thirst;
you touched me, and I burned for your peace.

Source: Universalis.com

A passing noted

Folks, I hereby make a belated note on the passing of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The Democrat establishment, aging liberal baby boomers, and elderly mentors to liberal baby boomers are doing a better job than I exalting the man's virtues, as well as discretely whispering a bit about his darkest moments. I will limit my comments to his pro-abortion, anti-marriage legacy by echoing what LifeSiteNews says about these issues:

Kennedy was one of the most formidable opponents to American conservatism ever to claim a seat in the Senate. NARAL awarded a 100% pro-abortion voting record to the Massachusetts senator, who also championed embryonic stem cell research and same-sex "marriage." He was one of only fourteen senators who voted against the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Kennedy was also a driving force behind the expansion of "hate crimes" legislation to include special protection for homosexuals.

One of the most infamous moments in Kennedy's career was his nearly single-handed defeat in 1987 of President Reagan's pro-life nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Robert Bork, whom Kennedy lambasted as envisioning America as "a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions." The speech ushered in a new era of senatorial contention over presidential nominations to the Supreme Court.

I also want to add that some question if Mr. Kennedy should receive a Catholic funeral due to his consistent opposition to the protection of human life in utero. According to Dr. Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD, my better known blogging colleague at In the Light of the Law, the answer to this question is yes, and I will trust his judgment on this matter.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, born in 1932, called to account before the Lord in 2009. He was 77 years old.

These are soul-trying times indeed

News Analysis

“These are the times that try men’s souls” is a favorite aphorism of mine. It was first recorded for posterity by the English-born, turned American patriot Thomas Paine in his classic pamphlet The Crisis, published in 1777. Paine was a Deist, a man of the Enlightenment, a fierce republican, and a self-styled man of reason. Had Paine lived to see what his legacy would become he would had found our own times equally as trying, if nothing else because the coarseness of our general culture, the indifference, even connivance of the majority of the populace to allow government to run our lives, the arrogation of power by “progressive” cultural aristocracies, and the subsequent encroachment by these elites into the free exercise of our Catholic religious consciences. Allow me to present three examples:

·In Oklahoma, a county judge recently overruled a law that incorporated a number of abortion-related ordinances, including one that protected doctors, nurses and other health professionals from being required or forced to participate in abortions against their religious beliefs. Nova Health Systems, an abortuary, challenged the law with the aid of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed a lawsuit against the law, according to The Examiner.com.

·In Wisconsin, a budget bill seeks to increase access to and coverage of contraceptives and other family planning services in several ways. For example, the bill requires certain insurance policies and plans to provide coverage for drugs and devices approved to prevent pregnancy, as well as any necessary procedures or other services needed to prescribe, maintain, or otherwise provide these contraceptives. In addition, the bill allows for expansion of the state’s family planning program requires pharmacists to dispense lawfully prescribed contraceptives, subject to an appropriate and valid prescription and any legal or ethical obligations existing under state law, according to The State Bar of Wisconsin. The move has been condemned in no uncertain terms by the Wisconsin Conference of Catholic Bishops, who called these provisions “a blatant insensitivity to our moral values and legal rights.”

·Despite claims by President Obama to the contrary, the different bills in Congress that would enact his health care reform will use tax dollars to pay for abortion and contraceptives. That was the conclusion reached by Brooks Jackson of FactCheck.org. There are no conscience-related exemptions in any of the bills currently under consideration, which is particularly galling to Catholic believers and will force 624 Catholic hospitals, 499 long-term care nursing facilities, 164 home health agencies, and 41 hospices among others to conform to state or federal mandates to either render “reproductive services” that often run counter to Catholic moral teaching, or face adverse legal consequences.

Now, Thomas Payne was no friend of institutional religion. He stated in another classic pamphlet, The Age of Reason, that “all national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish,” appeared to him as “no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit” adding that “religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.”

Which is precisely the point: governments at the federal and state levels are now attempting to stop us from helping our fellow citizens to achieve justice, mercy, and happiness. I think that Payne would had found it ironic that the institutions he so despised would in the end become the sole defenders of the rights he most cherished in the face of massive government intrusion in all spheres of life and conscience.

The Catholic bishops of Wisconsin rightly point to where the disconnect lies:

The constitutional right to religious freedom embraces more than just the right to hold private beliefs and affirm personal values. Such freedom also includes the ability to bear public witness to our values – by what we do and what we decline to do. It is such witness that changes hearts and transforms culture. Nowhere does the Constitution say that the right of conscience is protected except in matters related to human reproduction. Nor does it limit the scope of religious freedom to tenets that conform to a party platform or to the agenda of powerful interest groups.

This is where we find ourselves today. The time has come, and is now here, that we Catholics will have to witness to the Gospel by engaging in peaceful civil disobedience in the face of blatantly unjust laws. Caesar is demanding that we burn incense to his image or else. We must be ready to deny Caesar his unfair dues and be willing to face the consequences. Otherwise our souls will be tried, albeit in a manner quite different from what Thomas Payne once envisioned – God bless his soul.

Bishop John D’Arcy: The Church and the University

A pastoral reflection on the controversy at Notre Dame

Source: America (Excerpted)

As summer plays itself out on the beautiful campus by the lake where the young Holy Cross priest, Edward Sorin, C.S.C., pitched his camp 177 years ago and began his great adventure, we must clarify the situation that so sundered the church last spring: What it is all about and what it is not about.

It is not about President Obama. He will do some good things as president and other things with which, as Catholics, we will strongly disagree. It is ever so among presidents, and most political leaders.

It is not about Democrats versus Republicans, nor was it a replay of the recent general election.

It is not about whether it is appropriate for the president of the United States to speak at Notre Dame or any great Catholic university on the pressing issues of the day. This is what universities do. No bishop should try to prevent that.

The response, so intense and widespread, is not about what this journal called “sectarian Catholicism.” Rather, the response of the faithful derives directly from the Gospel. In Matthew’s words, “Your light must shine before others, that they may see your good works, and glorify your heavenly Father” (5:13).

Public Witness

Does a Catholic university have the responsibility to give witness to the Catholic faith and to the consequences of that faith by its actions and decisions—especially by a decision to confer its highest honor? If not, what is the meaning of a life of faith? And how can a Catholic institution expect its students to live by faith in the difficult decisions that will confront them in a culture often opposed to the Gospel?

Pope Benedict XVI, himself a former university professor, made his position clear when he spoke to Catholic educators in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2008:

Teachers and administrators, whether in universities or schools, have the duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. This requires that public witness to the way of Christ, as found in the Gospel and upheld by the Church’s magisterium, shapes all aspects of an institution’s life, both inside and outside the classroom.

In its decision to give its highest honor to a president who has repeatedly opposed even the smallest legal protection of the child in the womb, did Notre Dame surrender the responsibility that Pope Benedict believes Catholic universities have to give public witness to the truths revealed by God and taught by the church?

Please, continue reading here.

Archbishop Chaput: Health care and the common good

Source: Archdiocese of Denver

Last week a British Catholic journal, in an editorial titled “U.S. bishops must back Obama,” claimed that America’s bishops “have so far concentrated on a specifically Catholic issue—making sure state-funded health care does not include abortion—rather than the more general principle of the common good.”  

It went on to say that if U.S. Catholic leaders would get over their parochial preoccupations, “they could play a central role in salvaging Mr. Obama’s health-care programme.”

The editorial has value for several reasons.  First, it proves once again that people don’t need to actually live in the United States to have unhelpful and badly informed opinions about our domestic issues. Second, some of the same pious voices that once criticized U.S. Catholics for supporting a previous president now sound very much like acolytes of a new president.  Third, abortion is not, and has never been, a “specifically Catholic issue,” and the editors know it.  And fourth, the growing misuse of Catholic “common ground” and “common good” language in the current health-care debate can only stem from one of two sources: ignorance or cynicism. 

No system that allows or helps fund—no matter how subtly or indirectly—the killing of unborn children, or discrimination against the elderly and persons with special needs, can bill itself as “common ground.”   Doing so is a lie.

On the same day the British journal released its editorial, I got an e-mail from a young couple on the East Coast whose second child was born with Down syndrome.  The mother’s words deserve a wider audience:

Magdalena “consumes” a lot of health care. Every six months or so she’s tested for thyroid disease, celiac disease, anemia, etc. In addition, she’s been hospitalized a few times for smallish but surely expensive things like a clogged tear duct, feeding studies and pneumonia (twice). She sees an ENT regularly for congestion, she requires a doctor’s prescription for numerous services—occupational therapy, physical therapy, feeding, speech, etc.—and she needs more frequent ear and eye exams.

I could go on. Often, she has some mysterious symptoms that require several tests or doctor visits to narrow down the list of possible issues. On paper, maybe these procedures and visits seem excessive. She is, after all, only 3 years old. We worry that more bureaucrats in the decision chain will increase the likelihood that someone, somewhere, will say, “Is all of this really necessary? After all, what is the marginal benefit to society for treating this person?”

What do we think of the (Congressional and White House health-care) plans? A government option sounds dangerous to us.  The worst-case scenario revolves around someone in Washington making decisions about Magdalena’s health care; or, worse yet, a group of people—perhaps made up of the same types of people who urged us to abort her in the first place. In general, we feel that policy decisions should be made as close as possible to the people who will be affected by them. We are not wealthy people, but our current set up suits us just fine. We trust our pediatrician, who knows us very well, who hears from us personally every few months, who knows Magdalena and clearly sees her value, to give us good advice and recommend services in the appropriate amounts.

We are unsure and uneasy about how this might change. We worry that we, and Magdalena’s siblings, will somehow be cut out of the process down the line when her health issues are sure to pile up. I can’t forget that this is the same president (Obama) who made a distasteful joke about the Special Olympics. He apologized through a spokesman … (but) I truly believe that the people around him don’t know—or don’t care to know—the value and blessedness of a child with special needs. And I don’t trust them to mold policy that accounts for my daughter in all of her humanity or puts “value” on her life.

Of course, President Obama isn’t the first leader to make clumsy gaffes.  Anyone can make similar mistakes over the course of a career.  And the special needs community is as divided about proposed health-care reforms as everyone else. 

Some might claim that the young mother quoted here has misread the intent and content of Washington’s plans.  That can be argued.  But what’s most striking about the young mother’s e-mail—and I believe warranted—is the parental distrust behind her words.  She’s already well acquainted, from direct experience, with how hard it is to deal with government-related programs and to secure public resources and services for her child.  In fact, I’ve heard from enough intelligent, worried parents of children with special needs here in Colorado to know that many feel the current health-care proposals pressed by Washington are troubling and untrustworthy. 

Health-care reform is vital.  That’s why America’s bishops have supported it so vigorously for decades.  They still do.  But fast-tracking a flawed, complex effort this fall, in the face of so many growing and serious concerns, is bad policy.  It’s not only imprudent; it’s also dangerous.   As Sioux City’s Bishop R. Walker Nickless wrote last week, “no health-care reform is better than the wrong sort of health-care reform.” 

If Congress and the White House want to genuinely serve the health-care needs of the American public, they need to slow down, listen to people’s concerns more honestly—and learn what the “common good” really means.

FactCheck.Org: Obama Fabricating on Health Care Abortion Coverage

Folks, recently, President Obama has been accusing opponents of his proposed health care insurance's "public option" of lying and distorting the facts regarding abortion coverage and funding. Nevertheless, the facts are otherwise. According to Brooks Jackson of FactCheck.org:

Will health care legislation mean "government funding of abortion"?

President Obama said Wednesday that’s "not true" and among several "fabrications" being spread by "people who are bearing false witness." But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. "President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component" of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."

Read the entire analysis here.

Commentary. Short and simple: President Obama is not telling the truth when he says that abortion and other "reproductive services" would not be covered under his health care reform proposals. He's wrong, misinformed, or worse, he's lying. "Catholics for Obama," chew on that one.

Reviewed text of the Holy Mass in English is Here

The Reform of the Reform is now in full swing.

Folks, I think I addressed this issue last 3 years ago - oh, my how time flies! The good news is that the text of the reviewed English missal, the first review of its kind in over 30 years, is now here. The bad news is that we'll have to wait a little longer - to 2011 - to see it deployed and employed. But I think is worth the wait.

The U.S. Bishops have set up a brand-new website dedicated to explaining the new and improved texts which are, in my lay opinion, more prayerful, less "chatty," and more faithful to the Latin standard text than the current text is. The changes affect the people's responses as well as the priest's prayers. You may see a table of examples detailing the differences here. An informative FAQ file may be accessed here.

This falls right in line with the document recently approved by the plenary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (reserved session held on March 12, 2009) regarding several reforms of the new Mass of Paul VI - our post-Vatican II Mass in the verncular. According to an article published in the Italian newpaper Il Giornale, translated by my better-known blogging colleague at Rorate Caeli, "the Cardinals and Bishops members of the Congregation voted almost unanimously in favor of a greater sacrality of the rite, of the recovery of the sense of eucharistic worship, of the recovery of the Latin language in the celebration, and of the remaking of the introductory parts of the Missal in order to put a stop to abuses, wild experimentations, and inappropriate creativity."

I pray and hope that the new English translation and the restoration of the majesty of the Roman Rite be accomplished swiftly and without delay, and that it be internalized by both the people and the celebrants obediently and promptly. I want the Holy Mass to be that place in time where we can hold an intimate dialogue with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and not just a casual assembly. Father, I ask you this in the Name of Jesus your Son, Amen!

- Thank you American Catholic for the heads-up.

*UPDATE: According to information presented on the Spanish side of Catholic News Agency website - ACIPrensa Digital, the Sala Stampa has denied that the reforms detailed by vaticanista Andre Tornielli published in Il Giornale are imminent in any way, shape or form. However, in true Italian fashion, Sala Stampa didn't issue a categorical denial.

The article in Spanish says that "to date, there are no institutional proposals in existence to modify the [liturgical] books currently in use." The Sala statement doesn't rule out the future, but that's arguing from their silence.

A muddled statement, to say the least.

NPR: American Nuns Question Vatican Scrutiny

Folks, NPR broadcasted a short report about the recent meeting of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious which I thought I should share with you. You may access it here or just press "play" on the bar below:

Here are some "bad quotes" from those who object to the visitation:

• "As women religious, we wouldn't believe that we've done anything to create the need for this," says Nancy Schreck, president of Sisters of St. Francis in Dubuque, Iowa. "It feels like an affront to us."
  
• "I can't help but have some suspicion about where this is coming from and who's really behind it and what they're trying to do," she says.
  
• "I don't know what they're afraid of," she says. "What I would guess is some of the more conservative bishops in the U.S. might see the sisters moving with spirit of Vatican II in a way they're not comfortable with. So it may be some effort to kind of rein us in."
  
• "But Sister Nancy Schreck says as followers of Jesus, the sisters must voice their views when they feel the Vatican is wrong — on things like caring for gay men and lesbians, and the equality of women. Such discussion is the American way, she says, adding that these disagreements reflect the larger tension between Rome and the U.S. church."
  
• "We've come too far to step back into something we wouldn't believe in," she says.

Commentary. Ah, yes! “The spirit of Vatican II,” that all-pervading, all-justifying thing to which dissenters appeal all the time to justify their stance. A “spirit” that only exists in their minds, since as one scours the documents of the Second Vatican II, one finds nothing to justify the ordination of women and married men to the priesthood, the recognition of the gay lifestyle, and other post-modern, post-Christian rallying cries of activism.

I hope that the current visitation of the LCWR sets this house aright. Otherwise, the Holy See should disband this group and start up a new one from scratch. I hope it doesn’t come to that but if does, so be it.

Lutheran Church abandons Christian teaching on chastity, approves same-sex “committed” couples as ministers

Folks, this according to the Catholic News Agency:

Evangelical Lutheran Church backs away from Christian chastity

Minneapolis, Minn., Aug 21, 2009 / 07:41 pm (CNA).- The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) on Wednesday approved a new policy that no longer declares marriage as “the appropriate place” for sexual relations, but rather calls for “social trust” in associations that are “loving” and “committed.” One critic characterized the move as an embrace of moral relativism.

The ELCA claims about 4.6 million members. Its numbers have declined by 1 million over the past forty years.

The ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly, meeting from August 17 to 23 at the Minneapolis Convention Center, formerly said that marriage is “the appropriate place for sexual intercourse.” Such language is absent from the new policy, which says that heterosexual relationships are “best served through binding commitment, legal protections, and the public accountability of marriage.”

“Some cohabitation arrangements can be constructed in ways that are neither casual nor intrinsically unstable,” the policy adds.

The policy calls for “social trust” in relationships that are "loving," "life-giving," "fulfilling," "nurturing," and "committed."

On the issue of homosexuality, the ELCA claimed that “consensus” does not exist and recognized four “conscience-bound beliefs” ranging from disapproval of all homosexual relations to honoring them as equally valid marriages.

Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), commented on the decision.

"How sad that the ELCA no longer affirms the timeless Christian understanding of marriage. Instead it is touting secular psycho-babble about 'fulfilling' and 'nurturing' relationships. How will the church's young people interpret this tacit approval of at least some non-marital sex?"

“In embracing moral relativism, the ELCA assembly has disregarded the Bible, the views of its own members, and the pleas of Lutherans in Africa and Asia. It has left the mainstream of U.S. and global Christianity, instead following other shrinking denominations like the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ towards internal division, accelerating membership loss, and cultural irrelevance.”

During the Wednesday vote on the policy, a tornado struck the area around the convention center. It knocked the cross off the steeple of Central Lutheran Church, just across the street from the center.

Washington Times reporter Julia Duin reported that during the storm ELCA President Mark Hanson read out loud Psalm 121 to calm those in the convention center.

"We trust the weather is not a commentary on our work," said the Rev. Steven Loy, author of the statement on sexuality, Duin reports.

CBS affiliate WCCO reported that John Piper, the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, characterized the tornado as a “gentle but firm” warning to the ELCA and everyone else to turn from “the approval of sin.”

On Friday the ELCA assembly will vote on proposals that would allow for the formal blessings of same-sex unions and for the ordination of active homosexuals.

Furthermore, according to The Washington Post:

'Monogamous' Gays Can Serve in ELCA

Leaders of the nation's biggest Lutheran denomination voted Friday to allow gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy in the church -- making it one of the largest Christian denominations in the country to significantly open the pulpit to gays.

Previously, only celibate gays were permitted to serve as clergy in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a denomination of 4.8 million members. But delegates to a church assembly voted 559-451 to allow gays in "life-long, monogamous" relationships to serve as clergy and professional lay leaders in the church.

The vote is the culmination of a years-long process in the ELCA, and was accompanied by plenty of emotion at the convention in Minneapolis. After standing in long lines to reach microphones during debates that extended all day, some delegates shook and others cried as they expressed their opposition or support of the measure.

Quoting the Bible and denomination founder Martin Luther, delegates sought to place the decision within their interpretation of their Lutheran faith.

"We live today with an understanding of homosexuality that did not exist in Jesus' time and culture," Tim Mumm, a lay delegate from Wisconsin and supporter of Lutherans Concerned, an gay-rights organization, said during the debate. "We are responding to something that the writers of Scripture could not have understood."

But other said the recommendations weaken the Biblical standards of the church.

"As Luther taught us, Scripture does not have a wax nose," said the Rev. Ryan Mills, a delegate representing Texas and Louisana. "It cannot be twisted into anything we want it to say. But that's just what we're doing with these following recommendations."

Conservatives tried to derail the vote, losing a ballot that would have required a supermajority of two-thirds to approve the proposal. They lost a similar vote earlier in the week.

Some critics of the proposal predicted its passage could cause individual congregations to leave the ELCA, which is what occurred to the 2 million-member Episcopal Church when it consecrated an openly gay bishop in 2003. Last month, Episcopalians voted to make gays eligible for any ordained ministry.

Most mainline Protestant churches are struggling to balance what many view as Biblical injunctions against the practice of homosexuality with the country's burgeoning gay-rights movement. Among the major mainline denominations, leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) recently defeated a proposal to ordain openly gay pastors, but with a much narrower margin than in previous votes. And United Methodist church leaders faced an emotional debate last year when they upheld their ban on openly gay clergy.

"I really believe . . . what we are about to do will split the church," said ELCA delegate John Sang of Ohio during the debate.

Delegate Terri Stagner-Collier wept as she predicted that opponents would be "ripped away" from the church if the measure were approved. "I urge you not to do this -- not to do this at all," she said, "[for] these people in the pews and in my family."

In essence, the vote puts gays under the same set of rules that have govern heterosexual clergy. They are required to be monogamous if married and to abstain from sexual relations if they are single. Individual congregations would not be compelled to take on pastors who are in same-sex relationships.

The ELCA was formed in 1988 by the merger of three Lutheran organizations, and it has 10,500 churches in the United States, including 80 in the Washington area. It is generally considered the least conservative of the three major present-day Lutheran denominations, although it has a sizable conservative minority.

Commentary. Martin Luther, no friend of pseudo-exegetical sophistry, must be rolling in his grave. Following the steps of the Episcopal Church (EC) – with whom they have intercommunion agreements – the ELCA is now the latest mainline Protestant church body to abandon the historical Christian teaching on chastity and to embrace same-sex couples as ministers in “committed relationships.” Hence, along with the EC, the ELCA confirms its slide into abject apostasy and also initiates its own march into oblivion as yet another marginal sect with no orthodox, biblical moral core. The ELCA’s surrender to contemporary post-Christian anti-values ensures that no corporate Christian living will be possible within the ELCA, and that Christians who still adhere to biblical teaching within the ELCA may only persist solely as individuals. What happened at the ELCA was shameful and will be something that each ELCA delegate will have to explain when they come before the Lord. I doubt they will laugh and celebrate then. Indeed, last week was a sad one in the annals of American Christianity.

Pro-Life Dos and Don'ts for 2009

Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President, Human Life International

In light of the recent political and economic upheaval in our country, I have been asked by a number of people to re-issue the Spirit & Life edition that I sent out at the time of the March for Life this past January. Our readers may look again and judge whether or not there is any relevance to it. I will only preface this posting with an insight that pro-life activist Mark Crutcher gave on his recent "Life Talk" show. It is this: with regard to the phenomenal citizen participation in the town hall meetings this summer, where have all these patriotic citizens been when it comes to the killing of babies in their country? There are many who are concerned about their own healthcare and more who are concerned about their pocketbooks, but why can we not generate the same level of indignation about the destruction of 50 million American taxpayers who would even now be contributing to the economy and buying into the healthcare system?

Our country needs serious conversion of heart. Don't get me wrong; I am glad people are standing up to ridiculous legislation proposed by professional liars, but I am not in favor of selective indignation when the destruction of innocent life right in our own neighborhoods is so catastrophic for our country. This economic crisis is only the beginning of the long-term effects of the loss of so much precious life. Let's pray intensely for that deep national conversion of heart that is really the only thing that will save our country from destruction - terrorism, healthcare and the economy all take a back seat to this utterly urgent priority.

And by the way, if you didn't commit to these dos and don'ts back in January, there's no time like the present!

The pro-life movement is going through a great deal of self-examination at this time. I am not a pessimist, but my sense of realism tells me that the election of extreme abortion advocate, Barack Obama, and the nearly 7,000 political appointments of his administration will usher in a new decade of war on decency and the sanctity of life. Despite the ferocious optimism of his inauguration, the dark clouds of the culture of death are gathering over Washington as we speak, ready to cast their darkness everywhere.

In this time of preparation for the upcoming total war on life, I offer this modest list of Dos and Don'ts for the generous and valiant pro-lifers who gather for the March for Life in Washington, DC on January 22nd. May all men and women of good will take these recommendations to heart for a fruitful pro-life 2009!

DON'TS

1. Above all, do not grow despondent: there is much to fear for the situation of life around the world, but we are not permitted by our Christian faith to give up our efforts or zeal for life. In fact, we need to redouble it!
   


2. Do not become absorbed in the quest for a political solution to abortion: after 36 years of working for a political solution to abortion, we may soon see the wiping out of most, if not all, of the pro-life movement's gains with the stroke of a pen. Politics has failed. Or rather, we have failed at politics. Either way, politics now offers us little chance of anything other than just trying to slow the massive momentum of the culture of death.
   


3. Do not waste any more energy on overturning Roe: two Supreme Court seats are assured during an Obama administration, and they will undoubtedly be filled with extreme pro-abortion activist judges. A third appointment will leave us with no hope of overturning Roe in anyone's lifetime reading this. For that matter, the chance that a good pro-life President will succeed Obama in four years and nullify the leftward lurch of the high court is, shall we say, unlikely. Let's get hopes of undoing Roe out of our system and focus on more productive things.

DOS

1. Pray every day for God to end abortion with our help (in that order): abortion is such a great spiritual and social evil that only the divine power of God Himself can end it. "The Lord hears the cry of the poor," but God will not do it alone. He needs us to humbly recognize the basic fact that it is humanly impossible to end this evil. We need to get on our knees and beg His Mercy on the unborn and the conversion of all those who commit these evils.
   


2. Commit to fasting every week to end the evils of abortion and contraception: "Some demons can only be driven out by prayer and fasting," said the Lord, and we have to take that admonition seriously if we are to effect any change in the hearts of our people or of our society. Fasting makes us more spiritual and gives greater efficacy to all our works and prayers.
   


3. Take back the culture: Even if the anti-lifers hold the reins of political power, we must not sit back and allow moral anarchists to define all the terms of the cultural or social agenda. Whether it is through social activism for life (crisis pregnancy centers, pickets and prayer marches) or through touching hearts and minds one soul at a time (persuasion, formation, teaching, media), we cannot be neutral about the direction our American culture is heading. It is leading us to certain spiritual death, and no one can afford that. We need to fight for it and never give up the battle.

I promise you that Human Life International will be in the struggle for lives and souls continuously. It is our calling and mission. We will never give one inch to uphold the truth that the whole world needs to hear more than ever: namely, that human life is sacred from the first moment of natural fertilization to the moment of natural death - and we will defend it whether Mr. Obama likes it or not.

We remember today St. Bernard of Clairvaux

From today's Office of Readings, from a Sermon by St. Bernard of Clairvaux

I love because I love, I love that I may love

Love is sufficient of itself, it gives pleasure by itself and because of itself. It is its own merit, its own reward. Love looks for no cause outside itself, no effect beyond itself. Its profit lies in its practice. I love because I love, I love that I may love. Love is a great thing so long as it continually returns to its fountainhead, flows back to its source, always drawing from there the water which constantly replenishes it. Of all the movements, sensations and feelings of the soul, love is the only one in which the creature can respond to the Creator and make some sort of similar return however unequal though it be. For when God loves, all he desires is to be loved in return; the sole purpose of his love is to be loved, in the knowledge that those who love him are made happy by their love of him.

The Bridegroom’s love, or rather the love which is the Bridegroom, asks in return nothing but faithful love. Let the beloved, then, love in return. Should not a bride love, and above all, Love’s bride? Could it be that Love not be loved?

Rightly then does she give up all other feelings and give herself wholly to love alone; in giving love back, all she can do is to respond to love. And when she has poured out her whole being in love, what is that in comparison with the unceasing torrent of that original source? Clearly, lover and Love, soul and Word, bride and Bridegroom, creature and Creator do not flow with the same volume; one might as well equate a thirsty man with the fountain.

What then of the bride’s hope, her aching desire, her passionate love, her confident assurance? Is all this to wilt just because she cannot match stride for stride with her giant, any more than she can vie with honey for sweetness, rival the lamb for gentleness, show herself as white as the lily, burn as bright as the sun, be equal in love with him who is Love? No. It is true that the creature loves less because she is less. But if she loves with her whole being, nothing is lacking where everything is given. To love so ardently then is to share the marriage bond; she cannot love so much and not be totally loved, and it is in the perfect union of two hearts that complete and total marriage consists. Or are we to doubt that the soul is loved by the Word first and with a greater love?

- Source: Universalis.com

Must read article on Health Care Reform

Folks, this article transformed the way I looked at health care reform and it made me morally certain of two things: 1. yes, we have a health services (note I didn't say "care") in this country and 2. current plans for reform will not fix but rather worsen the situation. The article was written by David Goldhill for and appears in The Atlantic Online. The title is How American Health Care Killed My Father. Here's an excerpt:

I’m a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America’s lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system—largely problems of incentives—our reforms won’t do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government’s role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.

Read it all here. I really hope this article becomes a debate-changer.

- Hat-tip to The Anchoress for the heads-up.

Bandwidth problems being addressed

Folks, the increasing number of visitors and readers to Vivificat lately (thank you!) has strained my Photobucket account's bandwidth limit. That's where I keep my blog templates. We're working to minimize any interruptions at this time but if for a moment the site looks disheveled, that's why. Lord willing, the problem would be solved before it becomes an issue. RSS and E-mail deliveries will not be affected. Thank you for your patience on this matter.

Overtaking Christ

Patrick John Ashing, Oblate, OSB Cam

It is really exciting to watch athletes running in a race, especially if it is a long one composed of four or five rounds. The breathtaking moment that leaves us gasping for breath and hopping on the edge of our seats with tense expectation is the point where two or three participants start overtaking the rest to vie for the first place. In our spiritual lives too, we are in a race, striving to reach the pearly gates of the kingdom of Heaven. And St. Bernard, whose feast we celebrate on August 20 coined an apt phrase to spur us on so that we do not lose heart: "It profits a person little to follow Christ, if he/she does not overtake Him". Popularly known as `the man who fell in love with God', St. Bernard entered the Cistercian Order at the age of 22 and became the abbot of Clairvaux. Despite his great desire for silence, solitude and prayer, he was compelled to be a harbinger of peace, reconciling the various divisions in the Church.

In order to be an apostle of peace, one has to be at peace with oneself and others. To establish peace, one also needs the gifts of wisdom, knowledge and understanding, and the 1st reading (Sir 15:1-6) tells us that this is given only to the person who fears God. With the gift of wisdom that comes from above, we will be able to cope with all of life's situations. We will never be at a loss for words, make wrong decisions and will always have the grace and strength to bring good out of evil and spread the peace, love and joy of the Lord to all those with whom we come into contact.

To keep us strong in faith and ensuring that our work brings about the desired results, the Gospel (Jn 17:20-26) tells us that we have a powerful intercessor between God and ourselves - the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus prayed for His apostles before He entered into His passion, He is now praying for us too, that we may carry on the work He had begun. Remember He has promised us, "Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father" (Jn 14:12).

What does St. Bernard teach us as we celebrate his feast? Surely all of us cannot become monks or nuns. The monastery is not for all. It is essential for some, helpful for others but is not for all. We must work with what God gives us. We will always have peace in our hearts if we remember that it is not what we do but why; not how much, but how well; not how energetically, but how lovingly; not the mountains that we move, but the motive that urged us to move them. We can bring some part of the contemplative life into our lives, no matter what state of life we live if we would only remember that meditation and prayer are the two feet we all need, for it is meditation that teaches us what is lacking, and it is prayer that obtains for us the supply thereof. This will make our lives so spiritually rich and fruitful that we would create for ourselves another Heaven on earth. Is not that a holy state in which a person lives more purely, falls more rarely, rises more speedily, walks more cautiously, is bedewed with the waters of graces more frequently, rests more securely, dies more confidently, is cleansed more quickly and is rewarded more abundantly? However, let whatever we do not get to our heads, causing us to be guilty of presumption. To prevent this let us keep three hearts: one of fire for God, another of flesh for our brothers and sisters and a third of flint for ourselves. Let us pray to St. Bernard to give us the strength to live holy lives as he and his family members did, to give all to God, or not at all and to keep burning till we burn out.

Subsidiarity Critique of Health Care Reform Gaining Attention

Folks, Carl Olson, my better known colleague of the Insight Scoop blog published yesterday his own critique of the Obama Administration's Health Care Reform proposals from the viewpoint of its consistency to the principles of subsidiarity - or lack thereof. It is a very good critique which you should read. Here's an excerpt:

To continue with Bishop Vasa's imagery, it's not just that the water is poisoned—every indication is that it is also wildly overpriced, it will be rationed, it won't be delivered on time, and it will be forced down your throat regardless of whether you want it or not. In addition, it is an unproven product that is being badly marketed, to the point that many Americans, including myself, strongly suspect we are being sold a pool of rotten swamp water, not crystal clear stream water from the Rocky Mountains.

One problem with President Obama's health care plan that doesn't seem to be getting much attention among Catholics, is how it squares with the principle of subsidiarity, a key principle of Catholic social doctrine that I bring up from time to time. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church says this of subsidiarity:

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization, and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms. “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending”. An absent or insufficient recognition of private initiative — in economic matters also — and the failure to recognize its public function, contribute to the undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, as monopolies do as well. (par 187)

Read it all here.

One step forward, two steps backwards for President Obama

Folks, acording to Reuters and numerous other news outlets, it transpired this last weekend that "there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass a bill that includes a public [Health Insurance] option. The shift was signaled by President Obama and other members of his administration. The option over the table that might displace the USGOV's takeover of the nation's health insurance industry - and that's what it amounts to - is being called the "co-op" option, which entail the formation of non-profit cooperative ventures to bring health insurance to those most in need.

The co-op option is something I am willing to support, since a cooperative is a form of grassroot, accountable organization meeting the requirements of "subsidiarity" as delineated in Catholic Social Teaching:

A very important and significant example in this regard is found in the activity of so-called cooperative enterprises, small and medium-sized businesses, commercial undertakings featuring hand-made products and family-sized agricultural ventures. The Church's social doctrine has emphasized the contribution that such activities make to enhance the value of work, to the growth of a sense of personal and social responsibility, a democratic life and the human values that are important for the progress of the market and of society.

Nevertheless, today President Obama seems to have backtracked somewhat from his stance and is reassuring his political base, according to CNN. The President should make clear once and for all what kind of reform he's willing to shape and stop talking from both side of his mouth.

In other news, President Obama reasserted his intention of doing away with the Defense of Marriage Act or "DOMA," the federal statute that, among other things, allows the states not to recognize same-sex so-called marriages celebrated in other states. This would de-facto neutralize several state laws and constitutional amendments that do not recognize same-sex "marriage." It would, in effect, federalize marriage law, another addition to the list of recent partial or complete nationalizations - Wall Street, Fannie Mae, AIG, GM, the health-care system and if Mr. Obama gets his way, marriage.

So the score card reads: one step forward and two step backwards for President Barack Obama since this weekend.

The Best of Jesus’ gifts: His Mother

Fr. Nicolas Schwizer

We are going to speak about the best of Jesus’ gifts to humanity. He who has nothing and is naked on the cross, still possesses something enormous: a mother, and He desires to give her to us.

St. John tells us of this episode (JN 19, 25-27), and with psychological sharpness, he places it immediately after the narration of the dividing of his vestments and the drawing of lots for his tunic. Without saying it, John is explaining to us that that tunic was made by the mother of Jesus and that it is precisely the drawing of lots which brings to mind memories in the head of the dying person. It urges Him to fix his attention on the group of friends who are keeping watch at the foot of the cross.

At this hour, the curious ones have left. A great number of enemies have also left. Only remaining are the soldiers keeping watch and the small group of faithful.

The apostles have fled. Even Peter, who because of fear or perhaps more probably because of shame for his betrayal, is also not here. To the embarrassment of the men, the group is mainly made up of women, with the exception of John, the youngest of the clan of fishermen and in whom love has been greater than fears and doubts.

The center of the group is made up of Mary, the mother of the dying person. Other women are at her side. “The Evangelist says that standing close to Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” We already know who this last woman was: the woman from whom, according to St. Luke, seven demons had been driven out (8,2), and surely she was the same woman who, according to the same Evangelist, we saw drying the feet of Jesus in the house of Simon the Pharisee. She is also probably the sister of Lazarus who was raised from the dead. We know they were standing by the cross

Perhaps it was Jesus Himself who at that moment motioned to them to come near because He had something important to tell them.

In reality, there was no law which kept the relatives from approaching the condemned. The soldiers guarded the crosses in case of a possible riot or to help prevent any type of uproar, but they did not remove the curious, nor the enemies, nor the friends. Truthfully, there was little to fear from that small group of women and a boy. The same soldiers had to have compassion for that prisoner for whom at the hour of truth, few allies had remained.

We also know that they “were” standing next to the Cross, and that “were” in Latin tells us clearly that they remained standing, that they remained firm. That Mary could have a fainting moment enters into the human condition. That she would be supported by John is normal in a mother. But for certain, what Jesus saw from the cross was not a fainting woman. Torn apart by pain, She was there totally, awake to assume the tremendous legacy which would be entrusted to Her.

He denies Her nothing. The presence of Mary at that moment is certainly mysterious. From the human and sentimental point of view, it was cruel to have her taken there. It was cruel for the both of them. The presence of the mother at the cross was a double source: source of sweetness and of pain.

For Christ, it had to have been comforting to feel accompanied by her, to see from the Cross the first most pure fruit of his work of redemption. But it was also a source of enormous pain to see His mother suffer. When He who loves discovers the echo of his own suffering in the beloved, He feels new regions of his heart torn apart. On the other hand, I think that seeing his mother suffer so much is the reason why Jesus denies Her nothing.

Questions for reflection

1. Is the Virgin a mother for me?
2. Which is my favorite prayer to the Virgin?
3. What can I do to be more attached to Mary?

Three Perspectives on Health Care Reform

Folks, please read these three perspectives on health care reform, which I believe you'll find informative:

In What Lies Beneath, Cal Thomas contrasts two ways of understanding the worth of a human life. "The secular left" says Thomas, "claims we are evolutionary accidents who managed to crawl out of the slime and by “natural selection” stand erect and over millions of years outsmart our ancestors, the apes. If that is your belief, then you probably think health care should be rationed. The opposing view sees human beings as unique creations. Even Thomas Jefferson, identified by historians as a Deist who doubted the existence of a personal God, understood that if certain rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) do not come from a source beyond the reach of the state, then the state could take those rights away. Those who believe that God made us and also makes the rules about our existence and our behavior will have a completely different understanding of life’s value and our approach to affirming it until natural death." Worth reading.

In From 'Yes, We Can,' to 'No! Don't!, Peggy Noonan among other thing decries the fact that, if current health reform proposals prevail, government bureaucrats will be entrusted to interpret what members of Congress themselves are unable to understand: "The big, complicated, obscure, abstruse, unsettling and ultimately unhelpful health-care plans, proposals and ideas keep rolling out of Washington. Five bills, thousands of pages, "as it says on page 346, paragraph 3, subsection D." No one knows what will be passed, what will make its way through House-Senate "conference." They don't even know what the president wants, what his true agenda is. He never seems to be leveling, only talking. Everything's open to misdirection and exaggeration, and everything, people fear, will come down to some future bureaucrat's interpretation of paragraph 3, subsection D, part 22."

Now to a supporting view: U.S. Bishops Launch Web Site on Health Care Reform, Their Position and Concerns, according to the USCCB website. Their position is as follows:

a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity

access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of legal immigrants

pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options

restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers

The bishops' position is not a new one, since it's been on record since 1993. However, I see no effort by our bishops to critique the proposed legislation(s) on subsidiarity grounds, a Catholic social tenet that our bishops seem to have abandoned completely. This shortcoming in the bishops' consistent application of Catholic Social Doctrine has been noted and critiqued in turn by David A. Bosnich in his article, The Principle of Subsidiarity. The U.S. bishops are leaving us lay actors little room in which to apply our prudential judgments on policymaking.

I will continue to examine the issue and analyzing the particular opinions a few readers have been sharing with me in an effort to keep you appraised of the situation from a solid, coherent Catholic perspective, as the Lord has given me the light to see it.

Blogrolls Updated!

Folks, I've updated the blogrolls, that is, I've updated the Catholic blogroll and added two more for good measure. With this, I believe I'd transferred, culled, and updated the old blogrolls from the previous template into this one. If you:

Want your blog to be included in my blogroll,

Don't want your blog listed in my blogroll,

Wish to update the URL for your blog,

Wish to change the category in which your blog is listed,

Find a blog displaying objectionable content

Let me know, please.

You will find the blogrolls displayed on the left sidebar. Thanks!

Today we celebrate the Assumption of Our Lady, the Theotokos, Mary Most Holy

Today we remember a deed of power: Our Lord Jesus Christ called his Mother to himself, in body, soul, and spirit.

For Catholic Christians this means something simultaneously simple and grandiose: that the resurrection of the dead has been verified in Mary, the Mother of Jesus and Our Mother. She has received her crown, and she is as close to God as a mere creature can get, closer to Him than the Seraphim and the Cherubim. The Church rightly sings:

You are truly deserving of glory, O Theotokos, the ever-blessed and most pure Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, who as a Virgin gave birth to God the Word, true Birth-giver of God, we magnify you.

The Church also rightly prays:

Under your protection, we hasten, O Virgin Birth-giver of God. Do not turn away from us in our time of need, but pure and blessed Lady, save us!

Redemption has been completed: A Man redeemed Mankind by dying on a cross and restored our life by rising triumphantly from the dead, thus removing the guilt of Adam; by calling Woman upon himself, he then restored Womankind to her rightful place in this New Eve.

Powerful and glorious are the deeds of Our Lord!

The Lord has called his Ark of his Majesty into his Tent!

This is the day the Lord has made! Let us rejoice and be glad in it!

Today we remember St. Maximilian Kolbe

Source: American Catholic: Saint of the Day

I don’t know what’s going to become of you!” How many parents have said that? Maximilian Mary Kolbe’s reaction was, “I prayed very hard to Our Lady to tell me what would happen to me. She appeared, holding in her hands two crowns, one white, one red. She asked if I would like to have them—one was for purity, the other for martyrdom. I said, ‘I choose both.’ She smiled and disappeared.” After that he was not the same.

He entered the minor seminary of the Conventual Franciscans in Lvív (then Poland, now Ukraine), near his birthplace, and at 16 became a novice. Though he later achieved doctorates in philosophy and theology, he was deeply interested in science, even drawing plans for rocket ships.

Ordained at 24, he saw religious indifference as the deadliest poison of the day. His mission was to combat it. He had already founded the Militia of the Immaculata, whose aim was to fight evil with the witness of the good life, prayer, work and suffering. He dreamed of and then founded Knight of the Immaculata,, a religious magazine under Mary’s protection to preach the Good News to all nations. For the work of publication he established a “City of the Immaculata”—Niepokalanow—which housed 700 of his Franciscan brothers. He later founded one in Nagasaki, Japan. Both the Militia and the magazine ultimately reached the one-million mark in members and subscribers. His love of God was daily filtered through devotion to Mary.

In 1939 the Nazi panzers overran Poland with deadly speed. Niepokalanow was severely bombed. Kolbe and his friars were arrested, then released in less than three months, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception.

In 1941 he was arrested again. The Nazis’ purpose was to liquidate the select ones, the leaders. The end came quickly, in Auschwitz three months later, after terrible beatings and humiliations.

A prisoner had escaped. The commandant announced that 10 men would die. He relished walking along the ranks. “This one. That one.” As they were being marched away to the starvation bunkers, Number 16670 dared to step from the line. “I would like to take that man’s place. He has a wife and children.” “Who are you?” “A priest.” No name, no mention of fame. Silence. The commandant, dumbfounded, perhaps with a fleeting thought of history, kicked Sergeant Francis Gajowniczek out of line and ordered Father Kolbe to go with the nine. In the “block of death” they were ordered to strip naked and the slow starvation began in darkness. But there was no screaming—the prisoners sang. By the eve of the Assumption four were left alive. The jailer came to finish Kolbe off as he sat in a corner praying. He lifted his fleshless arm to receive the bite of the hypodermic needle. It was filled with carbolic acid. They burned his body with all the others. He was beatified in 1971 and canonized in 1982.

He is the patron saint for drug addicts, families, imprisoned people, journalists, political prisoners, prisoners, and the pro-life movement. (Source: Catholic Forum)

Is there a future for Orthodox and Catholics Together?

I want to address a few of the observations made by Orthodox Christians regarding the way we Catholics "experience" God, by ourselves and also when in community. Then I want to draw a couple of conclusions and maybe sketch what road lies ahead for Orthodox and Catholics together.

Let me tell you a bit about my own experience. When I worship the Lord, at Liturgy (at Mass, or when praying the Hours) I am not reading lessons from Aristotle or St. Thomas. When I worship, I am not absorbed in the contemplation of syllogisms. I am certain that I am in dialogue with Someone and this Someone is True God and True Man; and this dialogue is enabled by Someone who is Personal Spirit that empowers me to say to God, "Abba, Father."

Orthodox apologists often accuse Catholics of holding to a cold kind of faith, riddled with this pagan Aristotelian philosophy and weakened to the point of gracelessness by the cryptomodalism contained in the "filioquist" heresy of the West. It is strange though that I never experienced God as Orthodox apologists say I experience Him solely on the basis of my flawed Catholic understandings.

That did open a crack, small at first, in the claims of Orthodox exclusivity, which then became a chasm.

I like to think that my faith has deepened quite a bit ever since I started to pattern it on monastic practice. Praying the Liturgy of the Hours regularly was the first step; making oblation as a lay Benedictine - an Orthodox father of East and West - was another step in that direction.

We both, then, hearken to our monastic heritage in the way we understand and express the faith, and this is as much true in the West as it is in the East, whether or not most Catholics share that appreciation is another matter.

My point, and also one of my goals in having written Twelve Differences Between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches - more than likely unconsciously held: I just thought that the time that we should go beyond the caricatures we hold of each other is finally here. That it took a Catholic revert - and an Orthodox deserter at that, who in the eyes of many, may have never really "converted" - to open the gates and energize a grass-roots dialogue, well, I think that says something.

One thing I can say in defense of the "modern" Catholic Church is this: there is more willingness to right ancient wrongs and to reopen old dialogues anew in the Vatican than in the Phanar, Athos, and all other Orthodox centers. Now more than ever there is an inclination to listen to what the Orthodox Church has to about herself, in her terms. Alas, there is no reciprocation from the Orthodox, at least from the traditional custodians - the bishops, the monks - of Orthodox Tradition, and that also tells us something.

There's a lot of recognition and purification of our historical memories that need to occur before reconciliation even begins to occur. Perhaps the way to proceed - and this would only work between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church, and no one else - is to accept at faith value the claims we make about our respective faiths, and then reflect what such a self-understanding would mean to the other. The more traditional approach - let me first define you and then let me tell you why I don't like you - has ran is course, it is sterile, graceless, unable to grant life.

I have despaired as a Catholic - as I once despaired as an Orthodox - of this traditional way of "dialogue." I have posed to myself the question what the Orthodox viewpoint brings to my self-understanding as a Christian and so far, I haven't felt the least violated by the insights gained and I am also surprised that my identity as a Catholic remains intact. I can't be a good Protestant and a good Catholic but somehow, I can be a good "Orthodox" - yet not in good standing with the Orthodox Church, I admit that - and a good Catholic.

It's true in a sense to say that I have achieved that because deep down I perceive that I am lacking something. Well, yes. Not all deprivations are morally onerous. Catholic teaching tells me that I am OK being "only" a Latin-rite Catholic and I accept that and yet, I feel more complete, more "Catholic" when I integrate the Eastern Christian insights into my outlook and deep prayer life, absent any desire to "return" to an Orthodoxy that is already my inheritance.

I wonder if Orthodox Christians, in those moments when they can suppress their historical animus against the West, don't feel the same and if the bluster with which they affirm Orthodox exceptionalism is an old defense mechanism to hide that feeling. Are the Orthodox Christians "out there" pining to pray the rosary the same way I pray the Jesus Prayer with my tchotky? I bet there are and the fact that is easier for me to pray the Jesus Prayer than an Orthodox to pray a the Rosary also says something.

Finally, while our bishops, theologians and academics work out through the high-level issues, we at the grassroots level should be engaging in a different kind of cooperation. Secularism has become quite militant lately and perhaps a common front of Orthodox and Catholic Christians, joined together to face it down is in order. I think this the Spirit is now pushing the Churches toward this cooperation: a joint engagement in the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Joint prayer may or may not be practicable, but mercy can't wait. In this we have to work together.

I've rambled enough. Thank you all for your comments. May the Lord bless us richly.

Deal W. Hudson: Why Are the Bishops Forcing the Issue of Healthcare?

Folks, I think this column by Deal W. Hudson published in InsideCatholic.com is a must read and deserves to be published in toto:

If ever there were a time when Catholics should not trust the United States government, it is now. The president, his administration, and the congressional leadership are removing all the abortion restrictions put in place since Roe v. Wade. And yet, the bishops are backing a proposal to give the federal government complete control over the healthcare of every American citizen.

Abortion is not the only reason Catholics should have deep misgivings about giving the government even more control over their lives. The healthcare bill itself provides evidence of how "reform" will extend that control in ways contrary to the basic tenets of faith.

In addition to abortion coverage, which the bishops have publicly opposed, there is the "end-of-life" coverage, a nice euphemism for potential euthanasia counseling, and the voluntary "Home Visitation Programs for Families with Young Children and Families Expecting Children" in section 440.

This federal program is another version of the Education Begins at Home Act, which was introduced in 2008 and 2009 by Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO). It provides "parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices; [and] skills to interact with their child...."

The idea of encouraging government to teach us "parenting skills" is abhorrent. The Church emphasizes the primacy of parents in raising their children. In Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II wrote:

The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life.... It is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others....

Anyone who thinks programs like home visitation are benign should note what Hyllis Schlafly points out: One of the stated purposes of home visitation is "increasing birth intervals between pregnancies," which "reminds us of China's policies to reduce childbirth by married couples." It also addresses "child abuse, neglect, and injury," thus "giving more authority to the already too powerful Child Protective Services."

The healthcare takeover is the perfect vehicle for extending government control of the lives of individuals and families. It took the healthcare debate to wake people up. Only then did the public react to the sudden surge in government control that began
with the takeover of many banks.

The boisterous town hall meetings around the country are not only about healthcare per se; they are a resurgence of the long-held American fear of governmental power and control. This fear is integral to Catholic social teaching as well, and articulated by its core principle of subsidiarity. In Centesimus Annus, John Paul II argued that the government assistance state"leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending."

It appears that members of Congress are now listening to these protesting voices, but are the Catholic bishops? As a friend wrote to me, "The good bishops have also ignored the mounting discontent in the streets with Catholic hierarchy pushing this most unpopular federal takeover of healthcare." There is increasing evidence on the Internet and in the media that Catholics are feeling the same sense of frustration and anger we are witnessing at the town hall events.

Many Catholics are asking, "Why are the Catholic bishops trying to force this issue?"

Fr. Al Kimel on the 12 Differences between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches

Folks, you all probably remember Fr. Al Kimel, legendary author of the blog Pontifications, an Anglican convert to the Catholic Church and currently a Catholic priest in New Jersey.  Well, the good father wanted to comment on my post on the Twelve Differences Between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches, but his comments were too long for the comment field. He then sent his input to me which I am now reproducing for your reading pleasure. Folks, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to present to you Fr. Al Kimel:

 

Your list raises many questions for me.  My suspicion is that both the Latin and Eastern traditions are more diverse than is sometimes entertained.  Here are some brief thoughts and questions about each of the Twelve Differences:

1)  This seems accurate.  The Catholic Church, of course, makes a similar claim about herself.

2)  Is it true that the Orthodox Church rejects totally any understanding of ecclesial headship?  What about the bishop of a diocese?  Does he not wield and embody a divine authority given to him by Christ Jesus?  Is he not the head of his community, which precisely is the Church?  And when Catholics speak of the Pope as the earthly head of the Church, are they in any way denying that Christ alone is properly head of the Church?  When Catholics speak of the primacy of the Pope, are they exalting the Pope above the Episcopate, as if their power and authority derived from him?  And are Orthodox theologians incapable of entertaining an authentic primacy within the episcopal college for the bishop of Rome?  I refer folks to the collection of essays *The Petrine Ministry*, ed. Walter Cardinal Kasper, and Paul McPartlan, *The Eucharist Makes the Church*.  It is important to observe that the sobornost theory of Khomiakov, which has become so influential in some parts of diaspora Orthodoxy, is itself a matter of some controversy within Orthodoxy:  see, e.g., Stylianos Harkianakis, *The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology*. 

I am not denying that important ecclesiological differences may and perhaps do exist between the two communions, but it is not at all clear to me that they are accurately specified by a difference in "headship."  Both communions struggle to assert the hierarchical authority of bishops, while at the same time grounding this authority not in power but in eucharistic love and qualifying this authority by the coming Kingdom. 

3) This may be an accurate statement of a real difference, yet sometimes things are not as always as clear as they sometimes appear.  See, e.g., the Ravenna document:  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html. 

4) This statement does not accurately represent the Catholic understanding of the Church.  The Catholic Church understands the Church precisely as a communion of particular Churches and local dioceses; moreover, the Church as the universal Church is not to be understood as simply the sum or collection of all particular Churches:  each diocese is itself a truly catholic body.  See *Lumen gentium* and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, *Called to Communion*.  Catholic ecclesiology is so much more complex and diverse than is sometimes appreciated.  

5) I think that most Orthodox theologians would agree with this.

6) Does this statement accurately represent consensual Orthodox opinion?  I know that some Orthodox theologians speak this way, but I am dubious that this view represents *the* Orthodox understanding of authority, particularly when Orthodox are talking, not to Catholics, but to each other, and especially when Orthodox bishops and priests are speaking to the Orthodox faithful.  On the Catholic side, on the other hand, all contemporary Catholic theologians seek to interpret authority and authority through Christ Jesus and the mutual love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Even the Pope, it is now commonly asserted, presides in charity and is the servant of the servants of God. 

7) I'm sure there are differences between Catholic construals of anthropology and Orthodox construals of anthropology (please note the plural); but I do not believe that this is because the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches a forensic imputation of original sin and the Orthodox Church does not.  Why do I say this?  Because it is not at all clear to me that the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches the *forensic* imputation of Adam's guilt to humanity.  I know that some (many?) Catholic theologians have sometimes taught something like this over the centuries, but the Catholic Church has strained over recent decades to clarify the meaning of Original Sin not as the forensic transfer of Adam's guilt but as the inheritance of the Adamic condition of real alienation from God--i.e., the absence of sanctifying grace.  Consider the catechetical teaching of John Paul II:

"In this context it is evident that original sin in Adamâ’s descendants does not have the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which has been diverted from its supernatural end through the fault of the first parents. It is a 'sin of nature,' only analogically comparable to 'personal sin.' In the state of original justice, before sin, sanctifying grace was like a supernatural 'endowment' of human nature. The loss of grace is contained in the inner 'logic' of sin, which is a rejection of the will of God, who bestows this gift. Sanctifying grace has ceased to constitute the supernatural enrichment of that nature which the first parents passed on to all their descendants in the state in which it existed when human generation began. Therefore man is conceived and born without sanctifying grace. It is precisely this 'initial state' of man, linked to his origin, that constitutes the essence of original sin as a legacy (peccatum originale originatum, as it is usually called)."

Important differences on the nature of original exist between St Augustine and magisterial Catholic teaching.  As influential as the bishop of Hippo has been, his positions have not been received uncritically or without correction.  For my own very fallible reflections on this question, see:  http://pontifications.wordpress.com/original-sin/.  I would suggest that hyper-Augustinianism is not only impossible in Orthodoxy, but it is also impossible in contemporary Catholicism. 

8)  Once the Catholic understanding of Original Sin is properly clarified, then the differences between Catholics and Orthodox on the topic of the Blessed Virgin's Immaculate Conception narrows considerably.  What, after all, does the dogma positively assert?  Nothing more nor less than the full and perfect indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul of the Theotokos from the moment of her conception.  At no point in her existence was she ever separated from God.  Do Orthodox theologians really want to assert otherwise? 

9)  It is certainly true that the Divine Liturgy is decisive for Orthodox faith and life and "is the true locus of Orthodox unity"; but does this represent a critical difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?  The last time I checked going to Mass was still pretty important for Catholics, which is why the liturgy is such a battleground in the contemporary Catholic Church.  Certainly the fathers of Vatican II believed that the Eucharist is the true locus of Catholic unity (see Sacrosanctum Concilium). 

10) I agree here that there are important differences between Catholic and Orthodox liturgical praxis at the present time.  Sadly, many sectors of the Catholic Church appear to have uncritically embraced the thesis that the Church must adapt her liturgy to the spirit of the modern age.  This has been disastrous for Catholic life and spirituality.  One does see signs, however, that the insanity is passing. 

11) I guess there is a difference here, but is it really worth mentioning. 

12) The Catholic understanding of grace, sanctification, and glorification is inadequately presented in this statement.  While perhaps it might have been true at some point in the past that Catholic theologians tended to reduce grace to a created power, this cannot be asserted today.  Catholic theologians are quite clear that everything begins with and centers around Uncreated Grace.  Catholic theologians do have a problem with some of the Palamite construals of grace and the popular Orthodox rejection of any notion of created grace--they do not see how the Palamite position does not lead to the annihilation of human nature--but this does not mean that Catholic theologians and poets cannot envision an eschatological life as full and vivid as the Orthodox.  Surely Dante's Paradiso may be invoked at this point.  But I do acknowledge a difference of homiletical and ascetical emphasis between Catholics and Orthodox on theosis, sanctifying suffering, and the life of the resurrection.