Brethren: Peace and Good to you in Jesus’ Name.
The book by Dom Augustine Guillerand, O.Cart, The Prayer of the Presence of God is now available for download in PDF format from here. An EPUB version suitable for Nook, Kindle, etc. is also available here. May this book be of great spiritual profit for all of you.
- Download The Prayer of the Presence of God in PDF.
- Download The Prayer of the Presence of God in EPUB format.
Brethren: I greet you all in the love of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Recently I had another dream. I dreamt that I saw a young girl standing at night on an open field with tall grasses. The girl looked Native American, dark skin, long black hair. She wore a seamless dress, of a light earth color, although the image shifted and she appeared naked, though I could only see her back and as my field of vision moved to her front, her torso. The night was filled with stars and a soft, warm breeze blew upon the prairie. I too felt its warmth. Her hair moved ever so slightly in response to the warm breeze.
Then I noticed that she was holding what appeared to be a firefly in her cupped hands. Then firefly began glowing more and more until it look like one of the stars as if plucked from the very sky. Its luminosity increased until the light began to glow through the little girl’s very skin, between her fingers and through her hands and fingers. At this point the girl acquired an iridescence about her as she contemplated the star in her hands, her face completely serene, immobile, impassive, you may say even in ecstasy. She began to glow with the star’s light all around her, as my field of vision circled her slowly. She was completely focused on the star she held between her hands, as in voiceless communication. There my dream ended.
The only thing close to the dream-image that I could find on the net that even approached its feel is the one I picture here, minus the boy on the right.
I think I know what it means, but I want to know what you think…
A reading of the Holy Gospel according to St. Mark (Mark 6, 17-29):
For Herod had sent and seized John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Hero'di-as, his brother Philip's wife; because he had married her. For John said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." And Hero'di-as had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. When he heard him, he was much perplexed; and yet he heard him gladly. But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and the leading men of Galilee. For when Hero'di-as' daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, "Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will grant it." And he vowed to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom." And she went out, and said to her mother, "What shall I ask?" And she said, "The head of John the baptizer." And she came in immediately with haste to the king, and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter." And the king was exceedingly sorry; but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. And immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard and gave orders to bring his head. He went and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother. When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb.
Brethren, peace and good to all of you in the name of Jesus. I want to present to you the scene of St. Peter’s martyrdom as portrayed by Omar Sharif in the TV miniseries, St Peter. It is beautiful, and iconic. Additionally, in the end, you will see where his death took place, and where he was interred, as these places look like today.
Widow; born of Christian parents at Thagaste, North Africa, in 333; died at Ostia, near Rome, in 387. We are told but little of her childhood. She was married early in life to Patritius who held an official position in Tagaste. He was a pagan, though like so many at that period, his religion was no more than a name; his temper was violent and he appears to have been of dissolute habits. Consequently Monica’s married life was far from being a happy one, more especially as Patritius’s mother seems to have been of a like disposition with himself. There was of course a gulf between husband and wife; her almsdeeds and her habits of prayer annoyed him, but it is said that he always held her in a sort of reverence. Monica was not the only matron of Thagaste whose married life was unhappy, but, by her sweetness and patience, she was able to exercise a veritable apostolate amongst the wives and mothers of her native town; they knew that she suffered as they did, and her words and example had a proportionate effect. Three children were born of this marriage, Augustine the eldest, Navigius the second, and a daughter, Perpetua. Monica had been unable to secure baptism for her children, and her grief was great when Augustine fell ill; in her distress she besought Patritius to allow him to be baptized; he agreed, but on the boy’s recovery withdrew his consent. All Monica’s anxiety now centred in Augustine; he was wayward and, as he himself tells us, lazy. He was sent to Madaura to school and Monica seems to have literally wrestled with God for the soul of her son. A great consolation was vouchsafed her — in compensation perhaps for all that she was to experience through Augustine — Patritius became a Christian. Meanwhile, Augustine had been sent to Carthage, to prosecute his studies, and here he fell into grievous sin. Patritius died very shortly after his reception into the Church and Monica resolved not to marry again. You answered her prayers, O Lord, you did not disregard her tears which fell upon the earth wherever she prayed.- Antiphon from today's Morning Prayer's Benedictus.
Because I am a frienf of Israel,The right of the State of Israel to exist, a priori.
The right of the State of Israel to exist right where it is, west of the Jordan River.
The right of the State of Israel to be, and to remain, a Jewish State.
The right of the people of Israel to live in peace and security with all of its neighbors.
The right of Israeli people and Jewish people to live in peace and security wherever they are with full civil rights and respect for their personal dignity.
The Iranian regime - and they do not like to be called "regime" but that's what they are - is one built on hatred against the Jews. This hatred flows from two sources: the Koran, which establishes a theological and political enmity between Muslims and Jews, and the peculiar beliefs of the Shi'a Muslim sect which glorify blood, violent emotions, and uncontained hatred to enemies. Along with the North Korean, Cuban, and "bolivarian" Venezuelan regime, the Iranian regime is one of intense narcissism, in love with every thing they believe, say, and proclaim. Underneath this crust, the ancient Persian obsession for world domination still festers, now amplified by Koranic and Shi'ite imperatives of worldwide Islamic domination and the destruction of Israel and the domination of Jewish and Christians.I have the privilege to be frank and hones, and provide constructive criticism whenever I think is necessary to give it.
My criticism of Israel will be informed by the prophetic Sacred Scriptures we both share in common, as well as a common legal, cultural, and civilizational patrimony.
My criticism of Israel will in no way lead to measures undermining its existence, location or Jewish identity.
My criticism of Israel will also be informed by the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church.
Author: Rev. Enzo Bianchi, Prior of the Monastery of Bose |Source: L'Osservatore Romano via EWTN
There are many different forms of prayer in the Christian tradition with which believers have wished to renew and confirm their communion with the Lord. However, there is no doubt that all Christian prayer has a centre represented by the liturgy, the summit of all the activity of the Church and the source of all her power (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 10) and in which "the Church of Christ is built" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 64, a. 2). For this reason, Christians know that the prayer of the Church, constituted by the Eucharistic liturgy and the Liturgy of the Hours, shapes their life as believers and provides them with the daily nourishment of the Word and of the Eucharist (cf. Novo Millennio ineunte, n. 34). As John Paul II recalls, this requires that "listening to the Word of God ... become a life-giving encounter, in the ancient and ever valid tradition of lectio divina, which draws from the biblical text the living Word which questions, directs and shapes our lives" (ibid., n. 39).
Rosary, support of the liturgy, school of personal prayer
After respecting this primacy, Christians—so that liturgical prayer may be prolonged so as to become unceasing prayer, developing and refining the art of conversation with God—can turn to other forms of prayer. Among these, in the Western tradition of the second millennium, the Rosary is the chief form. Many saints indeed prayed the Rosary and found it an effective means of renewing their way of close union with the Lord. However, John Paul II precisely reminds us, as did Paul VI, that the Rosary is a support for the liturgy, it is ordered to it and by it; can never replace the liturgy, since it really wishes to be a pedagogy of personal prayer (cf. Rosarium Virginis Mariae, n. 4).
How has the Rosary developed in the Christian spiritual tradition over the centuries? The Book of Psalms closes with the verse: "Let everything that breathes, praise the Lord" (Ps 150,6). Rabbis like to interpret this as an invitation to glorify the Lord in many different ways: let every breath of living beings express praise to the Lord! In his teaching on prayer given by Jesus to his disciples there resounds the exhortation to "watch at all times, praying..." (Lk 21,36), "always to pray and not lose heart" (Lk 18,1) and the Apostle Paul also recommends this need to the Christians of the communities he founded (cf. I Thes 5,17; Eph 6,18). Certainly, these exhortations do not require an external attitude of prayer, which would be impossible, but to keep an attitude of heart, ready to listen to the Lord and ready to speak to him.
Continuous prayer of the monks
For this very reason, the fathers of monasticism applied themselves to the memoria Dei, remembrance of God tending to a permanent attitude of prayer that would enable them to renew constantly their communion with God. St Basil in particular, insisted strongly on this form of prayer: "We must persevere in the holy thought of God through ceaseless, pure remembrance of him, impressed upon our souls as an indelible seal" (Long Rule 5,2). He also said: "We must cling constantly to the memory of God, as children to their mother" (ibid., 2,2). Within monastic life an ascetical journey was gradually elaborated in order to attain continuous prayer: the observance of the commandments, spiritual combat, the custody of the heart and vigilance lead the monk to such attendance upon God that he himself becomes a living, continuous prayer. And to pursue this path effectively, the Desert Fathers—in an age when books and codices were rare and people who could read equally scarce—would start by practising melete, meditation or rumination of a verse of Holy Scripture which they had learned by heart, or the repetition of an invocation to the Lord. Indeed, this was a simple form of prayer, perhaps even "rudimentary", but such as could be prayed in the variety of activities and moments of the day: during manual labour, on a journey, at quiet times of rest.... These invocations asked for help, implored mercy, or were shouts of praise and thanksgiving to the Lord. Above all, they practiced the invocation of the Holy Name of Jesus, the Name that God, through the Angel, gave to the Child who was to be born of the Virgin Mary: "Ieshoua", "IHWH is salvation"! This beautiful Name invoked by Christians (cf. Jas 5,14), this Name above every other name (Phil 2,9), the only Name in which there is salvation (cf. Acts 4112) has become for Christians what the Name of the Lord, IHWH, was for the Jews.
Use of the name of Jesus as personal prayer
From the fifth century, in monastic circles in the East, the invocation of the name of Jesus was highlighted as a personal prayer in the conviction that through the saving Name it would be possible to overcome temptation and unify the whole being in the strong tension of communion with God. Invocation and meditation were combined and alternated, harmonizing the lips and the mind, so that the person succeeded in experiencing the Lord's presence in the depths of his heart: "Christ in us, the hope of glory" (Col 1,27). This is the "monologhistic" (monologhistos) prayer which was to be practised by generations of Eastern monks and which gradually developed almost exclusively into the invocation "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me!", excluding other forms of supplication or meditation. When a novice makes his monastic vows he is given a Rosary, known as "the spiritual sword", and he learns to pray the Jesus Prayer night and day. This was to be the characteristic prayer of hesychasm (a spiritual trend that developed at Mount Athos in the 13th century), in which the elements of a psychosomatic technique with the intention of involving the body in prayer were combined with the invocation of the name of Jesus. So this was the practice of the Christian East: the repetition of an invocation to Jesus, a short prayer with a biblical content and a deep theological and spiritual meaning for those who practise it. Indeed, it instills in the heart of the person praying a sentiment of humility and an experience of Jesus' merciful presence, making possible the unification of the whole person in contact with the Lord, which is a humanly possible form of "continuous prayer".
Jewish tradition of the veneration of the Holy Name of God
In the Hassidean Jewish tradition, veneration of the Holy Name of God has also used a method of repetition. When someone, through pure grace, succeeded in formulating it, this person—called baal Shem, "lord, possessor of the Name"—invoked it repeatedly, becoming a contemplative and an intercessor.
Non-Christian, Eastern methods of prayer
Nor should we forget that the method of repetitive and meditative prayer is not unknown in other religious approaches: in them can be found similarities with the Jesus Prayer and with the Rosary itself, but they should be understood as a means, as human instruments, in the search for closeness with God. However, a fundamental difference remains: whereas in the prayer techniques of the non-Christian East, the primacy belongs to the method that aims at creating a condition for contemplation, in Christian prayer the primacy belongs to the action of the Holy Spirit, "it is the Spirit who prays in us" (cf. Rom 8,15.26; Gal 4,6), without whom there is no genuine Christian prayer.
For example, in the quest for God of the peoples of India, there is practiced a form of prayer which consists in repeating many times throughout the day, with the help of a string of beads, a very brief invocation to the divinity, a mystical formula (mantra), sometimes associated with psychosomatic techniques (ajapamantra). This is a prayer to achieve inner peace and to reach a penetrating vision of reality, a prayer which has also been attested in Chinese (10th century) and Japanese (12th century) Buddhism as an invocation to Buddha Amida, and widely practised in our day in Tibetan Buddhism: lamas always wear the Buddhist rosary (mala) on their left wrist.
Islamic forms of prayer
A form of prayer present in the spiritual tradition of Islam should also be mentioned: the dhikr, in which, precisely with a view to unceasing remembrance of God, his Name is repeatedly spoken and an effort is made to forget everything that is not God. This practice emerged in Sufism in a relatively late period, the 11th-12th century, and it is well described in a text by al-Ghazali: "Having sat down in solitude, the Sufi will not cease to say with his mouth: Allah, Allah, continually, with the presence of his heart". Thus it is a way of remembering God, triggered by the recitation of the Name of God (Allah) or his ninety-nine names, as many as the beads of the Muslim rosary (sebhaa): this practice is both individual and collective (at least in Sufi confraternities) with a view to communication with God. It also sometimes makes use of psychosomatic techniques, which, however, remain purely a vehicle because, as al-Ghazali teaches, "it is not within the power of the Sufi recollected in dhikra to attract to himself the mercy of God, the Most High".
Influence of Christian East on West
If it is useful to compare the Rosary with these forms of repetitive prayer which exist in other religions, the most significant similarity remains that of the "prayer of the heart" of the Orthodox East, mentioned above. The two "practices" have undoubtedly influenced each other in the past. Thus in the second millennium, the use of "aspirations" (invocations to God, vibrant as a javelin dart, iaculum) and of litanies, repetitions of names and attributes of the Lord or of the saints, with requests for their intercession: among these we find the systematic repetition of the angel's greeting to Mary.
Greeting to Mary, Jesus, petitions
Now, if we take a closer look at the Rosary, this Western "prayer of the heart", we see that it is divided into a twofold movement: the first part in which the praise and joy of the Incarnation are lived in the repetition of the Angel's greeting to Mary and which culminates in enunciating the Holy Name of Jesus, followed by the invocation of the second part. The two essential "themes" of Christian prayer—praise and salvation—are therefore present, and at the centre is the Name of Jesus, the one name in which there is salvation, the Name of the "precious Christian memory". Nor should it be forgotten that the Hail Mary is in itself an ecumenical prayer, since the theology of the Reformation never condemned calling on Mary to pray and intercede for us.
Biblical roots of Hail Mary
The evident biblical matrix of the Hail Mary, which is repeated in the first part, are the Angel's words ("Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you": Lk 1,28), and Elizabeth's words of rejoicing ("blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb": Lk 1,42) which are reminiscent of the promises/blessings of the God of the Covenant (cf. Dt 28,4). So at the origin of the Hail Mary there is simply the twofold biblical greeting to Mary which is expressed in the invocation of the Name of Jesus, namely, in a "prayer to Jesus". The faith of the Church then felt the need for the invocation "pray for us", pray for us "now", for us poor "sinners", and pray for us at the eschatalogical "hour", the hour "of our death", of our exodus from this world to the Father.
Universal appeal of Rosary
Our experience says that the Rosary is a prayer that is "precious" also by virtue of that simplicity, that "poverty" which has been mentioned: to nourish our spiritual life, it is not always possible to use a prayer that is nourished by the reading of Scripture, whereas it is easy everywhere and in every situation to recite the Rosary, even if only part of it, one "decade" or one "mystery"… It is a prayer that brings peace and predisposes us to the inner unification of our whole being—body, mind and spirit—through the joyful praise of the Mother and of the Holy Name of Jesus, and by the invocation of a prayer of intercession.
With the Rosary, therefore—in the communion of all the saints, who always intercede for us—we pray to the Mother of the Lord and ask her to pray for us: "ora pro nobis", pray for us, for us all. And through this formula it is possible to meditate on the great mystery of salvation brought about in Jesus Christ, from the Incarnation to the merciful and glorious coming. In this way in the Rosary meditation, prayer and contemplation are interwoven around the Holy Name of Jesus: "it is at heart a Christocentric prayer" John Paul II wrote (Rosarium Virginis Mariae, n. 1), and this is precisely why it can be a prayer of ordinary people and of intellectuals, of the elderly and of children, a prayer of all who have a longing for continuous prayer and know that they are poor sinners.
Read the whole piece here.If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, among them an expert who for years worked as a consultant to the American bishops in the cases of priests abusing minors, is successful in promoting its thesis during a conference in Baltimore this week, pedophiles may play a role in having pedophilia erased from the list of mental disorders currently listed in the “Sacred Book” of the American Psychiatric Association, that is from the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders, which will be subject to an important revision in 2013. Critics of this operation are concerned and say that this could lead to a de-criminalization of pedophilia.
The conference that is taking place in Baltimore is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophilia mental health professionals and activists that agree with the movement’s ideas. According to the presentation of the event, “methods that will allow people attracted to minors to become involved in the revision of the Manual” will be examined. Researchers from Harvard, John Hopkins, and Louisville universities will be participating at the event. B4U-Act criticizes APA’s definition of pedophilia because its description of people attracted by minors “is inaccurate and misleading” and it ties pedophilia to criminality.
Judith Resiman, a Child Advocate and professor at Liberty University’s School of Law, stated that the conference is part of a strategy to condition public opinion to accept pedophiles. The first thing they do is switch the thought of people from what a pedophile does from a criminal point of view, to what a pedophile feels emotionally, in order to inspire empathy and sympathy. A notion cannot be changed straight away; it can be changed with progressive conditioning.”
Source: The Baltimore Catechism, no. 3, Lesson 4 via EWTN
35. What do we mean when we say that God is the Creator of heaven and earth?
When we say that God is the Creator of heaven and earth we mean that He made all things from nothing by His almighty power.
(a) Only God can create, that is, make something from nothing, because creation requires infinite power, which God alone possesses.
(b) All things except God depend on a cause for their existence and hence must have been created by God.
(c) God did not have to create the world; He did so freely.
(d) God preserves all creatures; otherwise, they would at once return to nothingness. He also governs all things, and in the divine government of the world nothing does or can happen unless God wills or permits it.
(e) Evil is the lack of some perfection. God does not will physical evil in itself but only insofar as it is connected with some good.
(f) God wills or permits the physical evils of life in order to punish sin, to make sinners repent, to try the just and make them worthy of everlasting reward, or to be the occasion of some other greater good.
(g) God permits but does not will moral evils.
36. Which are the chief creatures of God?
The chief creatures of God are angels and men.
(a) It is a matter of faith that God the Creator produced out of nothing creatures both spiritual and corporal, angelic and earthly.
37. What are angels?
Angels are created spirits, without bodies, having understanding and free will.
(a) Reason alone cannot prove that the angels exist. Reason indicates, however, that just as there are purely material creatures, and creatures composed of both matter and spirit, so also it is fitting that there should be purely spiritual creatures.
(b) Angels are spiritual beings inferior to God and superior to man.
(c) Sacred Scripture frequently speaks of the angels and mentions three by name: the Archangels Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.
(d) The nine "choirs" of angels are the Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels.
(e) The exact number of angels is unknown, but Sacred Scripture indicates that their number is very great.
38. What gifts did God bestow on the angels when He created them?
When God created the angels He bestowed on them great wisdom, power, and holiness.
(a) God bestowed upon the angels supernatural grace by which they could gain eternal happiness.
(b) The angels were given the opportunity to merit the reward of heaven by remaining faithful to God.
39. Did all the angels remain faithful to God?
Not all the angels remained faithful to God; some of them sinned.
(a) We do not know the exact nature of the test to which God put the angels that they might prove themselves worthy of eternal happiness.
(b) The angels who were unfaithful committed a serious sin, for which they were punished.
40. What happened to the angels who remained faithful to God?
The angels who remained faithful to God entered into the eternal happiness of heaven, and these are called good angels.
41. What do the good angels do in heaven?
In heaven the good angels see, love, and adore God.
42. How do the good angels help us?
The good angels help us by praying for us, by acting as messengers from God to us, and by serving as our guardian angels.
(a) The Old and the New Testament refer frequently to the work of the good angels among men. A good angel was the "rude of God's chosen people (Exodus 23:20); the protector of Tobias was a good angel (Tobias 5 ff.). The Archangel Gabriel announced the glad tidings of the Incarnation to Our Blessed Mother (Luke 1:28).
(b) Although angels are pure spirits, they can be seen by man when on special occasions God permits them to take on bodies or the appearance of bodies, which are visible to the human eye.
43. How do our guardian angels help us?
Our guardian angels help us by praying for us, by protecting us from harm, and by inspiring us to do good.
(a) It is a matter of faith that angels are deputed as the guardians of men.
(b) It is commonly held that each individual has a special guardian angel.
44. What happened to the angels who did not remain faithful to God?
The angels who did not remain faithful to God were cast into hell, and these are called bad angels, or devils.
(a) The devils, or the evil spirits, were created by God, not as bad beings but as good beings. By their own free acts, they chose evil and thereby became bad angels.
45. What is the chief way in which the bad angels try to harm us?
The chief way in which the bad angels try to harm us is by tempting us to sin.
(a) Devils are sometimes permitted to enter the body of a man and to exercise power over his faculties—a state known as diabolical possession; or the,, are permitted to torment a person from without—a state known as diabolical obsession.
(b) Diabolic possession and obsession are permitted by God to show forth His glory, to punish sin, to bring sinners to repentance, or to give occasion for the exercise of virtue.
(c) When the devil uses the body of a possessed person to say or do evil things, the person is not guilty of sin, provided he does not freely consent.
(d) Exorcism is the act of driving out or warding off evil spirits from persons, places, or things possessed or infested by them. The Church received from Christ the power of exorcism.
(e) An exorcist is one who has power, conferred by a bishop, to exorcise demons. The order of exorcist is the third of the four minor orders of the Western Church. Only with the permission of his bishop is a priest allowed to use his power of exorcising evil spirits.
46. Do all temptations come from the bad angels?
Some temptations come from the bad angels; but other temptations come from ourselves and from the persons and things about us.
(a} The bad angels, the persons and things about us, and we ourselves can excite the senses and be an inducement to sin.
47. Can we always resist temptations?
We can always resist temptations, because no temptation can force us into sin, and because God will always help us if we ask Him.
(a) God does not demand the impossible; however He warns us that in our efforts to overcome temptation we must not rely entirely on ourselves but must seek His help.
(b) God permits us to be tempted in order to make us realize our weakness, to test our faith, and to help us by His grace to strengthen virtue by practice and to obtain the reward of eternal life.
(c) The most effective means of overcoming temptation are prayer, mortification, frequent Confession and Holy Communion, and avoiding idleness and the near occasion of sin.
Brethren, this, according to the Catholic League:
The mainstream media never tire of lambasting the Catholic Church for not responding strongly enough to allegations of the sexual abuse of minors, yet these very same people show absolutely no interest in reporting on attempts to legitimate pedophilia. Many in the mental health profession who seek to normalize pedophilia met last week in Baltimore, an event that was summarily ignored by the media. Fortunately, attorney Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, and Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law, were in attendance. To read a summary of their findings, click here.
B4U-ACT is the driving force behind this movement. Its goal is to reconceptualize our thinking about what they politely call "Minor-Attracted Persons." If they had it their way, sex between adults and minors would no longer be taboo, and pedophilia would no longer be listed as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. So where is the outrage? To be specific, where is the outrage from those who are fixated on priestly sexual abuse?
Put this first-hand account of the B4U-ACT conference with the Catholic League's first-hand account of the SNAP conference (see today's earlier release), and what emerges is a two-pronged attack: the pedophilia-friendly psychiatrists want to undermine traditional standards of morality, and SNAP (and its allies) want to undermine its most prominent voice, namely the Catholic Church. To say they represent twin devils is to understate the issue.
And this is what Matt Barber and Dr. Judith Reisman’s heard at the conference:
Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.
There was concern about “vice-laden diagnostic criteria” and “cultural baggage of wrongfulness.”
“We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child‟s sexuality.”
“Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
“In Western culture sex is taken too seriously.”
“Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and „Puritanical‟]. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They‟ve always been able to have sex at any age.”
An adult‟s desire to have sex with children is “normative.”
Our society should “maximize individual liberty. … We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty.”
“Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization.”
“These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”
A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association‟s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.
Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to that witnessed at the conference, rather than scientific considerations that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason “homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn‟t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.
Dr. Berlin appeared to endorse the politically maligned clinical practice of “reparative therapy” for homosexuals and pedophiles alike, saying, “If someone, for their own reasons, doesn‟t want to live a homosexual lifestyle, I tell them that it‟s hard but I‟ll try to help them.”
The DSM ignores that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another.
“The majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational.”
The DSM should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile, and should have “a minimal focus on social control,” rather than obsessing about the “need to protect children.”
Commentary. Pedophiles are justly “demonized by society” because what they do and advocate is exactly that: DEMONIC. Also, look at how they admit that homosexuality was dropped from the list of psychiatric disorders for political – not scientific – reasons and how they intend to emulate the homosexualist movement to gain recognition for poor, misunderstood “MAPs.” Also note how they take direct aim at Judeo-Christian morality under the euphemism “cultural baggage of wrongfulness.” Notice to the connection gay activist Jacob Breslow made between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.
Of course, you didn’t see this in the press because this wasn’t a conference of disaffected Catholic priests, but of voices representative of our social vanguards.
I hope the place was crawling with cops and that every affirmative attendant was photographed for future line-ups. And if one these predators were to hurt any of my babies, well, I’ll leave it there.
by Mark Laaser, at Amazon.
Brethren, Hilaire Belloc’s apologetic’s classic , The Great Heresies, is now available for download in EPUB format from here. Yours truly did the compilation and conversion. Please, let me know if you have trouble downloading the file.
- Download The Great Heresies.
Fr. Nicolas Schwizer
If we want to grow upward, toward God, we have to first succeed growing on the natural level. Within the natural, importantly apart from our being, is the subconscious.
Why is it so important? Because man is led by the impulses of the subconscious much more than by the conscious will. The subconscious is like a “control tower” for human conduct. It happens to all of us that, suddenly, we act totally contrary to what we had thought or decided. We have allowed ourselves to be surprised by the almost irresistible power of the subconscious. And that happens, in large part, by the power for acting which is the subconscious.
And in that subconscious world, a number of impressions not worked out or digested, can be found at work there. Also in healthy people, what are called “acts of failure” (forgetfulness, lapses, putting the foot in the mouth, etc.) come to the surface; for example, I am about to open a new package of cigarettes and I tell myself that I can wait an hour longer. A few minutes later – immersed in my work – I am surprised that I am smoking a cigarette. My subconscious has sought to impose itself when my conscious control has ceased; therefore, the importance of grasping and purifying the subconscious because if it is not orderly and healed, it stops and impedes our journey toward maturity and sanctity.
To this can be added that today’s man is weaker and more fragile that the ancient or medieval man. Father Kentenich, founder of the Schoenstatt Movement, speaks of a deficit of natural and mental power, of power of resistance, of modern man’s moving-power . He also comments that for today’s man it is already difficult to make a spiritual retreat: his subconscious is too closed, hardened; the subconscious life of the soul has absorbed all of man’s vital powers.
What is the subconscious?
All impressions which man receives and registers are recorded in his interior. None are lost. Some are kept in his memory so that he can use them when he needs them.
Others are lost by the conscience, but they do not disappear: they sink into the subconscious and remain there.
Now then, the difficulty for modern man consists in that he receives so many impressions that he is no longer capable of working through them or of assimilating them interiorly. When it has to do with positive experiences, it is easier to put them in order and to integrate them into his interior world. Up to here, everything proceeds OK. The problem comes forth with the reactions: each impression produces a reaction, in some cases a chain reaction. They can be immediate or later on, interior or exterior. When the stimulus is positive, for example, a hymn, an affectionate gesture, a gift, the impression and the reaction are positive. The subconscious puts it in order and assimilates it more easily and thus helps the proper growth.
It is different when the stimulus is negative, for example, I am challenged unjustly. I am left with a negative impression and this generates reactions, for example, I go and cry in my room, I create a scene with the one who challenged me, I do not speak but I internalize the impression, my relationship with that person begins to deteriorate. Frequently, I cannot achieve digesting nor do I try to digest or assimilate the matter. Perhaps in time I forget the matter – it sinks into the subconscious – but not digesting it nor assimilating it, does not contribute to my personal growth, instead it creates conflicts and obstacles of all kinds.
To characterize this situation, Father Kentenich uses some images of the animal kingdom: The impressions in the subconscious – especially those not digested – are like rats which run and run and chase each other. Or, they are like fish in a lake. Or, like snakes which deposit their poison in our nature.
Questions for reflection
1. Do I have uncontrolled reactions?
2. Which are the fish which swim in my interior?
3. Or, which is the “breed of vipers” which moves in my subconscious?
Brethren, today I stumbled on a piece written by a certain Mojtaba Sadeghian, published in a Iranian website called Merhrnews.com, titled, Is Iran pleased about the violence in Britain? and I need an urge to comment.
Brethren, last month I discussed the notion of tolerance, briefly tracing its roots and describing the transmogrification of its meaning into something quite different these latter days, when tolerant people are held as bigots, and the libertine as paragons of virtue.
But what is tolerance and why should a Catholic Christian care? And should the definition of tolerance be different than the prevailing one? Answering these two questions are the subject of this post.
First, tolerance must be a conscious, deliberative act. It’s not an attitude as much as a choice; it’s not a benevolent indifference, but a habit, aimed at a specific subject simultaneous to the moment in which tolerance is called for. Therefore, the habit of tolerance should first be grounded on the psychology of human acts. An exercise in tolerance must be free act is voluntary, that is, proceeding from the will with the apprehension of the end sought, or, in other words, is put forth by the will solicited by the goodness of the object as presented to it by the understanding.
Second, the Catholic habit of tolerance should transcend mere human ethics and be an exercise in the infused, supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and love:
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him: You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depends the whole law and the prophets. (Matthew 22: 36-40)
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:13)
Tolerance, then, should be for a Catholic a supernatural act and habit of applied love and a grace asked and received from God, who will not deny it to those who asked for it eagerly:
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7: 7-8)
Third, the supernatural habit of tolerance must blossom into the practice of the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. We do that by acting properly and with restraint before every person and situation, given each their due, and willingness to face the consequences.
Fourth, a Catholic definition of tolerance should be grounded on the intrinsic dignity of every human being, made in the image and likeness of God:
26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness, and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moves upon the earth. 27 And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1: 26-27)
Therefore, the primary object of our tolerance is our neighbor, made in the image and likeness of God, to whom we owe love.
The act of tolerance itself is twofold. The first aspect consists of not judging our neighbor even in the face of his patent sin:
1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged. (Matthew 7:1)
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2: 12-13)
The second aspect is restraint or fortitude in the face of an evil act, or a set of evil act. This restraint or fortitude is a virtue exercised through the Holy Spirit – at which point one is exercising a gift or charism – in which the intellect judges prudently the right means needed to stop or ameliorate evil.
22 There is no excuse for unjustified anger; it can bring about your downfall.23 Wait and be patient, and later you will be glad you did.24 Keep quiet until the right time to speak, and you will gain a reputation for good sense. (Sirach 1:22)
These right means through which we exercise tolerance are identical to the following works of spiritual mercy:
•To instruct the ignorant;
•To counsel the doubtful;
•To admonish sinners;
•To bear wrongs patiently;
•To forgive offences willingly.
The end or finality of tolerance is the same one as of practical, divinely-infused agape-love: the love of God and of neighbor now, and in the world to come.
I believe we now have enough elements to attempt a definition of tolerance that will provide useful guidance to Catholics:
Tolerance is that good habit – that is, a virtue – in which the Catholic Christian actively and consciously loves his neighbor, especially when the neighbor lives in grave sin, by avoiding judgment and showing him the same mercy the Lord shows us for our sins, as we choose the right means to eliminate or ameliorate the evil incurred in this world by the neighbor’s (and our own) actions, through the right exercise of the theological and cardinal virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, so that both our neighbor and us might attain salvation and everlasting life in the world to come.
In a future post I plan to reflect on the different aspects of this definition. In the meantime, I welcome your thoughts and critiques!
Source: Catholic News Agency
Today, Catholics and many other Christians celebrate the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This significant feast day recalls the spiritual and physical departure of the mother of Jesus Christ from the earth, when both her soul and her resurrected body were taken into the presence of God.
Venerable Pope Pius XII confirmed this belief about the Virgin Mary as the perennial teaching of the Church when he defined it formally as a dogma of Catholic faith in 1950, invoking papal infallibility to proclaim, “that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
His Apostolic Constitution “Munificentissimus Deus” (Most Bountiful God), which defined the dogma,
contained the Pontiff's accounts of many longstanding traditions by which the Church has celebrated the Assumption throughout its history.
The constitution also cited testimonies from the early Church fathers on the subject, and described the history of theological reflection on many Biblical passages which are seen as indicating that Mary was assumed into heaven following her death.
Although the bodily assumption of Mary is not explicitly recorded in Scripture, Catholic tradition identifies her with the “woman clothed with the sun” who is described in the 12th chapter of the Book of Revelation.
The passage calls that woman's appearance “a great sign” which “appeared in heaven,” indicating that she is the mother of the Jewish Messiah and has “the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” Accordingly, Catholic iconography of the Western tradition often depicts the Virgin Mary's assumption into heaven in this manner.
Eastern Christians have also traditionally held Mary's assumption into heaven as an essential component of their faith. Pius XII cited several early Byzantine liturgical texts, as well as the eighth-century Arab Christian theologian St. John of Damascus, in his own authoritative definition of her assumption.
“It was fitting,” St. John of Damascus wrote in a sermon on the assumption, “that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death,” and “that she, who had carried the creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles.”
In Eastern Christian tradition, the same feast is celebrated on the same calendar date, although typically known as the Dormition (falling asleep) of Mary. Eastern Catholic celebration of the Dormition is preceded by a two-week period of fasting which is similar to Lent. Pius XII, in “Munificentissimus Deus,” mentioned this same fasting period as belonging to the traditional patrimony of Western Christians as well.
The feast of the Assumption is always a Holy Day of Obligation for both Roman and Eastern-rite Catholics, on which they are obliged to attend Mass or Divine Liturgy, unless the feast day falls on a Sunday.
The Assumption in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.
2853 Victory over the "prince of this world" was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is "cast out." "He pursued the woman" but had no hold on her: the new Eve, "full of grace" of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). "Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring." Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: "Come, Lord Jesus," since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One.
2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."
"Also to be observed are the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension of Christ, the feast of the Body and Blood of Christi, the feast of Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, the feast of Saint Joseph, the feast of the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, and the feast of All Saints."
Interview With Father Jean-Baptiste Edart | Source: Zenit.org via EWTN
Father Jean-Baptiste Edart, is co-author of "Clarifications sur l'Homosexualité dans la Bible" (Clarifications on Homosexuality in the Bible), published by Editions du Cerf.
Q: There are those who say that there are examples of homosexual relationships in the Old Testament. Some say David and Jonathan, for example, had a relationship of this type.
The account in 1 Samuel 18:1-5 shows gestures and words that express a profound attachment between Jonathan and David.
Although the terms used describe a real affective bond, their usual use in the Old Testament in no way allows for seeing a homosexual relationship there. For an example you can see Jacob and his son Benjamin in Genesis 44:30-31. The expression "to love as oneself" — as his soul — is frequent — Leviticus 19:18.34.
The verb "to love," in a context of alliance, takes on a political dimension, the beneficiary being considered as partner or superior. Moreover, the gift that Jonathan made to David of his weapons illustrates the transfer of his prerogatives, among which was the right of succession to his father's throne. It's a political gesture. In the account, nonetheless, David ends up replacing Jonathan — 1 Samuel 23:17.
Other passages, developed by Innocent Himbaza in our book, illustrate the friendship between Jonathan and David. All the gestures posed between these two men, however, can take place between parents and children — Jacob and Benjamin; between brothers — Joseph and his brothers; between father-in-law and son-in-law — Jethro and Moses; between close friends — Jonathan and David; between warriors — Saul and David, Jonathan and David; and between brothers and sisters in the faith — Paul and the Ephesians. We risk interpreting the latter askew here, but these are actually normal and usual gestures for people who feel close to one another.
We can affirm that nothing in the texts we are faced with allow for seeing any homosexuality between David and Jonathan, not even implicitly. If at times an expression is ambiguous for a modern spirit, reading it in context removes that possibility.
Q: The Church preaches love of neighbor, but is often reproached for wanting to put "barriers" to love, for not understanding every person's profound need to love. If the Church does not approve homosexuality, what message of hope can she give to a person who finds in homosexuality the means to give himself and to love?
The suffering of a homosexual person can be very great and not accessible to people who do not experience this situation.
Indeed, our whole world is marked by this fundamental fact of heterosexual love. Even the Chinese civilization, hardly susceptible to having been shaped by Judeo-Christian culture, also lives this reality. In that civilization, homosexuality is also perceived as outside the norm.
The homosexual person experiences an internal suffering, attested by psychological studies, but he also suffers from his confrontation with a world that very often will judge and condemn him.
This rejection will often even be violent. In fact, everybody passes a phase in their psychological development of ambiguity on the sexual plane in adolescence. A person might be, for some time, attracted by persons of the same sex, without being for all that a homosexual! If this stage of growth is badly lived or unfinished, it results in psychic suffering.
Subsequently, every confrontation with homosexuality will trigger this suffering, which will be translated in violent behavior. To learn to consider a homosexual person without reducing him to his sexual orientation can be difficult and lead to recognizing one's personal poverty.
In the face of this situation, the Church, in fidelity to the Bible, recognizing that active homosexuality cannot be a good for the person, forcefully affirms, in the same fidelity to the word of God, that every person, regardless of his sexual orientation, has the same dignity and in no way must be the object of unjust discrimination. As every baptized person, homosexual persons are called to holiness and to live here and now a living relationship with Christ in the Church.
The message of the Gospel is a source of hope for these persons and the Church witnesses to this. Christian communities can be places where people see their personal suffering accepted and understood. The latter will then be able, with the support of these communities, to seek to correspond to God's call.
We have a magnificent example of this in the friendship between Julien Green and Jacques and Raissa Maritain. Homosexual persons thus witness today that they have been able to walk with the support of other Christians and to build a happy life. The development of friendly and fraternal relations lived in chastity is an important place of psychological and spiritual healing.
Friendship with Christ is certainly the principal support and guide on this path. He is the best of friends. This friendship is nourished in the life of faith, prayer and the sacraments. The homosexual person desirous of progressing toward Christ will find an indispensable support there. He wants to be in alliance with each one by meeting the person just as he is and to conduct him to himself gradually with the continuous and unconditional support of his mercy.
It's a long and difficult but possible path. It is certain that the development of homosexuality in our Western society is an appeal to Christians to create new places to help those who are wounded in their sexuality.
Interview With Father Jean-Baptiste Edart | Source: Zenit.org via EWTN
Father Jean-Baptiste Edart, is co-author of "Clarifications sur l'Homosexualité dans la Bible" (Clarifications on Homosexuality in the Bible), published by Editions du Cerf.
Q: What are the references to homosexuality in the Bible?
This subject is given very little coverage in the Bible. This is linked to the absence of the visibility of this phenomenon, and that is a logical consequence of the prohibition of this behavior.
The biblical texts which address the question of homosexuality directly or indirectly are:
In the Old Testament :
Genesis 19:7-8: "I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But don't do anything to these men."
Judges 19:23-24: "No, my brothers; do not be so wicked. Since this man is my guest, do not commit this crime. Rather let me bring out my maiden daughter or his concubine. Ravish them, or do whatever you want with them; but against the man you must not commit this wanton crime."
Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."
In the New Testament:
1 Corinthians 6:9: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites ... will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Timothy 1:10: "... law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly ... the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching."
Romans 1:26-27: "Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."
Q: You quoted 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. How should these texts be understood?
These two texts contain a list of vices presented as unacceptable for access to the kingdom of God. In 1 Corinthians, two Greek words make reference to homosexuality: "malakos," translated here as "homosexuals," and "arsenokoites," translated as "sodomites."
These terms are very rare: "Malakos" appears only here in St. Paul, as for "arsenokoites," it is the first recurrence in the whole of Greek literature. "Malakos" means, literally, "gentle, silky, delicate." In a homosexual relationship, it designates the passive partner, but it can also refer to homosexual prostitutes or very effeminate men.
The study of the meaning of "arsenokoites," and the clearly sexual context of the list of prohibitions invalidate these last two marginal interpretations. "Arsenokoites" means literally "to lie with a man." Formed by the association of two words present in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, it quite probably appeared in the Judeo-Hellenistic context. Rabbis used the Hebrew expression "lie with a man," taken from the Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, to express the homosexual relationship.
They did not limit it to pederasty. All these elements seem sufficient to us to affirm that the most plausible theory is that this term refers to men having the active role in relations of a homosexual nature. The meaning of "arsenokoites" allows one to limit the meaning of "malakos" to the passive partner in a homosexual relationship.
Homosexual acts, therefore, are considered extremely grave, directly offending the divine Law. This teaching is perfectly consistent with Judaism of that time. No distinction is related to a question of sexual orientation, or of circumstances of the act, nor is it indicated. It is the act itself which is condemned.
Q: And Romans 1:18-32?
St. Paul presents acts of a homosexual nature in men as well as women as a consequence of God's wrath. Research was substantiated around the precise nature of this homosexuality and of the interpretation which that passage should be given.
The Apostle wished to illustrate the nature of the ungodliness. He used homosexuality for that, vice characteristic of pagans in the Jewish tradition. Based on the creation account in Genesis 1 and in Deuteronomy 4, he established the link between homosexuality and idolatry. In idolatry, man is dominated by the creature he adores, thus not rendering that corresponds only to the Creator. What takes place is an inversion of the initial, manifested divine plan, among other things, in the sexual difference. In the act of a homosexual nature, this differentiation is not taken into consideration. This is why it constitutes for Paul the best illustration possible of ungodliness.
Another difficulty of interpretation of this text is the meaning of "against nature." In Roman culture, the adjective "natural" characterized acts in accord with social conventions. Thus in Greco-Roman culture, beyond the feminine-masculine structure — masculine is the dominant relationship — it governed who established the moral norm in a loving relationship.
The allusion to Genesis 1 in Romans 1:19-23 invites us to see in "nature" the order willed by God and identifiable in creation. That is translated, among other things, by the man-woman sexual difference, fundamental structure willed by God as expression of his being of communion. God willed the sexual union of man and woman, and this divine will, or divine Law, inscribed in nature is perceptible by reason. Man can observe this through all the elements that characterize sexual identity, genitalia being one of these signs. If we wish to take into consideration the Roman meaning of this term, we could say that the act against nature does not respect the social convention established by God in creation. The reference to Genesis 1 allows one to understand that this prohibition in no way is invalidated by questions of "tendencies" or orientation. It is every homosexual act in its materiality which is contrary to the divine will manifested in the beginning, whether imposed or consented.
Attention to the literal sense of the New Testament texts shows clearly therefore that homosexual acts are considered as gravely contrary to the divine Law. It is important to understand that this negative moral qualification is the logical consequence of a more positive side. God willed to create man to be in alliance with him. This was manifested in the beginning in the sexual difference. The communion between man and woman is the first revelation of the love of God for man. The difference allows for the expression of a complementarity, thus making possible the gift of persons. The sexed body manifests this. The teaching of the Church is in perfect continuity with what Scripture says on this subject.
Dr. Sciubba was one of Padre Pio's spiritual sons. One day, he spoke to Padre Pio about one of his relatives who had decided to divorce her husband. The husband had mistreated her and was the cause of much unhappiness in the family. The marriage had become an "absolute disaster." Dr. Sciubba believed that his relative was doing the right thing by seeking a divorce. Padre Pio did not agree with him. Each case was different, but in regard to this couple, Padre Pio did not feel that a divorce was the right solution. He told Dr. Sciubba quite frankly that the marriage should not be dissolved.
Read the entire article hereThe Washington Post‘s culture critic, Philip Kennicott, recently took to the pages of his paper to note the “cognitive dissonance” between ingrained “habits of homophobia” in American culture, on the one hand, and a recognition that “overt bigotry is no longer acceptable in the public square,” on the other.
As an example of those who resolve this dissonance by holding fast to their homophobic prejudices, Kennicott cited Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, who had remarked on the similarities between the Empire State’s recent re-definition of marriage and the kind of human engineering attempted by totalitarian states; NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez and I came into Mr. Kennicott’s line of fire for displaying similarly “virulent homophobic rhetoric” in articles defending Archbishop Dolan’s suggestion that, in the marriage debate, the totalitarian temptation was very much in play.
Philip Kennicott’s line of attack nicely demonstrates the truth of Oscar Wilde’s famous observation that the only way to rid oneself of temptation is to yield to it. For crying “homophobia” is a cheap calumny, a crypto-totalitarian bully’s smear that impresses no serious person.
But for charity’s sake, let’s assume here that Mr. Kennicott simply had a bad day and might actually be interested in the arguments of those he and others have dismissed as bigots. Perhaps I can illustrate the point Kennicott’s targets were making by reminding all parties to this dispute of what marriage under totalitarianism was like—a subject I happened to be discussing with a Polish couple who were preparing to mark their forty-seventh wedding anniversary when the Kennicott article appeared.
Under Polish Communism, Catholic couples—which is to say, just about everyone—got “married” twice. Because marriages in the Catholic Church were not recognized by the Communist state, believers had two “weddings.” The first was a civil procedure, carried out in a dingy bureaucratic office with a state (i.e., Communist-party) apparatchik presiding. The friends with whom I was discussing this inanity are, today, distinguished academics, a physicist and a musicologist. They remembered with some glee that, a half century before, they had treated the state “wedding” with such unrestrained if blithe contempt that the presiding apparatchik had had to admonish them to take the business at hand seriously—a warning from the über-nanny-state my friends declined to, well, take seriously.
The entire business was a farce, regarded as such by virtually all concerned. Some time later, my friends were married, in every meaningful sense of that term, in Wawel Cathedral by a Polish priest whom the world would later know as Pope John Paul II...
Posts
All Comments
