Welcome Agent #98746243837, Gabriella Sophia Victoire [inCT], born on the feast of the Church Triumphalist, All Saints' Day.
Cheers, Comrade PattyinCT!
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
In their blind obedience...
...to the overtly patriarchal, heretical, materialistic, and inherently corrupt worldwide organization known to its followers as "The Roman Catholic Church," whose sham attempts at posing itself as pro-life, while "sincerely" caring for the poor, only as a ruse to fill its pews and therefore, its coffers, MikeinCT and PattyinCT fulfill their obligations of adding one more soldier/propogandist to the Pope's Army and Auxiliary.
Welcome Agent #98746243837, Gabriella Sophia Victoire [inCT], born on the feast of the Church Triumphalist, All Saints' Day.
Cheers, Comrade PattyinCT!
Welcome Agent #98746243837, Gabriella Sophia Victoire [inCT], born on the feast of the Church Triumphalist, All Saints' Day.
Cheers, Comrade PattyinCT!
Friday, October 22, 2010
All Hypocrisy Considered...
I was asked about the significance of my post yesterday linking to the Anchoress' assessment of the firing of NPR's Juan Williams.
For those not familiar with the story, Juan Williams, a news analyst for NPR, was fired this week for comments he made in a conversation with Bill O'Reilly on FOX. He described his own apprehension when on an airplane with people dressed in Muslim garb, in order to make his broader point of overcoming one's own prejudices. NPR stated that Williams' comments were not in keeping with their expectations that their news analysts don't divulge their personal opinions on controversial topics and that Williams has long been pushing the envelope, so to speak.
It sounds innocuous enough, but the story quickly unraveled to show that there is a much more cynical back story going on. In my opinion, and I am not alone, as the overwhelming majority of the 8000+ comments on the NPR website can attest, NPR has lost its veneer of credibility as an objective media outlet, a credibility which was already on shaky grounds.
NPR has long been criticized for its left-leaning bias in its reporting and staffing. Myself, I used to listen to NPR daily at work (metal building=bad radio reception) and appreciated its in-depth coverage of a wide variety of issues, but after beginning to listen on occasion to conservative radio, I began to hear admittedly conservative viewpoints that were either never given airtime on NPR shows, or given short shrift with sneering contempt. Growing up in CT, I had been immersed in liberal think all through my education, and this was a turning point in my own political thought and understanding. I started to recognize the bias inherent in NPR, and as I started investigating, recognized it in other mainstream media outlets as well, especially in the networks ABC. CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. I began to see that the veneer of objectivity was just that- a veneer, a thin layer to cover up one material to make it look like something else.
In full disclosure, I don't have cable, and so I don't watch FOX. I have no vested interest in defending FOX, but it's clear to me that the reason FOX was able to gain the audience it has is because the public had been yearning for quite some time for a news outlet that wasn't blatantly left-leaning. (So don't fill the combox with "FOX isn't fair and balanced! They're not objective either, they're conservative!!!" I'm not making the case that they are, just that they obviously fill a void to provide counter-balance to the main-stream-media.)
That being said, Juan Williams was fired because of his relationship with FOX. It's interesting that he was fired the day after NPR announced it received a donation for $1.8 million dollars from George Soros, a multi- billionaire who not only has stated as his hopes the collapse of the U.S. dollar, but also a one-world government, who is also supporting organizations that are targeting FOX in general, and personalities on FOX in particular. It on the face of it smacks of blacklisting, and therefore, the suppression of free thought.
Speaking of free thought, aren't news analysts paid to voice their opinions? If you take NPR's stated reasons for firing Williams at face value, why is Nina Totenberg, whose comments about Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Jesse Helms were far more scathing, personal and controversial, still employed by NPR?
No, NPR showed its true colors here. The CEO of NPR made some pretty outrageous comments yesterday about the firing, suggesting that Williams should have kept his opinions between him and his psychiatrist, implying that such thoughts are only appropriate for psychological analysis, and not appropriate for a discussion about race and religion in the public square. And that's where it shows that NPR is not interested in free speech, free thought, or rational discussion, only groupthink that passes the Politically Correct Police. Criticism of muslims is: Simply. Not. Tolerated. That's what Williams' true crime was. Speaking about his gut reaction to riding on an airplane next to people of the same religion as some other people who, in the name of their religion, hijacked airplanes and crashed them into tall buildings.
The politically correct transgression in this case is in parallel to Shirley Sherod's firing from the Department of Agriculture this year. In her case, Sherod, a black lady employed by the Agric. Dept., was shown on video talking about her inital hesitation in helping white farmers. She was quickly fired, and rightly so, for she did, in fact, admit that she didn't help white farmers as much as she could have because they were white, but in the course of that video, she was trying to explain how she overcame her initial hesitation in helping white farmers, to realize that the struggles she ought to help overcome had nothing to do with race. Juan Williams did not act on his apprehensions, he did not discriminate or express hatred, he did not suggest that all or even most are Bad People (TM), but merely that he had a gut reaction to sitting on a plane next to Muslims, given the history of 9/11.
But NPR shows that not transgressing PC boundaries is far more important than expressing honest emotions in a rational debate about race and religion. But given the Soros connection, I wonder if there is something more going on here. Soros, I think, has bought and paid for this institution of the media in his attempts to achieve his goals.
Oh, and since the NPR CEO belittled the tax money that goes to support NPR, then I agree that maybe it's time to pull the funds since she doesn't think it's that big of a deal anyway?
For those not familiar with the story, Juan Williams, a news analyst for NPR, was fired this week for comments he made in a conversation with Bill O'Reilly on FOX. He described his own apprehension when on an airplane with people dressed in Muslim garb, in order to make his broader point of overcoming one's own prejudices. NPR stated that Williams' comments were not in keeping with their expectations that their news analysts don't divulge their personal opinions on controversial topics and that Williams has long been pushing the envelope, so to speak.
It sounds innocuous enough, but the story quickly unraveled to show that there is a much more cynical back story going on. In my opinion, and I am not alone, as the overwhelming majority of the 8000+ comments on the NPR website can attest, NPR has lost its veneer of credibility as an objective media outlet, a credibility which was already on shaky grounds.
NPR has long been criticized for its left-leaning bias in its reporting and staffing. Myself, I used to listen to NPR daily at work (metal building=bad radio reception) and appreciated its in-depth coverage of a wide variety of issues, but after beginning to listen on occasion to conservative radio, I began to hear admittedly conservative viewpoints that were either never given airtime on NPR shows, or given short shrift with sneering contempt. Growing up in CT, I had been immersed in liberal think all through my education, and this was a turning point in my own political thought and understanding. I started to recognize the bias inherent in NPR, and as I started investigating, recognized it in other mainstream media outlets as well, especially in the networks ABC. CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. I began to see that the veneer of objectivity was just that- a veneer, a thin layer to cover up one material to make it look like something else.
In full disclosure, I don't have cable, and so I don't watch FOX. I have no vested interest in defending FOX, but it's clear to me that the reason FOX was able to gain the audience it has is because the public had been yearning for quite some time for a news outlet that wasn't blatantly left-leaning. (So don't fill the combox with "FOX isn't fair and balanced! They're not objective either, they're conservative!!!" I'm not making the case that they are, just that they obviously fill a void to provide counter-balance to the main-stream-media.)
That being said, Juan Williams was fired because of his relationship with FOX. It's interesting that he was fired the day after NPR announced it received a donation for $1.8 million dollars from George Soros, a multi- billionaire who not only has stated as his hopes the collapse of the U.S. dollar, but also a one-world government, who is also supporting organizations that are targeting FOX in general, and personalities on FOX in particular. It on the face of it smacks of blacklisting, and therefore, the suppression of free thought.
Speaking of free thought, aren't news analysts paid to voice their opinions? If you take NPR's stated reasons for firing Williams at face value, why is Nina Totenberg, whose comments about Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Jesse Helms were far more scathing, personal and controversial, still employed by NPR?
No, NPR showed its true colors here. The CEO of NPR made some pretty outrageous comments yesterday about the firing, suggesting that Williams should have kept his opinions between him and his psychiatrist, implying that such thoughts are only appropriate for psychological analysis, and not appropriate for a discussion about race and religion in the public square. And that's where it shows that NPR is not interested in free speech, free thought, or rational discussion, only groupthink that passes the Politically Correct Police. Criticism of muslims is: Simply. Not. Tolerated. That's what Williams' true crime was. Speaking about his gut reaction to riding on an airplane next to people of the same religion as some other people who, in the name of their religion, hijacked airplanes and crashed them into tall buildings.
The politically correct transgression in this case is in parallel to Shirley Sherod's firing from the Department of Agriculture this year. In her case, Sherod, a black lady employed by the Agric. Dept., was shown on video talking about her inital hesitation in helping white farmers. She was quickly fired, and rightly so, for she did, in fact, admit that she didn't help white farmers as much as she could have because they were white, but in the course of that video, she was trying to explain how she overcame her initial hesitation in helping white farmers, to realize that the struggles she ought to help overcome had nothing to do with race. Juan Williams did not act on his apprehensions, he did not discriminate or express hatred, he did not suggest that all or even most are Bad People (TM), but merely that he had a gut reaction to sitting on a plane next to Muslims, given the history of 9/11.
But NPR shows that not transgressing PC boundaries is far more important than expressing honest emotions in a rational debate about race and religion. But given the Soros connection, I wonder if there is something more going on here. Soros, I think, has bought and paid for this institution of the media in his attempts to achieve his goals.
Oh, and since the NPR CEO belittled the tax money that goes to support NPR, then I agree that maybe it's time to pull the funds since she doesn't think it's that big of a deal anyway?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
NPR, your epidermis is showing.
The Anchoress hits NPR square on the jaw, with about a thousand links to back up the punch!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
And another thing about "divine blackmail"
The analogy doesn't fit. [Sorry if this is a bit jumbled. My computer crashed after writing this the first time, so I had to piece it back together.]
Blackmail is when someone is coerced into making a payment or doing something under threat of physical punishment. (Okay, so far it seems to fit.) But what is usually understood with blackmail is that the required payment or action is unnatural to the blackmailed party; such action or payment would generally be considered against their will or at least against their best interests. And this is where the analogy falls apart.
As God is perfect in His goodness and only wills that which is good, when we act against the will of God we are choosing an action that is at most, less than the highest good, and quite possibly, disastrous and destructive. We do not follow God merely to placate a sadistic tyrant, like sinners in the hands of an angry God. No, we follow a God who knows us intimately and desires our love.
Look, a car runs well on good gasoline, frequent oil changes, and well-made parts. Adding ethanol to the gas lowers performance; cheap gas dirties the engine; adding sugar to the gas ruins the car. Just so with us. We are created for love and responsibility. When we act not out of love but selfishness, when we shirk our responsibilities, we dirty the engine, so to speak. When we follow both the positive commands, "Thou shalt love with all thy heart, mind, soul, and strength" as well as avoid the objects of the negative commands, "Thou shalt not..." we live in accord with God's design for us. We live better. I dare say, we become happier.
Yes, the world and sin offer satisfaction and gratification, but such satisfaction is fleeting, shallow, short-lived. The happiness we find in Christ's love is the happiness we were created to seek out. God created a desire in our hearts for peace, happiness, fulfillment. Yet all those desires will find their final satisfaction in God. As St. Augustine says,
and in Matthew 11: 25-30
God is not a henchman. More like it, he is like the ox pulling the cart with our broken body back from battle. He carries the yoke on his shoulder to rescue us. He gives us only a sliver to carry in return.
Blackmail is when someone is coerced into making a payment or doing something under threat of physical punishment. (Okay, so far it seems to fit.) But what is usually understood with blackmail is that the required payment or action is unnatural to the blackmailed party; such action or payment would generally be considered against their will or at least against their best interests. And this is where the analogy falls apart.
As God is perfect in His goodness and only wills that which is good, when we act against the will of God we are choosing an action that is at most, less than the highest good, and quite possibly, disastrous and destructive. We do not follow God merely to placate a sadistic tyrant, like sinners in the hands of an angry God. No, we follow a God who knows us intimately and desires our love.
Look, a car runs well on good gasoline, frequent oil changes, and well-made parts. Adding ethanol to the gas lowers performance; cheap gas dirties the engine; adding sugar to the gas ruins the car. Just so with us. We are created for love and responsibility. When we act not out of love but selfishness, when we shirk our responsibilities, we dirty the engine, so to speak. When we follow both the positive commands, "Thou shalt love with all thy heart, mind, soul, and strength" as well as avoid the objects of the negative commands, "Thou shalt not..." we live in accord with God's design for us. We live better. I dare say, we become happier.
Yes, the world and sin offer satisfaction and gratification, but such satisfaction is fleeting, shallow, short-lived. The happiness we find in Christ's love is the happiness we were created to seek out. God created a desire in our hearts for peace, happiness, fulfillment. Yet all those desires will find their final satisfaction in God. As St. Augustine says,
Great are you, O Lord, and exceedingly worthy of praise; your power is immense, and your wisdom beyond reckoning. And so we men, who are a due part of your creation, long to praise you – we also carry our mortality about with us, carry the evidence of our sin and with it the proof that you thwart the proud. You arouse us so that praising you may bring us joy, because you have made us and drawn us to yourself, and our heart is unquiet until it rests in you.
and in Matthew 11: 25-30
| 25 | At that time Jesus declared, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; |
| 26 | yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will. |
| 27 | All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. |
| 28 | Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. |
| 29 | Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. |
| 30 | For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." |
God is not a henchman. More like it, he is like the ox pulling the cart with our broken body back from battle. He carries the yoke on his shoulder to rescue us. He gives us only a sliver to carry in return.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
She says she isn't Superwoman...
...but I'm not so sure! In addition to homeschooling the three boys, cooking obscene amounts of food for freezer storage, keeping our home, keeping me on track, and oh yeah, preparing to give birth to our fifth child, she also blogs. And a few weeks back, Wifey posted a transcript from a fantastic yard sale treasure called Our Faith and Belief (c. 1917 Murphy and McCarthy, New York, NY) discussing why the Church uses Latin in the liturgy.
[Please note, I'm not trying to stoke up any Novus Ordo vs. Extraordinary Form rivalries here.]
In full disclosure, I've only ever been to one Mass in EF, and honestly, I was clueless at the time. But this article, written decades before Vatican II and the subsequent hijacking of the liturgy, while in purpose, was to justify and explain the use of Latin, sheds a deeper meaning on the celebration of the Mass, regardless the form.
Striking to me is to remember that the priest is not addressing us, even though he faces us. He is addressing God the Father. He is not so much talking as doing; he is offering; he is sacrificing. And no matter how loudly we sing or in which key (please, pick one, people!) our action is to offer along with the priest, our own sacrifices, gifts, prayers, and petitions to God.
[Please note, I'm not trying to stoke up any Novus Ordo vs. Extraordinary Form rivalries here.]
In full disclosure, I've only ever been to one Mass in EF, and honestly, I was clueless at the time. But this article, written decades before Vatican II and the subsequent hijacking of the liturgy, while in purpose, was to justify and explain the use of Latin, sheds a deeper meaning on the celebration of the Mass, regardless the form.
Striking to me is to remember that the priest is not addressing us, even though he faces us. He is addressing God the Father. He is not so much talking as doing; he is offering; he is sacrificing. And no matter how loudly we sing or in which key (please, pick one, people!) our action is to offer along with the priest, our own sacrifices, gifts, prayers, and petitions to God.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Divine blackmail? An evangelization dilemma
Someone I know is having trouble with the problem of evil, suffering, and Divine Judgment. More particularly, this person thinks it unjust that God 1. doesn't correct what is wrong with the world and 2. might possibly send people that this person knows, respects and loves to Hell, akin to Divine blackmail that people should do as God says or He will send them to burn for all eternity because they weren't convinced to be a follower of Christ.
I ask prayers to the Holy Spirit in formulating a response. I am keenly aware that answering in the wrong attitude could turn this person away (see this blog site's header). Our conversation has so far been pretty intellectual, covering the Trinity, time/eternity, ecclesiology, sacraments, purgatory, free will and responsibility.
I think that ultimately, though, what this person needs to know, is that as Catholics, while we understand the importance of doctrine to shape our faith life, we don't follow a set of rules as much as we follow a person, er, a Person. And this Person is not unfamiliar with our suffering. He willingly chose suffering as a means to purchase us back from death (Hell). God doesn't send us to Hell, it is we who insist upon it for our rejection of God. Jesus Christ offers us the opportunity at every moment of every day to receive His love, and to be filled with the grace to repent of our sins, to draw close to him in holiness.
But the following of Christ is not that we should perfectly follow the doctrines with paranoid scrupulosity, and I fear that maybe I gave that impression. The following of Christ is that we should live by His example. He chose to endure His suffering, not for suffering's sake, but as an act of love to make us whole. The suffering that we endure ought, then, in turn, be offered up as a sacrifice to God for the sake of the salvation of all mankind, including those who do not know Christ. In this act of offering up our sacrifices, we draw closer to the heart of Jesus Christ. Simply put, we fall more in love.
We can think that it is our responsibility to follow to the letter every bit of the commandments, the directives, the suggested devotions, etc. and to avoid every possible transgression. Well, no we should not take it lightly to sin, but to focus only on avoiding sin can become academic, sterile and barren. Our responsibility is to love, to give, to serve, to witness to the truth. We love Him who is truth. (Right, Pilate?)
Coming back to the original hangups this person has, I can't help but think about that passage from Job when Job puts God on the spot for all of his own sufferings, how God could allow such a thing. And for over two chapters, God expounds upon the basic point: "Where were you, Job, when I created the world? Do you command the waters and the skies and they obey you? Who are you to understand all that I am? Who are you to judge the Almighty?"
And while that's not the tone I'd like to take with this person, essentially that is what is going on, judging God for His ways. But God's ways are perfect, though they are far past our understanding.
When I entered the seminary, the vocation director for my diocese had a long talk with me about submission to God's will. He cited Our Lord's choice of the twelve apostles. No man on earth would choose such a disparate, lowly, uneducated, unruly bunch of men to become leaders. Yet God's ways are so superior to our own, and His wisdom exceeds ours like the heavens are above the earth, that we cannot see before us what He is doing. There comes a point that we must let go and trust Him. We must submit to His will and rather than judge His actions, we ought to then ask, "What part can I do? How may I help, Lord?"
I suppose this person ought to pray for those who may be lost. Pray hard, and give witness by example. Show love through action, and when that loves sparks curiosity, explain the source of our hope. Explain about the love of Jesus Christ.
But before we can ever be sent out on the mission, we must know Him.
John, chapter 10: verses
I ask prayers to the Holy Spirit in formulating a response. I am keenly aware that answering in the wrong attitude could turn this person away (see this blog site's header). Our conversation has so far been pretty intellectual, covering the Trinity, time/eternity, ecclesiology, sacraments, purgatory, free will and responsibility.
I think that ultimately, though, what this person needs to know, is that as Catholics, while we understand the importance of doctrine to shape our faith life, we don't follow a set of rules as much as we follow a person, er, a Person. And this Person is not unfamiliar with our suffering. He willingly chose suffering as a means to purchase us back from death (Hell). God doesn't send us to Hell, it is we who insist upon it for our rejection of God. Jesus Christ offers us the opportunity at every moment of every day to receive His love, and to be filled with the grace to repent of our sins, to draw close to him in holiness.
But the following of Christ is not that we should perfectly follow the doctrines with paranoid scrupulosity, and I fear that maybe I gave that impression. The following of Christ is that we should live by His example. He chose to endure His suffering, not for suffering's sake, but as an act of love to make us whole. The suffering that we endure ought, then, in turn, be offered up as a sacrifice to God for the sake of the salvation of all mankind, including those who do not know Christ. In this act of offering up our sacrifices, we draw closer to the heart of Jesus Christ. Simply put, we fall more in love.
We can think that it is our responsibility to follow to the letter every bit of the commandments, the directives, the suggested devotions, etc. and to avoid every possible transgression. Well, no we should not take it lightly to sin, but to focus only on avoiding sin can become academic, sterile and barren. Our responsibility is to love, to give, to serve, to witness to the truth. We love Him who is truth. (Right, Pilate?)
Coming back to the original hangups this person has, I can't help but think about that passage from Job when Job puts God on the spot for all of his own sufferings, how God could allow such a thing. And for over two chapters, God expounds upon the basic point: "Where were you, Job, when I created the world? Do you command the waters and the skies and they obey you? Who are you to understand all that I am? Who are you to judge the Almighty?"
And while that's not the tone I'd like to take with this person, essentially that is what is going on, judging God for His ways. But God's ways are perfect, though they are far past our understanding.
When I entered the seminary, the vocation director for my diocese had a long talk with me about submission to God's will. He cited Our Lord's choice of the twelve apostles. No man on earth would choose such a disparate, lowly, uneducated, unruly bunch of men to become leaders. Yet God's ways are so superior to our own, and His wisdom exceeds ours like the heavens are above the earth, that we cannot see before us what He is doing. There comes a point that we must let go and trust Him. We must submit to His will and rather than judge His actions, we ought to then ask, "What part can I do? How may I help, Lord?"
I suppose this person ought to pray for those who may be lost. Pray hard, and give witness by example. Show love through action, and when that loves sparks curiosity, explain the source of our hope. Explain about the love of Jesus Christ.
But before we can ever be sent out on the mission, we must know Him.
John, chapter 10: verses
| 10 | The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. |
| 11 | I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. |
| 12 | He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. |
| 13 | He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. |
| 14 | I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, |
| 15 | as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. |
| 16 | And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. |
| 17 | For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. |
| 18 | No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father." |
| 27 | My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; |
| 28 | and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. |
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Mother Teresa on holiness
I mentioned in my other post about my clandestine trip to the Knights of Columbus Museum last week coinciding with the exhibit on Mother Teresa. My new favorite quote: "Holiness is not the luxury of the few, but a simple duty for you and me."
In other words, don't sit on your hams and think you're doing alright because you're Basically A Good Person. Don't think it's for us to live "in the real world" and leave the holy business to the professionals, aren't they quaint!
I can't just do my eight and skate on this one.
In other words, don't sit on your hams and think you're doing alright because you're Basically A Good Person. Don't think it's for us to live "in the real world" and leave the holy business to the professionals, aren't they quaint!
And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. -Mt. 10:38
I can't just do my eight and skate on this one.
Taking care of business
I work managing production for a small printing company here in CT. We produce both traditional offset printing as well as digital printing for numerous companies and organizations in our area. We produce business stationery, brochures, business cards, marketing materials, books and booklets, newsletters, and as numerous other paper-printed items. Maybe once or twice a year, we'll get a customer who wants a self-inking rubber stamp, the kind you might use to endorse the back of a company check. They make us no money, but we offer them as a courtesy to the customers who make it a point to request them, since we'd rather not see them go elsewhere.
I bring this up to make an analogy. We market ourselves as a printing company. We sell print, we seek out print customers, we hand out print samples. We don't market ourselves as a self-inking rubber stamp company. When asked about the diversity of products we offer, self-inking rubber stamps are almost never mentioned. This correlates to our sales figures, which show that 99.9% of our gross income comes from print or print-related services, while .1% of our gross income derives from self-inking rubber stamps and the like.
With this background in mind, please take a look at this graph and ask yourself, "Is Planned Parenthood in the business of encouraging good parenthood? Or are they in business to make their money some other way?"
H/T Thomas Peters
I bring this up to make an analogy. We market ourselves as a printing company. We sell print, we seek out print customers, we hand out print samples. We don't market ourselves as a self-inking rubber stamp company. When asked about the diversity of products we offer, self-inking rubber stamps are almost never mentioned. This correlates to our sales figures, which show that 99.9% of our gross income comes from print or print-related services, while .1% of our gross income derives from self-inking rubber stamps and the like.
With this background in mind, please take a look at this graph and ask yourself, "Is Planned Parenthood in the business of encouraging good parenthood? Or are they in business to make their money some other way?"
H/T Thomas Peters
Express, again.
Back in March, I posted a copy of the letter to the Director of Marketing at Express, asking that my then-5-year-old be removed from their soft porn catalog mailing list. I got a standard ho-hum response--"we're sorry for the inconvenience, we'll take care of it, though you may receive a few mailings over the next couple of weeks," blah, blah, blah. I didn't bother posting it here, but below is my latest letter to them.
Oh, and last week, when I was waiting for a job from a vendor, I had some time to kill and perused the Knights of Columbus Museum in New Haven. To coincide with the Mother Teresa of Calcutta's 100 birthday and the release of her U.S. postage stamp, they had a wonderful exhibit chronicling her life and the history of the Missionaries of Charity, which she founded. There were many of her personal items, which someday may become second-class relics. To honor her legacy and imitate her habit, every visitor to the exhibit receives a blessed Miraculous Medal and novena prayer book. Guess what's on its way to Express?
Director of Marketing
Express, Inc
Online Customer Service
3939 W. Ridge Rd.
Suite D1
Erie, PA 16506
Dear Sir or Madam,
In March of this year, I wrote to you asking that you please take my five-year old son’s name off your mailing list. I was sent a written response saying that corrective action would be taken, though we may still receive mailings for up to six weeks. Six MONTHS later, your catalog peddling soft pornography continues to find its way to my mailbox.
Men and women are unique, special individuals, and the marketing of men and women as sexual objects diminishes the dignity of the human person, leads men and women into disastrous shallow relationships, strips young people of their innocence, and belies a lack of self-respect.
I wish this matter to be closed. Please make sure that we receive no more of your mailings to sully my home.
To defend the dignity of the human person, it is necessary to see one’s worth intrinsically, and not solely as a sexual commodity. Therefore, the practice of chastity and modesty should at all times be among our goals. I’ve attached in this mailing a short reflection on these virtues. I hope that you will find the time to read it and reflect on the work that you and your company do.
I’ve also included your catalog with the mailing label so that my son can be removed from your mailing list.
Oh, and last week, when I was waiting for a job from a vendor, I had some time to kill and perused the Knights of Columbus Museum in New Haven. To coincide with the Mother Teresa of Calcutta's 100 birthday and the release of her U.S. postage stamp, they had a wonderful exhibit chronicling her life and the history of the Missionaries of Charity, which she founded. There were many of her personal items, which someday may become second-class relics. To honor her legacy and imitate her habit, every visitor to the exhibit receives a blessed Miraculous Medal and novena prayer book. Guess what's on its way to Express?
Director of Marketing
Express, Inc
Online Customer Service
3939 W. Ridge Rd.
Suite D1
Erie, PA 16506
Dear Sir or Madam,
In March of this year, I wrote to you asking that you please take my five-year old son’s name off your mailing list. I was sent a written response saying that corrective action would be taken, though we may still receive mailings for up to six weeks. Six MONTHS later, your catalog peddling soft pornography continues to find its way to my mailbox.
Men and women are unique, special individuals, and the marketing of men and women as sexual objects diminishes the dignity of the human person, leads men and women into disastrous shallow relationships, strips young people of their innocence, and belies a lack of self-respect.
I wish this matter to be closed. Please make sure that we receive no more of your mailings to sully my home.
To defend the dignity of the human person, it is necessary to see one’s worth intrinsically, and not solely as a sexual commodity. Therefore, the practice of chastity and modesty should at all times be among our goals. I’ve attached in this mailing a short reflection on these virtues. I hope that you will find the time to read it and reflect on the work that you and your company do.
I’ve also included your catalog with the mailing label so that my son can be removed from your mailing list.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Happy Birthday!
To the Queen of Heaven...
...and to the queen of my home!
(and you can wish her a happy birthday here.)
...and to the queen of my home!
(and you can wish her a happy birthday here.)
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
"Actually, that's perfect. I think we're done."
Alright, I promise a serious post soon, but funny this is, to be shared it must.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
I've been tagged!
It's been a long time since I played tag. Or freeze-tag, or TV-tag. (Freeze tag: the person who was it turned people to statues by tagging them, in TV tag, the statues could come back to life if they could immediately name a TV show. What can I say, we were dorks.)
Aaaaaanyhoooo, I got tagged by Nod in the "Five Favorite Devotions" meme.
My five favorite devotions (in no particular order):
1. Rosary -- especially the sorrowful mysteries
2. Stations of the Cross
3. Novenas to St. Joseph and the Sacred Heart of Jesus
4. "Salve Regina" -- one of our bedtime prayers
5. Reciting the Exultet (I don't think you need a link.)
Now I get to tag five other bloggers to share their favorite devotions. And no, they can't get out of it by yelling, "Starsky and Hutch!"
1. PattyinCT (I think she's cute.) at My Apologies
2. Subvet at Blowing San #1 -- (No, I don't think he's cute.)
3. dadwithnoisykids at Scorpion Stalking Duck
4. Magister Christianus at Bedlam or Parnassus
5. Kristin at 11onmyown
Oh, and in honor of Nod who tagged me, who impresses and intimidates me with his gourmet recipes of all sorts, please feel free to check out the video here of Aretha Franklin showing Martha Stewart how to make "Chicken Italiano." No two women could ever be less alike.
Aaaaaanyhoooo, I got tagged by Nod in the "Five Favorite Devotions" meme.
My five favorite devotions (in no particular order):
1. Rosary -- especially the sorrowful mysteries
2. Stations of the Cross
3. Novenas to St. Joseph and the Sacred Heart of Jesus
4. "Salve Regina" -- one of our bedtime prayers
5. Reciting the Exultet (I don't think you need a link.)
Now I get to tag five other bloggers to share their favorite devotions. And no, they can't get out of it by yelling, "Starsky and Hutch!"
1. PattyinCT (I think she's cute.) at My Apologies
2. Subvet at Blowing San #1 -- (No, I don't think he's cute.)
3. dadwithnoisykids at Scorpion Stalking Duck
4. Magister Christianus at Bedlam or Parnassus
5. Kristin at 11onmyown
Oh, and in honor of Nod who tagged me, who impresses and intimidates me with his gourmet recipes of all sorts, please feel free to check out the video here of Aretha Franklin showing Martha Stewart how to make "Chicken Italiano." No two women could ever be less alike.
Monday, August 9, 2010
I guess we know where his priorities lie...
Yesterday morning, Wifey was in the bathroom when I heard a blood-curdling scream. Running to find out what was wrong, expecting to find her in a contorted position beneath the sink, I found her instead flailing her hands about her, running out of the room. In a high-pitched shriek, she promptly informed me that there was a wasp over the toilet. Frac, who will be five next week, overheard this and must have come to the conclusion that it was necessary for us all to evacuate the house, for he immediately ran to the pile of VHS tapes we just acquired from Fr. Tito's rummage sale, and scooped them up, proclaiming loudly, "I'll save the movies!"
It's a good thing his baby sister has learned to walk for herself.
It's a good thing his baby sister has learned to walk for herself.
in faith and morals
When the Church says, "No, that's a sin; it's bad for you," she's always right, even if it takes a while for the rest of the world to notice.
And apparently, even cardinals sometimes take a while to join in the chorus.
And apparently, even cardinals sometimes take a while to join in the chorus.
Friday, August 6, 2010
AIDS, condoms, and the pope
Since we're on controversial topics, let's add this one. Check out this video and commentary at Fr. Longenecker's blog about the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and what approach is ACTUALLY WORKING at stemming the tide.
Sorry, judge. Marriage is between one man and one woman.
I said that yesterday on Facebook and started a firestorm of comments, many from people who rarely comment. That's cool, I like dialogue. I find it more fruitful than the monologue format of blogging. I'm moving the conversation here, though, because it was getting a little too lengthy for Facebook, and I think that it would make good fodder for public discussion here.
Most of the commentary in disagreement with me was sincere, but predictable. We can't judge others, we're all God's children, it's not fair to deny homosexuals happiness, etc. I was accused not only of being judgmental and insensitive, but also of repeating dusty arguments without putting any thought into it.
The truth is, I have thought about this, a lot. Well, this in particular somewhat, sexual ethics moreso, but the whole ethical dilemma in general a lot.
I have to reject moral relativism because it denies the existence of truth; the push for gay marriage, as well as all the comments I got yesterday, were examples of moral relativism. Moral relativism says that what is right always depends on the circumstances, what is right (or wrong) for one is not necessarily right (or wrong) for others. Consequently, all debate about morality breaks down into shouting matches of "Yeah-huh!" vs. "Nuh-uh!" because there is no basis for measurement. Without any foundation for morals, we all become our own emperors. The problem with this is that some emperors are stronger than others, and some emperors become tyrants while others become slaves. Moral relativism leads to the gas chambers.
As a Catholic, I reject moral relativism because it rejects the existence of truth. We believe in Natural Law, the moral law that governs all people in all places. It is the inborn conscience universal to mankind. Natural Law informs mankind that murder is wrong, that child abuse is wrong, that theft is wrong. Natural Law causes mankind throughout history to revere courage, honesty, valor, devotion, commitment. Natural Law is not only universal, but universally binding. It is wrong to murder. It was wrong to murder 100 years ago. It was wrong to murder 1000 years ago, just as it was wrong for Cain to murder Abel in the beginning of humanity. Individuals may nonetheless murder, but the mere fact that they committed the act of murder does not make it morally licit.
Natural Law recognizes also that there is "a nature" to creation. This holds true to the sexual act as well. Our bodies are created male and female and as such, they are complementary. The sexual act, while pleasurable, is aimed at a specific purpose: the procreation of mankind. In that act, man and woman take part in an action that is unitive and procreative. Man and woman, in an intimate act, find an expression so strong that it has the potential to bring into being a whole new person. The biological explanation of how is empty in its understanding of why. That new person has constant needs: nurture, food, education, support. The most stable and effective environment for meeting those needs are in a family.
Because of this understanding of human sexuality, it is only appropriate to engage in the sexual act in a way that mirrors the open-ness to new life. Hence masturbation, artificial contraception, and homosexual acts are not appropriate in the scheme of the nature of our bodies' dignity. Because of the needs of the offspring brought into being through the sexual act, the institution of marriage has been necessary throughout history to safeguard the environment of children, and to form the building blocks of society as a whole.
Marriage, properly understood, is an institution of a life-long commitment between one man and one woman, who share intimate union, and if their union be fruitful, to protect, nurture and educate their children through adulthood.
Homosexuality is a disordered sexuality, in that it by definition, cannot express itself in a life-giving way. This is not the same as a man and woman marrying past child-bearing years, as their union still gives expression to the complementarity of their being. The homosexual act is by nature not open to life, therefore homosexual unions are not marriage.
And this brings us to the point of yesterday's post. Judge Walker in California declared that gender has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. And he is wrong.
Now, I accept that there are homosexuals. I accept that there are homosexuals living together in a committed relationship even. But it is not marriage. Accuse me of engaging in semantics, but it is not rightly called a marriage. Similarly, a cohabitating heterosexual couple is not rightly called a marriage. Both arrangements have some aspects in common with marriage, but they do not fit the requirements of definition.
So is that all I'm fighting for? A definition? Well in some ways yes, and in some ways no. Yes, I am fighting for a definition, as it is imperative that we live according to truth. If the judge had declared that 2 + 2 = 5, that would not make it so, any more than it was so when an earlier court ruling once declared that black people were property. Declarations that are falsehoods must be rejected, otherwise words, relationships, laws, lose their meaning. If marriage can be redefined, what about love? What about war? Peace? If words can, by fiat, be made to mean the opposite of their meaning, communication quickly loses its meaning.
And also, I'm standing up against more than a definition. Catholic blogger Mark Shea has posted numerous stories to illustrate the point that the modern movement to legalize gay marriage is not merely to allow homosexual couples legal options, which they have already achieved, or to be tolerated in society, which they also have already achieved, but that the end goal is approval. Tolerance is not enough; you must approve.
Now to turn to the Catholic faith, by which I order my life.
Some of the comments that I received were aimed at my religious sensibilities in an attempt to convince me that I was wrong in this matter. They said that God is love, only God can judge, and that if God made homosexuals the way they are, who is the Church to deny them happiness? I'll try to address that here.
God is love. Love is not a feature of God, that He may have at one time and not at another, but is His essence. Not all that He does is love, but all that He is is love. His love is strong so as to give Himself up in bloody agony and torment to buy back his beloved (that's you and me) from the claws of death. His will is for our eternal happiness, which finds its fulfillment in Him. But God does not force His love upon us. Man can, and often does, reject God. For one cannot accept God, yet reject His commandments. Love is an act of the will which seeks the good of the beloved in accord with truth. Love must be based on truth, and truth cannot contradict truth, just as God cannot contradict Himself. So we must live in accord with truth to live in God's love. We must live as God has revealed Himself, in imitation of Christ, in all ways possible.
Now to the question of judgment. Not to pick on the ones who made the comment (because I've heard the statement countless times from countless people), but of course we are to judge, as long as we understand in what way we mean to judge (for judgment already has more than one meaning). Let me pose it this way: Is there anyone reading this who doesn't reject the actions of sinful priests? Is there anyone who doesn't judge them to be wrong? When the priest abuse scandal broke, did anyone reading this say, "Well, it's not for me to judge how others live their lives"? Or another example: If you have children, would you allow your children to engage in sexual acts at the age of 6? or 10? Or would you judge that to be wrong, inappropriate, even -gasp- sinful? Do you judge the actions of politicians? Do you judge the actions of criminals? Of course you would! The point is that every one of us makes all sorts of value judgments all the time. So to choose this particular instance of "gay marriage" and declare that it's not for us to judge is frankly, a copout. Either one doesn't want to think it through to the logical consequences, or what that statement really means is "I judge it to be morally acceptable, and just don't want to say it."
The other meaning of judgment is that of the state of one's soul. That judgment is left to God alone. Neither you nor I can judge another person's soul and declare their damnation. By the grace of God we all aim at eternal life, though the choice is up to us.
As to the last comment, that God made homosexuals gay and to deny them marriage is unfair, let me just say this. It is not known why some people have an attraction to members of the same sex. I do know, however, that opponents of gay marriage are criticized for suggesting that homosexuality is genetic, and conversely, also criticized for suggesting that homosexuality is learned. No one really knows why, though in the end, I don't see that the question of why it is to be the important question. The important question is "What now?"
I believe, as I posted in my comment, that what is important is to encourage all people, homosexual and heterosexual, the importance of chastity. Chastity recognizes the gift of human sexuality (and the sexual act) and that the dignity and worth of a person far exceeds their sexual actions. People need to hear that abuse of their sexuality is an abuse of their dignity. The dignity of each person is to be respected, first and foremost by one's self. Such self-respect demands self-control. (Remember, I'm not letting heterosexual people off the hook here, either.)
I'm not an advocate of "fixing" gay people to make them straight. I'm cynical of such attempts. What I do respect is the effort to support homosexuals in carrying the cross that they bear in having a sexuality that cannot find a life-giving expression. Groups like Courage are an example of such support.
The Church doesn't seek to deny anyone happiness. To the contrary, the Church recognizes that the fullness of happiness lies in union with God. Such union, as we saw before, must realize truth and live in accord with that truth. Gay marriage does not accord with the truth of God's plan for the human family. That may sound painful, but sometimes the truth is painful.
I, like many other people of the current generation, grew up with a deficiency. Our culture has denied the validity of the Ten Commandments for the absolute sovereignty of the One Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Offend Anyone. You can't stand for what you believe in, for it might hurt someone's feelings. Well, if hurting someone's feelings leads them to truth, so be it. I'm not out trying to crush people, in fact, many times I'm still a coward who keeps my head in the sand. But like C.S. Lewis described, sometimes on an arduous journey that one is frightened to undertake, the most important first step is to throw one's bag over the wall. Then, one convinces himself that he is not undertaking the journey, but merely climbing the wall to retrieve one's bag. After that, one has already climbed the wall and might as well keep going.
I'm not trying in this discussion to crush anyone, nor to deny anyone happiness. But sin never leads to happiness. It may lead to pleasure, it may lead to good feelings for a while, but it is far short of the true happiness that we seek in our eternal union with God.
For more reading (as if this post wasn't long enough!) consider these three posts:
http://vocatum.blogspot.com/2010/08/bishop-jaime-sotos-2008-address-on.html
http://youngevangelicalandcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/07/guestpost-hidden-option.html
http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2010/08/real-agenda-is-out-of-closet.html
Most of the commentary in disagreement with me was sincere, but predictable. We can't judge others, we're all God's children, it's not fair to deny homosexuals happiness, etc. I was accused not only of being judgmental and insensitive, but also of repeating dusty arguments without putting any thought into it.
The truth is, I have thought about this, a lot. Well, this in particular somewhat, sexual ethics moreso, but the whole ethical dilemma in general a lot.
I have to reject moral relativism because it denies the existence of truth; the push for gay marriage, as well as all the comments I got yesterday, were examples of moral relativism. Moral relativism says that what is right always depends on the circumstances, what is right (or wrong) for one is not necessarily right (or wrong) for others. Consequently, all debate about morality breaks down into shouting matches of "Yeah-huh!" vs. "Nuh-uh!" because there is no basis for measurement. Without any foundation for morals, we all become our own emperors. The problem with this is that some emperors are stronger than others, and some emperors become tyrants while others become slaves. Moral relativism leads to the gas chambers.
As a Catholic, I reject moral relativism because it rejects the existence of truth. We believe in Natural Law, the moral law that governs all people in all places. It is the inborn conscience universal to mankind. Natural Law informs mankind that murder is wrong, that child abuse is wrong, that theft is wrong. Natural Law causes mankind throughout history to revere courage, honesty, valor, devotion, commitment. Natural Law is not only universal, but universally binding. It is wrong to murder. It was wrong to murder 100 years ago. It was wrong to murder 1000 years ago, just as it was wrong for Cain to murder Abel in the beginning of humanity. Individuals may nonetheless murder, but the mere fact that they committed the act of murder does not make it morally licit.
Natural Law recognizes also that there is "a nature" to creation. This holds true to the sexual act as well. Our bodies are created male and female and as such, they are complementary. The sexual act, while pleasurable, is aimed at a specific purpose: the procreation of mankind. In that act, man and woman take part in an action that is unitive and procreative. Man and woman, in an intimate act, find an expression so strong that it has the potential to bring into being a whole new person. The biological explanation of how is empty in its understanding of why. That new person has constant needs: nurture, food, education, support. The most stable and effective environment for meeting those needs are in a family.
Because of this understanding of human sexuality, it is only appropriate to engage in the sexual act in a way that mirrors the open-ness to new life. Hence masturbation, artificial contraception, and homosexual acts are not appropriate in the scheme of the nature of our bodies' dignity. Because of the needs of the offspring brought into being through the sexual act, the institution of marriage has been necessary throughout history to safeguard the environment of children, and to form the building blocks of society as a whole.
Marriage, properly understood, is an institution of a life-long commitment between one man and one woman, who share intimate union, and if their union be fruitful, to protect, nurture and educate their children through adulthood.
Homosexuality is a disordered sexuality, in that it by definition, cannot express itself in a life-giving way. This is not the same as a man and woman marrying past child-bearing years, as their union still gives expression to the complementarity of their being. The homosexual act is by nature not open to life, therefore homosexual unions are not marriage.
And this brings us to the point of yesterday's post. Judge Walker in California declared that gender has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. And he is wrong.
Now, I accept that there are homosexuals. I accept that there are homosexuals living together in a committed relationship even. But it is not marriage. Accuse me of engaging in semantics, but it is not rightly called a marriage. Similarly, a cohabitating heterosexual couple is not rightly called a marriage. Both arrangements have some aspects in common with marriage, but they do not fit the requirements of definition.
So is that all I'm fighting for? A definition? Well in some ways yes, and in some ways no. Yes, I am fighting for a definition, as it is imperative that we live according to truth. If the judge had declared that 2 + 2 = 5, that would not make it so, any more than it was so when an earlier court ruling once declared that black people were property. Declarations that are falsehoods must be rejected, otherwise words, relationships, laws, lose their meaning. If marriage can be redefined, what about love? What about war? Peace? If words can, by fiat, be made to mean the opposite of their meaning, communication quickly loses its meaning.
And also, I'm standing up against more than a definition. Catholic blogger Mark Shea has posted numerous stories to illustrate the point that the modern movement to legalize gay marriage is not merely to allow homosexual couples legal options, which they have already achieved, or to be tolerated in society, which they also have already achieved, but that the end goal is approval. Tolerance is not enough; you must approve.
Now to turn to the Catholic faith, by which I order my life.
Some of the comments that I received were aimed at my religious sensibilities in an attempt to convince me that I was wrong in this matter. They said that God is love, only God can judge, and that if God made homosexuals the way they are, who is the Church to deny them happiness? I'll try to address that here.
God is love. Love is not a feature of God, that He may have at one time and not at another, but is His essence. Not all that He does is love, but all that He is is love. His love is strong so as to give Himself up in bloody agony and torment to buy back his beloved (that's you and me) from the claws of death. His will is for our eternal happiness, which finds its fulfillment in Him. But God does not force His love upon us. Man can, and often does, reject God. For one cannot accept God, yet reject His commandments. Love is an act of the will which seeks the good of the beloved in accord with truth. Love must be based on truth, and truth cannot contradict truth, just as God cannot contradict Himself. So we must live in accord with truth to live in God's love. We must live as God has revealed Himself, in imitation of Christ, in all ways possible.
Now to the question of judgment. Not to pick on the ones who made the comment (because I've heard the statement countless times from countless people), but of course we are to judge, as long as we understand in what way we mean to judge (for judgment already has more than one meaning). Let me pose it this way: Is there anyone reading this who doesn't reject the actions of sinful priests? Is there anyone who doesn't judge them to be wrong? When the priest abuse scandal broke, did anyone reading this say, "Well, it's not for me to judge how others live their lives"? Or another example: If you have children, would you allow your children to engage in sexual acts at the age of 6? or 10? Or would you judge that to be wrong, inappropriate, even -gasp- sinful? Do you judge the actions of politicians? Do you judge the actions of criminals? Of course you would! The point is that every one of us makes all sorts of value judgments all the time. So to choose this particular instance of "gay marriage" and declare that it's not for us to judge is frankly, a copout. Either one doesn't want to think it through to the logical consequences, or what that statement really means is "I judge it to be morally acceptable, and just don't want to say it."
The other meaning of judgment is that of the state of one's soul. That judgment is left to God alone. Neither you nor I can judge another person's soul and declare their damnation. By the grace of God we all aim at eternal life, though the choice is up to us.
As to the last comment, that God made homosexuals gay and to deny them marriage is unfair, let me just say this. It is not known why some people have an attraction to members of the same sex. I do know, however, that opponents of gay marriage are criticized for suggesting that homosexuality is genetic, and conversely, also criticized for suggesting that homosexuality is learned. No one really knows why, though in the end, I don't see that the question of why it is to be the important question. The important question is "What now?"
I believe, as I posted in my comment, that what is important is to encourage all people, homosexual and heterosexual, the importance of chastity. Chastity recognizes the gift of human sexuality (and the sexual act) and that the dignity and worth of a person far exceeds their sexual actions. People need to hear that abuse of their sexuality is an abuse of their dignity. The dignity of each person is to be respected, first and foremost by one's self. Such self-respect demands self-control. (Remember, I'm not letting heterosexual people off the hook here, either.)
I'm not an advocate of "fixing" gay people to make them straight. I'm cynical of such attempts. What I do respect is the effort to support homosexuals in carrying the cross that they bear in having a sexuality that cannot find a life-giving expression. Groups like Courage are an example of such support.
The Church doesn't seek to deny anyone happiness. To the contrary, the Church recognizes that the fullness of happiness lies in union with God. Such union, as we saw before, must realize truth and live in accord with that truth. Gay marriage does not accord with the truth of God's plan for the human family. That may sound painful, but sometimes the truth is painful.
I, like many other people of the current generation, grew up with a deficiency. Our culture has denied the validity of the Ten Commandments for the absolute sovereignty of the One Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Offend Anyone. You can't stand for what you believe in, for it might hurt someone's feelings. Well, if hurting someone's feelings leads them to truth, so be it. I'm not out trying to crush people, in fact, many times I'm still a coward who keeps my head in the sand. But like C.S. Lewis described, sometimes on an arduous journey that one is frightened to undertake, the most important first step is to throw one's bag over the wall. Then, one convinces himself that he is not undertaking the journey, but merely climbing the wall to retrieve one's bag. After that, one has already climbed the wall and might as well keep going.
I'm not trying in this discussion to crush anyone, nor to deny anyone happiness. But sin never leads to happiness. It may lead to pleasure, it may lead to good feelings for a while, but it is far short of the true happiness that we seek in our eternal union with God.
For more reading (as if this post wasn't long enough!) consider these three posts:
http://vocatum.blogspot.com/2010/08/bishop-jaime-sotos-2008-address-on.html
http://youngevangelicalandcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/07/guestpost-hidden-option.html
http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2010/08/real-agenda-is-out-of-closet.html
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Holy Potato Sack, Batman!
I found the link to this on CMR today and had to share, because I agree, it is the funniest thing I read all day...
http://www.bettybeguiles.com/2010/08/my-new-wife.html
Update: OK, I SWEAR I didn't copy the title of the other CMR post there, honest! I guess Patrick and I both watched too many scenes of Adam West doing the Bat-tusi. Scary, truly scary.
http://www.bettybeguiles.com/2010/08/my-new-wife.html
Update: OK, I SWEAR I didn't copy the title of the other CMR post there, honest! I guess Patrick and I both watched too many scenes of Adam West doing the Bat-tusi. Scary, truly scary.
"Precious Blood"
Last week I filled in an hour of adoration for a friend of the family away on vacation.
It was late, and of course, I was tired, and sometimes when I'm tired I have a hard time concentrating on prayer. I picked up the hymnal. It was a good one, no Bernadette Farrell or Dolores Dufner. This chapel is at a Franciscan Friary dedicated to Our Lady of Guadalupe, and the friars there don't put up with any bull.
I was struck by this verse of "Precious Blood", the Italian hymn Viva, Viva Gesu, translated by Frederick William Faber, Cong. Orat. :
No pandering, diversity praising, self-congratulations. No "Gather Us In" or "Sing a New Church" in this place.
No, we worship the God who paid the price of our sin. In paying any ransom, the cost must be something dear, something we want not to part with. Ransom has to hurt to be a ransom. But all of the universe is God's creation; by His word it exists, by His will it came to be, and if He willed it so (God forbid!), it would all cease to be. All of creation is external to God, and is not "of Him." Truly, and this is not a limit on God, but a recognition that He is necessary, and we are not, He had nothing with which to pay off a creature's debt except that which is truly His: His own Son, inseparable from and co-equal with Himself.
And in the flesh, Christ had nothing to give of Himself but the very lifeblood in his veins, which He shed willingly: "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again." (John 10:18) As Isaiah foretold of Him, "Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth." (Is 53:7)
All for us! "But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed." (Is 53:5) We sometimes get the erroneous impression that the Church is a social club of good-feeling people, or a wax museum of long-dead saints. But it is a hospital for sinners. People have been scandalized by the visible sins of Christians, many understandably so. Others think their own sins too grave to be brought out into the open. But both conclusions are nonetheless wrong. The only unforgiveable sin is our own choice to reject God's forgiveness; even in mercy, God does not force Himself upon us.
Our sins caused and necessitated the nails in Christ's hands and feet. But like the hymn says, His blood does not cry out for vengeance, as Abel's blood did. Christ's blood cries out for mercy. When we resist His mercy, Christ cries out the louder to plead for our forgiveness.
The sinner who sins out of spite, knowing the gravity of his actions, throwing his defiance into the face of God, is nonetheless loved by God, though he hurts Him most. It is not our place to reject them, (although we reject the sin) but to pray and encourage their repentance and mercy.
"Oh my God, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of your mercy."
It was late, and of course, I was tired, and sometimes when I'm tired I have a hard time concentrating on prayer. I picked up the hymnal. It was a good one, no Bernadette Farrell or Dolores Dufner. This chapel is at a Franciscan Friary dedicated to Our Lady of Guadalupe, and the friars there don't put up with any bull.
I was struck by this verse of "Precious Blood", the Italian hymn Viva, Viva Gesu, translated by Frederick William Faber, Cong. Orat. :
3. Oh, Sweetest Blood, that can implore
Pardon of God, and heav'n restore,
The heav'n which sin had lost,
While Abel's blood for vengeance pleads,
What Jesus shed still intercedes
For those who wrong him most.
No pandering, diversity praising, self-congratulations. No "Gather Us In" or "Sing a New Church" in this place.
No, we worship the God who paid the price of our sin. In paying any ransom, the cost must be something dear, something we want not to part with. Ransom has to hurt to be a ransom. But all of the universe is God's creation; by His word it exists, by His will it came to be, and if He willed it so (God forbid!), it would all cease to be. All of creation is external to God, and is not "of Him." Truly, and this is not a limit on God, but a recognition that He is necessary, and we are not, He had nothing with which to pay off a creature's debt except that which is truly His: His own Son, inseparable from and co-equal with Himself.
And in the flesh, Christ had nothing to give of Himself but the very lifeblood in his veins, which He shed willingly: "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again." (John 10:18) As Isaiah foretold of Him, "Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth." (Is 53:7)
All for us! "But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed." (Is 53:5) We sometimes get the erroneous impression that the Church is a social club of good-feeling people, or a wax museum of long-dead saints. But it is a hospital for sinners. People have been scandalized by the visible sins of Christians, many understandably so. Others think their own sins too grave to be brought out into the open. But both conclusions are nonetheless wrong. The only unforgiveable sin is our own choice to reject God's forgiveness; even in mercy, God does not force Himself upon us.
Our sins caused and necessitated the nails in Christ's hands and feet. But like the hymn says, His blood does not cry out for vengeance, as Abel's blood did. Christ's blood cries out for mercy. When we resist His mercy, Christ cries out the louder to plead for our forgiveness.
The sinner who sins out of spite, knowing the gravity of his actions, throwing his defiance into the face of God, is nonetheless loved by God, though he hurts Him most. It is not our place to reject them, (although we reject the sin) but to pray and encourage their repentance and mercy.
"Oh my God, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of your mercy."
Lincoln was not a Know-Nothing
President Lincoln, from a letter he wrote to his longtime friend Joshua Speed in 1855:
“I am not a Know Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can anyone who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for example, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Fr. Tito's Rummage sale starts tonight...
And I'm not kidding, it's like this:
Like Msgr. Tony Rosaforte says, tie a rope around your waist before going in to make sure you can find your way out!
If you're in the Baltic, CT area, please help out a fantastic priest in his parish's main fundraiser for the year.
Like Msgr. Tony Rosaforte says, tie a rope around your waist before going in to make sure you can find your way out!
If you're in the Baltic, CT area, please help out a fantastic priest in his parish's main fundraiser for the year.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
'Cause it's on the brain
My wife has been assisting for the last 20 hours as labor coach for the birth of our next godchild. I'm holding down the fort here with the rugrats trying to clean the house so when all is done she can at least pass out in a tidy home. Please, if you would, offer a prayer for the mother, as she is getting discouraged from the lack of progress (trying to give birth naturally) and is, naturally, exhausted.
Have you said that Hail Mary yet?
When you're done, you can watch this, which has been running through my head all day.
Have you said that Hail Mary yet?
When you're done, you can watch this, which has been running through my head all day.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
With two girls plus Mom...
...the three boys and I will be outnumbered.
And if this one
turns out half as cute as this one
I'm toast.
And if this one
turns out half as cute as this one
I'm toast.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Another post from the dark side of the moon...
Yes, I'm still alive.
No, my wife didn't buy a wood chipper.
Proof that it's me and not her: she doesn't find this video nearly as funny as I do.
No, my wife didn't buy a wood chipper.
Proof that it's me and not her: she doesn't find this video nearly as funny as I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
