"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

"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. :

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.”

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.

Congratulations Danielle and Joe!

Here's the newest member of the whole fam-dam'ly.

Welcome Peter!

'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.

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.

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.

"...if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free..."

Nope, nothing wrong here.

I wonder about Stupak...

I don't mean to start rumors. I have no facts to back this up, and unless someone comes out and says it, I can probably never prove it. But I have to ask the logical question:

Was Stupak given an offer he couldn't refuse?

And yes, I mean it that way. More than one comment came out about the fact that his wife was getting harassing calls at their home. The man who brokered the deal with Bart Stupak is a former lobbyist connected with Planned Parenthood (I'll get the link). This administration is known for its Chicago-thug tactics, its association with ACORN (and we've seen what its employees have no scruples about doing), and its commitment to dividing and conquering any pro-life opposition.

Stupak couldn't have been stupid enough to think that the pro-choice president who overturned the Mexico City policy on his first day in office by Executive Order (thereby allowing taxpayer funds to pay for abortions overseas) would keep his promise to prevent taxpayer funds to pay for abortions domestically. Was this just offered as cover?

Just wondering. And I'd love to hear how I'm a crackpot for asking. But I bet you've wondered, too.

Just a quick post to say...

...I'm still alive. Work went from being like the Maytag repairman to being, well, buried.

I'm taking a much-needed break today to go to a Catholic Men's conference in Woooosta, MA with a bunch of other guys from my area. (Thanks, honey!) Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Dale Alquist are among the speakers. It should be a good day.

Keep praying for votes, not just "no" votes, but "HELL, NO!" votes.

This health care bill is not only an attack on the sanctity of life, but also the freedom of all Americans in this country. Have you called your Congressman?

Did I mention to pray?

Special News

Sometime over the weekend, I got my 22nd follower, named Gabriella. First of all, welcome, Gabriella, and thank you to you and everyone else who spends a few minutes of their time reading here.

Secondly, it was one of those "little gifts" to see her name pop up there, as we celebrated my daughter's first birthday over the weekend with friends and family. At her party, we announced that on Sweetie-Pie Baby Girl's actual birthday a few days earlier, we found out that she is no longer the youngest of our little gaggle, but by God's grace, this year will bring about the debut of the Johnson Five.

And we had already decided that if this is a girl, her name would be Gabriella.

A note to the marketing director at Express.

Director of Marketing
Express, Inc
Online Customer Service
3939 W. Ridge Rd.
Suite D1
Erie, PA 16506

Dear Sir or Madam,

I’d like to bring to your attention an issue that disturbs me. I don’t know how you acquired my five-year-old son’s name or address, but I demand that his name be immediately removed from your soft-porn mailing list. Your catalog is designed to sell clothing that degenerates men and women into sexual objects and is not appropriate for the viewing of chaste adults, let alone impressionable children.

My wife and I are attempting to instill in our children a healthy understanding of themselves, and consequently, when it becomes appropriate, their sexuality. We view human sexuality as a beautiful, life-giving gift from God, the designer and creator of all life. In a chaste, loving, committed marriage, the sexual act is both life-giving and life-affirming. The abuse of human sexuality has in all times and places caused misery and disastrous consequences on the human person.

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.

In the peace of Christ,



Michael Johnson
[I'll let you know if I get a response...]

Letter to the Editor published today

http://www.theday.com/article/20100222/OP02/302229957

The Associated Press article "Genetic testing curbs some inherited diseases," published Feb. 18, is fraught with disastrous consequences.
The author does not understand that good ends don't justify evil means. She also clearly cannot distinguish between a morally good action and a morally bad action as she doesn't hold in her excitement for the reduction of deadly diseases precipitated by killing off babies in the womb who have a deadly disease.
Is this the future of health care? Instead of treating sick people and attempting to cure disease, the medical profession will identify the sick and recommend them for elimination?
In the future, will those in the medical profession recommend abortion, not just for babies with fatal illnesses but for anything that categorizes them as genetically inferior?
I already know the answer, for that is not the nightmare of some far-off distant future, but is already a reality now.
And it seems that we've been down this path before.

You can also read my post on this subject (in more detail) at CatholicVoteAction.org or comment at CMR's post as well.

The Redeemer of the World

Isaiah 53: 3-7

3 Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth.

Shamelessly copied and pasted from The Crescat.

The Story of Baby Gianna

...is very important to read. Sometimes we can be overwhelmed by the sheer number of abortions that occur every day and even pro-lifers can fail to grasp the humanity of each and every individual baby. The story of baby Gianna reminds us of the love and care every baby deserves.

(Since I'm not free to link everyday to the multi-part series at CMR, click on the sonogram on my sidebar to follow the whole story.)

God bless.

Exultet joins onto CatholicVoteAction.org

Well, I'm no Thomas Peters, but I do get to be in the same room with him (and Josh Mercer, Brian Burch, and a number of other great Catholic bloggers). Check out my first post at CatholicVoteAction.org.

It's my first post there, so go easy on me in the combox? Merci!

Kid theology, part deux

Fric (almost 6) is obsessed with heroes. Just the other day, he complained to me that when he and his younger brothers watch DVD episodes of The Justice League, they don't take it seriously: after the show, they just want to run off and play, whereas he wants to watch the episode again as a training video to become a superhero. (No, I'm not kidding, and neither was he.) I completely expect him to become a cop, firefighter, soldier or priest.

The other day, Fric was at the table coloring with Wifey and he made this picture. What appears below is dictation taken by Mom, verbatim.

This is a map about bad guys, and Moses and Jesus fighting off the bad guys.

I said Jesus tells Moses, "I want you to go in our world and fight off the bad guys who are attacking my people and world, and I want you to command the bad guys to turn their minds into good guys." Jesus tells me to do that so that you stop fighting my people and God tells me to tell you so you can turn your minds into good guys so you can stop doing that. Do things that people do when you're attacking them because that is the reason God sent me here to tell you that and I just want you to be turning your minds so you can turn yourself into good guys and become part of the heroes, but the King of the bad guys says, "Give me a good look" but he meant a bad look and he gave him a stare at Moses and said "Attack Moses!"

But Jesus froze down to the ground and killed all the evil men who were trying to kill Moses.

The End.

It's all there. Old Testament, New Testament, Kingdom of God, conversion, repentance, betrayal, Just War Theory, grace and rejection, divine intervention.

Kid theology, part 1

The theological points my kids make often cause me to stop and wonder if we're doing a good job as Catholic parents or if we're on our way to really screwing them up. Take, for instance, the recent exchange between Fred and myself. (Fred is three)

My wife just started a cantor job for the Saturday vigil Mass at a parish not far from us. We've never gone there as a family, so the munchkins and I sat together while Mom sang. It's a beautiful, very old church built in the 1800's that fortunately never went through the post V2-era recovations, so the original windows and murals are all still intact. Behind the altar are murals of Christ's birth, crucifixion and resurrection. Pointing to the scene of the resurrection, Fred said, "Dad, the soldiers are dead!" No, says I, they're sleeping. "No, Dad, no! They're dead! Jesus killed them!" Sigh.