Come on, People! Don’t be shy. I’m not Joking when I say I’m giving away CDs for Free, Including Shipping.

No takers? I know I don’t get a ton of traffic, but even if you aren’t interested, surely you know someone who might be? Send them the link.

For more details on my giveaway offer, read this post.

I’m keeping this a sticky until I get 5 takers.

We, the Hierarchy, The Pope, Apparitions and Medjugorje

Most Christians, even if not Catholic, have heard of Medjugorje. From there, one may have a very thorough familiarity with all the details and history surrounding the claimed appearances of Our Lady, and the messages given to a number of seers. Some probably have heard passing reference to it without much thought.

I won’t go into all the details about the messages and secrets associated with Medjugorje. You can find all that here. I will say, in summary, that the claim is that Our Lady (Mary, for non-Catholics among us) first appeared in 1981, and has appeared ever since. These messages are for the whole world, and published accordingly. Each of the seers have been promised 10 “Secrets” to be revealed only under certain timing and instructions. The nature of these secrets range from pleant to unpleasant. Some of the seers have received all 10 secrets, while 3 of the seers have received 9 of the 10. Only once all of them have received all 10 will events transpire. Some details have been allowed to be released, but some are strictly forbidden to be released at this time.

So, what does this all mean? Well, it means a lot of things.

There are many balancing points with regard to Medjugorje. We must be honest about what it is and what it isn’t. Firstly, we must realize and appreciate that Catholics are not bound by faith to believe in any apparition. These events are extr-Scriptural, and outside of Tradition. They do not (and cannot) add anything new to our faith, particularly if contrary to previous doctrinal teachings. They may, and often do, reinforce doctrinal teachings of our faith. One example of this is when Our Lady of Lourdes referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception to a girl, Bernadette, who didn’t understand what this meant at a time shortly after the Pope declared this ex cathedra.

Having said that, there are certain apparitions that are so well confirmed and recognized by the Church, that to not believe it would be fairly unusual for any devout Catholic. Lourdes is one, but Our Lady of Fatima is probably the most distinct of these. The messages of Fatima carried so much weight, and the miracle of the sun witnessed by so many, and Pope John Paul II carried such a devotion to Our Lady in this capacity that it seems almost unthinkable for a Catholic to reject this particular apparition as anything but true. However, the important point is that Catholics may choose to question apparitions, even approved ones.

Second, speaking of approvals… The approval of the Catholic Church is a very strong sign to the faithful that you can submit your trust in the messages of a given apparition. There are not as many firm approvals as you may think. I haven’t cross-checked this list, but from my own reading, it seems correct to my understanding. Basically, an approval does a couple things (1) it’s a stamp of authenticity, and (2) a stamp of approval of any messages.

Authenticity is obviously important, because if it didn’t really happen, we shouldn’t suggest that it did even if the message being shared is a positive one. The Church takes a long time to discern authenticity. Numerous interviews, cross-checking of facts, revelation of certain miracles, and a close review of all messages play an important role. Messages are reviewed to determine the nature of an authentic apparition. It is conceivable that an apparition is authentic, but NOT from a source we would wish to involve ourselves with. I have been told that a good spiritual advisor tells someone who claims to be receiving messages will have the recipient challenge the visitor in the name of Christ. The demonic can be very subtle, masking themselves in goodness only to pervert messages in such a way as to cause spiritual warfare of one kind or another. Seldom will a demonic apparition appear as anything but something good. And thus, great care and discernment is needed, as well as a fearlessness in having the apparitions defend their words in Jesus’s name. Thus, even if the Church is convinced of the apparition, great care is taken to ensure protection of the messages of Scripture and Tradition.

A third point is that just because a vision is NOT approved, doesn’t mean the Church has judged negatively on it. The Church will condemn visions that clearly teach things antithetical to Church teachings. Whether it’s a judgment of lack of authenticity or in message is irrelevant at that point. Both seers and followers are to immediately cease activity associated with that apparition. At other times, there may not be a condemnation, but a certain Bishop may step in and place limitations on activities. One good way of discerning the nature of an apparition’s validity is to reflect on the reaction and the obedience to these things, even when the bishop may be wrong! Humble obedience, or a proper channel of disagreement in a respectful manner, reflect a humility that suggests that this will all happen with God’s timing. Pubic clashes with the hierarchy suggest something else.

That brings us to Medjugorje.

There are many conflicting views of this, and there seems to have been somewhat of a roller-coaster ride in whether or not the faithful should be devoting time and spiritual energy to it. For a time, pilgrimages were not allowed to be organized by churches, though I am not aware of any time where individulas were prohibited to go. In practical terms, this is rational. The messages and secrets have not yet been fulfilled, and the apparition has not been approved. Even if all things look good to this point, it is reasonable on the part of the Church to protect the faithful from deception, at least to the extent of giving the perception that everything has been approved. Some have read into this a form of “condemnation.” It certainly may be true to suggest that the Church has yet to be fully convinced, but it’s really more of a cautionary measure.

Many thousands of pilgrims go to Medjugorje each year. Many have claimed to witness or experience miracles. That is for discernment. It cannot be questioned that many have had a revitalizing experience of faith. And so the phrase “by their fruits, you shall know them” comes to mind. On the other hand, many have also said that it is a commercialized circus, and don’t take much away from it.

There has been much made of the differences in opinions of different bishops. The resident bishop has gone so far as to ask the visionaries to stop making their claims. Clearly, he is an authoritative figure, and has his public doubts. He has more recently softened the language, but still clearly has his doubts.

Case closed, right? After all, he is the bishop at hand.

This is where Medjugorje is somewhat unique. I previously mentioned that obedience to a Bishop – even if wrong – is important. And it seems as if there is some differences among the seers in this area, but all in all it doesn’t seem as if they are all that much out of line. After all, if the visions are truly real, obedience can’t possibly go so far as to lie about their validity simply to please the Bishop. But beyond that, the Church hierarchy itself does not seem to universally respect the local Bishop’s opinon. In fact, a Cardinal recently visited, causing all sorts of heartburn to the local bishop.

There is even debate about whether or not the Cardinal’s follow-up letter to the Bishop was an apology.

Why the fighting? Well, on the one hand it is somewhat difficult to believe that a lie could be perpetuated this long, and with such solidarity. If someone were that rotten of soul, they’d be able to cash in substantially on breaking the news that this is a farce. That, and the messages by all accounts are affirming of the teachings of the Catholic Church. There is nothing there to suggest falsehood, save the scenario that the Secrets simply don’t come true. but on the other hand, let’s face it: this has gone on for nearly three decades. If we look to Lourdes and Fatima as our example of an approved apparition, we see a very limited number of appearances, with a pretty direct message and directive. To believe in the apparition at Medjugorje, we must convince ourselves that there is some purpose to essentially the same messages – with a fewnotable exceptions – being repeated on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis for 28+ years. The question can reasonably be, “What’s the point?” The perception is a “crying wolf” attitude. These last few secrets have taken seemingly forever to be completed. Is that God’s plan, or is it a realization by the visionaries that once the last secrets are completed, they’ll be exposed? I’m just offering the reasons for the differences in opinions, I’m not suggesting in any way that I can determine the truthfulness of the visionaries.

It’s an interesting question ,which begs the question as to where the Pope stands on this. Well, even this question is not perfectly clear, and is up for debate.

A good article from last August explains the initial opinion that Pope John Paul II was of the opinion that the Medjugorje phenomenon was legitimate, while then Cardinal Ratzinger shared the opinion of the local bishop that the apparitions were not authentic.

Dr. Jones asserts that when he met with Bishop Pavao Zanic, then-ordinary of the Diocese of Mostar (in which Medjugorje is situated) in 1988, the bishop said Cardinal Ratzinger agreed with him and did not believe the alleged apparitions were authentic.

But Pope John Paul II did not respond to Bishop Zanic in the same way. This would make sense considering certain seemingly pro-Medjugorje notes and letters JPII wrote to friends of his years ago…

There is a lengthy interview in that article more fully explaining the opinion of Jones, who sees the beginnings of the Church’s attempts to delegitimize Medjugorje.

If true, it certainly appears that Benedict XVI is not endeared towards ratification of this any time soon. However, citing a personal opinion as a Cardinal in a personal conversation is a far cry from any kind of condemnation or indicator of any campaign of delegitimization as Pope. Further, it is the opinion of others on the basis of other statements that Benedict XVI is in no way against Medjugorje, but instead has more or less framed his remarks in a neutral way that suggests investiagion is needed and prudence required.

Another interesting development, though, is the sudden public affirmation by the aforementioned Cardinal Schönborn. In fact, he has now come out and said that Pope Benedict XVI may visit Medjugorje. Clearly, if that happens, it may not be a message of outright approval, but it is certainly a positive message for devoted followers of these apparitions.

So where does that put us?

Quite honestly, it should put us where we’ve been all along: constant prayer and discernment. In the end, the faithful need to pay heed to the ultimate authority of the Church in this matter. As long as we are allowed to take an individual pilgrimage there, we are free to do so. Accept happily the spiritual fruits of such a pilgrimage, as well as the messages of Our Lady. As long as the message is one consistent with the teachings of the Church, we can heed the calls to prayer without any problem at all. If we choose to believe that this is true, we do so under the condition that we will ultimately follow the Church’s decision should she rule contrary to our own personal conclusion. Always be respectful to authorities in the Church, even a priest or bishop who may not feel your own conviction in the matter. Obviously, if the Church approves the phenomenon, we can then celebrate this devotion quite freely. Such approval also carries a call to heed the messages as well.

Quite honestly, for us laypeople to debate its legitimacy to the detriment of our spiritual community only clouds the question about its validity even more. So I would ask that any debate be respectful, and no matter how devoted a follower you may be, and however much you believe the truth of it, please respect those who have their doubts, or even outright don’t accept it. Question them, of course, but be respectful. And those who don’t believe it, please do not belittle those who do. Faith can be a very simple thing. That doesn’t make it wrong.

That we may all be one doesn’t necessarily mean we all think the same thing about everything, even with regard to our faith. It means we are united in Christ, and the doctrinal teachings of the Church. When we allow dissention to rule over something that isn’t doctrinal, it harms us all.

Why I support the Confirmation of Justice Sotomayor

It is a bit difficult for me to say that I actually “support” Sotomayor. There is every indication that she subscribes to the approach that the Constitution is a “living and breathing” document, which can be interpreted to fit the times, rather than for what it is. The thought process is that the Supreme Court can basically amend the Constitution by applying current day thought to it, even though certain “rights” are not enumerated in the Constitution. The Amendment process being overly rigorous, we have “chosen” to amend it in a different way.

Poppycock.

I will agree with one thing. The amendment process is too rigorous. But it is only too rigorous because we have perverted the role of the Supreme Court. These justices – 9 people – have free reign to amend the Constitution on a virtually unchecked basis. I have no problem with the amendment process being rigorous in order to change the Constitution on its face. I do, however, have a problem with the disparity in which the Supreme Court can essentially amend the Constitution and the ability for the U.S. populace to correct their mistakes when they overstep their bounds. The founding fathers have to be rolling over in their graves at the thought of 9 unelected individuals having complete authority in changing the Constitution or its meaning with almost no way to balance that. This cannot be what they had in mind. I’m quite certain the “living and breathing” concept would have been met with ridicule and disbelief in their time.

So, given my discomfort with that notion, why in the world would I “support” the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor?

Answer: I’d rather have my foot amputated than my entire leg.

Let’s face reality: I will not like anyone Obama appoints. Should the nomination of Sotomayor sink, he will appoint someone with the same judicial philosophy again. This simply will not change.

So, the question becomes one of “the devil you know” versus the one you don’t. And as flawed as Sotomayor may be in some key areas (her comments on Latina superiority, ties with certain groups, stances on illegal immigration, certain business rulings) there is at least a faint hope that she is not completely whacked-out left-wing on social issues. Her record is slim on abortion, gay marriage, and other issues. In fact, there are some indications that she may be at least moderate on the abortion issue, based on some her rulings on that issue. She is a Catholic, which is only really appealing to me if she considers herself an actual Catholic. I don’t play identity politics with Catholicism. A devout Catholic certainly would give me hope that she has a similar worldview as mine, and is a plus. But that doesn’t necessarily seem to be the case here. That said, there may be some level of Catholic understanding on some of these formative issues that can’t hurt matters. One can only hope and pray that this is the case.

So, there are some glimmers of hope. One telling thing is that the White House is going out of its way to assure nervous pro-choicers. This could be a good sign, particularly if it’s true that she was never directly asked about abortion. Perhaps the President has certain assumptions abouot her that aren’t accurate? Again, we can only hope and pray.

The bigger driver in my lukewarm support, though, is simply that I strongly suspect that – as liberal as Sotomayor may be on certain issues – the next appointee would be an abomination. That’s my fear, and I don’t think it’s an unfounded one. That may be a weak reason to hope for her confirmation, but it’s all I’ve got.

So, I guess my summary conclusion is that I oppose Sotomayor’s appointment on many grounds. However, reality being what it is, I’m quite certain I’d oppose her replacement even more. I’ll take the devil I know. Perhaps she will surprise us all.

Prophetic Myrrh, an allusion to Martyrdom?

Here’s an intriguing little tidbit, from Russia.

Moscow, January 27, Interfax – The Softener of Evil Hearts Mother of God Icon at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow has started streaming myrrh.

Vesti television channel reported citing evidence of numerous churchgoers that the icon was “streaming myrrh very intensively.”

In line with a long-standing church tradition, the icon has been specially brought to the Church Council meeting currently being held in Moscow, at which over 700 of its participants earlier cast their ballots to elect a new Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

A tabulation commission member is expected to announce the result of the voting within minutes.

Myrrh, as we all know, was one of the gifts presented by the Magi to the infant Jesus. This was to be a sign of the suffering of Jesus. Mark 15: 22-23 alludes to myrrh being offered to Jesus mingled with wine. Jesus did not take it. John, however, presents the use of myrrh in the preserving/embalming sense in John 19: 39-40, used to prepare Christ’s body after His death on the cross.

So, assuming the reports are true, what possible meaning would tears of myrrh mean from a the icon Our Lady, as it relates to the new Patriarch of Moscow and Russia? It is difficult to believe that God would present a sign with no particular relevance. (Since this article was released, the new Patriarch was chosen – Metropolitan Krill (now Cyril). His election potentially bodes well for greater unity with the Roman Catholic Church, if Cyril’s past actions are an indication of the future.

Now, I don’t wish martyrdom upon the Patriarch, nor do I claim to have any particular wisdom on this matter. So, for now, this was just something that made me go “hmmm…” Perhaps it is a call to prayer for the new Patriarch, and for all of Russia, if not the entire Christian world.

I am, of course, assuming the reports of the crying statue are true. All I have as evidence of that for now is the little blurb I linked to.

There are a couple other instances of icons exuding myrrh.

According to this link, the following occurred:

In 1955, Bishop Vitaly, along with his monastic brotherhood, was transferred to Canada, to the city of Edmonton, from where he ruled the western part of Canada. Later he was assigned to Montreal and elevated to the rank of Archbishop of Montreal and Canada. …

At his position in guiding the Canadian diocese, Vladika Vitaly faced an event that was auspicious, not only for the diaspora and for Russia, but for the whole world. That is, the glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia and the Holy Royal Martyrs, which took place in New York on November 1, 1981. The future metropolitan, as well as all the hierarchs of the Church Abroad, considered this event to be epoch-making, for the glorification of the choir of New Martyrs by the earthly Church could not but have a response from these saints in Heaven at the throne of God! This may have been the turning point in the resurrection of Orthodox Russia.

Within a year there followed a clear sign of the mercy of God-the appearance of the miraculous Myrrh-streaming Iveron Icon of the Theotokos in Montreal. The abundant flow of myrrh from the icon in the course of 15 years was a precursor of the good changes that would take place in the homeland-the freeing of the Orthodox Church from the yoke of the Godless authorities and the beginning of the spiritual rebirth of the Russian people. Throughout the course of the 15 years, until the martyric death of the guardian of the icon, Brother Jose Munos, and the disappearance of the icon in 1997, Br. Joseph was in obedience to Metropolitan Vitaly. Moreover, it was namely Vladika Vitaly, being the Archbishop of Montreal and Canada, who witnessed to the miraculous appearance of the new Myrrh-streaming icon of the Theotokos.

Br. Jose recalled that soon after the icon began to stream myrrh, Vladika “learned of the miracle and sent word that we were to come to the monastery [in Mansonville]. When we arrived at the monastery with the icon, wrapped in cloth which was soaked with myrrh, Vladika first of all took cotton and wiped the icon dry, thereby taking all the myrrh that was on the icon. Then he took the icon and carried it through all the rooms of the three-storey monastery house. When he returned to the church, the icon was again covered with myrrh, which flowed from the hands of Vladika. He bowed down before the icon and said that a great miracle was taking place”(The Montreal Myrrh-streaming Icon and Br. Joseph, Montreal-Moscow, 2003)
Vladika Vitaly always considered himself responsible for the icon and its faithful guardian, Br. Jose.

And then there’s this account of an icon in Donetsk:

Moscow, August 30, Interfax – Exactly three months before a Tu-154 Pulkovo airliner crashed on May 22, an icon of St. Nicholas the Wonder-Worker, the patron saint of travelers, began exuding myrrh at a small church in Donetsk.

‘It happened for the first time at this church. Drops of myrrh appeared on the face of St. Nicholas. For a week they as if trickled down from his eyes’, a vicar Bishop Sergiy of the Donetsk diocese said as cited by the Zhizn daily.

He also noted that the icon cannot ‘cry out of joy’. ‘There is so much evil and hatred in the world today: a war in Lebanon, terrorist acts, murders. The icon warned us: Come to your senses and stop!’ the bishop added.

The Tu-154 airplane en route from Anapa to St. Petersburg crashed near Donetsk on August 22. It carried 159 passengers including 45 children and teenagers and ten crew. They all died.

Take it as you will…

It Appears That I Am Not Alone in My Assessments of Catholics

As it regards the most recent election results, anyway, the Bishop of St. Louis seems to think that Catholics bailed out on their faith.  Good for him.

Click here for the story.

In our Supreme Court and in our Congress, we have a plethora of so-called Catholics who are failing to live their Catholic identity. Over 50 percent of our electorate voted for a president who is one of the most pro-culture-of-death candidates from a major party to run for the highest office of the land.

Yes, we can thank one-half of our Catholics for bailing out on their faith!

After almost 50 years of having 50 percent of Catholics abandoning their Catholic identity, we cannot expect to turn this culture around by short-term political efforts.

Thanks, Bishop, for just saying it like it is.

And then, there’s the incomparable Archbishop Raymond Burke (my former Bishop – whom I almost trampled over in one unfortunate incident…) He shares the same point of view of the U.S. Catholic Bishop’s Document on Faithful Citizenship that I do… muddy, confusing, and a direct contributor to electing a pro-abortion President.

ROME, January 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A document of the US Catholic Bishops is partly to blame for the abandonment of pro-life teachings by voting Catholics and the election of the “most pro-abortion president” in US history, one of the Vatican’s highest officials said in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com.

Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, named a document on the election produced by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops that he said “led to confusion” among the faithful and led ultimately to massive support among Catholics for Barack Obama.

The US bishops’ document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” stated that, under certain circumstances, a Catholic could in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports abortion because of “other grave reasons,” as long as they do not intend to support that pro-abortion position.

Archbishop Burke, the former Archbishop of St. Louise Mo. and recently appointed head of the highest ecclesiastical court in the Catholic Church, told LifeSiteNews.com that although “there were a greater number of bishops who spoke up very clearly and firmly … there was also a number who did not.”

But most damaging, he said, was the document “Faithful Citizenship” that “led to confusion” among the voting Catholic population.

“While it stated that the issue of life was the first and most important issue, it went on in some specific areas to say ‘but there are other issues’ that are of comparable importance without making necessary distinctions.”

Exactly.

And the fruits have started producing. Embryonic stem-cell research has already expanded and will continue to be expanded. Obama almost immediately lifted the ban on overseas abortion funding. This stimulus package contained millions of dollars for contraceptives to Family Planning.

I continue to hold out some glimmer of hope that Catholics who voted for Obama will not be afraid to stand up and fight against FOCA. But I’m not holding my breath.

Secular Celebration of Vatican II 50th Anniversary

Sigh…

As one of those loyal Papists, I appreciate the work and spirit of Vatican II. What I do not appreciate is the misapplication of the precepts of Vatican II, and misunderstandings of the Church’s pre-Vatican II life and worship.

Nothing sums up the good and bad of Vatican II like this article.

I quote from it, with my own commentary.

The convention of nearly 3,000 bishops, under the guiding hand of John, went to work on revolutionary changes that would give more freedom to the laity, reach out to non-Catholics and allow congregants to celebrate Mass in their own language, with the priest facing them.

Before Vatican II, the priest faced away from the congregation and said Mass only in Latin.

“You went from a guy with his back to you, speaking in a language you didn’t understand, to where you were one of the celebrants,” said Schenk. “You went from a spectator to a player. It was all very exciting and new.”

Indeed it was. And that first paragraph shows the value of the Council. And then, in that last paragraph, we see one of the problematic fruits. Referring to a Priest as “some guy” shows a profound lack of proper respect for someone who is a bride of Christ, and thinking that worshippers prior to Vatican II were mere “spectators” is ridiculous. While it is true that laity are more involved in many respects of the Mass today, it has never been true that people attending Mass are not participating in it.

“I have very vivid memories of how poorly prepared people were for the changes,” said Bishop Richard Lennon of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese. “Priests were not prepared at all, and as a result it was a pretty haphazard event, a bit unsettling until you got used to it.”

Vatican II opened the gates of social activism, freedom of expression and conscience, and a respect for all religions, proclaiming to put an end to centuries-old prejudices and bad blood toward other Christian denominations.

That first paragraph does speak to many of the immediate problems after Vatican II. And it also probably shows us why the pendulum swung too far in a direction where the Vatican has since found it necessary to clarify the intent of the council and rein in abuse. That second paragraph, I think, is meant to be a positive. But it is not, as it applies to the Mass itself. People have taken the call to engage the world and applied it to secularizing the Mass. Liberal theology has pervaded many a seminary and parish, and Liturgical abuses in the name of freedom of expression became rampant. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have, in recent years, tried to bring us back to the reality that was originally intended with the Council, and some find this dictatorial.

Well, guess what? Catholicism ain’t a democracy.

In Africa, Masses were celebrated with drums; in America, with guitars. Women no longer had to cover their heads in church. And nuns all over the world began shedding their medieval robes and veils. One nun told a documentary filmmaker that it was strange to feel wind on her forehead and in her hair. (John’s fresh air?)

While I personally appreciate more contemporary music, others don’t. My concern is not so much the style of music as the message and Liturgical appropriateness. This has been largely abused, and it is the Vatican has addressed this. And, personally, I think shedding the veils and habits has led to a decline in vocations. It doesn’t present these people as particularly appreciative of their vocation nor does it look different to many young people who may feel called to the consecrated life. Don’t get me wrong… I know some very holy and special sisters who do not wear the habit (my aunt being one of them). But publicly, there is still something lost.

Vatican II eventually put an end to meatless Fridays and long hours of fasting before receiving Communion.

And, one may argue, reduced reverence for Holy Communion.

It restored the stature of the Bible, which had taken a back seat to church teachings

This is just stupid. Now, I’m not saying this wasn’t the perception, and that communication wasn’t lacking in the matter. But the Church has always revered the Bible as the Word of God. It was an outdated philosophy of the Church to discourage private reflection of the Scriptures in order to prevent erroneous thinkingby people failing to read it in light of the Church’s teachings. But, to be fair, this concern has been well borne out over the years, as countless Christians – Catholic and otherwise – have given their own wisdom precedence over the wisdom of the magisterial teachings of the Church and decided that they know better. It was never about putting Church teachings above the Bible, nor was there ever a reduction of the “stature” of the Bible. Sheesh. The Catholic Church is the one that formulated the canon of the Bible, for crying out loud.

and allowed lay people to hand out consecrated Communion wafers, a job only a priest had been allowed to do.

Untold here is that the norms are supposed to be much more restrictive than they are applied, and that this is a constant Liturgical abuse. This is still primarily a Priestly function. But, yes… the very allowance of this certainly speaks to the importance of involvement by the laity. Unfortunately, the laity often do not show the respect in this office – wearing shorts, t-shirts, and blue jeans – when distributing the Holy Eucharist.

“The fundamental change is the role it gave to lay people,” said the Rev. Lou Trivison, 84, retired pastor of Resurrection Church in Solon. “It called on the laity to put their faith into action – to work for peace and unity among ourselves and all Christian churches.

“There’s more to being a Christian than just baking cookies and making coffee after Mass,” said Trivison. “The laity can now be more-active members of the church through involvement in parish ministries.

I couldn’t agree more. This is the best thing to come from the Council, in my opinion.

“Prior to Vatican II, the laity’s role was to pray, fast and obey. In other words, ‘Shut up.’ “

Ugh. I’m incensed by this. No, “pray, fast, and obey” does not equate to “shut up.” Jesus prayed, fasted, and obeyed. And Vatican II did not eliminate the need to pray, fast, and obey. It expanded upon it. This is a ridiculous statement.

But the newly empowered laity would speak up, unleashing a host of hot-button issues that today remain subjects of fierce debate: Ordination of women, marriage for priests, gay sexual intercourse and the use of contraception – all, to various degrees, not approved by the church hierarchy.

Give people an inch, they take a mile. Vatican II did not give the laity license to redefine sin. And while women’s ordination may have been an appropriate theological discussion point up until Pope John Paull II said the matter was closed, and this is a doctrinal position, then this whole “obey” thing needed to be considered again. Marriage of Priests is a discipline, and discussion needs to be cordial and respectful, even if the discipline remains unchanged. People have lost that respect, and don’t feel the need to humbly obey any more. That is a problem.

“I believe those things need to be addressed,” said Marilyn Cunin, 78, of Cleveland Heights, a lifelong practicing Catholic. “We have educated people in the congregations today who don’t just say, ‘Yes, sir, yes, sir.’

This may be OK sometimes, but nowadays the Catholic laity have decided that they don’t have to say “yes” any more even with moral obligations, Church doctrine, and Church disciplines. And guess what? That is sinful. Vatican II never changed the call to humbly obey. To think otherwise is simply wrong, and prideful.

“I can’t imagine why Rome would object to ordaining women. Women are perfectly equal.”

Equal in dignity does not mean equal in all ways. Men are fathers, women are mothers. Men become Priests, women become sisters. Rome has looked at the issue, and this is nothing personal. That has been made clear. Rome has determined that, theologically, it simply is against God’s divine plan and will. There is no hint of disrespect meant. To believe otherwise is to ignore JPII’s writings on the subject, and get mired in your own pride.

Cunin said the church in pre-Vatican II days was preoccupied with the trappings of ritual – rosaries, candles, incense, icons, novenas – which, today, she said, have little meaning for her.

This is unbelievably sad. I can understand the idea of “trappings” if a person does these things blindly and without any understanding of why they are important. But to dismiss them as having no meaning is horrible. These are gifts and blessings to us, and greatly aid in the spiritual life. It is simply sad that people somehow think their time is past.

“If you forgot your chapel veil, you had to put a Kleenex on top of your head,” she said. “That’s just ridiculous. It’s laughable.

I’ll kind of agree with this one.

“I can appreciate the rituals, but sometimes there are people down the street going hungry while you’re saying the rosary. I believe faith should be more about addressing the problems of world hunger, AIDS and injustices.”

This seems unfair. One can (and should) both pray the Rosary and assist in social justice. I sometimes find it odd that some people who, to their credit, are very involved in social justice and service, and seem to have outright antipathy towards Catholic devotions. The two go hand-in-hand. To be fair, I think that some people do sometimes fall into a “prayer without action” mode, so maybe they are just overreacting.

Most Catholics, both liberal and conservative, support Vatican II, although they may differ in their interpretations of it. And most believe Pope John Paul II slowed the Vatican II movement by issuing conservative decrees and reaffirming Rome’s authority, which to some is a blessing and to others a disappointment.

Slowed? No. He reverseda tide of movement that was, in fact, antithetical to Vatican II’s intent.

A small minority of Catholics rejects Vatican II outright, calling it heresy and the work of the devil.

Yes, this is unfortunate and true. Pray for them. And, the devil being who he is, he has led imperfect people to abuse the true intentions of the Council in many ways, so many long for the more traditional Mass. This doesn’t affirm the stand of sedavacantists, but it may indicate that they saw certain fallout from the Council that led to the erroneous equating of Satan’s influence on post-Vatican II abuse with his influence on the Council itself.

“Pew Hugging” and the message it sends

There is a fascinating thing that can tend to happen in some Catholic churches. I’m sure it’s not totally unique to Catholics, but since that’s my own experience, it’s what I can personally attest to.

This phenomenon occurs primarily in traditional-style churches. Those are the single-aisle, long and narrow churches with pews extending from the center to the side perimeter of the building. The traditional construction is the general favorite of those who long for more classical and traditional liturgical celebration. And for good reason… the construction is meant to highlight the front-and-center nature of the tabernacle, while the typical high-elevation symbolizes a reach to the heavens. Obviously, in these buildings you are more apt to witness the tall, stained-glass windows and ornate designs that call to mind the sacredness of our faith, the beauty of statues and other sacrementals, and the ethereal feeling of being at peace with our Lord.

That’s the good part. But there’s also another thing that starts to happen, which this particular pew layout encourages: pew hugging.

Pew hugging is defined as the person, or couple, who enters an empty pew and sits on the outside edge of the pew. Rather than move to the center of the pew, as if to say “I welcome others to join me,” the pew hugger essentially blocks off the rest of the pew from an easy entry. Given the choice between entering an empty pew and either asking someone to move down or figuring out some way of moving past them without tripping or stepping on their feet, you will choose the empty pew every time. Given the choice between entering a pew where the only two people in the pew are in the center versus the edge, you will enter the pew where the people are in the center.

I happen to attend a church that is not a traditional style. I am not saying I prefer that, but I’ve attended the same church for nearly 20 years now, and the parish suits me just fine. It has its issues, as most parishes do, but all in all we do OK. What I will say, though, is that whatever benefits people may use for the traditional style (and I agree with those benefits, and would at this point prefer that our church was a little more traditional), I have never felt that the parishioners give an air of unwelcomeness at Mass. Perhaps it’s just the people, or perhaps it’s that the layout isn’t conducive to pew hugging. But I’ve only witnessed extreme pew hugging at traditional parishes. But not all. So, it’s not just a layout thing, but a people thing.

Extreme pew hugging occurs when you walk into the church and you see a vast emptiness down the middle of all the pews, and nearly every pew has someone planted on each end of the pew. At this point, you must choose to ask permission from some unlucky soul for entrance into the pew. Depending on the person, you may get a response ranging from welcomeness to outright annoyance that you would ask them to be inconvenienced. The persons usually will slide down to make room, but you also may be met with very little assistance. The people may not even shift, as if to make it as difficult as possible to crawl over and past them. You must choose wisely.

In all seriousness, obviously there are situations with some seniors and others where there is a physical reason why they sit on the end. It is not of them that this little rant is about. It is the message sent by able-bodied individuals who, intentionally or not, send off a cold, unwelcoming message. And don’t think it’s just rude young people who are thinking highly of themselves. There are plenty of older people who feel a certain sense of entitlement to the end of the pew for no physical reason.

I guess one reason I’ve noticed this is because I have seven kids. Clearly, we take up a chunk of pew. We Catholics are supposed to embrace larger families. Yet, I have often felt simply unwelcomed in many parishes. People see us looking for a spot and nobody moves. I don’t want to start off Mass with negativity, but it’s tough not to when nobody cares enough about welcoming you that they are unwilling to give up their precious spot at the end of the pew.

I can accept that perhaps people simply don’t even think about it. But from now on, if you find yourself engaging in pew hugging, maybe think about the message you’re sending and simply move down to the pew. That’s a huge “welcome” sign.

My family and I thank you.

It’s Still not too late to say “Merry Christmas!”

One of the things I love and appreciate about our Catholic faith is that we know how to celebrate! Now, many of you non-Catholics may be confused. After all, aren’t Catholics the ones who have these penitential seasons of Lent and Advent? Aren’t we the ones who have that “Catholic guilt” that drives us to confession? Aren’t our Masses, in general, not all that charismatic and – if not properly understood for what they are – boring?

Well, it is true that we give things up for Lent. And Advent is also penitential. And we do go to confession. And, unfortunately, Mass can all too often lack enthusiasm. Without going into an in-depth theological and philosophical musing on all this, let’s just say that to those Catholics who fully understand why we do all the things we do rather than just “following the rules” all these things have a purpose, and bring us joy. They may not be fun, and they may involve self-sacrifice, but the end result enhances the spiritual life and is a net positive on the “joy” meter. As for Mass, I personally wish we would be more enthusiastic as a whole about attending and participating in Mass. But again, for those who understand the Mass, our enjoyment and appreciation of it are not from charismatic singing and pulpit-pounding preaching. The Mass can certainly be enhanced with good music, a joyful congregation, and a good preacher, but the true joy of the Mass is the Word of God in both Scripture and Eucarist. Those elements are always there, and it is that from which our joy comes.

But, believe it or not, the Catholic faith not only encourages prolonged celebration, it outright demands it! Advent, for example, is a period of preparation and anticipation. It is not dissimilar to the rest of the world, both religious and secular, who decorate and buy presents and wrap them and make plans – all in anticipation of Christmas. Much of the rest of the world celebrates Christmas on Christmas Day, and then put their trees out to the curbs and take down their lights and start thinking about other things the day or two after. For the Catholic, though, Christmas Day is simply the first day of Christmas! Many Catholics I know exchange gifts throughout the 12 days of Christmas, culminating on Epiphany. In fact, some make Epiphany the major gift exchange, since that is the actual celebration of the arrival of the wise men.

Even more pronounced is the celebration of Easter. After our Lenten sacrifices, we’re told to celebrate for the next 50 days! Unfortunately, too many of us do not carry through with the call to continue celebrating Christ’s resurrection, even though we faithfully heed the call to sacrifice during Lent. I think we sometimes do lose sight of the importance and need for celebration of our faith.

So, while everyone is saying “Happy New Year!” tell them to have a Happy New Year and a Merry Christmas! It is still not too late to wish them a Merry Christmas.

And, by the way, Merry Christmas!

Prophecy From a Catholic Perspective, Part 6

I continue on through my thoughts on Catholic Prophecy. To see Parts 1-5, go to the “Prophecy” Category, or click here.

The importance of keeping Prophecy in the proper light cannnot be overstated. We should not get overly consumed about such things, but at the same time we know it is given to us for a reason. Since there is uncertainty, discernment, caution, and prudence are key words to keep in mind whenever reading of such things. As previously discussed, a healthy skepticism is in order, while also fully understanding that God is fully capable of not only transmitting prophecy through chosen subjects, but also carrying out fantastic miracles that might seem like an incredible stretch to us. Always approach with a balanced perspective.

It is exactly for this reason that I am starting with a lengthy view of the Catechism. While some quotes are presented that are directly related to prophecy, some are not. However, those that are not still underly a very important context in which to approach our view of prophetic messages. They address the reasons not only why God woould send such messages to us, but also a better understanding as to why things may (or must) unfold as they do. Some prophetic messages do not paint a pretty picture, and it is critical that we prepare our hearts and minds to be in conformity with God’s will, and have strong faith whenever any hardships come our way, let alone the potential extreme hardships presented in some prophetic messages.

The Catechism discusses Angels. I take a look at that here, because Angels play a central part in Scripture. But more importantly for our subject, they play a central role in the unfolding of prophetic events. Gabriel visited Daniel. Revelation is stock-full of Angels carrying out different commands. Many private revelations indicate a need for devotion to our guardian angels and other angels. We have a particular prayer to St. Michael the Archangel that was written in response to a prophetic vision by Pope Leo XII.

328 The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls “angels” is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition.

Believing in angels isn’t optional, as a faithful Catholic. They are not symbols or figments of our imagination. Angels are very real and to be believed in as a truth of faith.

329 St. Augustine says: “‘Angel’ is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is ’spirit’; if you seek the name of their office, it is ‘angel’: from what they are, ’spirit’, from what they do, ‘angel.’” With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they “always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven” they are the “mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word”.

330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness.

This helps explain why we see angels carrying out tasks in the name of God. They are His servants and messengers. We are once again posed with such questions as to why God needs servants and messengers. Can’t He just do everything Himself? Obviously, He could do it all, but that completely defeats the purpose of creating creatures with free will. We have a purpose. God knows the wisdom in this. Angels are creatures of spirit, while we are creatures of flesh (with a soul, of course). But God uses us, too, to do His will. Why not, then, angels carrying out His commands? In this way, He receives glory.

331 Christ is the center of the angelic world. They are his angels: “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him.” …They belong to him still more because he has made them messengers of his saving plan: “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?”

Note the reference to the prophetic return of Christ. He will be accompanied by angels. But note also that they are ministering to all those who are to attain salvation. That’s us! (Hopefully…)

332 Angels have been present since creation and throughout the history of salvation, announcing this salvation from afar or near and serving the accomplishment of the divine plan: they closed the earthly paradise; protected Lot; saved Hagar and her child; stayed Abraham’s hand; communicated the law by their ministry; led the People of God; announced births and callings; and assisted the prophets, just to cite a few examples. Finally, the angel Gabriel announced the birth of the Precursor and that of Jesus himself.

333 From the Incarnation to the Ascension, the life of the Word incarnate is surrounded by the adoration and service of angels. …They protect Jesus in his infancy, serve him in the desert, strengthen him in his agony in the garden, when he could have been saved by them from the hands of his enemies as Israel had been. Again, it is the angels who “evangelize” by proclaiming the Good News of Christ’s Incarnation and Resurrection. They will be present at Christ’s return, which they will announce, to serve at his judgement.

A pretty good summary of what role angels have already played in history. Note again, the prophetic allusion to Christ’s return, and also the note that Christ’s return will be “announced” by angels.

336 From its beginning until death, human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession. “Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life.” Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God.

Here is a reference to our guardian angels! This is not some little-kid fantasy. Guardian angels are very real. We should all try to improve our relationship with our guardian angel.

One last note. Too often people mistakenly refer to deceased persons as “another angel in heaven.” I know there are probably different levels of literalness meant, but it should be clearly stated that angels are specifically created as spirits, just as we are specifically created as human beings. I suppose it might be possible that the “office” of an angel could be granted to a human being, but it is generally accepted that this office is reserved for the spirits we know as angels. In any case, there are distinct creatures with distinct natures, and even upon death before we receive or immortal bodies, we are not created with the same nature as spirits.

Until next time…

Prophecy From a Catholic Perspective – Part 5

Continuing the path throught the Catechism as it relates to prophecy, I thought I’d pull out this passage:

269 The Holy Scriptures repeatedly confess the universal power of God. He is called the “Mighty One of Jacob”, the “LORD of hosts”, the “strong and mighty” one. If God is almighty “in heaven and on earth”, it is because he made them. Nothing is impossible with God, who disposes his works according to his will. He is the Lord of the universe, whose order he established and which remains wholly subject to him and at his disposal. He is master of history, governing hearts and events in keeping with his will: “It is always in your power to show great strength, and who can withstand the strength of your arm?

274 “Nothing is more apt to confirm our faith and hope than holding it fixed in our minds that nothing is impossible with God. Once our reason has grasped the idea of God’s almighty power, it will easily and without any hesitation admit everything that [the Creed] will afterwards propose for us to believe – even if they be great and marvelous things, far above the ordinary laws of nature.”

If you are a person of faith, this isn’t anything new. But how often do we really subject our own thinking to this reality? In the face of miracles, we tend to be very skeptical. This isn’t in itself a bad thing – the Church herself is skeptical. But the nature of skepticism needs to be grounded in a question of discernment rather than doubt in God’s ability to work such a miracle. We should be open to things to the extent that we have an acceptance of God’s ultimate Power over everything. If He wants to intervene, even to the point of suspending physical realities as we know them, He can do it. Believing this doesn’t mean we automatically believe every word we read in private revelation. It does, however, mean that we don’t dismiss this things because they are too fantastic in one way or another to believe – as if it could never possibly happen.

This is an important thing to remember even as we read public revelation. Do we accept that God sent the plagues to Egypt? Do we accept that He can just as well send chastisements our way? And do we believe that He can and will transmit messages to people of His choosing in one way or another? We are not bound to believe private revelation. But we need to be careful of our reasons for dismissing it, as well.

272 Faith in God the Father Almighty can be put to the test by the experience of evil and suffering. God can sometimes seem to be absent and incapable of stopping evil. But in the most mysterious way God the Father has revealed his almighty power in the voluntary humiliation and Resurrection of his Son, by which he conquered evil. Christ crucified is thus “the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Many of the prophecies we see and hear about have something to do with chastisements. These involve suffering. There is no guarantee that good and holy people will not suffer, as well. Often times we see such prophecies put in terms of “God’s wrath” or “vengeance.” These are human terms to try and put meaning to God’s actions. But God is a Spirit. He does not react to things with an emotional response. There is a reason – and a perfect one at that – as to why He does what He does. This suffering purifies the individual as well as the community. It is an administration of perfect Justice. It is also, often, His Mercy in action because the suffering will bring multitudes back to Him, who otherwise would have been lost.

The fact that such hardship is unpleasant, and seemingly unfair for certain individuals, should not shake our faith. We should, in our mind, understand that this suffering can be a testament of our faith and lead others to Christ. We can prayerfully join our sufferings to Christ. We can offer it up for other good. Even if our hearts want to wail out, first and foremost we simply cannot let our sufferings weaken our faith.

293 Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: “The world was made for the glory of God.”

294 The ultimate purpose of creation is that God “who is the creator of all things may at last become “all in all”, thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude.”

When the human race universally turns away from its Creator and gives glory to self, it usurps the entire purpose of the reason for Creation. Therefore, God has a couple choices: (1) let things go and allow His Creation to be a mockery of Him, (2) intervene to shake things up so that once again Creation glorifies Him, while being patient and allowing more people to turn to Him, or (3) end things.

301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end.

So, God simply wouldn’t let the first choice occur. Which means He chooses to chastise us for our own good. It has happened throughout history. And at some point, He will end it.

We do know from Scripture that the end will come some day. We don’t know when, but it will. From private revelation, there seems to be an indication that we will yet go through at least one more major chastisement before the final end times period. We’ll get to that someday. But all these items from the Catechism just help to clarify the reasons why these things must occur.

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it

Believe it or not, we are being guided towards an ultimate perfection. And this is why, when things seem to be godless and out of control, something is coming. Again, I am not to know when or how, except that God has blessed us with some mystics and seers that the Church has recognized. But in the end, we’ll all get a clue:

314 We firmly believe that God is master of the world and of its history. But the ways of his providence are often unknown to us. Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God “face to face”, will we fully know the ways by which – even through the dramas of evil and sin – God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest for which he created heaven and earth.

I’m looking forward to that…