Children Are Not Cats

Yes, I do own a cat. She is a very gentle feline, who is not like the typical smug and pompous house cat. Yet, she is still a cat, and that means that she often decides for herself what she wants to do (and there is no way on earth to change her mind). I might be able to stop her from doing what she wants, but that will not necessarily make her want something else. I have also owned dogs in my life, and dogs are very different. They want to please their masters so much, that they seem willing to change their minds on a moment's notice. Dogs want to be loyal, and cats want to be whoever they want to be.

Children, however, are not dogs or cats. I am sure that you can find certain similarities in the behaviors of dog or cats with children, but that is not what I am referring to here. There is something else that I am considering that is much more significant. It seems that many parents today have the idea that their children will behave either like cats or dogs. I do not think that this is an intentional decision of the parents. Rather I think that it is some sort of default behavior that most are not even conscious of. Let me point out a few details.

The parents that treat their children like "dogs" are those who expect them to be just fine after they train them just a little bit and then can let them go on their own. Dogs, after all are pretty sturdy. They want to be loyal, but they also can get by just fine on their own when forced to do so. I believe that there are a few parents today in this category. On the other hand, the parents that treat their children like "cats" are those who believe that their children have to be left always to "decide for themselves" and just hope they will make the right choices. In these days, it is fairly evident that there are many more parents in this category than in the previous.

When I want my cat to do something, there are few behaviors that she will follow through with, but it is usually based on her awareness that she is going to get something out of it for herself. It is virtually impossible to teach a cat just about anything unless they already want to learn it. All cat owners know this for a fact. Yet, children can learn, and if they learn rightly, they will retain those truths for their entire lives (cf. Prov 22:6). Some have said that it is impossible to train a child perfectly, so you just "hope for the best". This is a denial of the clear testimony of the word of God.

I once had a parent tell me that his 3 year old would not let him teach him how to sit still. I asked, "he won't 'let you'?" After all, this dad was easily 180 pounds, and his 3 year old was about 30 pounds! How can he say that his child "would not let him"? I have raised five children of my own, and I know what it means for a child not to want something. Yet, the child is not the head of the household, and he does not have the power or the authority to tell the parent not to do something. Sometimes parents do not want to go through the hassle of training a child, but that is not because of the child; it is the parent's choice.

If a child is doing something wrong then the parent has the ability and the authority to step in and "train" him so that he can make a better choice in the future. If the child does not listen to the instruction, then proper discipline is necessary (cf. Prov 23:13), but accurate instruction given to the child in love will have great impact on his behavior. Cats, as most people know, are not very good at being disciplined. I am not sure whether they just refuse to learn, or are actually unable to learn; but children can learn, and can often learn much more than parents think (and sometimes are learning when we do not really want them to!).


I am not encouraging parents to abuse their children or be cruel to them. In fact, it is more cruel to allow a child to descend deeper and deeper into sin, than it is to help him out of it! It is completely possible to train children in the life of holiness without ever being hateful or abusive. Yes, at times they need discipline (and discipline should be more than a "tappity tap" on the wrist) but it does not mean that a parent has to cause physical harm to bring a godly and loving discipline. Nor does it mean cruelty to insist (with loving firmness) that a child stop sinful behavior and turn instead to the path of righteousness.

To leave a child to "decide for himself" and just hope that he stops doing something bad is essentially rejecting God's grace that He promises to provide the parent who obediently seeks to train up his own children. God has made the parents (every parent) the "first teachers" of their children, and has given them the grace to be able to guide their children in the right way if they will just take proper advantage of it. In addition, when a child is left to "decide for himself", it will not only cause problems for him while a child, but it will cause problems when he grows older as well. Life does not allow us always to decide for ourselves; we all know that. How often do you "decide for yourself"? In many things in life, we are unable to decide for ourselves. To lie to a child about how life works--that is cruelty! Prisons are filled with people who insist on the freedom to decide for themselves in everything. Is that where we want our children to end up?

Children are not cats; we are not to throw up our hands saying "what can you do?" as though we as parents have been forced to let them go along in life and make all their own choices. Children are not dogs; we are not to presume that whatever they go through in this life, that things will turn out right in the end. We are called to step in a help them turn the course of their lives on the right path. As it says in the Scriptures: 

The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother (Prov 29:15).

Children should not be "left alone"; especially when they are falling into sin. They need guidance (specific and clear guidance) as well as boundaries (specific and clear boundaries) in order to follow that path which the Lord has laid out for them; and they need this from their earliest years. I have seen numerous 1 year old children learn how to have self control, even to the point of being able to close their eyes, hold their hands together, and remain silent during a prayer that lasts for a minute or two. I have seen 1 year olds learn complete self control while at the dinner table; it is not impossible. Only proper and loving instruction can teach things like that; and if a child that young can learn things like this, then how much can children who are even older be able to learn? Do not assume too little of their abilities. They are God's creations who can learn much!

If you want a dog or a cat, get one. Children are not, however, dogs or cats. They cannot be raised like them, nor can we presume that they will respond like them. It is cruel to presume that children are no better than brutes, and when parents do this, they are leading the children to behaving like brutes when the are adults. Today we live in a brutish society, with many people behaving more like animals than like people. Let us as good Catholics stand out as different. Let us raise our children to be shining lights of faithfulness in a world of darkness; children who have been trained to love God and love neighbor. This is what we are called to do.

Neither Marry Nor Be Given In Marriage

I am going to say something that might be a bit shocking (especially for anyone who knows me personally). In eternity I will not be saddened by the fact that my wife and I are no longer married. Boom! There it is. For those who know me and my wife you likely know that we have a terrific marriage and that our bond has only grown stronger every year. Like a good wine, our marriage is aging well. So it might be a surprise to think that I will not miss our marriage.

Of course, I need to qualify that statement. Would I miss her if I never saw her after I die (assuming only one of us perseveres in the faith and goes to Heaven)? Absolutely; she has been a wonderful helpmate and encourager in my life (and especially in my ministry). I would willingly be condemned if I knew it would enable her to spend eternity with Christ (cf. Romans 9:3). I am not saying that I do not like her, or that I do not have a great love for her as my dear bride. I am, however, saying that our love is as strong as it is precisely because she is not the one I love "more than anyone else", nor am I the one that she loves "more than anyone else". We have built our marriage on the fact that our goal is to love Christ more than anyone else.

When the Sadducees asked Jesus about how marriage works in Heaven, He told them that they did not understand the Scriptures. Explaining that things are different than we think, He said that "when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Mark 12:25). Jesus makes it clear that marriage is an earthly experience; this is why the marriage vows say "till death us do part". It is also why a widow can remarry. We cannot know exactly what Jesus means by "like angels", but--at the very least--it has the connotation that we will not be walking around in Heaven depressed because we just want our spouse back.

If I love my wife more than I love Christ, then I "cannot be His disciple" (cf. Luke 14:26-27). We cannot set aside these words of our Lord as though they did not apply to us; especially when the greatest commandment says that we must love Him, "with all our heart, soul, and mind" (in other words, more than anything else). If we love anything, or anyone, more than we love Christ, then we are idolizing that person or thing. In fact, loving the Lord before all other things, actually helps us to show love properly to other people (including our spouses).

Now some of you reading this may be saying, "I know what you mean, father, and I do love Jesus, but I love my spouse a whole lot!" How much is "a whole lot"? If you cannot imagine eternity without that person as your spouse, then you very well may be loving that person too much and not loving the Lord enough. When speaking with people, I often notice certain earthly attachments (and there are so many of them around these days). If I get the opportunity, I will ask people if they can give up that attachment for the sake of the Lord. Most will say "yes", but do so hesitantly. I have never once asked anyone whether they were too attached to a spouse; though I have wondered a few times if it were the case.

We often hear a homily about spouses needing to love one another, and we know that many marriages have trouble because the husband and wife lose their love for one another (which is always a conscious decision, and never an accident). Be clear about this: I am not telling you to stop loving your spouse. Yet, we hear almost nothing about loving someone too much. As I have said often before, the love of many has grown cold these days. When, however, our love (our proper, godly, love) grows cold, then we will always seek to redirect our love elsewhere, and that means we will always love the wrong things, or the right things in the wrong manner.

Therefore, I do not want anyone to go to my wife and say, "father said he doesn't love you all that much". Knowing her, she will likely say, "I'm sorry that you are confused, I will pray for you". In fact, she and I have already spoken about this (or I would not be writing this), and are in full agreement on the subject. Christ is our Savior; I am not her Savior, and she is not mine. The same truth applies when it comes to our children or our friends. As much as parents love their children, and friends love one another, they each must love the Lord more, whatever happens in this life.

As we say in every Divine Worship Mass, "Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith: 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets'." Love God with your whole being, and love your neighbor (including your spouse) as yourself, but never love them as much as you love God.

Church Growth, the Hard Way

A couple days ago, the gospel reading for Mass spoke of the "easy way" and the "hard way" to live. What Jesus called the "easy way" was the way that leads to destruction. It appears easy because it allows one to choose his own pleasures first. The way that Jesus called "hard" leads, instead, to eternal life. It is genuinely hard because it requires obedience. It demands repentance and a diligent effort in righteousness. We think of these two ways of life mostly in relation to our own spirituality, and that is good, because that is what Jesus was speaking about primarily. Yet, there are other applications for this principle.

When we think of Church growth, we must realize that it is an effort in spirituality. It is an effort in making people go from a life of sinfulness, unto a life of holiness; that is indeed the major issue of spirituality. In fact, any other kind of Church growth would be somewhat "anti-spiritual" for it would lead a person away from God and closer to the evil one. Hence, evangelism is spiritual growth on a large scale, and Church growth is the specific goal of proper evangelism. After all, the reason we evangelize is to just to get people in the pews, but to enable more people to sing the praises of God while they are on the path to eternal life.

It would not take long to show that there are a number of ways that have been utilized to bring more people into the Church. During my years in the Protestant Church, I saw many different ways (some of them embarrassing and others even sacrilegious). Catholics usually tend to be a bit more discerning about how to bring people into the Church, but not always. I read about a Catholic priest recently who brought large numbers of people back to his parish. He told them that Jesus accepts them "just as they are" and that neither repentance nor the confessional were truly necessary, so long as they came to Church faithfully.

Here we have a prime example of the "easy way". Virtually no rules or requirements are given, and morality is openly referred to as not really necessary. Is this the path that leads to life? With Jesus description in the gospel, we can almost always assume that if we have found an easier method for spirituality, then it is probably not the best one. The whole idea of spirituality for imperfect people (as we all are) is that we must "strive" and "labor" to do good works for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Although nothing can genuinely be earned by our good works, we are still called to do them because that is how we grow spiritually.

When it comes to growing the numbers of members in a Church, we can easily accomplish a short term growth, but that growth has no long term strength if we choose the "easy way". That cannot, however, be our goal.  Just filling the pews with warm bodies does not help anyone to stay on the path to Heaven (and will encourage many down the path to Hell because they are led to believe that the "easy road" leads to Heaven!). I could probably get a number of people to come and sit in the pews by offering a "free gift" to the first 25 new visitors (someone did this in a protestant Church in Southern California years ago, and I am sure others have tried it since then). That kind of growth is more like piling rocks than making a tree bear fruit; it gains volume, but not real life.

The "hard way" to grow a Church is to give people the authentic gospel, not a watered-down version of it. Tell them of the wonderful grace of Christ available to those who truly repent and follow Him. Foster a community of people who seek to live in relation to one another and are willing to help each other in their lives. Help parents in raising their children in the faith. This is nothing new or surprising, but these details are often taken for granted (or outright forgotten) because modern man is always looking for the quick and easy, new-fangled method. How these truths are communicated may differ from parish to parish, but the primary component in spreading the word is that the laity do so in their own particular circle of influence (work, school, neighborhood, etc.).

This is the method that the early Church used, and though it is difficult (the "hard way"), it is what leads to lasting spiritual growth. This is how people are brought to love Christ and to love one another. This is what Jesus calls us to when He says to "[g]o therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." The "easy road" may offer baptism, but it also teaches people to be unconcerned with "all that Jesus commanded us". Let us, willingly, choose the hard road, and place our hope and trust in Christ to fulfill His promises.

Fathering or Managing

Many of you already know that I worked as a restaurant manager for many years before I became a protestant minister. I worked both with the employees and with a number of other managers, and had a good deal of experience. There are certain duties of a manager that are basically the same wherever you go, and whatever business it may be (restaurant, grocery store, etc.). A manager is the "head" of the business and is the one to call the shots. He hires and fires, as often trains as well.

When I became a protestant minister (waaaay back in 1995), I found quickly that some of the principles were the same in being the pastor of a congregation and being the manager of a business. Some of the techniques were the same, and some were different, but much of my experience in being "in charge" of a group of employees was similar. A few of my congregants even called me "boss" or sometimes "the CEO". It was never exactly to my liking, but I tolerated it because no one was mean about it. It did, however, reveal something about people's thinking. "The boss" of the organization was the one whom people were supposed to answer to.

Then I did that (crazy!) thing a few years back and switched to the Catholic Church. Being one of those who was able to move quickly into holy orders (5 months as a layman, 1 month as a deacon, then I was ordained a priest--all with Rome's permission, and only after jumping through a number of hoops), I found that the "taste" of protestant ministry was still remembered. Although there were certainly some differences between Anglican ministry and the rest of protestantism, the similarities are closer between Anglican and protestant, than between Anglican and Catholic.

It did not take long for me as a Catholic priest to realize that I was not playing the same "game" as in protestantism. All of those concepts of "boss" and "CEO" were gone. That was not how it worked, nor was it how it was supposed to work. There is a reason that the Catholic Church wants its priests to be called "father". To look at someone as the "father" of the house is quite different than to look at someone as the "CEO" of the business. One is relational and the other is pragmatic.

The concept of "father" is important for how we behave as Catholics. It connotes authority, but it also connotes relationship and tender care. There is very little of relationship in a "manager"; especially when he can fire the employees and be fired by a bigger boss. Yes, things can change in a Catholic parish, but when it ends up looking like a business, that is a mistake and not the proper nature of what it means for the priest to be the "father" of the "family". The Catholic Church (though she is relatively quiet about the fact) still considers the father of an earthly family to be the "head of the household". This means that he is in charge, yes, but it also means that he is the one who has to give account for the family as a whole (the captain goes down with his ship) before God.

Although both the priest and the manager have authority, it is not the same kind of authority. A father's authority is (supposed to be!) used because he cares about his family and wants the best for them. A manager's authority is used because he cares about the business and wants the best for it. Those two ideas are radically opposed to each other, and we cannot dispense with this distinction merely because we do not like to think about it. Albeit, there may be a manager somewhere who generally cares about his employees (I have met a few), but that is not the same as a manager who is "father" to his people: one who is there with the people at times of birth, marriage, death, trials, and life decisions.

Authority is something that many today struggle with, and the attempt to reduce the priest's authority (as is common in many modernist settings) will only cause less and less spiritual growth for a parish community. Many try to eliminate the idea of submission in every area of life and "democratize" the family and the Church. This is what is leading many down the pathway of chaos. Those who also wish to get rid of the idea of a wife's submission to her husband as head of the home have a big problem. They not only have to overcome numerous passages of Scripture, and a large portion of Church tradition, but they also (by consequence) would need to get rid of the submission of the laity to their priest and bishop (a "father" is a "father").

Priests do not do well as managers, because the parish is not a business it is an organism (no, not an organization). And in this way this "organism" is a spiritual family like no other. A spiritual family needs a spiritual head, and that is the priest. If we get this relationship wrong it will have terrible effects. For the people to treat the priest like "manager" is to invite a host of other wrong views of the Church and the relationship that people and priest should have. It will also foster a sense of competition between priest and people ("us" against "him") rather than a sense of familial unity (this is also one of the reasons why I am an advocate of permanent priestly assignments, but that is another subject).

How do you think of and treat your priest? Although you likely call him "father" is that how you treat him? If he is the "father" of the parish, and you want to treat him as such, then do not get confused with any ideas of him being your "buddy-chum-pal", for that will not help him to be a good priest, nor you to be a good parishioner. Also, do not treat him as a business manager. The Apostle John said he rejoiced to see his "children" doing well in the faith. Every priest would agree, but they cannot be a good priest to those that they are supposed to "manage"; they can only be a good priest to those whom they love as their children.

Encouraging Divorce?

Why do children of divorced parents so often get divorced? Many of the things I have read on this well known statistic imply that the problem stems from the fact that the children become calloused to divorce because they have seen it happen firsthand. Although this is certainly influential in things, I do not think that it is as simple as children following an example. This is especially clear when we see how often children today reject the teachings of their parents and go down a completely different path in their lives. With how common this "children's rebellion" is in the modern era, why would they choose to copy their parents in this one area so much?

There is another factor that I think is rarely recognized, yet has much more influence. People who divorce are not doing so because of some hidden "copycat" behavior. No, rather they are doing so because they never learned how to stay married. It is a vicious cycle: the parents do not know how to "remain married" because they do not know the basics of living in self-sacrificial relationship with someone else. Therefore, they are unable to teach their children how to live in relationship with others. They, in turn, are unable to teach their children, etc.

Marriage is not a relationship of two people making each other happy all the time. It is a relationship of humility and sacrifice and if people do not know how to live that out, then they are not ready to take the vows of holy matrimony. If two selfish people happen to make each other happy, then getting married will not secure that happiness. In fact, it will ruin it because the more that they "make each other happy" the more they prevent reconciliation on the day that they do not "make each other happy". If the marriage relationship is filled with grudges, selfishness, petty complaints, rude comments and unreasonable demands, then we cannot imagine that this relationship will endure the slightest problems life throws at them.

In the questionnaire for a petition for a marriage annulment, there is a question that asked whether the couple intended to live in a relationship based on "mutual love and respect". Good words (very good), but what do they mean? For many today they have no more substance than "be nice to each other"; being "nice" does not accomplish much in a real marriage if it is not coupled with a willing sacrifice of self for the eternal good of the other. The questionnaire is seeking to understand if the couple had "what it takes" to make the commitment to each other.

Under proper circumstances, all parents would teach their children the basics of living in a loving relationship. Yet, that does not often occur today. The main signs of this are seen in the way that most children today speak to their elders. Do they show respect? Do they look them in eye and answer their questions with a sincere "yes sir" and "no sir"? Do the children know how to reconcile with others? Are they quick to reconcile or do they have to be forced to do so? Do they seek to participate in the family and help others that are in need? All of these are clear signs that a child has learned how to commit himself in a marriage relationship.

Today's gospel reading for the Mass tells us about Jesus' teaching that marriage after divorce is adultery (and thus not true marriage). It stems from the fact that a genuine marriage is indissoluble and thus to attempt to contract another marriage on top of the first one is adulterous (regardless of what the state may say). I am regularly amazed at how few Catholics know this basic fact. Divorce is rampant today, and it shows little sign of diminishing. Parents, are you protecting your children from adultery? Are you giving them the emotional and spiritual tools to avoid divorce? If you are teaching them how to live their lives in the love of Christ, and to commit themselves to living selflessly, then that means you are working toward that goal. If not, you may very well be encouraging them to get divorced some day.

When We Are Hurting

Earlier today my oldest son (who works in construction), fell at work and cut open the back of his leg. At first he thought it was a minor cut, so he proceeded to get in the car to head to the next job site. After just a few minutes he realized he was getting light headed and pulled over quickly. When I answered the phone we had a bad signal, but I got as much of his words to know that he was hurt and needed me to come take him to the doctor. He is a tough young man, who works very hard at his job (with a bunch of other tough guys who frequently give him opportunities to "practice patience"), but he said "Pop, I need you here".

There are a few different ways that he could have responded to that situation. He could have kept driving (and likely gotten in an accident and hurt himself further as well as possibly others). He could have pulled over and just tried to wait it out until he felt better. He could have called a friend or co-worker to help him. Instead he chose to call his Dad. Sometimes it is hard to ask for help, and it takes a certain degree of humility. Even when we do ask others for help, we do not always do so with a willingness to accept the help they offer (we sometimes ask people to help just in the way that we want).

This appears to be the same in the spiritual dimension as well. Many (very many) people get themselves into spiritual difficulties and refuse to ask for help. Of those who do ask for help, many of them only want one kind of help (their kind). If someone offers another solution to their problem, they treat them as though they refused to help. Someone once came to me and asked for help with a spiritual problem he was having. When I told him what the Church says about dealing with that problem, he got upset with me. He claimed that I "refused" to help him and said I "didn't care" about him. In other words, he already decided what was best and just wanted me to agree with him.


I know of many people who are struggling with various things in their lives (parenting problems, addictions, confusion, etc.) and I have reached out to them to offer help, but they often refuse to be helped. Some have slipped into thinking that there is no way to help (which is usually wrong) or that others are not really willing to help (which is also usually wrong). When we settle into our problems and make "peace agreements" with them it is comparable to saying that God is not able to use others to help us. Christ wants us to have peace, in all things; we cannot ignore that truth.

How do you respond to it when you find yourself in a spiritual difficulty? It is common for people to be embarrassed about asking others for help; even from their priest. Many today think that they can handle it themselves and go about trying to deal with spiritual issues on their own (which is even more dangerous than self-diagnosing physical ailments). Part of what the Church is here for is to help each other on the path to Heaven. In the gospel yesterday, Jesus spoke of those who obey the will of God being like His family. Living like family means helping one another as brother and sister. It also means accepting the spiritual father as just that: the Father of the parish (i.e. someone you can get advice from!).

Jesus created us to live in community; for it is "not good for man to be alone". He wants us to spend enough time in each other's lives to know each other. He wants the Church to be the place where you have your closest relationships, and where you know you can always find others who care about you and are willing to help you when you are in need. He wants us to notice when someone in the parish is in need, as well as to be willing to ask others for help. Pride keeps us apart, both when we refuse to notice, and when we refuse to ask.

In the end, my son's injury was not as bad as he had worried, but it was good that we were able to go help him. In the same way we need to be available for each other. Do you know the person you sit near in Church each week? Do you notice when someone is not there (and what do you do about it)? Is there anyone in the parish that you could reach out to when you need help or advice? How would you respond if a fellow parishioner that you see each week asked for help? We are not supposed to be a nameless group of people who come together on Sunday, but really have no other connection to each other's lives. Those who obey the will of God are Jesus' "mother, and sister, and brother"; let us live like it.

The Top 3 Easiest Ways to Create a Jellyfish

For those of you who do not know what a "jellyfish" is (because I am not talking about sea creatures), a "jellyfish" is also referred to as a "pansy", "milksop", "sissy", or "coward". I use the term "jellyfish" because I am referring to those who have no spiritual or emotional "spine" and who sting everyone they touch. Ever met someone like that? These are people who are constantly offended by things; so much so that it appears like they want to be offended. We have all heard it on the news, "you offended me so I hate you", "you infringed on my rights so I am filing a lawsuit against you", or (in the news just today) "you said something that made someone, somewhere, unhappy, so we are cutting you off".

As happens so often, at this point we should clarify our terms. What does it mean, technically, to be "offended"? In the Bible, "to offend" someone means "to cause to sin". It does not mean to be personally annoyed and emotionally hurt by someone's actions or words. In fact, the biblical term and the modern usage are two completely different issues. In the Bible we read things like "cause no offense", which does not mean "be nice" to others; it means to do nothing that would lead another person to sin. Although causing someone to be emotionally hurt can often lead to them sinning, these two situations are not the same thing.

Therefore, to arrive at the original subject of this post: let us discuss "offending someone" (in the sense of hurting someone's feelings). I would like to lay out for you, the three easiest ways to make your children into "jellyfish" (i.e. those who are constantly hurt by other's behavior). [Please take note of tongue in cheek at this point!]

• Method #1: Give good example by your own behavior. In this method, which takes the least effort, one should merely behave as a jellyfish; children will follow suit very easily. If you are regularly griping about co-workers, bosses, neighbors, politicians, relatives, and friends, then you are off to a good start. It may be difficult if you are not already doing this, but one can easily begin this behavior by examining every detail of another's actions and finding the most insignificant things to complain about. Be sure, however, that you always do this in front of your children (and throw in a cuss word now and then for good measure). Once this has become a regular behavior, you have accomplished the majority of the task. Next, all you need to do is to "show your offendedness" by holding on to it and never forgetting it. Allow yourself to become bitter enough to bring it up in regular conversation (daily if possible). Your children's jellyfish-like behavior is almost guaranteed.

• Method #2: Make sure your children never have any challenges in life. This second method takes a bit more effort, but once mastered it is even more effective than the first. With this second method, the parent should do everything possible to ensure that the children believe at a very early age, that life is handed to them on a silver platter, and that the world owes them something (it does not matter what they think the world owes them, and is often better if you leave it vague so that they can apply it in every situation they encounter). If a difficulty arrives that you cannot eliminate, then make sure that you just take it upon yourself so that they are never stretched and never acquire the ability to endure any hardship. Keep this up for the first 10 years or so of his or her life and you can be assured that they will become jellyfish by the time they are 15 or 16. Your children will definitely be furious at every person (teacher, police officer, etc.) who tells them to do something they do not like, and might even consider filing lawsuits against them at the earliest possible convenience. Make it a special goal to teach them the phrase, "who are you to tell me what to do?"

• Method #3: Stand up for them in front of others and say that they are right, even when everyone knows that they are wrong. Although this third method can be used by itself, and is often very effective, it also works well as a supplement to the first two (especially considering that it depends on the actions of others, and cannot be instigated solely by the parent). Did little Johnny do something wrong in front of others? Laugh at it and say something like "what can you do?" (making sure to shrug your shoulders with a facial expression of confusion). Another tactic is to respond to other's criticism of your child by making sure that you express personal offense and raise your voice; flailing of arms often helps to emphasize your seriousness. This type of response helps the child to think of himself as the most important person in the world, and prevents him from ever imagining that he would have to do something like repent, say he is sorry, or (oh no!) go to confession (especially if he already went years ago when before he received first communion)!

All right then; so I am being a bit sarcastic (just a bit). Yet, modern society does seem to be intentionally trying to raise children to be unable to handle adversity and remain in a constant state of offense. It is as though people want to find a reason to be offended and victimized so that they can get others to feel sorry for them. This is a pitiful sign of extreme insecurity. What can we as parents do to overcome this? We certainly do not need to go overboard and make our children miserable or never show them compassion. Yet, I believe that some children are being raised with a constant diet of "prideful self-indulgence".

What happens when we turn our children into "jellyfish" like this? They find it difficult to forgive. They hold grudges. They live in a dream-world of entitlement. This is a childish kind of behavior that usually can be eliminated from a child with good loving discipline by the time they are 2 or 3 years old (yes, 2 or 3--it is possible!). Children like this grow up to have problems keeping a job; they feel attacked whenever someone offers them constructive criticism. In short, they become self-centered people who are more a liability to those around them than anything else. The majority of people who live like this usually contribute nothing to society of any good.

There was a time years ago when the Catholic Church spoke openly about the grave sin of being "permissive parents"; not much about it today. Can we turn the tide? Can we find that proper balance so that the coming generation will stop being offended at everything and learn how to "turn the other cheek" (a forgotten virtue)? Is it possible to teach our children the importance of overlooking an offense and seeing that "love covers a multitude of sins"? Let us seek to overcome the world's petty attempts at bolstering its own pride, and instead find strength in godly humility; thereby showing to the world the patience and wisdom of Christ.

Capital and Corporal Punishment

I am going to come right out at the beginning and say that I hold to the historic position of the Catholic Church, the position of the Catholic Catechism (before it was "updated"), and the position of the Church Fathers, in saying that capital punishment is not evil, and, in fact, it can often be a definite good. Now, I am fully aware of much of the rhetoric today that goes against this, but this modern rhetoric is going against the almost unanimous position of the Church for the last 2000 years (not a small matter in Catholicism). I am not here going to attempt to prove what the Church has always taught (and is only being denied in very recent history) regarding the appropriateness of capital punishment; that is not in the scope of this small essay. The Church's historic position always takes precedence, and modern opinions hold no weight.

What I am aiming at pointing out, is that I find it more than an odd coincidence that right along with the common rejection of capital punishment, we find many parents rejecting corporal punishment (what used to be called "the rod of discipline") with their children. So that no one misunderstands me (though it is sad that I have to clarify this!), I am not advocating abusing children. A controlled, non-angry, spanking, which is done in love, is not the same thing as an outburst of fury that results in the abuse of a child (and I hold this in perfect confidence that Holy Scripture says the exact same thing).

I can only guess in this--because it is virtually impossible to find the exact root of every idea--but I think there is good reason to see a clear connection in the source of these two practical errors. The rejection of proper discipline for a murderer and the rejection of proper discipline of a child are not entirely disconnected points of view. In ministering to parents for many years now (even longer than I have had children of my own, and my oldest is 22 years old), I am sad to say that the vast majority of parents today do not take advantage of proper discipline for their children. Yes, many of them do "discipline", but not all "discipline" is necessarily proper.

Giving a rebellious child a "time out" does not do much more than frustrate the child, and that always ends up in encouraging more disobedience rather than discouraging it. A child who talks back to his parent should never be argued with (or worse, reasoned with), he should be disciplined. To allow children to continue in disrespect of a parent's authority is not proper discipline by a long shot, and if the method of discipline does not effect a continued change in behavior in the child, then discipline has not been done properly (i.e. if it does not work, then it is broken!). Many parents follow the "path of least resistance" in their disciplinary methods. This means that they have been led to believe that allowing bad behavior seems to be "easier" than to discipline it. Not true; never was, never will be.

With this continued error in parenting being perpetuated for the last few generations, we should not find it odd that suddenly there is a growing number of people who also want to support an error in societal discipline. One error encourages another error, and the vicious cycle continues. The solution will not be just to argue the truth back into people, but truth does need to be spoken, and many people do need to change their pattern of parenting. All it takes is a simple straight forward reading of some of the wisdom literature in the Old Testament (Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes) to see that there is a manner of discipline that is genuinely effective and leads to success in parenting.

No, I am not advocating a "single magic bullet" methodology, because the wisdom literature itself does not tighten this kind of a clamp on us. Yet, there are principles that all parents are capable of implementing in their homes. I have seen it firsthand (and I am not just speaking of my own five children that I have raised), and it is not that difficult if we commit ourselves to it (in fact, it is actually amazingly easier than the so-called "path of least resistance" methodology).

Just like the consequences of undisciplined children are sad to watch, also the ramifications of proper discipline are truly a wonder to see. When discipline is not brought about, we can see large societal results. Punishment of the innocent, and permissiveness towards the guilty in the court system did not come about merely because someone made a mistake. If you do not understand what proper discipline is in the first place, then you are going to make mistakes in every area it touches on. Just because someone has a degree in Law does not mean that he understands how discipline works!

What is your view of discipline? Do you use the principles and points given throughout God's written word? Or have you fallen into the error of assuming you are doing so because this is what you are used to? It may seem like it is too difficult to read all of those books of the Bible and actually implement what they say. Yet, all of the baptized are given the strength of the Spirit to be able to make a penitential turn for the better. Do you really want to discipline properly? Could you commit yourself to helping your children to learn self-control and holiness? Are you willing to change any mistakes in parenting that you have made? What would it look like if every parent began today to enact a godly and proper discipline of their children?

First HOLY Communion

Just this morning, I got to thinking about Holy Communion again, in connection to my post yesterday. I was thinking about the time during my preparation for conversion to the Catholic Church, when I was reading up on first communion observances. A few of my children were old enough to be taking their first communion at the time of our reception into the Church, and I was curious what the rules are regarding one's reception of first communion. Were they expected to dress a certain way? Were their names announced? Did they come up first before anyone else received? I was a bit surprised to find out that the Church actually says very little about what that reception of first communion is supposed to be like.

It says more about the preparation for a child's first communion than about the event itself. So these pictures that we have seen so often (the lines of children coming forward, girls in white dresses and veils, and the boys in white shirts and black ties, all sitting up front to be seen by everyone throughout the Mass itself) these are not actually the "official" manner of receiving first communion. I am not saying that any of those things are bad, please do not misunderstand me; just that they are the traditions that have grown up around the celebration of one's first communion, but not things required (or even expected) by the Catholic Church.

We do want the children to respect the Sacrament, and realize that their first reception of it is of major importance. Yet, many of those practices can also give the wrong idea about communion. If a child dresses nicely for his first communion, but not any other day for Mass, what does that say? "If I'm not the focus, then it's not special"? Maybe. If we line them up to receive before anyone else, what does that say? "Look at me, look at me!" (which may actually be embarrassing for some who are of a more shy disposition). Maybe. I do not want to attack these "local traditions" but I do want to say that since they are not officially required by the Church, then they are not sacred and should be examined with serious scrutiny. We never want to do something merely because "that's the way we do it" (as opposed to doing it because the Church requires it).

Therefore, what does the Church require for the reception of a child's first communion? Proper preparation is the only thing (and that is not a small thing). At the barest minimum, the child must have more in his understanding than "I can eat the little white thingy now". He must grasp the sacredness of the Mass, as well as the miraculous nature of the Sacrament. He must see the absolute necessity of being in a state of grace to receive the Sacrament. He must know (as I said recently) that it is better not to receive in a particular instance than to receive in a state of grave sin.

Furthermore, who is supposed to teach these things? The Church is not the first teacher of any child; the parents are the first teachers. Certainly the Church can help, and may do so in a variety of ways, but that does not take away the parent's responsibility. In fact, Canon Law says nothing in this regard about religious education directors or special "first communion classes". What it does tell us is that a child must have "sufficient knowledge . . . to understand the mystery of Christ" in order to receive the Eucharist "with reverence". It also tells us that this is "primarily the duty of parents" and of the "parish priest" that they are prepared.

In other words, parents are supposed to be doing the training for their own children's reception of communion, and the priest is the one to give the final say in whether they are doing the job properly or not. If the parents wish to ask help from someone else, fine. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Yet, they cannot shirk their duty by "dropping them off at class" and then expecting that someone else did the job for them.

From this we can see that the parents must be teaching the doctrinal aspects of the Sacrament, but also the practical aspects of reception of the body and blood of Christ. Children must be taught to be respectful and reverent when they are in the Church; especially during the Mass, but also at any other time (since they are in presence of the body of Christ in the tabernacle). They must be taught to focus on what is going on during the Mass and be taught the details of the liturgy (the role of the priest, the lector; the purpose of the altar and tabernacle; what the communion vessels are for; how to pay attention during a homily and gain benefit from it, etc.).

Some of this can be taught during the Mass, but most of it occurs at home. It is taught in how children show respect for their parents (fourth commandment: "honor your father and mother, in order that..."). It is taught in how children pay attention when spoken to (by anyone). It is taught in how children learn self-control (especially at the dinner table). It is taught in how children learn to communicate to others with respect and clarity. Children who talk back to their parents, will eventually talk back to God; the manner of how one behaves at home will always influence the manner of how one behaves while in the celebration of the Mass.

To all parents of children who have not yet received their first communion, I say this: give deep consideration to all of these details. Realize that your preparation of them for communion is not just a few mechanical details of how to open your mouth and tilt your head back to receive the host. It is not just a doctrinal detail of transubstantiation. It is a full and well-rounded understanding that encompasses a child's whole being, body and soul; and it should never be disconnected from the rest of life.

So whatever traditions you or your parish follows for a child's reception of first communion, ensure that it is a holy event. An event where the child has been prepared to revere Christ, and continue to receive the Sacrament because of love and devotion, not because of a mere duty or expectation ("everyone's doing it, I'm supposed to also"). Train them and guide them to love Jesus, and to receive Him with a heart filled with love and thankfulness.

Spiritual Disaster

Remember the Y2K scare? Some people thought that every computer system in the world would get confused when the year 1999 changed to 2000 because "00" does not come after "99". One man I knew spent literally thousands of dollars to prepare himself for total societal collapse, and then when it did not happen, he had thousands of dollars of useless survival equipment. Many people today are afraid of an economic disaster, some are afraid of a nuclear disaster, and others are afraid of a natural disaster. I hear few expressing a genuine concern about a spiritual disaster--which would actually be far worse than any of those others. A spiritual disaster is like a "dragon" sitting in the living room that no one wants to talk about.

What would a spiritual disaster look like? It is hard to imagine just what it would be like, since no one living has ever really seen a genuine spiritual disaster on a large scale. Let us compare it first to a natural disaster. Where I live there is the potential for tornadoes (not a lot, but just enough where we own a weather alert radio). If a tornado hits a town then it destroys homes, buildings, livestock, crops, etc. People lose their belongings, and sometimes have to spend years to rebuild.

Next we can extrapolate from what a personal spiritual disaster is like. When an individual experiences a personal spiritual disaster, his faith is "shipwrecked" (cf. 1 Timothy 1:19). Something comes in and overcomes his faith, either twisting it so that his faith moves to something ungodly, or eliminating it completely. The result is that the person becomes what we call "apostate". The very word means "to be withdrawn" and is used for a withdrawal from one's religious practices.

Today we are in a genuine spiritual crisis, and though a spiritual disaster is looming on the horizon, we are not there yet. A spiritual crisis is where things are teetering on the brink of disaster and can be pushed either way. That should be a major concern to every one of us, and we should not be apathetic about it. If we do nothing, then it will come and we will be conquered. Many people's faith today is shaken and confusion abounds even among Catholic clergy. Understanding of the Church's dogmas and teachings has weakened, and though there are signs of recovery in some areas, the majority are still struggling.

You are probably saying, "whoa, Father, you're being a bit depressing with this post, aren't you?" Although I do not intend to be depressing, I do intend to be direct. There is no nice way to say that we are not doing well spiritually, and that we cannot continue to use the same old (failed) methods to renew our spirituality. "Business as usual" will not work when we are under attack from the devil and the world. So if all this does is depress you, then you are missing the point. I am wanting to instill a bit of godly fear so that all of us can "man up" and do what is necessary.

Our protestant brothers are continuing to divide and fracture, and many of them are converting to the Catholic Church, but it is not enough to overcome the numbers of those who are leaving their faith behind (mostly by just lazily wandering off). What will become of things if this trend does not stop? I firmly believe that the Catholic Church will continue, but it may be in a radically different form. Satan is trying to destroy the Church and it appears that he wants to do so by weakening it from within rather than direct attacks from without.

This is all the more reason for us to work to guard our faith while we work to build stronger communities. Only strong parish communities will be able to hold together and keep each other faithful. If we give in to the world's creeping corruption, our communities will flounder and eventually collapse. Bold, but caring priests, leading Churches with strong and godly fathers, with the support of loving and wise mothers, caring for and properly disciplining their children, and doing so in a community where we support one another with prayer and regular interaction, is what will keep us on the right path.

If all we do at this point in time is continue to come to Mass when it is convenient, and never spend extra time and effort on our spiritual well being, then we are bound to failure. It is like the doctor who says "if you keep eating a grease filled diet, you are going to have a heart attack". I am saying, "if you keep taking your spiritual commitment lightly, and you are going to have a spiritual heart attack" (otherwise known as apostasy). I am not thinking of any one person in particular (so, no, I am not pointing a finger at anyone), but rather saying that is what we all must commit ourselves to.

Are you afraid of a coming disaster? There are many possibilities of such things in modern society (especially in the context of so many people seeking a nihilistic, pleasure oriented, socialism), but the worst disaster we could encounter would be spiritual. Those economic or political disasters are nothing by comparison. How much are you doing to prepare yourself and your family for this possibility? Which would be worse, to be without money, home, or health; or to be without God?

Wandering Minds

Do you know what "rubrics" are? Rubrics are those sentences in the Liturgy (written in red--thus the title "rubric", from the same root at "ruby"), that give a clergyman the orders for what he is supposed to do. These include things like, "the priest shall turn to the people and say..." or, "the priest shall turn back to the altar..." and they are not optional (unless they specifically say that the priest "may" do something, implying it is allowed but not required) regardless of what anyone says or does otherwise.

It would be hard to imagine that these little rules that are listed throughout the Missal would be anything more than boring technical details. Although it may be hard to believe, I was once deeply moved spiritually by a rubric. It was actually from the old Sarum Missal (from which the Divine Worship Mass is derived). In summary, the rubric said, "the priest shall pause here and remain silent, but not too long for danger that the devil may tempt his mind to wander". Wow!

Ponder that for a minute. "That the devil may tempt his mind to wander"; those are not merely "technical details" they are the substance of spiritual warfare. We are certainly a people whose minds are prone to wander. After all, we are immersed in distractions and any little thing makes our minds wander away from the task at hand (as I have written about many times before). Every one of us is subject to various distractions, and we all have to find proper ways to deal with them (which does not mean ignore them).

Yes, priest's minds do wander during Mass as well. It is a bit less common since we are so focused on all of the aspects of the Mass (at least, we are supposed to be focused!). Yet, things can happen that will pull us away. I recall one time when I was still thinking about a recent death in the parish, and suddenly during the Eucharistic Prayer I thought (just for a moment) about his widow, who was seated just a few pews back from the front, and whether she was doing OK. That is all it took: one thought, a quick glance, and then I lost my place on the page of the Missal. That made me stumble in my words as I was looking for the right place. Although it may seem like a small thing, the reverence of the Mass was impacted at that moment because I got distracted (even with something truly important).

We all need to view what we do during the Mass in that same way. Being cautious that our minds may be tempted to wander is not a petty thing, and there is nothing scrupulous about being concerned to stay focused on Christ during the Holy Sacrifice. Yet, that is the very thing that the evil one wants to do to us: make us lose focus. It is almost ironic that there are so many people today who drive distractedly (looking at their cell phones for one reason or another) and appear to think nothing of it, or how it impacts their behavior in other areas of life. If it is dangerous to our physical well being to get distracted while driving, it is all the more dangerous to our spiritual well being to be distracted while worshipping our Almighty Creator.

Let us prepare our hearts and minds before we enter the Church, and when we do, let us pray again for help to be attentive to the holy event that is going on in our very presence. Parents, work to help your children to remain focused -- it can be done even with the little ones (if you control the amount of distractions children are exposed to outside the Mass, it makes it easier for them to focus while in the Mass); I have seen it firsthand (more than once). If the devil cannot keep you out of the Mass itself, then he will do everything he can to keep your mind and heart elsewhere. Remember:

"Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith (1 Peter 5:8)."

Not Equal!

Men and women are not equal. There I said it. Let me go out on a branch and say a few other "bold" things. Dark and light are not equal; dogs and cats are not equal; hot and cold are not equal; life and death are not equal; wet and dry are not equal; and (this may confuse many people today) truth and falsehood are not equal. How could anyone say that men and women are equal and really mean it? There are a number of ways that men and women are similar (they both normally have two eyes, two arms, one head etc.) but there are numerous ways that they are not similar (chromosomes, body parts, etc.).

What do we mean when we say that something is "equal"? Take math for example. 2 = 2 (at least when I was taught it years ago). I think most would agree with that simple statement. In a more complicated equation we get things like 1 + 1 = 2. Maybe a bit tough, but I think most would agree with that as well. The point is, "equal" things are exactly the same, not just similar. When most people say "men and women are equal" they often mean "equally as good" or "equally as capable". The first statement is nonsensical since some men are good, some men are bad; some women are good, some women are bad. It is like saying "oaks are equally as wooden as aspens" (so what?). The second statement is patently false. Men are not "equally as capable" as women at bearing children. So the idea that they are "equal" has little or no foundation.

Now Scripture does tell us that men and women are both "joint heirs of the grace of life" (cf. 1 Peter 3:7), but in the same verse it calls women the "weaker sex" (the Apostle Peter's words, not mine). So even in that instance it says that men and women are "similar" and "not similar", but it never actually says that they are equal. Yet, we have heard it said so many times that many have come to believe it (even as ridiculous as it is).

This is not in any way an insult on women (or an insult on men for that matter). It is merely stating an obvious fact that modernism (and especially feminism) wants to erase. As much, however, as modernists seek to tell us to believe something which is clearly wrong, you cannot deny that there are many ways that God has intentionally made men and women different (and thus not equal); and I thank Him for those regularly. Women are designed to be able to do things that men cannot do, and men are designed to do things that women cannot do; this is the way our Lord wants it.

It is precisely because we are "wired" differently that God wants us to keep the created order clear. Gender theory is not really an attempt to find one's identity, it is an attack (and a vile one) on the created order. There are many things that women are just better at than men are, and there are many things that men are better at than women are. Let us be honest with ourselves and admit that fact. To refuse to do so only makes it harder for each one of us to be the person God created us to be. It is not an insult to say that someone is naturally better suited to something because of his or her sex any more than it would be an insult to say that someone is naturally better suited to something because of his or her weight, or height, or education level, or hair color, etc.

With that fact in mind, God has chosen that men are the leaders in the Church. Not because men are superior or anything like that, but because it is more what they are wired to do. Certainly women can lead, that is not the question, but is it what God has called them to do? Rather than thinking of it as "women cannot be ordained in the Church", many women (my wife is one of them) prefer to say "women don't have to be ordained in the Church". The reason that they say this is because they recognize that not being ordained means that they are free to do what they are best at. After all, the Blessed Virgin was not ordained, yet she has influenced the Church in ways that Bishops, Priests and Deacons can never do.

This is also true in the home. Men are called as leaders of their households, and we cannot try to erase that any more than people try to erase it in the Church. There are more verses in Scripture than I have room to quote which point out that fact. And just as priests should lead with gentle firmness, never lording it over their flocks, so also should fathers in the home lead with gentle firmness, never lording it over their families. The gentle and loving influence of a mother upon her husband and children is a power that still boggles my mind, and I will never fully understand it -- precisely because it is not what I am wired to do!

So then, once again, men and women are not equal; never were, never will be, and never should try to be. Let us humbly submit to God's order that He gave to us, and work to ensure that our children see good examples of loving fathers, and caring mothers, as well as many other men and women who live out the calling that God has given them. Let us stand firm and resist all the chaotic selfishness that the world is trying to cram into our brains. God's order is always true, good and beautiful.

Spiritual Formation and the Priesthood

Recent blogs and articles in the press concerning an Ordinariate priest have raised a number of interesting questions about the situation of married priests. This has led many to begin to ask some hard questions (and a few to make some unkind accusations). I am not about to comment on what has been written. I do not have all the information, and it is not my place to deal with the situation; that is the responsibility of my Ordinary, Bishop Steven Lopes, and those whom he chooses to have assist him. I would, rather, like to consider the situation in a very broad manner to help those of my flock who are wrestling with the issues involved to be able to think clearly and in a godly manner.

In my opinion, what has happened shows that we need to look deeply at the process of spiritual formation. It is not merely a question of whether a married man can be a priest, it is whether a man can be a priest and be married at the same time. These are two different questions and we need to keep them separate. The first question only regards the possibility; the second regards one's ability. Receiving these two sacraments at the same time is extremely rare in the western Church, and when done the great responsibility that both place on the man make each of them harder to accomplish. A man could be a good husband and father, but a lousy priest, and another man could be a great priest but a lousy husband and father. One does not equate to the other. I know some married priests who have said that their abilities as a husband and father would enable them to be a better priest. I am not sure that is necessarily the case.

Furthermore, we have another factor in this that cannot be ignored. We are not asking these questions a thousand years ago; we are asking them in the midst of a "sexual revolution" that has resulted in what is possibly the greatest mass confusion about marriage the world has ever known. Thus, we cannot use old paradigms to consider whether it is a good idea to have married priests. We live in a culture that is oversexed, and under-knowledged. We live in a culture that has no idea what the Church means when it talks about men as heads of their homes, and that means that it is highly likely that many men (even those in the Church--which does not exclude priests, married or celibate) do not understand it either. Couple this with the fact that the family is under great attack right now, and we have even more potential for problems.

Contrary to what many have said, it is not any harder to be a good husband or wife than it was in the past. The issue is that it is more confusing today because of all the static that exists in society around us. Therefore, the fact that marriage is a relationship of self-sacrifice is not as clearly grasped by as many people today as it was just a couple hundred years ago when most understood sacrifice better than we do now. The role of husband as head of the home means a role of self-sacrifice for wife and children; the role of the priest as head of his parish is a role of self-sacrifice for parishioners. Each one makes the other more difficult because the man is required to sacrifice in two different directions at the same time, and in today's context it is even more challenging to accomplish both and do them well.

I am going to be bold and say that when a married man is being considered for holy orders, for him to have a "good" marriage is not sufficient. "Good" in a society where vast numbers of people are cohabiting and where divorce is rampant is not a very promising category. From my own experience as a married Catholic priest (for almost 6 years now) and a married protestant clergyman (for 16 years before that), if my marriage had been "average" we would likely not be together today. We have gone through some difficult things in our years, and joining the Catholic Church (though a decision we rejoice over) was incredibly stressful. Only an extra-strong marriage could endure those challenges. That means that anything less than an "well above average" marriage cannot hold through the increased stresses that come upon a man in priestly ministry.

This is why the Apostle Paul said in the first century context that married clergy needed to be more faithful and holy than most (cf. 1 Timothy 3:2-5, and Titus 1:6). The very fact that he has to point this out says that not every man was qualified to be called to holy orders, and that the holiness in his home has to be higher than average if he is going to be able to fulfill the tasks of priestly ministry "for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's Church?" (1 Tim 3:5).

There are many who say whenever a problem arises, "there's one more reason not to have married priests in the Catholic Church". Does marriage changes a man's susceptibility to temptations? Would we get rid of any problems if all priests were celibate or would the same sins be committed in another manner? Those who think that is the solution are showing a complete misunderstanding of what the subject matter really is. Bad things do not happen merely "because" a man is married. They happen because of a man's own inner spiritual formation (or lack thereof). If a man is prone to losing his temper, does he more easily lose his temper because he is married? No, it is just more noticeable because we sympathize more for a wife and children who are yelled at than we do for, say, a cleaning lady, or another priest.

It would be foolish for us to imagine that any sin is caused by the fact that a man is married (as though marriage necessarily prevents a man from resisting temptation to sin). We could compare this to the priestly sexual abuse of adolescent boys (which is what the majority of today's scandals involve!). Was their behavior caused by the fact that they were celibate? No, of course not. Therefore, if those same men were not priests, they would still have likely given in to their inclinations. It is not the situation of "being a priest and being married" any more than it is the situation of "being a priest and being celibate". It is, like I said above, an issue of spiritual formation, which cannot be rushed ("Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure" 1 Timothy 5:22).

I am not here seeking to criticize anyone in particular (and if you think that is my intent, you have gravely misunderstood what I have said); I am merely seeking to make sure that our thinking is clear when we struggle with news reports and blogger's claims, and giving some thoughts about how we can move forward. As is often my habit, I like to make sure that we are getting to the heart of the matter and not wasting our time with extraneous details. For those who can do something about this (especially my Bishop) I pray for you, and encourage others to do the same. May God be merciful to us as we seek to serve Him in all holiness.

Dealing With Bullies

I was bullied; a lot. It made me frustrated, angry, resentful and at times depressed. It was not just me though; in fact, there were a number of children that were bullied in various ways when I was a young boy. I recall one day when I was fourth grade and on the way home from school, a large group of boys my age started picking on me; they yelled, taunted, and hit me. It was rude, crude, abusive, and filled with cruelty. I felt shamed, intimidated, and desperately wished that I could "beat them all up". That never happened, and now I cannot even remember exactly who they were; names and faces are completely gone from my memory.

Yet, in all those years going through elementary, junior high, and high school, there was never--in my recollection--anyone who committed suicide as a result of bullying. I think if it had occurred, we all would have been told since it was so unheard of. It may have occurred somewhere, but even there in southern California we did not once have it come into our experience. It is not as though we were untouched by tragedy; I saw fellow students taken away by police for drugs and gang activity; there were teen girls pregnant, and some getting abortions; there were fights (sometimes even physical fights with teachers), and I know of a 15 year old that committed suicide, but not because of being bullied; we had our share of bad stuff even back then.

So what is it that is making children today choose suicide when they are bullied? I read about an eleven year old girl this last week who committed suicide because she had been bullied (yes, 11 years old!). I am not about to pretend that I can discern the heart of any of these children who have taken their own lives, but I do want to consider my own experience and postulate a theory. Might it be possible that bullying has not actually gotten worse? Though it may in some instances be more hateful, it does not appear to be the case overall. Rather, is it possible that we (and children in particular) are responding to it differently?

What I am saying is, I believe that children are not often being raised with the sense of hope that allows them to deal with adversity (especially wicked adversity). Think of our forefathers who died at the hands of evil tyrants millennia ago. Take the story of Blandina, for instance; a young virgin in the second century that stood faithfully in the arena as the pagan Romans tortured her and her companions. They were all about to die for their faith, and she stood firm and gave them an encouragement to trust Christ. Imagine what it would have been like if all the persecution that led up to that moment had resulted in Blandina committing suicide. It is not as though the Christians of that era lived peaceful lives until the day they were martyred; they were often hated by society for their faith, and all kinds of persecution would go along with that.

Now, I am not saying imagine the loss of Blandina's example of faithfulness (though that is immense). I am saying imagine what it would be like to read in history that the Catholics who went before us committed suicide in the face of persecution. I know of no instance of this being the case [someone write to me and let me know if you have heard otherwise]. They stood firm in everything that led up to their martyrdom, and today children kill themselves when bullied. How were the martyrs able to stand firm? Hope. That is the only thing that will make a difference in our lives as well. Adults and children bully others; it is not right, but it is not likely that we can put a stop to it easily. It is a part of the sinfulness of men to attack others in order to make them feel better about themselves.

If we have no sense of hope or strength, then we can easily be beaten down by bullying, and we will find it difficult to overcome the selfish behavior of others. I do not personally know any of those children that we have read about in the news lately who have committed suicide, nor do I know their parents, so this is not a judgment call on them or how they were raised. Yet, it is a statement that hope cannot be taken lightly. Hope in Christ is something that can help us to overcome the lions of the arena, the knives of terrorists, and the taunts of a selfish teenager.

Someone once said to me (excuse me if I have told this story before) that he did not like the confession of sin that we use in the Divine Worship Mass because "we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness" and it mentions God's "wrath and indignation against us"; apparently both of those lines made him uncomfortable. Were we to refer only to these things, and not to the unfathomable love and forgiveness that God offers us, then I could understand what he meant. In our liturgy we talk about the depth of our sins in a number of places, which could easily make us completely depressed, if there were not given to us any sense of hope. We must hear the "sad stuff" about our sins in order for the "good stuff" of redemption and forgiveness to mean anything at all.

Having had this critique of the Divine Worship confession of sin spoken to me a number of years ago, I now am thankful to hear those exact words of the confession of sin. They hold an even deeper meaning to me. A meaning which reminds me that if I take them lightly and ignore their true depth, then I have become callous and heart-hearted. They remind me that it is no small thing that God reaches out to help us -- because if we begin to think that we deserve it, things are way off track.

So how do we deal with the "bad stuff" of life? Because, there is quite a lot of it out there today. How do we deal with it when people "speak evil of us" and persecute us (whether for the sake of Christ or not)? We must teach our children a (balanced) sense of hope so that they have the anchor of the Lord to keep them from thinking that suicide is a means of overcoming pain. The Saints overcame their persecutors because of their hope; "And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death." (Rev 12:11). Let us seek that same hope.

Do Manfully (6)

I have always appreciated the phrase, "better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt" (it is actually based in the Bible--Prov 17:28). In the book of Ecclesiastes it says there is "a time to keep silence and a time to speak". These two ideas are basically the same. Controlling one's tongue does not only apply to avoiding certain words (as we say in the South: cussin'), it also applies at times to avoiding using any words. In other words, keeping silent; not just for the sake of reducing the amount of noise (though that is a great reason to keep silent!), but more importantly so that one can listen. Listening is a lost art, and a strong man who is in control of his faculties will learn to shut his own mouth and listen to others.

As a priest I find it essential that I listen to my people. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I do not; sometimes they change my mind, sometimes they do not. These factors are not nearly as important as is the simple fact of just listening to them and being ready to receive insight not previously known. In the same way, a husband and father should be listening to his wife and children. He should do this, not to allow himself to be swayed by them (sometimes it is not wise to follow the family's advice), but for the sake of keeping oneself accountable and avoiding any sort of dictatorial behavior ("I'm the head of this household so you do what I say even if I've gone insane!").

How often do you listen to others? I am not asking about how often you pause in what you are saying to allow the other person to speak. One can still totally ignore another person in that situation. What I mean is, how often do you generally keep your mouth shut and just listen to what another has to say? One way to gauge this is to consider how often others come to speak to you. Do they avoid giving you their opinion on things? If so, it is likely that they do not believe that you will really listen to them.

Not all men, however, need to learn the silence part. Some men do fine with the silence; too fine. There are a number of men who just sit passively silent and refuse to speak up when they need to. This is not masculine either. Remaining silent when you should speak up (especially in issues of disciplining your children!) is a sign of being emasculated. It is the behavior of a male who wishes to abdicate his responsibility, not a man who is willing to take a stand and do what is needed to resolve a problem. If this is your problem, men, then you are still not in control of your tongue, because you do not use it when you need to.

All this has to do with good, godly leadership. As a man, you are responsible to lead, but that does not mean leading arbitrarily, or just by your own opinion. All good leaders listen to their people and take their views and needs into consideration. The alternative is what we call tyranny. Additionally, there is a spiritual dimension to being silent. It is not just a matter of "lack of noise"; it is a matter of self-control and willingness to pay attention to one's surroundings. The Scriptures are filled with references to the importance of learning silence (which is one more reason why there is a significant value in the silent parts of the Mass--they should not always be filled with one more hymn!).

Consider the references to controlling one's tongue in the book of James. We read there that if a man can control his tongue, then he can control anything in himself. In other words, controlling the tongue is a key step in learning to find complete self control. Furthermore, what better way to learn to control your tongue, than by learning to keep quiet so you can listen? Listen to your loved ones; listen to the Scriptures; listen to the voice of God. Masculinity does not mean perfection in learning silence; it means that a man is putting a significant effort into it (and he is willing to teach his boys to learn the same thing). Are you working on it? If you are, then keep up the good work; if you are not, then it is time to begin. As I said before, do manfully!

Do Manfully (5)

I have written before about the fact that feminism does not actually appear to hate men, rather, it hates women, and therefore its attacks on men are only as a consequence of its true hatred. What feminists really hate is true womanhood, which was perfectly exemplified by the Blessed Virgin Mary. Hence, feminism--for want of any other explanation--hates Mother Mary. This is a simple point, and easily understood. Yet many men, somehow do not get it. They have been duped by all the "victimized" yelling and screaming of feminists into thinking that it actually has some merit.

The men who are drawn in by the feminist arguments are usually already emasculated. They have been beaten down or spiritually abused so much that the only thing left is a mere shadow of a real man. Masculinity has been attacked so much that some men even think that it really is the cause of all the world's problems. Hence, they not only turn away from true masculinity (and often fall into various forms of sodomy), but they also begin defending the feminist agenda (which appears to be: make all men into weak servants, make all women into dominant leaders).

An emasculated man can fall into this line of thinking quite easily (because he has been told not to use his mind anyways!). A faithful Catholic man, however, would know that he is supposed to think about things (and often do so critically). In doing so, he will realize that feminism eschews anything about the Catholic concept of femininity; most specifically because it is embodied in Mother Mary (the quintessential anti-feminist). In addition, a feminist will naturally say that anything that is a threat to the rise of feminist ideals must also be attacked.

A man who is seeking to "do manfully" will see this attack for what it is: hatred of the Mother of God. Furthermore, a man who is truly a man, will love his Spiritual Mother, the Blessed Virgin. To follow the path of feminism while affirming the Catholic faith is a deeply self-contradictory behavior. It would be comparable to a man coming to Mass in a suit while wearing flip-flops. To support something which attacks the Blessed Virgin, while at the same time supporting something that defends the Blessed Virgin clearly shows that one has not really thought through his loyalties.

Masculine men will accept their responsibilities and work to protect and defend true womanhood. They will devote themselves to the Blessed Virgin, and seek to learn from her example what God's idea of womanhood really is. When the world tries to take this away from them, they will accept the challenges and refuse to give in to peer pressure or the ridiculing attacks of those at war with God. True masculinity does not mean overbearing abuse or domineering control of one's family; it means saying "no" to lies that will corrupt (both men and women) and doing so with love and wisdom. Men, will you accept this and "do manfully"?

Do Manfully (2)

"That's a good dog!" He spoke those words like they were irrefutable. He knew it for sure, and wanted the rest of us to be aware of it also. The qualities of a "good dog" were obedience, intelligence, and loyalty; and knowing that dog, I would have to agree with his assessment. What are the qualities that we would look for and say "that's a good man"? In order to answer this question rightly, let us ask what the world's answer would be first.

Much of the world today has been trying to blur the differences between masculinity and femininity for a while now. I still recall the college professor that tried to encourage everyone to be "androgynous" (a fairly new word to me at the time) because that was (according to her) true to our evolutionary progress (every word after that was fairly suspect to me). So now, some 30 years later, what would she and others of her philosophical persuasion say was a "good man"? Of course, I cannot be completely sure (after all, a barbarian society is quite hard to interpret), but I will fathom a guess.

A "good man" (according to modern American culture) is one who satisfies his passions, and yet does not assert himself on anyone else (especially women and minorities), except those who have "antiquated" and "medieval" opinions (who should be screamed at). To put it in other words, the world wants men to be slaves to their own lusts, but only in so far as it promotes the superiority of females and the utter stupidity and uselessness of males. Men who have been formed like this have been emotionally and spiritually castrated. They have rejected the very heart of what it means to be male.

Following on what I have said in the past couple of posts, what would be a good list of the qualities that define godly masculinity? Unfortunately the list is longer than I plan on this post being in its entirety (and spending the time to define each of those qualities would encompass a book in itself!). I could summarize it, though, with the following statement. The necessary qualities of a godly man are those things that require a bold and humble strength to accomplish. This might, at first read, seem too simplistic and non-specific. In truth, however, it foundational and crucial.

A godly man is one who seeks to know what his calling is (for it is not exactly the same for every man), and then seeks to perform it with greater faithfulness every day of his life. For example, the godly man would say, "how does King Jesus want to me to teach my wife and children to love Him?" (which is a married man's duty before God; whether he likes it or not!). Then, he will go out and find the answer to that question (which may involve research, or even [oh, no!] asking someone else, like his priest). Once that is accomplished he will sit down and find the best way to implement that in his own home. Finally, he will spend time in prayer and seek the wisdom of God so that he can present this important truths to his wife and children.

A unmarried godly man will not be much different. He may not be asking about teaching his wife and children (unless he is planning for his future marriage), but he will, at the least, be asking how God would have him to establish holiness in his life and home. Then he will follow through with the subsequent steps as listed above, according to his own situation.

In other words, a godly man is one who is brave enough to ask the hard questions; the questions that ask for correction from God (the prayer "God show me my faults" is possibly the most humble and godly prayer anyone can pray). A godly man is one is bold enough to get up off his rear end and make sure that his family goes to Mass (and does not allow any excuses to stop him). A godly man is the one who is honest enough with himself to admit his faults and accept his responsibility to correct them. A godly man will never be mistaken for Homer Simpson. A godly man seeks to hear God say that he is a "good man". That is masculinity, and that is what every man is called to by virtue of being born male. Will you accept your calling and "do manfully"?

Fix It Now!

"Father, I need your help!" He was almost frantic on the phone. A bad situation had occurred in his family, and they needed some advice as to how to deal with it. It was the middle of the night, so it took me a couple minutes to get ready, but I headed over there as quickly as I could. Suffice it to say, the situation was quite challenging, and I was glad to be able to provide some immediate advice to help out.

The next day, however, was when the real challenge came. He called again, and said "I don't want this to happen ever again; how do I fix this?" We sat down to discuss it later that afternoon. After a good deal of talking over the situation, I felt I had a good understanding of what the problems were. He asked again: "just tell me what to do to fix this". It was a hard question to answer because we were dealing with a family, not with a car. It was not like I could say "you need new brakes". We were dealing with relationships, personalities, and spiritual dynamics.

When I gave a brief outline of a way forward, his response was the last thing I wanted to hear at that moment. "Sorry, Father, I didn't mean I wanted something long and drawn out; I want to fix this today." I tried and tried to get the point across to him that there was no "easy fix" to a problem this complicated. It had to be dealt with through a series of different actions, and even then there was no guarantee. Needless to say, he did not like that. I wrote down the basic "plan of attack" and gave it to him. Things went from bad to worse in that household, and he told me months later that he never implemented the plan I suggested to him--too "involved" he said (!).

We live in an "instant" culture that expects everything to be repaired at a moment's notice. This is hard to avoid when we realize that t.v. has taught us that virtually all family problems can be solved in less than a half hour (and when not, they are solved in the "to be continued" episode next week). This is not how relations work, nor is it how our spirituality works. There are no lists in the Scriptures of "five easy steps for a great family" nor any "quick fixes" for relational problems. There are, however, numerous guidelines for parenting and marriage; there is the wisdom literature of the Old Testament; and, of course, there is the simple practice of penitence and the sacrament of confession.

Yet, that stuff all takes a long time to implement, and we want everything done quickly and with virtually no effort. "Just tell me how to fix this now!" We acknowledge the need for something to be done, but we are not content with a process. There is, of course, a reason that things are this way. We are fallen, and that means that our skulls are thick, and our hearts are hard. Jesus said "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak"; and sometimes the spirit is weak as well (especially when we have bought into the idea that instant gratification is our God-given right!). This means that just like it takes time to create a beautiful work of art, it also takes time to re-create a human soul.

So how do you deal with problems? Do you look for the quickest way to solve it, or do you look for the way that will have the most long-lasting effects? Are you willing to do the harder work one time, rather than do the easy work (and have to repeat it over and over)? God has made us to seek after Him, and He has created us in this time-bound world. This means that things take time; and the best things take more time. How will you work on your marriage? your children's faith? your performance at work? your school assignments? If it is only a "fix it now" perspective, we might succeed, but probably not. If, however, it is a persevering and enduring perspective (one that is willing to work for the long haul), then God will stay with us, and that will help us stay with Him; forever.

"He's not a monster"

I heard someone say it again. Well, of course he's not a monster; no one is an actual "monster". We are humans. Maybe we sometimes behave like monsters, but that is not the point (and, no, I am not merely picking on their word choice). Yet, saying he is not a monster is akin to saying "he's not a fried egg". We live in an age of muddy thinking, and that means that right and wrong are often skewed in people's minds. Hence, we have a situation where someone does something that everyone knows is evil and the "defense" is, "he's not a monster". In other words, "he's not as bad as some horrible, six legged, slimy, creature from a sci-fi movie".

How many times have I heard someone talk about a child that was in trouble with the law as "he's really a good kid". Just what does "good" mean in that context? It does not appear to mean the same as what I mean when I use that word. It may seem nit-picky to talk about the words that are used here, but it is not merely an issue of trying to get definitions straight. Rather, it is an issue of getting our thinking straight. How can we continue to compromise about morality so easily? I will venture to take an educated guess: we have been slipping for so long in our movies and music, I find it amazing that more people have not noticed it. Spend enough time making the edges of morality fuzzy, and you will eventually succeed in making people's minds fuzzy about morality.

It is a sad testimony to the moral fiber of our nation that most people get their ethical rules from what they see in movies and hear in music. The scariest thing about this is that those who are making movies and writing music are mostly not people who have much moral fiber. Think about this: actors are basically just professional liars, and musicians may have some talent (emphasis on "some"), but that does not mean that they have an education in philosophy, ethics or politics (obviously!). Are we really willing to trust these people to guide our lives? It is not as though they are anything really important in society--they are just entertainers after all.

It is Hollywood who has given us our understanding of "monsters", have they not? They have invented some pretty horrifying monsters for us on the screen (and I must admit I like science fiction monster stories). Yet, is that really our only point of comparison when it comes to wicked behavior? If someone is "not a monster" then that means that he is morally acceptable? Wow! Pretty low standards, eh?

Parents, you really can do better than merely keeping your children from being "monsters". No, not because raising godly children is a stress-free, effort-free, job; but, rather, because God promises to enable you to do so if  you will only put your hope and trust in Him to do so. Far too many parents give up on the grounds of letting children decide for themselves about what is right (which is actually encouraging them to fall into grave sin). Others will compromise and say that it is just too difficult. In one way that is true: it is too difficult to do it on our own (I know, I have tried it). The standard is high, and the strength to reach that standard is always available if we will only but use it. Let us call on God to help us do better than "not monsters".

Giftmas?

Its called "Christmas" not "Giftmas", but I do not think it would take much to get it changed! It sure seems like people are moving in that direction more and more these days. Let me state my position to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Yes, I like Christmas gifts, and no, I do not think we need to eliminate Christmas gifts. I would like us, however, to think for a bit about Christmas gifts. What are they for? Why do we exchange gifts at Christmas?

For many the gift exchange part of Christmas is so that they can get more gifts themselves. "Give more to them so they will give more to you." I have only heard one person ever actually speak in these terms, but I have seen many people behave in these terms! I am not trying to take away anyone's enjoyment of a Christmas gift, but I do want to help everyone keep the gifts in proper perspective; especially the children.

Gifts in ancient Jewish culture were a sign of joy. When someone was happy about something they enjoyed giving a gift to someone else (think of the image behind, "another round of drinks for everyone, and put it on my tab!"). Yet, when we focus more on the gift than on the giver, we end up thinking that the gift itself is the main thing, rather than the joy that is behind the gift.

I am one of those people who enjoys giving gifts more than receiving gifts (every year my family asks "what do you want for Christmas" and I have to say "I don't know"). What I really like the most is seeing the joy in someone else's face when they receive a gift they really were hoping for. For me, I need to make sure that I keep the focus on the reason for the gift as well, because I can easily slip into a prideful joy in my own giving.

Whatever your tendency, let us all remember The Source of our joy. Jesus Christ Almighty is the One and only source for joy. Everything else falls short, and does not last. To everyone reading this, I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas--that means I wish for you to have joy in Christ, Who is the foundation of Christmas in and of Himself. God bless you!