What Should You Be Doing in a Time of Church Crisis?

I just bought a copy of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Not exactly earth-shattering news; I know. What might be considered "earth-shattering" is the fact that it is obvious that there are quite a few other people buying the same and similar other materials (Catechism of Pope Pius X, Baltimore Catechisms, etc.). People are searching for traditional materials that will clearly and emphatically give them the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Some of the pages on book seller websites have numerous positive reviews of older traditional books that were all posted within the last couple weeks. What does that say? It says people are seeking to reconnect with the historic faith of the Church because they feel attacked by some things that Pope Francis and other Bishops are doing (or not doing!) today.

There is always a good that comes out of bad experiences. Sometimes we do not personally see that good, but Scripture tells us that it is there. The Lord never lets us go through any suffering without also sending us a blessing. Although there may be others, I believe that this search for the traditional teachings of the Church is certainly a blessing. I regularly deal with Catholics who have not been taught many of the basics of the faith, and find that I cannot assume even the minimum of knowledge in many of the faithful today. The precepts of the Church used to be viewed as "the bare minimum" and yet today many do not even follow the "bare minimum".

One thing that I think is greatly contributing to this lack of knowledge and commitment today is the fact that there are many Catholics who are reading and learning from protestants more often than from Catholics (if they learn from them at all). Protestant books are easily found on Church "lending libraries" as though there was no real difference in teaching. "We all believe in the same Jesus, don't we?" Well . . . no we do not. Our protestant brethren are aiming at the same Jesus, and they may get fairly close (usually out of ignorance) but the Jesus that they worship is not the One Who founded the Catholic Church 2000 years ago through the Apostles (just ask them!). If the books you are reading are teaching a different path of Grace than the one that the Church provides through the Sacraments, then we must admit that any spiritual advice from them is suspect. Why would we willingly choose to read them when there are fantastic Catholic books out there?

Another problem that I believe is impacting us is the easy manner in which Catholics marry non-Catholics. Now, I have seen some cases where the non-Catholic is "right on the brink" of conversion, and those are wonderful to watch when they finally do decide to submit to Christ's Church (I have watched a few up close, and those are always a joy), but they are not the norm. In fact, statistics show that the majority of non-Catholics who marry Catholics, not only do not convert, they end up weakening the faith of the Catholic spouse. When this occurs, none of the modern efforts at protestantizing the Church are seen as bothersome by the Catholic spouse. It is often the case that the Catholic in a mixed marriage is unable to resist the errors of protestantism, and thus unable to lead the children of that marriage rightly either.

This new "search for the true faith" that we find many Catholics (cradle and convert) moving into, is a wonderful development in history. Where will it take us? I can only guess. Yet, whenever the laity have moved in this direction, they have always helped to encourage a stronger and more faithful Church. When, however, the laity choose other responses during this time of crisis (especially those reactions that are truly protestant in nature) then they become part of the problem. This is the time to deepen our faith, not a time to get a picket sign that says "the end is near" and yell "woe is me". Does the Church have problems? Yes, she does; absolutely. Will she prevail against the "gates of Hades"? Yes, she will; absolutely (even if some of her leaders have to fall in order for the Church to remain).

Although I will admit to being disheartened by the current crisis, at the same time, my faith is just as strong as it ever was. If someone has been working to prevent the devil from destroying his faith, why would he allow a bad clergyman to destroy his faith? I am not going to allow the sins of anyone--Pope, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, or layman--to move me away from Christ. Even those who have suffered abuse directly from disobedient clergymen are able to find their consolation and strength in Christ and His great mercy. Our Lord is always faithful, and in His love for us, He has chosen us for this time. He has allowed us to experience these trials, and He promises to lead us through them. Let us strengthen our faith, renew our commitment to Christ and His Church, and wait for times of blessing from our Lord.

A Higher Power and Authority

One of my favorite movies is called "Midnight Special". There is a good possibility that you have neither seen it, or even heard of it. It is not the most well-known movie, but it has some amazing points that underlie its basic message. I do not want to give too much away (because I am hoping that some of you will see it), but the plot of the story focuses on a father and his (strangely powerful) young son who are running from the law. It is not a "Christian story", but it is filled with a distinctly Christian message in a beautiful allegorical form.

The cult that the father and son recently escaped from has no idea who the boy really is; the police have no idea who the boy is; the federal government have no idea who the boy is; even his parents are unsure of what is exactly going on. The beauty of the picture is not as much in these details (though they are quite powerful), but rather in a deeper layer of the message itself. I do not know much about the writer/director but he made a clear point in this story (his other movie, "Take Shelter", is just as powerful).

It is a remarkable experience watching the movie and seeing the National Security Agency and the FBI chasing their respective tails. The American federal government has the idea that they are the strongest force on Earth, and yet this movie makes them out to be mere pawns in the grand scheme of things (something like ancient Rome at the birth of Christ). The members of the religious cult want to be holy, but they too are merely pursuing their own ends.

The underlying message that can easily be missed is that there are powers and forces that are above and beyond what any of us fully grasp. Another realm that is everywhere around us is revealed. The story has a very subdued feeling to it, that might be too heavy for many to appreciate. As I watch it tonight on DVD, I can see a significant parallel between the boy's parents and the martyrs of Christ. They knew that there was something going on that was beyond the regular pattern of events; a higher power, a higher law. They are seeking to serve that higher power, regardless of the fact that everyone seems to be against them.

How do you think of the authority of Christ? Do you consider it to be just different from the authorities of this world? Do you think of it as a higher authority? Maybe your concept is that the authority of Christ is merely spiritual and therefore it never really has any conflict with the world's authority (I hope not)? Or, worse, maybe you think that the authority of Christ is either the same as, or submissive to, the authorities of this world. How you view this one issue, will determine exactly how you will respond when the world tells you to disobey Him. What will you do when that time comes (and, trust me, it will come--and possibly soon)?

Will you acknowledge the higher authority of Christ? Will you submit to the fact that sometimes you have to do something that is completely against what the world says; even to the point of sacrificing yourself in the process? That is what you are called to do. The martyrs of the first century were told "deny Christ" and they said "no". They knew that God never promised that life would be smooth, but He did promise that you would be called upon to to follow Him and reject the world.

The added bonus to the story that is so important for God's sons and daughters in every age, is that we do not always know all the details of why we are going through our particular experiences. Sometimes we find out in this life, and sometimes we do not. Yet, we do not need to understand, we just need to obey; obey what God has commanded, regardless of how challenging it may be or what the consequences are to ourselves. Those who know the authority of Christ (while the world denies it) find it easier to obey Him. This is why Jesus says at times that if we are not willing to give up everything we are not worthy to be His followers.

Can you commit yourself to doing what is right? Can you accept that there very well may be a task for you that goes completely against what everyone in the world says is right? For that is a hard thing to swallow, and many balk at it merely because they cannot endure the pressure. Seeing the "good guys" in the movie realize that they did what was right, in spite of their own suffering, is compelling. My brothers and sisters, remain obedient to the Lord, in whatever circumstances He sends you, and he will let you see you have done what is right; maybe not in this life, but definitely in the next.

How will each of us fare in the coming trials? One of the final lines from the movie that stays with me so powerfully is when one of the "good guys" is being questioned by the federal government. He tells them "I can tell it to you as many times as you want, my story's not changing 'cause its true". That is the testimony of the martyrs. That needs to be our testimony to the world, as well.

Continuing Conversion

How much of the marriage is finished on the day that a couple says "I do"? Sounds like an odd question, right? It is supposed to be. None of us would imagine that the moment of "I do" everything is done, and there is nothing more to happen. In fact, it is just the opposite. When they say "I do", that moment is merely the beginning of the marriage. The days, months and years following, is when the marriage is expected to grow and thrive. In the same way, one is not finished with the process of conversion to the Catholic faith on the day of "conversion".

When we think about the evangelistic understanding that I have been writing about (a full-orbed, in depth, all encompassing, evangelism), we must have the right perspective of what the actual conversion is that we are aiming at, or we could foul up the process. It is true that there is an initial "conversion point" (as there is a point that we call the "marriage") but that does not mean that once that point is passed that the person "has arrived". It would be more accurate to say that at the conversion point the person has begun his journey.

Marriage does not end with the vows, life is not finished at birth, and conversion is only the start of a life in Christ. This may sound obvious, but the point has to do with conversion itself. One's life as a member of the baptized faithful consists in a process of conversion. That initial conversion point is merely the first turning toward God; but since we are weak people and often fall into sin, we need to be steadily converting ourselves back to God.

There is another way that conversion is not just one time event. Conversion is not merely the regular turning back to God that we each need to do regularly; it is also the process itself. We are "being converted" daily as we continually reshape who we are to become more and more like Christ our Redeemer. We all know that we are not made perfect in a moment, and that is why we must continue in the process of conversion. It might seem nice to be able to convert entirely in a moment, but that is not how God has ordained things for us. We can change whose authority we are under in a moment, but we cannot change our own faithfulness to that authority that quickly.

This is why it is so important to make this point clear to those we communicate the gospel to. If we give the impression that all they have to do is "sign on the dotted line" and then everything will come together in life, then we have lied to them, and possibly even stunted their spiritual growth. I have heard many stories of converts who faded away from the Church after just a few months. This is the perfect example of bad instruction on what the Christian life really is. Those who are seeking to discern the call to conversion, need to know that it involves all of their life (as in every aspect) for all of their life (as in the entire duration of it).

If a couple got married, then we would normally presume (in ordinary circumstances) that they are doing something to stay together (if they are doing it well and not lying, then they are also growing in their relationship with one another). If we know someone who "was converted", then we can presume that he is still "being converted". That is the normal process of growth. Let us make sure that we communicate this wonderful truth to those we reach out to with the gospel, and make sure that they know precisely what the journey is that is ahead of them.

Rules Are Not Made to be Broken

Years ago there were a few practices that were forbidden in the Church, but they were still happening, and in many places. Eventually they got "grandfathered in" because they had become so widespread that it was apparently easier to change the rules than to enforce them. This practice is not only horrible for parents with their children, but it is also horrible when clergymen do it in the Church. The three practices of this sort that I am thinking about right now are altar girls, communion being received in the hand, and extraordinary ministers of holy communion. Anything that starts in disobedience should automatically be suspect.

At my Ordinariate parish, I can be a bit more bold with things like this (when I need to) than I can in a diocesan parish (largely because the others are not my jurisdiction--I am serving "out of bounds"). That said, however, the Ordinariate does not allow altar girls, and I serve communion by intinction at St. George parish (the latter of which makes both communion in the hand and communion ministers impossible). These three "disobediences converted into obediences" are not, however, what I am actually wanting to discuss. Rather, I want us each to think about the fact that "winking" at and ignoring disobedience for so long will eventually create a culture that thinks rule-breaking itself to be no big deal.

If these wrongful practices happened so much that they were eventually more common than the right practice, then that means that many people grew up with disobedience as a norm. They became so used to "letting it slide" that after a time that practice is certain to slip into other areas of life. There are, of course, some areas that we are supposed to be willing to compromise (especially when we are being wrongfully stubborn); outright disobedience, however, is never one of them. Once compromise becomes common in our practice, and we continue to allow it, then we will find it easier and easier to compromise in more and more important areas of life.

The big issue here is not the manner in which the laity are encouraged to compromise. No, instead it is the fact that the clergy have become soft on compromise. Who was it, after all, that was encouraging the practice of having altar girls, communion in the hand, and lay communion ministers years ago when it was forbidden? Although there may have been some laity who sought it out, things like that come from the priests and bishops first. They are the ones who said, "let's try it this way" knowing already that it was against the rules (I am going to presume that they knew it, because the only other presumption is that they were foolishly ignorant of what is right and wrong in the Mass!).

Therefore, if it was the clergy who promoted this compromise in the Mass (the most important thing we do in love of our Lord here on Earth), then should we really be surprised that many of the same clergy are the ones who were "looking the other way" at compromise of sexual ethics? Sodomy does not just happen "ex nihilo". It is the result of earlier compromise in other areas of God's law (and in spite of how grave sexual sin is, between the two, compromise in the liturgy is more grave than compromise in sexuality). So they had already been practicing compromise in how they behave toward God. As a result, it was an easy step to begin compromising in how they behave toward their fellow men (and I do mean "men").

I am sure that there were many more areas of compromise that occurred in the Church in the 20th century, and I am only picking on a few that are still causing problems today. Yet, we all must acknowledge that compromise leads to more compromise; it is the nature of the beast (and the devil loves to encourage it). That is the whole point with the issue of compromise: it is a slippery slope that perpetuates itself, and it can be seen easily in this instance.

So then, you may be asking, what is the solution to this issue? There are many that have been put forward; some good, some hideous (here is a good one). The obvious solution is to stop compromising. This means that we need to make the conscious decision to do things as we are expected to and not seek to improve upon God. The consequence of this decision is to stop disrespecting God, as so often happens in the modernist and casual performance of the Mass. Return to reverence, return to complete obedience. Say the black, do the red; as I like to say.

This is not a "quick fix" because it takes time for hearts to change. It is, however, a genuine solution. I have been saying it for years now, but maybe our current crisis (and it is a crisis) will help everyone to see that things will not change until people change. Reverence for God is the necessary foundational attitude of our hearts that impacts everything we do, and if we do not truly reverence Him (especially in the Mass) then we cannot truly be obedient to Him (in any area of life). It is time to stop compromising; it is time to quit winking at breaking the rules and acknowledge that we are called to genuine faithfulness. Without faithfulness, our crises will just get worse.

"He Smites, but His Hands Heal"

I am taking a break today from my series of posts on evangelism. I was so struck by the words of today's Old Testament reading at Mass that I felt it important to write about it. As a pastor I often speak to people during times of pain and suffering. It is not uncommon for people to ask why God would let bad things happen. A few have even asked whether or not God was actually able to stop bad things from happening. When I try to explain that sometimes God actually causes some (apparently) "bad" things to occur, I frequently get shocked looks and sometimes outright denial of such an idea.

I always make a clear difference between God causing something, and God allowing something; one is active, the other is passive. Yet, I also point out that whether He allows it or causes it, He never does anything unwillingly. This is simply because He is God; nothing is stronger than He, and nothing can force Him to do anything against His will. That said, we also must acknowledge that God is all-knowing, and therefore everything that He either causes or allows is done because He knows it is for our best. He allowed Judas to betray Jesus, because His death and resurrection brought about our redemption.

With that in mind, look at the reading I mentioned above (Jeremiah 14:17-22) from the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version:

      17 “You shall say to them this word:
           ‘Let my eyes run down with tears night and day,
            and let them not cease,
            for the virgin daughter of my people is smitten with a great wound,
            with a very grievous blow.
      18 If I go out into the field,
           behold, those slain by the sword!
           And if I enter the city,
           behold, the diseases of famine!
           For both prophet and priest ply their trade through the land,
           and have no knowledge.’ ”
      19 Hast thou utterly rejected Judah?
           Does thy soul loathe Zion?
           Why hast thou smitten us
           so that there is no healing for us?
           We looked for peace, but no good came;
           for a time of healing, but behold, terror.
      20 We acknowledge our wickedness, O LORD,
           and the iniquity of our fathers,
           for we have sinned against thee.
      21 Do not spurn us, for thy name’s sake;
           do not dishonor thy glorious throne;
           remember and do not break thy covenant with us.
      22 Are there any among the false gods of the nations that can bring rain?
           Or can the heavens give showers?
           Art thou not he, O LORD our God?
           We set our hope on thee,
           for thou doest all these things.

The prophet Jeremiah speaks of awful trials; death, famine, and apostasy (vs 17-18). Then he asks if this means that God has abandoned His people (vs 19). He points out that he is fully aware that the sinfulness of the people merits this very kind of suffering (vs 20), but asks that the Lord would show mercy in spite of this, reminding Him of the covenant (vs 21). He exalts the wonders of the almighty power of God, and then says that the only hope God's people have is God Himself because He "doest all these things" (vs 22) [the NAB says "You alone have done all these things"].

Notice the question in verse 19: "Why hast thou smitten us". Jeremiah knows that God either causes or allows all that happens. He does not leave his suffering to mere chance, and clearly acknowledges that God could end it if He chose to do so. The prophet is placing all power and authority in God's hands--and that is the very thing that gives him hope. Do not miss this most important fact. If God were not all powerful, He could not either cause or stop the bad things from happening; since He is all powerful, He is able to do both. In other words, the only way he can expect that God could stop the suffering, is if he also believes that God (somehow) willed it to happen. No, God did not will the horrible experiences because He wants people miserable, but rather, because in His ultimate wisdom He knows that it is for their good (as hard as that might sound).

This is not some random idea, or an isolated verse of Scripture that contradicts testimony elsewhere. Just because few are willing to talk about it (and you almost never hear about in homilies) does not mean that it is false. This is the unanimous testimony of more verses of Scripture than I can recount here. Jeremiah is not the only prophet who speaks this way (Isaiah, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Nahum, Zechariah, and Malachi are only a few who speak this way). The Psalms are filled with this idea (see Psalm 2, 29, 47, 66, 75, 110, and 135 to name just a few). There are long passages of the New Testament that outline this idea (for example Romans 9). I am not saying that I understand perfectly the concept of the sovereignty of God, but I am saying that we cannot deny it without denying Who God is.

Can we respond the same way that Jeremiah does when we suffer? Can we equally place our hope and confidence in our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as acknowledge that He either allowed or caused the suffering to occur? It is what our forefathers believed, but we often seem to prefer a "mushy" kind of God Who "wouldn't hurt a fly". The same deity, however, who "wouldn't hurt a fly" is not a deity that has almighty power or knowledge. That is not the God of the Bible, but rather the god of modern sentimentality.

Only the Almighty God, Whom Jeremiah says "can bring rain" is the God for us to "set our hope on". There is nothing that can give us more confidence in times of trial than to be assured that God is able to fulfill all His promises. As we read in Job: "For he wounds, but he binds up; he smites, but his hands heal" (5:18); and in Hosea: "Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn, that he may heal us; he has stricken, and he will bind us up" (6:1).

Heeding the Warnings

It is all over the news, so I assume that you have all heard about the boating accident at Table Rock Lake a couple days ago. I live only about an hour north of the area, so it has hit home for a number of people around here. It is a terrible tragedy and I grieve for those people. As we pray for God's mercy on those that passed and their families, and also ask Him to bless the survivors, I want us to consider briefly what we can learn from something like this. No, I am not speaking about boat safety; I am speaking about the safety of our souls.

What can we do as a result of this that would help us in our spiritual walk? Although it appears that it will take a while for the NTSB to come up with results, right now it looks like the boat went out when the winds were already up to 73 miles per hour and there were waves over 4 feet high. That is not exactly what most would call safe. I know here at home we had the weather radio alarm go off a couple hours before the accident happened and it warned us that there were "severe thunderstorms" predicted for multiple counties around us for the next few hours.

I am not going to make a judgment on the captain or driver of the duck boat -- I was not there and I have no experience in the field. Let us just ask the simple question: how do we respond to warnings in our lives? When you hear that there is something that is dangerous, what do you do? Are you humble enough to listen, or do you pretend like you are "bullet proof" and nothing can hurt you?

What about spiritual warnings? Do you listen to the things that the Church warns are problematic? Do you even know what Church dogma warns us about? When you are given a warning in the readings in the Mass, do you heed what it says? Or do you let it slip in one ear, and then continue out the other? Scripture tells us in more than one place that when God is merciful and does not judge people quickly for their sins, that often people abuse that mercy by becoming callous and assuming that His judgment will never come. People frequently will "hedge their bets"; they assume if they got away with it once, they can get away with it again.

This is exactly how sin digs itself in deeply into our souls. Commit one sin and it makes it easier to commit it again if there were no noticeable and immediate bad consequences. Then when you are given a warning about that particular sin, you will find a justification for it because you got away with it last time; "I'll be just fine, God will be merciful so I can keep doing it". This is exactly what the devil wants us to think.

The proper response would be, rather, to ask of every warning, "does this apply to me? can I learn from it? how can I take advantage of this and become more faithful to God as result?" Are those the questions that go through your mind? To presume that you do not have to listen to any warning is comparable to walking blindly into the face of disaster. When we do that, we can hurt both ourselves and others.

What warnings have you been given lately? Can you remember what warnings have been in the most recent Scriptures that you have heard? It is possible that there were no technical "warnings" per se, but if you cannot remember, that may also mean that you have tuned them out, and are no longer willing to listen to them. Open your heart and mind to what the Lord may be saying to you, for many of the stories and examples in the Scriptures are said to be "warnings for us, not to desire evil" as others who fell into sin and were punished quickly (cf. 1 Cor 10:6).

God is not in the business of just punishing everyone instantly; He shows mercy because He wants us to heed His warnings and repent. Yet, when we do the very opposite we are turning our back on His mercy. That is not respecting the mercy of God; it is making a mockery of it. God speaks to you on a daily basis, but you must be receptive to what He is saying. Often when He communicates to us (in the Scriptures, a homily, a good online post, etc.) He is warning us that if we continue in our behavior that it will lead to disaster. Are you listening?

Recovering the Sacred

When you walk into a Church, you look for the holy water to cross yourself. When you arrive at the pew, you genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle. When someone comes over to speak to you in Church, you whisper. When you hold your rosary in your hand, you are gentle with it, being careful not to drop it. Or do you? If these are not your responses, then you can be pretty sure that you have lost (or maybe never had) a sense of the Sacred. For something to be sacred, means that it is separated from common use, and is reserved for something special.

Sacred vessels are the chalice, paten and ciborium that are used for holding and distributing the Eucharist. It would be sinful to use them for a common meal because they have been taken out of the area of common usage and dedicated for holy things. We are supposed to recognize this special usage, and respond rightly to it. Holy places, images, books, and various other objects are supposed to be distinct from what we use in our ordinary lives and are supposed to be treated in a distinct way.

This means that you are not supposed to use a crucifix (whether blessed or not) as a paper weight. A newspaper should not be placed on top of a Bible or a Catechism. An image of the Blessed Virgin should not be packed away in a box and forgotten. It also means that certain words should be spoken with reverence and never flippantly or casually; certainly the names of God, but also the Saints and other holy things. A home altar should not be treated as another piece of furniture when it not being used for prayer or devotion.

We could go one step further though, and acknowledge the holiness of certain things by showing a physical sign of reverence toward them. The old tradition of bowing the head at the name of "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus" is a practice that should be retained (both inside the Mass and in everyday life). I have the habit of saying to myself, "blessed Jesus", every time I hear someone say the Lord's name in vain. Some today still acknowledge the presence of the Sacrament by crossing themselves when they pass in front of a Church (while driving or walking). There are also some people who still kiss the hands of a priest to give thanks for the ordination he received and the many things that a priest's hands do for the people.

These are all signs of recognizing things that are sacred and giving proper honor to them. There are many things in our lives that are sacred, and if we have become callous towards them it will impact our spiritual health. If you are callous toward sacred things, you will eventually become callous toward the One Who is Sacred in Himself. To go about our days acknowledging the sacred may seem--if you do not already do it--as a burdensome task. Yet, once the habit is formed you find that recognizing God's hand in your life is a great blessing.

Many today (sadly, even some clergymen) have encouraged a disrespect for God and sacred things. This disrespect will always lead to fear, isolation, confusion, and depression; when we move away from God, we move away from joy--always. So when your priest encourages you to acknowledge the awesome nature of the sacrifice of the Mass, and the great blessings of the Eucharist, he is showing you the path to holiness, peace, and joy. He is reminding you that the Sacred is a wonderful blessing in our lives. The existence of the Sacred means that we do not live in a pagan world; we live in a world created by God that is being redeemed by our Lord Jesus Christ (did you bow your head when you read His Name?).

Are You Without Hope?

Presumption is here considered as a vice opposed to the theological virtue of hope. It may also be regarded as a product of pride. It may be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly regulated reliance on God's mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them.

In the above quote from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, we are given the difference between presumption and hope. Some may think that this is merely an academic issue that is splitting hairs in a theological debate, but that would be a false presumption (pun intended). When we seek to place our hope in God, there is a right way to do that, and a wrong way. When we ignore our own circumstances and try to bank merely on God's willingness to forgive, we have greatly misunderstood what hope is.

Hope, which is so greatly needed today, is a reliance on the promises of God. This means that we must know what the promises are if we are going to rely on them. If we believe that God has promised to provide us with monetary wealth in this life, and we maintain "hope" in that (faulty) promise, then we do have hope; it is, however, a hope in something that is false, and that is not the virtue that we are called to have. The theological virtue of hope is always grounded in truth (not in our selfish desires).

The Lord is certainly able to provide us with monetary wealth (it is not as though He is incapable), but since He has not promised that (and sometimes promised the opposite!) we cannot ground our hope in a lie. This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to as "a badly regulated reliance on God's mercy". No one should say that we should not rely on God's mercy, but there comes a time in which that reliance has become something other than godly hope if we have distorted the promises of God into a list of self-serving daydreams.

The monetary wealth falsehood (though not much of a concern in the Catholic Church) is a fairly easy point to make. Catholics pretty much know that this is not how God does things. A much more challenging issue comes up when we begin to seek to hope in a promise regarding our eternal salvation. That is the real issue that the Encyclopedia is concerned about. Hoping for salvation without doing anything to deserve it (works of faith and charity, etc.), or hoping for forgiveness without repentance are not truly the virtue of hope; that is what we call presumption.

As a protestant I experienced many different groups and denominations whose entire understanding of Christian salvation was based on a presumption. Scriptures were twisted to serve personal ends in ways that would make most logician's heads spin. In their desire to avoid anything that appears to look like the holiness the Catholic Church encourages, they sought out ways to justify a novel idea of salvation. For those who have been taught this understanding of salvation, I can understand they want to hold to it; for us as Catholics, we should not be copying that grave error.

I recall once having someone say to me that he did not really need to go to confession because he knew that God was merciful and would forgive his sins whether or not he told them to a priest. That is presumption, not hope. Notice how the Encyclopedia quote above refers to a "badly regulated" reliance. What would lead someone to have a badly regulated reliance? It stems largely from either a badly formed conscience, or a badly informed understanding of the faith (or both!). Therefore, let me ask the simple question: what are you doing to properly form your conscience and your understanding of the faith? What did you do today? What did you do last week? Are you doing anything towards those ends?

To sit back and presume that God's mercy will save someone who is impenitent even when 2000 years of Church teaching says otherwise is not even a Christian response. It is, in fact, just like the Encyclopedia says: a "product of pride". When we focus on ourselves and presume upon our well being, we pridefully ignore what the clear testimony is and then fall into a presumption about our eternal status. "I can keep sinning like I am and it will all work out in the end because God is merciful" is not found on any of the Saints' lips.

Should we trust in God's mercy? Yes! In the right context and with the right understanding of what mercy really is (as well as what hope really is). A blind, or foolish trust in something that looks like God's mercy is not what we are supposed to do though, and there are many who fall into this category today. Where is your trust? Where is your hope? Is it in something that contradicts the clear testimony of the Church? Are you relying on God to go against all that He has revealed in His Word? If so, then you have no hope; all you have is presumption.

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.

Grilling a Sacred Cow (and marinating it in bbq sauce)

"What is your political party father?" "I'm somewhat un-political." "Could you be more specific?" "Nope."

Politics, in principle, does not matter nearly as much as a person's heart does. I know it is unlikely, but it is possible that a person could be a radical fascist dictator and yet if his heart were holy, then he would end up doing what is right (regardless of the consequences). This would of course mean that he would cease to be a radical fascist dictator, but that is the point. The heart will lead more than one's political philosophy.

So when people ask about my view of politics, I often say "republicans are too liberal, democrats are too socialist, and socialists are too statist". I myself am more of a constitutional monarchist; which is good for me because it enables me to step aside from the political sphere and see things more distinctly in relation to the commandments of God (and thus enables me to give counsel with virtually no bias to people from any political party). In other words I can avoid being blinded by political associations or commitments; when doing so, I find that politics really has become a religion in itself, and statism is actually prevalent in many more than just socialists. I have met a few Libertarians who were much more statist than they realized!

There are certainly some who are going to be quite upset that I am speaking negatively about American politics. Yet, if we have made our personal political practices something that can never be criticized, then we have made them into "idols of our destruction". I recall a few years back when the Pope cautioned about the dangers of capitalism--from the response of some Americans, you would have thought he said that he hated Jesus. If one's politics becomes a sacred cow, then it is time to make hamburger.

When we consider "political issues" in relation to one's spirituality, regardless of what your political stance is: if you are a Catholic, politics must never exert more authority in your life than does the Lord and His Church. I have seen many people get more fired up over a political candidate than they ever do over Christ Himself, and this is true for Republicans, Democrats, and Socialists. Something has caused us to think this way, and I believe that it is often a lack of love for Christ that does it. If we have genuine faith, hope, and love for Christ, then we will see that His authority in Heaven has more importance for our lives than any politician. If, however, we do not have this, then we will exert our energy to leaders other than Christ. We will put too much emphasis on the underlings because we neglect the One Who is really in charge.

This confusion has found its way into our thinking in so many areas, but it is clear that the more emphasis we place on civil government as the ultimate authority, the more we will inevitably slide into statist thinking. What is the state, and how is she supposed to work? In America we tend to assume we know the answer to that question. We are used to things working a certain way, and rarely do we consider any other possibilities. We have had the same system of civil government for the last 242 years; or have we? Is it possible that things have been subtly changed without our noticing it, because it was done slowly, or it was during a time of difficulty and confusion? Quite a question to ask. Those countries that have had multiple changes over the last century are not as quick to presume on what form of government is being used by their leaders. Often, they know it because the change was open and recent.

When we ask the question of how the state is supposed to work, we have an additional issue that arises (at least in the USA; I am unaware of other countries). We have the problem that most Americans actually like the system of government that we have (even when it does not follow our Constitution!), so we rarely ask the question of how it is supposed to perform. The "how" of government is a worthy question, though, because behaviors can easily slip and become different than they were intended to be and citizens can easily miss the change.

Generally, when we look at Scripture we find that the purpose of civil government is to protect the people; both from one another, as well as from outside invaders. This is not something I made up; it is found in many places in our dogmas (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2234ff). When the government fails to do this there are many possible causes. The first is that she has forgotten what her duty is; the second is that she has gotten herself entangled with things that are not her duty and is thus keeping herself from her duty by distraction; the third is a combination of both of these.

In principle, it does not matter if you are a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian (or any other stripe of political philosophy); you can still slip into statism (though some are certainly less likely to do so than others!). Civil government is not our Savior, nor is she supposed to be our Nanny. Civil government, without encroaching on family government or Church government, is supposed to protect the people. It is not supposed to be there to "run everything", and it is certainly not supposed to ignore the Church and do whatever it wants. The idea of the separation of Church and state (not technically in the Constitution or Amendments) is not a Catholic idea at all. To be faithful to Catholic teaching, we each must be willing to submit our thinking to the Church. There is only One Person seated at the right hand of God, and we all know Who that is, and who that is not.

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.

The Eucharist is Not a Fellowship Meal!

"Are you Catholic?" "Yes, but I have not been to confession in 30 years, so I can't take communion; is it OK if I stay though?"

Can you say "Wow!", I knew you could. Clearly, this individual gets it: Holy Communion is not a reward for showing up at Mass. Here is the situation: I was getting ready to say Mass at a local care facility and someone came in and sat down in the back of the room. I always go and greet people I do not recognize, so I headed over there to introduce myself. Occasionally, we have someone come in who thinks that it is a protestant service. Occasionally, when someone hears that I am about to celebrate Catholic Mass, they politely excuse themselves (with the look on their face like they just walked into the wrong bathroom!).

When, however, someone decides to stay, I ask if they are Catholic. If they are not, I have to explain to them (as politely as I can) that I cannot give them communion, but if they wish to become Catholic, then I can certainly help them to accomplish it (!). The vast majority of the time, the visitors understand about communion. This was the situation that I am describing above. Her response to me focused on the fact that she was "out of communion" with the Church. No, that was not her wording, but that was exactly what she meant. "I haven't been to confession" says, "I am not currently doing what the Church says I am supposed to do".

Think about the assumptions being made by this person. I am reminded of that well known statement of the prodigal son: "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son" (Luke 15:21). In other words, "I am your son, but I've not been behaving like it." The assumption that one's personal behavior has no bearing on receiving the Eucharist, stems mostly from a mistaken notion of what the Eucharist is. The places where it is referred to as a "supper" or that the altar is a "table" could (mistakenly) give the notion that the Eucharist is a "family meal", but that is not the case. There is a significant difference between a communal meal where the people gather to have dinner, and a ceremony where a sacrifice happens and people partake of the sacrifice.

The New Testament does give us pictures of the "fellowship meals" that the early Church partook of, and they are never confused with the Eucharist. Interestingly, even those fellowship meals had strict boundaries (something that would shock many modern Catholics). Take for example the passage where the Apostle Paul says that the Church is not "even to eat with" a Catholic who is unrepentant and continues in grave sin (1 Cor 5:11). If that boundary exists at a "fellowship meal" for the community (which is a non-liturgical time of community interaction), how much more should we expect that the Church would have a boundary on a liturgical ceremony where the Sacrifice of Christ is re-presented before God?

The Apostle Paul points out the clear need for each person who partakes of communion to "examine himself" beforehand (1 Cor 11:28). The presumption is not that he examine himself, ignore any sins that he discovers, and then go ahead and partake anyways. With the clear warning that those who partake "unworthily" are "guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord", it is evident that he is speaking about clear boundaries given to a sacred ritual (and, once again, not a fellowship meal). The very word "profane" comes from the Latin root that means "outside the temple". Profane things are "unholy" and sacred things are "holy" by definition. Thus, to profane something is to abuse a sacred thing by treating it as if it were common. To profane the Blessed Sacrament is to treat it like common food and assume that it is equal to the food Jesus had when He ate dinner "with tax collectors and sinners" (or to assume that is like a Church's fellowship meal!).

Just as it would be wrong for me to show up at a friend's house unannounced and assume that I was going to be given a place at the table, so also it is wrong for anyone to assume that the reception of communion is open to anyone (even any Catholic) who shows up in the pew. We are not having a common meal. The Eucharist is not breakfast, lunch or dinner; it is the sacrifice of the sacred body and blood of Christ brought from Calvary to the present and must be treated as such. This was the underlying statement of the visitor to Mass that I mentioned above. "I have to be in a state of grace in order to receive communion" (even if I myself do not believe in the Church's definition of what that state is). Quite remarkable, is it not? Someone who has not been to Mass for 30 years knows that confession is necessary before receiving communion, while large numbers of those who attend Mass weekly ignore it; something is seriously wrong here.

Does the Lord love us? Of course He does. That is why He will not ignore our sins, and provides us with the sacraments to help us overcome them (when used in proper order). Yet, every sacrament is sacred, and is (usually) connected to a liturgical celebration. This is why the sacraments have boundaries; precisely because they are not casual or common, they are holy and reverent events that transcend the normal activities of day to day existence. They are the means by which God lifts us up from the things of this Earth and allows us to touch the things of Heaven. How could we possibly imagine that they are anything less than an experience of the divine in our lives?

Do You See What I See?

Right now, I have a pounding migraine. It is actually a bit hard to write because the light hurts my eyes. I also am experiencing an allergy attack; runny nose, sneezing, irritated throat. In addition, I think I pulled a muscle in my back, or maybe I slept wrong last night; either way, it hurts when I bend over or genuflect. What a miserable list. My next sentence, though, might shock you. I have an enormous amount of joy right now. No, it is not because of some other circumstance that overrides these unpleasant experiences. It is, rather, because of my perspective.

This morning's gospel reading spoke of having eyes of "light" or eyes of "darkness". In other words, Jesus was encouraging us to see things that way that God sees them. To view all of our existence through the eyes of our blessed Redeemer. So when I think about my discomfort, I might get a bit annoyed by it, but the solution is not just to make it go away, but rather to trust in God's goodness and love. He is allowing (or maybe causing) this discomfort for my good. He is loving and therefore is showing me love (even when I cannot see it clearly). Rabbi Kushner who said that God means well but is unable to help us with our problems, is worshipping a different God than the one of the Catholic (and ancient Jewish) faith.

I am reminded of the story about the man from the big city who was criticizing the man from the country for just sitting on his front porch and watching cars go by, "I couldn't live like that. It is way too boring. I need to be alive and active." The man from the country said, "I couldn't live like you. Always so busy that you don't have time to sit on the porch and watch the cars go by." Two different perspectives on the same event, and much of the difference comes from their point of view. Regardless of whom you side with in that story, we all must acknowledge that our perspective determines our mood.

For someone who is experiencing hard times, he can view them as just a series of bad stuff; or he can view them as an opportunity to experience the loving hand of God in a new way. The first part of today's gospel reading, before the reference to having "eyes of light", speaks to us about our treasure. Christ tells us that if we treasure things that are passing and solely of this world, then we will be missing out on so much joy. Those things that are temporal and just fade away over time, will always dissappoint us. Seeing those things as important means that our eyes are "dark" and cannot see the beauty and wonder of God's blessings. When we view God's creation through His eyes, we can see the beauty in it, but we see it as a lesser beauty than those things that are eternal.

On our journey through this life, there are many things that can cause us to feel depressed, but none of them is stronger than Christ our Lord. He is genuinely able to overcome all those trials, and will help us to overcome them if we will just work at seeing things as He sees them. Then we can gain the proper perspective. Difficulties are then not seen as causes of depression, they are seen as the hand of God seeking to teach us something. To shut ourselves out from God's perspective (especially in the area of trials) is to shut ourselves out from His grace.

I usually write about something that is bad (a "dragon" that needs to be slain), so this post might seem a bit different. I suppose it may be the case that I am writing about the dragon of being gloomy, but that is not the primary focus. It is the joy itself that I am speaking of. What an amazing blessing it is to be able to strive for that joy, and to find it in Christ. Let us each seek to remove the "scales" from our eyes that darken them, and instead plead with our gracious God to give us the light of what He sees. Only in this way can we stand with joy in the midst of the worst challenges that the world and the devil can throw at us.

Pointing Out Heretics

A Catholic once came to me asking if I had read a certain book, and I was a bit shocked by who the author was. The author, who shall remain nameless (to protect the guilty), denied a few major Christian doctrines regarding salvation (technically referred to as "antinomianism" from the Latin for "against the law") and therefore I told my friend to be very careful reading him because the author was a heretic. He looked at me like I had just said that the author was a three-headed-alien from the planet Neptune.

He proceeded to express to me an extreme displeasure with the way I was "calling anyone a heretic", and even once asked why I would use such an archaic term; after all "the Church doesn't have that category any more" (he claimed). We had multiple conversations afterward regarding "heretics", and each time he asked whether I was "still thinking that way". The concept of a "heretic" was clearly a difficult one for him, and, as he made clear, he thought it was mean and cruel to attack someone that way.

Quite an interesting perspective, I must say. The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to Antinomianism as "a heretical doctrine", and the Catechism defines heresy as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same". It would seem that to many in the Church today (for I have come across this same perspective more times than I can count) heresy is an abandoned idea. They treat it as an antiquated term that no longer applies to anyone (or at least not anyone who claims to follow Jesus).

Heresy, however, is something which seriously threatens us; especially today. It attacks our minds and hearts with lies that tempt us to deny God and His truth. This is a threat because it leads us away from the path of righteousness and salvation. To accept a heretical teaching is to deny the truth of Christ, and that encourages us to fall further into sin and error. In this way, as I have said before, we are talking about dragons. The "dragon" of heresy is flying around seeking minds to attack, and we must not remain passive toward it. In pointing out a heretic, I am not attacking him; rather I am defending myself and my people from his attacks!

Sometimes those who are uncomfortable with the very word "heretic" express their distaste by saying it is contrary to what it means to love others, and that it is "not merciful". Other times it is so vehemently mocked that it would appear that people believe that there is an 11th commandment: "Thou shalt be nice to everyone, at every time, even though it mean thou must compromise the whole of the faith". Whatever the reason, the denial of heresy is a significantly dangerous position to hold. For, I hope everyone reading this realizes that with the definition given above in the Catechism, the denial of heresy, is a heresy (and thus endangers one's soul)!

There are a few different things that can be motivating this rejection of Catholic doctrine, but they can all be boiled down to a basic problem that is infecting many today. Although most Catholics would reject the lie of relativism, great numbers of them have accepted it in practice. In other words, they have become practical relativists. No, they would never state specifically that they believe that all truth is relative, but they live as though they believe this. To "relativize" doctrine to the point where nothing is heretical means that there is no error. It means that it is perfectly fine to teach things that will, in reality, lead you onto the path to hell. This is what the Church calls "heresy".

Moral and doctrinal relativism is indeed a dragon to be slain, but it appears that many would rather make a peace treaty with the dragon. You must understand that not everything that claims to follow Jesus really does so. Mormonism is heresy; Jehovah's Witness teaching is heresy, and there are many more that could go on the list. Many aspects of Protestant teaching is heresy. Anything that denies an essential Catholic doctrine is heretical regardless of whether the speaker says he follows Jesus, or even if he is a Catholic (!). Practical relativists (whether doctrinal or moral, or both) are a plague on the Church and they lead many to eternal damnation.

If there is a truth (and I believe that there is), then there is also falsehood and lies. Many years ago the Church guarded the truth with the zeal of John the Baptist. Today it seems as though many Catholics (both laity and clergy) believe that we need to take a lighter stance on truth and not make such a big deal of it. Canon Law (an important part of Catholic life, no matter who scoffs at it) tells us that pastors have the obligation of protecting the faithful from error and correcting them when they stray (can. 529). That is why I write on this blog the way that I do; to protect and correct. Therefore, I must point out heresy. I must declare something wrong if the Church has declared it to be so. I do not make these declarations on my own, nor from my own judgment; I am a herald, pointing out those things that threaten our very souls.

How We View the Pope

Someone a few weeks ago mentioned having been to a music concert, and gave me the musician's name. I responded with the "smile and nod" and said, "oh, good". He knew I had absolutely no idea who the musician was. Dumbfounded, he came right out with it: "you've never heard of him have you?" I had to admit I had not (and I have to admit right now that I do not even remember who it was). He even asked a second time to see if I was joking, but, no, I was not. Generally speaking, I do not have an attraction to celebrities. I have no interest in meeting them or getting my picture taken with them--they are just humans in the difficult situation of being in the public eye.

Let us try an experiment on this subject. Name a celebrity that everyone has heard of. Go ahead and take a few minutes to think of one. It might be hard to think of one that everyone has heard of. Sadly, I can name one: Pope Francis. I could not say whether he has created this state of affairs, but it is true. I am not speaking just about the fact that people know his name, for that is not the same as being a celebrity. There are many whose names might be known by a lot of people, but they are not celebrities, per se.

A "celebrity" is usually someone who is not only well known, but also provides some kind of entertainment (though he does not need to be a professional entertainer to provide entertainment). A celebrity is someone whom others want to get their picture taken with, or get a signed autograph from. A celebrity has fans. On the other hand, a person who is merely well known, will usually not fall into these categories.

Whether this situation is by the hand of Pope Francis or not, it is a genuine situation. People are seeing and treating Pope Francis as a celebrity. I am not sure if he has shown up on the cover of The Enquirer yet, but I would not be surprised if he has. It is this treatment of him as "celebrity" instead of "Holy Father" that has helped to contribute to much of the confusion that we have in the Church today. The Catholic usage of the term "father" is not an accident (the Apostle Paul used it of himself in relation to his parishes that he founded), nor is it unbiblical (in spite of what many protestants claim). It is fully intentional.

The priest as "father" of his parish has certain "fatherly" duties. He is the one in charge (the buck stops here). He is the one to lead his "children" in the worship of God. He is also the one to teach them about Him. The same is true of each Bishop, and the same is (supposed to be) true of the Pope. When, however, the Pope is treated as a celebrity who is in charge of a large corporation (like the man who owns Facebook, Mark something-or-other; I think it starts with a "Z") then we get confused. This somewhat prevents the Pope from doing his duty as "Holy Father" of the entire Catholic Church.

It also, unfortunately, creates an awful temptation for the Pope. This is so because he is tempted to behave like a celebrity. Bring to mind the "photo-ops", and the quick conversations with off-the-cuff unprepared comments ("Pope Francis--over here--can I get a few words from you? Please speak into the mic. What is your opinion of the latest Avengers movie?"). Additionally, this has also encouraged the world to go overboard with the understanding of the Pope's authority. No priest or bishop is an infallible leader of his people; they (like physical fathers) make mistakes and commit sins, and they need to repent of them. So, generally speaking, we understand this in the arena of a parish or a diocese; but it seems to have been confused for the Pope.

To a certain degree, it may be better if the world would just ignore the Pope for a while. Then he might be able to focus on the duty of leading the Church throughout the world, and stop being concerned about the media throughout the world. After all, a good father does not draw attention to himself, but rather sees his duty to help his children to grow in their faith so that they can go out into the world and do what they are called to do. Let us pray that our Holy Father would see this as his duty; let us pray that Christ our Lord would grant him this grace.

Looking for Counseling

The other day when my truck started acting odd, I decided I needed to take it in to get repaired. So I went to McDonald's and asked the kid at the cash register to come out into the parking lot to look at it. You are probably thinking, right now, "what is he talking about?" I am going to presume that everyone reading this thinks that sounds a bit crazy. Well, it does. I do not know of anyone who would think that was the right thing to do (except maybe for the woman who called 911 because Burger King did not make her cheeseburger correctly). Car repairs are done by auto mechanics. No, I did not do what I said above. I was only joking; I went to the auto mechanic--exactly the way you would expect me to.

We all have a general sense that there are things that require the work of specific professionals. You do not ask a plumber to do open heart surgery, or a computer technician to design your new home. It is because of this that we seek a "counselor" when we need counseling. Seems simple and straightforward; right? Wrong. Just because someone is called a "counselor" does not mean that he can give good counsel to others. In fact, I have known some professional counselors who do more to foul-up people's mental stability than to help it.

Part of the issue with today's "counselors" is that many of them are trained in secular ideologies regarding human behavior, and yet have absolutely no training in the human soul (which is a significant factor since we all have a soul). Now imagine with me for a moment, a doctor who was trained in treating ailments of the respiratory system, but had absolutely no knowledge about the rest of the human body. There is no guarantee, but there is a good chance that what he does to help his patients may very well cause them untold physical harm. Now compare that idea with a counselor who does not believe in God or the human soul. This counselor believes that we are merely a physical being whose thoughts and feelings are just chemical reactions. How much genuine help can someone like that give a person?

The "counselor" like the one described above, will likely be able to help a hurting person to "feel better"; at least for a short time. Yet, the patient will only be receiving part of the help that he needs and thus it is comparable to a band-aid for a broken arm, or an aspirin for a cancer. It will provide a temporary help, but not a long lasting cure. It may seem like it is insignificant because "a person is a person". That is not, however, the case; a "whole person is a whole person" and if a counselor is only knowledgeable about part of the person, then he cannot help the whole person.

This applies in many areas. How about a marriage counselor who does not believe that marriage is a sacrament and that there is grace involved in the marriage? Will he be able to help a Catholic couple with their struggles? Again, all he is trained in is behavioral issues from a (largely) pagan perspective. Or, let us consider a counselor who is giving advice to someone who lost a loved one? If the counselor does not believe in Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Judgment, or the human soul, he can only give advice in a very small portion of the person's grief (and will likely never be able to provide any lasting cure, so that the patient is then "hooked" on the counselor and has to continue returning for years to come, rather than being able to heal and move forward in life). These counselors end up forcing the patient to return regularly just to receive another "pain killer" but never heal them.

I am sure that there are many "good counselors" out there who are solid Catholics and are able to speak to their patients about all the aspects of what they need help with, but I have also heard many stories of counselors who were Catholic that never mentioned the faith at all. Some are bound by the business that they work for. Some are afraid of backlash from atheists (or the ACLU--mostly the same thing). Some (which is even worse) are not even aware of what is lacking because they have been trained in pagan psychology at pagan schools by pagan professors and have never given it a second thought that there is something missing.

Have you sought out counsel on something from a "counselor"? Who did you go to? What was his philosophical understanding of behavioral and personal issues? Did you ask? Did he really help, or did he give you some drug to impact the body (but not the soul)? Consider these things, and weigh them heavily when issues like this come up. The best source of personal and behavioral help is the truths of Christ and the Sacraments of His Church. Modern science has virtually nothing to offer in this area because it knows virtually nothing about the human person beyond a few things it can see under a microscope. Go to Christ and the resources that He provides. Only in Him is true help found.

How Do You Suffer?

Have you learned how to suffer yet? It might sound like an odd question, but the truth of the matter is, from my experience, very few people know how to suffer. Yes, everyone can suffer, but not everyone knows "how" to suffer; by which I mean "suffering in the right way". During my time as a Protestant, I recall many times when I would preach on suffering. There were times when it was well received, and there were times when, shall I say . . . it was less than well received. This is understandable, because no one (except those who are mentally depraved) likes to suffer or see others suffer. It is, sadly, common in these days for people to be confused about the grace of suffering.

Let us just begin with the basic fact of Christ's suffering. It was, as we all know, of great merit. The sufferings of Christ are, as we read so many times, worthy of saving the whole world. Our suffering is also of value, if we "suffer rightly". The Apostle Paul points out the merit of our suffering in the book of Colossians when he mentions his own sufferings being able to help others in the Church (Col 1:24). This, of course, requires that we offer up the suffering, and not let it "go to waste". We could, after all, experience something painful, and be so wrapped up in our self-pity that we never actually offer the suffering to the Lord. This would be comparable to me buying medicine for someone who is sick, and then throwing it away without giving any to the sick person.

Here is an example of suffering in "the wrong way": let us imagine someone who has lost a loved one. He has gone through the grieving process, and followed the Church's guidelines on this: vigil service, funeral Mass, and Christian burial. Yet, afterward he still feels great pain for what has happened. He worries about the soul of his loved one, and is not sure how to find hope. As he struggles, he reaches out for help from his priest. This all sounds normal, but what has he done to offer the pain up to the Lord? Much of the description above shows this man only dealing with his pain because he wants it to be gone. He may gain some personal spiritual benefit from his experience, but it is not "given" to God so that the value of his pain can be applied to others as well.

All suffering can be of value, but much of that value is often lost because we "waste" the pain by focusing on ourselves. When, however, someone goes through the same process as in the previous paragraph, but from the beginning presents it to God, things change. He would pray something similar to the following: "Lord, this really hurts, but I know that You never give us more than we can handle. I know that there is a purpose for this bad experience, even if I do not know what that is. Therefore, I ask that you would help me overcome this grief, but in the meantime, please help me to endure with the patience and love of Jesus, so that You can receive my suffering and use its merit for the good of others."

No, I do not say that these are easy words, but they are good words. They are important words, for they enable the speaker to find perspective in what he is going through. The enable him to focus his grief, and seek for the entire experience to be virtuous. This helps him to heal more easily, as well as (likely) more quickly. It also helps one to grow in faith, hope, and love, granting him the grace of coming closer to Christ. Recall how we are told many times in Scripture that we will be raised to glory with Christ, as long as we "suffer with Him". That does not mean just to "suffer as well as" Jesus, but genuinely "with" Him, for in this we unite our sufferings to His (as the liturgy for the funeral Mass says).

Therefore, I ask once again, "how do you suffer?" Is your suffering purposeful? Is its value and merit being used for others? Do you seek to join with the sufferings of Christ? If these are not true, then you are not "suffering rightly". True, it is hard to keep this in mind right in the midst of suffering, but this is the reason why it is so important to think about it before the suffering begins. Let us each prepare ourselves to be able to stand firm with our Lord Christ when that pain arrives, and let us, with Him, offer our sufferings up to God the Father in Heaven. This is what leads to the true glory of God.

A Cold Faith

At Friday morning Masses I usually have a good number of people in attendance. Once in a great while that is not the case; today was one of those days. In fact, today, I had only one of the faithful in attendance. There is something significant about this, especially today. Today, you see, is the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. This is the day in which we are supposed to deepen our devotion to Christ because we recognize the great love He has for us. Yet, the low attendance at Mass was quite vivid. No, I do not think it was anything more than mere coincidence, but it was definitely an illustration of the state of things in the Church today.

All over the world, the faith of Catholics is weakening; both laity and clergy. It seems that most are going about their daily lives with little to no recognition of the things of God. I wonder just how many Catholics even know that it is the feast of Sacred Heart today? There are liturgical calendars that they have, there are numerous sites on the internet that can point it out, it is not hard to discover this. Besides, the celebration of Sacred Heart is always the second Friday after Trinity Sunday. Yet, it seems people are not paying enough attention to our faith to notice important days like this one.

I am reminded of the passage in the gospel of Matthew. Jesus is giving the prediction of the destruction of the Jewish temple in the first century and He says, "because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold" (Matthew 24:12, emphasis mine). This is indeed what we are experiencing today. No one doubts that there is an increase in wickedness, both inside and outside the Church. Yet we do not always make the immediate association that an increase in wickedness also leads to weakening of our love for God and neighbor. The cause is simple: the only reason we "increase wickedness" is because we are enjoying it. Whenever we are enjoying wickedness the result will be spending less time enjoying righteousness, and all righteousness comes from love of God and neighbor.

It would be comparable to a husband and wife's marriage going bad. First something draws them away from their commitment to each other. Second, they grow in their devotion to that "other" thing. Third, their love for each grows even colder, to the point of where they likely say "I don't love you anymore" (because they have chosen to love something else more). Fourth, they end up in divorce. The same pattern is followed in our relationship with God. Attracted by other things (and there are a million of them out there today to do this) we are drawn away from our commitment, and then our love grows cold.

Here we arrive at a moment of necessary honesty: let us each admit (and say it out loud if you can), "I do not love Jesus as much as I should, and it is because I do not fully appreciate His love for me." What better day to renew our love and commitment to the Lord than on this solemnity? We are told in Scripture that we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). Yet, the inverse is also true, if we do not truly know His love for us, we will not truly love Him. With the fact that there are extreme consequences to ignoring this great need (remember that "Hell" thing?), we absolutely must not say "yeah, that's important, but I don't need to increase my commitment to the Lord".

I am not a "big and famous" blog writer, but I do have a number of people who read these posts quite regularly. Once in a while something touches people a bit more and they send it out to others. I once had a post get almost 5000 views in a few days! I wonder what this one will do (I suppose if I get another 5000 views it will say people do care about it). After all, if it is true that "the love of most is growing cold" today, then most who read this will not consider it to be very important. I will admit it will be heartbreaking to see the spiral of waning devotion continue, and I do not think that I alone can stop it. But we, together, can. You can commit yourself to renewing your devotion right now (in actual behavior, not just in word!). You can tell others about it (and maybe sending them a link to this post will help?). Not all will respond, but for those who do, we can have an impact on Christ's Church and the whole world.

St. Norbert

What do you think of when you hear that someone wants to "reform" the Catholic Church? What images come to your mind? In today's context, you are likely thinking of those who wish to make the Church more contemporary; to change some of her rules and practices so that they fit comfortably with the world. When you think, however, about the modern day context of chaotic Church practice, there is another option. When numbers of clergymen and parishes are already doing the very things that people are wanting to see established in the Church (in disobedience to many of the Church's canons and dogmas), the word "reform" might have a different meaning. It may be more accurate to think of "reform" as a movement to get the Church just to do what she is supposed to do.

That is what St. Norbert was known for. His feast day is today and he was known during his lifetime (early 12th century A.D.) as an advocate of Church reform. He was not one who wanted to "change the Church" (as some appear to be attempting today) but rather as one who wanted to "rework" the Church back to her proper "form" (i.e. "reform"). Much of what he preached about and encouraged, before and after he was made a Bishop, was simple dedication to what the Church already said.

It is remarkable that those who seek "reform" today are trying "re -- form" the Church into something different than what she used to be. This kind of direction is better referred to as "deform" than "reform". Thus, today we find there are people who want to "deform" the Church and others who want to "reform" the Church. The attempt of these "deformers" to change what cannot be changed is ultimately futile, but in the short term it can be very destructive. This is especially true in an age where many of the laity have little clear knowledge of the faith, and are very confused by numerous competing ideas. The faithful can be led astray with little effort if they do not know with certainty what the path is supposed to be.


I recall once trying to explain to someone the Catholic Church's views on sexuality. Knowing that many people reject the idea that sex outside of marriage is a grave sin, I wanted to be cautious in approaching the subject. The person I was speaking to was shocked when I mentioned the immorality of fornication. She said, "I didn't think anyone actually believed that, I thought it was a just a silly story to insult Catholics with because they rejected abortion." Consider what she was saying. She acknowledged that the Church declares abortion to be a sin, but did not know that the Church says the same about fornication. Confusion abounds, and the Church needs to be clear about the truth.

This, my dear brethren, is why I speak so often about things that need to change: because the Church needs to be "reformed"; meaning to "regroup" and "form" herself once again the way that she is supposed to be. I am not really asking for anything new in the ultimate sense. I am more like one "crying in the wilderness" for God's people to "prepare the way of the Lord". In that sense, you could call me a reformer. Not that I desire to form the Church into something new, but rather to encourage her willingly to "form" herself rightly and properly.

Worthiness for Communion (yes, again!)

"Are you saying I'm not worthy to receive communion anymore? Just because I got married in a way the Church doesn't like?"

Yes, this was a real conversation, and, yes, I agonized over the answer. Whenever someone who is upset puts forward a question that is loaded (or forces a false dichotomy) I agonize over it. I agonize because, to someone in that frame of mind, it sounds like I am attempting to make up an answer off the cuff. In truth, that question is impossible to answer without qualifications.

First, look at the point of concern: "worthiness". Let me ask that question in a universal manner: "Who is worthy to partake of Holy Communion?" We all know the answer, do we not? We recite in every Mass "Lord I am not worthy..." Have we ceased to believe those words? It should be clear to us that no one on Earth is truly worthy. We all need the grace of Christ to make us worthy (the liturgy for the Mass points this out multiple times). Therefore, we have to restructure the question: "Who has cooperated with the available grace to make themselves worthy to partake of Holy Communion?" That is the proper question. The answer is going to depend on each person.

Let us take just the example from the comment above. If you are a Catholic and have gotten married outside of the Church without permission, then your marriage is not valid; in other words, you did not cooperate with the grace of the Sacrament of Marriage that the Church offers and chose instead to pursue a marriage covenant on your own terms. If there is a prior marriage that was not annulled, then that is one more grace that you have not cooperated with. When we do not take advantage of the grace of Christ offered in the Church's sacraments and disciplines, then we cannot say that we are "in a state of grace". It is not a very complicated issue, but many still miss it.

If you find that you are not "in a state of grace" and you want to be, then that means you must remedy your disobedience with obedience. Many today, however, do not do that. Instead, their reaction to discovering disobedience is to continue with another disobedience. When Jesus tells us that we must do whatsoever He commands (and He often does!), then that means that if we have not obeyed, then we deal with our disobedience by doing what Christ says to do when we have disobeyed. Not surprisingly, the Church has a means of grace that is designed to be used precisely in that circumstance. We call it the Sacrament of Confession. So then, once more in summary: you are supposed to obey what Jesus says, and if you do not, then you are supposed to obey what Jesus says to do when you disobey.

For one to assume that disobedience can be followed by another disobedience and have no consequences is to ignore completely our Baptism and the call to holiness. I wish that I could have a quick way to answer that question from the beginning of this post, but the false assumptions that go along with it make it too difficult to do so. It is disheartening to have someone put up walls in his mind to protect his sins, and to prevent anyone else from helping him to overcome them.

Whenever someone presumes upon their own worthiness, and becomes resistant to any criticism, he is opening himself up to deeper and deeper pride. He is becoming someone who will not hear spiritual admonition when he needs it. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not a bad thing to seek humility and to begin with acknowledging our own unworthiness to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. For, this is the only way that we can truly see what that unworthiness entails, and then we can actually do the work to overcome it. This is what it means to cooperate with God's grace.