I am currently preparing an article for the next edition of the Ordinariate Observer (the official magazine of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter). This time I will be discussing the role of the Catholic husband and father. I first went to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) to get some useful quotes. I was not surprised, but definitely disappointed. Although it says much about spouses and marriage, it gives no specific references to the role and duties of a husband or father (or of a wife or mother, either). Yes, it does talk about the responsibilities of spouses to each other, but no difference is made between the husband and wife.
If I were a young man preparing for marriage and wanting to know what my role as a future husband and father was, I would be left with virtually nothing except a few generic statements that apply to both husband and wife. Why is this so? Why did the Church spend so much time defining matrimony and the significance of spousal relations and chastity, without giving anything of any usefulness to the specific differences between men and women (which it does affirm the existence of in other places; e.g. CCC 372) in the marriage covenant? There is a long list of the offenses to marriage and the various types of sexual sins, but that only refers to what not to do in marriage.
Furthermore, the references to the role of husband and wife as spouses is not much different than the role of one Catholic to another: be good to each other, forgive one another, and pray for each other (yes, I am simplifying and summarizing, but not much). Thankfully, the new Catechism does refer to the importance of raising children, but it consistently says "parents..." as though there is no distinction between how fathers and mothers are to fulfill their roles. I am not even speaking about the duties in the home (though the Trent Catechism was very specific in this way!), but merely the fact that God made them "male and female" and not some androgynous duo with different shapes. Yes, the devil does want us to believe that is the case, but we are not supposed to give in to him.
Sometimes we teach volumes by what we do not say just as much as by what we do say. I have had quite a few Catholics say that they do not accept the "old teaching" that husbands are the head of the home. Where did that come from? I suspect that it was taught to them in their home as they were growing up, but it also had to be supported by the clergy. Although I cannot get into the minds or motivations of those who wrote the modern Catechism, the choice to leave out this important matter is not a small thing. Few today will read the Trent Catechism (though I wish they would!), and that means that most Catholics who look to the Catechism are left with a very vague (and unhelpful) explanation of what the roles in marriage are.
I do not want to believe that it was done for egalitarian purposes. I will give them the benefit of the doubt that the choice was because the Catechism of the Council of Trent had already done such a stunning job that Rome felt that nothing else needed to be said. Either way, even a passing reference to Trent would have been helpful (it is cited in other places). I will leave aside criticisms and critiques and merely say this: much of our faith has been watered down in many places. Even some clergy have caused grave confusion about what the Church teaches. Let us not allow our families (the "domestic church") to be infected with this same confusion; to do so is to let our children be catechized by the world.
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Lousy Excuses
What is the technical and theological definition of the term "Holy Day of Obligation"? I have searched far and wide and read through many sources to come up with the most accurate and clear definition, and I would like to give it to you here, right now.
We always tend to be too easy on ourselves when we make determinations about things like this. One general rule that people like to use (though it too can be abused) is "would you go to work?" If not, then you probably should not go to Mass. It would be helpful though if I gave a few examples of some things that are really "lousy excuses" (otherwise known as "justifying your sinful choice").
We all know why this subject is so sensitive to us in these modern days. Every one of us struggles with being told what to do, and extra "days of obligation" can seem like a silly rule (and terribly inconvenient in our self-focused busy lives). We often get a bit "snarky" when the Church gives commands that require certain distinct behaviors (do not eat meat, give money to the Church, etc.). Therefore, the discipline involved in obeying (especially when we struggle with the command) is there precisely for our own good. The Church does have the authority to tell us what to do in many and various areas of our lives, and being present at the amazing event of the sacrifice of the Holy Mass is not a "duty" as much as a "privilege".
How else can I say this other than to be direct and clear? Yes, in case anyone missed it: it is a grave sin to choose to miss Mass by our own action. Although there are legitimate reasons to be absent from a required Mass, we cannot take God's generosity for granted. If we really knew what was going on in the Mass (that remarkable miracle that occurs when Jesus comes to be physically present with us in the Eucharist), we would never ask whether it is "required", we would be seeking the next wonderful opportunity to attend!
What about those situations where someone does not actually miss Mass, but they are not genuinely present for the entire celebration? If you intentionally show up late (for whatever reason) you have not fulfilled your obligation. Yes, things happen (flat tires, unruly children, etc.), but those are out of our control; if you are in control of the decision, you are accountable. Also, if you intentionally leave early (i.e. before the final blessing) you are also not fulfilling your obligation. "Attend Mass" does not mean "attend until you no longer want to be there" but "attend all of it"! Once again, if we understand what the Mass is, we would want it to last longer, and not seek to find ways to avoid it.
Looking out at the pews at a particular Holy Day of Obligation last year, I prayed that those who were not present were attending somewhere else that day. I do not know their situation, but I know that priests all over say that attendance is rarely the same on Holy Days of Obligation as it is even on an average Sunday. Commitment to the Mass equals commitment to our Lord. If you do not want to be with Jesus in the Mass, how can you say you love Him? What is your commitment to the Mass itself? Do you struggle with the requirement? Ask the Lord to change your heart; seek to understand Christ better; and commit yourself to following Him--especially when you are not in the mood to do so!
"Lousy excuses don't cut it"Actually, here is the rule in Canon Law:
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to assist at Mass. They are also to abstain from such work or business that would inhibit the worship to be given to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, or the due relaxation of mind and body (1247).The Catechism also says that we can only be excused "for a serious reason", and thus we have my original (very tongue in cheek) definition. "Serious reason" is not specifically defined, and in many instances that is left up to the individual. Just how sick a person really is, is not subject to the determination of others -- you know how sick you really are and how bad you really feel (and you know that God knows as well!). "I have a hangnail that is really bothering me" or "I'm having a bad hair day" are what we would categorize as a "lousy excuse".
We always tend to be too easy on ourselves when we make determinations about things like this. One general rule that people like to use (though it too can be abused) is "would you go to work?" If not, then you probably should not go to Mass. It would be helpful though if I gave a few examples of some things that are really "lousy excuses" (otherwise known as "justifying your sinful choice").
1) I can't drive myself and don't want to bother anyone else (most priests would be happy to find someone to come get you)We must also add to this list the "long term" excuses. Except for those in "mercy vocations" (doctors, nurses, police, firemen, etc.) where they help others who are in genuine immediate need, there is no job that can be considered a justifiable excuse for missing Mass (regardless of how much more money you can make). If someone has a job in which he believes it is necessary to work and miss Mass (Sundays, or Holy Days of Obligation), then he should check with his priest about it (before missing Mass). The priest may be able to give him a dispensation (and transfer the obligation to another day of the week), but that is up to the wisdom of the priest, not the individual's self-determination (ever!).
2) I'm not in the mood (all the more reason to grow in sanctification)
3) I have company, and they are not Catholic (the testimony of your commitment to your faith may be the very thing they need to be told about -- before they arrive!)
4) I forgot it was a Day of Obligation (there are a million resources to plan ahead for Holy Days and many people even ask for time off months in advance to make sure they can attend--if you care about it, you will do the work to make it possible!)
We all know why this subject is so sensitive to us in these modern days. Every one of us struggles with being told what to do, and extra "days of obligation" can seem like a silly rule (and terribly inconvenient in our self-focused busy lives). We often get a bit "snarky" when the Church gives commands that require certain distinct behaviors (do not eat meat, give money to the Church, etc.). Therefore, the discipline involved in obeying (especially when we struggle with the command) is there precisely for our own good. The Church does have the authority to tell us what to do in many and various areas of our lives, and being present at the amazing event of the sacrifice of the Holy Mass is not a "duty" as much as a "privilege".
How else can I say this other than to be direct and clear? Yes, in case anyone missed it: it is a grave sin to choose to miss Mass by our own action. Although there are legitimate reasons to be absent from a required Mass, we cannot take God's generosity for granted. If we really knew what was going on in the Mass (that remarkable miracle that occurs when Jesus comes to be physically present with us in the Eucharist), we would never ask whether it is "required", we would be seeking the next wonderful opportunity to attend!
What about those situations where someone does not actually miss Mass, but they are not genuinely present for the entire celebration? If you intentionally show up late (for whatever reason) you have not fulfilled your obligation. Yes, things happen (flat tires, unruly children, etc.), but those are out of our control; if you are in control of the decision, you are accountable. Also, if you intentionally leave early (i.e. before the final blessing) you are also not fulfilling your obligation. "Attend Mass" does not mean "attend until you no longer want to be there" but "attend all of it"! Once again, if we understand what the Mass is, we would want it to last longer, and not seek to find ways to avoid it.
Looking out at the pews at a particular Holy Day of Obligation last year, I prayed that those who were not present were attending somewhere else that day. I do not know their situation, but I know that priests all over say that attendance is rarely the same on Holy Days of Obligation as it is even on an average Sunday. Commitment to the Mass equals commitment to our Lord. If you do not want to be with Jesus in the Mass, how can you say you love Him? What is your commitment to the Mass itself? Do you struggle with the requirement? Ask the Lord to change your heart; seek to understand Christ better; and commit yourself to following Him--especially when you are not in the mood to do so!
Friday, December 28, 2018
Somewhat Joyful (!)
I like to keep my daily schedule written down in a little book that I keep with me, and so I abbreviate things to make sure that I have room for all of it. I formed the habit, years ago, of writing "funeral" as "fnrl", because the natural abbreviation of the first few letters "fun" is not the way that I (or anyone with a godly understanding of death) wants to think of a funeral; they are not fun. That said, however, someone made a comment to me today that really caught my attention.
A few hours ago, I had just finished a funeral Mass for a dear parishioner that I knew a bit better than most. He and I hit it off when we first met, and although a priest should be careful never to be "too close" to his parishioners (for fear of looking like he is showing favoritism), he and I had a connection. I got to know he and his wife over the last couple years while he struggled with cancer, and today I helped her to say goodbye to him until they meet again in eternity. After the funeral, one of those in attendance said to me, "that was the first catholic funeral I've ever been to, and it was not as depressing as I had thought, it was actually somewhat joyful".
I am sure that he would not have said it was "fun" (as the avoided abbreviation may give the impression of), but he did say it was "joyful". Now, I should be perfectly clear, when I say a funeral Mass there is nothing about it that is "playful" or "fun" (as I have heard some priests attempt to do in order to encourage the people [shame on you my brothers!]). I do the Mass as reverently as I am able (though in the Novus Ordo that can be difficult). So that is not what he meant by saying it was "somewhat joyful".
As we spoke about it briefly, it was clear to me that what he found joyful was what a funeral should be: it was encouraging. A funeral is not (and absolutely never should be) a "celebration of life" but a recognition of death. If we attempt to ignore that the person is dead, then all we are doing is denying reality and not allowing people to mourn properly. When, however, we accept that the person has passed on from this life and keep that in the context of Christ (Who is always supposed to be the focus of every Mass--this is why a eulogy is forbidden in a Catholic funeral) only then are we able to be encouraged the way that God would have us to be.
If our focus is Christ (as it should be in every Mass), then we can be encouraged when someone has passed. It is natural, and proper, for us to mourn and grieve at the death of a loved one. Yet, how do we grieve? The Scriptures tell us "not to grieve as others do who have no hope". That is the point of a funeral, is it not? To grieve, but do so with hope! The only way that we will have hope is if we focus on Christ and His grace. If we focus on the deceased, then we will lose hope, because it is so easy to forget the love of our Savior when He is left out of things. No, we do not ignore the deceased in a funeral (of course not), but only in Christ can we remember them rightly.
Yes, it was truly sad; especially at Christmas time. Yet we can find hope in the darkest of life's trials; if we seek it in our Lord and Savior. We can find such hope and encouragement that people who have never been to a Catholic funeral before can say "that was somewhat joyful". Joyful it was, not because we are without our dear friend, but "joyful" because we know He Whom we are entrusting his soul to.
A few hours ago, I had just finished a funeral Mass for a dear parishioner that I knew a bit better than most. He and I hit it off when we first met, and although a priest should be careful never to be "too close" to his parishioners (for fear of looking like he is showing favoritism), he and I had a connection. I got to know he and his wife over the last couple years while he struggled with cancer, and today I helped her to say goodbye to him until they meet again in eternity. After the funeral, one of those in attendance said to me, "that was the first catholic funeral I've ever been to, and it was not as depressing as I had thought, it was actually somewhat joyful".
I am sure that he would not have said it was "fun" (as the avoided abbreviation may give the impression of), but he did say it was "joyful". Now, I should be perfectly clear, when I say a funeral Mass there is nothing about it that is "playful" or "fun" (as I have heard some priests attempt to do in order to encourage the people [shame on you my brothers!]). I do the Mass as reverently as I am able (though in the Novus Ordo that can be difficult). So that is not what he meant by saying it was "somewhat joyful".
As we spoke about it briefly, it was clear to me that what he found joyful was what a funeral should be: it was encouraging. A funeral is not (and absolutely never should be) a "celebration of life" but a recognition of death. If we attempt to ignore that the person is dead, then all we are doing is denying reality and not allowing people to mourn properly. When, however, we accept that the person has passed on from this life and keep that in the context of Christ (Who is always supposed to be the focus of every Mass--this is why a eulogy is forbidden in a Catholic funeral) only then are we able to be encouraged the way that God would have us to be.
If our focus is Christ (as it should be in every Mass), then we can be encouraged when someone has passed. It is natural, and proper, for us to mourn and grieve at the death of a loved one. Yet, how do we grieve? The Scriptures tell us "not to grieve as others do who have no hope". That is the point of a funeral, is it not? To grieve, but do so with hope! The only way that we will have hope is if we focus on Christ and His grace. If we focus on the deceased, then we will lose hope, because it is so easy to forget the love of our Savior when He is left out of things. No, we do not ignore the deceased in a funeral (of course not), but only in Christ can we remember them rightly.
Yes, it was truly sad; especially at Christmas time. Yet we can find hope in the darkest of life's trials; if we seek it in our Lord and Savior. We can find such hope and encouragement that people who have never been to a Catholic funeral before can say "that was somewhat joyful". Joyful it was, not because we are without our dear friend, but "joyful" because we know He Whom we are entrusting his soul to.
Friday, December 21, 2018
"I've Got Your Back"
One of the major problems of mega-parishes (and often with those that are just "big parishes") is that it is so easy for people to be forgotten. I read a story recently about a woman who had been active in a parish for years and then just quit attending when something bad happened in her life. Not the first time that has happened. The problem arose when no one seemed to notice; if anyone did notice, then they did not say or do anything about it. The woman apparently remained away from the Church for a long time before someone saw her in the store and asked how she was doing; no reference at all to the fact that she had not been to Church in 5 years!
Certainly there are ways to overcome problems like this, but it does not seem that many parishes are even trying. Of those parishes (or sometimes even whole diocese's) who do put an effort into it, it often comes across somewhat "cheesy" and ends up being mostly ineffective. Of course a major effort needs to be done to prevent people from leaving in the first place, but when they do, they need to be sought out, helped, encouraged, and warned (yes, that means we need to tell them the full truth, and not just "c'mon back, it will all be OK"). Abandoning the Church (for whatever reason) is a grave sin and we cannot pretend it is anything else. Yes, I agree, "woe to him by whom" people are driven to abandon the Church, but that is not the subject of this article.
In a "small parish" (less than 75 families) there is always the advantage that when someone does not make it to Mass, almost everyone notices. That dynamic has very few drawbacks. It keeps each of us accountable, and also helps the community to value one another's presence. It also prevents us from becoming a "pew sitter" who just sneaks in the back, attends Mass, and then sneaks out without being spoken to by anyone. In the early Church, every parish was small because they did not have giant Church buildings to meet in. This was likely how the parish model was created; as soon as one Church reaches "critical mass" you start a new parish (a model we would do well to reconsider).
Now I need to be clear: I am not implying that it is inherently wrong to have a large parish (the Heavenly Jerusalem in Revelation 21 is described as a massive community of God's people). The problem arises with the fact that we have fewer priests taking care of more people. Sometimes it is a priest who cares for a single large parish with no other priest to help him (years ago these larger parishes had three or four full time priests) or we have a single priest taking care of multiple parishes (the way that I do -- I have three parishes under my care, and just barely have time to keep tabs on what it going on in each of them).
It was proven long ago that the current shortage of priests is due largely to two things: first, the catechetical disaster of the 70's through the 90's that confused the majority of laity about the Catholic faith as a whole, and second the intentional actions of many sodomites (and possibly communists) to infiltrate the priesthood with immoral men who did not love the Lord. We can thank God (and some very good Bishops) that the tide is turning back to a solidly orthodox priesthood, but it is not there yet. In the meantime, it is hard for priests (who are stretched like "too little butter over too much bread") to be aware of every event in a parish on their own.
Priests are often dependent on input from parishioners: "Father, I haven't seen Mr. Smith lately, how is he?" "Thank you for mentioning him; I haven't seen him for a while either. I'll give him a call." (I always appreciate it when someone helps me this way.) It is always good to be concerned for one another and never presume that someone else will handle it. Yet, this does not mean that the faithful should just hand it off to the priest; each of them, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, can help each other when they are in need in the way that God has enabled them to do so. Yes, only the priest can do certain things, but that does not mean the laity can do nothing (a phone call, or text, can be a great encouragement to a fellow parishioner in need).
Until we see more priests to serve in parishes, or at least more small parishes and fewer "bloated" parishes, we have to be on the lookout for one another. As a retired marine friend of mine always liked to say "I've got your back"; we need to be saying that to one another. As a priest, I am happy to be there for any of my parishioners whenever they need me to do so. That does not mean, however, that the laity are supposed to ignore one another. Large parish or small parish (but especially the large ones) every one of the faithful are bound to each other for their mutual good. The laity are supposed to be helping each other, praying for each other, and reaching out to one another. This is what it means to be the Body of Christ; this is what it means to live in community.
Certainly there are ways to overcome problems like this, but it does not seem that many parishes are even trying. Of those parishes (or sometimes even whole diocese's) who do put an effort into it, it often comes across somewhat "cheesy" and ends up being mostly ineffective. Of course a major effort needs to be done to prevent people from leaving in the first place, but when they do, they need to be sought out, helped, encouraged, and warned (yes, that means we need to tell them the full truth, and not just "c'mon back, it will all be OK"). Abandoning the Church (for whatever reason) is a grave sin and we cannot pretend it is anything else. Yes, I agree, "woe to him by whom" people are driven to abandon the Church, but that is not the subject of this article.
In a "small parish" (less than 75 families) there is always the advantage that when someone does not make it to Mass, almost everyone notices. That dynamic has very few drawbacks. It keeps each of us accountable, and also helps the community to value one another's presence. It also prevents us from becoming a "pew sitter" who just sneaks in the back, attends Mass, and then sneaks out without being spoken to by anyone. In the early Church, every parish was small because they did not have giant Church buildings to meet in. This was likely how the parish model was created; as soon as one Church reaches "critical mass" you start a new parish (a model we would do well to reconsider).
Now I need to be clear: I am not implying that it is inherently wrong to have a large parish (the Heavenly Jerusalem in Revelation 21 is described as a massive community of God's people). The problem arises with the fact that we have fewer priests taking care of more people. Sometimes it is a priest who cares for a single large parish with no other priest to help him (years ago these larger parishes had three or four full time priests) or we have a single priest taking care of multiple parishes (the way that I do -- I have three parishes under my care, and just barely have time to keep tabs on what it going on in each of them).
It was proven long ago that the current shortage of priests is due largely to two things: first, the catechetical disaster of the 70's through the 90's that confused the majority of laity about the Catholic faith as a whole, and second the intentional actions of many sodomites (and possibly communists) to infiltrate the priesthood with immoral men who did not love the Lord. We can thank God (and some very good Bishops) that the tide is turning back to a solidly orthodox priesthood, but it is not there yet. In the meantime, it is hard for priests (who are stretched like "too little butter over too much bread") to be aware of every event in a parish on their own.
Priests are often dependent on input from parishioners: "Father, I haven't seen Mr. Smith lately, how is he?" "Thank you for mentioning him; I haven't seen him for a while either. I'll give him a call." (I always appreciate it when someone helps me this way.) It is always good to be concerned for one another and never presume that someone else will handle it. Yet, this does not mean that the faithful should just hand it off to the priest; each of them, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, can help each other when they are in need in the way that God has enabled them to do so. Yes, only the priest can do certain things, but that does not mean the laity can do nothing (a phone call, or text, can be a great encouragement to a fellow parishioner in need).
Until we see more priests to serve in parishes, or at least more small parishes and fewer "bloated" parishes, we have to be on the lookout for one another. As a retired marine friend of mine always liked to say "I've got your back"; we need to be saying that to one another. As a priest, I am happy to be there for any of my parishioners whenever they need me to do so. That does not mean, however, that the laity are supposed to ignore one another. Large parish or small parish (but especially the large ones) every one of the faithful are bound to each other for their mutual good. The laity are supposed to be helping each other, praying for each other, and reaching out to one another. This is what it means to be the Body of Christ; this is what it means to live in community.
Thursday, December 20, 2018
Restoring the Influence of the Church
A natural consequence of the decline of faith in the Church is that she will inevitably lose influence in the world around. The more the Church flirts with modernism and accepts compromise, the less the world cares what she has to say. The world only pays attention to Catholics when they stand distinct in the truth God proclaims. Yes, we all know that the world wants the Church to be just like it. We also know, however, that the world mocks the Church whenever she is faithful to what God has revealed to her, but as soon as the Church starts looking like the world, the world sees no reason anymore to listen to her.
There are many clerics who were ministering in the Catholic Church back in the late 60's and early 70's who genuinely thought that if the Church were just more worldly that it would finally find success (I believe they actually said they wanted the Church to be more "relevant", but we can see now that they abused that word and used it to cover up their sin). Sadly, some of them are still active today and are continuing to lead people astray. The simple test to their "experiment" is to ask what the result of their actions has been. Looking at the vast number of parishes that (mis)behaved this way, what is their status now? Those that are still following this path (and there are a few) have lost parishioners, have little commitment to the sacraments, have increased ignorance (or outright abandonment) of the faith, and are ready to close the doors. I doubt that is what they intended.
When parishes (and sometimes whole diocese's) spend a generation or two destroying any vestige of Catholicism in their people's hearts (and this has happened more often that we know; usually under the guise of "updating the Church"), we should not be surprised if the results are worldly immorality and complete confusion about what the Catholic faith actually is. There are many dioceses where the Bishop has chosen the road to restoration, and although they do not all look exactly alike, they are acknowledging that we must do something to get back on track (the Ordinariate that I am a member of, and the local diocese of Springfield/Cape Girardeau where I also serve, are two good examples--for which I thank God).
Therefore, if the world has decided it does not need to listen to the Church anymore--which is due mostly to those who chose the path of compromise--then the rest must do something to overcome this. We who want the Church to be brought back to her central place in society cannot merely sit back and wait until things "get better". When the righteous do nothing, the wicked will hold the center. We must stand out as faithful to our Catholic heritage and be a patient and faithful example of holy commitment. This means that priests and their parishes must stand fast in the faith; families must return to Catholic order and raise their children to be saints (leaving their career a distant second!); and everyone must show the world joy in Christ in spite of everything.
It is not merely a "voice at the table" that we are seeking. We are seeking to be able to testify to the glories of Christ. Husbands and fathers must be able to say no to a pay raise so that they can say yes to being with their families. Wives and mothers must be able to maintain their domestic duties and love their husbands and children. Children must grow up knowing that the most important thing in life is to love God and neighbor. Parishes must exemplify a healthy fear of God, both in their involvement with the community around as well as in the liturgy. When the world sees this (like it or hate it), they will know that we are different and that we are available when they discover they are lost and need to know how to live. That is what we call "evangelism".
There are many clerics who were ministering in the Catholic Church back in the late 60's and early 70's who genuinely thought that if the Church were just more worldly that it would finally find success (I believe they actually said they wanted the Church to be more "relevant", but we can see now that they abused that word and used it to cover up their sin). Sadly, some of them are still active today and are continuing to lead people astray. The simple test to their "experiment" is to ask what the result of their actions has been. Looking at the vast number of parishes that (mis)behaved this way, what is their status now? Those that are still following this path (and there are a few) have lost parishioners, have little commitment to the sacraments, have increased ignorance (or outright abandonment) of the faith, and are ready to close the doors. I doubt that is what they intended.
When parishes (and sometimes whole diocese's) spend a generation or two destroying any vestige of Catholicism in their people's hearts (and this has happened more often that we know; usually under the guise of "updating the Church"), we should not be surprised if the results are worldly immorality and complete confusion about what the Catholic faith actually is. There are many dioceses where the Bishop has chosen the road to restoration, and although they do not all look exactly alike, they are acknowledging that we must do something to get back on track (the Ordinariate that I am a member of, and the local diocese of Springfield/Cape Girardeau where I also serve, are two good examples--for which I thank God).
Therefore, if the world has decided it does not need to listen to the Church anymore--which is due mostly to those who chose the path of compromise--then the rest must do something to overcome this. We who want the Church to be brought back to her central place in society cannot merely sit back and wait until things "get better". When the righteous do nothing, the wicked will hold the center. We must stand out as faithful to our Catholic heritage and be a patient and faithful example of holy commitment. This means that priests and their parishes must stand fast in the faith; families must return to Catholic order and raise their children to be saints (leaving their career a distant second!); and everyone must show the world joy in Christ in spite of everything.
It is not merely a "voice at the table" that we are seeking. We are seeking to be able to testify to the glories of Christ. Husbands and fathers must be able to say no to a pay raise so that they can say yes to being with their families. Wives and mothers must be able to maintain their domestic duties and love their husbands and children. Children must grow up knowing that the most important thing in life is to love God and neighbor. Parishes must exemplify a healthy fear of God, both in their involvement with the community around as well as in the liturgy. When the world sees this (like it or hate it), they will know that we are different and that we are available when they discover they are lost and need to know how to live. That is what we call "evangelism".
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Solipsists Society of America
I once tried to start a new support group for solipsists, but found that no one would show up. If you do not know what solipsists are, then that will not be the slightest bit comical. If, however, you happen to know that solipsists are those who do not believe that anyone else in the world exists except themselves, then you should be able to see the problems behind starting a "solipsists support group". Maybe I should have tried to start a club and call it the "Solipsists Society of America" (?).
Although I have never met someone who claimed to be a solipsist (nor, I suppose, would they say that they have met me either!), it appears that a large percentage of American society lives like practical solipsists. "I am the only person in this universe and I do not care about anyone else" seems to be the rallying cry of many people today. There are many ways that this shows its ugly head, but the most noticeable is a general behavior that we would politely call "inconsiderate". The basic principle of being inconsiderate toward others is the same as that present in solipsism. When we fail to consider others in just one instance, we are essentially behaving like a solipsist ("I am the only one here").
It does not take a genius to pause and ask yourself how the things that you are doing will impact other people. Now, of course, I will admit that there are times when we do things that are inconsiderate toward others that are very difficult to foresee, but those are few and far between. In general we can ask ourselves the golden rule: do I want others to treat me this way? That really is the heart of the matter, is it not? Considering how our actions effect others seems to be a forgotten art. In fact, while admitting that children are not born being considerate towards others, the majority of children today are not only disrespectful towards others, they are inconsiderate in ways and degrees that are unknown for much of history.
I have already referred to the impact that the public schools have on children today. This problem of people being selfishly inconsiderate has caused me to wonder if "solipsism" is a required class in public schools today. It is certainly an underlying principle in the curriculum! I know parents who (for one reason or another) have their children in the public schools and are completely exasperated because the children behave as though there is no authority over them in the entire world, and that they are the only being who matters (i.e. solipsism). It is sad to have to admit it, but this is what we have degenerated into.
With this problem being so widespread, it behooves us (yes, I said "behooves") to stand out all the more. Going back to the basics (which I have said many times) we all (especially children!) need to learn that "there is a God, and you are not Him". Do not miss the fact that the problem of being inconsiderate towards other people is only a consequence of the bigger problem. The larger issue at hand is being inconsiderate toward God (which, by the way, when it is done in the Mass, it is a horrendous sin). When people behave as "practical-atheists" it is only a small step to becoming "practical-solipsists". Their fate will be remarkably in accord with their behavior: eternal separation from God, and an agonizing loneliness that can never be overcome.
Let us each do some serious self-examination, and parents ought to think about this issue with each of their children as well. The very root and heart of our faith is the greatest commandments, to love God and neighbor. Solipsists love no one but self, and only those things that please self. As Christmas approaches, we will be thinking more and more about the birth of Christ; that event where God the Father gave His Son to us for our salvation. This is that event where He Who did not need us at all, thought about us more than we have ever thought about Him, and started the process that led to the ultimate sacrifice for our good. Will we continue to live focused entirely on self, or will we recognize that we are God's creatures, made to love Him and others?
Although I have never met someone who claimed to be a solipsist (nor, I suppose, would they say that they have met me either!), it appears that a large percentage of American society lives like practical solipsists. "I am the only person in this universe and I do not care about anyone else" seems to be the rallying cry of many people today. There are many ways that this shows its ugly head, but the most noticeable is a general behavior that we would politely call "inconsiderate". The basic principle of being inconsiderate toward others is the same as that present in solipsism. When we fail to consider others in just one instance, we are essentially behaving like a solipsist ("I am the only one here").
It does not take a genius to pause and ask yourself how the things that you are doing will impact other people. Now, of course, I will admit that there are times when we do things that are inconsiderate toward others that are very difficult to foresee, but those are few and far between. In general we can ask ourselves the golden rule: do I want others to treat me this way? That really is the heart of the matter, is it not? Considering how our actions effect others seems to be a forgotten art. In fact, while admitting that children are not born being considerate towards others, the majority of children today are not only disrespectful towards others, they are inconsiderate in ways and degrees that are unknown for much of history.
I have already referred to the impact that the public schools have on children today. This problem of people being selfishly inconsiderate has caused me to wonder if "solipsism" is a required class in public schools today. It is certainly an underlying principle in the curriculum! I know parents who (for one reason or another) have their children in the public schools and are completely exasperated because the children behave as though there is no authority over them in the entire world, and that they are the only being who matters (i.e. solipsism). It is sad to have to admit it, but this is what we have degenerated into.
With this problem being so widespread, it behooves us (yes, I said "behooves") to stand out all the more. Going back to the basics (which I have said many times) we all (especially children!) need to learn that "there is a God, and you are not Him". Do not miss the fact that the problem of being inconsiderate towards other people is only a consequence of the bigger problem. The larger issue at hand is being inconsiderate toward God (which, by the way, when it is done in the Mass, it is a horrendous sin). When people behave as "practical-atheists" it is only a small step to becoming "practical-solipsists". Their fate will be remarkably in accord with their behavior: eternal separation from God, and an agonizing loneliness that can never be overcome.
Let us each do some serious self-examination, and parents ought to think about this issue with each of their children as well. The very root and heart of our faith is the greatest commandments, to love God and neighbor. Solipsists love no one but self, and only those things that please self. As Christmas approaches, we will be thinking more and more about the birth of Christ; that event where God the Father gave His Son to us for our salvation. This is that event where He Who did not need us at all, thought about us more than we have ever thought about Him, and started the process that led to the ultimate sacrifice for our good. Will we continue to live focused entirely on self, or will we recognize that we are God's creatures, made to love Him and others?
Friday, December 14, 2018
The Naïveté of Vatican II?
There are probably many people who still believe that technological progress is always for our good, but they are a dying breed. More and more these days people are beginning to see the serious problems that exist in modern technology. I have even read a few stories about high level executives and various employees of major "tech" companies (Facebook, Microsoft, etc.) quitting their jobs once they realized the serious problems inherent in encouraging a societal addiction to technology. Some even came out and said that they forbid their children from owning a cell phone or surfing the internet.
I have been thinking for quite a while now that the "progress" of technology was going to come back around and bite us. Certainly there are some technological advances that we should give genuine and sincere thanks to God for. Many (definitely not all) advances in medical technology have enabled people to live longer and healthier lives. Some of the advances in communications are of great benefit -- no one should complain at being able to have a cell phone with them when they are out on the road and need to call 911 to report a bad car accident.
Although there are still many who are virtually worshipping technology as though it were our savior, the tide is beginning to turn. This is a good thing, and is helpful for us to get the pendulum to swing back so that we can gain a proper perspective on things. Interestingly, there are places in the documents of Vatican II that the council fathers expressed an almost idealistic perspective on "the progress of humanity" in the technological realm and other areas. Generally speaking, we would have to "read between the lines" in order to find even a hint that the "progress" might lead to problems (Humanae Vitae does not count as a document of Vatican II, but it does stand out as a wonderful example of a balanced perspective on medical "progress").
It has been mentioned in more than one place that some of the motivations for the calling of the second Vatican council is a bit suspect. No, I am not a "conspiracy theorist" (though there are a number of Catholic websites that fall into this category), but there were so many clergymen whose faith was compromised already by the late 50's and early 60's, and these very same men had a strong influence on the direction of Vatican II, that it is hard to believe that the "aggiornamento" was purely in accord with Catholic dogma.
Society was progressing, technology was progressing, so the Church should progress as well; that was the perspective of many back then. The question, of course, is progress toward what (you can progress toward a cliff)? It is often said that we just have not had enough time to get all the kinks worked out of what was intended by the second Vatican council, and once we do then everything will be fine. The problem with this is that some of the statements are so vague in the actual documents that is hard to determine just what they mean, and it causes vast disagreements (apparently Edward Schillebeeckx even said that this was intentional!). Although I completely agree with Benedict XVI that we should only interpret Vatican II with a hermeneutic of "continuity", others disagree because they see the aggiornamento differently (and the language of the documents allows this).
Therefore, let me say this: Vatican II happened and we cannot change the past. We are supposed to interpret it in complete continuity with official Catholic dogma. Yet, we can also say that there was a degree of naïveté going on and that some of the "allowances" that occurred afterward have led to various and sundry problems for the Church. Was it a good idea to call the council? I am not about to go there; I do not (and cannot possibly) have enough information to answer that. Yet, I can say that we are going to be dealing with the "ripples in the water" that occurred as a result of the council (and especially those who wanted to use it to corrupt the Church). Is it really "here to stay" (as Pope Francis apparently said a while back)? I will say this much; I know God will use everything for our good if we love Him, so let us seek to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" and do our utmost to glorify God in all things.
I have been thinking for quite a while now that the "progress" of technology was going to come back around and bite us. Certainly there are some technological advances that we should give genuine and sincere thanks to God for. Many (definitely not all) advances in medical technology have enabled people to live longer and healthier lives. Some of the advances in communications are of great benefit -- no one should complain at being able to have a cell phone with them when they are out on the road and need to call 911 to report a bad car accident.
Although there are still many who are virtually worshipping technology as though it were our savior, the tide is beginning to turn. This is a good thing, and is helpful for us to get the pendulum to swing back so that we can gain a proper perspective on things. Interestingly, there are places in the documents of Vatican II that the council fathers expressed an almost idealistic perspective on "the progress of humanity" in the technological realm and other areas. Generally speaking, we would have to "read between the lines" in order to find even a hint that the "progress" might lead to problems (Humanae Vitae does not count as a document of Vatican II, but it does stand out as a wonderful example of a balanced perspective on medical "progress").
It has been mentioned in more than one place that some of the motivations for the calling of the second Vatican council is a bit suspect. No, I am not a "conspiracy theorist" (though there are a number of Catholic websites that fall into this category), but there were so many clergymen whose faith was compromised already by the late 50's and early 60's, and these very same men had a strong influence on the direction of Vatican II, that it is hard to believe that the "aggiornamento" was purely in accord with Catholic dogma.
Society was progressing, technology was progressing, so the Church should progress as well; that was the perspective of many back then. The question, of course, is progress toward what (you can progress toward a cliff)? It is often said that we just have not had enough time to get all the kinks worked out of what was intended by the second Vatican council, and once we do then everything will be fine. The problem with this is that some of the statements are so vague in the actual documents that is hard to determine just what they mean, and it causes vast disagreements (apparently Edward Schillebeeckx even said that this was intentional!). Although I completely agree with Benedict XVI that we should only interpret Vatican II with a hermeneutic of "continuity", others disagree because they see the aggiornamento differently (and the language of the documents allows this).
Therefore, let me say this: Vatican II happened and we cannot change the past. We are supposed to interpret it in complete continuity with official Catholic dogma. Yet, we can also say that there was a degree of naïveté going on and that some of the "allowances" that occurred afterward have led to various and sundry problems for the Church. Was it a good idea to call the council? I am not about to go there; I do not (and cannot possibly) have enough information to answer that. Yet, I can say that we are going to be dealing with the "ripples in the water" that occurred as a result of the council (and especially those who wanted to use it to corrupt the Church). Is it really "here to stay" (as Pope Francis apparently said a while back)? I will say this much; I know God will use everything for our good if we love Him, so let us seek to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" and do our utmost to glorify God in all things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)