Call me a big ol' meany, but ...

I read the following Scripture passage from 2 Thessalonians from today's Divine Office:

Do not let anyone have any food if he refuses to do any work. Now we hear that there are some of you who are living in idleness, doing no work themselves but interfering with everyone else’s. In the Lord Jesus Christ, we order and call on people of this kind to go on quietly working and earning the food that they eat. My brothers, never grow tired of doing what is right.

My question is this: If Scripture is divinely inspired and thus true and free from error, then why have so many in the Catholic justice field worked for the exact opposite? I know there are some who can't work, and there are widows and orphans, the working poor, and the like, but what of those who won't work, for whom social assistance has become social dependence?

Indeed, the high tax rates needed to support such assistance have become confiscatory. With how many women have I spoken who would gladly give up their jobs in favor of the homes were they not needed to simply support their families? In 1948, the average federal tax rate for a family of four was $0.02 per dollar. Look at your stub now and see the federal income tax. Does it even come close to two cents?

Think of what that extra income would do for families. Mothers could stay home. Families could save. They could more easily afford major purchases like when the dryer goes on the blink and they need a new one. Or when the car broke down, it wouldn't thus be a need to have recourse to the almighty credit card.

When, however, did you hear Sr. Pat of the Greater Tri-County Area Committee on Social Justice or Tim Anonymous from the USCCB or state bishops conference make such an argument. You haven't, you won't today, and you probably never will. These people all still belong to the Democrat Party at Prayer and the Society of Our Lady of the Great Society, and such thinking is anathema to them.

Meanwhile, schlubs like me toil and think, "Man, I am never going to get ahead," for after the tax man cometh, there ain't much left. Praise God we're getting by. But do the people supposedly dedicated to a more just society have to actively work to make that fact less likely? Where's the justice in that?

Hip hip hooray! Good news just learned on this Feast of Corpus Christi

Until the bishops made standing as the norm, I used to kneel to receive Communion. This was never a problem anywhere. I didn't have a priest come charging up to me after Mass, screaming, "Don't you know it's just a SYMBOL?!?!?!" He may as well have called that person "Raca."

However, after a while, since I preached fidelity to bishops, I figured I ought to practice it, so I began standing to receive and offering up the suppression of my inclinations, beliefs (this is, after all, GOD Whom we are receiving), and instincts as a penance.

Now I read this from Fr. Zuhlsdorf (if you don't read him, please start. He is the  best).

What Does GIRM 160 for the USA Really Say?

Posted on 24 June 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

When the new English translation of the Roman Missal is released, it will sport a new translation of the GIRM, the General Institution/Instruction of the Roman Missal.
There are, of course, adaptations for the USA and other Anglophone regions.
As it happens, the Congregation for Divine Worship has … tweaked some items.  I am sure this was to harmonize the language of the GIRM with the language of the rest of the Roman Missal.  However, tweaks may have been tweaked for other reasons. 

For example, take a look at GIRM 160 for the USA.  The Latin is found on the USCCB website. 

LATIN:
… Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit. Cum autem stantes communicant, commendatur ut debitam reverentiam, ab iisdem normis statuendam, ante susceptionem Sacramenti faciant.

OLDER USA ADAPTATION VERSION:
… The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

NEWER USA ADAPTATION VERSION:
… The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling [emphasis Look in the Mirror] (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).

The rest of GIRM 160 remains as it was.

There is no mention of addressing the instances “pastorally” or giving “properly catechizing” people who kneel to receive their GOD.

In other words, when people kneel to receive Almighty GOD, priests and other ministers are to give Communion to the person and keep their mouths shut.

This is good news. Hip hip hooray, Te Deum, Deo gratias, and all that.

Apres le deluge in New York following last's night SSM vote

Well, it’s happened. When I worked in the California Legislature, I could see it was bound to. Now all it will take is US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy siding with the Court’s liberals for it to become like Roe v. Wade, a perpetual battle royale. And I bet he will indeed side with the liberals.

In the past, I have staunchly agreed with the argument that our reasons for supporting traditional marriage had to be secular or at least non-sectarian. Given that we live in a post-Christian world where few care about the Bible or the Catechism or Church authority, this seemed to make the most sense.

I still think there is merit to that argument. However, I now also believe we have done ourselves a disservice by restating the classical – and I mean “classical” – arguments, arguments from antiquity against homosexuality, for that is the root, isn’t it? After all, if there is nothing wrong with homosexual genital acts and by extension contraception (which renders the normal sex act homosexual by its virtue of making it fruitless), then what could possibly be wrong with same sex unions (SSUs)? In that event, opposition to SSUs is truly bigotry.

As former Democrat politician David Carlin recently wrote:

“If, on the other hand, we argue that homosexual behavior is unnatural, we are arguing from ancient philosophical premises derived from Aristotle and Stoicism. According to Aristotle, those tendencies are natural that are common to all, or almost all, members of a species; if some individual members of a species deviate from these tendencies, these deviations are considered unnatural. According to Stoicism, nature is a manifestation of God; the study of nature, therefore, will uncover the will of God. Combine those philosophies, and homosexual behavior is seen as unnatural and contrary to the will of God.”

Here is what the bishops said in a statement after the vote:

The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled.

We strongly uphold the Catholic Church’s clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves. This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths.

We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization.

Our society must regain what it appears to have lost – a true understanding of the meaning and the place of marriage, as revealed by God, grounded in nature, and respected by America’s foundational principles.

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn was just a tad more forceful:

Today, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have deconstructed the single most important institution in human history. Republicans and Democrats alike succumbed to powerful political elites and have passed legislation that will undermine our families and as a consequence, our society.

With this vote, Governor Cuomo has opened a new front in the culture wars that are tearing at the fabric of our nation....

In light of these disturbing developments and in protest for this decision, I have asked all Catholic schools to refuse any distinction or honors bestowed upon them this year by the governor or any member of the legislature who voted to support this legislation. Furthermore, I have asked all pastors and principals to not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration.

The above request is intended as a protest of the corrupt political process in New York State. More than half of all New Yorkers oppose this legislation. Yet, the governor and the state legislature have demonized people of faith, whether they be Muslims, Jews, or Christians, and identified them as bigots and prejudiced, and voted in favor of same-sex “marriage.” It is mystifying that this bill would be passed on the last day of an extended session under the cover of darkness.

This issue has been framed as upholding marriage equality. This is not the case since one of the principal purposes of marriage is to bring new life into the world. This cannot happen in same-sex marriage. It is not a civil rights issue, but rather a human rights issue upholding the age-old understanding of marriage. Our political leaders do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did, how in good conscience could they carve out any exemption for institutions that would be proponents of bigotry and prejudice?

Republicans and Democrats equally share responsibility for this ruinous legislation and we as Catholics should hold all accountable for their actions.

Of course, this is only the most recent effort of a society increasingly in enthralled by its own hubris and even more intolerant, embarrassed by, and contemptuous of its Christian foundations and roots. As proof, we can look to how left-wing groups have petitioned President Obama to “rescind an amendment to an Executive Order that allows faith-based programs to limit hiring to people of their own faith.”

The great Archbishop Charles Chaput echoes the Catholic League (or is it vice versa?) when he recently said, “And if the state refuses to allow those Catholic ministries to be faithful in their services through legal or financial bullying, then as a matter of integrity, they should end their services.”

When Catholic University of America recently announced it would begin to segregate sexes by gender—not as a means of denying rights to students but to encourage virtue and thus promote the school’s mission—a local lawyer filed a gender discrimination suit.

So what have same-sex unions wrought where allowed?

·         In Massachusetts, it has led to indoctrination in schools (to whit, a December 2003 school assembly was held “to celebrate same-sex ‘marriage’ [and] how it is now a normal part of society.” See the previous link for more examples.).

·         It has led to an increase of HIV/AIDS cases and an increase in an already bloated state budget to deal with the burgeoning health problem. Spending on domestic violence issues (known to be much higher in homosexual couples than normal relationships) has gone up by $250,000. It has led to increased costs for businesses, who are now required to provide health insurance benefits to employees in such unions, even those with HIV/AIDS.

·         It has led to the erosion of the ability of Christians to maintain their morality in their businesses. As such, a Christian bed-and-breakfast owner must allow a couple they do not consider married to sleep and copulate under their roof. A Christian wedding photographer cannot refuse to take photos at these sham weddings. The list is endless. And it often leads to frivolous lawsuits against businesses whom homosexual activists target to see how well they are complying with the new regime of laws. Catholic Charities no longer participates in the adoption process in the state because it refuses to compromise its principles and beliefs by allowing same sex couples to adopt. Justices of the Peace cannot abide by their conscience and refuse to marry same sex couples without losing their jobs.

This is what’s coming to all of America now that the card of New York has fallen and the card of California is likely to do so, as well.

It is also proof positive that the American Catholic Church—progressively emasculated by gender politics, moral relativism, and the priestly ephebophilia scandals—holds absolutely no sway over the majority of her professed adherents. After all, two of the deciding votes were from “Catholic” Republicans who both made it very clear that Church teaching meant nothing to them.

And really, once the Vatican forced Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle to rescind his censure of Fr. Charles Curran and the other theologians who protested Humanae Vitae—indeed, once the Vatican allowed the encyclical to be treated by the entire Canadian bishops conference and the American theological elite as a dead letter—the game was over. Dissent was allowed to rule the day, the Spirit of Vatican II became supreme, and all that was once thought to be wholly Catholic, including obedience to one’s bishop, washed away with the tide. Were it not for a handful of faithful theologians, bishops, and the pontificates of Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the Catholic Church itself would be a dead letter today. It would be a prettier version of the Anglican Church. Truly, “the gates of death” have not prevailed.

We cannot compromise with this legislation. We cannot retreat from that which has always been true about marriage and will always be true. We must stand firm in our convictions and still loudly proclaim our principles.

That, however, my friends, will come at a cost. You and I are now the enemy. Twenty years ago, such a development would have seemed preposterous. Today, it has happened because it has become amongst our leaders and too many of our citizens the common wisdom. So because of this, we become the bigots, we become the scourge of society. We are beneath contempt and seen as no different than neo-Nazis hiding in the darkness of the wooded Pacific Northwest. This is the beginning of the very end for the respectability of Christianity. Absent a huge grace from God—and with God, all things are possible—should I live to the normal age people in my family attain, thoughts such as those expressed on this blog will put me in jail or before a judge in a civil suit.

This is quite possibly one of the saddest days of my life, but I have no doubt it will be followed by many more of a similar hue.

And on that cheery note, what do you think? Agree? Disagree?

Humility and meekness in the face of recent news stories

Given certain recent news stories, I want to talk about four saints, all of whom are either very well known or whose names we at least recognize, so I’m not going to go into their stories so much. Instead, I want to focus on one common thing in their lives and how they dealt with that, namely persecution.

Now think about it. When someone persecutes us or falsely accuses us, there is nothing that gets our dander up more than that, is there? For instance, a spouse accuses another spouse of doing XYZ or being disingenuous. Or the boss passes us over for an opportunity we know should be ours, but instead it goes to a coworker we deem less worthy. You know, during the OJ Simpson case, as convincing as the prosecution’s argument was, I remember thinking, ‘What if? What if he really didn’t do this horrible, heinous crime, and he really is innocent?’ I think of a priest in a New Hampshire prison who both Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and Avery Cardinal Dulles both thought was innocent. Because he maintains he’s innocent and refuses to plea bargain, the judge locked him away for 30 years.

So life offers us many opportunities in all shapes and sizes to experience both persecution and unjust accusations. Again, though, how do we deal with that?

For one answer, indeed for the context of all of this, let’s start with Our Lord, and what we see when He is crowned with thorns.

Here He is, being punched, spat upon, having a crown of thorns beat into His head, causing His precious Blood to flow down onto His parched lips. The soldiers mock Him and taunt Him.

Now if that were me, I’d scream in rage at them, “Who are you miserable, cretinous creatures to treat me like this?! I am your CREATOR! I created you! You would not exist other than my divine will! HOW DARE YOU!!!”

But what does Our Lord say, instead?

Nothing.

He says not a word. When He does speak about them, it is only to say, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Following this example, consider St. John of the Cross, the seventeenth century Spanish Carmelite. You want to talk about being persecuted. This guy, all he wanted to do was reform his order, to bring it back to its original charism of poverty. Because of this, his order not only cruelly mistreated him, but they locked him away for years in a dark cell. He didn’t lash out. He didn’t complain. Instead, he used this period to write one of the most powerful spiritual works of all time, Dark Night of the Soul. We’re still reading that book born of pain today.

Then there was St. Gerard Majella. It’s peculiar that this eighteenth century male religious is the patron saint of those who are pregnant, right? I mean, he’s a man and was never pregnant, therefore, so why him?

Well, it’s because some very obviously pregnant woman came to his convent one day and accused him of being the father. And you know what he said when they brought the accusation before him? Nothing. Not a word. He refused to defend himself. Absolutely refused. His superiors couldn’t believe the charge. Yes, he was handsome and virile, but he was also dedicated to his vocation and extremely pious. Because he would not defend himself, however, they suspended him from all pastoral activity within the convent and told him to stay away from the Communion rail for months.

The woman later admitted she had lied. When his superior St. Alphonsus Ligouri asked him, “Why didn’t you defend yourself?” he replied that silence was what he thought was necessary and required in situations where there were unjust accusations.

St. Dominic Savio was once falsely accused of committing a practical joke. “Why did you do this?” he was angrily asked by his teacher. He refused to defend himself, knowing full well he was innocent. And in time, his teacher learned the truth of the matter. Like St. Alphonsus with St. Gerard, the teacher asked why he hadn’t defended himself against these unjust accusations. St. Gerard simply said, “I thought of our Lord when He was unjustly accused. He didn’t say a word either.”

Finally, there is Padre Pio. In the book, I recount the following about him:

At one point, St. Pio was ordered to stop the public celebration of the sacraments. These commands came from his archbishop, who, unlike Padre Pio, was no one’s idea of a saint, and yet he obeyed.[i]

Under Archbishop Gagliardi’s censure, Padre Pio “was stripped of all priestly faculties except celebration of Mass in his friary’s inner chapel…[ii]

Padre Agostino Daniele, Pio’s best friend and confessor for more than fifty years, charged that Gagliardi waged “a veritable satanic war” against Padre Pio, soliciting letters with “accusations, exaggerations, and calumnies” to forward to the Vatican – while it was the archbishop himself who was the center of controversy.

So bad was the situation that a number of priests in the archdiocese petitioned Pope Pius XI to end what they saw as “disorder,” “immorality,” and “clerical degeneracy.”

This was not the case, however, with Padre Pio. He never retaliated against the archbishop, nor even criticized him. In fact the angriest the famous mystical priest was seen to get was with a supporter – a Pio defender – who had attacked the archbishop. Although shattered, Pio was said to have submitted to the bishop’s attacks with what Father Agostino recalled as “holy resignation.”

“God’s will be done,” Pio, a Capuchin monk, is quoted as saying. “The will of the authorities is the will of God.”[iii]

            It was not only the questionable archbishop who restricted the scope of his priesthood but also the Holy Office. This happened in 1922, and he was ordered not to bless crowds or display his stigmata. He could not even discuss them. Correspondence was severely restricted, and authorities forbade him from seeing his spiritual director. When someone expressed disgust over Rome’s restrictions, St. Pio replied, “You did a wicked thing… We must respect the decrees of the Church. We must be silent and suffer.”

In her piece on recent news, Secular Carmelite Diane Korzeniewski quotes the Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, SJ on humility and obedience in such instances:

Several times in this post I have used the word, “docility”.  What does this mean in the spiritual life? Let’s look at what Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ has to say.  Yesterday, June 18, marked not only the day of his birth, but of his priestly ordination.  He remarks in an article on virtues concerning “Childlikeness“ about docility thus:

It means therefore to be willing to learn from God and here’s the hard one: the willingness to learn from God not of course as though God will, though of course He might, send us His own divine angelic messenger, normally not. Normally God teaches us through the circumstances of our daily lives. Especially those most painful circumstances called other people. That’s where we tend to be less than docile. Openness then to God’s teaching us especially through all whom He places into our lives. It is great, great wisdom to be so disposed as to be ready to learn from and I mean it, everyone from the youngest child to the oldest speaking to religious golden or diamond jubilarian.

She then asks:

Does this mean we ought never defend ourselves? See the answer below as St. Francis de Sales quotes St. Gregory on this point.

“When any evil befalls you, apply the remedies that may be in your power, agreeably to the will of God; for to act otherwise would be to tempt divine Providence Having done this, wait with resignation for the success it may please God to send; and, should the remedies overcome the evil, return Him thanks with humility, but if, on the contrary, the evils overcome the remedies, bless Him with patience.”

The following advice of St. Gregory is useful: whenever you are ‘justly accused’ of a fault, humble yourself, and candidly confess that you deserve more than the accusation which is brought against you; but, if the charge be false, excuse yourself meekly, denying your guilt, for you owe this respect to truth, and to the edification of your neighbor. But if, after your true and lawful excuse, they should continue to accuse you, trouble not yourself nor strive to have your excuse admitted; for, having discharged your duty to truth, you must also do the same to humility, by which means you neither offend against the care you ought to have of your reputation, nor the love you owe to peace, meekness of heart, and humility.

Humanly speaking, all of this is impossible. It is tough to bite our tongues. I see it when my children feel I’ve unjustly accused them. I absolutely experience this when my wife accuses me of doing something I haven’t or of having reasons for doing something that were never mine.

So it is agonizingly difficult. Still, Our Lord tells us, “Be perfect as Your Father in heaven is perfect.” Since the Father and Son are indivisible, it follows that one way to perfect ourselves in this way is to imitate the Son, as these saints did. This can only happen through much prayer and recourse to the graces found in the sacraments.

In today’s world, we cannot expect this to be a popular option, now, can we? Yet since we are Christians and because we should know better, we should endeavor to make this our most popular option. In doing so, we would help create a more perfect world less focused on self and more focused on God, and that would be good for everyone.

Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like unto Thine. Amen.

---

[i] Padre Pio: The True Story, Bernard Ruffin, http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/20020522.html

[ii] ibid.

[iii] ibid.

Movie review x2: Confessions of a Shopaholic and City Lights

On such a momentous day, it seems frivolous to start off with this, a movie review. Nonetheless, I was taken with both films I saw this week and wanted to share them.

I'll start with the first I saw, Charlie Chaplin's City Lights. Many of us know of Chaplin and his movies. Until recently, he'd been a household name for about a century. Few of us actually know his work first hand, however, except for the rather becoming biopic ca. 1992, where Robert Downey, Jr. played the title character.

However, in an effort to a) build up my children's cultural literacy (not to mention my own, ahem) and b) provide them with decent films to watch, I've begun taking films from Chaplin's oeuvre via Netflix.

City Lights is a very engaging film. The story concerns a tramp (i.e., homeless vagabond) who sees a beautiful blind girl who sells flowers on the street. She is not only blind but impoverished. Through a series of encounters, she comes to believe Chaplin's character is a rich benefactor and suitor. What follows is much brilliant slapstick, visual foibles (after all, it is a silent film), and touching pathos, although the movie is never maudlin and only rarely manipulative. I liked the ending particularly, because a) it left you wondering and b) it wasn't what most Hollywood films would do today, which would be to go for the easy, sentimental conclusion.

I especially liked the underlying moral. Blind flower girl (she's not given a name; nor is he) is beguiled by her belief that someone of wealth is paying attention to little ol' her. She likes his kindness, yes, and his personality and the things he does for her. But especially given the film's last scene, one gets the sense that she is especially taken -- through pride? insecurity (which is, after all, born of pride)? -- by his imagined wealth, whatever the personal charms with which this man has treated her.

On the other hand, the Little Tramp is motivated by nothing but chaste, chivalric love, the type written about so movingly in the Middle Ages. He is struck by her beauty, her gentleness, her innocence and kindness, her humility, and so many other wonderful qualities. His love for her is truly pure. And because the definition of love is not "It's a powerful feeling we have in our hearts for another person" but rather, "Constantly seeking the good of the other, even at the cost of the good to ourselves," it is a true love. Chaplin's portrayal here is an icon of love properly defined. It is, frankly, a love we see less and less the more and more we become convinced that love is a feeling, and if the feeling dies, well, c'est la vie, so has love. Indeed, it has died by definition, then, hasn't it? So we need more of the sort of portrayal we see in City Lights, and thank God He let Charlie Chaplin leave us a template in this regard.

Bottom line: Good, entertaining, film with a worthy moral. Worth watching before you get Modern Times.

The second film was one that totally surprised me. I often base my rentals of current films on the A-F scores given by Entertainment Weekly. However, while its reviewers are highly intelligent, it is evident we come from two different worldviews. As such, I've ordered films recommended by them as "A" quality that I turned off after 15 minutes or so because they were so atrocious in their world view.

I'm happy to report, however, that Confessions of a Shopaholic lives up to its billing. It's a wonderful film on many levels. The only things I found objectionable were the (admittedly infrequent) abuses of the Holy Name of God and the several scenes showing the lead character's best friend in bed with her boyfriend/fiance. The characters were fully clothed and you never saw anything indecent. Still, why couldn't we have seen them on the couch or at the table or in chairs? Since the characters were simply talking, why this? It seems to back up charges of liberal social engineering.

The story concerns Rebekah (sp?), who is a shopaholic. In an effort to pay off her ever mounting credit card bills (she tallies them to $13,000 at one point) and advance her career ambitions, she takes a job as a writer at a struggling New York financial magazine that has the reputation of "the People magazine of the finance industry." Her handsome editor gives her a shot and helps motivate her to produce something new and fresh, and she becomes something of a hit. However, her past catches up with her, and I'll leave it to you to see how everything washes out in the end.

I liked this movie because it is funny, engaging, and filled wall-to-wall with the incredible vivaciousness of Isla Fisher, who resembles a modern-day Lucille Ball, and not just because of her fetching looks and bright red hair. This movie has an All-Star cast: John Goodman, Joan Cusack, Ed Helms, Fred Armistad, John Lithgow, and Kristin Scott Thomas. However, none of them fill the screen like Fisher. She is amazing.

I especially like the moral of the story: Things can't make you happy, and our use of them to make us happy begins and ends with their purchase. It's like Rebekah says, buying things gives us a warm glow and makes us feel all is right in the world. Anyone knows this who has struggled financially and then gotten enough of a breather to buy something the heart desires.

That, incidentally, is why some studies show the American poor remain poor. When they gain a windfall, instead of having the ability to deny themselves (and, let's face it, their life is often nothing but denial in all its forms), they spend it by treating themselves. It's totally natural and understandable, but it's also fruitless. But I digress ...

Rebekah begins to become happy when she takes the very difficult step of choosing relationships over things. We love our things. Our things make us feel good. Surrounding ourselves with them gives a sense of comfort and security (although that is mostly an illusion; who are we kidding?).

A thing can't love you back, however. And ultimately, God created us for relationship. Loving relationship with one another here on earth, relationships that imitate the free, faithful, total, and fruitful love we find in the Holy Trinity, and ultimately relationship with Him in heaven for our eternity: This our purpose and the last is our end.

Being chained to things -- to mere material things that will end up in someone's thrift shop, gathering rust, eaten by moths, and ultimately rotting in some landfill somewhere -- is slavery. Being yoked to another person is true liberation, for in it we are free to recognize and become our best selves as givers and not takers. Consumerism and materialism encourage selfishness and everything that serves self. Relationship encourages giving and sacrifice, and it is these things that make us truly, fully human and thus free.

What do you think?

Need your help -- if you can give it -- re: the Fr. Corapi situation

If -- and only if -- you have had personal relations/encounters with Fr. Corapi (and by personal, I mean actually know the man, have broken bread with him, conversed with him in an intimate setting and not just shaken his hand at a conference ... get the picture?), and you would like to offer any insights on him, then please contact me. I am writing a piece for a Catholic news magazine on his recent headline making news situation and I am looking for insights. ALSO, NO OFFENSE, BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT OR NEED ARE THE PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T FIT THE ABOVE BILL. After all, I can get those from the combox of any blog out there, right? I want to give the fairest most accurate assessment of the situation, and since he is evidently not giving interviews (and neither are the other intimates involved in this affair), I beg your assistance.

Explain for me, please, how this makes sense

I normally try to keep away from posting on matters purely political. The purpose of this blog, by and large, is to offer reflections on matters spiritual, and the hope is that others will find these helpful.

This, however, bugs me. More than that, it bewilders me. I can't make sense of it.

If I was relatively new to driving a car, and other, much more experienced drivers whose actual job it was to drive a car gave me suggestions on how to drive better, I would hope I'd listen to them. If I was a medical intern or resident, and a more experienced physician told me a procedure I was planning would do more harm than good, I would hope to high heaven I would pay heed.

How, then, is what the above article describes any different? The men prosecuting this war are experienced. They're tested and reliable, and they are there. They are at Ground Zero. They're not reading reports from the battlefield. They're seeing the casualties, seeing reasons for hope and optimism, seeing areas of concern, and basing their opinion on that. They are not sitting comfortably in an air conditioned office in downtown Washington, DC, making decisions based on what it seems are purely political calculations. Decisions, incidentally, by someone who has never put on a uniform. Someone who, despite kind words about what our men and women in uniform do, seems to have that distaste, disdain, and distrust of all things military.

We have lost over 1,500 men and women servicemen since entering Afghanistan in 2001. That is, indeed, tragic, especially for those left behind. We have spent a ton of money, enough to build many new roads and repair much of our crumbling infrastructure. But how many more lives will we lose, how much will we spend if we do not do the job right the first time?

OK, so he doesn't have military experience. Does not mere life teach him that doing a job right the second time is much more expensive than doing it right the first?

Heaven help us.