When will the madness end?

No, I'm not talking about “March Madness,” which ended yesterday (and congrats to the Wildcats of Kentucky).

Today on Facebook, I saw a link posted by someone with whom I'm linked as a friend. It was to a Commonweal blog about a situation in an Austrian parish. The parish had a council election. The parishioners made the biggest vote getter the youngest nominee, who happens to be a man living with his lover, another man.

According to the translator's note accompanying Rorate Coeli's post on this:

[C]andidates for parish councils in the Archdiocese of Vienna can be nominated by any Catholic before the election. The nominations are supposed to enclose a signed statement by the candidates in which they affirm that they fulfill the conditions for the office (including crucially the condition that they adhere to the faith and discipline of the Church - “sich zur Glaubenslehre und Ordnung der Kirche bekennen”). At the election voters mark as many names on the candidate list as there are places to be taken in the council; the candidates with the most votes are elected. In Stützenhofen [the parish in question] the candidates neglected to sign statements affirming that they fulfilled the conditions for election. [Note: This is what was later referred to by the relevant authorities as mere “electoral irregularities.”]

The pastor, Fr. Gerhard Swierzek, informed this gentleman that given his being a manifest public sinner, he could not take office. The decision was appealed to the cardinal archbishop of Vienna, His Eminence Christoph Schönborn. After meeting with the man in question and his partner, he and the bishops' council for the archdiocese met and overturned Fr. Swierzek's decision.

Now, I join others and do not, will not hesitate for one second -- not even a fraction thereof -- to laud the fact that the Cardinal took the time to meet with these people and not simply judge them based on their self-identified status. After all, as St. Augustine taught, right? We're to “hate the sin, love the sinner.” In that order. That doesn't mean, however, that loving the sinner means ignoring the sin.

Why is it then, that there was no mention of the sin and that this is a very public sin, and that Cardinal Schönborn grossly failed in his duties as a teacher in this respect?

This gentleman is openly living in contradiction to the Church's teachings. His Eminence--the editor of the Catechism who should know better--met “with both the man and his partner,” and still overturned the pastor's decision.

First, a passing, possibly snide comment: Were it, say, Cardinal Dolan who met with a cohabiting lesbian woman -- let's say she was a former religious, just to make it a really juicy news story -- whose pastor had upheld her overwhelming election to a council or board, and His Eminence had overturned the pastor's decision -- or if Cardinal Schoenborn had upheld the pastor's decision even after meeting with the person in question. We'd have a much different reaction here, wouldn't we? Or am I making too far of a judgment or assumption? If I am, please forgive me.

More importantly, however, there isn't even a question here. This man is living in public sin. That, absent every other consideration, disqualified him, and the cardinal should have upheld that.

This is not about homosexuality and what the Catechism teaches (and what the Church has always taught) about the objectively sinful nature of homogenital acts per se.

After all, sin is sin is sin is sin is sin. We are all sinners. If someone misbehaves in public, that is a manifest public sin. The difference is that people who do jerky things like this aren't expected to shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh, well. God made me this way. I'm under no obligation to change my behavior(s).” They're expected to get it together, go to confession, seek professional help if needed, do what they can to stay in a state of grace and grow in perfection, and become saints.

That hasn't happened here. This man and his partner aren't separating. There was no indication in the piece that they were living chastely with one another.

Indeed, I followed the links back, and here is what I found from the gentleman (scroll down to the bottom):

In an interview Herr Stangl said “I feel committed to the teachings of the Church. But the demand to live chastely seems kind of unrealistic to me (Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität). How many people really live chastely?”

It, therefore, begs the question:

• Would we let a heterosexual cohabitting couple or a partner thereto serve in this way?
• Would we let a divorced person who remarried without benefit of an annulment do so?
• Should we let a woman who has left her husband and the children she bore with him for another man or woman serve in a position of public trust in the Church, even though that person would give grave scandal?
• What about someone who disagreed that the Eucharist becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity after the consecration? Or on infant baptism, Mary's Assumption, the efficacy of the sacraments, etc.?
• What about any number of other public peccadilloes that aren't necessarily crimes but manifestly, completely, utterly opposed to Church teaching, which comes to us, as all the Church Fathers attest, “from the apostles”?

And from Whom did they get that? They did not get them from or by making up “man-made rules.” Rather, they got them from Christ, Christ Himself, Who gave them the Holy Spirit. And yet this violation of the gospel -- the good news that we don't have to be slaves to sin, that is doable, even when it seems “unrealistic”--we trumpet this as some great moment?

Does Matthew 16:16-20 or 18:18 mean nothing anymore? Is to read the text as it appears on the page only a foolish sop sold to gullible, unenlightened, non-theologians who don't understand the finer points of the historical critical method and the much bandied about “recent scholarship”?

No, not at all. As Bl. John XXIII teaches, the Church is Mater et Magistra. The popes are to be obeyed in their teaching(s). Therefore, with the Church, the 4th Commandment applies. When our views are discordant with hers, it is our views that more likely come up short, not the other way around.

Church teaching and canon law (neither of which did the Cardinal cite, I notice) are clear here, and yet, phhhfffffffft. Who cares? After all, “Let's feel committed to the teachings of the Church, but not actually do anything about them, because I judge them to be kind of unrealistic to me. After all, how many people really live them, especially when they're just so gol darned hard?”

Yeah, who cares about that whole road is wide, gate is narrow thing, right?

The issue here is Matthew 23:1-3. His Eminence has negated 2,000 years of magisterial teaching on the obligations of a pastor toward public sinners. Thus, he sits on the seat of Moses, following the traditions of men. Those under his pastoral care must obey him, but this is really shocking.

Again, I was delighted to know the Cardinal, may God bless him, took the time to talk with these people. However, I am deeply saddened and scandalized and a little depressed by the Catechism editor's treatment of Church teaching, never mind his ignoring what canon law says about those who are manifest public sinners.

I guess those teachings have become like those wax encased bones we see in churches in Rome and elsewhere: relics of the past. Well, if it's just a symbol (pace Flannery O'Connor), the hell with it.

Thankfully, the Pope doesn't take this approach, nor do all but a few and shrinking bishops in the world. Thus, things are getting better in this way. However, how long, O Lord? How long? And how many souls lost along the way?

Please pray for Fr. Swierzek.

Why serious conservative Catholics should reconsider voting for Ron Paul

First, I need to apologize for how weird the font is. I don't know what's caused this, and I don't know how to undo it. I hope you'll bear with me. Thanks, and God bless.
Some have asked me to list differences between Dr. Paul and Mr. Santorum and why I would argue Mr. Santorum is a better choice for Catholics who take their Catholicism in the public square with the utmost seriousness.

Abortion and funding for Planned Parenthood

First, let's tackle what some consider a really sticky point about Mr. Santorum, namely charges he voted for funding Planned Parenthood. He did not. Political consultants and their push button hit mailers and attack ads want you to think that, but don't believe the hype.

I worked in Congress for one year and in politics for 15. In Congress, unlike many states, you have what are called omnibus spending bills. Let's say there is something in this year's omnibus spending bill you want -- upgrading our fighter jets, defunding to some degree our international contraceptive efforts, funding you were able to secure for crisis preganancy centers, defunding of agricultural subsidies, whatever. In that same bill, there might be one or a dozen things you don't like: Funding for ACORN, funding for promoting global warming propaganda.

Or funding for Planned Parenthood.

You do not get to decide which aspects of the bill you liked or don't like. You have to vote on it, up or down, take it all or leave it all.

It's the same things with many procedural votes, votes that move a bill forward to its final defeat or final passage. Political consultants will use this to say, "Someone voted for funding Planned Parenthood 52,000 times!!!" Now instead of thinking this is a great guy, you're thinking, "What a fraud! What a phony!!!"

Between 1995 and 2006, the year he lost his Senate seat, he had a 0% rating from PP, and the same rating from NARAL between 1996 and '05. Between 1996 and 2004, he received100% ratings from National Right to Life. I couldn't find anything from NRL for his first years as a Congressman.

What about Dr. Paul?

He believes the Constitution makes abortion a state issue, yet he believes “being pro-life is necessary to defend liberty.” How does that make sense? So, let me get this straight: It's a state issue (i.e., it can be legal in Mississippi, but not Alabama), but “being pro-life is necessary to defend liberty.” So in the MS/AL example above, there would be no liberty in MS? Maybe my brain is too pea-brained but I don't see how this squares.

Furthermore, if he believes life begins at conception -- as Dr. Paul claimed on the Friday, March 30, 2012, on the Relevant Radio program, "A Closer Look" with Sheila Liaugminas -- how does it begin at conception in this, that, and the other state, but not states A, B, and C?

Nonetheless, according toProject Vote Smart, Dr. Paul consistently scores comparably well with Mr. Santorum by NRL's assessment. Except, well, he does and he doesn't. According to VoteSmart.org, Santorum never scored below 100% for NRL.

Dr. Paul, however, got a 95% in 1997-98, a 69% in 1999, a 78% in 1999-2000, an 81% in 2001-02, a 73% in 2003-04, a 56% in 2005-06, an 80% in 2007-08, and 100% only in 2009 and 2010.

However, he doesn't do too badly by PP and NARAL and their ilk. In 2010, for instance, Planned Parenthood gave him a 20% rating.

Here are some other ratings over the years:

1995-1998, PP - 11%, 1995-2003, PP - 20%, 1995-2004, National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association - 17%, 1997, NARAL, 3% (but by 1999, NARAL was giving him a 26%, and in 2001, it gave him a 35%).

The highest he ever scored with the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health association was his 63% rating in 2005-06. His highest NARAL score was 75% in 2005 (that was the same time NRL gave him a 56%). Besides the 1995-98 score, Planned Parenthood has never rated him above or below 20%.

Judging by the above, who is more pro-life?

Foreign policy

If you've listened to the debates, you've heard him say in effect that Muslims hate us and want to attack us because we keep going into their part of the world and won't stay out of their business. It's a paraphrase, but I don't think it's a bad or unjust/unfair one.

If you know anything about radical Islam, however, you know nothing could be further from an accurate assessment of the situation.

Osama bin Laden hated us because of our system, and because in the world view of his ilk, you're either in the world of Islam or the world of war. (See Robert Spencer's blog www.jihadwatch.orgfor more on all things that are problematically and radically Muslim.)

They don't hate us simply because of our beastly pop culture. They don't hate us just because we allow men and women to socialize and mix with one another even if they aren't a near relative or at least chaperoned by one.

Yes, they do hate us for these things, but they mostly hate us because they belong to the most virulent strain of Islam, that of Wahabbiism. Thus to them, we are infidels. It would be an insult to Allah were they to let the status quo remain. They blame us for their being so backward. They blame us for not having been a major force in the world since the 1600s.

They want to make us dhimmisand that we should live in dhimmitude, which effectively translates to just above 3rd class citizenship. They would also make us pay the jizya, a protection racket tax. They call Spain "Andalusia" because that is what it was called when they ruled it prior to 1492, and their intent is to take it back. Indeed, their greatest hope is to restore the caliphate and make it a global caliphate.

Either Ron Paul is ignorant of these things or he knows them and chooses to ignore them. I'll pray that it's the first. It's still problematic because it bespeaks a lack of intellectual curiousity about what really makes our enemies tick. Isn't that essential for a potential Commander in Chief, so he'll know from where the threats will come and understand the options at hand?

He also would close down our military bases in the world. Amongst those would be the ones on the Korean peninsula. That's scary. The North has been telling its people for over 60 years that it's only the US and Japanese imperialists that keep them from overrunning "south Chosun" (what they call South Korea) and extending their "socialist paradise" to all the Han (i.e., Korean people). Their military is technologically inferior (grossly so), but they have far greater manpower reserves, and they have a motivated fighting force that has been brought up since they spoke their first words to want to give their lives fighting for the "Dear" and "Great" and now "Supreme" leaders, the Kim dynasty.

Furthermore, they have developed nuclear warheads. In April, they will launch a "satellite" rocket. It is not a satellite rocket. It's real purpose is to see if they launch a missile that will reach the US. For if a missile can get into the atmosphere, it can reach various points in the continental US. Maybe even your point.

The North Koreans also have vast stores of biological and chemical agents. These are believed to be particularly effective, since they are tested on humans, particularly families with small children, the physically and mentally handicapped, and Christians. This is not propaganda: It's all been documented, including by me. See here and here.

Why is the North problematic and why do we need a presence there? South Korea is a huge trading partner with us. It has all of the Korean peninsula's best real estate in terms of agriculture and various mineral resources, by and large. It has technological and economic giants headquartered in Seoul, the capital.

North Korea has already shown a very ready willingness to export its nuclear, terrorist, and WMD know-how to Iran, Syria, possibly Pakistan, etc. And it has done this while being the poorest, most technologically backward industrialized, literate country in the world.

What do you think will happen if they get their hands on those resources down south?

Finally, there are the humanitarian considerations. I could easily make you throw up right now. All I would have to do is describe the atrocities reported by defectors about life not only for the average free citizen, but for those laboring as slaves in the death camps.

Again, the North Koreans have made it very clear that the only thing that has kept them from pouring over the border and taking over like they almost succeeded in doing back in 1950 is our very strong presence there.

I said "Finally." Actually, one more point on the North Koreans. They are friends with the Iranians. The Iranians are Shiites who hate the Sunni Wahabis, and vice versa. But both consider Western culture something to be defeated and dominated (and in the Middle East there is a saying: "My enemy's enemy is my friend."). Why do we think Iran wants the bomb?

Can you imagine the North Koreans having even greater resources with which to help make the dreams of the Wahabis and Iranian Shiites possible?

Rep. Paul is also fond of saying we have 900 military bases around the world. For him, a base is anything owned or used by the US armed forces.

Here are the actual numbers:

Afghanistan- 6 (hundreds of smaller outposts)
Bahrain- 2
Belgium- 2
Bulgaria- 4
Cuba- 1
Diego Garcia- 1
Djibouti- 1
El Salvador- 1
Germany- 21
Greece- 1
Greenland- 1
Guam- 3
Iraq- *formerly* 14 (hundreds of smaller outposts)
Italy- 7
Japan- 23
Kosovo- 1
Kuwait- 8
Kyrgyzstan- 1
Netherlands- 2
Oman- 1
Portugal- 1
Puerto Rico- 1
Qatar- 1
Saudi Arabia- 5
Seychelles- 1
Singapore- 1
South Korea- 15
Spain- 2
Turkey- 2
United Kingdom- 6
Yemen- 1

Final count: 137 overseas U.S. military installations 

Maybe many or even most should be closed. That's a different argument for a different time. But let's not inflate numbers to make our case seem more palpable.

Economics

Is Rick "conservative enough" when it comes to economics? Look at the following, and I would say he is.

For starters, an analysis came out recently that was crafted by the Heritage Alliance (not to be confused with the Heritage Foundation), a group that has worked on behalf of conservative causes since 1984. It shows Rick is the most conservative candidate running in our primary (WHICH IS THIS TOMORROW TUESDAY, APRIL 3, SO DON'T FORGET!!!)

Wisconsin Republican Primary for President of the United States:

Gingrich, Newt (R) Grade: B
Paul, Ron (R) Grade: C
Romney, Mitt (R) Grade: D
Santorum, Rick (R) Grade: B+

Here are Santorum's lifetime averages as in Congress:

American Conservative Union — 88% (for his last year in Congress, it was 96%)
Americans for Tax Reform — 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%
League of Private Property Voters — 94%

I don't doubt Rep. Paul would score similarly. However, there's one problem: He's a libertarian. Some may remember how his first run for President was as the Libertarian party's nominee in 1988. The Liber in Libertarian has the same root as liberal. So what?
The Church has repeatedly -- since Leo XIII -- condemned libertarianism, which is what it calls "liberalism." Go to papalencyclicals.net and see Rerum Novarum, Quadrigesimo Anno, Octogesima Adveniens, and Centisimus Annus (by Bl. John Paul), not to mention B16's Caritatis in Veritate.

Although it's longer than the others, I think the one that would find the greatest acceptance by most economic conservatives in the US would be Centisimus Annus. At first glance, we may not like the Church's fundamental principles when it comes to the economy or whatever. However, given the never-deviating, consistent message of popes over the last 100+ years, if we're to be faithful Catholics, we ignore those principles at our spiritual peril, no? For otherwise, what makes us any different than the Call to Action types, or the SSPX/Lefebvrists?

In any event, Dr. Paul is an acolyte of Ayn Rand, and you can't find a more unChristian or even anti-Christian take on the duties of both society vis-a-vis the poor, at least not as the Catholic Church has defined them. You can't find anyone outside of Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian philosopher/economist, who is more against the Church's social teaching on economic matters. And yet Rep. Paul thinks she's the bee's knees. He's also on record as being quite fond of von Mises, as well.

Same Sex Unions vs. Traditional Marriage

No one can question Sen. Santorum on this issue. It's one of the reasons he got into the race.

No one can question Rep. Paul on this issue, either. Or can they? Actually, the doctor's stance here is amongst his most problematic for concerned Catholics.

Granted, he voted for DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act challenges the same year (the MPA would have removed judicial to DOMA from federal courts’ jurisdiction ... begging the question, even if that's what states want?).

However, this seems very inconsistent. On the one hand, he opposes the federal government redefining marriage. However, he's fine with the federal government definingmarriage. But doesn't he say that is supposed to be a state issue (he does, by the way)? This causes some confusion.

Paul has also taken his libertarian views even further, repeatedly stating that he hopes the state will stop sanctioning marriages altogether.

“I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument,” he said recently. “Who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards, and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.” [Isn't the Mario Cuomo argument given in a conservative guise? I can't see how it's not. Cuomo in his 1984 Notre Dame speech, after all, argued the same thing. Look how good that has been for Catholic politicians wanting to wiggle out of defending life in the womb.]

“But,” he continued, “if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level, and not at the federal government.”

Dr. Paul's most recent book Liberty Defined has a chapter on marriage. In he write, “In a free society…all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.” ...“There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage.” [Polygamy or polyandry, anyone?]

“Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired … Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!” 

I think the response to this was best put by Ann Coulter, who wrote:

“How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn’t recognize marriage? How about a private company’s health care plans - whom will those cover? Who has legal authority to issue “do not resuscitate” orders to doctors?...Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person’s Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you’re divorced and able to remarry?”

The homosexual Republican group GOProud released a statement in May 2011 thanking Paul “for rightly making the case that marriage and family laws should be decided at the state level.”
The homosexual magazine The Advocate wrote the following after the May 5, 2011, debate:

Paul was asked whether his libertarian views on such controversial issues — mainly his belief that personal liberties should not be encroached upon by the federal government —could help him attract socially conservative voters. Paul said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so. (emphasis added)

If you think this is a mischaracterization of Paul's position, here is the transcript off of Ron Paul's own website:
Chris Wallace: Congressman Paul, you say that the Federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, you say marijuana, cocaine, even heroin should be legal if states want to permit it, you feel the same about prostitution and gay marriage. Question sir, why should social conservatives in South Carolina vote for you for president?

Ron Paul: They will if they understand my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice their religion, and say their prayers where they want and practice their life. But if you do not protect liberty across the board, it’s the First Amendment type issue, we don’t have a First Amendment so that we can talk about the weather, we have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So for people to say that, “yes we have our religious beliefs protected” but people who want to follow something else or a controversial religion, you can’t do this, if you have the inconsistency then you’re really not defending liberty, but there are strict rules on freedom of choice of this sort, because you can’t hurt other people, you can’t defame other people. But yes, you have a right to do things that are very controversial, if not you’re going to end up with government is going to tell us what we can eat and drink and what ever (sic).

It’s amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way but not when it comes to our personal habits.

Chris Wallace: But Senator (sic), are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty.

Ron Paul: Well, I probably never used those words, you put those words some place but yes in essence if I leave it to the states it’s going to be up to the states, up until this past century for over a hundred years they were legal, what you’re referring is “You know what? If we legalize Heroin tomorrow, everybody is going to use Heroin,” how many people here would use Heroin if it was legal, I bet nobody would put the hand “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me,” I don’t want to use Heroin so I need these laws.”

Vis-a-vis heroin, I'm sorry, but in my judgment, this is just naive. The Catholic Church has long recognized that when something has the appearance of legality, people translate that in varying ways as "acceptable." Look at how many people support legalized abortion because it is "settled law ever since Roe v. Wade." When something is illegal, it's less likely to be accepted. Look at school Bible study groups or saying the "Our Father" at football games.

Similarly, were heroin legal and people tempted to try it knowing that they couldn't be busted ... well, if you've heard of things heroin addicts do to get their next fix (including murder, burgle, and steal), it's not something with which we should want to experiment, I would think.

As for marriage, however, we can’t have 50 marriage laws.

The homosexual agenda

While he opposed federal so-called “hate crimes” legislation and criticized the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case for overriding state anti-sodomy laws, he voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after previously supporting the policy.

"Well, like I said, everybody has the same rights as everybody else, so homosexuals in the military isn't a problem. It's only if they're doing things they shouldn't be, if they're disruptive. But there's ... men and women getting into trouble with each other too. And there's a lot more heterosexuals in the military, so logically they're causing more trouble than gays. So yes, you just have the same rules for everybody and treat them all the same."

These are the basic reasons I would encourage my serious Catholic friends to not support Ron Paul in tomorrow's primary election here and in Maryland or anywhere his name happens to appear on the ballot in this presidential primary season. I'm sorry I didn't have time to look up or insert the relevant sections from Scripture or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Thanks for your attention if you've gotten this far.

Have a great Holy Week.

Movie review: The Way

If you have not seen the movie, The Way with Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez (and populated with cameos by a number of well-known, recognizable foreign actors), please do. It is such a wonderful movie, and well worth tracking down. (Note: Ignatius Press sells this film, and I saw it for sale in several Catholic bookstores and WalMart.

The movie starts by setting the subtext, namely, a father and son's distant, difficult relationship. The father Tom is a widower, and since his wife died, he and his only child, his son Daniel, have not gotten along. Tom wanted Daniel to finish his PhD work and be a great scholar. Daniel, on the other hand, wanted to experience life and see the world. Daniel made the decision to disappoint his father, further widening the divide between them.

Daniel announces his plan to hike el Camino, the Way, the 800km/500 mile walking pilgrimage from the French Pyrenees to Santiago de Compostella in northern Spain, and he makes himself vulnerable by asking his oh-so-practical dad to join him. Tom, naturally, scoffs at this foolishness, causing the conversation to devolve into acrimony. While neither knows it, these effectively are the last words the two will ever share in this life.

A few scenes later, Tom is playing a round of golf with some buddies when he takes a call from a French police captain informing him his son has died. Tom then travels to France to identify his only child's remains. Next, he decides to have his son cremated (an option that was given to him at the police station) and to take his son's remains to Compostella. He will belatedly take his son up on his offer to accompany him on his journey.

During the journey, he progressively picks up three fellow pilgrims, none of whose company he looked for or wants (which he makes abundantly clear in as curmudgeonly a way as possible and as frequently as possible). The ensuing relationships give the movie much of its ample humor. However, they also provide the means by which we see much of the pain and shortcomings brutally on display in these people.

Indeed, no one in this movie is a saint. The characters' behavior is often beyond unedifying. Tom, for instance, is hard to like for much of the movie. A loud, overweight Dutchman lives to eat and drink, and he smokes several joints through the film. Each pilgrim is fully in the world and of the world and has little use for religion. None -- well, almost none -- has a religious reason for walking the Camino.

There is also Tom's disregard of the Church's teachings regarding the proper disposal of cremated remains. This is put on display several times. Then again, he is not a religious man, much less well catechized. He openly says he only assists at Mass on Christmas and Easter. When he goes to see a priest after learning of his son's death--a priest who knows his name but with whom he obviously doesn't have a spiritual relationship (which begs the question, why did he go see him?)--the priest asks if he would like to pray with him. Tom's reply is something to the effect of, "What for? What good would that do?" In other words, this is not a well-formed Catholic, folks. Therefore, his improper disposition of his son's remains is pretty much what you would expect.

I wish they would have had Fr. Frank (a pilgrim they meet on the way) ask Tom if he'd like him to hear his confession. Or that anyone would have been encouraged to go to confession. Then again, maybe that would have been too tidy, too perfect. Now that I think of it, I'll take the scenes in the cathedral after they reach Compostela over something nice and pat. It's much truer to life and how the Holy Spirit works in most people's lives.

In any event, whatever its theological faults and philosophical shortcomings (there are a small few), none of this detracts from this film being so lovely. The Way is so touching, so very, very well done. It speaks in a profound way to the yearning, the longing within the hearts of each and every one of us. These are the longing for community, for relationship. After all, God made us for relationship with Him forever in heaven, and He allows us to express and experience that in the here and now through our relationships.

Therefore, to the extent we love and give of ourselves as He does, the happier we are. Think of Christmas, when we see the truth of "Tis better to give than to receive." Or consider what Our Lord says are the two greatest commandments: To know, love, and serve God with your whole body and soul, and to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Or recall Matthew 25: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me." This is what will lead to happiness.

To the extent we don't love and give of ourselves, we're not happy. Well, suffice it to say, none of these people are happy. Each thinks they're searching for one thing, but at the end, we see that the reality is very different, and it has to do with the true happiness to which God calls us.

How that resolves itself is very satisfying. Because in the end, this film is very true to the pilgrimage, not the one to Compostela, but to the pilgrimage of life. I don't think it's a mistake that several times Tom gets headed in the wrong direction, and someone kindly, gently turns him around and points him in the right one. That's often how it is with conversion, isn't it? And each person does experience conversion, although not necessarily in conventional ways. The film leaves you wondering about just what is really happening in their hearts. Just as with the people in our lives, so it is with these people: Only God knows. Deo gratias.

Congratulations to the Estevez family. They accomplished their goal: To create something fresh.

I hope you will watch it somehow. It is a breath of fresh air.

Saint(s) of the Day for April 1, 2012

This is no foolin': Today, Sunday, April 1, is the feast of St. Valéry, OSB, who actually was a man. Don't know when it became a girl's name, but there you have it.

Today is also the feast of St. Macarius the Wonder-Worker. He was an abbot of a monastery on an obscure island in the Black Sea off the coast of Bithynia, which is now part of northern Turkey. Given his death on August 18, c. 830, he is one of those rare saints whose feast occurs on a date different than their dies natalis (Latin for "day of birth," that is, birth into eternal life). He wrote an amazingly beautiful prayer. See if you agree.

To you, O Master, who loves all mankind, I hasten on rising from sleep. By your mercy I go out to do your work, and I make my prayer to you. Deliver me from every evil thing of this world and from pursuit by the devil. Save me and bring me to your eternal kingdom, for you are my Creator. You inspire all good thoughts in me. In you is all my hope and to you I give glory, now and forever.

Isn't that great? Why not share it with someone? Maybe someone you know needs some hope, and maybe this would be a great way to give some to them.

This is remarkable

In the past, China and Russia have been very reticent to criticize their dependent, North Korea. Also, the DPRK cannot survive without the support of either, especially China.

So today comes this editorial reporting on comments made by the Russian and Chinese presidents which in the eyes of this observer are completely out of form and unheard of, but in a good way.

[Chinese] President Hu Jintao commented that the launch was “not good” and that North Korea would be better off focusing on improving the lives of its people; in a meeting between the South Korean leader and Russia, President Dimitry Medvedev noted that “North Korea should put the survival of its people before the launch of long range rockets” and reminded Pyongyang that it cannot live off international aid forever. (Emphasis added.)

Whether any of the harsh words will translate into concrete actions in the capitals concerned is a moot point, of course; nevertheless, it was a change of scene (you can say that again) in the context of Russia and China, nations which used to protect North Korea every time it played with international fire like this. (Emphasis added.)

In particular, President Hu’s open opposition to the launch was surprising; though known to be regularly unimpressed at North Korea’s behavior, in past instances Beijing’s leaders have largely resisted the temptation to openly criticize North Korea. Of course, it is possible that he was simply playing to international public opinion, but speaking that way with the leaders of 53 countries representing 90% of world productive capacity forming the audience nevertheless puts a significant degree of pressure on the regime of Kim Jong Eun. (Emphasis added.)

Not surprisingly, the North responded like a spoiled child:

A spokesman for the North’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs seemed almost boastful yesterday when he retorted that the country “will absolutely not abandon the satellite launch,” and called the problem one of an international community with an insatiable appetite for confrontation rather than a North Korean state with an insatiable appetite for controversy.

It’s a short editorial and well worth reading, so why not?

Don't know why, don't care

The Chinese have quietly agreed to allow North Koreans living in South Korean missions in their country to leave for Seoul.

This is a major turnaround and one wonders what it says about the status of Kim Jong Eun. After all, China didn't take the North Korean refugee situation as seriously as they have in recent years until Kim Jong Il (ca. 2008?) gave them hell about it. Since then, they've steadily ratcheted up the pressure on refugees, doing almost everything possible to keep them from getting into their country and hunting them down and returning them when that fails. Now with Jong Eun sending more and more NSA security agents into China to hunt down ever greater numbers of "traitors," maybe the Chinese are thinking this isn't such a big deal. Maybe it's a case of, "Hey, why are we being so accomodating to this young man when our sources inside the Politburo tell us he isn't long for this world?" Remember that rumored hit on him? What a crazy rumor to start if it had no basis. Maybe it was an assassination gone wrong.

In any event, is this a true turnaround for the Chinese? Is it a way of telling Pyongyang, "Hey, we're your biggest supporter and the reason your miserable government doesn't come crashing to the ground. And when we say launching this rocket isn't a good idea, take a hint." Or is it something else entirely?

I don't know, and I don't care, as long as it happens. Of course, we won't know until we see those defectors get off the plane in Seoul, but if it happens, it can't come too soon. Praise God at least these people will have a shot at a better life. Let's pray it all comes to fruition and fast and that many more join them soon thereafter.

Two thoughts on indulging ourselves

"I've earned this." "I need [read: want] a scotch." "Mmmmm. [XYZ] sounds really good right now. I think I'll have some." "I know I can't afford this, but I just have to have it." "Wow. Wouldn't that look great [fill in place where said object would look great]." "If I own this, it will say something about me."

I—probably all of us—have said all of these things to justify indulging my wants, my tastes, my passions, my desires. 

For instance, many pints of Ben & Jerry’s “Chubby Hubby” later, I know the saying, “You are what you eat,” is very, very true. Ten to fifteen more pounds, and I will be exactly 100 lbs. heavier than I was when I graduated from high school. In that time, I have not grown a fraction of an inch/centimeter taller, mind you. Clothes that were once big on me, to squeeze into them now, I must indulge in self-asphyxiation and the constricting of abdominal must muscles (my now-abominable abdominal muscles). And if you are so fortunate as to not have this problem, let me assure you how uncomfortable it is.

Has any of this indulgence—as pleasurable as it certainly was at the time—done me any good? Yes, a good glass of scotch can’t be beat. The creaminess of B&J’s ice cream of any flavor is unsurpassed. Hot sauce—particularly of the Thai variety—on any dish makes a below par dish edible and gives a delicious meal just that much more to write home about. It also makes me want to quote the title character in Oliver Twist, when he asks, “May I have more?”

All of this is true, but what good had it done me? I can’t see it.

I can see, however, is the harm it’s done me. Indeed, I can see and feel it every day.

Any ultimate good it’s done me, though, that is imperceptible. This is especially true in the spiritual realm.

I bring this up because today, I finally popped open my newest Cum Petro newsletter, which is the periodical for the Confraternity of St. Peter, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter’s “third order,” for lack of a better descriptor.

On page 5 is piece titled, “Lenten Advice From the Saints & Servants of God,” featuring 12 sayings on various aspects of the season.

Two quotes seem to put quite nicely the problem I’m getting at above.

The first is from my honey, my dear, my love St. Rita of Cascia:

The more we indulge ourselves in soft living and pamper our bodies, the more rebellious they will become against the spirit [i.e., as in “the flesh is willing but the spirit weak”].

The other comes from that great saint of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, St. Jean Marie Vianney (“Jean” is pronounced the French way, i.e., not “jean” as in blue jeans, but as a more nasally form of our own “John”):

It is also true that we should practice mortification in many things to make reparation for our sins. There is no doubt that the person who lives without mortifying himself is someone who will never succeed in saving his soul.

Uhm, gulp. I believe what St. Jean Marie was getting at—because this is what I know from my own experience—is that the more we indulge ourselves in the good things in life, the less we practice saying, “No,” to ourselves in situations that are morally neutral, the harder it is to say no to temptation and sin and thus evil and spiritual death when we encounter those.

To wit, in my young adult years, I had several relationships with women, but two in particular bring suffice to make the point. One I’d had a crush on in college. We had met as part of our involvement with WRGC, where she was some sort of representative for Pi Beta Phi and/or her school, UCSB. She had long, dirty blond hair, sometimes died an enticing auburn,” a great body, a gorgeous smile, and lustrous, sparking, and alluring brown eyes. When we reconnected in 1994, I couldn’t believe she had an interest in me, and I was very much ready to give my heart to her (with disillusioning consequences on several levels as it turned out).

The other lady I met at a friend’s house on Halloween 1992. She was not a stunner but very pretty. Her dark brown eyes were not hard to look into for a very long time, her hairstyle, although simple, bespoke a very traditional and comfortable femininity that appealed to me, and she had a beautiful smile. It was just beautiful.

The thing I found most attractive about her, however, was her personality. Vivacious, exuberant, girlish, and she was very funny. We laughed together a lot. She was so not right for me, though. I was not right for her. That said, I miss her still. Not as a girlfriend, mind you. I have a fantastic wife, and I wouldn’t trade her for the world. But I miss this other lady’s friendship and voice and the ease with which it was possible for us to talk together.

The common thread between both relationships is that going into them, I was going to be good, by golly. I sincerely desired chastity. I valued that virtue. I understood the need to be pure, the need to love God by not loving my passions. I wanted to not offend God and to have the gift of myself be truly that to my wife on our wedding day, not some used hand-me-down.

Furthermore, my faith that the Church taught rightly in this area of morals was solidified by the philosophical reasons she had proposed in support of this teaching.

Sadly, neither lady shared these sentiments, these convictions, these beliefs. And since I indulged myself in all other ways, when they attempted to seduce me with their come-ons … let’s just say I didn’t flee at the near occasion of sin.

After a while, it became easy to overlook how much I was sinning (that whole graying of conscience St. Thomas Aquinas talks about). Also, the sex was great, making it even easier to willfully blind myself to the spiritual reality of my actions. Only when I face my particular judgment will I know just what damage it did to my soul.

In my defense, I was not a very well formed Catholic at the time, and I didn’t know the relationship between indulging one’s right passions and the ease that gives towards indulging one’s wrong passions, etc. That came about ten years later. Still, I knew what I was doing was wrong.

Again, the point is what did indulging myself give me? Yes, the sex between Halloween Lady and me was memorable. However, given that I’m now making love to the mother of my children, should I even have memories like that, especially when she and USCB woman have not part in my life today? I’m still in touch with Halloween Lady only through Facebook, and we almost never communicate. As for UCSB woman, the last I heard she had some high profile job in San Jose (for the Chamber of Commerce?), and that information came from our last conversation in 1999 or thereabouts.

In the intervening years, I have faced similar temptations, even if it was only to look at something I know I shouldn’t. If I was indulging my taste for hot sauce, fending off the desire to see “hot babes!” was made more difficult and less likely. If I was mortifying my right passions in this and other ways, walking away from the temptation didn’t take much effort.

The purpose in bringing all of this to the fore is that we’re at the fourth Sunday in Lent. Next Sunday is Palm Sunday. After that, we enter into Holy Week. That means we still have time in Lent to do some great things for the Lord, to draw closer to Him, and to lead ourselves further away from sin. We can show He is our Beloved by suffering however slightly for that love. (Lest love involves suffering to some degree—e.g., sacrifice, etc.—do not insult it by giving whatever is there that sacred name.)

In other words, even if this has been a bad Lent, if you haven’t done with it what you wanted when it started, there is still time to make it a good one. All it takes is a decision and an effort.

The choice is yours. Do you pick the way that is narrow and rough, or the road that is wide and easy and “leads to perdition”?

“I have set before you death and life. Choose life.”

God bless you. Please pray for me as I will for you.