Shrines, Mary and Hagiophobia

On Memorial Day and in honor of Mary's month (May), my family and I took a Marian pilgrimage to The Basilica of the National Shrine of Mary, Queen of the Universe in Orlando, FL. It was about an hour drive one way and was a lot of fun for all of us.

What is hilarious is that before I became Catholic I drove by this "shrine" and thought to myself, "What the heck is that place?" The word shrine rolled off my tongue like a curse word at your grandmother's house. I felt like I needed to give myself a holy backslap for even uttering the word. A couple of my hypotheses were:

• It was a Mormon temple (it just looked weird to me)
• It was a pagan temple
• It was some type of Marian cult
• It was a Muslim temple
• It was weird and I'd never go there

Reverend Billy Graham

Crazy, huh? Apparently the word "shrine" just means a place set aside in honor of something. Hmmm...harmless maybe? You can find one for Luther with this statue outside of it. They don't use the word shrine, but it feels all shriny in a bavarian minimalist kind of way. I also have learned that you can find statues and memorials for all of the reformers all the way up to famous protestant preachers of today. Hey, I thought Catholics and Protestants weren't square on the whole statue thing? Wait a minute, I get it, they don't publicly go up to their statues and kneel in honor of them, but rather wave from the car or give a "in-their-heart-here's-looking-at-you-kid" type of acknowledgement.

That's cool.

Which leads me to expel the demon that is hagiophobia--or fear of anything holy (saints included). When a Catholic puts up a statue of a saint, when he or she kneels before the statue, they are acknowledging that the saint--at that moment--is before the face of God in perfect union with the Holy Trinity incorporated perfectly into the Body of Jesus Christ (sure beats looking fondly at your dead grandmas picture cause she made great cinnamon buns). That's a mouthful but its worth putting in your mouth if you haven't tried it before. Don't be afraid of the holy and especially the holy ones (saints).

Which leads me to my second confession regarding hagiophobia. I mean, really, what the heck was I thinking being afraid of a shrine set aside for Mary, who by the way was coronated Queen at the moment of the conception of Jesus Christ in her womb, and would receive her unique crown upon her Assumption into heaven. As a follower of Jesus Christ, why wouldn't I be more afraid of a church that looks like a modern court house or movie theatre? Isn't a bit of cainophobia rational for those that are holding to a faith grounded in a 2,000 year old historical reality? Instead, wouldn't it make sense to be paranoid about a church that looks like this:

or this

Yep. You should be scared half to death. 

Liturgical No-No: Applause in The Mass

Let me first say that I am not a raddie traddie, don't know latin, like it some but have never actually been to a have only been to two Extraordinary Form Masses, and you won't catch me going around saying, "Quid agis, canis?"

Yet I have a real problem with clapping at the end of the Mass. Thinking about this for some time, I finally figured out an analogy that works:

Clapping in The Mass is like clapping in a wedding.

Imagine at the end of a wedding there was applause, but the applause was not for the bride and groom. Instead, the priest asked the solo violinist who did a great job during the wedding to come up to the front and everyone applauds him, followed by applause for the ring bearer, flower girl and a rousing round of high-fives for the groomsmen who did such a good job standing still. By this time the new bride and groom are slouching their heads but the priest, in dramatic fashion, pronounces a blessing, the music starts and they all process out--unsure as to what they are now celebrating or even celebrated (two groomsman are still doing a fist bump for the extraordinary job they did).

At the end of the Mass, take some time to give thanks to the Groom who just gave Himself miraculously to you and celebrate the success of the bake sale another time.

Or in the words of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI:

"Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment."

(Update: Due to a comment on this post, I want to be clear that I am not talking about clapping for God but rather clapping for man. Further, one can confuse the two and I've talked about that here.)

You can check out a follow up post here.

Confession: Is it Against Christian Sensibilities?

The late great Archbishop Fulton Sheen said in various times and places that society will always begin to do, in a bastard kind of way (my words), what the Church ignores. The Sacrament of Confession is a great example of this. When the Church neglected it, out of the ground grew the most odd looking bush of a piece of furniture--the psychologist's couch. And so we traded, in used car lot like fashion, repentance for affirmation, penance for self-realization, and honesty for openness.

During my journey to Catholicism, I had to consider the very foreign (to me) concept of Sacramental Confession. Now, what I will argue here is that Confession is something that is rational and that going to a priest for it is even more rational. Both will, I think, make it a kind of Christian-sensible-thing-to-do.

FOR STARTERS WE NEED TO CONFESS BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN

I'll never forget calling my friend on the phone. I had begged for forgiveness. Pleaded with God. Yet, no matter what I did I couldn't get to that place of consolation or peace. It felt like I was hiding, as if my prayer had been like projectile vomit heading toward the ceiling. I was sure the fan had thrown some of it back on me because I could still smell the stench...in my soul.

When I called my friend, I told him I needed to come clean. So, I confessed to him my sin and it made me feel better. At this point, I was on the road to Rome but probably over a year out from the end. I knew this was a short-term fix and that I was putting my hope in a momentary feeling--yet as a human being forgiveness without this feeling seemed pointless. I was tired of conjuring happy feelings, "texting myself" little proverbial smily emoticons that seemed as stupid as what I just said implies.

We need confession--confession to another person--because God made us humans. We are not angels. We are men and women with flesh and bone who with senses perceive. We can believe by faith but we cannot perceive anything by it. That is why Christ gave us the Sacraments. Because, at the end of the day, a ray of light beaming from the sky, some celestial get better from a cloud way off wouldn't cut it. E.T. as savior is grotesque. Not just because that isn't love but because that isn't salvation. Salvation is God becoming Man. Incarnation is all up in our business, and wouldn't we expect the God who did it that way would also stay in our business? 

WE NEED A PRIEST BECAUSE...WELL...YOUR FRIEND AIN'T CUTTING IT

I know, I know I used that southern word (ain't) again. Sorry, I'm 2/4 Georgia and 1/4 North Carolina so you gonna have to take me like you get me. 

Really though, all Christians believe that God can use someone to do his work. In fact, we almost always think it is the ordinary way that He works. Here's a good song that illustrates this meme in the Christian-kind-of-way-of-thinking-about-things:

So what's the big deal? I don't need a bee-line to Jesus for all kinds of stuff, and even more I don't think its God PLUS, or Jesus PLUS, or you get the picture PLUS about any other way that God uses us to be His "hands and feet". We just don't think that way. But, when its that pernicious, awful, hierarchy imposing Catholic doctrine of Sacramental Confession, well then blahh! "That ain't in my there Bible, meester, and if you's thinken you slippin that popery stuff in here, well you gotta nother thing comin!"

Really? We can talk about the Bible and Church history here in a bit, but let's get real. It is ad hoc and arbitrary to single out confession of sins when we believe that so many other important goods are given to us by God through others. When we look at the Gospels next, we will learn I think how Biblical the practice really is. Even without that evidence, it is rational that we confess and it is even more rational to go to a priest. Christianity is more than a freudian get better project. It isn't Oprah on steroids. As Christians, when we sin--especially gravely--we know we need to get right with God. That involves repentance which implies honesty. I can trick my own conscious but I can't trick someone else's as easily. God knew our tendency of diminishing our responsibility (see Adam and Eve) so I find great consolation in knowing that a priest is there to make sure when I say "I messed up" I don't have a date with that demon in my Blackberry for 2 hours later.

Who else should do this but one consecrated by Christ to exercise this priestly ministry? For if one is to not just be listening to my sins but also conferring Absolution--the recognition of both my genuine repentance and the authority to release the objective work of Christ transforming my heart--I care A LOT whether or not Oprah, Joe Buck or Father Buck is behind the curtain. I'll take door #3 please.

So, get off the couch and get on your knees. Expel the demons. Free yourself by the means that Christ has preordained that you would ordinarily walk in. And, if you are hostile to the Church, leave it alone for confession is human and it is sensible in a very Christian kind of way.

New Media and the Irony of the (2,000 year old) Catholic Church

First, I think it is rather funny (ironic) that since becoming Catholic I've become so aware of the fabulous media produced by this 2,000 year old institution that can move like, well, Noah's Arc at times. It's like Noah's Arc with flatscreens. And by the way, if you aren't Catholic and reading this, don't be hating, start participating...

Just check out this video:


Or this website:
http://www.johnpaulii.va/en/

All that said, it gets me really excited about my new friend Brandon Vogt's soon to be released book, The Church and New Media. What's fantastic about the book is that it is stereotype defeating. Of course for all us internet savvy, blogging Catholic types, it may not be as paradigm changing. Yet, even for us, I think the book portends a fabulous resource of inspiration, clarity and focus. We are indebted to the new media pioneers, many of whom are contributors in the book. Brandon leads the way in this IP tell all.

Check it out!

I'll Be On EWTN!

I'm speechless. I feel really honored. I'm overwhelmed.

Today I accepted an invitation to go to Ohio to be on The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi. It is a great honor and I hope my story can inspire others to take a similar path. I will also be doing his radio show Deep in Scripture the same day. The theme of the show is "The Verse(s) I Never Saw". Right now I'm thinking the Magnificat. The show will air towards the end of August or beginning of September but the radio show should air the beginning of August.

I'm taking a few days blogging hiatus to take it all in.

Peace to you on your journey.

Tertullian and Infant Baptism

This concludes my three part (four post) series on infant baptism. First, we considered how the belief resonates with a general Christian ethos. Then, as an important qualifier, we considered what baptism does in general. Second, we looked at infant baptism in the scriptures. Last but not least, we will now look to Church history and consider the almost universal Christian practice of infant baptism.

I want to think through this issue with two ideas in mind:

1. Only one theologian challenged infant baptism for 1,500 years

2. If you want some evidence for infant baptism in Church history you can have a field day reading St. Polycarp, Origen, St. Augustine, early Church Councils, writings in the catacombs...

You might ask, "Who was the knuckle-headed theologian who opposed infant baptism?"

Tertullian was the object of my intense study during my undergraduate thesis work. That being said, it is not surprising at all that he would want to keep baptism from children. To understand why, let's consider some of the background.

First, Tertullian was not a trained theologian. He was a trained lawyer and rhetorician. In Carthage, he would be heavily influenced by Stoic philosophy, particularly in how the soul is related to the body (see De Anima). It is this anthropology that informs his understanding of the sacrament of baptism and is the likely cause for both his dualism and his insistence on the simplicity of faith (he was also a physicalist).

Tertullian taught the orthodox belief that confessio, satisfacto, and contritio to be the essential components of any forgiveness granted for post-baptismal sins. However, these concepts for Tertullian functioned within a legal systematic context. Let's focus on the words "satisfacto" and "contritio" which correspond to a series of actions prescribed by a priest that would clear the conscious of a believer and the penance paid by the penitent (see De Paenitentia). Tertullian viewed baptism as the focal point of grace and the means by which complete holiness could be obtained, and even more, that satisfacto and contritio were long legal processes (lex tingendi), therefore, he encouraged Christians to postpone baptism as long as possible in an effort to limit the opportunity for losing grace upon the potential commitment of future sin. 

As such, Tertullian can be understood as a fearful rigorist. A rigorist is basically anyone who holds that absolute extremes are necessary for salvation--meaning only those who obtain to that (extreme/rigorous) level of practice/belief will be saved. For example, Tertullian condemned women who married pagans, used makeup, hair dye, fancy clothes or jewelry. St. Augustine noticed this when studying Tertullian and was critical of the World--Church dualism prevalent in his writings.

The Take Away...

Tertullian shows us the dangers of rigorism. He would not only prescribe the delay of infant baptism, he would likely discourage you or I from being baptized! Yikes!

Even more, he does not make a compelling case for the Anabaptists. Imagine a baptismal line at a geriatrics facility--the Tertullian ideal. And may they all pray for an expedient and timely death!

That aside, what Tertullian does evidence is the basic Patristic notion that baptism is salvific. In addition, we must remember that the infusion of grace is as much an empowerment to a Godly life as it is a cleansing from sin--an idea less emphasized in Tertullian. In short, we can take away from Tertullian the basic assumption that baptism is salvific without getting caught up in his rigorist errors.

(Next up: Confession--Is It Against Christian Sensibilities?)

Secondary Literature:
Phillip S. Watson, Concept of Grace, London: Epworth Press, 75.
Chalres Norris Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture, NY: Oxford University Press, 223.
B.J. Kidd, A History of the Church, NY: Oxford University Press, 372.
Edward Fortman, The Theology of Man and Grace, Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co, 107.
Arthur McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, v.2, London: University of London Press, 20.
R.A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine, London: Cambridge University Press, p.106.

My (Old) Rapture Twitter Account

@RaptureCamping

(don't try to follow it, it's a fake)

My Top 10 Tweets getting ready for Rapture Day--May 21, 2011:



#10- just liquidated all my retirement accounts and bought enough Blue Bell to fill my bathtub

#9- watching Left Behind series again...I can't get enough of this stuff. Cameron is epic!

#8- 20 straight days in the same shirt...wife won't talk to me...but it's awesome

#7- I'm littering and I don't care (okay, I had to pick it up--WEAK)

#6- two days left...my kids will do anything I want...or get left behind!

#5- thinking: would a parachute work the opposite way?

#4- some money left over from blue bell escapade. chompin on some slimjims. RIP Macho bro

#3- i'm live tweeting all the way to 6pm EST 052111. Lift off. look for me like this http//bit.rc/blstoff#34!

#2- 5 + 21 + 12 = 38; 3 + 8= 11; 1 + 1= 2; 38/2= 19 - 11= 8 - 1 = 7...reason #1281 that 5/21/12 is the day

#1- (May 22) Who is cleanin all this Butter Pecan out of my tub?

Getting off the Bench and My Other Reason to Blog

I want to take this moment to say thank you to everyone who has stopped by, read a post, or made a comment (moment taken). It encourages me to know that the blog is a blessing to you. Peace to you on your journey.

I also want to say thank you to a few people who have encouraged me in this writing endeavor. First, of course, my wife who puts up with my late night/early morning routine of writing and proofreads my posts when I avail myself of her services. Second, my best friend David Williams for his continued words of affirmation and stimulating conversations. Third, Taylor Marshall for his willingness to correspond and share insights into the whole blogging "thing". Lastly, a shout out to my new friends Brandon Vogt, Steve Lawson, and Brian Orr for their acknowledgement and words of advice.

I started this blog just a few months ago for two reasons:

1. Give myself an opportunity to explain myself. I wanted to tell people why I'm Catholic--why I converted.

2. I wanted to get off the bench.

Before I started the journey of considering the claims of the Catholic Church, I was in the action. I preached, played lead-guitar, led retreats, did speaking engagements, taught Bible class...

However, when the whole Catholic thing got on the radar the Lord, in His wisdom, put me on the sidelines. It was a very important period, but I'll admit that it was difficult. I read somewhere that men put a lot of their identity into their work. So in a way my identity had been benched.

[Insert violin music]

[SCREECH]

[Insert Rocky theme music]

I'm off the bench!

This is it...this is where I start. If all God wants me to do the rest of my life is write (on my couch) this blog, then I'll do just that.

Now back to writing about infant baptism...

By the way, what could I do better?

Infant Baptism in the Bible

My daughter Gemma Grace after baptismal regeneration

"For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Collosians 2:9-12

This is part 3 of 4 on infant baptism. If you haven't, I suggest you read the first and second posts here and here. In the above passage, St. Paul--the Catholic theologian--does a lot of work in a few words. The key is to look at how the clauses are linked.

He is the head over all rule and authority
AND
in Him we are circumcised with a [circumcision made without hands]
IN
The removal of the body of the flesh
HAVING BEEN
buried with Him in baptism
IN WHICH
we are also raised up with Him
THROUGH
faith in the working of God
WHO
raised Him from the dead

1. Christ can do what He wants and He has a circumcision that doesn't involve, well you know "hands" (see here for more info). Let's just say a Jew in the 1st century would know what that meant.

2. His Circumcision is about the "body of the flesh". This has nothing to do with the body as evidenced by #1. It does have to do with our sin nature (think works of the flesh).

3. How does this happen? St. Paul says that it was a "having been" experience. (See picture of my daughter). However it is not enough that through baptism we enter into the covenant of his death and burial.

4. We must have faith in the working of God who raised Him (and us) from the dead.

I see water. I see Gemma. I see water. I see Gemma. I see by faith the unseen Resurrection of the soul.

I see picture of my daughter above. So, if you've been to a baptism and realized, "I didn't see anything change, hmm?" Oh you of little faith, we walk by faith and not by sight.

So, why offer this to infants?

I think there are three solid Biblical reasons (besides the reason that the Church teaches it):

1. Baptism is the New Covenant Circumcision

When do you circumcise someone? How do parents "place" their children into the family of God? The direct link between O.T. circumcision and baptism is a strong witness to its rightful New Covenant context.

2. Baptism was offered to everyone in the family of the jailer in Acts 16:33.

"He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once."

It's unconscionable that the disciples, who had been chastised by our Lord for resisting the children (Matt 19:14), would now walk into a 1st century home and according to Scripture baptize "all his family" EXCEPT THE CHILDREN. No my friend, that is called adding to the text what is not there. It is not conjecture to assume the children were baptized, but it is conjecture to ADD to the text by saying that all = everyone but the children.

3. Christ taught that the faith of the Church (others) could save someone.

We are all familiar with story of some friends who lowered their paralyzed friend through the roof to see Jesus. "When he saw their faith, he said, "As for you, your sins are forgiven." (Luke 5:20).

So, next time you see a picture of this:

THINK THIS:

My Story at Why I'm Catholic (Dot) com

This morning my story is posted at www.whyimcatholic.com. Sorry about the momentary self-promotion. It grinds against me too. But, nonetheless, I wanted to thank Steve for the opportunity to share my story. Click almost anything on this page to read it!

Cloud Baptism and Baptism in the Bible

Before I continue considering the reasons for the Catholic teaching of infant baptism, I wanted to try to explain more thoroughly from Scripture what is taught regarding baptism in general. My next two posts after this will deal with infant baptism in the Scriptures and Tradition.

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:2, makes an allusion to an Old Testament baptism. I think this is very important because St. Paul takes note of two baptisms: water (the sea) and cloud. We are all familiar with the water baptism. What is cloud baptism?

A friend of mine has instructed me that cloud baptism has traditionally been understood to reference the cloud of fire and as an analogy to the sacrament of Confirmation.

However, in Exodus 40:35 and other places, the cloud signifies that the glory of God. A cloud descended upon the mountain of God when He revealed His covenant (the Law). The cloud was where Moses would "appear...over the atonement cover" (Lev 16:2). A pillar of cloud concealed the revelation of God from the people when Moses was on the mountain (Ex 33:9). This of course was after God had ordained that the cloud would help the people "hear when I speak with you (Moses) and may believe in you forever", but the people would respond by worshiping a golden calf (Ex 19 and 32).  In Numbers 16 we learn that during Korah's rebellion, the cloud descends to bring justice, but the Priest who has been given authority by God (despite the people's objections) makes atonement for the people; yet many die.

Fast-forward to the New Covenant.

When Jesus is baptized we see our first instantiation of the Holy Trinity. The Father speaks, the Spirit descends, and the Son is present. Of course the Eternal Logos (Christ) had been in the water before John that day, so what is especial to this moment is the dove (The Father's Word was already present before he said "This is my son..."). It hearkens back to Noah and reminds us that "peace and goodwill has come to humanity" and that God has come again, like in the first garden, to reconcile with us. Let us take note that it is the Spirit that descends this time in approval and this time to show (not conceal) to the people the definitive Revelation of God--Jesus Christ. Yet this act in time will gain its ultimate existential meaning a few years later.

So it is that in Romans 6:4, St. Paul declares, "Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death through the glory of the Father (the cloud) so we too might walk in newness of life." (see also Col 2:22).

John's baptism foreshadowed what would come. It prepared the way for the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." Through Christ's death and glorious resurrection, baptism is transformed beyond mere symbol or theatric. The sea and the cloud--water and The glory of God--are now one in the One who has come to make all things new, and it is that baptism that He will commission His disciples to go and do. Grafted into the Holy Trinity, we enter into the Way of the Father, through the passion and death of the Son, and rise again to new life by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Look at Romans 6:4 again. Notice that it is the "glory of God" that allows us to "walk" in newness of life. This glory is not set aside for the eschaton, the end, but rather is meant to come to us now. While our bodies certainly groan for their redemption, what then is redeemed if not our bodies? Unlike Christ, our resurrection does not include (yet) a new body, but what is made new "through baptism"?

So then St. Peter teaches us, "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Pet 3:21). Let's consider then what we can learn from this passage and from what has preceded:

• Our baptism is salvific in that it is our participation in the life, death and resurrection of Christ
• It cleans us, but not externally but internally by the power of the Holy Spirit in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the glory of the Father)--Phil 3:10
• Whereas the cloud and water were distinct in the Old Covenant; In Christ the Glory of God is manifest in the waters of baptism.
• Thus in Baptism, the glory of God descends upon the baptized making them a new creature; the water is not mere symbol but is the means by which Christ transmits his supernatural power. What was foreshadowed by the O.T. acts is realized in New Covenant Baptism.

[Note: When the glory of God comes you are either (1) purified or (2) destroyed/punished not (3) legally accounted as righteous. This is alien to all of the Old Testament imagery of baptism and the manifest glory of God.]

Korah's Rebellion

Interestingly enough, it is in Jude 1:11 that we learn I think about those who will reject the Church's teaching on baptism. Of course I do not mean those who happen to believe that infant baptism is not true, but rather those who originally espoused that doctrine.

"Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah..." Who are these that "care (only) for themselves" and are "carried along by winds" and are "without fruit" (Jude 1:12)?

So, I'll stop for now and start again considering infant baptism in the Scriptures and how a rejection of it is un-Biblical.

Infant Baptism: Is it Against Christian Sensibilities?

This starts another 3-part series on a Catholic doctrinal position. Lucky for me, most Christians practice infant baptism. For a list go here. The next two posts--infant baptism in the Scripture and in Church history--seem most germane to this topic since how you feel about infant baptism has a lot to do about what you think about baptism in general (what it is and it's effect) and how you received your baptismal tradition.

Setting those two issues aside for a moment, I'll bullet some considerations that illumine why infant baptism is not against Christian sensibilities:

• We are born with original sin
• Original sin makes us guilty from the get-go
• We are all in need of a savior
• Every person has dignity
• Babies are persons
• They have dignity
• They also are in need of a savior because of original sin
• If baptism washes us, it washes us of something
• It isn't dirt; it is the stain of original sin in the soul

Why would we deprive this of a child? Didn't Jesus say "such are the kingdom of heaven"? I think we do two possibly very damaging things when we don't baptise our infant children. First, we don't acknowledge original sin. Second, we devalue the unique and dignified personhood of the child. This, I think, is the most damaging effect sociologically. In an age where the unborn has no value, what does it mean when the first religious act we make is to say, "Your personal relationship with God needs to be put off." Why? Does it imply that they are less than persons? I'm not sure, but I think there is something enlivened in the heart when you offer your newborn to the Church to be baptized. Conversely, it is not enlivened when you don't (I know because I've done it both ways).

When you offer your child for baptism, you give him or her to God. It is the circumcision of Christ. As a parent I am not helpless as to the spiritual destiny of my child, yet neither is my child passive as to their cooperation with the grace of Christ. That will come later. However, in infant baptism the inestimable value of the baby as person is recognized. Would we deprive baptism to an adult who is in a vegetative state or mentally handicapped to such an extent that they are like an infant? Of course not, I don't think anyone with a heart would. Yet, why do some refuse a newborn baby baptism? I'm not sure. Maybe try here or here.

At least for what it's worth, infant baptism isn't against Christian sensibilities.

Reason #489-Why I'm Catholic

Non-Contraceptive Marriages

I'm going to make this one short and sweet. I said I was going to do this two posts ago, so sorry it's late. When my wife and I got married, we picked out our new place, some dishes, a dvd/vcr combo (bad idea) and of course contraception. This is what every good protestant is coached to do: enjoy the fruit of mariage without all the baggage; at least until that baggage miraculously becomes the bundle of joy you are longing for.

Instead of railing against contraception, I will send you here.

Instead of recapitulating an argument I'll quote the one from two posts ago:

"Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality" CCC 2370

Okay, I'll just try a simile...

Contraception is like partaking of the Eucharist with a plastic bag in your mouth. As awful as that image sounds, that is what we do when we act as if we want everything the sacrament of marriage has to offer, but spit out of our mouth, so to speak, the potentiality of the zoe (life) of God.

One more (not a simile)...

In the marital act, a couple asks the Holy Spirit to meet them. The Holy Spirit can cause the act to bring into existence that which did not exist before, and it is precisely in that moment (conception) that a soul is created and put into that which the naked eye cannot see. "Quench not the Holy Spirit". Contra (against) ception (from conception). To act against the possibility of the Spirit's free range is to do precisely what our Lord warned against.

Let us not be deceived, life is not in our hands. However, the Lord does set before us two options and we should choose life.

For more reading go here.

I'm No Spiritual Juggernaut

Life without the Church can kind of make you feel like this guy. No Authority? No problem, just put on the hat with the funny contraption--problem solved!. No sacrifice of the Mass? No problem, just strap on a banjo and foot-pumped percussion. No communion of saints? We got an accordion for that.

When I was a protestant I felt overwhelmed with the task of literally making up Christianity. It was overwhelming. Every doctrine was on my shoulders, ever ounce of orthodoxy at the mercy of my wisdom to parse Scripture. Okay, I can hear what you are thinking. "Brent, come on it wasn't like that at all, you had your denomination, seminary, or even the Reformation documents."

True.

But, then what did my kids have? As I mentioned in my much condensed conversion story, it was when my daughter was born that I realized something had to give. Was really a denomination started 100 years ago the best thing I had to offer her? 500 years wouldn't work either. I was passing off this faith to my daughter and it was either going to look like this:

Beam me up Scotty

or like this:

The images aren't arguments per se but you get the picture (literally).

Before I was Catholic I was also overwhelmed with my role as the spiritual aficionado. I know, you may come from a Christian tradition that doesn't emphasize the ecstatic, personal, dynamic, experience of God. That's fine. Nevertheless, I did and so that's part of my story, though I think we all desire to be close to God. That's the movement of a heart set free by Christ.

However, outside of the Church there is something missing.

I'm no spiritual juggernaut. Although I've always been spiritually inclined, I have spiritual attention deficit disorder like the best of em. Put me in a crowd of the spiritually inclined, in-tuned, or intuitive and I'm bound to miss even the slightest vibration of the Spirit. I've been caught in enough of these types of services with my spiritual "pants down" to make the Spiritual Enquirer. I'm clumsy, foolish, weak, and simple.

However, inside the Church there is something amazing.

When I entered the Church I began the realization of this great mystery. Under the appearance of what is so simple is that which is so sublime. From the great saint to the sinner who stumbles in through a window of penance, from the lord to the vassal, from the normal joe to royalty, there is but one gift and one gift alone which by God's grace draws humanity into the divine life of God. It is not by some kind of spiritual juggernaut, but by pure gift. It is the great sign, symbol, and sacrament of contradiction against materialism and pelagianism, and it is the medicine the angels cannot partake. 

Yet we poor creatures, made in the image of the One we threw off before the imprint even had a chance to dry, incapable of keeping Him for even a moment are given Him in a moment to partake. "Unless you eat and drink" because "I am true drink and true bread". We hear those words and we stutter. Does it take a spiritual juggernaut to believe them? No. Rather, it takes one believing like a child that there is no place we can go, like a child resigned to their place, because He has "the words of life".

Deep breath. It's good to be home, good to take of the trappings of a spiritual juggernaut, and good to rest in the amazing mercy of God found in His Church and in His Eucharist.

Amen.

A Mother's Day Poem to Mary

O' Sacred Femme, the One foretold

I read You in the story old

So gentle beauty I behold

O' Queen Mother of thy fold

Star before the throne of God

Highest creature, born so pure

Lead us to Thy womb's Sole Gift

No Saved Femme, the cross remiss

 

-by me (love you Mom)

Eat Anything You Want with No Side Effects!

There is an amazing new device out. Did you hear about it? It is simply installed in your throat. There is a small hormonal package that is time released but the device does primarily all the work. The diagram above shows you basically how it works. What's even better is that you don't need a prescription to get one. After the device is installed:

You can eat anything you want! You can enjoy endless ice cream, cake, hotdogs, cookies, you name it. Absolutely, positively, no side effects. Does this sound too good to be true? (Oh yeah by the way, a couple thousand women have died testing this device, but they were, uh, you know, in need of it. The sacrifices we make for science. Pause for a brief moment of silence for the martyrs for self-indulgence.) Doesn't this kind of end the whole gluttony sin? That was so before this innovation. We have certainly evolved past the archaic view that "you are what you eat". I am no longer defined by the choleric possibilities of my intake. No longer do the nutrient deficiencies of a twinkie delimit my life expectancy. Krispy Kreme and Big Mac here I come...

Enters contraception.

Same story except this amazing device is designed to prevent something far worse then bulging hips or a too tight pant line. What you might ask could be worse? Human life of course. Typically interposed in a place I cannot in decency diagram, the contraception's intention is to allow an individual endless sexual pleasure without the possibility of the lamentable outcome that a child is conceived. I know what you are thinking, simply incredible!

Much like this new device, contraception is a real advancement in human flourishing. Before, we were bound to the natural outcomes of our actions. Many people had many babies, sometimes more than 4! Family reunions consisted of more than can fit in one 12 passenger van. Gasp! Eco-hoards! Even worse, married couples were scared into fidelity for the fear of what might happen if they defiled the marriage bed. Young men lived in constant fear that nights of reckless promiscuity would come back to bite them.  As you can see it was truly a time of barbarism. Here's an excerpt from that arcane period:

"Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality" Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370

May it also be outdated to ever read something like this again:

“There’s an association between added sugar intake and what we call dyslipidemia -- higher triglycerides and lower HDL ("good") cholesterol," says Rachel K. Johnson, RD, MPH, PhD, a professor of nutrition at the University of Vermont and a spokeswoman for the American Heart Association (AHA).

So old fashioned. So disgustingly limiting. So...responsible?

Next Post: Reason #489-Why I'm Catholic (hint: it has something to do with human sexuality)

Mass 201: It's Not About You and It's Really that Simple

As a follow up to my post "Mass 101: It's Jesus and It's Really that Simple", and in response to a thread over at the blog Called to Communion about ecclesial consumerism, I feel compelled to talk about worship. As Catholics, we call this "The Mass" or we often refer to it as the Eucharistic "Celebration".

Maybe the term "celebration" got us confused. It's not The Mass's fault, but rather the poor devolution of the term celebration in our society. If you look at the etymology of the word celebration, you can plainly see the religious connotation. However, today the word celebration typically implies something we are doing for ourselves. We celebrate birthdays, super bowls, or a graduation. We mail out cards, plan games, buy drinks, etc. These are really fun times, times when we feel close to the people around us, times of real community.

Then there is The Mass. Some say The Mass can be kind of boring, or that people don't feel connected, or that priests can be too focused on what they are doing or that in general it could use some updating.

I'm thinking balloons and a good DJ.

Let the worship begin!

So, what is worship anyway? The Hebrew word for worship is transliterated avodah. It literally means work or service. Doesn't sound like a backyard barbecue does it?

Let me point this out, The Mass is a lot of things, for starters it's about Jesus and it's really that simple, but secondly it's not about you and it's really that simple.

It is a celebration, but not for you or I. We do celebrate but not with us in mind. The veil has been torn, the throne of grace is available to us, and in the Mass we celebrate that salvation has come to men. Or rather, we celebrate that God became man, dwelt among men, and we can now behold the face of God. That's why we do all those "boring" readings. It gives us an opportunity to enter into the historical and existential reality of God coming to us--his movement and condescension.

Then there is this turning. Where nothing we can do could make it truly come to pass. Only by the gift of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit and through the authority vested in the Church can we receive the gift. I am, of course, speaking of the Holy Eucharist. It is there that we enter into the mystery of Calvary, that we partake of the divine nature as St. Cyril of Jerusalem instructs, it is the Body and Blood of God. He becomes our paschal lamb and we partake of him not as in a type or shadow of salvation but for our salvation (John 6:53). We are not a part of a cosmic foreshadowing like the Israelites in Egypt as the death angel passes over, but rather we experience what that was anticipating. The Creator of the universe stoops so low as to allow us: creature, fool, sinner, beggar, finite, pathetic partake of uncreated, wisdom, sinless, omnipotent, and infinite. And so we begin this work with "Kryie Eleison!"

If you don't get anything out of that, if you find the local pub, party, or picnic more spiritually nurturing than The Mass, if you can't help but nod off during the readings, roll your eyes at the incensing, or check an email during the homily, I suggest you re-read the above paragraph, pray, and ask the Lord to help you experience His descent, His condescension to us and resist that age old tendency to want to ascend, like at the Tower of Babel, brick by brick in our own way to God. Let us not be confused that we will only meet ourselves at the summit of that journey. He has given us the way in the Holy Liturgy, let us simply work at allowing it to envelope us with His infinite mercy.

Reason #313-Why I'm Catholic

Mary

This continues the random series of the # of reasons Why I'm Catholic. There are thousands, so instead of trying to be systematic which would be laborious, time consuming, and pedant, I thought I would just randomly grab a few and talk about them. To the point...

Being a Christian without Mary is like being a spiritual orphan. In the Gospels, it is implied that Joseph dies early on, he kind of disappears out of the picture. In a similar way, as a Protestant, Mary dies away, or rather she comes out for a Christmas "drive through nativity" only to be shoved back in a shed somewhere in the early morning hours of the "day after" (Dec 26) their rendezvous with the Blessed Virgin. It's the one season when Protestants have statues--plastic as they may be!

In the eleventh chapter of the Book of Revelation, the Arc of the Covenant is on display in heaven. As a Christian (one who believes Christ is the definitive revelation of God), I can hardly imagine that the Arc of the Old Covenant is on display. That doesn't make sense on so many levels it hardly demands an argument against it. If it is the Arc of the Covenant, then it must be the new Arc. What, or rather, who is that?

Mary, duh. (Ah, easy theology questions make me happy)

Have you ever been to a family reunion? Awkward moments, right? Have you ever watched one of those really soupy reality shows where long-lost family members get re-united? Inevitably, there is this moment where no matter what the relation--let's take Mother-son--they kind of stare at each other like, "Is that really you?"

I had concluded along my journey to the Catholic Church that I did not want to get to heaven and in astonishment look up and say, "Who's She?"

A Protestant finding Mary is like that. While all of the original reformers loved Mary far more than any Protestant can imagine today, the history of thought in Protestantism devolved into what we have today: No Mary.

But, my friend has a shirt company and one of the shirts reads:

click on the image to go to www.catgear.com

I'm Catholic because I want all of Jesus including His Mother. I want to be like Jesus: son of God and Mary. So, get to know Her. Or, as the Lord said upon the cross, "Behold, your mother!" (Jn 19:27).

Kant, Catholics, Lying & Natural Law

The Reason why Live Action is
going after Planned Parenthood

The title of this blog post is quite a mouthful. It all converges on a line of thought I was having after reading two articles, one by Dr. Peter Kreeft at the CatholicVote.org blog entitled "Why Live Action did right and why we all should know that" and a Thomistic response to the article over at The New Theological Movement blog entitled "A Response to Peter Kreeft, on lying." The short version of the issue is that Live Action is using a type of deception as their modus operandi for defeating planned parenthood.

The issue at the heart of the debate is not new by any stretch of the imagination. In fact in moral theology and ethics in general, the question as to whether or not it is morally licit to lie to someone to prevent a greater evil has been tossed around for centuries. The Biblical case study is found in the first chapter of Exodus where the midwives are confronted by the Egyptian gestapo and asked why they are not able to report, in time, the birth of new Hebrew children thereby inhibiting the Egyptian officers from following their orders to execute them. The midwives make up a story that Hebrew women are more "robust" and more or less shoot the babies right out like a long snapper before the midwives even get there.

When I was an eleventh grade Bible teacher, I was asked not to teach doctrine so I decided I could teach ethics and basic theology through the philosophia perennis et universalis (perrenial philosophy). Both articles reference Kant's notion of an ethical "categorical imperative" which, as a rule, must be universal (at all times, places, and circumstances) for it to be imperative to follow. In other words, if isn't good all the time it isn't good any of the time.

To teach this to my students, I used a modified version of Kant's example of a murderer chasing after an innocent victim in a dark alley. You, the innocent bystander, are having a smoke in the alley and notice the innocent victim running franticly by you and then come to a "T" in the alley and turn left. Only moments later, the murderer, gun in hand runs up upon you, grabs you by the collar and demands, "Where is he? Tell me where he is, or I'll kill you too!"

What do you do? Or rather as Kant wants us to ask, what ought you to do? Can you lie to save the innocent victim? What if he finds out and comes back and kills you the innocent bystander? What if you tell him the truth and he kills the innocent victim.

Kreeft argues that we have at the level of intuition a clear sense that it is morally good to lie to the murderer. If we don't, we suffer from legalism. He goes on to make a number of arguments for his position but concludes by saying that qua moral intuition, he is not infallible which leaves the issue more than open for discussion.

At the New Theological Movement, the author apposes Kreeft's position pointing out that St. Thomas and others have noted that scriptures praise of the midwives was for their intent to save lives and for the outcome, but not for the method. Their method is a violation of the natural law and as such cannot be praised because it is against the nature of God. In addition, the intuition of the ethical from our experience is correlative to the virtue we possess. I'll come back to this at the end. Returning to Kant, he also points out that when you lie to the murderer you have no guaranteed outcome that the innocent victim will be spared. In fact, you may both die now because of your deceit, or even worse your lie might embolden him to greater treachery!

The response article also points out (in the combox as well) that the midwives were put into their situation against their control whereas Live Action has made deceit their modus operandi. This, I think is an important distinction, but then it gets a little foggy when you move this particular question to another context.

There is a great made for TV movie from the 80's called The Scarlet and the Black about a fiery Irish priest who subverts the Nazi gestapo in Rome by an elaborate system of deceit that creates a cover for thousands of Jews and other persecuted immigrants during Hitler's regime. On the one hand, we can say that Father O'Flannery's involvement was voluntary, he did not have to get involved. However, in some sense he had to get involved in that his moral conscious compelled him because of the atrocity and human suffering he witnessed.

If you haven't seen the move, I highly recommend it if you are willing to wait through the awkward made for TV interludes.

When I was teaching the Bible class to the eleventh graders, I didn't have natural law. I was a sola scriptura guy. That was a problem. By the way, famous protestant apologist J.P. Morland recently warned that Protestants are overcommitted to the Bible. Ouch. Nevertheless, I went back to scripture and more or less told my students that there are certain situations where the law is abrogated for the greater good and for the defeat of the God's enemy. That was the best answer I could give. However, with the natural law as our guide, I can now see how even for a greater good, we cannot be justified in breaking it.

Before I made this post, I had two issues I was working through and actually brought them up at the New Theological movement blog. Kindly, I was given a prompt and pious response which dramatically changed the way I am going to end this post. Before, I was confused as to whether or not "the difference we sense between the two is merely the indifference we have to the fact that babies are being aborted right in our own backyard". In other words, Live Action's subverting Planned Parenthood through deceit is more like the midwives than I previously thought.

However, "Reginaldus", a contributor at the blog, responded to this question highlighting what I think is most germaine to this issue. He said,

"Rather than engaging in sinful practices, we ought to turn our eyes to the mountains: "From where shall come my help? My help shall come from the Lord, who made heaven and earth." We don't need lies to defeat planned parenthood, we have the truth -- that should be plenty enough to destroy them!"

We'll call that my borrowed two-cent moral intuition.

Thanks Reginaldus.

What do you think?

Chastity Ain't for Wimps

Disclaimer about the post title:
*ain't is a word in the dictionary, and I'm from the South since 1790
*sorry if the word wimp offends you; you can substitute it with the word sissy

Yesterday my wife and I finished up our school year long class to high schoolers at our parish on Blessed JPII's Theology of the Body. High schoolers can be a little squirmy, but the class ended really well and I believe the students learned a lot and were encouraged to live out their vocation to the fullest.

There were many "take-aways", but a strong theme emerged for me during the last class.

No matter what your vocation-celibate or married-you are called to chastity. More, chastity isn't some prudish, "to yourself" lifestyle. It's not for wimps or sissies (woops I used both). Whether your face is plastered to the Divine Office (see above) or shoved under a bed looking for a toy that was lost by your now distressed 3 year old, chastity means giving yourself completely to your vocation.

We are correct to think of purity and chastity together. However, we aren't saying the same thing. Chastity is the way of purity. It is a total life orientation to keeping oneself as a complete gift of self to the other. That other may be the Bride of Christ or Mrs. Right. Either way, God is calling all of us to step up to the plate, give up our lazy, idle, and self-centered habits and face head on a pornographic, prudish, egomaniacal culture.

In the spirit of the New Evangelization, may our chastity lived in our vocations be a witness to the world of our faith. A faith nailed to a cross.