Why gay "marriage" can't be hitched to the Civil Rights train

You all know of Lauren and her uplifting blog at Magnify the Lord With Me, but did you know that her amazing husband also blogs? He writes at The Whole Armor (which I highly recommend) under the moniker of One Man. One Man is a black American who, like so many other black Americans, strongly opposes the push to artificially link "gay marriage rights" to the Civil Rights movement. He has graciously agreed to write a guest post on that topic.

Thanks, Leila, for inviting me to write this guest post for you.

This past week, Lauren and I had the occasion to visit Birmingham, AL. Although we didn't have time to visit any of the specific Civil Rights landmarks -- we were focused on our little girl's surgery -- it was amazing to think that 50 years ago, in this city that was the hub of the struggle against Jim Crow, we would likely not even have been allowed to marry.

As I thought about that struggle, and the many who sacrificed and literally risked and gave their lives, it began to bother me even more that the "gay marriage" movement is comparing itself to that struggle. The rub of it is that some who fought so hard back then for the equal treatment of those of us whose skin happens to be a few shades darker, including Coretta Scott King, are either not speaking up or, worse, are supporting this wave that would sweep the foundation of the family out from under our culture.

Before getting too far into it, I should start by reiterating the Church's teaching on "Chastity and Homosexuality," from the Catechism 2357-2359. I know that not everyone turns to the Catechism as their first source, or any source at all, but there are so many misconceptions of why the Catholic Church opposes homosexuality (i.e., homosexual activity) and so-called "gay marriage" that the truth, in black and white, has to be laid on the line:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.  Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (cf. Gen 19:1-29, Rom 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10), tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are gravely disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. (2357)

Ok, so the Body of Christ stands staunchly, unshakably against homosexual acts. Nothing new there. It's worth highlighting (after the underlining above) that it's the acts themselves, not any tendency or attraction to them, that are wrong. The difference results from one of two very powerful gifts given to us that distinguish us from the animals: our will, or ability to act decisively. (The other is intellect, our ability to reason.)

...They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter… (2358)

If there is any point of commonality between the Civil Rights struggle and the struggle of those living with homosexuality, this is it. Bottom line, we have to love those who are struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction—and all others—without  exception. Loving is the only way that Christians truly imitate Christ. But loving doesn't mean rolling over and accepting actions that are contrary to what the Author of Life has laid out; to do that would be to separate love and truth, falsifying one and bearing poor witness to the other.

The third paragraph hits the nail on the head regarding the "call" mentioned above:

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom...they can and should...approach Christian perfection. (2359)

That is the call of all sexual people, which means...all people. We are all sexual beings, and so we are all called to be chaste -- i.e., to live within God's plan for human sexuality -- regardless of our station in life. As much as society would have us believe that we should be driven by our urges, no matter how superficial or deep-seated they may be, it simply is not true. We are not animals.

So, what does this have to do--or not have to do with Civil Rights? It all comes down to the natural law and choice.

Natural law

First, the natural law. Every human society, from before recorded history, has been founded on the family based in marriage: The bodily union of man and woman, and the children that are generated from that union. Putting aside any religious understandings, marriage has always existed as a natural institution.

Regardless of what flawed civil law has tried to tell us time and time again throughout the centuries, this reality of man + woman = children is not and never has been affected by race. This natural aspect of marriage depends on sexual complementarity that is definitely present in a man and woman of different races, but is positively not in two people of the same gender. Even if children do not come from the marriage (due to bodily disorders), the possibility is still there because the marital act itself is ordered toward procreation, unlike homosexual acts. Lauren and I would not have been able to civilly marry in a lot of places as recently as fifty years ago, but that was because of unjust human (civil) law, not natural law or God's law.

Choice

The second reason that the "gay marriage" movement cannot be fairly compared to the Civil Rights movement is that sexual activity contains the element of choice. God gave us the gift of free will, to be able to either (1) choose his (all-knowing, wanting-the-best-for-us) will over our own, or (2) insist on having our way. Marriage is first and most significantly represented in the marital act. That act is an act of choice, just like participation in the unchastity of sexual activity outside of marriage (homosexual or heterosexual) is a choice. It may not seem like much of a choice in the heat of sexual attraction, but the reality is that the choice remains.

Race is not that way. We do not choose our ancestry, skin tone, hair texture, or any of the other characteristics that generally differentiate people of one race from another. We did not choose what we look like, but we absolutely choose how to make use of our sexual faculties. Though our physical characteristics (unchangeable characteristics, not changeable ones like weight, dress, etc.) are amoral and more or less defined at the time of our conception, whether or not we engage in licit or illicit sexual activity is far from a foregone conclusion and has a monumental moral dimension.

These are two very big differences that unfortunately are being overlooked by those trying to hitch the "gay marriage" push to the Civil Rights train. For the sake of the truths championed by the Civil Rights movement, which so many fought and even died for, these realities must be brought back into the discussion.

+AMDG+

Remember "college student"? She's back. ;)

It's been a while since we've heard from "college student" (who is now a college graduate, by the way -- congrats!).

Longtime readers will recall that she sparred often with the Catholics here over abortion, contraception, women's biology, the hook-up culture and Planned Parenthood. She provided one of the most memorable moments on the blog when she mentioned that all her friends, whom she polled, could not see any downside to the hook-up culture other than the constant sobbing.

I was pleased when "college student" (who is an agnostic) struck up an email conversation with me a while back, and we have occasionally kept in touch. Then, a few days ago, she sent me the following, reprinted with her permission:

I know you are not a Priest and have better things to do than listen to your 22-year-old pen pal confess, but I need someone to agree with me today ;) 

One of the boys I told you about earlier and I starting seeing each other (#3 -- he's a good guy I swear). He was home for the weekend and I went over his house. We went out to dinner with his parents and it was late so I decided to stay over in the guest room. Boy walks into guest room, takes off his pants (non sexually), gets into bed. I tell him to get out, we are in his parents' house. He asks why. His mother comes in and I am just mortified. I tell her not to worry and that [boy's name] will sleep in his room upstairs. She shrugs nonchalantly and says to sleep where we want and no one will bother us in the basement!! 

Thinking it was hilarious and ridiculous I told my friends, "[Boy]'s parents let us sleep in the same bed, can you believe that!" The unanimous answer: "So What?" "We are Adults." Apparently this is normal and a lot of parents are cool with it including my girlfriend's very Catholic parents!! 

Furthermore, when I yelled at my mother for letting me go out of town to see said boyfriend and told her leniency was the result of letting my older sister get away with too much stuff, she told me to stop being so judgmental and live my own life, I love you mom, but C'MON!

So we agree, the world is indeed. GOING. TO. HELL.

As you can guess, my response was to affirm her assessment and her disgust. I also experienced an internal joy that she gets it! Even though it was never explicitly taught to her, she gets, on an instinctive level, that this permissive attitude and lack of judgment on the part of parents today just isn't right. "College student" gets a sense of her own dignity, the dignity of her boyfriend, and the (dare I say?) reverence that is due human sexuality.

In a subsequent email, she went on:

But something didn’t make sense. Parents don’t exercise the same amount of control over a 22-year-old as they do a 16-year-old. Nor should they, we as young adults are charged with making responsible choices. Yet when we are in their presence they still reserve the right to tell us what to. We are still yelled at, still disciplined, and still not allowed to swear. Yet, that on that day at my boyfriend's house, we were autonomous adults who governed ourselves. Go figure.

I suppose it is easy to think the only parents who would allow this are perhaps bringing their own boyfriends to spend the night or are liberal moral relativists. Yet every single person I talked to whose parents allowed them to cohabit was the child of married parents. One was the daughter of a Catholic family who never missed Sunday Mass and educated all of their three children in Catholic Schools. Another was the son of self-proclaimed fundamentalists who devoutly attend church every Sunday and Wednesday. Some voted for Republicans. 

The question is not why are parents who have moral and sexual failings failing to uphold strong standards for their children. That is hardly a paradox and the answer is rather obvious and uninteresting. 

Rather what has me perplexed is why are doting parents committed to structure and safety omitting sex from the discussion? Why are they okay telling their son, even their adult son, to make up his bed and not to smoke so long as he is in their home, but they can not tell him to at least wait to have sex until he gets back to his own apartment? Why do they bombard him with texts whenever he travels to make sure he is safe, yet say nothing when he is potentially catching a disease in their basement (and they are both doctors)? Why? Because I cannot figure it out.

With those questions, "college student" has proven herself wiser than many twice her age. I've yelled out my own similar question for years now: "Where are the grown-ups?!"

And she's right to push further and ask how it is that even Christian parents can wimp out on this issue while taking a stand on things that don't necessarily affect their children's souls and eternal destinies. I believe it has to do with a confusion about God Himself, a profound lack of courage, and/or the all-pervasive desire to be "friends" with one's children above all else.

J. Peter Nixon describes the devastating effects of a generation of Christian parents who refuse to form their children morally:

Our children and grandchildren are abandoning the faith because they perceive -- rightly -- that its demands are at fundamental variance with the lives we have prepared them to lead. We have raised them to seek lives characterized by material comfort, sexual fulfillment, and freedom from any obligations that they have not personally chosen. Should it surprise us that they fail to take seriously our claims to follow one who embraced poverty, chastity, and obedience to the will of God? (From the article, "Only the Saints Can Save Us")

"College student" is obviously on to something with her observations, and she is hoping that her questions and general bewilderment will be the catalyst for a good discussion here. In her words: 

I am really looking forward to what everyone says, as I could use some adult advice on the matter! 

Thoughts, readers?





.

Laughing at dead babies and the avenging conscience

A few weeks ago, I read a disturbing blog post by Abby Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic and author of the book, UnPlanned.

She recounts her early experiences in the clinic:

It took a few weeks before I got the alarm code to our clinic. I guess it takes that long for them to trust you. I remember getting the code and feeling shocked. The code was 2229. That seems innocent…until they told me what it spelled out…BABY. Really. Wow. We were really joking about that…our alarm code was mocking the murder of children. 

A few weeks later I was introduced to our freezer in the POC (products of conception) lab. This was the freezer that held the fetal tissue until the biohazard truck came for disposal. I found out the name for that freezer…the nursery. Again, that was a joke. How had that become a joke? 

A few days later I learned the password to our phone system…2229…BABY. 

A couple years later I remember walking in on my supervisor making jokes with the abortionist and another employee in that same POC lab. They were joking about how the fetal tissue floating in this dish looked like bar-b-que. Did I hear that right? Did they really just say that? Then one of them said, “I actually think this part looks like strawberry jam.” I turned around and walked out without saying a word. I felt sick to my stomach. How did that conversation begin? How could they say that? Was it enough to make me leave? No. I was one of them now. I am drenched in the evil of this place.

Later, she joined in their ghoulish humor:

About a year before I left, the Coalition for Life group had moved in next door to our clinic. We joked about sending them a “welcome to the neighborhood” gift. Maybe we should send them cookies in the shape of babies with red icing on them that resembles blood. We laughed. We thought we were so witty. It was not wit. 

I could go on and on. I look back now and wonder how I could let my mind become so numb to something so terrible.

Abby's post was remarkable to me, because just days earlier I had read an eerily similar account from another former abortion clinic worker, Jewels Green:

Even the macabre became commonplace. The gallows humor I’d seen in movies about medical staff that work around disease and death day in and day out was right at home in an abortion clinic. 

I vividly remember the cleaning lady who quit after finding a foot in the drain of the one of the sinks in the autoclave room (where the medical instruments were cleaned and sterilized after abortions) and how we all laughed and joked about it in the staff lounge for days and weeks afterward. 

When the power went out one time for hours and we were all explicitly instructed NOT to open the freezer where all of the medical waste was stored (read: dead baby parts in bio-hazard bags) but inevitably, someone did open that freezer and I will never, ever forget the stench of decaying human flesh for as long as I live —but we all laughed as we gagged and joked how at least “they” had it better in that non-functioning freezer because at least they couldn’t smell it. 

[I]n my heart I always knew it was wrong. All of it was wrong….

Horrifying as their stories are, it makes sense that they joked about what they were doing, to the point of mocking the dead babies themselves. For one to cooperate in an unthinkable evil, one must assuage the avenging conscience in some way or another.

Professor J. Budziszewski discusses the conscience -- and the revenge of conscience -- in his book, What We Can't Not Know (which I reviewed here).

The human conscience operates in three modes:

In the cautionary mode, the conscience acts as teacher:  "I shouldn't do that; it's wrong."
In the accusatory mode, the conscience acts as judge: "I should never have done that; it was wrong."
In the avenging mode, the conscience acts as executioner. We shall see how that works in a moment.

The "Five Furies" of conscience that come into play when we transgress the natural law (i.e., the universal moral law) are something we can all grasp:

1. Remorse
2. Confession
3. Atonement
4. Reconciliation
5. Justification

Professor B describes the rightly ordered way that the guilty conscience responds to the Five Furies (emphases mine):

The normal outlet of remorse is to flee from wrong; of the need for confession, to admit what one has done; of atonement, to pay the debt; of reconciliation, to restore the bonds one has broken; and of justification, to get back in the right.

However, if the guilty party does not respond to the Furies in rightly ordered ways and return to moral goodness, the Furies don't just suddenly go away (emphases mine):

But if the furies are denied their payment in wonted coin, they exact it in whatever coin comes nearest, driving the wrongdoer's life yet further out of kilter. We flee not from wrong, but from thinking about it. We compulsively confess every detail of our story, except the moral. We punish ourselves again and again, offering every sacrifice except the one demanded. We simulate the restoration of broken intimacy, by seeking companions as guilty as ourselves. And we seek not to become just, but to justify ourselves.

All the furies collude. Each reinforces the others, not only in the individual, but in the social group.    (pp. 150- 151)

In the buildings where women's wombs were forcibly opened and their living babies were shredded and dismembered and thrown out with the trash:

"We laughed. We thought we were so witty."
"We all laughed and joked about it for days and weeks afterward."
"We all laughed as we gagged and joked."

"In my heart I always knew it was wrong. All of it was wrong."
"I look back now and wonder how I could let my mind become so numb to something so terrible."

Men may keep a sort of level of good, but no man has ever been able to keep on one level of evil. That road goes down and down.    -- G.K. Chesterton

Praise God for the gift of the avenging conscience. For to be pursued by the Five Furies, even to the very edge of the pit of hell itself, is a severe mercy given by a loving God Who will use drastic means to call us back to Himself.







.

Quick Takes and my mom makes a cameo!

1.

So this week I kept getting email after email directing me to the following video, and then I saw it popping up on facebook and pretty much everywhere. When you watch it, you'll know why it's gone viral. Don't let the length deter you; it's worth the time it takes to get to the end and see the changes wrought in those being interviewed. The mohawk atheist white supremacist had me riveted. Heck, they all did. 

My only caveat to this Protestant-produced video (because I am a Catholic apologist after all) is to remind you that Catholics believe in infused righteousness (true cleansing of the soul in baptism), not the imputed righteousness (a mere legal declaration) that the video espouses. 

But putting that aside, you will see so much of what we talk about here played out on the screen: The natural law which is written on every man's heart is laid bare as the human conscience rises from its culturally- and sin-induced slumber. Fascinating!! Don't miss it.

2.

Speaking of awakening the conscience, I participated in the most amazing kick off of our local 40 Days for Life campaign this week. We learned recently that an "upscale" abortion clinic has operated under the radar within the boundaries of my own parish. My friend Karen Williams, whose abortion story I posted here, discusses the puff piece that Phoenix Magazine ran recently about the private-practice abortionist who hangs her shingle touting "family medicine" while 90% of the procedures done in her beautifully-appointed office are abortions -- up to 50 babies killed per week.

Tuesday night, three hundred and fifty of us, young, old, black, white, hispanic, priests, nuns and laypeople (Catholic and non-Catholic) walked in solemn silence for a mile and a half from our church to the abortuary. We had a police escort, just like you'd see in a funeral procession, and traffic was periodically stopped as we walked in a line so long that I couldn't see the beginning or the end of it. I couldn't even find the fellow blogger, Kara, that I had hoped to meet! Some of the homeowners along the route watched and wondered, most of whom had no idea that an abortion mill was operating in their neighborhood. 

People begin to gather, before the walk begins.

There was inspiring music, and heartbreaking, tearful testimony from a young woman whose aborted child would have been five years old today.

We care for and love both mother and child.

We concluded at the abortion mill, praying for an end to the violence of abortion and the conversion of the abortionist.

(Photos courtesy of my friend LeeAnne, and Arizona Right to Life.) 

If you are able to participate in your city's 40 Days for Life campaign, please do. It is both life-changing and life-saving.

3.

Made a big mistake when I hit "publish" on the last post: Miss Gwen's concluding thoughts were missing! I have since restored them, so if you were confused by the abrupt ending, please go back and read the post in its entirety:

An atheist's view: Miss Gwen goes to Mass!

4.

Speaking of atheists (well, former atheists), I was compelled by science fiction writer John C. Wright's account of his dramatic conversion. The only proper response is "Wow!" and "Praise God!" Read on:

A question I never tire of answering

5.

Another sad reminder that the Church's wisdom does not exist to make people feel bad, but instead to keep them from harm while preserving their human dignity. How sad is this scene?

'Sperm Donor' Tells His Fiance He May Have 70 Biological Children

Excerpt:

To her credit, Ben's fiance manages to contain her reaction, but the shock, and possibly horror, in her face is evident.

Ben's fiance tells him she sees his actions as selfish, and the gravity of his decision seems to hit him in a way it hadn't before. "I guess I was dumb. Maybe I'm being dumb now, I don't know," he says.

 Any guesses as to whether or not that relationship will last?

6.

Mothers have a way of keeping us all humble, thank the Lord. 

When I won the coveted Cannonball Award recently in the category of "Best Armchair Theologian", I emailed the icon to my mom to let her know...

Her response, reprinted here with permission, made me smile as it reinforced the stated message of a Cannonball win, which affords me "the sweet sweet satisfaction" that I am "only slightly better than no one else really all that special":

Well I am "blog challenged" but it is always nice to win things - not sure what you won but you can tell us all about it later....congratulations!! Love, Mom


It does not get better than that!

7.

This item comes last, as it's an action item and I don't want you to forget to do this. Today is the final day for public comments regarding the shameful, conscience-violating mandate imposed by the Obama administration that forces all insurance policies to cover contraceptives and certain abortifacient drugs (without so much as a copay). Please, let's not go down without a fight. 

Call or email the (Catholic!!) woman behind the mandate, Kathleen Sebelius, head of the Health and Human Services Department (ironic name for that department, eh?).

Phone:   (202) 690–7000

Email:    Kathleen.Sebelius@hhs.gov

More info here.

Oh, and by the way, the "unbiased" medical committee that recommended the mandate is "populated by board members of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, as well as major donors to politicians favoring legal abortion." Aside from the mandate being evil, it smacks of corruption as well.

Time for us little guys to speak truth to power! Call or email now, before you forget.

Thanks to Jen for hosting!

An atheist's view: Miss Gwen goes to Mass! *UPDATED

*For some reason, Gwen's last paragraph, summing up her thoughts, was missing when I first posted! So sorry!

A few posts back, one of our longtime Bubble family members, Miss Gwen, announced that she was going to be attending a Catholic mass. After receiving a steady (dare I say giddy?) stream of encouragement, direction and advice from the Catholics here, she set off. You have all been waiting patiently, and I am thrilled now to post Gwen's account of her recent attendance at a daily mass in Albuquerque. I will leave her words unedited, and we all can discuss and offer any clarity in the comment box. 

Take it away, Miss Gwen!

Why I went:
On the heels of much intense debate and banter between orthodox Catholics and atheists, I decided to step back, reflect and visit the holy space where these faithful women share their deepest desires and insecurities with God on a regular basis.

My background:
Believe it or not (ha!), going to church was a big deal for me. I was raised by atheists and can count on my hand the number of times I’ve been to Church services on a holiday or Sunday (3x). That’s excluding the daily mass I attended for two years at Episcopal middle school (aged 12-14). Thus, it is a bit daunting at first to step into a sacred space without knowing the exact details of appropriate behavior. For instance, the parishioners with whom I attended Mass all entered the Church and before taking a seat, kneeled before the altar and crossed themselves.

The Church (San Felipe de Neri church in Old Town, Albuquerque, NM):
This church has quite a history! It was originally built in 1704 at the insistence of a Franciscan priest who arrived with 30 other Spanish settler families in this southwestern city in 1704-5. The church was named after the Viceroy of New Spain but later, at the request of the Spanish Duke who founded and lent his name to this particular city the Church was named after San Felipe de Neri in honor of King Phillip of Spain. Parts of the church have been destroyed or re-built. In the 1870s Jesuit priests founded a school for boys and in the 1880s the Sisters of Charity added a convent to the church grounds and operated a parish school up until the 1970s. A school still operates within this historic parish.

The Scene:
The Church is located in what is now a tourist hot spot of town. It faces a small plaza where there are annual events such as Santero markets*, Christmas shop and strolls with luminaria displays **, music and dancing, and the occasional wedding. Surrounding the plaza and Church are restaurants and stores that cater specifically to visitors in the southwest: chile spices, mugs, t-shirts, turquoise jewelry, cowboy boots, and so forth. A small store attached to the Church sells religious iconography that helps raise funds for the parish.

* Santero-artisans who carve figurines of saints usually working with wood
** Luminarias-paper bags filled with sand and candles, usually lined up along walkways and rooftops during Christmas (this tradition also has roots in the Catholic and Latino Protestant practice of Las Posadas which pays tribute to the journey of Joseph, Mary and Baby Jesus in utero)

The Service:
I attended Wednesday Mass at 7am. There were about 20-30 people in attendance many of them (my guess) Hispanic, mostly female and between the ages of 40-70. I noticed one elementary aged schoolgirl in attendance with a male relative (dad?). Attending to the needs of the priest was a middle-aged man (of Asian heritage) wearing a polo shirt and khaki pants (no altar boys?). Mass began with a prayer followed by a short reading from one of the parishioners. Then the priest gave a brief interpretation of the reading; the gist of his interpretation focused on translation and the multiple possible meanings for the word “apostle” and exactly what Paul really meant when he spoke those words since there are 12 apostles and he isn’t one of them (?). The scene from the reading involved Paul talking to a slave who wasn’t really a slave just as Paul is not really an apostle. The Priest reminded us that none of us know the historical Jesus, just like Paul didn’t know the historical Jesus yet here he is calling himself an apostle -- why? According to the priest, this is because Paul is using a code word for follower -- he is a follower of Jesus and God, just like we all must be.

Then the man in khaki pants rang a bell, and helped the priest get the communion wafer and cup of wine ready. He raised the hosts over his head, uttered some Latin phrases and everyone in the congregation responded with some more Latin. People began singing a song in Spanish about “benedicion” and lined up to receive the hosts. When that was done, the bell was rung one more time and the priest finished up the leftover wine before wiping down the cup (glad to know there’s no wasting wine ; ) Another prayer was said then the apostle’s creed (which I actually remembered!) and we were done.

So, what do I think? I think sacred space provides an opportunity to reflect, to think deeply about one’s place in the world. I’m not particularly comfortable in a church setting since it’s not something I’m familiar with but I appreciate the sense of community that can be created and the opportunity to feel inspired and refreshed with a new outlook on the daily grind. Unfortunately, I disagree with much of the policy touted by the Catholic Church. My understanding at least from this blog, is that one must be conservative and politically aligned with the right (or right of center) in order to be Catholic and Christian. I’m not willing to give up my alliances with left of center political ideologies or my philosophy. So, while I can appreciate the ritual aspects of Mass and the time for self-reflection, I’ll continue to find solace in my own sacred spaces and rituals (i.e., sitting on the patio by the apricot tree drinking coffee spiced with cardamom!).

Thank you Leila, for allowing me the opportunity to share these thoughts with you.

-Gwen








.

Is it sin or "personal preference"? Why it's so hard to evangelize today.

When I posted "We are not dogs" a few weeks ago, I knew I wanted to showcase more gems from our holy, faithful priests. So today, even though I have not yet created my "Priests Speak" icon for this new little feature, ha ha, I want to present you with the priestly wisdom of Fr. John S. Grimm*. Thanks to Nicole C. at Mom and Then Some for bringing the words of her priest to my attention. 

+++++++

Fr. John S. Grimm

Holy Spirit Parish

New Castle, Delaware

September 2011

READINGS FOR SEPT. 4 23RD SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME 

(Ezekiel 33:7-9; Romans 13:8-10;

Matthew 18:15-20)

In his homily to begin the conclave of cardinals that would elect him pope, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said that the world was laboring under a “dictatorship of relativism.” By that he meant moral relativism specifically, the notion that moral truth is subjective, that is, totally dependent on one’s intention and external circumstances.

Moral relativism denies that any action is always wrong; moral choices are mere expressions of one’s feelings about certain behavior. Thus, actions that in previous generations were condemned as sinful are in our time considered a matter of personal preference, above all in the area of sexual morality.

Modernity’s embrace of moral relativism is not only a rejection of Catholic morality, but of the morality of all previous eras. For instance, the hearers of the Apostles knew and accepted an objective moral law called the natural law. And they knew that they failed to keep it, at least perfectly. As a result, the ancients knew they needed a savior and the Apostles’ message was experienced as “Good News.” But under the influence of moral relativism, modern people are told that there is no objective standard with which to make moral choices. In this setting, our Lord’s message that we must repent sounds strange to some people. They ask: repent from what? Recent popes have said that the modern world has lost its sense of what sin is. Without a sense that we are sinners, why do we need a redeemer?

Therefore, the church finds itself needing to preach the “bad news” that we are sinners in need of forgiveness before she can preach the Good News that Christ offers us forgiveness.

Today’s readings presuppose an objective moral order and man’s need for reconciliation with God and neighbor for failing to act in accordance with that order.

In the first reading, Ezekiel is appointed watchman for God’s holy people and instructed to warn the people when they stray from the path of holiness. Should he fail to warn them of their misdeeds, the guilt of their sins will fall upon him. St. Augustine taught that this duty to warn the faithful is now placed upon all the bishops and priests of the church. The preacher who fulfills this duty is likely to meet a cool reception in some quarters because of the relativism in our culture. Nonetheless, as the Holy Father taught in his 2009 encyclical, “Caritas in Veritate” (“Charity in Truth”), the proclamation of the truth is an essential way of charity.

Our Lord’s words in today’s Gospel are similarly in conflict with the spirit of our times. One must believe in objective right and wrong in order to have the grounds to confront another with the injustice of his behavior; otherwise, it degenerates into a contest of wills. Moral relativism puts an end to moral dialogue since moral judgments are only expressions of one’s feelings.

Our Lord instructs us to do more than dialogue with others, we are to confront a brother or sister with his misbehavior if he falls into sin. This can only be done in a way pleasing to God if it is motivated by charity. Notice that if our brother offends us, we are to tell him about it, not everyone but him. Even if someone truly wrongs us, we must be mindful of not sinning through detraction, which is the revealing of our neighbor’s defects to others without a just cause.

As St. Paul in the second reading says: love does no evil to the neighbor. Paul means even when the neighbor has first done evil to us. All that we do is to be done for the sake of charity; when the church is forced by the sinner’s recalcitrance to “treat him as you would a gentile or tax collector,” this is done for a charitable purpose. The hope is that once made aware of his injustice he will repent and be healed.



*Fr. Grimm's article is found on page 20 










.

Archbishop Dolan's warning letter to Obama

Hey, Catholics!

Remember when I warned you that your misguided compassion was going to come back to bite you in the rear? That we're in a battle we can't ignore anymore?

I'm relieved that the big guns have just blazed onto the scene.

Two days ago, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote a strongly-worded letter to President Barack Obama that expressed a "growing sense of urgency about recent actions taken by your Administration that both escalate the threat to marriage and imperil the religious freedom of those who promote and defend marriage."

That's us, guys. He's talking about Catholics losing religious freedom in America. If things continue on the current trajectory, the good archbishop anticipates "a national conflict between Church and State of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions."

A national conflict of enormous proportions.

He's right. Things are bad. The culture war -- the very existence of which some deny -- is here and escalating quickly under Obama's watch. The archbishop's letter and research make that painfully clear.

Bubble readers, please read Archbishop Dolan's entire letter and the attachment.* Read every word carefully. You may feel like you don't have time, but it's only three pages. It won't take you long, and you must be informed. The days are long gone when we can just sit back and let things play out, trusting that all will be well. The Church is under attack now, from the highest levels of our government, and we must be an active Church with an educated laity.

Learn what's happening. Teach your children, your friends, your neighbors. We are all responsible for each other now, as the moral landscape changes and we gear up for the battle (which in my opinion includes defeating Obama in November 2012).

In the words of Blessed John Paul the Great: Do not be afraid!

Just think what 60 million baptized, faithful and informed American Catholics could do. Yeah, I know we've got a long way to go to get everyone faithful and informed, so let's get started!

Go on, read it.


Related (disturbing) link showing the Obama Administration's determination to label Catholic teaching as bigoted and discriminatory:

Obama Administration: The Catholic Church spreads "homophobia" in Poland


*Archbishop Dolan's letter is specific to the topic of gay "marriage" and does not address the other alarming actions taken by the Obama Administration limiting our religious freedoms as Catholics.



.

What I Never Learned, Part VI: Jesus, the Mass, and the Eucharist

Years ago, I sent out some "catechesis emails" to interested friends and family. They, like me, never really learned much in Catholic religious education and CCD classes (I was catechized in the 1970s and '80s). What I wrote was pretty basic stuff, and I thought some of the Bubble readers might like the overview. 

Part I: The Fall

Part II: After the Fall

Part III: The Trinity

Part IV: Why it had to be Jesus, and Why He Had to Die
Part V: Jesus as the "Lamb of God"

Last time, we talked about Jesus as the sacrificial lamb (“Behold, the Lamb of God!” said John the Baptist about Jesus, pointing ahead to Jesus' sacrificial death).

We discussed how the Old Testament stories always point to the future, to fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Remember that when something in the Old Testament foreshadows, or points to, something in the New Testament, we call that a "prefigurement" or a "type". Typology (studying the prefigurements in the Bible) is the most exciting way to look at Scripture.
  
So let's go back to a famous Old Testament event, the Passover in Egypt, and discover how it prefigured both Christ’s sacrifice and the Eucharist.

Approximately 1,500 years before Christ, Moses was set to liberate the Hebrew people and lead them out of Egypt, where they had been oppressed and enslaved by Pharaoh. (If you are unfamiliar with the story, then you haven't watched Academy Award winner The Ten Commandments lately! Rent it!) Moses instructed each Hebrew family to select a young male goat or lamb without blemish. They were to sacrifice the animal and then smear its blood on the doorposts and lintel of the house in which they were eating. They had to eat the flesh of the sacrificed lamb or goat that night, along with unleavened bread (there would be no time for leavening). The Hebrews were given other instructions as well, but for our purposes, we will focus on the lamb’s blood, the eating of the lamb’s flesh and the unleavened bread (are you thinking Eucharist yet??).

God sent an angel of death over all the households of Egypt that night to punish the oppressors (the Egyptians), while those whose houses were marked with the blood of the sacrificed lamb would be saved. God said: “When I see the blood, I will pass over you and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you.” (Exodus 12:13)

Now you know why it’s called Passover!

In a nutshell:

The Hebrew people were saved by the blood of the lamb, just as Christians are saved by the Blood of the Lamb.

The Hebrew people were required to eat the flesh of the sacrificed lamb, just as Christians must eat the Flesh of the Sacrificed Lamb.

Read the Gospel of John chapter 6 to hear Jesus’ own words on the subject, which are unambiguous and oft-repeated. (For those tempted to regard Jesus' words as mere symbol, recall that every New Testament fulfillment is always bigger, better and more miraculous by far than the Old Testament prefigurement that pointed to it.)

After that original Passover in Egypt, the Hebrew people were commanded to celebrate it annually, as a memorial. To this day, Jews celebrate a Passover (or seder) meal every year.

You may note that the Catholic Mass looks a lot like a Passover meal, and that's because it is the fulfillment of the Passover meal. It is no coincidence that Jesus instituted the Eucharist during a Passover meal on the night before He died. As the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper tell us, Jesus made some substitutions and revisions at that Holy Thursday Passover: From that night on, He Himself would be the sacrificed Lamb to be eaten under the appearance of unleavened bread, and it would be His Precious Blood that would liberate God’s people (not from the bondage of slavery, but from the much more terrible bondage of sin). The flesh to be consumed and the blood to save us would from now on be Jesus' own, offered for the life of the world.

"Lamb of God, You take away the sins of the world. Have mercy on us."

Christ did not come to abolish the Old Testament, He came to fulfill it. You can see why it’s so important that we Catholics understand the Jewish roots of our Faith. From there, everything starts to come alive for us, and we begin to see the beauty of the whole tapestry of Truth, and how it all fits together.

There are many more Old Testament prefigurements of Christ, His Passion and His Crucifixion, and there are many more Old Testament prefigurements of the Mass and the Eucharist. I hope this whets your appetite for more.

See you next time for Part VII: Authority!



.

Bubble pride is on the line! And other belated Quick Takes

Whew! Thank goodness there are no Quick Takes police around here, making sure that these things run only on Fridays.

(I mean… there aren't any, right Jen?)

1. I guess I'm just a little paranoid because today we deal in Chicago-style politics. The gloves are off and the shameless influencing of votes begins. That's right: The Bubble has been nominated for its first ever blogger award!!!!  (Well, it's technically an anti-award, but still…) Thanks to Rebecca, aka The Mom at Shoved To Them, who nominated me for a Cannonball Award in the "Best Armchair Theologian" category on the Crescat's blog. I am so honored by that sole nomination that I am not only begging every last one of you (even those who hate my guts) to go and vote for me, right here, but also thuggishly demanding that you vote early and often (once a day is permitted, I believe).

Now, clearly The Mom and I are engaged in a conspiracy of corruption; you know… you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. So, I urge you to vote for Shoved to Them in her categories, too! Cronyism is alive and well!

Oh, and since it's clear that Stacy of Accepting Abundance deserves to win in my category instead of me (and since I am trying to undermine her chances), please do vote for Stacy in "Best New Kid on the Block" so that she can go home with a Cannonball, also. With the war she's been through, she needs the ammunition. ;)

While we're at it, please also pull the lever for Calah at Barefoot and Pregnant, Steve Gershom, and Hallie at Betty Beguiles in their respective categories. And anyone else whom I've neglected to mention but whose votes I wish to coerce.

C'mon now people, surely some of you used to work for ACORN, so go and buy some votes! Bubble pride is on the line!!


2. I believe my posts have been fewer and farther between lately. And yet, is it normal to have 171 drafts? I mean, seriously.


3. Speaking of, here are the working titles of some of my posts-in-progress:

The Cult of the Expert
Moral simplicity leads to tyranny?
To believe in sola scriptura means…
Love is not based on negation
The miracle of mercy
Are you wiser than a 17th Century Catholic peasant?
A small story of suffering
Feminists and fear
The worst moment on my blog
Reasons I should never have had eight kids*
Why all sexual sin is serious sin
I wonder what happened to Gina? An abortion story
The fear of becoming Catholic
Natural law vs. positive law
Bring back Pinocchio
Is there such thing as "the one"?
Why sex is different from eating ice cream

And so many more. That you may or may not ever see.


4. This post by Devin Rose has haunted me for days, while simultaneously causing me to burst out laughing involuntarily when I think of it. Devin's questions about the video are even funnier than the video itself. If laughing at something like this is wrong, I don't wanna be right:

Thank God I am Catholic. (That's not elitist, by the way, because we Catholics want everyone to be Catholic!)

5. One reason I haven't been as active on my own blog is that I have been dialoguing with the homosexuals/atheists on Stacy's blog. Coincidentally, the following post came at the perfect time for some comic relief:

The Anti-Catholic's Guide to Catholic Comboxes

Seriously hilarious, and so true! Any Catholic blogger who has written a controversial post and gotten atheist blowback will enjoy it. And any novice anti-Catholic commenters can go there to find their marching orders. ;)

6. I've always loved singer Collin Raye, even before I became a big fan of country music. But I love him even more today, as he recently became the new spokesman for the Life and Hope Network founded by Terri Schiavo's family. As you can read here, Terri's story is very personal to Mr. Raye. God bless him and the Schindler Family. We will never forget Terri.

7. Um, yeah, just a reminder to go now and vote for me, here. And again tomorrow. And the next day. Because if I lose, you're all going down with me.








*but thank God I did anyway! Yay!





.

Human Dignity, a reminder

Back on February 23, I published the following post. I wrote it in response to the discussions we were having at the time, about the "hook-up" culture. But in light of the homosexual/atheist discussions we've had lately, I thought I'd offer it again as a reminder.

The great conversation continues about the "hook-up" culture, a culture that I contend is the natural result of the the sexual revolution and modern feminist philosophy. I want to thank Complicated Life for making an excellent point during a discussion of sexual purity:

Sexual purity is rightly to be valued and honored, but it is not the source of a woman (or man's) self-worth. We have worth because of our human dignity. Sexual purity is proper to our DIGNITY as human persons; a dignity that is inherent in being a person.

This cannot be stressed enough: No one has to earn or apply for human dignity. Not the unborn, not the elderly, not the disabled, not the mentally ill, not the hardened criminal. Not anyone. No one has to prove his innate value. Human beings have value simply because we exist. Our dignity is inherent.


Are you a nasty gossip? You still have human dignity.
Are you a lazy slob? You still have human dignity.
Are you a lecherous creep? You still have human dignity.
Are you a greedy corporate raider? You still have human dignity.
Are you an unrepentant serial killer? You still have human dignity. 


Do you feel like the most worthless, unloved, unknown person on the planet? It's not true. You are worthy, loved and known. And you have human dignity.


But why? 


Because human beings were made in the image and likeness of God. It's that simple. 


It's true that we can speak against our human dignity, we can act against our human dignity, we can deny or denounce our human dignity, but we cannot erase it or change the reality of it.


Pope Benedict XVI said it beautifully:

We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.

You are not a random product of chance. You are not a fluke. You are not here by accident, just waiting to go "poof" into non-existence someday. You are known. You were planned. You exist because Someone wanted you to exist. 

As I've said before and will continue to say, you were made to love and be loved.

And if you understand what true love is, and Who true love is, you will never doubt your own human dignity again, and you will begin to live as a child of God.