Atheism: The Fallacy

Per Wikipedia: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

I disagree. That claim is lacking in logic. A more honest assessment would be:

Athiesm is the religious believe in the non-existence of any deity.

But let me be clear: Atheism and theism are on equal footing,  as neither can demonstrate through reproducible experiments the veracity of their theories. However, most believers are quite happy to acknowledge their faith, while most atheists pretend that theirs is a simple matter of fact.

If we properly understand that atheism is a belief system, then what of the ACLU challenges mounted by the atheists?

These cases then reduce to the demand by one religious group to dismantle the demonstrations (statues, signage, etc.) of another religious group. I grant that this does make them nearly unique among religious groups. The only other which seems bent on obliterating other groups is Islam.

But think of it, long and hard. If you can offer a solid proof in support of atheism as other than a religion, I am all ears.

Update:
A few people on other sites have challenged my position, as I expressed it here. They hold with the definition given by Wikipedia. A rejection of belief in a deity is a position only incrementally different to agnosticism. Most of those I have met who proclaim their atheism are adamant, often strident about it. Theirs is no longer a rejection of belief--it has become a belief in the non-existence of God. To some, the distinction may appear subtle; I do not find it so. It is a glaring difference.

Hard-core atheists try to read the 1st Amendment as declaring the right to freedom from religion. Sorry, but that is not what it says. These are people who are antagonistic to the faithful. They file suits through the ACLU to banish any religious display from public view. These people do not merely reject the belief in a deity--they propose to reject the right of others to such a belief.

The Liturgy

Can. 213 Christ's faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments.

All Christians have a right to receive help from the spiritual goods of the Church.  This right is rooted in baptism; it is not a privilege granted by church authorities, but a claim rooted in the action of Christ that empowers Christians to seek the services of the sacred pastors.  These latter have the obligation to see that this help is available.
-- The Code of Canon Law, a Text and Commentary, The Canon Law Society of America, edited by James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green and Donald E. Heintschel, Paulist Press, New York, NY/Mahwah, NJ, © 1985 by the Canon Law Society of America.

What does this say about the Ordinary Form of the Mass? For many years after Pope Paul VI's Mass was instituted, the translation used was very poor, and the variations from one parish to another, from one priest to another, were disturbing, at best.

If we are to take responsibility for our own understanding of what the Church teaches, we must face some difficult teachings. We must be prepared to distinguish right and wrong, of course, but must also develop an understanding of what is heretical.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.


"Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt...." Consider then, that we routinely hear that 98% of Catholics make use of artificial contraception. From the Catechism:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.¹⁵⁸ These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:¹⁵⁹

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. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.¹⁶⁰

I shall not provide the information referred to by the footnote numbers. For those who desire more study, the relevant sections of the catechism may be found online at St. Charles Borromeo parish, Picayune, MS. An excellent site, worth exploration.

So, given the definition of heresy, the reality of CCC 2370, and the poll results which claim 98% of (presumably fecund) Catholics in America practice artificial birth control, does that make 89% of American Catholics heretics?

Hard teaching in need of deep reflection.

On our obligations

In discussion on another blog, I was asked to justify my disagreement with the Church Hierarchy. The discussion was with respect to the USCCB statement of 12 April, this year, on religious liberty.

My disagreement is with their reference to "undocumented immigrants", a phrase which is at best, disingenuous. The people are illegal aliens, and many of them have contributed very unpleasantly to our lives, bringing with them drug-resistant strains of diseases we had all but obliterated, violent criminals, high levels of illiteracy and low levels of skill. I am not opposed to immigration, which is a legal process in which these people have elected not to participate. My wife and step-daughter are immigrants. Not illegals.

However, to the issue at hand.

In essence, the question is how dare I disagree with the bishops?

Well, let us review.

The statement is from the USCCB, not the Holy Father, so it is not binding. And had it been from the Holy Father, and not promulgated as an infallible teaching, it would still not be binding. It is simply a statement of what the signatories to the document believe are the approaches we should support in a number of areas.

With all due respect, I disagree with them on the illegals. I will never refer to them as "undocumented immigrants", as this is a deflection, a distraction from the legal reality that these people are here illegally.

As to the "basic human right" of health care, if it is a right, then its provision is an obligation. The logical result is either that we declare doctors are bound to provide free care, or that society is. Or in the style of our current president, we might declare that corporations must provide it at no charge. All of these are nonsense.

An aside: No one is refused health care at this time, anyway. Between 1997 and 2004, in California, 44 hospitals closed their doors forever, bankrupted by providing care to those unable to pay, a cost they were obligated to because they participated in Medicare and Medicaid.

Economics as a study was invented by the Church, long ago. Yet today, her princes, not unlike our politicians,appear to have forgotten it, or have not been schooled in it.

Returning to the topic, what are our obligations? First, we are obligated to obey what Christ taught, and then, what the Church infallibly teaches. And what of the bishops? Well, it is worth remembering that during the Arian heresy, 90% of the bishops were eventually on the wrong side of that. Should the faithful have followed them? Are we lemmings? We are called to obey Church teachings; we are also called to right reason, and to turn away from sin and heresy, itself a sin.

False Teachings

In today's homily, we received a very clear explanation of the dangers of false teachings. The context was the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and Father described a modern rationale which held that what actually happened was the the people gathered had food hidden under their cloaks, and that they brought out and shared the food only because of the lesson of sharing from Jesus. This is clearly the work of some people who do not believe in miracles at all. And if they deny the reality of miracles, then they should not pretend to Catholic faith.

We are all sinners with free will, and we are equipped to make decisions, for good or ill. However, as Catholics, we are called to believe the teachings of Holy Mother Church. Not only the ones we find appealing--all of them.

Many today propose to lead us. Some of these are good and faithful people; many are not. We can know what the Church teaches, as it is all in print, and much is available online, at no cost.

The Church acknowledges invincible ignorance. A person honestly unaware of Church teachings may be innocent of willful sin; a person who knows the teachings, or knows where to find them, and who fails to do so, or who is selective in acceptance of these teachings does not possess invincible ignorance; he is a sinner, and all the more guilty, through his willful failure to acquire the knowledge of his faith.

Finally, as has become abundantly clear to me, we are each of us responsible not only for our own decisions and acts, but for our salvation. We are beloved of God, hence His abundant mercy toward us. However, He has provided teachings, from the prophets, from Jesus, His only begotten son, and finally, from the Church, the Magisterium, charged through Peter to spread the Gospels.

The history of the Church encompasses good times and bad, good leaders and bad. Through all, the Church survives. However, as was said by Sr. Lucy of Fatima: "the devil knows that religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell." As Cardinal Newman said of the time of the Arian heresy: "The comparatively few who remained faithful were discredited and driven into exile; the rest were either deceivers or deceived." In such times, we must turn to dogma as our anchor.

We are instructed not to judge, but we are held responsible to discern right from wrong. Moreover, we have available the Catechisms: Trent, Baltimore, and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II. We can consult any of these for truth. We must consult them in any case of doubt. There is no excuse we can offer for failure to discern, when the day of our final judgment arrives.

Furor over what Bishops may say

There have lately been some very odd statements made regarding the propriety of bishops' statements on our responsibilities as citizens. Some have claimed that our bishops have no right to make public statements on political issues.

Think of it. Because a man is a priest or bishop, his free speech rights are sacrificed?

Nonsense.

I am not saying that a priest or bishop may not be constrained by the Church existing under the the rules for a 501(c)3 organization. That is a separate consideration.

What then, can a bishop or priest say to us with respect to any election? First, he may teach us what Church doctrine tells us is our moral responsibility. He can to that without naming any candidate.

What I believe he must do is to teach us from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on our responsibilities as citizens. If you have not read it, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you do. At the very least, begin with article 2234 and read through to the end of 2283. You will find essential information on citizenship in general, and on a number of specific issues, including immigration, abortion, and euthanasia.

We are not Catholic if we live only part of the faith. We are bound to all that the Church teaches. If we do not study the teachings, we cannot live them.

Vatican II as "Super Dogma"?

Today Fr. Z has an interesting article that raises the notion of Vatican II as a sort of "Super Dogma."

In my parish, most of those involved in education, whether in grades or in adult education, including RCIA, are gung-ho Vatican II fans. I am, as well, but I disagree with the others on nearly everything I have read in the documents of the Council.

How can this be?

I concluded years ago that most of the people in my parish education department are not fans of Vatican II, but fans of the Spirit of Vatican II. I suppose it's easy to enjoy that position, since it means, in essence, whatever you wish it to mean. According to these people, Vatican II gave us:

• Mass in the vernacular
• Versus populum celebration of Mass (priest facing the people)
• Wide-open choices in music
• Altar girls
• Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at every Mass
• Tabernacle optional
• Crucifix over altar optional
• Mass as a community meal

Vatican II did none of those things.

The constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, said:

• Latin reaffirmed as the language of the Mass 
• nothing about changing the orientation of the altar
• Gregorian chant reaffirmed
• nothing about altar girls
• nothing about EMHCs
• nothing about moving the tabernacle
• nothing about removing the crucifix
• nothing about the Eucharist as other than the body and blood of our Lord

However, there are articles in SC which have been used as loopholes through which these changes have been driven. Moreover, the language in SC is in many places open to interpretation. Michael Davies wrote extensively about these problems with the documents. And it is not only a problem in SC, but in all the documents; I focus on SC simply because I am more familiar with it than with the other documents.

If you wish to read the articles which are most troublesome, look to articles 37-40 (emphasis added):

37. Even in the Liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the Liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.
38. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.
39. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.
40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the Liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:
1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into Divine Worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.
2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.
3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

So clearly, these articles provide for changes, even as in article 40, "radical" changes. However, as the heading which appears before article 37 is:


D) Norms for adapting the Liturgy to the culture and traditions of peoples


And as the culture and traditions of Catholics in America prior to the release of SC had been framed by the Latin Mass, weekly confession, priest facing liturgical East (facing, with the people, toward our God), traditional and reverential hymns with conventional instrumentation (organ at minimum, orchestral accompaniment in extreme cases), tabernacle on the altar, and altar boys (who may discover a vocation in this special service), it is difficult in the extreme to understand whence came these wholesale changes.


Before Mass, the nave used to be a place of quiet prayer; now it is as noisy as the parish hall. We had hymns which had been in use for hundreds of years; now anything prior to 1985 is suspect.


Consider these things, and consider whether in your own parish, you find reverence before and during the Mass. And if you do, is it within yourself, or do most of the faithful exhibit a similar demeanor?


I will write more on this....

NCR never changes

In her most recent article, Phyllis Zagano takes to task the entire magisterium of the Church. Apparently the recent report on the LCWR was entirely unjust, conjured by a bunch of old men:

The noise coming from Rome about American women religious is in large part just that: the blustering of old men, translated into official-looking documents by cassock-clad junior clerics who wistfully wander the Curia's halls dreaming of a more orderly church, where lace is white and lay folk are quiet.

Never mind that the study analyzed the presentations of the LCWR over a ten year interval. Nor that the issues raised were entirely on the basis of failures of the LCWR to conform to Church doctrine. Clearly, to ask women religious to remember their vows and to adhere to them is simply too much.

The whole thing is a heartbreak. I can picture the tears you've shed, for your community, for your vocation, for your very life. Please believe me, nothing was wasted.

Yes, it is a heartbreak, but not in the sense Ms. Zagano means. It is heartbreaking that the orders which stopped wearing habits and left the convent:

• are dying, attracting no new members
• are opting to apply new age techniques which have been condemned (Enneagrams, et al)
• continue to lionize dissidents, such as Richard Rohr and Joan Chittister
• continue to show contempt for the hierarchy

But on the bright side, there is good news from orders which are in full communion with Rome. Sisters in Nashville, and in Ann Arbor, to name two locations, are enjoying growth in their vibrant communities, with good numbers of young women entering the novitiate.

Like two sides of a coin. Or a trend.

Secularization and the Church

“It is no exaggeration to say that providing young people with a sound education in the faith represents the most urgent internal challenge facing the Catholic community in your country,” the Holy Father said to the bishops, who represented dioceses in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

I am inclined to think that though the role of Catholic universities in secularization is less obvious than that of the media or government, it is more insidious. These are institutions entrusted not only with supporting our faith, but with educating our young in accordance with that faith. Thus by their failure, they are propogating a secular future, not just the near future, but future generations.

As to what Jesuits are called to uphold, one can only wonder. By their fruit you shall know them. America (magazine), Boston College, Fordham, Georgetown, Santa Clara U., USF... all are pretty sorry fruit. And Catholic? Hardly.
"In 2008, Archbishop Joseph Naumann revealed that he had asked Sebelius not to receive Holy Communion because of her support for legalized abortion." Any news on whether she has obeyed?

When I think of Catholic politicians, the list is short. When I think of CINOs, the phrase which springs to mind is latae sententiae (literally, sentence passed--often read as "by the act itself"). And while these people will ultimately answer to God for their actions, should the Church corporate not act on earth? When a commercial corporation's brand is usurped, action is taken, because the brand itself has a value which is lessened by the usurpers.

Moreover, self-excommunication is a grim thing to consider, but the lack of a formal excommunication is tantamount to an endorsement, as far as the laity at large are concerned. How are they to understand that these CINOs seem almost never to be called to account by the bishops?

Academia wants all voices to be heard. Fine. But Catholic academia has a duty to teach discernment. Let all be heard, but for the university to appear to endorse by failing to condemn is a travesty. For professors--do any still teach?--to fail to raise the topic of a local speaker for discussion and debate is to waste an opportunity for real instruction in logic and reason.

One of the greatest travesties to come from the spirit of Vatican II is the notion that (often ill-formed or unformed) conscience trumps teaching and dogma.

Registering in your parish

There is a topic on Fr. Z's blog which has erupted into a lengthy argument over the matter of parish registration.

Interesting that so many (self-appointed) canonists have come out to play. All of them are quite sure they know what Canon Law says, and some are all but indignant that they should not have to register. And many are attacking Supertradmum (full disclosure: she's a friend of mine), who is actually one of the few with any significant education or training in the matter.

What puzzles me most, however, is why so many seem rigidly opposed to registering. And they don't enlighten us on that. I understand that many operational decisions are left to the bishop, and I know that in some dioceses, the bishop is dependent on the willingness of the faithful to support the diocese. In my own diocese, that is not the case. The diocese assesses the contribution required of each parish, and it is a debt owed, so if the bishop's appeal does not receive the level of support needed, the parish budget suffers, but the diocese gets its funding. I'm not a fan of that approach, but it is apparently canonically acceptable, so there you are.

Our Church, thanks be to God, is not a democracy.

However, our Church does need our support. Without it, the Church cannot provide the services we believe it should. And although I loathe the spirit of Vatican II folks their "we are church" expression, when it comes to funding, we are indeed the Body of Christ. We cannot indulge in fiduciary neglect, then deride the bishops for failing to keep parish churches open.

Register at your parish, if you have not already.

Catechesis

In the blogs I follow daily, it is striking how many comments reflect the utter failure of catechesis since Vatican II. We have seen the rise of the "magisterium of nuns and theologians" decide that they know more and better than our bishops, and that their own ideas trump doctrine.

Well, we are Catholic for the good of our souls, not for the whims of political fashion. Fads come and go, but damnation is forever.

On language...

I have borrowed the title of this post from the name of a book by George Bernard Shaw. The provocation for the article is a comment from someone on another blog:
"I was under the impression that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” properly belong to the secular-political realm, and not to the Catholic Church. Regarding the Faith, one is either orthodox or a heretic…"
Oh, how we wish to keep things simple. But of course, we cannot.

I submit that one reason that terms used in political discussion have been applied to discussions of religious views is that these views bear a striking resemblance to their political counterparts. But to dismiss the original complaint, we must bear in mind that in any living language, words are added, others go out of use, and still others suffer alteration of meaning, or are applied to different elements of life than those to which they originally referred, as in the case at hand.

In context, the term was used to describe Pope Benedict, in his nature during the time of the Council. And it is true, he was a liberal, as the term is now used. And in fact, as I recall, Rev. Wiltgen identified him as such, in his not so recent book about the Council, so using the term isn't all that novel.

What is of greater import to me than the words used is whether the comment was thoughtful. So often these days, people fail utterly to engage the brain prior to speaking. If the person in question has given the matter some thought, I am less likely to quibble over words used than when I hear or read some knee-jerk emotional response.

But that's just me....

It's a Republic, stupid

A current article on Catholic Culture provokes me to write under this title. It is entirely likely that we have devolved into a democracy, though our founding fathers did their best to avoid that trap. I can see only two ways out: the first is to recover the function of a republic; the second is less pastoral.

OK, I must say this while I can

Let us be very clear. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.⁷⁵ God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.⁷⁶

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,⁷⁷ by the very commission of the offense,"⁷⁸ and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.⁷⁹ The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."⁸⁰
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."⁸¹
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."⁸²
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."⁸³
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."⁸⁴
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"⁸⁵ which are unique and unrepeatable.

So, it follows that:

- a Catholic cannot participate in the procurement of an abortion

- a Catholic cannot vote for a politician who supports abortions

Then we would have to find that:
- a Catholic cannot vote for Obama
- a Catholic cannot vote for Biden
- a Catholic cannot vote for Pelosi
Nor can a Catholic vote for any of quite a few others who will be on the ballot in November.

Referring again to 2272, one may well contemplate which of the various self-professed Catholics are already outside the Church, through self-excommunication.

I'm sure that many Catholics are unaware of this penalty. And perhaps most are unaware that it does not require an act by a bishop or the pope. It is as inescapable as it can be: a matter between the person and God.

(N.B.: the title refers to the reality that blogs can be placed under government censorship, under the current election laws and regulations. In theory, that cannot yet be done for a few months. Also, the reason I felt I needed to be as explicit as to say "a Catholic cannot" is that from what I have read, 54% of the laity and of the bishops voted for Obama in 2008.)

Dawkins and his ilk keep on...

So one of the commenters on Fr. Z's site today made mention of a melee on Richard Dawkins' site. One of the commenters there wrote:

As usual.... vapid, nebulous response. Never an answer. Never any proof. Full of "because I say so"......

I know he was commenting on a message from a Christian, but if we consider the position of atheists, I could offer the same comment. He also spoke of circular arguments, but those are pretty much what the atheists offer, as well.

The one interesting thing about atheism is the refusal of its practitioners to comprehend that they, too, are exercising faith. Their faith is in opposition to ours, but they can offer no more proof than we can. They simply pretend, because they scoff at faith.

Other news, of the excellent flavor

My daughter is in her final year at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. A year ago, without letting us know she was doing it, she completed her own path to baptism and confirmation! This year, instead of doing anything silly, she spent Spring break with her chaplain (a fine priest) and other cadets on a trip to Vatican City. In two weeks, we will journey to Connecticut to witness and celebrate her graduation from the USCGA. We are so blessed.

Updates, various

Blue Henn, thanks for the comment. I have corrected the settings I had in place for comments, so in future, if you have something to offer, it won't go into the ether....

Yes, I am in full communion. I was baptized last June, and confirmed that same day, as was my wife.

Some changes are better than others...

I have received news that our pastor of the last six years has resigned. I am sad for our loss, but sadder still for his. He carries the cross of alcoholism, and has in the past year not carried it so well as we might wish. Moreover, he has medical issues which are likely the consequence of past alcohol abuse. My thoughts and prayers go with him, always.

Fine priest that he is, he has been my rock through the times when I was impatient with the process on the road to my baptism. He was ever ready to discuss what troubled me, and always helpful in providing sources to answers in greater depth than his time might permit for our discussion.

I pray that our Archbishop will be able to place him in a parish or other position where the stresses may be less than in our own parish.

Back, I think...

OK, I have been remiss for many months in making time for this blog. I should do better, and it's a fit place in which to discuss why a Catholic cannot simply act on the basis of the Forming Consciences For Faithful Citizenship document fro the USCCB.

Have patience. I am back, but will have to ease into it....