A Move Toward Sanity

 After 49 shameful years, Roe v. Wade has been overturned. At last.

Over 64,220,000 abortions in the US alone since Roe v. Wade made abortion legal.

64 million innocents murdered.

And yes, abortion is murder. Always murder. Never healthcare. And hopefully, never more!

Defenders of Infanticide on the March

 At least 21 pro-abort members of Congress are appealing to Alphabet, Inc. to manipulate the Google search engine to hide pregnancy crisis centers. 

As we know, "pro-choice" means pro-abort. The other option they will fight tooth and nail to prevent. 

On the Attacks on Traditional Catholics

 Almost a year ago, Pope Francis published his motu proprio "Traditionis Custodes", which seeks to eradicate all celebration of the Mass of the Ages, the usus antiquior, also referred to as the Extraordinary Form, or TLM.

The premise is that traditional Catholics deny Vatican II. Further, that we consider the Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form of the mass to be invalid. These claims are false.

The claim that we create division is not merely false, but seeks to distract from the reality that division is a primary result of the Novus Ordo, with its many options, and undisciplined ad libs by some "presiders."

Prior to the release of the Novus Ordo, mass was consistent around the world. The language was Latin, and to the degree that you came to understand it, that understanding served you equally well in any country. But now, with the Novus Ordo in the vernacular, churches in relative proximity may be celebrating in almost any language. And even if you visit adjacent parishes which use the same language, the options applied may still confuse those unfamiliar with the full range of possibilities.

We are told that Vatican II called for this new liturgy. Another false claim. The constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, called for:

• Continuing to use Latin
• Continuing to favor chant and polyphony
• Preference given to the use of the organ

And certainly, SC did not call for the extensive use of "hymns" written by apostates, Protestants, or laicized clerics. Nor yet, for a Gloria set to the tune of My Little Pony. And yet, in Novus Ordo parishes all over the country, these are standard fare.

People with training in knowledge in theology, the liturgy, and Canon law have all written extensively on the problems with the motu proprio. Many have said it is internally incoherent, not juridical, and self-contradictory. Moreover, it places a heavy burden on bishops, whose duties are already heavy. And it risks alienating a segment of Catholic America which is growing, procreating, and supporting its parishes, even as the Novus Ordo parishes are shrinking and families in them are having fewer children. 

The traditional Catholics are estimated at 5-6% of American Catholics, yet Latin parishes frequently account for as much as 20% of new vocations in their dioceses. If there are no new priests, then all too soon there will be no Church. No priest, no Eucharist. It is not rocket science, after all.

Willful Ignorance may be our Destruction

Willful ignorance is dangerously stupid. 

To characterize the rioters in the Capitol as "Trump supporters" is to refuse to see the thugs who were dropped in to instigate violence. With all the many Trump rallies since he announced his candidacy, at how many have Trump supporters been violent?

And yet, suddenly they are ready to take the place apart?

Get a grip, people. There were two sources of violence I observed: the imported thugs and the nominal law enforcement people who were there ostensibly to quell violence.

We now live in a country which is increasingly godless and immoral. Abortion is the one essential plank of the Democrat platform. Covid has provided a facade for the introduction of totalitarian controls. 

Now if, and I do not find it incredible at all, the Democrats decide to pack the Supreme Court, then it is truly over for the republic. Expect the closing of the churches and the opening of the internment camps.

We are not much different from China, it seems.

Real Evils

We hear endlessly now about white privilege and racism. 

As so often happens, self-proclaimed victims have hijacked the meaning of racism, claiming that it can be inflicted only on non-whites, people of color.

So many years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his speech I have a Dream. The declaration which gave a name to his speech was:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!

Today I sat through a lengthy presentation on white privilege. Let me now offer the definition of bigotry, of which racism is a subset:

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Dr. King, looking down on what has become of his dream, must surely be weeping. White privilege is a textbook example of bigotry, no less offensive than any of the derogatory terms which have been applied to people considered "people of color." How can it be less offensive to judge nominal whites for their skin color than to judge any visible minority? 

Anyone who calls himself Christian must reject bigotry in all forms. 

Jesus' second Great Commandment directs that: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

There is no option there in support of bigotry. Neither does it allow for seizing victimhood as a means of exacting special rights -- or anything else.

Today's Realities

Over two years ago, I lost one of my dearest friends. He was also my confessor of choice, a former microbiologist, and the most reliable spiritual guide I have known. Fr. Charles had been raised in Nigeria, and would have disagreed with the assessment of his then bishop that the biggest problem in the archdiocese of Atlanta was racism.

Father would also have been deeply saddened at the current epidemic of racial exploitation.

Yes, there is racism in Atlanta, though the assertion was, I am certain, intended to portray white racists. Sorry, Abp. Gregory, but the most common source of racism I observed during my years there was black racists.

Racism is a major issue because those who profit by their ranting will not let the issue die.

Fr. Charles was my friend, my brother, and a very holy man. He was a frequent guest at our table. He was a gentleman and a gentle man. He was kind, and always generous. He often laughed at the notion of a day off for a priest -- "should I take a day off from serving the Lord?"

But in Atlanta, not all priests are of that spirit. One I encountered online through a friend who is a deacon is proudly a member of Black Lives Matter. There are some problems with that:

• BLM favors socialism, condemned by the Church.
• BLM is in favor of disrupting the economy, doing damage to the poor.
• BLM is pro-LGBTQ, and anti-family, which are also positions contrary to Church teaching.

I am thankful he is unlike any priest I have experienced in a parish setting.

For the last week I have been flooded with online articles on racism, almost entirely devoted to the notion that whites are inescapably racists, and that blacks are incapable of racism. That view is one fortified by profound ignorance of reality. Everyone is capable of racism, as much as of other sins.

Conventional wisdom holds that whites are racist and that racism is rife in the South. Sorry, all of you in the media, but in 2020, all evidence suggests that you are inverting reality. I encounter racism and hatred in blacks, and only rarely in whites. And I see more evidence of racism in the North than here in the South.

What is deeply disturbing is that the hate mongers are so often self-proclaimed Christians. Even men of the cloth. The plank in their eyes...

Father, my brother, you are sorely missed.

There is no middle ground...

Trying times...

For months, I have felt the need to write about the madness which besets us now.

The Church is the Body of Christ. Not the hierarchy, not the laity, not some particular group of people, but all of us. All men are sinners, and Christ died to redeem all of us.

It has become all too common to see one group or another within the Catholic Church attacking another. By what right? We are all STILL sinners.

There are those who say the trads are troublemakers or worse. Really? Define "trad." And once you have done so, explain how those who take comfort in the liturgy of the ages are in some way less worth than those who proclaim the liturgy of the last 50 years.

No? I grant, the case is all but impossible to make.

The enemy we face is not new, but the same Evil One who tempted Jesus so long ago. But Jesus stood fast, and we seem to lack the will. Or the faith.

In our time, we have seen priests and bishops betray their vows. So? All men are sinners. We have seen this before. Read the history of St. Peter Damien. Man up. Faith is not easy. We are flawed, and predisposed to take the easy path, the path of immediate comfort. Of sin.

But we are called to follow our faith, and to act out of virtue. It is not easy. But it is right.

I have too often seen that there are some (few) priests and bishops who remain steadfast in their faith, committed to their vows, and are found wanting. By God? We know not. But they are found wanting by their fellow men. Because they are not sufficiently strong, not sufficiently outspoken, or whatever. Oddly, those who would condemn these good men have usually done less in support of the faith.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

I will not be casting stones, but I shall ask that we all reflect, and that we also consider whether we seek so defend our faith, the one true church, or whether we seek to offer aid and comfort to the Evil One.

There can be no middle ground.

Update:

I had a comment which I will not publish, as the writer insisted upon reading my post through the lens of his prejudices. I won't enter into a debate with anyone who insists on challenging me on the basis of assertions I did not make.

Contrary to his assertions, I made no attack on those who prefer the Novus Ordo. Nor have I attempted to justify those priests -- and bishops and cardinals -- who have broken their vows and indulged their sexual desires on youth. Predatory priests should, at the very least, be removed from parish work. 

Each of us must work out his own salvation in fear and trembling. 

On Shepherds...

A shepherd serves an essential role, guiding and protecting his flock. It is  not by chance that we see the role of a bishop as that of shepherd. A good shepherd must care for his flock, even to the least of them. So also, a good bishop must love his flock, and in guiding, must also teach, that even the least might learn to choose the narrow gate in preference to the wide.
We are challenged this year, as never before in an election year. As many have noted, both candidates have flaws.

And meanwhile, both candidates for the nation’s top residence, the White House, have astonishing flaws.  -- Archbishop Charles Chaput

Yes, bishop, they have, but all men are sinners. I do not see, nor can I find in history, any saint on the ballot for president. But I would put it to the bishop that flawed as they may be, our electoral system truly makes this a two-party system, despite some semi-rational arguments to the contrary. Abp. Chaput, again:

One candidate — in the view of a lot of people — is an eccentric businessman of defective ethics whose bombast and buffoonery make him inconceivable as president.  And the other – in the view of a lot of people – should be under criminal indictment. 

 Here, Abp. Chaput and I must part ways. To call Mr. Trump "inconceivable" as president is to imply that no one can, in good conscience, vote for him. That is patently false.

The Democrat party, and Mrs. Clinton hold:

• That abortion is an essential right of the woman, even up to the point of delivery.
• That churches in general, and the Catholic Church, in particular, must revise their doctrine to conform to political notions.

Mr. Trump, on the other hand has declared:

• He is now pro-life, and has recounted a conversion story on that issue.
• He believes that the matter of abortion should be, and should have been, a state issue, not Federal. 

Clinton, in public statements, has all but declared war on Catholics, denigrating our beliefs, and vowing to force change. It is also clear, from public statements, that she seeks to remove not only the 1st and 2nd amendments, but several more, as well. Her goal has clearly been to transform the USA into a socialist state, and her buddy Barack has already made inroads in that direction. But I digress.

Mr. Trump has declared an end to persecution of religious orders and medical practitioners who invoke their rights of conscience.

My Problem with Abp. Chaput's Statements

First, in fairness, I must point out that Abp. Chaput prefaced his comments with this disclaimer:

My column this week is a collection of personal comments.  Read it as thoughts from a brother in the faith, not as teachings from an archbishop.

Ummm...  OK. But he remains an archbishop, a shepherd with a large flock in his care. Certainly he may have his own thoughts, which may even be (somewhat) at odds with his mission.

But frankly, this is equivocation, and as it is given in public, I find it disingenuous to disclaim. A shepherd speaking in public is still influencing his flock.

So then, and to mix it up a bit, we have this from Bp. Conley:

No Catholic should feel obliged to vote for one candidate just to prevent the election of another.

But in his speech at Notre Dame, Abp. Chaput:

“If Christians leave the public square,” Chaput said, “other people with much worse intentions won’t. The surest way to make the country suffer is to not contest them in public debate and in the voting booth.” 

So here is a challenge. We see Bp. Conley and Abp. Chaput offering their flocks quite opposite advice. And truly, I must reject Bp. Conley, and favor Abp. Chaput in this. In neither case are we being formally instructed in the sense of being told we have an obligation. But while Bp. Conley declares we have no obligation, Abp. Chaput recognizes a reality, that to abstain is to leave the matter to others, whose intentions may be less admirable. Or whose consciences  may lack proper formation, if we would look at it in terms of Church teaching.

And Yet...

I remain troubled with Abp. Chaput. He has declared his "opinion" that both candidates are badly flawed. And in that declaration, has failed to explore the differences in a useful fashion.

We may dislike both candidates as people. I surely admit I would not wish to have either of them in my home for dinner. However, we are Catholics first, and citizens second. In our role as citizens we have a responsibility and obligation, to ourselves, our neighbors, and our children, to act against evil, at the very least. As Catholics, we must be guided in those actions by our faith.

Bp. Conley seems to suggest we can ignore our duty as citizens. What, then, is to become of our children?

Abp. Chaput, on the other hand, recognizes that we must exert our influence to bring about good. Yet he fails to lead in the essential matter of differentiating between two flawed candidates.

What sad times.

Our society, and the need for prayer...

Our society--I have ceased referring to it as a culture, as that has too many positive connotations--has largely descended into secular hedonism. Every day there is some new story about people wanting polyamory, lowering of the age of consent, and even bestiality, to be considered normal expressions of human desire.

The human desire for sex,  however, is one created for procreation. For the preservation of the human race, and for the creation of families. With the sole exception of the age of consent, none of the issues at question is genitive. Homosexuality begets no progeny, nor does bestiality.

We Catholics must recognize that the world around us has largely elected to embrace, even to celebrate, sin. The only rational response we may make is to strengthen and deepen our prayer lives.

We have endless resources in pursuit of this goal:

• Pray the Rosary, at least daily.
• Pray the morning offering.
• Pray the Divine Office. Yes, it takes a good deal of time. You have more important things to do?
• Make the Confiteor a daily prayer. I tend to use the older, longer version, which is in the Baltimore Catechism.
• Pray whenever the least thought of prayer enters your mind. 

Formal prayer is excellent. But remember St. Francis said "Pray always, and if necessary, use words." Make your work, whatever it may be, an expression of prayer. This means recognizing that in doing the best you are able, you give witness to your faith through your work, offering it up to God.

Pray for your family, Pray with your family. Never miss Sunday Mass, but find your way to daily Mass, too, when you can do so. Make your confession regularly, so you may receive the Eucharist in a state of grace, as is required.

Keep the Friday penance. Abstinence and fasting were never rescinded, contrary to what many believe. It is a small thing to do without meat on Friday, yet a thing which reminds us of who we are, and reminds us that sacrifices are a part of our faith.

Our society is deeply sinful. We cannot fix it, other than by first doing all we can to fix ourselves. Increase your prayer, and it will increase your piety. Increased piety is a barrier to sin. We need our weapons, such as the Rosary, and our shields, which are the many prayers we offer.

May God have mercy on us, and on the whole world.

Long Time Gone...

Yes, it has been over two years since I posted here. Times change, and so do we all.

Pope Francis is no longer new, and remains a puzzle. On the one hand, he confesses he is not good at off the cuff remarks, and on the other, he continues to make such off the cuff remarks to the media, who true to their fashion, twist and spin to their hearts' content.

Although Pope Francis has changed nothing of doctrine, there are still some who believe he has changed the Church, brought it into the 21st century. By which they mean, of course, the suspension of any sense of morals or right and wrong. No. Francis has done nothing of the sort.

It is curious that our pope offers up such delicious sound bites. If you check any of them in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will find that what he has done is to take a small piece of a larger statement, and offer it up. He leaves out the hard parts, and presents only the fluffy bits, letting the media get all those warm and fuzzy feelings.

It seems to me a pity that in presenting these sound bites, Pope Francis gives up the use of his platform for teaching essential truths. But then, in this age of secular hedonism, perhaps such an opportunity is merely illusory.

Habemus papam

Pope Francis. The first pope from the Americas.

So the waiting is over, and yet not. By some, our new pope is seen as the anti-Benedict. I know too little of him to comment on that.

I shall wait and see. It is reported that in Beunos Aires, Summorum Pontificum has not been implemented. It may be more accurate to say that SP has been blocked there. Again, I have too little data.

I shall wait and see. I am nervous. I had a favorite for whose election I prayed. This is not he.

I think we can learn much from the appointments he will make to the Curia. I shall pray for him, and for those appointments. Our Pope Emeritus Benedict sacrificed himself to clean out the Curia.

Although Pope Francis is being reported as a "compassionate conservative", I have not found much to support that view. And he was in the Curia under Pope Benedict. Was he among those who Benedict felt compelled to remove?

I shall wait and see.

Update:

It seems that many who consider themselves traditional are beside themselves.
Likewise the liberals.

The office changes the man. I pray for good works by Pope Francis.

I repeat: I shall wait and see.

What passes for ethics...

I was shocked and appalled this morning, to read that ethicists in Australia have satisfied themselves there is a case for "post-birth abortion". Infanticide, if we're going to be honest.

You can read of it here.

This is what comes of divorcing ethics and morals from faith. Holy Mother Church is steadfast in her teachings; public policy, on the other hand, shifts with cultural "values". Or in this case, apparently, no value.

When religion is banished form the public square, this is what we must expect. We cannot rely on common sense, nor on an innate sense of what is right. Clearly, there are those among us who can make a case for almost anything being "right". And that's just wrong!

Exploring charity

We hear so much now about the need for charity, especially toward the poor. But we are now seeing the poor in the United States defined in such a way that nearly half the population is poor. And this, in a time when our elected government is spending at unheard of rates, and has failed for four years even to produce a budget.

Charity is essential to our faith. However, I find nothing in scripture to suggest that our call to charity can be fulfilled by a government taking money from us, and redirecting it, much of it to no benefit of the the poor.

Further, while we do not often hear of it in a homily, there is responsibility. We are responsible to help the poor, thus engaging in charity. We are responsible to love our neighbors; we are responsible to turn away from sin. We are also responsible not to spend what we do not have.

On the other hand, one of the deadly sins is sloth, yet we often see examples of sloth among those who remain perennially on welfare, and also on drugs or alcohol. No, it's not always the case, but it is a significant percentage, and is highly resistant to change.

Do we not fail in our responsibility when we tolerate the destructive acts of government, which forces us to finance abortion? Do we not fail in the deepest meaning of charity when we do not remove the opportunity which allows anyone to spend a life on drugs? And can we not see that in every sermon, Jesus was preaching responsibility?

And where is our love when we condone or even support heresy? And we do that, friends, when we support the notion that "social justice" trumps the teachings of the Church.

On wailing and gnashing of teeth...

In response to recent events, there have been many reports that the sky is falling. Many have declared they are depressed by the resignation of Pope Benedict. Others are depressed at the resignation of Cardinal O'Brien,  just yesterday.

Take a deep breath. Holy Mother Church has been around for 20 centuries, more or less. The hierarchy has been in place and structurally pretty much as now for 1700 years. Pope Benedict is our 266th pope.

Life goes on. The Church will prevail, even against the gates of Hell.

It is not a tragedy that Pope Benedict has resigned. Yes, I could surely wish for another eight years of his command at the helm, but it is not for me to determine his life. What I do know, beyond any doubt, is that Benedict is not a man who makes capricious decisions. His resignation has obviously been something over which he prayed at great length, and if he has resigned, I must trust in him, and in God above, that it is the right thing at this time.

That Card. O'Brien resigned is a blessing. First, because he removes himself from the Church, and thereby limits what damage he might do. Second, because in making a public confession of his sins, he has taken the first step toward the forgiveness he most assuredly needs.

As to the College of Cardinals and the coming election, we must all pray that the cardinals are guided by the Holy Spirit, and able to conclude the election soon, and give us another excellent pope.

Picking Nits?

As Fr. Z said: The New Evangelization also requires a sweeping of the floors.

A friend recently suggest to me that I should not be concerned so much with the overuse of EMHCs. He asked how it affected my "walk with Jesus".

My view is that of the many dozens of changes made in the wake of Vatican II, most of them, taken individually, are of little import. However, taken in their totality--as indeed they must be--they are scandalous.

Mass was, before the Council, a reverent sacrifice. The laity were indeed reverent, silent before the Mass, and prayerful (most of them, at least) during the Mass. The celebrant (not presider) and the laity faced their Lord together. The celebrant offered the prayers, and the faithful assisted, with prayers responses from the Missal, and with prayers of their own (many prayed the Rosary during the parts where the celebrant could not be heard.) We had a sermon, not the all too often feel-good homily, but a usually firm teaching, which did, on occasion, become a stern admonition against the sinful practices of those who needed to hear it.

And in my youth, I do not recall seeing the dash to the parking lot before the closing prayers.

The design and decoration of our churches was traditional and reflected the reverence to our Lord, to whatever degree the parish could afford. There were fancy churches, and plain ones such as the parish in which I grew up. We had not stained glass windows, but windows with an applied and very regular pattern, much less expensive, but still in a very traditional motif.

At no time did the church, in the interval before Mass, sound more like a parish hall than like the house of our Lord.

The Missal was given in Latin and English, and those of us who took such things seriously could easily see the relation between the two forms, and could readily follow the Latin. Admittedly, the particular priest might enunciate less well than we might hope, or the church acoustics could interfere, and in these cases, following was chancey. It was, however, never impossible.

We go to Mass to worship our Lord. At least, we are supposed to go for that purpose. It's not a communal meal, nor a picnic. Despite what is seen in many parishes, it is not about us congratulating one another on our piety and good works. It is worship, and it is our obligation, as Catholics, to be there each week.

As to the picking of nits, I find as follows:

• We should do our best not to allow the local variations to distract us from worship.
• We should prepare ourselves for Mass, arriving early enough to purge the distractions from our minds, and to pray well before Mass, the better to assist in the sacrifice.
• We should, when the local variations intrude, remember to discuss them with our priests, letting them know how and why these things were disturbing.
• We should not be accepting of practices which violate the rubrics and intention of Holy Mother Church, but should, respectfully, point out the concerns we feel about them.
• We should educate ourselves endlessly in our faith according to the true teachings of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church should be as well read as our Bibles and Missals.
• We should, gently and respectfully, remind our priests (and when necessary, our bishops) that when the deviations from form reach a certain level, they are no longer minor, but become a scandal.
• We should, we must, pray for our priests and bishops.

I suggest, too, that we pray for a conversion of heart for the liturgists and music directors who contribute the deviations to our parishes.

Complain or not?

I recently posted on Facebook about my experience at Mass Sunday, when 15 EMHCs presented themselves to serve. A friend responded: "Ask yourself hot this affects your walk with Jesus. Let it go, my friend, you will be happier!"

Or in other words, just pay no attention. Or perhaps, go along to get along.

But can I do that? Did Jesus let it go, when he found money changers in the temple?

The rubrics--including those issued by my own archdiocese--stipulate that the EMHCs (let us not overlook the Extraordinary in their title) are to serve only when the priest is unable, or when there are so many receiving that the distribution would take too long. Unfortunately, the rubrics neither stipulate nor suggest a means by which "too long" may be judged or defined. They are quite clear, however, that the use of EMHCs is not to be made routine at every Mass.

The rubrics also state that the use of the EMHCs is at the discretion of the celebrant. However, I know a priest who tried to limit the service at his own Masses, not eliminating their use, but reducing the number, and the EMHCs raised a noisy complaint with the pastor. Apparently, the service of EMHCs is considered by those who serve as an entitlement!

So I pray, and consider. I do not think I can simply ignore this abuse. And if I do, what sort of steward am I?

Update: Article here on one priest's decision to cease using EMHCs. How very sad that it must be seen as an act requiring courage!

The Biological Solution... is not!

It is not uncommon to find in many Catholics blogs references to the biological solution, by which is meant that the problems which are perpetuated by the Spirit of Vatican II crowd will disappear as they do, which will be in the near future.

I am sorry to do so, but I have to disagree. In my former parish, these people are in firm possession of the Religious Education department, in which they continue to spread such nuggets as:
- The Rosary isn't for everyone
- Ordination of women? Well... not yet

These are glaring examples, of course, and the actual list is very long, indeed. I gritted my teeth through two years of RCIA, thankful that I had my Catechism of the Catholic Church always near.

It is all too easy to buy into the notion of the biological solution, as it avopids the need for direct actions which might be very unpleasant. However, it is a passive approach, and entirely out of keeping with what we read of Jesus in the Gospels. Had he been passive, the money changers would still be in the temple.

If we truly are the body of Christ, how can we justify any further tolerance of these scandals?

My current state

I am very happy to say that my current state with respect the estrangement of my brothers is placid. I pray for them, and at each Mass, for their conversion and return to the true faith. I bear no guilt for what has happened, and am quite comfortable considering the issues. I do remain concerned for their souls, and for their actions. And so, I shall continue to pray for them.

Turmoil or not...

When a friend or relative attacks you for your faith, and declares (as did my brother) that he'll have nothing more to do with you, it is deeply disturbing. Actually, those words are woefully inadequate to describe what I felt, but I haven't found any which convey my true feelings.

My initial reaction to his communication was anger. He made false claims, and ad hominem attacks which had nothing to do with the real issue, and were of themselves trivial, compared to the real issue. Being angry, and making a response in anger (though one more reasoned than that which provoked me) I then added guilt to my spiritual burden.

I suffered inner turmoil for days, reviewing, again and again, what had passed between us, and trying to determine what may have been my own sins, whether of commission or omission, which contributed to the separation. But--and this is essential to understand--I had not yet recognized the real issue.

My e-mail response to my brother had brought another note from him, which I did not read, as I was determined not to allow this to become a firefight. After five days, I finally opened his e-mail, only to find more unhinged attacks. However, in the midst of this was a single pearl: the real issue which had him raving at me. He could no longer allow me "to influence his family." Influence. Influence? Aha! Our discussions had increasingly touched on matters of faith, and on our respective churches. Most recently I had inquired his views on a morally questionable decision rendered by his pastor. (As it happens, this issue had made the guy more visible nationally, as many preachers had seen fit to speak or write about the case.)

So, he's in a cultish mega-church, has for years complained of his unhappy experience in Catholic schools, and now determines I am a bad influence? OK, got it.

As Fr. Okeke has advised, there is little I can do for him but pray. But friends, I offer this warning, in deepest concern for your souls: As soon as you recognize the nature of such a situation, discuss it with a priest. Do this to clear your conscience with regard to your own sins, and to further understand that this is not a spat, not a minor argument, but something which separates you. Do this because that inner turmoil you suffer is offering an opportunity to the devil.

You did not start the fight, and you did not choose the separation. But you must be prepared to do what is needful, which is to leave him alone, and continue your prayers for him.

If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. -- 1 John 4:20

Your love will fuel your prayer, and will keep you always ready for that day when he calls to talk, or to ask your help. You must respond in love, holding no grudge, and demanding nothing, if you love God.

Girding for Battle...

I should add to my previous article on Spiritual Warfare that besides discussing the issues with Fr. Okeke, I asked him to bless several objects for me. Among them were a brown scapular and several crucifixes.

I have thought for some time that I needed to have more crucifixes in the house. Before Christmas, I ordered a few, and it was these which I asked Fr. Okeke to bless. Still, I did not have enough to place one in each room of the house, so I had ordered more, and will again ask Father to bless them.

I placed one crucifix on the wall above my computer monitors, in a fashion similar to what I observed in Father's office. In these few days, I have noticed that it is a forceful presence, and affects my spirit as I work. I have noticed a similar effect from the crucifix in our family room; last night, I was watching a television drama, and found myself wanting to turn away from it, or fast forward through it, because of scenes which were gratuitously suggestive. It is not that these things did not bother me before, but now it seems a more urgent and consequential matter.

If battle is unavoidable, I shall not be unarmed!

Do not minimize the value of such guards in your own homes.