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.

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?

Spiritual Warfare

Like charity, spiritual warfare begins at home, I have found. Fr. Charles Okeke, my local priest, has written on his FaceBook page:

Terce (After a conversion of heart, any attempt to maintain cordial relationship with erstwhile friends, who remain in darkness, comes at the expense of your state of grace).

After we have experienced a conversion of heart, it is very important that we keep from near occasions of sin and these include NOT associating with friends (and even family) who remain in the darkness of hard-heartedness. Any attempt to maintain a cordial relationship with them, as obtained prior to your metanoia, will be at the expense of your state of grace. Pray for them but keep them warily at arms’ length. Here, God lends a helping hand for He permits that such friends and family become hostile toward you and seek to isolate you with the aim to hurt. But this is actually the work of God, for in their leaving you alone, the solitude affords you the opportunity to draw closer to God. Utilize this time alone to meditate on Christ Jesus, read spiritual works and grow in your faith. In your new state of grace, it is imperative that you seek out people who are also on the same journey as you are. God will eventually bring other children of God into your life.

As it happens, just after Christmas, I had some very odd and uncomfortable e-mails with one of my brothers. Uncomfortable, as he was filled with rage, manifesting that rage in arrogance and condescension. His notes were filled with false assertions about me. Odd, because when I replied, his response was immediately more of the same, but even more intense, though in light of his initial e-mail, I did not read the response for several days.

After a few days of inner turmoil, during which I reviewed my side of things, trying to comprehend what I might have done to provoke this, I read his response. Madness. And yet, I was thrown again into turmoil.

Slowly, it occurred to me that in the midst of the specious accusations, there was one kernel of truth: He declared that he must protect his family from my influence.

Finally, it occurred to me that this was about faith. I have three brothers, all younger than I. The one of whom I am now writing is the middle brother of the three, and is about 12 years my junior. He long ago fell away from the Church, and is a member of a local evangelical mega-church, as is the brother between us. Both live rather oddly, given their profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

Of course, there was the risk that to avoid any personal guilt, I might be ready to accept this explanation, as an easy out. So I met with Fr. Okeke, and we had a long conversation about it. He tells me that it was that chat which inspired the writing I have quoted above--I am thankful and humbled. And he told me not to worry over my role; I was not the cause of the problem. It is always good to have a view confirmed by a dispassionate third party.

I sincerely hope that what Fr. Okeke wrote may help others to recognize with less pain what had finally occurred to me. God bless all priests for their service!

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.