Gunmen in southern Yemen on Friday stormed a retirement home run by a charity established by Mother Teresa, killing 16 people, including four Catholic nuns, officials and witnesses said.
The killing spree began with two gunmen who first surrounded the home for the elderly in Aden. Meanwhile, four others entered the building on the pretext they wanted to visit their mothers at the facility, according to the charity, Yemeni security officials and witnesses. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
The gunmen then moved from room to room, handcuffing the victims before shooting them in the head. A nun who survived and was rescued by locals said that she hid inside a fridge in a storeroom after hearing a Yemeni guard shouting, "Run, run."
Khaled Haidar told The Associated Press that he counted 16 bodies, including that of his brother, Radwan. All had been shot in the head and were handcuffed. He said that in addition to the four nuns, one Yemeni cook, and Yemeni guards were among those killed.
...
Sunita Kumar, a spokeswoman for the Missionaries of Charity in the Indian city of Kolkata, said the members of the charity were "absolutely stunned" at the killing.
"The Sisters were to come back but they opted to stay on to serve people" in Yemen, she added.
She also said that two of the killed nuns were from Rwanda and the other two were from India and Kenya.
...
There were around 80 residents living at the home, which is run by Missionaries of Charity, an organization established by Mother Teresa. Missionaries of Charity nuns also came under attack in Yemen in 1998, when gunmen killed three nuns in the Red Sea port city of Hodeida.
This should underscore the need for competent, capable and compelling leaders, those capable of dealing with this threat that just won't go away.
None currently seem destined to become President of the United States.
Dear God, be with your beloved martyrs and grant them eternal rest.
Dear God, raise up leaders we need, not leaders we apparently want.
To date, Trump has actually enjoyed more support from Catholic voters than Protestants. Recent polls conducted by Monmouth University showed him with higher vote shares among followers of the Roman Catholic Church than with other Christians. In Iowa, he pulled 44% support from Catholic caucus-goers compared to 24% from Protestants. In New Hampshire polling, he took 30% of the Catholic vote, which was slightly higher than his 26% share among Protestants. In South Carolina, he currently holds 42% of the Catholic vote compared with 32% of the Protestant vote.
I find support for Trump in general to be baffling, particularly amongst Christians but disappointingly so amongst Catholics.
As the father of three daughters, I reserved the right to interview their dates. Seemed only fair to me. After all, my wife and I’d spent 16 or 17 years feeding them, dressing them, funding braces, and driving them to volleyball tournaments and piano recitals. A five-minute face-to-face with the guy was a fair expectation. I was entrusting the love of my life to him. For the next few hours, she would be dependent upon his ability to drive a car, avoid the bad crowds, and stay sober. I wanted to know if he could do it. I wanted to know if he was decent.
This was my word: “decent.” Did he behave in a decent manner? Would he treat my daughter with kindness and respect? Could he be trusted to bring her home on time? In his language, actions, and decisions, would he be a decent guy?
Decency mattered to me as a dad.
Decency matters to you. We take note of the person who pays their debts. We appreciate the physician who takes time to listen. When the husband honors his wedding vows, when the teacher makes time for the struggling student, when the employee refuses to gossip about her co-worker, when the losing team congratulates the winning team, we can characterize their behavior with the worddecent.
We appreciate decency. We applaud decency. We teach decency. We seek to develop decency. Decency matters, right?
Then why isn’t decency doing better in the presidential race?
The leading candidate to be the next leader of the free world would not pass my decency interview. I’d send him away. I’d tell my daughter to stay home. I wouldn’t entrust her to his care.
I don’t know Mr. Trump. But I’ve been chagrined at his antics. He ridiculed a war hero. He made mockery of a reporter’s menstrual cycle. He made fun of a disabled reporter. He referred to the former first lady, Barbara Bush as “mommy,” and belittled Jeb Bush for bringing her on the campaign trail. He routinely calls people “stupid,” “loser,” and “dummy.” These were not off-line, backstage, overheard, not-to-be-repeated comments. They were publicly and intentionally tweeted, recorded, and presented.
Such insensitivities wouldn’t even be acceptable even for a middle school student body election. But for the Oval Office? And to do so while brandishing a Bible and boasting of his Christian faith? I’m bewildered, both by his behavior and the public’s support of it.
The stock explanation for his success is this: he has tapped into the anger of the American people. As one man said, “We are voting with our middle finger.” Sounds more like a comment for a gang-fight than a presidential election. Anger-fueled reactions have caused trouble ever since Cain was angry at Abel.
Brian Sandoval, the centrist Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted by the White House for a possible nomination to the Supreme Court, according to twopeople familiar with the process.Sandoval is increasingly viewed by some key Democrats as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election, saying the decision ought to be left to the next president.The White House declined to comment Wednesday for this story.
Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada supports abortion rights and, after the court’s same-sex marriage decision last year, said his state’s arguments “against marriage equality are no longer defensible.” He is also from a fast-growing and increasingly diverse swing state, is Hispanic and was state attorney general and a federal judge before becoming governor.
Not good enough for me (for what that's worth). Hopefully the Senate will reject him (and frankly anyone nominated by Obama) as promised.
Is it ever licit for a faithful Catholic to disagree with an authoritative, non-infallible teaching of a pope? Yes. If a person has inquired diligently into the teaching in question, and if after serious prayer and reflection, feels that fraternal correction is in order, then one may express this disagreement publicly as long as: (A) one’s reasons are serious and well-founded; (B) one’s dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church; and (C) the nature of the dissent is not such as to give rise to scandal.
I’ve often thought that these would serve as good rules-of-thumb for disagreeing with almost anybody. You should have good reasons for your position; you should strive not to impugn the integrity or good intentions of your interlocutor; and you should argue in such a way as not to give scandal. One rarely wins over others (including bystanders) by brow-beating them; you usually succeed only in making your side look bad.
So much for papal teaching.
What about papal actions? Along with the gift of infallibility, do popes have the gift of impeccability (from the Latin peccatum, meaning “sin”), a special charism guaranteeing they never make mistakes?
The Church has never made this claim. Quite the contrary, those who have been the staunchest defenders of infallibility have always distinguished it from impeccability precisely because (A) it’s clear that any number of popes have committed grievous sins, and (B) it’s a matter of faith that every pope is a sinner, just like the rest of us, in need of God’s saving grace won by the death and resurrection of Christ. We don’t worship the man; we respect the office; we have faith in Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the end of the age and to send His Holy Spirit to guide and protect her.
Years ago someone told me that John Paul II didn’t give communion in the hand, which showed that John Paul II was condemning the practice. I suggested that if the pope wanted to communicate this message, he had plenty of official channels to do so. There is a species of papal idolatry that is, in the long run, not helpful. I wonder what my friend would say now. If he is still mistaking the pope’s personal actions for official papal teaching, he’s probably confused – and angry.
Watching a pope’s every action for its political significance is the sort of foolishness that caused certain people to condemn Christ for eating with (“yucking it up with”) prostitutes and tax collectors. Such actions were said to “cause scandal,” “sow confusion,” and “show support for the Church’s enemies.” Maybe; maybe not. “Time will tell where wisdom lies.”
Some popes have made major mistakes. But every pope makes some mistakes; they’re only human after all. If you want perfection and sinlessness, you’re looking for a church that doesn’t exist, an empty promise from the Father of Lies, not the one established by Christ.
Being confused or disappointed with a pope is a common enough state of affairs in Church history. But Catholics who imagine that they have the authority to set the canonical standard by which the teaching of this or any papacy can be judged are simply showing (A) that they have really been Protestants all along, and (B) that their view of authority is the one that characterizes too much of modern American politics: authority’s job is to do what I say and to crush my opponents.
The Church hasn’t always been well served by her popes. But then again, she has always been much worse off when she has given-in to the self-righteous voices of the mob – especially when they’re shouting “Crucify him.”
Self-righteous arguably being defined as those who insist, as an example, that not only is the Pope wrong on one or more issues, but he's a Marxist, a Socialist, a Peronista, someone who willingly allows his words to be twisted by the enemies of the Church. They clearly seem to be shouting "Crucify him" and all because he speaks in opposition to what they hold dear.
That popes are fallible in the ways that they are is as important for Catholics to keep in mind as the fact that popes are infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Many well-meaning Catholics have forgotten this truth, or appear to want to suppress it. When recent popes have said or done strange or even manifestly unwise things, these apologists have refused to admit it. They have tied themselves in logical knots trying to show that the questionable statement or action is perfectly innocent, or even conveys some deep insight, if only we would be willing to see it. Had Catholic bloggers and pop apologists been around in previous ages, some of them would no doubt have been assuring their readers that the Eastern bishops excommunicated by Pope Victor must have had it coming and that St. Irenaeus should have kept silent; or that Pope Stephen was trying to teach us some profound spiritual truth with the cadaver synod if only we would listen; or that Liberius, Honorius, and John XXII were really deepeningour understanding of doctrine rather than confusing the faithful.
This kind of “spin doctoring” only makes those engaging in it look ridiculous. Worse, it does grave harm to the Church and to souls. It makes Catholicism appear Orwellian, as if a pope can by fiat make even sheer novelties and reversals of past teaching somehow a disguised passing on of the deposit of faith. Catholics who cannot bear such cognitive dissonance may have their faith shaken. Non-Catholics repulsed by such intellectual dishonesty will wrongly judge that to be a Catholic one must become a shill.
The sober truth is that Christ sometimes lets his Vicar err, only within definite limits but sometimes gravely. Why? In part because popes, like all of us, have free will. But in part, precisely to show that (as Cardinal Ratzinger put it) “the thing cannot be totally ruined” -- not even by a pope.
With the shadow of Feser's piece as backdrop (do yourself the favor of reading the whole thing), I think it fair to suggest that Pope Francis has erred recently.
Paloma García Ovejero, Cadena COPE (Spain): Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”
Pope Francis: Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.
Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no? It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.
On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.
The reference is to Congo in the late 1950s and early 60s, where Catholic nuns faced widespread sexual violence and the question was whether birth control could be used to avoid pregnancy after rape.
Francis said Paul VI “permitted” birth control in that context, which, to Anglo-Saxon ears, implies a formal juridical act. The line sparked a frenzy of fruitless Internet searches, as people went looking for a Vatican edict or decree that just doesn’t exist.
Here’s what happened: In December 1961, the influential Italian journal Studi Cattolici (“Catholic Studies”) published an issue in which three Catholic moral theologians agreed that in the Congo case, contraception could be justified.
The future Paul VI, at that stage, was still the Archbishop of Milan, and close to the currents that shaped Studi Cattolici. It was assumed the conclusions reflected his thinking. That appeared to be confirmed later when Paul VI made one of the authors, Pietro Palazzini, a cardinal.
Paul became pope in 1963, and never issued any edict writing that position into law. Thus, when pressed about it some years later, a Vatican spokesman could accurately say, “I am not aware of official documents from the Holy See in this regard.”
Still, the Vatican never repudiated the 1961 position, so the takeaway was that it remained a legitimate option. To Italians — and remember, Francis’ ancestry is Italian, and he’s very wired into the country’s ecclesiastical scene — that meant Paul VI approved.
If anything screams for clarity from the Vatican, I'm of the opinion that this fits the bill. Mr. Allen at Crux believes we're likely not to get that clarification.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Thursday that he respects Pope Francis after bashing the pontiff earlier in the day for criticizing his plan to build a border wall.
"He has a lot of personality," Trump said during the CNN town hall on Thursday night in South Carolina. "He's very different, he's a very different kind of a guy, and I think he's doing a very good job. A lot of energy."
Earlier on Thursday, Trump said the pope publicly questioned his faith with a statement that said building walls "is not Christian." Trump called a religious leader questioning a person's faith "disgraceful."
But he told CNN's Anderson Cooper that after seeing the pope's actual statements, it seems nicer than what was originally portrayed.
"I think he said something much softer than was originally reported by the media," he said.
Trump added that the pope only knew one side of the story.
"Somehow the government of Mexico spoke with the pope. I mean, they spent a lot of time with the pope, and by the time they left, they made the statement," he said.
Asked what he thought the Mexican government's role was, Trump said, "they probably talked about 'isn't it terrible that Mr. Trump wants to have border security,' " he said.
"I think that he heard one side of the story, which is probably by the Mexican government," he said.
But Trump said the bottom line is that the country needs stronger border security.
"I don't like fighting with the pope, actually. I don't think this is a fight," he said.
The Vatican has also weighed in after the fact:
Spokesperson for @Pontifex clarifies: comments on Trump weren't "personal attack"
In a shallow waste of time, energy, effort, and taxpayers’ money, KY State Rep. Mary Lou Marzian introduces this vindictive idiocy as legislation, even though she “concedes her bill will have little practical effect on the new law, she said the measure was written to hit opponents where it hurts”.
(CNN)Angered by a new law requiring women receive medical counseling at least 24 hours before an abortion, a Kentucky lawmaker decided she was going to "strike a nerve" with her political opponents -- in particular, the men.
State Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, a Louisville Democrat, has introduced a bill that would require any man seeking a prescription for drugs to treat erectile dysfunction -- such as Viagra, Cialis and Levitra -- to "have two office visits on two different calendar days" before receiving the desired medication.
Marzian's House Bill 396 would only allow married men access to the treatments and call on them to "produce a signed and dated letter" demonstrating the consent of their current spouse. They would also have to give a sworn statement -- "hand on a Bible" -- that the prescription would only be used for sex with their legal partners.
"As a woman and a pro-choice woman and as an elected official, I am sick and tired of men -- mostly white men -- legislating personal, private medical decisions," Marzian, a retired nurse and 22-year statehouse veteran, told CNN. "It's none of their business."
Earlier this month, Republican Gov. Matt Bevin signed into law a bill beefing up the state's "informed consent" requirement for women seeking an abortion. Previously, patients could listen to a phone recording that listed the potential health risks associated with the procedure. Now, women will have to speak to a medical professional in person or via video teleconference.
Passage of the new restriction set off a social media campaign against Bevin and anti-abortion lawmakers, and while Marzian concedes her bill will have little practical effect on the new law, she said the measure was written to hit opponents where it hurts.
"When I put this out here, I thought, you know, I will strike a nerve because what is more sacred to men than their ability to have sexual intercourse?" she said with a laugh. "Let's regulate that."
"I think it illustrates how intrusive it is," Marzian continued, "how wrong it is, for any type of government, whether it's state legislature, whether it's Donald Trump, inserting themselves into personal, private medical decisions."
Flippant attitudes and petty actions like this are not helpful. Not helpful to her own cause (no tragedy there), but also not helpful to women in general. I wish women would quit doing things that reinforce the stereotype already.
It was not his vulgarity, his coarse language, his sexist attacks, or his crude aggressive name calling.
It was not his lies, mendacity, manipulation and innate dishonesty.
It was not his fake tan, fake teeth, fake hair and fake face.
It was not his history of buying politicians, scheming to grab property from old ladies, planned bankruptcies and running casinos.
It was not his bragging, racism, boasting and megalomania.
It was that little question thrown at him which turned out to be a curve ball.
The question was something like, “Who in your life is able to challenge you and say you are wrong? From whom do you take criticism?”
He stuttered and stammered before hemmed and hawed after saying weakly that his wife tells him when he’s wrong. He then went on to his usual line about how his is a winner, he is a billionaire. He is a successful businessman.
This, combined with his admission that he has “never said sorry to God” and “never apologized for anything” shows the true heart of darkness in Donald Trump.
If a man cannot see that he has done wrong and apologize and accept an apology, then it is impossible for him to repent, and if it is impossible for him to repent, then that man is lost. His heart is the same as that other beautiful created being who, from the beginning and forever is not able to bow his head or bow his knee.
Then someone else noticed a chilling detail from the first moments of the debate.
I am as opposed to Donald Trump as I was (am) to Barack Obama... Trump will be as bad if not worse for this country and Fr. Longenecker has nailed the reasons why.
Electing Donald Trump is the equivalent of electing a combox warrior. Why in God's name would we want to do that?
I was not sure what to expect from one of the most influential Catholics in the country. Scalia has a son who is a priest, so I assumed his faith would be alive. But I wondered if it would be the dry faith of a powerful intellectual or a faith that would inspire. It turned out to be the latter.
Scalia began his talk by considering the etymology of the word cretin and pointing out that the origins of the word may have derived from the French word for Christian, chretien. And truly, Scalia pointed out, members of Christianity, from the beginning of its history, have been considered fools for believing such things as miracles, particularly the miracle of the Resurrection.
But Scalia argued that it isn’t irrational to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses to miracles. “What is irrational,” he said, “is to reject a priori, with no investigation, the possibility of miracles in general and of Jesus Christ’s resurrection in particular — which is, of course, precisely what the worldly wise do.”
Scalia then went on to discuss the roots of this scorn for deep faith, even in the United States, a country that is widely considered to be deeply Christian from its very beginning. But Scalia pointed out that even among our Founding Fathers, this scorn for anything without sound rational basis (in their opinion) was evident.
Thomas Jefferson, a son of the Enlightenment, once revised the Gospels to “remove the gold from the dross.” Jefferson was convinced that the Gospels had some worthy information and some information that was added later by his “superstitious biographers.” Jefferson’s version of the life of Jesus removed the miracles, included some of Jesus’ ethical teachings, and then ended abruptly with Jesus’ death and the stone rolling over the tomb.
Scalia then went on to talk about a more modern example of the blindness of a rationalism gone too far. A priest near his home in DC was discovered to have the stigmata and statues would weep when he was near them. A Washington Postreporter witnessed the statue weeping and could only say, “There has to be a trick here.” Scalia asked the crowded room why non-believers don’t flock to places like this to verify for themselves. The answer is obvious he said, “The wise do not investigate such silliness.”
The wise do not investigate such things as the Resurrection or miracles because they believe they are informed enough about the world to know that such things are impossible. Therefore, they assume that people who actually believe in miracles are foolish and peasant-like. But they base their beliefs, not on investigation, but on flat out rejection of the possibility.
I can certainly relate to this arrogance. When I was an atheist, I disdained Christianity and believed that Christians were ignorant because their views did not fit in with my world view. This type of thinking is rampant in our society and is only too evident with discussion regarding such things as the Catholic view of contraception or Christian beliefs regarding marriage. The point of view of the wise is that only bigoted idiots would believe the things we believe. There can be no other explanation in the minds of the worldly wise. Our point of view is not even thought of as rational enough to be considered.
Scalia ended his talk by considering St. Thomas More, a man who died to defend a corrupt Church and papacy, and considered by many, including his wife, to be a fool for accepting martyrdom. More gave his life because he refused to sign an oath that disparaged the pope and Henry VII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Scalia pointed out that Pope Clement XII, the pope during the time of More, was not one of the most reputable popes in history. And yet, More saw beyond the current circumstances and believed in the permanence of the Church that Jesus established.
As Scalia’s talk came to a close, he said to the crowded room, “I hope to impart to you the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity.”
She's got more and it's well worth the link click to read the rest.
May the good Lord grant perpetual rest to Justice Scalia. And may He grant wisdom to this country in finding a replacement.
I drink coffee only on Thursdays. This is partly because I am a weirdly patterned person. It’s also because I feel insecure ordering my preferred tea at a coffee shop; it’s like ordering a salad at a steakhouse. But the main reason I drink coffee on Thursdays is because that’s the day I take a little sign that says “Free Prayer”and sit at a local coffee shop for a few hours.
I like to think I have great ideas, but good advice gets all the credit for my work as a first-call parish pastor. One mentor and professor, for example, shared this: “As pastors, the first thing we have to do is take care of our people.” With that in mind, I focused my first year of ministry on spending time at people’s homes, setting up several visits a week to meet their dogs, applaud their children’s artwork and pray with them around their dinner tables.
A second bit of advice came from a clergyman who offered this: “A pastor is doing the job well when at least half of his or her time is spent outside the office.” Pastors regularly go out on hospital visits or stop by the homes of newcomers, but the administrative demands of parish ministry otherwise keep many of us shackled to our swivel chairs. For me, come Thursday mornings, after too much time within my office walls, I become cantankerous. So for everyone’s sake, I heed that good advice and break out of my sacred confines, fleeing to a local coffee shop for reading and sermon writing.
When I first started doing this last summer, I felt insecure and self-indulgent -- an incognito clergyman in shirt and tie munching an “everything” bagel with cream cheese and calling it work. I had to legitimize pastoring in Panera.
That’s when I began wearing my clergy collar each Thursday and setting up at any one of my church’s dozen or so “satellite campuses” (i.e., the coffee shops where I typically run into several parishioners I’ve missed the previous Sunday morning). I bring with me a sign that says “Free Prayer,” with a quote at the bottom from Martin Luther: “Pray, and let God worry.”
And people stop to pray with me every time.
One brisk October morning, a man I had not met walked through the ever-swinging door of the local Starbucks. Amari, from West Philadelphia, had business at the courthouse in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, the town where I serve. He looked at me and asked, “‘Free prayer’? What’s that?” I explained that I’m a pastor in town who goes out to where people are during the week to offer prayer. Tears welled up in his eyes. He placed his coffee and courthouse papers on my table and walked outside.
Many of those walking by were overtly averting their eyes, not wanting to allow me into their space, into the hustle and bustle this season brings into people's worlds. I was absolutely ok with this. After all, many of us mistrust, suspect, even judge men with cardboard signs on busy street corners. I certainly do.
Occasionally, I would cry out to the averters within earshot and say simply, I'm not here for your money, I'm simply looking for people who need hugs or prayers or both. Some would pretend I had not been heard. Others would look my way quickly then just as quickly look away. A few would smile and one or two, without stopping, would simply say, yes, pray for me. And I would.
As mentioned in that piece, most people ignored the offer, walking past as if I wasn't even there but a few did stop and I was rewarded greatly by those brief encounters.
It all brings me back to the title of this post. Should you encounter someone on the streets or in a coffee shop offering prayer, particularly someone wearing the telltale collar, what would be your response? Would you take advantage of the offer? Would you walk on by?
It's intriguing to me to know what the reasons would be for either stopping for prayer or deciding not to.
No, that's not a description of the New Hampshire voter though after yesterday's results. one could be excused for thinking so.
It's actually a description used by Carl Trueman, a pastor in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church who also teaches history at the Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, to describe non-Catholics who've adopted Ash Wednesday (and other Lenten practices) borrowed from the Catholic tradition.
If you’re thinking of the somewhat wooly-minded, generically Protestant Presbyterians in the church in middle of town, you’re not thinking of Carl’s kind of Presbyterian. The mainline Presbyterians are the ones in tweed and corduroy; Carl’s type are in biker leathers. He’s one John Calvin would have recognized as a brother.
Writing on Reformation21, the website of the Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals, Carl notes that Evangelicals have started observing the season and then lets loose:
American evangelicals are past masters at appropriating anything that catches their fancy in church history and claiming it as their own, from the ancient Fathers as the first emergents to the Old School men of Old Princeton as the precursors of the Young, Restless, and Reformed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer as modern American Evangelical.
He is a genial and liberal-minded man. His office bookshelf has very large Aquinas and Newman sections along with the works of Luther, Calvin, and their descendants. (He’s just written a book titled Luther On the Christian Life.) I have spent a pleasant night in the Truemans’ home after speaking at the seminary at his invitation. He is generous to Catholics. But Evangelicals observing Lent, this sets him off. “I also fear that it speaks of a certain carnality,” he continues:
The desire to do something which simply looks cool and which has a certain ostentatious spirituality about it. As an act of piety, it costs nothing yet implies a deep seriousness. In fact, far from revealing deep seriousness, in an evangelical context it simply exposes the superficiality, eclectic consumerism and underlying identity confusion of the movement.
They shouldn’t do this. Their “ecclesiastical commitments do not theologically or historically sanction observance of such things,” he writes in a second article on the website, “Catholicity Reduced to Ashes.” Ash Wednesday is “strictly speaking unbiblical” and therefore can’t be imposed by a church, treated as normative, or understood as offering benefits unavailable in the normal parts of the Christian life. That would be a violation of the Christian liberty the Reformation so stressed (against “the illicit binding of consciences in which the late medieval church indulged,” as he puts it).
The “well-constructed worship service” and “appropriately rich Reformed sacramentalism” render the observance of Ash Wednesday “irrelevant.” Infant baptism, for example, declares better than the imposition of ashes once a year “the priority of God’s grace and the helplessness of sinless humanity in the face of God.” The Lord’s Supper does as well.
Worse, Carl argues, these Evangelicals pick from the Catholic tradition the parts they like when that tradition is an indivisible whole. In for a penny, in for a pound seems to be his understanding of Catholicism. He finds it “most odd,” he writes in the second article, that some might “observe Lent as an act of identification with the church catholic while repudiating a catholic practice such as infant baptism or a catholic doctrine such as eternal generation or any hint of catholic polity.” (The lower-case “c” is his but he means the upper-case.) “The notion of historic catholicity itself has become just another eclectic consumerist construct.”
Mr. Mills has much more, including a beautiful reference to the Church offering "riches like an over-loaded wagon in a fairy tale, spilling gold coins every time it hits a pothole."
I, like David, think it a good thing when Protestants find these Catholic gold coins, after all, there's plenty of them. I consider it a rare day when I don't come across something new and fresh in the writings of the historical Church, the Catechism, or in published Papal writings and based on David's piece alone, it seems many a non-Catholic believer is experiencing similar things.
More power to them, and less to people like Mr. Trueman.
Here's hoping for a movingly productive Lenten season to each one of you, whether you're Catholic or not.
"Just as sex is a God-given instinct for the prolongation of the human race, so the desire for property as a prolongation of one's ego is a natural right sanctioned by natural law. A person is free on the inside because he can call his soul his own; he is free on the outside because he can call property his own. Internal freedom is based upon the fact that "I am"; external freedom is based on the fact that "I have." But just as the excesses of flesh produce lust, for lust is sex in the wrong place, so there can be a deordination of the desire for property until it becomes greed, avarice, and capitalistic aggression."
"We all have guns," said Nancy Fine to an NPR interviewer yesterday. Fine lives in Burns, Oregon, where protesters have been congregating in solidarity with the militants who have been occupying Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for a month. Fine went on:
"But none of us wear them on our hip and kind of flaunt them around. We consider that extremely rude and ungentlemanly at best."
Fine says one sure way of identifying an outsider is a prominently displayed sidearm. She shoots a scornful glance at a trio of men standing in front of her, their arms crossed, their holsters hanging out.
According to the story, a good many of the residents of Harney County, Oregon, agree with the protesters who've descended on their
Burns resident Leon Pielstick carries a sign outside the Harney County Courthouse on Monday. Martin Kaste/NPR
town -- but they would rather deal with their concerns on their own, in their own way, without the help of a crowd of noisy strangers. According to the story,
most [local] people here do think the federal government overreaches, especially when it comes to environmental rules and land use. But they're also sick of outsiders hanging around, trying to start a movement.
The occupiers and protesters, in their ostensible fight to preserve liberty, have made it harder for the citizens to live their lives.
In New Hampshire, where I live, a few anti-government militia types are always drifting around town. They love to hang around street corners near the library, or browse around Walmart, letting their guns swing with elaborate casualness. The bigger the gun, the better.
If you asked them why they do it -- why they make such a show of being armed -- they'd say that they're signalling to criminals that the place is protected, or, more likely, that they're doing it because they can. They have the right to open carry, and they're going to, end of story, no other reason necessary. Many of these folks are Freestaters, who have come uninvited from elsewhere in the hopes of instituting some kind of libertarian paradise in our state.
Well, it is rude. And that's bad enough. Don't come into my town and be rude!
But worse, it doesn't make anyone feel safer when they wave their giant guns around. It makes the world feel crazier and more out of control. It adds tension and fear to a situation that ought to be peaceful and mundane. It makes it harder for me to pursue happiness as I shop for dog food and laundry detergent.
I was struck by the incredulity and soft contempt in the voice of the Oregon woman they interviewed on NPR. "We all have guns," she says -- but for the locals, those guns are quietly integrated into their lives. They are in service of the kind of life they are trying to lead, which includes a cultural tradition of hunting, self-sufficiency, self-defense, and independence.
I've been away for a number of days, celebrating some special time with the granddaughter at a place named after some dude named Walt Disney. It was most excellent on a variety of fronts.
While away, lots was apparently going on, most of it political and most of it likely consuming a decent amount of my time had I been near a computer. Yet most of it, in the grand scheme of things, inconsequential.
What I did miss, and I think it to be most encouraging, is this picture, and what it represents:
Cebuanos and delegates to the 51st International Eucharistic Congress (IEC) currently being held in this city trooped to the Cebu Provincial Capitol and filled its surrounding streets to hear the Mass led by Dublin, Ireland Archbishop Diarmuid Martin.
According to Fr. Roberto Ebisa, SVD, of DYRF, Police Chief Inspector Ryan Debaras estimated the crowd that gathered for the Mass and procession to be nearly 2 million. Streets leading to the Capitol were closed to make way for the millions of people joining in the international Catholic gathering dubbed as the “World Youth Day of adult Catholics”. Candle-bearing delegates and pilgrims from Cebu and around the world chanted hymns and prayers as the carriage carrying the monstrance made its way slowly from the Capitol through Osmeña Boulevard towards Plaza Independencia while a choir led in the chanting of the Litany of the Saints and other hymns.
Nothing to see there but 2 million Catholics clinging to their much maligned yet vibrant faith (Deacon Greg has video up as well at the link).
As intriguing as the picture of all those people might be, this section in the Kandra post particularly stood out for me:
In his homily, Martin reminded the people that “the Church became present through the Eucharist, through the Holy Communion.” No Eucharist, no Church “There is no Church without the Eucharist. The Eucharist constructs the Church,” he said.
The no Church without the Eucharist was a reference that quickly came to mind just a few hours later after coming across this related piece posted by Matt Nelson:
The Eucharist – which comes to us in the Holy Mass when bread and wine mysteriously changes in substance but not in physical appearance to Christ’s body and blood at the blessing of the priest – was at the center of Christian worship even in the earliest stages of Christianity.
Why? Because the Eucharist is Christ (see 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; John 6:32–71 and all the Last Supper accounts).
St Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John the apostle, writes at the turn of the second century:
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ… They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
St. Justin Martyr wrote:
“We call this food Eucharist…..For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
There is no Church without the Eucharist because... the Eucharist is Christ and there can be no Church without Him.
The logic of the Inferno has always seemed simple enough. It arrives without drama, by way of a boring syllogism. I am made to be with God in an eminently personal relationship. As with all loving relationships, I must freely enter into it. Being-coerced or being unable to do anything but love God contradicts the nature of love. I can no more be “forced to love” then draw a square circle or rip out the hair of a bald man. The possibility of a loving relationship with God necessarily includes the possibility ofnot entering into a loving relationship with God. This not-being-with-God we call Hell.
If I am going to effectively deny the possibility of Hell, I must deny that my relationship with God can ever really be one of love. I must deny my ability not to choose Him. This would avoid the problem of Hell, but only by making human existence hellish. It would make a good God easier to believe in, but only by making Him unworthy of worship — and thus no God at all. I, at least, will not bow to a God who damns me to paradise, deludes me into the experience of being-free, and acts, in the final analysis, as a rapist of souls.
This is why I have never been particularly impressed by those who don’t believe in God because of the doctrine of Hell: For my part, I refuse to believe in God (or at the very least I defy him) unless there is the possibility of Hell. Different strokes, I suppose.
Regardless, here I am, free to enter into loving relation with God despite John Calvin and Sam Harris. Entering into this loving relationship requires one thing only: That I love. I hardly deny that it is a complicated affair, figuring exactly how to love my Creator. (It is not enough, it seems, to love him in the same manner that I love my cat.) But this much is certain: To be in a relation of love, one must love.
The above premises are hotly contested, but again — the logic seems simple. Hell is a possibility I may choose by not loving God.
The paradox is this — I am the only person I may know, with certain knowledge, as “not loving God.” I do it rather often. I resent him, ignore him, insult him, delight in what he detests, detest what delights him, and I do it willfully, as a free choice of the will, a choice present to me by virtue of the nature of the God-relationship. Whether my neighbor loves God or not is not “data” given to me in the same manner. I do not know whether my neighbor did, does, or will love God with any certain knowledge. The evidences of her words and actions, no matter how strong, do not provide me the same certainty by which I know my own choice not to love God — for choosing and willing are secrets of the human heart. I may fear her eternal destination, I may hope for the same, but I cannot judge it with certainty.
If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated?
You’d be wrong.
In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.
That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.
My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.
Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened.
Read the whole thing... would love to hear thoughtful responses to this... my view is Mr. MacWilliams has nailed things... and it honestly doesn't bode well.
The title of the post is a reference to the Old Testament's first book of Samuel, the 8th chapter. The biblically challenged may not be familiar with the outcome of ancient Israel's desire to be led by a king but should take comfort in knowing God redeems those wayward inclinations, ultimately in Christ, but not without first allowing Israel to suffer and badly.
Too often, though, the beauty that is thrust upon us is illusory and deceitful, superficial and blinding, leaving the onlooker dazed; instead of bringing him out of himself and opening him up to horizons of true freedom as it draws him aloft, it imprisons him within himself and further enslaves him, depriving him of hope and joy…. Authentic beauty, however, unlocks the yearning of the human heart, the profound desire to know, to love, to go towards the Other, to reach for the Beyond. If we acknowledge that beauty touches us intimately, that it wounds us, that it opens our eyes, then we rediscover the joy of seeing, of being able to grasp the profound meaning of our existence.
Ladies and gentlemen, enjoy some authentic beauty... through your eyes and ears... highly recommend watching in full screen and on a decent sound system.
A few days ago The Guardian ran an article titled “Drowning in commitments? It’s time to stop giving a damn.” An excerpt from an upcoming self-help book, it mixed good advice about setting boundaries with the promotion of narcissism and selfishness in defining those boundaries. It promised freedom from guilt in an attractively bright and breezy style.
It wasn’t satisfying. The writer had no clear idea what man is for and therefore what we should do for others and what we should do for ourselves. Her argument wasn’t founded on any coherent anthropology. It left unanswered the question of by what criterion we can decide how to treat others, and it left unsatisfied both the human instinct for self-sacrifice and the human desire for the friendship and community that depends upon mutual deference. Her answer was mostly “If you don’t want to do what other people want you to do, screw ’em.”
A Reason for Hope
It isn’t satisfying, and thereby gives one small example of the Church’s continuing appeal, and a reason for hope when anxious Catholics are wringing their hands and triumphant secularists are crowing. People find themselves overwhelmed by the demands other people make on them, yet also want the community mutual sacrifices enable and want to be the kind of people who sacrifice for others, because they believe the good life requires it. Look at most movie heroes. The best the world—weirdly enough the same world that produces and consumes the movies—can typically provide is spirited instruction to stop giving a damn.
In this case, the Church provides the criteria the world wants. It helps you see what you, as a human being and as a particular individual, are for, what you were made to be and do. It helps you discern and order the demands placed upon you. It helps you see what sacrifices are good and needed and which divert you from doing what you are called to do. It doesn’t directly answer every specific question, but it can come close to doing so. It does so with a depth and coherence the Guardian’s writer and her peers, even the more sophisticated and less selfish ones, can’t match.
He's not done. He's offering up an antidote to the poison the world is offering.
You said all that follow You may find Comfort and pain, blessings in hard times Were I to leave, where else would I go? The words of life and of truth You hold
All I want is love I confess to this I will take it, Lord All you have to give
Turn your eyes upon Jesus Look full in His wonderful face And the things of Earth Will grow strangely dim In the light of His glory and grace
And You give yourself away And you give yourself away And you give And you give And you give yourself away
All I want is love And I confess to this I will take it, Lord All You have to give All You have to give All You have All You have to give
Your love, oh Lord Reaches to the heavens Your faithfulness stretches to the sky And Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains Your justice flows like the ocean's tides
And I will lift my voice To worship You, my king And I will find my strength in the shadow of Your wings.
On December 17 on this page I addressed the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God. I gave the same answer given by Vatican II, and by the Catholic Church since the Council: yes. Muslims and Christians do worship the same God, even though Islam holds an imperfect understanding of the divine, since it denies Christ’s divinity and thus, by implication, God’s triune nature.
As the Church declared in Nostra Aetate (1965): “[Muslims] adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men. . . .Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”
This argument prompted several critical replies, almost exclusively from non-Catholic Christians, including distinguished thinkers such as Albert Mohler, Andrew Walker, Matthew Cochran, and Peter Leithart. (To say nothing of a raft of outrage from TCT readers.) Each, with differing emphases, correctly documents what Christians believe are the inadequacies of Muslim theology given how God has progressively revealed himself through history as taught in Scripture. I do not dispute this point; it is actually consistent with my argument.
...
Consider this example: Lois Lane is in love with Kal-El (Superman’s birth-given name), and believes him to be non-human because he was born on Krypton. Now imagine that Lana Lang is in love with Clark Kent (Superman’s newspaper reporter alter ego), and believes him to be a human being because she thinks he was born of human parents, Martha and Jonathan Kent. Lois does not know that Kal-El is really Clark Kent, and Lana does not know that Clark Kent is really Kal-El.
Are Lois and Lana in love with the same man? Of course they are, even though one of them is clearly mistaken about some of her beliefs about Kal-El/Clark and his nature. The reason for this is that there is only one being that is essentially Kal-El.
In the same way, there is only one being that is essentially God: the uncaused, perfect, unchanging, self-subsistent, eternal Creator and sustainer of all that which receives its being from another. As St. Paul puts it in his sermon on Mars Hill, “The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands. . . .[I]n him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17: 24, 28)
If this is who you worship, you worship God. Nevertheless, you would do well to heed the concluding remarks St. Paul preached that day in Athens: “While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17: 30-31)
Deo Gloria.
The ellipsis in the excerpt above represents much... go now and read the rest.
Lots of clarity offered on what has become serious fodder for blogs and social media of late, most of which is filled with bluster and ignorance.
The Holy Rosary is a vast wealth of…everything. Everything you could ever fathom to need and more, literally right there at your fingertips. Countless volumes have been written extolling the spiritual, mental, emotional and physical benefits of regularly praying the Rosary. Time and again, it has been dramatically shown to be the most powerful prayer. Through the Rosary, wars have been won, miracles performed, tragedies averted, and lives saved. Souls have been redeemed. Perhaps less dramatic, but no less sublime, the Rosary can also result in many more-subtle gifts over time…graces, comfort, direction, understanding, and hope, to name a few. From personal experience, when I am on track with praying the Rosary, even if everything else is falling down around my ears, I at least have that one thing going for me. And even better, it is a thing that does actually help.
So with not only a brand new year out ahead of us, but also a fairly new Year of Mercy thrown into the mix, here are some ideas that may not only help you to have a more well-rounded rosary life in 2016 – but also if you are struggling to rosary, may be just the thing to help you get your beads rattling more.
Personally pray the rosary daily. Obviously, this is the ideal. The rosary is the most excellent base you can build a meaningful prayer life around. Whether you start the day with it, end the day with it or grab 20 minutes of peace and quiet from the chaos in the middle, it’s critical to the success of the mission. When you are going through hard times, it can help to fill your time and help to mark time. You might pray your daily rosary while alone in a quiet room, in the car, or while walking, running or exercising. Some people gather together with their families to pray the rosary each day.
Ever have trouble settling your brain down? Me too. Find a rosary you like online and pray with that. You can access the rosary with Mother Angelica (plus a few other versions) via the EWTN cell phone app, as well as online. I love how soothing and beautiful the nuns sound on this version. And if my mind is jumping around all over the place, hearing the sisters rhythmically praying the rosary helps to keep bringing my mind back to it.
Carry a rosary with you at all times, preferably one that you really like. Nine times out of ten, I will wear mine around my neck because if I stick it in my pocket, I end up breaking it. I know it is a good idea to keep the Rosary infused in my life as much as possible so it helps me to have it with me wherever I am. If I have rosary beads with me, even if I am not praying the Rosary, I am at least likely to think about it at some point.
If all else fails, if you think it is important (which it is), then make yourself do it for a while. Maybe you won’t always have to. Maybe you will. But in the end, you will be glad you did.
Pray the rosary before Mass. Not all parishes do this, but it is sure nice when they do (hint-hint all parishes in the universe). I like the rosary before mass because it is typically a down-to-business, no messing around rosary. You are in, you are out. Simple, yet effective. Even if this is the only rosary you pray – it’s a good one. Plus, ““For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:20) You can’t beat that in any way.
Pray with your parish rosary group. Please do yourself a favor and throw out any preconceived notions you have about this. Praying with the rosary groups at my church has turned out to be one of the best things I have ever done in my life. If you are having trouble praying, at least you know that you will pray the rosary one time that week. There have been times I have really appreciated the comfort of that small achievement. But more than just adding additional minutes of meaningful prayer time, regularly going will add some new dimensions to your prayer life. For example, with a regular once-a-week rosary group, there will be a lot of good continuity and followup on your prayer intentions. If you miss a week or two, you are likely going to be prayed for anyway (and if you miss a week, you could probably use the prayers anyway). We also have a couple of menfolk who come to this group sometimes, so please don’t think all this heavenly help is just for the wimmen, speaking of preconceived notions. Stressed out, sick, sad, depressed, tired, scared, disgusted, or getting too caught up in the rat race? Praying the rosary with a familiar group can be a soothing meditative experience, which is beneficial to the heart, mind, body, and soul. If you are not a daily rosary person, maybe you are a once-a-week rosary person. There are even once-a-month rosary groups. And even that is one more rosary, my friends.
As much as I have stressed regular Rosary praying here, you also do not want to go into complete autopilot with the Rosary because praying the Rosary is not the destination. It is part of the journey (adventure!) we are on to get to our Father in Heaven.
And finally, just some encouragement. Even though it is simple, praying the Rosary is not always easy. Keep doing it the best you can, as often as you can. It will make a difference.
St. Helena is the patron saint of among others, archaeologists, empresses and divorced people. I am one of these. My divorce was final on 11/12/2015. The 31st anniversary of my marriage was on 12/29/2015. As much as I don’t want the “scarlet D” to define me, I suppose in some ways it does right now. I am still trying to navigate the pain, despair, fear, stigma, relief, hope, and promise of it all. It’s a mess.
Catholic divorce is a huge subject. I am only starting to realize how huge. It is one of the few issues that is not only being actively being looked at for how to better handle, but actual changes have been instituted by Pope Francis with regards to the annulment process. So even though I feel like the lone pariah out here, all this tells me that there must be many millions of us out here struggling through this, surviving, thriving, moving on down the road. Hello to you.
Surprisingly, I have not found huge mountains of helpful resources and information from Catholics who are divorced, divorcing, etc., although there is no lack of resources on how to judge, marginalize, and further ostracize us from our faith. Wow, not cool. This is already bad enough without all that.
So where to start?
I have realized the better question for today is where to start back? Or more realistically, how to start back? For we are not starting our journey all over again at the beginning. There is no clean break when something that has been growing intertwined for more than half of your life is severed. Even your very identity is no longer what it was. And then throw being a Catholic into the mix, which adds all kinds of joy and horribleness to just about any process.
It wasn’t until after her husband divorced her (to marry a reportedly younger and more politically advantageous woman), that St. Helena went on to be inspired by her son to become Christian. She then spent her life building and restoring churches and shrines in the Holy Land. I love that. She was not defined by her divorce. She was not separated from God by her divorce. I am inspired by that.
So how to start back? I think first with a prayer. The prayer to St. Helena…
Holy and blessed Saint Helena, with the anguish and devotion with which you sought the Cross of Christ, I plead that you give me God's grace to suffer in patience the labors of this life, so that through them and through your intercession and protection, I will be able to seek and carry the Cross, which God has placed upon me, so that I can serve Him in this life and enjoy His Glory ever after. Amen.
That’s about the best way I know to start anything.
Happy New Year to one and all on this day, the day we Catholics commemorate and celebrate the Solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God, a Holy Day of Obligation.
Today, while much of the world marks the new beginning of the calendar year, the Church commemorates the great solemnity of the Mother of God.
What does this mean?
That the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God means that the child— conceived in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, carried in her body for nine months, and born into this world— is God. As such, this celebration highlights the pivotal truth of the Church's Faith- that God has, in Jesus Christ, accepted a human nature, chosen to be born into this world as we have all been born into this world, and has lived a real, human life.
In doing so, God has accepted the full implication of what is means to be human, including the experiences of suffering and death.
...
The "how" of God accepting a human nature is an absolute mystery. It is a revelation that while it can be appreciated and believed, it can never be fully explained.
That the Blessed Virgin Mary is called Mother of God is not pious boilerplate, a kind of title by which we honor the woman who is the mother of Jesus Christ.
To testify that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God is simultaneously a statement about her and a statement about Christ. On the one hand, it highlights the identity and mission of the Blessed Virgin Mary, an identity and mission that is absolutely singular and unique. No one else is or will ever be the Mother of God. No one else knows Christ as God in the manner that the Blessed Virgin Mary did.
God chose her in such a way that he does not choose us. God made the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary something that our lives will never be. There are points of contact between her experience and our own. She is fully and completely human, like we are. She is not divine. Nor does she, as a result of her unique identity and mission, turn into some kind of divine being. She is like us, but there is something so radically different about her identity and mission that while we can love her, we cannot fully understand her. She is a mystery.
So it is with her Divine Son.
When we identify the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God, the emphasis is only secondarily on her- it is primarily about Christ. Mary being referred to as the Mother of God tells us that Jesus Christ is God and was always God. Christ did not "turn" into God, and calling Christ God is not just some kind of projection by which we make Jesus of Nazareth someone very important. That Jesus is really and truly is God is a fact. God accepting a human nature in Christ and lived a real, human life is not just a story we tell that is all symbol, myth and legend- it is all true and it really happened.
Now, you might be waiting at this point for the "lesson"- a point of contact between the testimony I have given and your experience. We are accustomed to think that preaching must always deliver a lesson, but in this case, if there is a lesson, it is that God will always exceed human expectations and will do so in ways that are absolutely extravagant. What God had done and will do will not fit neatly into our categories of understanding nor will he be bound by what we think he should do.
What God will deliver to us are mysteries, and it is through these mysteries that we will be able to see and, even in our own limited way, understand who God is and what he asks of us. But even as this happens, what is given to us is not a way of figuring God out. The Incarnation of God in Christ is the singular and privileged way by which God reveals himself to the world. We see in Christ with the greatest clarity possible who God is and what he is all about.
For many years, I joined the throngs of believing Christians who thought the Catholic focus on Mary was too much, was idolatrous, was extreme and even cultic. That thought was borne of ignorance in many respects but also from my own intentional desire to be as completely Christ centered as I could possibly be as I chased being a faithful guy.
Now I'm finding that the more I come to honor Mary, the more devoted I am to her, the more I venerate her as the Father's chosen salvific vehicle, the more aware of Christ I become.
It is truly a God delivered mystery, one I've come to embrace fully.
Mother Mary, pray for us, now and at the hour of our death.
Recent Comments