Friday, July 16, 2010

Dear Robert Stacy McCain: You Need to Become "The Old Spice Guy" to Get @Alyssa_Milano to Notice You

I've been reading Robert Stacy McCain's blog, The Other McCain, for awhile now. If you are a regular reader, also, you'll notice that he has been doing everything possible (well, almost) in order to be noticed by the Real Celebrity Queen of Tweets, Alyssa Milano.

Milano has made herself a Twitter favorite because 1) it's obviously her who is doing the "tweeting" 2) she's a huge baseball fan, which pretty much makes her just about every guy's fantasy: a gorgeous woman who can tell the difference between a forkball and a slider and 3) she actually talks to her fans and recommends them.

So R.S. McCain has been on an ever-intensifying mission to get Alyssa Milano to notice him. Except someone else finally beat him to it. And the dude's only wearing a towel.

Introducing... "The Old Spice Guy"



Old Spice has hit a Grand Slam with their "Old Spice Guy" whose videos have gone viral on the Internet. Not only are the commercials funny, The Old Spice Guy has even responded personally to those who've tweeted about him. Including Alyssa Milano, who actually received a bouquet of flowers and declaration of love from the sensual shower stud.

So, the lesson? Perhaps you best be setting up a video cam in your bathroom, Stacy; and don a nice white towel. Maybe that can increase your traffic and help you pay off your daughter's wedding. You never know... it could happen!

Rearranged My Little Blog-house

I moved up the links to other blogs and also my archive. If you like this blog, you may like some of those I've linked. I just got a referral for a funny one and added it: Orwell's Picnic (Gotta love the subtitle of it. Visit and laugh!)

I am completely jealous of anyone who gets to live in Rome.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Response to My Email from President Hogan of UI and My Response #Catholic

Well, that was quick!

On Jul 13, 2010, at 9:01 PM, President Hogan wrote:

Dear Mary Rose,

Let me begin by thanking you for expressing your concerns. Academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions. It’s vital to our ability to explore new ideas, educate our students, and promote the civil and free exchange of alternative viewpoints in a democracy.

I learned of this action on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) campus late last week and immediately asked Chancellor Robert Easter, who oversees the campus, to provide me with a briefing on the matter. I want to assure you that the University administration shares my commitment to the principles of academic freedom. At the same time, we do believe it's important to fully investigate all of the details related to this situation. As I'm sure you're aware, it is sometimes the case that public reports may convey only part of the story. I think it important to reserve judgment until I have all of the facts and I hope you'll agree.

We have asked the UIUC Senate’s standing Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to immediately review this action. This is the mechanism on the campus through which these matters should be vetted. We expect this review to be completed very soon. By using our channels of shared governance and review, we are in the best position to make informed decisions that afford a fair process for all.

Again, I’m grateful to have heard from you and others about this and I’m grateful for the opportunity to respond. It reaffirms the deep commitment that so many have to the University and public higher education and to ensuring that the University of Illinois continues to be a beacon of excellence, as it should be for the state, the nation, and the world.

Sincerely,

Mike

Michael J. Hogan
President
University of Illinois


My response:

Dear President Hogan,

Wow. Color me thoroughly impressed and touched. First, what a speedy response! And secondly, a very thoughtful and sound one. I agree about having all of the facts. I know that at times certain tidbits of a situation can leak out and many will jump to conclusions. I admit that I've only read both the original email from Dr. Howell and then the student's email of complaint. I'm not sure what else went on, but the complaint (and subsequent action) seems heavy-handed at this point.

However, you're the president who has to make those inquiries and from your email, it seems like the wheels are already in motion.

I truly appreciate your response and will post it on my blog. (http://www.catholicprodigaldaughter.com)

Thank you and I wish you the best in handling a very difficult situation. I remain hopeful that Dr. Howell will be reinstated.

Respectfully yours,

Mary Rose

My Email to President Hogan at Univ. of Illinois Over the Firing of Dr. Howell #Catholicism

Subject: You Overreacted Re: Dr. Ken Howell - And This Is No Way to Bring Funds to Your University
Date: July 13, 2010


Dear President Hogan and Dr. McKim (Head of the Department of Religion),

By now I suspect you've been deluged with emails regarding the firing of Dr. Howell over one student's objection to a philosophical email which he apparently did not comprehend.

The Catholic blogosphere is in a raging fire of their own outrage. Many have said, "Enough is enough."

When an esteemed professor, an obvious thought leader within your university; is kicked to the curb over an exaggerated sense of injury -- fair and thoughtful debate has died. I am appalled by the lack of critical thinking students are receiving by this action. If anyone were to thoroughly read Dr. Howell's very helpful email, which illustrates utilitarianism and the application of it toward one of the more pressing issues of our day; and come to the conclusion that such earnest intellectual inquiry is "hate speech", then I shudder to think of the type of young person your university will unleash upon the world after four years of "higher education." Don't you teach students how to hold their own and defend intellectually their arguments instead of pandering to cheap and easy emotional babble? My, God. I'm afraid for our country's future.

I attended a university and loved philosophy. I found it challenging to defend whatever I thought of was right by employing the principles I was being taught within classes such as rhetorical theory, logic, and empiricism. I would have found it laughable if a student tried to engineer a professor's firing simply because she couldn't hold her own intellectually. And that's what it looks like to those of us who've already been around this mountain. The student took the coward's way out. And you followed suit.

If you will not permit the teachings of philosophy its due course, or remain true to your mission of offering religion courses, you dilute a student's education which will have consequences upon enrollment and fundraising. People study religion to understand its tenets and inception. They study it to become equipped to make decisions in their life. Can you imagine teaching Islamic Studies without the Koran? Judaic Studies without the Tanakh? How is Catholicism to be accurately taught without the Catechism of the Catholic Church? How is Catholicism to be taught without being punished for being "Catholic?"

This is bad publicity of the worst kind for UI. Not only do you look like knee-jerk reactionaries catering to a whining mental toddler, you also present your education in an unflattering light by not being able to distinguish presumption from actual wrongdoing.

Firing Dr. Howell was not a solution, but the beginning of a far larger problem for your university. Reinstate him to his position and allow him to do what he does best. Teaching students not what to think -- but how to think.

Respectfully yours,

Mary Rose

Monday, July 12, 2010

And So It Begins: #Catholic University Instructor Fired Over Utilitarian Application to Homosexuality


The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.

The professor, Dr. Ken Howell of Champaign, said his firing violates his academic freedom. He also lost his job at an on-campus Catholic center.


I remember the controversy that surrounded the "Hate Crimes Bill," which was signed last year in October by President Obama, officially known as the Matthew Shepard Act. Many Christians were rightly concerned that they would be targeted by the bill and that organizations would use it to limit their freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Well, here's one example. Ken Howell.

This is what is so wrong with this scenario: Dr. Ken Howell is a known Catholic teaching Catholic doctrine. His students aren't in the dark. They didn't sign up for a Wiccan course on basket-weaving. The course is called "Introduction to Catholicism."

Mr. Howell sent an email at the end of the spring semester explaining Catholic beliefs to his students to help them prepare for an exam. (The student's email that led to his firing is here.)

"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."

An unidentified student (Don't you love that? An "unidentified student" is allowed to send an email that has in essence destroyed a man's career. But he can remain anonymous.) sent an e-mail to religion department head Robert McKim on May 13, calling Howell's e-mail "hate speech." (Hate speech? Hardly. Howell was describing utilitarianism and the application of it toward homosexuality.) The student claimed to be a friend of the offended student. (Right. The offended student couldn't be bothered to express their own disappointment/anger/rage. So they had someone else do their bidding.) The writer said in the e-mail that his friend wanted to remain anonymous.

"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," the student wrote. "Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another." (Wrong answer. Dr. Howell was teaching students the tenets of a religion, which was clearly defined in the course description, which I'll show below. If you read the original email from Dr. Howell, you will see the context, which includes Natural Moral Law. The student's email reveals that he wasn't even tracking accurately with Dr. Howell's arguments.)

Howell said he was teaching his students about the Catholic understanding of natural moral law.
From the University of Illinois, Department of Religion RLST course catalog (emphasis and comment mine):
RLST 127
Introduction to Catholicism
Credit: 3 hours.
Introduction to the academic study of Catholicism in its historical, philosophical and religious dimensions with an emphasis on its historical diversity. ("Philosophical" may not have been thoroughly explained to the students, or some may not have understood its meaning. Philosophy addresses questions that have to do with existence, reason, and values. If that's termed "hate speech," then you may as well throw out Platonic Realism for being "hate speech" against the color green. The students were being introduced to philosophical thought as well as the tenets of Catholicism.)

After visiting the University of Illinois site, I was amazed to see they still had their announcement congratulating Howell for "being recognized for excellent teaching" for Fall 2009, voted by the students. Obviously he is admired and valued for his teaching methods. It is thus even more of an outrage that a university would oust a professor who evidently is well-respected by most students because a minority of one was offended.



This is the new rule in America: the tyranny of the minority. Instead of being ruled by law (and reason), we are now witnessing a complete breakdown of logic and fairness. From this scenario, I have concluded that no one can teach anything if it runs counter to liberal or progressive thought; even if the original email was one of sound explanation, certainly not attacking homosexuality but instead questioning the criterion used to determine right and wrong. (Interestingly, the email does not reference Scripture or God.)

Dr. Howell presents a philosophical premise: Utilitarianism (the idea that the moral worth of beliefs, choices, and actions are predicated upon the utility [usefulness] of how much pleasure it provides the individual) in its modern form, is a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes.

These thoughts are in themselves, fascinating -- and should have led to a lively discussion or debate. (And although I'm speculating, the email seems to reveal that the discussion became a little heated within the classroom.) Dr. Howell is in my humble opinion, the best kind of professor. He is teaching his students how to think. Nowhere in that email did I read a denouncement of homosexuality based on Scripture. Instead, Dr. Howell made a compelling argument that criterion for which to evaluate homosexuality morally, Natural Moral Law, was often left off the table. I agree. I don't know why it isn't obvious to those who support homosexuality that it is not "natural" in the sense that two men do not complimentary fit one another, but it is certainly a blind spot.

Dr. Howell also briefly talks about the progression toward separating our sexual nature from our moral decisions. Again, provocative thoughts meant to generate discussion and examination. Instead, Dr. Howell has been punished.

What is further outrageous is that the St. John's Catholic Newman Center (SJCNC), would also fire Dr. Howell. This is a Catholic organization, and -- one of their entities is The Institute of Catholic Thought. If anything, SJCNC should have supported Dr. Howell from the very beginning as initiating Catholic thought and subsequently (yes, I know...) supporting Catholic doctrine. (Some may say that should be the other way around and I would concur.)

But if you have a Catholic student organization that is to help students explore their Catholic faith (Dare I say develop Catholic identity in a post-modern Christian culture?); then they would do well to keep one such as Dr. Howell's caliber, on staff.

What seems clear to me is that this course was presented in the student catalog as a Catholic course. Anyone who hasn't heard of Catholicism's stand on homosexuality is living under a rock. The other concern I have is that with the inexcusable sin of sexual abuse by priests (mostly same-sex abuse); a Catholic organization would fail to pursue a clear and defining answer to the increasingly ambivalent morality of the world.

Instead, a Catholic thinker who is strongly making their case for the consequences of such moral ambiguity; is targeted and denounced.

I strongly urge all Catholics to write to the University of Illinois on behalf of Dr. Howell, and the St. John's Catholic Newman Center. This is an important issue and I fear if not addressed, will only give rise to more punishment of Catholics for being Catholic. Information is below.

Please be polite when writing. Reread your comments and make them thoughtful, not inflammatory or incendiary. We need to show the University of Illinois and St. John's Catholic Newman Center that we object to the firing of Dr. Ken Howell because he is being fired for remaining true to his course objectives and his faithfulness to Catholic doctrine.

I'm not sure if this address still works for Dr. Howell, but here is his email for SJCNC:

Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D., Director & Senior Fellow, Institute of Catholic Thought
kenneth.howell@sjcnc.org


University of Illinois
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Department of Religion
Dr. Robert McKim
Head of the Department of Religion and Professor of Religious Studies and of Philosophy
3080 Foreign Languages Building
MC 166
707 S Mathews
Urbana, IL 61801
E-mail: rmckim@illinois.edu
Phone: (217) 265-6350

President Michael J. Hogan
University Relations
414 Administrative Ofc. Bldg.
1737 W. Polk St., MC-971
Chicago, IL 60612
Email: presmike@uillinois.edu
Tel: (312) 996-3772
Fax: (312) 996-1836

Lisa Troyer
Chief of Staff
troyer@uillinois.edu


Loren Taylor, UI Alumni Association
Chief Executive Officer, President, and Publisher

University of Illinois Alumni Association
Board of Directors
Chair: Gary Chico
Chico & Nunes P.C.
Partner


St. John's Catholic Newman Center
Msgr. Gregory Ketcham, Chaplain and Director
Newman Hall
604 East Armory Avenue
Champaign, IL 61820
(217) 344-1266
(217) 344-6606 (fax)

Fr. Anthony Co, Assistant Chaplain
anthony.co@sjcnc.org

Charles Hanson, Chief Financial Officer
chuck.hanson@sjcnc.org

David Hazen, Director of Communications and Annual Giving
david.hazen@sjcnc.org

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Friday, July 9, 2010

Reflections on "Atlas Shrugged": Dagny's Win #tcot #sgp

Atlas Shrugged is epic. It is the most intense novel I've ever read, perhaps because the storyline could easily be seen as a modern tale in the midst of our current economy. I have fallen in love with the young heroine, Dagny Taggart. She is the heiress of a railroad line and does not know the meaning of "can't." Her wimpy brother, Jim, on the other hand; is a mess. He is fearful, catering to the naysayers instead of focusing on how to make the railroad business successful.

There are so many messages in this story. For those unfamiliar with the book, the plot goes something like this: there is a group of businessmen and one business woman (Dagny) who is seeking to produce something they are proud of, that will advance something; whether that is an idea, a service, or a product. They love being able to chase their dreams and make something that will employ others and make a profit.

Then you have the government and groups of people unable to create anything unique, who continue to criticize the group of producers for being "selfish" for wanting to make a profit. Their idea of society is one where larger groups control others and edge out competition. Unbelievably, there was an "Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule" that sounded exactly like the "Too Big to Fail" bailouts that were just given to businesses. As much as I didn't like Ayn Rand's personal life choices, the woman was sharp. Atlas Shrugged is eerily prescient when it comes to today's headlines.

I'm including an excerpt of the book below. To set it up:

Dagney is trying to build a railroad line for her family's business. She is using a brand new product from another company, Rearden Metal. All other railroad lines used steel but Henry Rearden came up with a new metal that is stronger and more economical. A over-bloated scientific group has denounced the metal as "unsafe" although they've never tested it. The government is involved and will benefit if the railroad line fails.

Dagny was up against a wall. She agreed to step down as the Vice President of Operations and start her own railroad line to take the heat off of Taggart Transcontinental. She starts the John Galt Line, named after a mysterious man who seems to embody rebellion. (In the book, the phrase, "Who is John Galt?" is often said as though to say, "what's the point?" Dagny doesn't like the phrase and chose it to goad her attackers.)

Henry Rearden has proposed building a bridge made of his new metal. Dagny believes in him, but many others do not. There is increasing pressure to stop Dagny from going forward with her plans. A union representative has asked for a meeting. And now, from the book:

“Well, it’s like this, Miss Taggart,” said the delegate of the Union of Locomotive Engineer. “I don’t think we’re going to allow you to run that train.”

Dagny sat at her battered desk, against the blotched wall of her office. She said, without moving, “Get out of here.”

It was a sentence the man had never heard in the polished offices of railroad executives. He looked bewildered. “I came to tell you --”

“If you have anything to say to me, start over again.”

“What?”

“Don’t tell me what you’re going to allow me to do.”

“Well, I meant we’re not going to allow our men to run your train.”

“That’s different.”

“Well, that’s what we’ve decided.”

“Who’s decided it?”

“The committee. What you’re doing is a violation of human rights. You can’t force men to go out to get killed -- when that bridge collapses just to make money for you.”

She searched for a sheet of blank paper and handed it to him. “Put it down in writing,” she said, “and we’ll sign a contract to that effect.”

“What contract?”

“That no member of your union will ever be employed to run an engine on the John Galt Line.”

“Why... wait a minute... I haven’t said --”

“You don’t want to sign such a contract?”

“No I --”

“Why not, since you know that the bridge is going to collapse?”

“I only want --”

“I know what you want. you want a stranglehold on your men by means of the jobs which I give them -- and on me, by means of your men. You want me to provide the jobs, and you want to make it impossible for me to have any jobs to provide. Now I’ll give you a choice. The train is going to be run. You have no choice about that. But you can choose whether it’s going to be run by one of your men or not. If you choose not to let them, the train will still run, if I have to drive the engine myself. Then, if the bridge collapses, there won’t be any railroad left in existence, anyway. But if it doesn’t collapse, no member of your union will ever get a job on the John Galt Line. If you think that I need your men more than they need me, choose according to that. Now are you going to forbid your men to run that train?”

“I didn’t say we’d forbid it. I haven’t said anything about forbidding. But...but you can’t force men to risk their lives on something nobody’s ever tried before.”

“I’m not going to force anyone to take that run.”

“What are you going to do?”

“I’m going to ask for a volunteer.”

“And if none of them volunteers?”

“Then it will be my problem, not yours.”

“Well, let me tell you that I’m going to advise them to refuse.”

“Go ahead. Advise them anything you wish. Tell them whatever you like. But leave the choice to them. Don’t try to forbid it.”

The notice that appeared in every roundhouse of the Taggart system was signed “Edwin Willers, Vice-President in Charge of Operation” It asked engineers, who were willing to drive the first train on the John Galt Line, so to inform the office of Mr. Willers, not later than eleven A.M. of July 15.

It was a quarter of eleven, on the morning of the fifteenth, when the telephone rang in her office. It was Eddie, calling from high up in the Taggart Building outside her window. “Dagny, I think you’d better come over.” His voice sounded queer.

She hurried across the street, then down the marble-floored halls to the door that still carried the name “Dagny Taggart” on the glass panel. She pulled the door open.

The anteroom of the office was full. Men stood jammed among the desks, against the walls. As she entered, they took their hats off in sudden silence. She saw the graying heads, the muscular shoulders, she saw the smiling faces of her staff at their desks and the face of Eddie Willers at the end of the room. Everybody knew that nothing had to be said.

Eddie stood by the open door of her office. The crowd parted to let her approach him. He moved his hand, pointing at the room, and then at a pile of letters and telegrams.

“Dagny, every one of them,” he said. “Every engineer on Taggart Transcontintinental. those who could, came here, some from as far as the Chicago Division.” He pointed at the mail. “There’s the rest of them. To be exact, there’s only three I haven’t heard from: one’s on a vacation in the north woods, one’s in a hospital, and one’s in jail for reckless driving -- of his automobile.”

She looked at the men. She saw the suppressed grins on the solemn faces. She inclined her head, in acknowledgement. She stood for a moment, head bowed, as if she were accepting a verdict, knowing that the verdict applied to her, to every man in the room and to the world beyond the walls of the building.

“Thank you,” she said.

Most of the men had seen her many times. Looking at her, as she raised her head, many of them thought -- in astonishment and for the first time -- that the face of their Operating Vice-President was the face of a woman and that it was beautiful.

Someone in the back of the crowd cried suddenly, cheerfully, “To hell with Jim Taggart!”

An explosion answered him. The men laughed, they cheered, they broke into applause. The response was out of all proportion to the sentence. But the sentence had given them the excuse they needed. They seemed to be applauding the speaker in insolent defiance of authority. But everyone in the room knew who it was that they were cheering.

She raised her hand. “We’re too early, “ she said, laughing. “Wait till a week from today. That’s when we ought to celebrate. And believe me, we will!”

I cried when I read this part of the book. It moved me because I could feel the desire of the men to do what they were trained to do. Run a train. They simply wanted a job and the chance to do something that hadn't been done before. You could feel the excitement as they imagined running a train over a brand new bridge, made of something the world had never seen before.

This is the type of spirit that built America. It was a "can-do attitude," not a "can't do." The character of Dagny, Henry Rearden, and to an extent, Francisco D'Anconia (who had the spirit at first but is now involved in a struggle to overthrow the "moochers" and "looters" of society) all celebrate the accomplishments of the human spirit. Ayn Rand grew up under the suffocation of communism in Russia. She knew firsthand the experience of control, stifling creativity and progress. You can tell in her writing that she loves America.

She has no use for those who feed off the success of others while damning them for that success. She calls such people "moochers" and "looters." Henry Reardon, for example, has his extended family of a mother and brother living with he and his wife. His brother, is unemployed. However, he is involved in some kind of an organization that condemns successful businessmen like his own brother. In fact, I was stunned by a part of the book that had the brother complaining that he couldn't raise funds for this group and his brother generously offered to give him a check for $10,000. (This book was written in the 1950's, so that sum of money was worth even more then than today.) The brother was sullen as he grudgingly accepted, then had the gall to ask if the money could be given to him in cash since he didn't want the group to know the money came from Rearden Steel. Rearden's family is a perfect example of moochers.

Looters are those who grab a business after its been pushed out and claim it as their own. Again, it's amazing to me how Rand had the foresight to see all of this, but maybe it's not such a surprise. As the saying goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Rand was making a strong statement against a "collectivist" society, where the good of the many outweigh the interests of the few -- even if those few will provide jobs to the many by doing what they do best.

It is the punishment of success that is seen over and over again in Rand's novel. I have always thought that those who punish success, never have had it themselves. And we see it today. Those who are unable or unwilling to produce hate those who do. Like Dagny, I say fight it. Even if it looks hopeless, at least I'll sleep peacefully knowing I did.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

What I Love About Catholicism: It Names Evil #Catholic #tcot #sgp

If you really dig into the precepts of Catholicism, you will see absolutes. There is such a thing as good and evil, sin, redemption, mercy, forgiveness, and judgement. Jesus Christ, dying for the sin of mankind, hanging on a cross of wood - was the most profound and awe-full image of absolutism the world had ever witnessed. Never since and never will there be such a message of clear and defining truth.

It is this absolutism that I appreciate within Catholicism. However, there have been evil forces at work during the years I was gone. These forces have been subtle at times, and during others, overt; as they seek to destroy Truth. I am not afraid to name evil for what it is, for evil to me is whatever raises a hand against Almighty God and declares itself superior.

I experienced part of that evil within my Catholic school system. Some may say, "Come, now. Aren't you being a little overly dramatic? It may have been bad, but... evil?" Yes. Evil. When you don't teach students that there is a right and a wrong so that they lack the tools necessary to choose good; because they've been taught that to choose that good is somehow wrong -- that is evil.

I read with interest an article by Fr. James V. Schall, Professor of Political Philosophy at Georgetown University. In "The Rise of Cross-less Catholicism," he said:

Cardinal Pell's remarks recalled an e-mail from a man I do not know. He teaches in a Catholic high school and was assigned a summer school course. He chose to offer one on C. S. Lewis and Tolkien – surely worthy topics – and sent in a prospectus to the program director. The response was that his outline included too many "negative" things, like "good vs. evil, vice and virtue, honor and shame." The students would not react well to such harsh concepts.

I was "terrified," as I told the man, that students could not face the most basic of Christian truths at a Catholic school. But it is true that what are called the "negative" elements in Christianity are seldom heard in our schools or universities anymore.

Redemption, it seems, has nothing to do with one's personal sins or deeds. The students are "upset" by core doctrines, or at least teachers think they are. "Don't upset the students" becomes censorship. No doubt ways of presenting such doctrines can be excessive, but I suspect that is a rare problem today.

Faith is thus transformed into a social movement. That is where we deal with the "negative" things: We work against bad causes to make the world "better" through judicious selection of movements that "do good." We do not need to attend to ourselves. We do not like to know that our thoughts and deeds have anything to do with something that transcends the going political correctness in the local culture.

Diversity teaches that whatever anyone does is all right. Multiculturalism teaches that if such is the way they do it in Baluchistan, it must be great everywhere. The only "sin" is that of prejudice. Prejudice means that you acknowledge a truth, but you have no problems with anything anyone does. Our moral world has just about accepted every classical vice as a virtue. We fear that we will be against something because it is "evil."

I like this: We work against bad causes to make the world "better" through judicious selection of movements that "do good." We do not need to attend to ourselves. We do not like to know that our thoughts and deeds have anything to do with something that transcends the going political correctness in the local culture. How completely correct! How often do we see people aligning themselves with one cause or another "to make the world a better place" but yet fail to see their own sin as contributing to its failings?

Engaging in promiscuous sex is seen as a "right," even though it often leads to disease and unwanted pregnancies. But that freedom is celebrated and paraded in our society as an entitlement. Meanwhile, overlook the far-reaching ramifications of such behavior, which include healthcare costs, abortion, or unwanted children who grow up to be unproductive members of society because their immature parents could not love their children and rear them in a healthy environment. Overlook how promiscuous sex can damage a woman's psyche and cause her to be depressed. Overlook how such a lifestyle caters to self-centeredness and the exploitation of others.

This is the evil that must be exposed to students. The only way for it to be exposed is for students to learn what true goodness is. There must be a comparison but I fear such teaching methods are fading, if not fallen by the wayside altogether. If you're over the age of 40, perhaps you remember this during school examinations: Compare and contrast... That exercise molded my mind well so that as I grew older, I continued to view arguments from different angles. In essence, I learned how to think. Students aren't being taught how to think, anymore. They're being taught how to submit to mob rule.

Bear with me as I seemingly go off tangent, but I'll circle back.

Not everything is "right." It's the same irritation I feel when someone wants to call "everything" art. No. Michelangelo Buonorrati's Sistine Chapel and breath-taking David is art. Some numbskull nailing a bunch of old Converse sneakers to a wall in a pretentious gallery, is not. The former is a creation of skill, artistic principle, and inspiration. The latter is a pathetic attempt to do something stupid and masquerade itself as brilliant. Few places are the playground of Emperors Without Clothes, as the art world.

When you call something as silly and mundane as a sneaker show, "art" - what does that mean for something like Michelangelo's creations? It robs those creations of their grandeur, their transformative power, the ability to amaze their viewer. I don't care what anyone else says, art, as it was intended and inspired by the Divine, the Creator Himself; was meant to elevate our souls.

It is this effort to minimize the true purpose of art that is seen within the attempt to minimize the true impact of good vs. evil in the world. Once the lies start to take hold, truth dies. The students in classrooms today are being taught that it is wrong to discern differences, to make judgements between right and wrong because after all, "what's right for me may not be right for you." Enough of this hogwash. It is time to stand up to these mealy-mouthed, brainless wimps and proclaim loudly the truth: That there is such a thing as moral absolutism and there is such a thing as evil. There is such a thing as God and He punishes evil. If they don't like it, too bad. We can't continue to allow them to destroy our children because they can't face the truth.

This truth should be taught in our Catholic schools and universities. Sadly, it looks like it is not. I remembered noticing moral relativism creeping into my own all-girls Catholic high school in the late seventies. We were taught about contraception in biology class. The teacher carefully said, "I am not teaching you whether you should use this or not. I am only teaching you that it exists." So I learned of the diaphragm, the sponge, and the Pill; all the while thinking, I wonder if this is right? Where was the religious teacher at the time, telling us why sexual relations should be contained within a sacramental marriage, and why it was important to obey and trust God?

So teachers didn't want to teach what was right. Meanwhile, as I sat at my desk, something in me snapped. Somehow I knew instinctively there was such a thing as right and wrong and I needed adults to step up to the plate and tell me. Thank God I had strong parents and a pretty wise extended-family that communicated these principles to me. I shudder to think of what would have happened to me if I had not had this firm foundation. As much pain as I've had in my life, it is miniscule to the amount I suspect I would have had without wise and loving parents. The beauty of God is that He reaches down and shows everyone the truth if they seek it. He has saved the most wretched of us from certain damnation because He loves us so much.

Meanwhile, we have to watch out for our youth. We cannot assume they are learning the truth within their schools -- whether that is a Catholic school or public school. Because if they're not learning the truth, they are simply being led into bondage.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Bishop Trautman, the Liturgy, Tradition, and Rubrics #Catholic

This past Sunday while at Mass, I had another one of those "aha" moments regarding the liturgy. It has to do with children. First, my understanding of children and security:

Children need a loving home in order to grow into secure adults. A home where love and protection exists will give a child the necessary sense of security that enables him to absorb the rest of his world. If a child is worried about being fed or avoiding physical abuse, then not much is left of their reasoning skills to analyze the world. They are in constant survival mode. It isn't a surprise then when these children become teenagers -- living off the street, always in survival mode, never looking beyond themselves in order to contribute something meaningful to society.

This past Sunday, I realized this is one of the gifts of the liturgy. It gives God's children a sense of security. When we uphold tradition, we are strengthened and bonded to one another in a spirit of unity. However, the tradition must have its historical connection explained, otherwise it can become an empty shell of ritual that fails to communicate the blessings it was meant to convey.

This is what happened to me as a young woman: I saw no connection to the past with regard to tradition. The liturgy had become dry and lifeless because during my spiritual formation -- it was not consistently explained (and consistent is the operative word) how the liturgy began with Jesus and the Last Supper and then traveled all the way to me. I never received that explanation of continuity, which makes me wonder how much my life would have been different if I had. I was restless, looking for security, and since I didn't understand what the Catholic Church had, I left.

Family identity is a powerful thing. In my own family, we joke about certain traits as being a part of our identity. Why should it be any different with God's family? We also have traits, those of God's Son, Jesus Christ, which we should seek and embrace with full affection. Traits such as compassion, forgiveness, love, mercy, kindness, discipline, and a commitment toward doing what is right. Study Jesus Christ and you'll see those traits and more. We are to follow Him and the world is to recognize it and say, "They have been with Jesus." (Acts 4:13)

So where do we, as God's family, learn about our identity? Where is that identity strengthened? I say the liturgy is what supports that identity, shapes it, and emphasizes it. The liturgy, as it has been passed down to us from generation to generation, gives us a sense of security as it reminds us that God is in control. He loved us enough to sacrifice His only Son for our salvation. He will love us enough to provide for everything else we will need.

The new English translation of the Roman Missal is about to be introduced to the United States Catholic parishes. There has been much debate about it, and from what I can tell, the most vociferous responses have been from those who want to continue experimenting with it. It doesn't seem to phase them that this "experimentation" led to thousands of Catholics leaving the Church because the liturgy was neutered. They also seem to defy further proof by not only ignoring the growing encroachment of sinful philosophies such as radical feminism and homosexuality, but receiving such with open arms.

In 2005, Bishop Donald Trautman gave an interview in which he reflected upon the liturgy and the reasons behind the changes. First, I had no idea the revision of the Roman Missal was in the works for that long. But what struck me was the bishop's views on liturgy. For instance (emphasis mine):

The people who are fighting to go back to Latin, for example, had a wonderful experience when Mass was in that language. They're saying they met the Lord that way, and they're trying to keep that form, not understanding that the form and language of the liturgy is never an absolute. Only God is absolute, and there are different ways we express our love and our prayer.

"Fighting to go back to Latin" seems misunderstood. Latin never was outlawed or in Catholic Church terms, abrogated. (I had to look that one up. Abrogated: to abolish by authoritative action, to treat as non-existent.)

And why can't the form and language of the liturgy be absolute? This statement doesn't sit well with me. I am a firm believer in absolutes with every fiber of my being. I admit I struggle with understanding God's mercy toward us who are sinners. But I believe with everything within me that if God is absolute, then He has given His Church absolutes to follow. There is a right way, and a wrong way. Disrespectful money-changers in the Temple found out from Jesus' righteous anger that their way was the wrong way. The sinful woman who washed and anointed Jesus' feet with her tears and perfume, found the right way.

Whenever someone starts to talk about something "never being an absolute," red flags start flying all over the place. For instance, Bishop Trautman talks about the Latin Mass as though those who love it are trying to fight some evolutionary impetus toward a more civilized understanding of the liturgy. However, from everything I've been observing and studying, almost the complete opposite seems to be true. After over 40 years, the liturgy has been abused, often remade into a worship of self. Obviously I'm no liturgist, but when you have a priest dressing up on Halloween like Barney the Dinosaur and an EMHC woman wearing devil's horns on her head, even I can recognize that something has seriously gone awry.

What happens when children have no adult supervision? Sure, they may feel delirious with their freedoms, but does this serve them well? Do they know how to act responsibly or is that freedom an exercise in self-indulgence that often leads to bad judgement?

This is what I see when I discover liturgical abuse which to me, stems from a worldly idea to "experiment" and cast doubt on any such old-fashioned idea as an "absolute." To me, a priest is indeed a spiritual father. We have a crisis of fatherhood right now in the Catholic Church. We need strong fathers who aren't afraid to lovingly discipline their children. We need men who will stand up and say, "Yes. There are such things as absolutes and our liturgy contains them, for they are the bones of our faith - these bones are what holds the Body of Christ together." We need fathers who will ensure that we get the proper nourishment in order to have strong bones, because believe me -- the world is looking to break our bones.

When I look at fathering, I cannot help but be thankful for my own father. (Hi, Dad!) He taught my brother and I absolutes. There may be a few ways to complete a task, but there are more wrong ways than right and he taught us as many "right ways" as possible. I grew up recognizing that there is a reward from seeking God's right way. Our heavenly Father protects us and provides for us. Nothing happens to us that is not for our own good. As Christians, we grow into an understanding that life is not always easy, but God uses every circumstance to draw us closer to Him and to mold us into the shape of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Because of my earthly father, and my heavenly one - I am a fairly secure woman. I have my moments where I may feel a little anxious or shaky, but for the most part -- I know God is in control. When I attend the Traditional Latin Mass, that message is sent to me strong and clear. I am worshipping God as He has been worshipped since the beginning of the Church, not necessarily because of the Latin (which wasn't spoken by Jesus or His disciples), but because the Latin has preserved for me the meaning of the liturgy. The Latin hasn't been tampered with or forced into some wacky "experiment." The Latin language is solid, like a mountain, a sure plane to stand upon, a sturdy oak tree to hold onto.

Again, Bishop Trautman shows his opinion of standards (emphasis mine):
In Roman Catholic liturgy, we have rubrics-the liturgical laws that define how a priest is to celebrate Eucharist, how a congregation is to respond. But do we want to be rubricists, legalists? No, it's the spirit of the law that we want to live.

Why is it that following the rubrics is cast in a legalistic light? Is tradition always such a burdensome yoke that we must fight to escape? Why are the rubrics not presented as beautiful treasures that help guide us to safety? There is commonly an accusatory tone toward the rubrics when progressive Catholics speak of them. It is narrow-mindedness and uncreative thought that leads to such opinions.

I hear this "spirit of the law" often named when conversation turns toward religious matters. But what about the spirit of the law? Do we really know it well enough to start going off the tracks into our own imaginations? There is a saying among artists: You first need to know the rules before you start breaking them. When we're talking about our faith, I don't believe we can break any rules and not pay for it. The moment someone says, "Well, I know what the rubrics say but I'm going to do it this way instead," is the moment a slippery slope has been introduced. Because no matter how badly we'd like to think of ourselves as being honorable and capable of doing the right thing; there is a greater chance of us doing the wrong thing because we forget the rules.

We need to be constantly reminded of the rules. If for nothing else, because our flesh is a wild thing, never relenting from seeking its own will.

And so the rules to me are the rubrics. To me, we are to live "the spirit of the law" in our daily lives. But for our Sunday obligation, the rubrics within the Mass are to instruct us, remind us, and encourage us not to forget what Jesus Christ has done for us.

For those of us who yearn for that security and the Catholic identity that binds us together, I believe this new translation will do something good. It will start the process of cleaning up the house and putting it back in order after reckless and irresponsible teenagers had an unsupervised house party. Let the renewal begin.


Monday, June 28, 2010

Arrghh! Hollywood Unknowns Trying to Pull off Ayn Rand's Masterpiece "Atlas Shrugged" #tcot #sgp

I finally started this mammoth book last night. I had read a few pages months before, but it didn't really hook me. Determined, I picked it up again last night and started to read. Yes. Now I'm hooked. I'm not sure how the character Dagny Taggert will develop, but at this point, I'm thinking our country -- and our government -- could use more Dagny Taggerts.

I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand as a person. She was a full-on narcissist who bullied her way into people's lives, an atheist, and a morally-bankrupt person on many levels. I was absolutely blown away when I discovered that while she was married, she had an affair with a younger man, who also was married. But get this: Nathaniel Branden and his wife Barbara, were friends with Ayn and her husband Frank. She announced to them all one night that she and the younger man intended to have an affair and... (wait for it....)

WANTED THEIR PERMISSION.

Yes, I had to type that in all caps. Unbelievable!! But because the young wife looked up to Rand and thought she was a genius, she didn't have much choice and Rand tried to make her feel like it was a privilege that she chose her husband to dally around with.

So, yes. I do not like Rand on a personal level. But as a writer, she has pulled off one of the most profound stories in our time -- how society depends upon the producers and if you make enough bad decisions that punish success, those producers are going to finally stop producing. It is a prophetic story of sorts, as we're starting to witness the very same thing in today's world.

I'm not going to pretend to be a Rand expert. I read "Anthem" on my Kindle for the iPhone. (Another fascinating story.) So those who like her or know of her work better can chime in and perhaps point us to some good online resources.


So... ARRRGGHH!! This is a story that deserves so much more but I fear it will be absolutely butchered and the real plot is going to get lost. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised. This is Hollywood, after all, filled with a bunch of self-important liberals who think people should be entitled to receive the rewards of hard work and the fruits of achievement, which they've not done; and overall bought the pretty speech of a man who holds our country and her values in contempt and elected him as President.

Dagny Taggert would probably hate them.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Gnashing of Teeth: The Growing Hatred of Christianity #Catholic

I love the American Thinker's contributor, "Robin of Berkeley."

For those who are unfamiliar with her, "Robin" is a psychotherapist living in Berkeley, California -- and in her words, a "recovering liberal." Robin has some truly amazing insights into our current political world. She takes on everything from the vapid robots who idolize President Obama, to global warming paranoia, to Sarah Palin, to pondering whether Jesus Christ is a Marxist. If you've not read her before, I'd suggest starting at the beginning with her first article (located at the bottom of the list, which is linked above) and work your way up. I've read her columns aloud to my husband a few times on long car trips and then we discuss them. It's good stuff.

This latest column is brilliant in its ability to pinpoint people's hatred of Christianity:
It's funny how trivial events somehow get seared into your brain. This one is from years ago, when I was enjoying a yogurt on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley.

Suddenly, a large exotic bug appeared and started dancing around. Its iridescent colors caught the sun and glistened like a rainbow. A crowd formed to watch its antics in shared delight.

Out of nowhere, a lunatic pushed through the crowd. I'd seen this guy before -- paranoid, menacing. His rage toward the bug slit me like a knife. The insect was getting attention, people were happy, and he was out for revenge.

The man bolted through the crowd, possessed. He jumped on the bug, over and over and again. People gasped. A child cried. And then, as quickly as it began, it was all over.

Silently, numbly, the crowd dispersed. The man, now triumphant, smiled hideously. I threw away the yogurt, which was now rendered tasteless.

I'll never forget the look of blind hatred on that man's face. It communicated this: "I want what you have."

And: "If I can't have it, I'll destroy it."

She goes on to explain that while perusing a local bookstore for books on Christianity, she noticed how many mocked Christianity. Many books were obvious in their disdain and outright hatred of this particular religion. She wondered why people couldn't just move along if they didn't like Christianity. Why did they have to try to destroy it?

Why, indeed. I have been reminded lately of all the scripture verses that say "there shall be wailing and a gnashing of teeth." I never thought I'd see anything in my lifetime that would equate such an expression. I was wrong.

This phrase brings to mind the babbling of Janine Garafalo when she accused the Tea Party of being racist, and Bill Maher who said that the American people were stupid and had to be led to change that was best for them. Joy Behar, who is as joyless as they come, claimed Christianity is no different than terrorism. These people make the most outrageous statements, but because it is anti-Christian, not only is it tolerated but applauded.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (Rom. 1:28-32 RSV)

Robin says this (emphasis mine):
In the past I would simply put on my therapist cap with people like these. I'd probe their childhood for evidence of maltreatment. I'd label them as narcissists and antisocial personalities.

But now I have a different worldview, one that goes much deeper than just the psychological. Now I understand that this world is infused with the Divine. And that there is a competing force, one that is the polar opposite.

I now have a word for that creepy feeling deep down in my gut. And I finally understand the source.

Now I see what's really behind the campaign to banish religion; it's to render us utterly helpless. Because after all, without God, what protection is there in this brutal world?

Exactly.

It is becoming more evident that those who do not believe in God, those who reject Christianity, are no longer satisfied with merely rejecting something with which they don't agree. They need to destroy it. Because if these haters cannot obtain joy and contentment from their own poor choices, they are determined to destroy anything that gives that very joy and contentment to others. This is why we see a rise in militant atheism, radical political ideologies that leave no room for faith, and why national leaders are desperately trying to squelch something like the Tea Party movement which obviously is rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs.

I've met a few liberals. And from my interactions with the most radical of them, I have concluded 1) they never grew beyond their childhood emotional wounds and 2) they are determined to make the world pay for that injustice.

When I was in grade school, I had my share of mean-spirited teasing and mockery. I used to come home in tears, not understanding why I couldn't fit in or just simply be left alone. It was a difficult time in my childhood, but then something profound happened. I asked for a personal Bible as a Christmas present when I was twelve and got it. I started to read the Bible and pray. It was then that I first started to understand that one of the things required of me as a Christian was to forgive my enemy.

This grace to forgive our enemies frees us from our natural fleshly desire to seek vengeance. Without it, we would constantly keep score, attempting to "level the playing field," and try to ensure that life would be fair for everyone. Except it doesn't work that way. Life is never fair but what is more important is our response to it. Our response can either make or break our attitude, our emotional health, and either bless those around us or curse them.

I think we're witnessing the cursing.

Those who see us are now faced with a choice. Either consider the Man called Jesus Christ or reject Him. Either admit you are a sinner in need of salvation from God or reject Him. Either humble yourself before God and deny yourself or continue seeking the empty promises of the world. Many cannot or will not consider Christianity. In their mind, it is filled with rules and authority and relinquishing control over one's life. Unbelievers want nothing to do with it. They'll continue hurtling down the road toward a cliff because that's what they want to do.

Meanwhile, for those of us who try to warn them, (and are safely kept on the side of the road by the hand of God) we are beginning to see that many of them would like to first take some of us out on their way to that cliff. The good news is that we can continue to pray for them. And as far as I know, there isn't any invention or law in existence that will prevent us from doing just that.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

More on Liturgical Dancing, Prophetic Worship Intercession #Catholic

I mentioned in the last post that I'd say more about this topic. It's not easy for me to address it because at one time, I was involved heavily in what is called "prophetic worship intercession." I'm going to try to be careful when I discuss it because 1) someone reading may still be involved in it or attracted to it and 2) I don't want to discount anyone's personal experience of being drawn closer to God because of this style of prayer.

When I first saw liturgical dance, it struck me as weird. But ironically, after I share with you what exactly I was involved with regarding "dance," you may well say, "Are you kidding me? And you're calling liturgical dance weird?" Well, yes. And of course I'll explain.

Dance within a worship service is predominately self-focused. No matter how much we want to say we're "doing it to glorify God," the bottom line is that when people dance, others watch. Blame it on our entertainment-soaked culture, but people cannot help but watch other people dancing. Very few times have I been brought into a worshipful place by watching someone else move their body.

There are a few who were involved, as I was, with intercessory dance; and now question it. I'll try to explain: There is the worship band on stage, and there are people who stand either behind them or on the side of the stage, who "intercede" for the worship band. Intercessory prayer is praying for someone else. The biblical verse referenced for this type of prayer comes from Ezekiel 22: 30, I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one. (NASB)

The worship intercessors would pray for the musicians, that they would keep their eyes upon glorifying God (versus themselves) and that they would be protected from any attack of the enemy. While praying in this way, some of the women would start moving their bodies. Some would simply lift their hands up while rocking back and forth. Others would do peculiar movements that weren't quite dancing. I found two videos that illustrate this. The first one has a woman standing behind the keyboardist, lifting her hands and then placing her hand on the back of the musician as she prays for him. (I'd say this happened more for keyboardists or guitarists who were sitting down.) The young woman can be seen at the 1:35 mark:



Then there were times when this happened, when a woman looked like she was doing something called The Crane Dance:



Yeah. I was involved like that.

So now you can have a good laugh when I say liturgical dancing is weird.

Here's why I say it: the liturgy, to me, is sacred. It's precious. It is not a platform for us but a pedestal for God. The liturgy is the time when we step away from the world, from ourselves, and focus completely on God. To me, there really is no other place given to the sacred and holy as the liturgy. The world has taken away modesty, respect, and reverence. Who else deserves this and so much more than God? And when He appeared before men as fire or something indescribable, they fell upon the ground in fear. Where are the times in our lives when we can focus upon God like that? Because He indeed is in our midst.

Stillness is vastly underrated in our worship. I will admit this: there is a tribal element in those videos and all worship services like them. In other cultures, tribal dance is often accompanied by a hallucinatory drug and the dancers go into a trance. Sometimes this happened to me. (No drugs.) However, there were times when I did enter into deep worship but only because I was fiercely intentional about it. I've danced throughout my life, everything from club dancing to international folk dancing to ballroom dancing. I knew that kind of dance was fun. I didn't look at worship as being "fun," nor did I want to encourage it. Fun is superficial. It's important to enjoy life, but worship is not a pursuit of frivolity. Worship is to be the expression of a grateful soul for the mercy of God. That goes so much deeper than "fun."

I'll also state the obvious. 90% of those involved with dancing are women. We had a few men, but overall, the women are dancing. One of the justifications for this type of dancing comes from 2 Samuel 6:14, And David was dancing before the LORD with all his might, and David was wearing a linen ephod. (NASB) David was dancing in joy because he and his army had retrieved the holy Ark of the Covenant from the Philistines. The Ark of the Covenant had been absent from Israel for twenty years. (There is much about the Ark that is fascinating. It is quite worthwhile to study its significance.) I would say that something as monumental as God's proof to Israel of His protection and providence would be well worth "dancing with all one's might" when it was returned.

My point is that this was a specific incident during a specific time that such energetic dancing was mentioned. From my studies, I have never come across an occasion in the Bible where dancing was done within the Holy of Holies. I can't even recall dancing being a part of a temple's outer court within Jewish worship. This is why I believe that any kind of dancing is simply not appropriate within a liturgical service. It's good to know I share the same beliefs as Cardinal Francis Arinze.

As was mentioned in the above link, liturgical dancing can open the door to New Age thought. When I was involved in the prophetic movement, there were some very strange beliefs that came through the dance. If you listen carefully to the videos above, (and there are many more on YouTube) you will hear things that are simply goofy.

I'm reminded of children when I watch these videos. Children play, they do silly things, they fall down and then get back up. But I am struck that such activities are full of the flesh. We, as God's people, as the Body of Christ, are called to discipline the flesh. Somehow I'm not getting that message when I consider things such as liturgical dancing or prophetic worship and intercessory dance.


Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Pope Benedict XVI on Liturgical Dancing #Catholic

I will be buying this book very soon. I so love our Holy Father! I found part of this quote awhile ago and created the image you see on the side.

Liturgical Dancing

Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy. In about the third century, there was an attempt in certain Gnostic-Docetic circles to introduce it into the liturgy. For these people, the Crucifixion was only an appearance. Before the Passion, Christ had abandoned the body that in any case he had never really assumed. Dancing could take the place of the liturgy of the Cross, because, after all, the Cross was only an appearance. The cultic dances of the different religions have different purposes--incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy--none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy of the "reasonable sacrifice". It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy "attractive" by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals' point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attractiveness fades quickly--it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation. I myself have experienced the replacing of the penitential rite by a dance performance, which, needless to say, received a round of applause. Could there be anything farther removed from true penitence? Liturgy can only attract people when it looks, not at itself, but at God, when it allows him to enter and act. Then something truly unique happens, beyond competition, and people have a sense that more has taken place than a recreational activity. None of the Christian rites includes dancing. (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pp 198-9)

Thursday, June 3, 2010

The Making of a #Catholic Woman: Grace

Since I've been focusing on women and the desire of some Catholic women to become priests, I thought it would be worthwhile to explore the positive and life-giving traits of Catholic women. I am just now coming into an understanding of what it means for me. As I've read and observed the Catholic Church for two years, I've been touched on more than one occasion by Catholic women.

In June 2008, I wrote an entry entitled "What I Love About Catholicism: Catholic Women." Unbeknownst to me, it was featured for a few days on Pew Sitter. (Which is an excellent site, by the way. A great way to keep updated with Catholic news.) When I returned to the Church, the women stood in stark contrast to those I had previously known over the years within non-denominational churches. I especially saw distinctions with women who attended the Traditional Latin Mass. Part of why I prefer the TLM, is because of the women.

Catholic women overall are gracious. This may seem a small thing but it isn't to me. Let's look at that word, gracious. It's from the Latin word, gratiosus, which means enjoying favor, agreeable, from gratia - grace. I now believe that this is because Catholic women have a role model: The Blessed Virgin Mary. "Hail Mary, full of grace..." Grace is a gift from God and Mary was chock-full of God's gift.

I'll never forget a funny incident that happened to me when I was attending the Vineyard Christian Fellowship. I had befriended a woman, attracted to her because I could tell she had some spiritual maturity and prophetic gifting. As we were talking, she said "There is a certain grace about you." When I thanked her, she immediately snapped, "Don't say 'thank you.' It doesn't come from you. It is something that has been given you by God." I sat astounded, not just because few people are so blunt, but because instantly I knew she was right. Grace is not something we can manufacture. It isn't something we can "work toward" as though we're trying to diet and get in shape. It's not something we can put on our task list and after bite-size attempts to complete it, it's done.

Could it be that I had this grace given to me by my Catholic heritage? Could it be that even though at that time I had rejected the Catholic Church, there was still a small deposit of grace that stayed with me? Maybe.

When a woman walks in grace, the world notices.

It's not "worldly" though, to walk in grace. The world admires a woman who is "empowered." A woman who takes what she feels has been denied to her. And while I'm here, I'll reiterate a point I've made before about the schizophrenic personality of leftists: Why some feminists have gravitated toward converting to Islam is beyond my understanding. Supposedly, these women consider themselves intellectual, enlightened, and (the old standby) empowered. When I saw the video I saw below, I was amazed.

Watch this video and then think about the word, "gracious." Think about the meaning of the word: marked by kindness and courtesy, graceful, marked by tact and delicacy, characterized by charm, good taste, generosity of spirit, and good breeding. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) This video features one of my absolutely favorite people, David Horowitz. Horowitz was raised by communist parents and became one himself. Then he had a revelation, renounced it, and runs a conservative site Front Page Magazine that focuses on exposing communist, marxist, and radical islamofascist attacks on Western civilization.




It is evident that this woman is not a recent immigrant from some Muslim country. And from her condescending tone of voice, I'd say she is a hard-core feminist. How someone like her can align herself with a political system that kills women for things such as not being sufficiently covered by their clothing or talking to a man who is not related to her -- is beyond me.

Was there any graciousness to this woman? Any wisdom? I'm sure many would say she was smart but that's not the same thing as wisdom. She comes across as arrogant, elite, and chillingly hateful and evil as she finally admits that she supports Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to killing Jews.

There is no life in the world. The world is in darkness. When a woman walks in grace, she is a vessel of life and power, which comes from God. Only He can pour His grace upon us. When it is poured on a woman, there is beauty, love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and restraint. These are the traits that men of old fought for to earn such a woman's love, and still do today. These are the traits that have brought life and light to the world. And these are the traits of our Blessed Mother Mary and are available to all women, if they humble themselves before God as she did.

Today I read of an amazing group of nuns who are on the path toward sainthood. During World War II, these brave nuns harbored more than 60 refugee Jews in the heart of Rome. Read the article, which features Piero Piperno, who was a teenager when he sought refuge with the Bridgettines, speaking about Mother Riccarda. The 80-year-old is now one of the only people who was old enough at the time of the war to recall what happened. He recounted those harrowing days of avoiding discovery from the Nazi soldiers. She "was dubbed "mammina" (little mother) by the refugees. "[Mother Riccarda] was all sweetness and sympathy," he recalled. "She was always around, and everybody went to her when they had any kind of problem. She was very comforting."

Grace comforts. Grace brings hope. Grace is what Catholic women have and many don't even know it.

When I was in the non-denominational churches, some women had an understanding of grace. But there never seemed to be bible studies on Mary. It seemed as though studies on the traits of a godly woman would focus on Esther or Mary and her sister Martha. It was as though non-denominational (Protestant) churches deliberated avoided examining Mary. And yet it was she who was chosen to bear God's son because she was already "full of grace."

I think this is going to be an interesting study for me, personally. Since my return, I've cautiously approached Mary. I'm not used to thinking of her and balk at the title "co-redemptrix." (Which I still do because Jesus alone was the mediator between God and man, paying the price for mankind's sin by dying on the cross.) But I'm open to viewing Mary with new eyes. For instance, I read Dr. Scott Hahn's book about her and realized I never thought of her as being the new "Ark of the Covenant." Because I love the Old Testament so much, I immediately got it. The Ark was holy because it was built to contain holiness. And so it is with Mary. She is holy because she contained that which was the most holy and sacred -- Jesus Christ. You don't treat holy objects, or holy people the same way you treat the ordinary. Mary was and is, holy.

I'd love to hear your thoughts. What helps you become a woman full of grace? As a man, what positive traits do you see in Catholic women? As Catholic women, we have the greatest role model ever -- a young Jewish girl named Mary who was called to lay down her own life to be a mother to the world's Messiah. We are so very, very blessed.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Reader Janny Comments on Women Wanting to be Ordained as Priests #Catholic

This is one of the best comments I've had on this topic. Janny, I couldn't agree with you more. You absolutely nailed some of the most popular reasons a woman wants to be ordained as a priest. Thank you for highlighting the true calling of a priest. Excellent words!

I'd like to add this: We, the Church, are called the Body of Christ, and also the Bride of Christ. As Christ laid down His life for the Church, so His priests lay down their lives for her also. Without that intent, serving can shift into just another job or a huge ego boost. Within intimacy, the man is the initiator and the woman, receives him. This is echoed in the relationship God has with the world. He initiated contact. He initiated salvation. He initiated a relationship by first giving us His Holy Spirit. We, in turn, receive in joyful gladness.

This may be another reason why I don't agree with women as senior pastors of a church. They were not given the role of initiator, but as one who receives. The Blessed Mother Mary did not approach God, asking for Him to choose her. God approached her and initiated the divine conception.

Janny's comment:

Years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of my diocesan paper addressing something that no doubt had appeared in its pages at the time (I don't remember now!)...but its crux was about women and the priesthood. In the letter, I simply mentioned that out of all the women I'd ever heard talk about ordination, all the women who chafed at being "only" women within the Church, not ONE of them ever said, "I want to be a priest because I feel called to lay down my life in sacrificial service, just as Christ did." They said, "I want to be a priest because it's only right and fair that the power of the Church be shared among men and women equally."

So this was their noble "calling": not one of sacrifice but one in which they could grab a share of power, authority, and visibility. It was about "privilege" (as in, you have privileges I want and I'M ENTITLED TO THEM!). Sometimes, it was about anger ("I'm sick and tired of stupid, patriarchal priests lording it over us women when we do all the work.")

But it was never, EVER about sacrifice. It was never, EVER about giving. It was about taking, and seizing power, and Changing the Church to Recognize Reality.

To this day, even among women I know who honestly (if misguidedly) feel "called" to the priesthood and are heartbroken because that big nasty male-dominated Roman teaching authority Just Doesn't Understand Their Gift...at the end of the day, it's STILL not about sacrifice. It's about what "I" feel called to do, what "I" want, what role "I" desperately want to fulfill in the Church, and the role GOD IS CALLING ME TO DO--it MUST be, because I want it so badly!

Whereas with all the holy, truly good male priests I talk to, and hear from...you can't go a sentence into a conversation with most of them before you hear the "S" word. They refer to their calling as a gift, not as their due, not as something they've earned, and not as something they're somehow "owed" by God. And they don't say the word "sacrifice" as if it's something I'M supposed to do, and they're NOT. They say the word as if it's something we're ALL called to do, together...and something that, by its nature, is difficult at times. If it weren't, it wouldn't be a sacrifice in the first place. :-)

But then again, if salvation were easy...God's Son wouldn't have had to die a criminal's death to procure it for us, either. Of course, maybe God should have sent a daughter to die instead--and then the whole equation would make more sense to these people? One can only wonder.

Obedience is much simpler. Easy? Maybe not always. But simpler? And more blessed? Yes, and yes.


Iowa Bishop Warns Against 'Womanpriest' Ordination #Catholic

Another hen trying to be a rooster...

Bishop Martin John Amos (who is a Buckeye, by the way!), has warned that anyone attempting to ordain a woman as a Roman Catholic priest, bishop, or deacon; and the woman who is attempting ordination, will be ex-communicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

An Iowa bishop has reminded Catholics in his diocese that “those who attempt to confer Holy Orders on women are excommunicated, as are the women who attempt to receive Holy Orders. This includes the attempted ‘ordination’ for a deacon, priest or bishop.’” Bishop Martin Amos of Davenport issued his statement because Mary Kay Kusner-- whom the Iowa City Press-Citizen describes as a “devout Catholic”-- is scheduled to “to become the first female Catholic Womanpriest in Iowa” on June 13. (Source)

To give you some background: Mary Kay Kusner is heading to the First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Coralville, Iowa, to complete this grand illusion. And an illusion it is. Because the Roman Catholic Church Does. Not. Ordain. Women. As. Priests. So any woman who says she's going to be ordained as a priest has quickly entered the "No Reality Zone."

I also want to know how exactly a Protestant church got involved in this. The church's pastor, John McKinstry, says he has known Kusner for 15 years. And he "thinks that regardless of the laws of the Catholic Church, she is fit for priesthood." Oh, really? Well, I think I'm fit to be the Queen of England but that doesn't mean it will happen. Besides, how much does this pastor know about Catholic doctrine? Or Catholic history? Or even Catholic identity? I say the obvious answer is...zilch.

It's a sad, divisive situation. Kusner is one of eight children, brought up in Lancaster, Ohio. Only one brother will be attending her fake ordination. The rest of the family has refused to participate. Growing up, her family sounded like a devout, traditional Catholic family. They even had their own chapel, complete with a stained glass window. From the article in Press-Citizen, "Kusner still pursuing dreams despite barriers -- UIHC chaplain working to become state's first Catholic Womanpriest" (emphasis and comments mine):

But Kusner said it was her Catholic background that gave her the desire to serve others. (Beautiful. You can serve in so many other ways. Just not as a priest.) After graduating from John Carroll University in Cleveland and marrying Dave, her husband of 26 years, Kusner went on to pursue a master's in pastoral ministry from Boston College. It was then that Kusner felt she could best use her gifts serving as a chaplain in pediatric oncology. (A very difficult area. Again, it is an awesome place to use one's spiritual gifts of encouragement and compassion.)

During her 20 years as a chaplain, Kusner gave birth to four children -- three healthy sons and a daughter, Anna, who was born with a chromosomal disorder. Kusner chronicled her journey with Anna in her book, titled "Upside-Down and Backwards," published in fall 2009.

It was Anna, she said, who helped Kusner decide to pursue priesthood.

"(Anna) plays a huge part in that she taught me on a personal level the significance of inclusion," Kusner said. "(She is) one of the main reasons I'm doing this." (Ahh. So your daughter's medical disorder became the political for you? News flash, sister: you were always "included" in God's Kingdom. You were included when Jesus Christ died for your sins. You are included in the great love God has for all His children. You are included in receiving spiritual gifts that all His children have been given. How is it you feel not included? Do you not feel included because you can't be the quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers?)

Kusner said it's been difficult to pursue priesthood in light of what it has cost her. (No doubt.) Though Kusner was automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church upon her ordination as a deacon in August 2009, she still practices Catholicism in her own faith community, Full Circle, which she currently leads in people's homes. (And this is the crux of it for me. I don't know what she's practicing but to me, it isn't Catholicism. Practicing our faith means attending Mass and receiving the Sacraments [wait for it...] from a priest. She is not doing that because she can't until she is reconciled with the Church. The fact that she has rejected Catholic doctrine tells me she is rebellious enough to operate solely by her emotion, which is not a good thing for the stressful life of ministry. Plus, rebellion is no small thing, either.)

But what is perhaps most painful for her is the disapproval from her parents and siblings. Though one of Kusner's brothers will be attending her ordination, her sisters and parents will not. (No surprise if she came from a traditional Catholic family.)

"They ask, 'Why don't you stay a chaplain?'" Kusner said. "They've lived by the letter of the law, staying within the box." (It's called obedience. I know. It is difficult. But the rewards of our trust and obedience far outweigh any fleshly desires we may have.)


Another look at Disciples of Christ: The denomination has a woman president, Rev. Dr. Sharon Watkins. They are also part of the World Council of Churches, which advocates leftist ideology such as economic and social justice, climate change, and "poverty, wealth, and ecology." So it's no surprise a fake ordination would be encouraged from this type of institution.

I'm not sure how these women would explain St. Paul's letter to Timothy. You know, that niggling little verse:
I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men, she is to keep silent. (1 Tim. 2:12, RSV)
The Greek word for "authority" is authenteō. It means to govern, exercise dominion over one. And I know many ladies get their backs up over the command to "keep silent." But that word, hēsychia, means a description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others. Somehow I suspect St. Paul was referring to that type of quietness. This is one of the marks of a godly woman - someone who serves with joy, keeps her responsibilities, and doesn't seek constant affirmation and recognition from others.

I know of this well because I used to be Kusner. At one point in my life, I wanted to see more women "released" into ministry, including serving as a pastor. However, over time I began to see God's wisdom on the topic. I always felt uneasy whenever I saw a woman as the senior pastor of a congregation, but wasn't sure why. I'm still not sure I can articulate clearly why it's not a good thing, but here are a few thoughts:

Women rarely can handle the stress of leading a congregation. I know, I know. Some women will point out that Margaret Thatcher led pretty well and then there was Deborah the Judge from the Old Testament. I'm not saying a woman cannot hold a position of leadership in the world (although I still think it's tougher on women), but within the spiritual world, it's a different story. God created Adam first. Eve was created for Adam. This tells me that God had some priorities when He created mankind. In the Old Testament, never was a woman consecrated as a Levitical priest. Never.

Jesus Christ said that He did not come to destroy the Law of the Old Testament, but to fulfill it. I would think that if there was something as major as allowing women to become priests -- He would have mentioned it at that point. He didn't. He chose twelve men to be His disciples. He traveled with them, ministered with them, and sent them out as His ambassadors, giving them divine power to accomplish His commands. Again, if women were to be given the authority to do these things, I would think Jesus would have made it clear at that point. He wasn't afraid to break cultural taboos such as speaking to a Samaritan woman at a well. He certainly wasn't shy about letting people know where He stood in relation to His Father's kingdom, such as driving out the moneychangers from the temple. So this leads me to one conclusion. Women were not meant to hold the position of pastor, elder, bishop, archbishop, or cardinal.

Am I saying that women are sub-standard or too stupid for those positions? Absolutely not. In fact, I believe God has given women many gifts and talents -- and one of them is wisdom. Women can still have an amazing influence upon her circle of family and friends, her city, state, and the world. Some are called to positions of authority within political spheres and in the business world. (I still retain the opinion that for a woman to walk in those positions of authority - her strongest gift should be wisdom.)

But in the Church, there is a hierarchy, a specific church government that has been instituted by Jesus Christ. Women are usually much more open to spiritual matters than men. It's natural for a woman to flow from prayer to meditation to serving. Most men are fine with doing something but if a woman is already doing it, do you think they'll attempt to interfere? Not usually. I've been in many churches that have opened the door to women being pastors and all of them lost the men when they did it. In other words, the majority of the work of the church was done by women and the men did little or nothing.

Now some women may say, "And that's a problem?" Well, yes it most certainly is. And the reason it's a problem is because men are robbed the opportunity to explore and grow in their own gifts. When women are doing all the work (because "it won't get done if we wait for the men...") men will rarely balk. Many of them would rather just sit back and let someone else fulfill their roles. As I've mentioned before, in the last non-denominational church I was a part of, about 80% of the church roles were filled by women. The only reason the men weren't totally dominated by the women was because the senior pastor and his leadership team were predominately men.

Something just seems upside-down when women are in church leadership positions. If we're going to talk about feelings, I'll say it: it doesn't feel right. Women have been given some amazing opportunities to be used by God but so often they're looking in the wrong direction. When Jesus Christ walked this earth, a group of women followed and ministered to His needs. What does Jesus Christ need today? How can we as women minister to Him and what does that look like? Ministering to Jesus Christ is an awesome and humbling calling upon women's lives.

This is always a difficult topic for me to address because I do have a teaching gift. It has been a challenge over the years to find ways to exercise that gift without usurping the authority of men. I have found fulfillment by teaching women and occasionally, children. But whenever I see an incident of a woman trying to be a priest, I feel a strong pull to speak out. If one is a part of a church structure that does not allow for this, why continue to push it? What is one's motivation at that point? To prove that they're worthy of service? Or to be publicly affirmed as being "just as important" as a man -- whatever that means? Only honest examination and prayer will reveal the truth.