Ideology Isn't the Truth

I began to write this piece, scrapped it, started again and once more deleted what I had written. I was getting into "issues." I was so caught up trying not to sound partisan in light of the shootings (insurgency?) in Dallas, while also straining to come off as relevant that I was tying myself up into knots. I still don't want to be partisan, or political. It's partisan politics and dogmatic ideology that's gotten us into this mess, at least partially so.  

I've been reading a lot of Dorothy Day recently. I approached her with trepidation many years ago, when I read the Long Loneliness. I'd heard a lot about her, and was put off by descriptions of her by both critics and devotees (Day reminds me of what a professor of mine once said about Pope St. Pius X - that he needs to be rescued from his supporters). I wasn't converted by reading her autobiography, but gained a more three dimensional understanding of the woman, and a true admiration. I was also not convinced that her canonization was necessary. While I still can't say that I'm all in on her thought, I am on her as a person. She tried to live an integrated Christian life of a contemplative in action. Now, I still don't think her canonization is necessary, but it would be welcome.

What I find most challenging in her writing is encapsulated in what I read today. It was from 1936. The Spanish Civil War was raging, and the persecutions in Mexico were still going on, though winding down. In both places left wing ideologies were amassing a body count of Catholics, clergy and lay. In Spain the Church was associated with the Nationalists of Franco, and became a target of the Loyalist forces. 498 Catholics, mostly clergy and religious - including nuns - were martyred during the Civil War. Ninety-five of them were Salesian brothers, seminarians and priests. In Mexico 25 martyrs have been recognized by the Church from the Cristero War, though I've heard the number should be closer to 90. The revolt ended in 1929, but in '36 there was a spike in the persecution. Day called for pacifism, that for Catholics to take up arms would be to ignore the words of Jesus to Peter in the garden, that he should stay his sword. To resort to violence would be to mimic those who stood around the cross and told our Lord to come down, if he be the Christ. It wouldn't be Jesus we were depending on, but our own powers to save. Christ could only save us through the passion. As His mystical body on earth we are also called to carry the cross, and suffer with Him. It is through that suffering of Christ on the cross and of Christ through his Church that salvation is accomplished. Not by our own efforts, but by His grace. These are difficult words, at least for me.

I don't disagree with the particular examples she makes. There was enough blood flowing in Spain without Catholics seeking revenge, which is never the proper Catholic response. As for Mexico, I've always felt uncomfortable with he glorification of the Cristersos in the movie For Greater Glory. I don't despise the historical Cristeros by any measure, I understand why they fought. But the image of men on horse back shouting "Viva Cristo Rey!" while gunning people down, as is depicted in the film, seems unfortunate. 

Yet, I can't cross the line into pacifism, to say that armed resistance is always and everywhere morally wrong. If we see a weaker party being butchered, are we to sit back, say our prayers and sleep well, confident that nonviolent resistance will win the day? There were nonviolent resisters in Nazi Germany, and they were guillotined with the public mostly ignorant that they were ever alive, let alone resisting. Martyrdom is not something that can be stumbled into. For those who have assumed the age of reason, it must be embraced, or it really isn't virtue.

I'll save further thoughts on direct action for another time. I do not dismiss Dorothy Day's call to nonviolence. I hold it, caress it, and try to make it fit, but so far I can't. 

Dorothy Day's dilemma wasn't over pacifism or embracing the just war theory. She knew very clearly that she believed in nonviolence. Her struggle was over ideological labels. She advocated for the poor, living poor herself, turning a critical eye on capitalism and consumerism. Of course, the thanks she got was having to contend with constantly being called a communist. She wasn't. She may have had no love of big business, and avoided enticements from corporate America, famously rejecting a potentially life changing grant from the Ford Foundation, but she didn't have any love for big government either. She was trying to forge a philosophy of social action, while avoiding partisan entanglements. 

I've been thinking a lot about Dallas today, as you might imagine. I was hoping to get this post ripped off quickly this morning, but as I started off saying, I've been through several revisions (and still managed to get the business of the parish done). What I've written so far bears no resemblance to what I started out with as the sun was climbing the sky. Now as I wrap up the sun is almost set, and I'm sure it'll be dark by the time this hits the web. My struggle has been over avoiding partisan entanglements. No one will ever accuse me of being a communist. Some might try to pin the right wing label on me, though. And thats the problem. We are in this crisis because ideologues have dominated the conversation, and I'm struggling to find the truth through the spin. This is bigger than Dallas, because the troubles are only beginning. Spin and ideology aren't going to bring us together - aren't going to bring peace.

I am not convinced that pacifism is the always and everywhere correct response to injustice, true. But this was not violence against an unjust oppressor. The police on the streets of Dallas last night weren't the enemy. This is national suicide. 

So I grope, trying to parse words, trying to sound above the partisan fray. Maybe that's impossible. Maybe I should say what I'm thinking, and let others apply the labels, no matter how simplistic and false. I'm trying to cut through the ideology, and drive at the truth.

We've arrived at this place because many of us have put ourselves into partisan, ideological boxes. Secularists accuse Catholics of being rigid and dogmatic, of being closed minded and unable to explore other possibilities, except for what the Catechism allows. I say progressives and movement conservatives are more hemmed in intellectually than Catholics are. Catholics are actually free to take the best of both (and I wish more would, instead of climbing into boxes like the rest). We can debate the just war theory, the death penalty, and how the principles of Catholic social teaching should be applied in concrete situations, sometimes taking very different approaches, and remain faithful Catholics. I'm not sure that's true with progressives and conservatives. 

Catholics follow a person, the Word made flesh, not a platform on paper. Our only hope is to be liberated from the intellectual shackles that bind us, and be free. Not to abandon reason - that's not Catholic either. Christ perfects our reason, sharpens our intellects, makes us free, because He is the truth. 

Muhammad Ali (1942-2016)

I'd been laboring over a post about the late comedian Lenny Bruce, when the news broke that Muhammad Ali's health was failing. When I went to bed last night Ali was still in the hospital battling a repertory ailment (one of a slew of illnesses he'd had to fight over the past three decades). This morning, he was gone.

The image that I saw accompany the story most often, from the Chicago Tribune this morning, where I first saw confirmation of his passing, to any number of sites on the web was of the iconic shot of him standing over a fallen Sonny Liston. It was their second fight, held on May 25, 1965 in the unlikely locale of Lewiston, Maine.

That photo of Ali (then still known as Cassius Clay), flexing his arm across his chest, built like a Greek god - his handsome, almost boyish face contorted into a mask of rage - roaring like a lion over it's conquered prey, became an icon. It indeed captured the essence of that young lion in his prime: defiant, strong, and proud.

He had already converted to Islam and would shortly make his name change legal and permanent. Like Bruce, a contemporary who's controversial stage act made him subject to arrest for violation of obscenity laws, Ali ran afoul of the law. In his case he refused induction into the military during the Vietnam War. While he didn't lose his freedom like Bruce did on several occasions, his stand cost him three years in the prime of his career. As Lenny Bruce found it almost impossible to get a gig, Ali couldn't book a fight since no state would grant him a boxing license. With his passport revoked, going overseas to box wasn't an option. He was a polarizing figure, and there were those who initially refused to call him by his Muslim name. His arch rival Joe Frazier always called him Clay just to get under his skin.

If he never had converted to Islam - allying himself with the Nation of Islam - or changed his name you could argue he probably wouldn't have gotten drafted to begin with. But he still would have been controversial. He was brash, quick witted, and boastful. He belittled his opponents verbally before humbling them physically in the ring. He said what was on his mind. Sure, some of it was show business: he had a lot of promoter in him, as well as fighter. But most of it wasn't an act. It was all Ali.

He would come back, becoming the first, and so far only, man to win the heavy weight crown three times - when being the Champ still meant something. I saw Ali relatively late in his career, vividly remembering him win that last title, reclaiming it from Leon Spinks. And I saw him when he could still jab and duck, weave and sting verbally. It was something to hear, and the saddest thing is that it's been three decades since the world saw and heard the legend in full.

This is but a thin outline. I'll be back with a deeper appreciation for Muhammad Ali. For now, I'll leave you with the image that tells the story.

Quick Takes: Charlie, Charlie Challenge, The Ireland Vote, Should ISIS Make you Nervous?

Charlie, Charlie Challenge: Better to Stick to Water Buckets 

Over the last couple of days I've seen these posts on Facebook about the so called Charlie, Charlie Challenge. A geezer like me knowing about this can only mean that this latest internet phenomenon has been circulating around the kids for a while now.

Basically it's a ouija board for people with attention deficit, since the board itself has been reduced to small square with "Yes" and "No" quadrants, navigated by two pencils (no spelling required). Charlie, the challenge's name sake, is billed as a Mexican demon, and there are rules about how to gain and break contact with said Charlie. I don't want to give too much info, lest I inadvertently lead people to try it. I have mixed feelings about mentioning it at all, but feel moved by prayer to write at least this brief warning.

STAY AS FAR AWAY FROM THIS, OR ANY OTHER OCCULT PRACTICE AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN.

As I told the young people at Mass last night, you wouldn't purposely stand on a dangerous street corner where a lot of drive-bys take place. You wouldn't wear the wrong colors in the wrong neighborhood to see what'll happen. You wouldn't flash gang signs on the street for a laugh. The spiritual world is the same. When we play with these forces we open doors that are not easily closed. Whether Charle is a real demon is beside the point. Demons are real and will exploit any opening to lay a claim either on a person or a place, and he'll answer to Charlie, Captain Howdy, or Bobo the Monkey if it's to his advantage.

Let me be clear: playing these games does not necessarily lead to demonic possession. Possessions are extremely rare, even taking into account the recent rise in reports of such cases. But demonic oppression and infestations of places are arguably more common than we may think. That's why I recommend getting your house blessed and living a moral, prayerful life, which for Catholics includes the regular reception of Holy Communion and frequent confessions. And avoiding door openers like ouija boards, seances, fortune telling, palm readings along with any other form of spiritualism is vitally important.

Keeping the dark forces out is easy when you let God, who is life and light, in.

The Ireland Vote

I know that the recent vote to legalize gay marriage in Ireland has left many Catholics reeling. Ireland, once a bulwark of the Faith, has gone completely secular, and some would say is now anti-religion, not simply anti-Catholic. I'm troubled, like most of my sisters and brothers are, but I wish I could say I'm perplexed by this development, but I'm simply not. I'm one who thinks that social commentator Camille Paglia is correct, the current gender wars are a sign that Western Civilization is dying, and I would say it's already dead.

I have written at length in this space about the Catholic teaching on marriage, and I admit that I've backed off over the last couple of years. Not because I've reconsidered what I believe, rather that I've come to conclusion that all the blog posts in the world are not going to sway minds and hearts. As a culture we have chosen the path we want to walk, and now it's time to await the consequences of that choice. For those Catholics who remain in the truth (and I pray I receive the grace to do that) it will mean social marginalization, limits put on how and where we can minister, loss of tax exempt status and possibly jail for not accepting the new secular orthodoxy.

Both Pope Emeritus Benedict and the late Cardinal George have gotten praise and consternation for comments they made about where they see the Church and society heading. Benedict VVI spoke of a smaller, more faithful Church, George famously said that he expected to die in bed, his successor to die in jail and his successor to die a martyr. But the archbishop after that would help restore society, starting with the shards of a broken culture, much like the Church has done in the past. Both men were criticized as either looking for the Church to be an elitist organization, or else was guilty of being a prophet of doom. But both assessments are false.

Cardinal George, in his last major interview before he passed away clarified what he meant by those now famous (to some infamous) words. He stressed that this was a private conversation that he didn't expect to be made public. He also framed his observations, not as a prophesy, but as a worst case scenario. It's not that he expects that these things would happen, but even if they do come to pass, we shouldn't lose heart: the Church will still be there to pick the pieces up when the crisis is over. These were meant to be worlds of hope to a friend who was depressed over where he saw things heading.

As for Pope Benedict, a fuller understanding of the context of his comments, as we can see here in Fr. Dwight Lonhenecker's post, again shows that we're not talking about an ideal, but the logical consequences that will face the Church in an age of militant secularism. Those who choose to remain with the main body of the Church once doing so means loss of status, property, and possibly liberty, will likely be a relative few, human nature being what it is. Countless numbers chose to burn incense to the Roman emperor and surrender the sacred books to be destroyed in the early centuries of the Church rather then face, not only imprisonment, but possible death. Once the peace came the debate turned to whether to admit these apostates back into full communion (which the Church eventually did). How many will flee the persecution by renouncing the Faith is anybody's guess, and a guessing game better not to play. All of us will be tested, none of us is so strong as to boast that we will, without doubt, do the right thing. In light of this we all need to pray continually for the gifts of courage and wisdom.

Until then, there is no point being depressed or worried. Christ won the victory already. He always told us trials would come (persecutions, earthquakes, famines, wars and rumors of war) but he also assured us that these would not have the final word.

Should ISIS Make You Nervous?

I had a meeting of young adults at the parish last Friday, and two young women from another parish joined, what is a small but growing group. I was finishing up a talk on the Book of Revelation that I'd begun the month before. My main point was that, while the book does point to a definitive end of history as we understand it, it is also showing how history is a series of repeating patterns. Not that events repeat, but that the rise and fall of empires follow a predictable cycle, and the Church needs to know how to adapt to these ever changing circumstances. I then mentioned the Venerable Fulton Sheen's belief, expressed in the 1970's during a retreat he was giving to priests, that we're at the end of a Christendom. What he meant was that we were at the end of a unified Christian culture where Gospel values are at the root of our social, political and moral life. He claimed that history could be broken up into roughly five hundred year epochs, beginning with the birth of Jesus, and that we were now at the end of one such period.

One of our visitors looked up from the notebook that she was feverishly scribbling in, and asked, "What do you think of ISIS? They make me nervous." Normally this would be the time when I would make some reassuring comment about them being half a world away, and that they're really a rag tag outfit, the JV team, actually: no need to worry, at all. But I couldn't get myself to lie. These were adults I was talking to, so I said, "Well, they make me nervous, too."

Yes, they do make me a little nervous, mainly because the world's leaders don't seem to be taking them seriously. These are people who really believe in what they are doing, and they will stop at nothing to reach their objectives. There is no internal debate that I can see that they are having over who they are and what values they hold. We in the West really don't believe in anything. We say we believe in freedom of speech, but do we really? It seems that we do as long it doesn't offend anybody. Being self critical and self questioning is a healthy trait of Western Civilization. But we now question everything about ourselves, including the things that are genetically and anatomically obvious. Sheen would say that we have subordinated all moral and ethical values to the economic and the political. I would add another value: the emotional, or therapeutic. Because our leaders, and many of us, can't understand why people would fight for something beyond purely practical or even animal motives, they don't understand ISIS.

The secular society that at the same time dabbles in spiritualism, among other quasi religious activities, to fill the gap, is not prepared to stand up to a force of true believes, no matter how rag tag they seem. We are not ready to defend our society because we really don't believe in it. We take freedom for granted because we don't believe in responsibility. The world's leaders are making decisions based on political and economic considerations, and the electorate is being swayed more and more by emotions. This is a combination for disaster.

But I end, as I must, because I can't lie, on a positive note. I'm no prophet, nor am I from a school of prophets (as I think I've written before), but I have no doubt who's going to win this struggle. In the short term there will be trials and, dare I say, tribulations, but Christ won the victory already. I do believe, like John Paul the Great, that we are at the beginning of a new spring time for the Faith. Spiring brings flowers and new life, but also rain, and even a few thunder storms along the way. ISIS makes me nervous, sure, but not bowed, and certainly not defeated.

Poppies to Keep Us Awake

The World War I Poppy Memorial at the Tower of London

For us here in the United States the 11th of November is Veteran's Day; a moment to say thank you to the men and women who have served in the armed forces, and increasingly to recognize those still serving in uniform. But we have lost the reason why this day is different from all other days, so to speak. Today is the 96th anniversary of the ceasefire agreement on the Western front during World War I, and until 1954 we observed it as Armistice Day to reflect that connection. Even as child, long after Veterans Day supplanted the previous holiday, I can recall church bells ringing at 11am, a faint echo of remembrance that the fighting ended at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918. Here in the States this fact is lost on many people. But in Canada and England the observances still focus on this singular event.

And for good reason. England alone lost upwards of a million people, both military and civilian due to battle, war crimes and disease. Those young adults who were killed, as well as those who survived the experience are often called the Lost Generation. There was mourning for lives that never reached maturity as well for those who were able to carry on but had lost a sense of purpose and meaning in life. We have short memories on this side of the Pond, but even a hundred years after the war began the people of the United Kingdom, and much of the Commonwealth, are still enveloped with a pall of sadness over the destruction, both human and cultural, that resulted from the conflict.

But there was another casualty of World War I. If the Faith is dead, or at least dormant, in Europe today it is due to a great degree to the war. A profound existential doubt hit Western Culture over the years of 1914 to1918, and then was solidified by World War II resulting in people losing faith that there is a providential God who loves and guides human progress. If God is all loving why would he permit such suffering and destruction? What is the purpose of being born if life can be taken so swiftly and senselessly? Where is God in all this? For many, no satisfactory answer was found, so the churches emptied and the culture became increasingly secular. But does this reaction make sense?

While questioning one's faith in the face of calamity is more than understandable, in the particular case of the Great War, I would argue that it, along with World War II, were not religiously motivated conflicts, but came after periods of increased secularization and optimism in the ability of human progress to shape a bright, prosperous and peaceful future. In the second half of the previous century Germany, France and Italy had all undergone Church - State conflicts that saw the place of religious institution is public life greatly limited (some would call it a persecution). We can see here the beginnings of later totalitarianism in which the state claimed complete control over the loyalty and even wills of the people. Nietzsche saw that religion was on the retreat as a relevant cultural and social force, proclaiming the God was dead, and that it was our indifference that had "killed" Him.  The late 19th and early 20th century saw an explosion of world's fairs and exhibitions where the latest scientific and technological advancements were put on display. While many of the items being shown off were the latest turbines or industrial machines, there were also plenty of artillery pieces and other armaments. The industrial revolution had given birth to modern warfare and killing could be done wholesale.

World War I was the time when all the technology, all the political strategy and all the secular notions of progress were put into practice. Our faith was no longer in a providential God who needed to be obeyed, but in science and technology's ability to shape and manipulate nature and the state which would guide and control our lives from cradle to grave. The guiding principle was enlightened human reason's ability to control it all. If World War I was a failure it was in humanity's ability to shepherd itself.

The failure of the churches during this time was that they tended to go along with the notion, even implicetly, of boundless human progress, and in surrendering to nationalism that was the great tool used to stir up hate between the nations. Priests, bishops, ministers and preachers helped promote the war effort, and were really dupes. Yes, there were voices like Pope Benedict XV calling for peace and reconciliation between peoples, but far too many churchmen, both Catholic and Protestant, were preaching "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

The church, in the broad sense of the word, has learned from this experience. While not nearly all religious people are pacifists, I do believe that most know that war is not to be glorified and the men and women who served need to be cared for, and not shepherded to their deaths on behalf of blind nationalism. We also know, I hope, the difference between patriotism and nationalism; one being a love of country and the other a love of the state (maybe a discussion for another day).

But otherwise the broader culture has doubled down on stupid. We still believe that science, technology and government are our saviors, in spite of the 20th Century's atomic bombs, gulags and genocides, which used man made tools meant to save us rather to destroy and dominate. Some may point to Islamic terrorism as a sign of how religion motivates wars and conflict, but if we look closely can anyone honestly say that ISIS is motivated by faith, or is religion being used as an excuse for political conquest? Again, a discussion for another day.

The people of England still mourn a century later. There is a temporary memorial made up of clay poppies filling the moat of the Tower of London; one for each life lost by that country. The public out pouring as been overwhelming, with thousands of people coming to visit the site everyday for the past several months. Poppies are usually associated with opium, sleep and forgetfulness. Here they are meant to keep us awake and remembering. But what we remember is important. As Christians we need to remember that we are at the service of the One Lord, Jesus Christ, and while we love our country, we are not slaves of the state. For the entire culture science, technology and sound government are tools that are not goods in and of themselves, but need to be guided by deeper principles rooted in faith, or else all manner of atrocity is possible.

While the memorial's reference to the blood spilled in the poppy fields of Belgium is obvious, the way they appear to be cascading out of a window of the Tower is reminiscent of the blood flowing from our Saviour's wounded side. England, Europe and all Western Civilization suffered a passion in the 20th Century. I pray that we may all soon experience a resurrection of the Faith.

A Few Thoughts on The Wisconsin Horror Story

The doctored image that started it all

Being a veteran of summer camps I'm accustomed to the "bonfire villain run a muck." In the case of the old Camp Don Bosco in Newton, NJ it was Farmer O'Leary; a mutant, inbred tiller of the soil who stalked the fields around the camp looking for wayward campers to drag back to his farmhouse to slice up. Total bunk of course, I'm sure invented way back when to scare kids so they wouldn't sneak out of their cabins at night.  Lets just say it worked too well sometimes. I had young kids in my cabin too frightened to get out of bed to go to the bathroom, at times with rather unsavory results. Here in Chicago its Nurse Norah, who supposedly haunts the old wing of the youth center. She was invented in the "new" CDB at Putnam Valley, NY; transplanted here by a former Salesian who will remain nameless. The story was officially banned (as were tales of Farmer O'Leary) because the younger kids were taking it too seriously. Nonetheless, in the case of the mythical Nurse Norah, the effects of this little yarn are felt almost a decade later, with kids still scared to go to the second floor unaccompanied. And this modern myth making isn't consigned to summer camp. When I worked in a Newark parochial school it was the Candy Man, a vaguely demonic figure conjured up by saying his name three times into a mirror, that the pre-teens feared. So, while I was as shocked as anybody last week that two 12 year olds in Wisconsin tried to kill their "friend" to get in good with a fictional bogey man known as Slender Man, who they thought was real, my mind was not completely blown. Even in this Internet savvy age, where the children know what's what in the virtual world more than the adults do, human nature doesn't change.

The fact is that many children of a certain age, let's say between 9 and 13, don't have the ready ability to know when their leg is being pulled. Even teens and adults can confuse fiction with truth at times: how many otherwise rational adults believe in Big Foot or the Moth Man? For that matter, go back to 1938 and Orson Welles' radio play adaptation of The War of the Worlds. Presented as a real time news report, without any disclaimer, thousands listening in the North East, and possibly the country, thought the Earth really was being invaded by Martians, causing a general panic. If adults can be convinced that legend is literal, how much more are children susceptible to this type of confusion?

I went to a few sites, and although the Slender Man character has a definitive origin with a particular author (who holds the copyright, no less), every page I saw presents the myth as fact, with "found" photos or videos, whose takers have been "missing" for decades; a strategy utilized by the 1999 movie The Blair Witch Project. If any of these sites does post some sort of disclaimer, I missed it. The site these girls regularly visited did put up a post expressing their concern for the victim, proclaiming the content of their site fictional, while defending said content. I'm not sure if pre-teens were the original target audience for the type of horror contained on the site, but the young ones found it, and while most probably know that the content is fictitious, there will always be those impressionable minds who won't get the conceit. Thus the responsibility on the authors and web masters to make things plain.

I'm not saying that children shouldn't hear spooky ghost stories around a camp fire. I remember when I was in the fourth or fifth grade a classmate bringing in an LP of dramatized ghost stories into school and playing it for us. (If you don't know what an LP is, ask your parents). I knew it was bunk, but I still didn't sleep for a couple of nights afterward. And I don't think that I was any worse for the wear. I'm no psychologist, but there is something in us that likes getting scared, under controlled conditions, once in a while. I will admit, I never understood slasher movies, because they strike me as being disgusting as opposed to suspenseful or frightening, and these are two different realities. So without getting overly analytical about it all, there is a natural attraction to mystery and myth, and even a touch or horror, in our psyche, especially during the "tween" years (this is the age, remember, when girls are supposedly haunted by poltergeists). Handled properly the vast majority of young people navigate this phase unharmed and with a more vividly creative imagination.  

The difference I see in the old campfire stories or the old Hammer horror films I watched on local TV as a kid and these contemporary horror stories, is the level of darkness. In the midst of the ghosts and vampires of old was a degree of campiness that kept things from getting too heavy. On the modern horror sites I perused, and I admit I only visited a couple, there wasn't a hint of humor to leaven the proceeding. Realism seems to be the key, whether its the doctored photos or "found" videos. The line between myth and reality is always a fuzzy one, and you could argue that that's part of the fun. But in these contemporary presentations the line seems to be nonexistent, thus making it even more difficult for young minds to tell the difference. 

There is another aspect, which is the demonic. The site that these girls visited the most put up a disclaimer, as I mentioned, in which they said, among other things, that they were a "literary" site, not a satanic cult. I'll take that at face value, but one doesn't have to willfully be at the service of the the devil, or even believe in him, to help his cause. Under the proper supervision, and with a proper dose of camp, the mysterious and the spooky can help cultivate the young imagination. But unsupervised and presented in a self serious way it can lead to an attraction with darkness, with tragic results. I do believe that these sites are doorways for true evil to enter, so it is for any parents reading this out there to be aware of what your children are reading and watching, and if something strikes you as being too dark, don't be afraid to restrict it. I'm not saying that these girls were possessed, or even that the demonic was directly involved in the incident (though I personally lean in the direction of demonic influence). The responsible adults did Satan's work for him by fashioning the material in a particular way and then leaving the girls on their own to consume it and interpret it as their 12 year old minds were capable. All the Evil One had to do was sit back and reap the rewards.

The Harvard Controversy Wrap Up

In the end the atrocity planned for last night at Harvard didn't go on. The student organization that was to host the "Black Mass" thought better of it, or at least decided to move it off campus, but they couldn't find any one who would give them a room. Good for them, who ever they are. So, it was canceled. The New York "Satanist" group that was going to do the actual ritual sent out an email around 10:30pm saying that the ceremony was taking place at that very moment in a Chinese restaurant near by the campus. When a reporter called the place an employee identifying himself as Fred said that the principals involved were presently at the bar drinking and didn't appear to be performing any rituals (I'm not making this stuff up). Another report says that the ritual did go on on the second floor of the establishment, but without the consecrated host. 

My thoughts on all this.

johnnyc, who leaves comments now and again (something I strongly encourage, as long as they're not profane, and johnnyc's are always respectful, even if we may disagree), commented on an earlier post that we should be more concerned about dissent within the the Church as opposed to these "clowns." He points out the Leadership Confrence of Women Religious (LCWR), who have been under scrutiny by the Vatican and the USCCB for heterodox pronouncements, and a general disregard for Church doctrine and discipline. They are the ones, along with Catholic politicians who support abortion on demand, who should be the main focus of our concern, according to him. I agree that these satanist wannabees are clowns, but don't agree that we're misdirecting our fire upon them. Whatever the conflict between the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the LCWR, it should not be happening in the New York Times. These internecine battles played out in the public square are the very definition of the Church at her most self-referential, and irrelevant.

The outrage expressed at the Harvard affair is not a reflection of fear, but was a teaching moment in which the Church engaged the world and educated it anew about the centrality of the Eucharist in our life, the True Presence and the beauty of Eucharistic Adoration. All the LCWR battle comes off as is more Church politics that few outside of a small group within the community is paying attention to. For those in the main stream media who cover it, it's just an extension of the same old liberal-conservative battles, and to the world the Church just ends up looking like a political organization.  I have faith that the Spirit will sort that situation out, one way or another, and I don't see the need to air our family business in public. But if we are going to make a strong public stand let it be in these moments of engagement with the world when we are given these opportunities to show what what the Church really stands for.

My other thought is that as a Church we really do need to examine how Holy Communion is distributed, specifically if Communion in the hand while standing is the most reverent, and safest, way of distributing the Sacred Body of Christ. The problem is that this is usually broken down into a "progressive-traditionalist" battle, and that's wrong. In our parish we have had problems of non consecrated hosts being stolen, and of people having to be instructed to consume the host after they tried to walk away with it. A couple of our ushers had an altercation with someone on Easter who refused to consume the host and ran away with it.

Let me go on record: I don't speak Latin (mine was a social promotion out of the class) and, while I'm not opposed to it, I have no desire to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. I'm Novus Ordo born and bread, and proud of it. I am troubled though by the disrespect showed to the Blessed Sacrament and believe that in this time of increased occult activity certain aspects of our practice needs to be reexamined, free of prejudice and agenda. If we really believe the Eucharist is what we say it is; the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread; then we need to do all that we can to prevent such desecrations from happening.

Update: Harvard "Black Mass" Canceled

According to several news outlets, including Time Magazine, the "Black Mass" scheduled for tonight on the Harvard campus was abruptly canceled. More commentary to follow.

President Faust Speaks: Harvard "Black Mass" Controversy Update

President Faust of Harvard

As of this writing the so called "Black Mass" is still set to be held on the Harvard campus, with a Eucharistic Procession and Holy Hour to be held at St. Paul's Church in Cambridge as a sort of spiritual counter protest.

The President of Harvard, Drew Faust, issued a statement today that basically said, yes, this is wrong and not really what Harvard is all about, but we will leave the decision as to whether the atrocity will go on or not in the hands of the organizers. She made this decision in light of the "University's commitment to free expression, including expression that may deeply offend us." She went on to write that...

"I plan to attend a Eucharistic Holy Hour and Benediction at St. Paul's Church on our campus on Monday evening in order to join others in reaffirming our respect for the Catholic faith at Harvard and to demonstrate that the most powerful response to offensive speech is not censorship, but reasoned discourse and robust dissent."

I do not doubt Dr. Faust's sincerity, and am actually touched by her gesture of solidarity. But this does bring up other questions in my mind, not simply about Harvard, but about American academia in general, and how committed it really is to open discourse and debate; the reason she said the University wouldn't stand in the way of the "Black Mass" from being staged.  Unfortunately my schedule doesn't allow me to elaborate at this moment. Time to go hear confessions before celebrating the Holy Mass.

More to come...

Satan and Man at Harvard

Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here

CORRECTION: I link below to a post on The Anchoress blog, and go on to describe it's content. One big problem though: The description refers to a piece on the God and the Machine blog by Thomas McDonald (my bad). He makes the observations about real versus pretend satanists and gives a good review of the history of the black mass. If you follow the links on The Anchoress you will indeed get a good run through of the story at hand. Ms Scalia has been covering the story like a journalist, talking to all the concerned parties. Both sites, part of the Patheos network of religious blogs, are worth a read.  

I'm taking a detour from the series of posts on the missionary-evangelical Church to address a story that popped up in some corners of the web this past week. A so called Satanist group has announced that it will be holding a black mass on the Harvard University campus, using a consecrated host in the ritual. The event is supposed to take place Monday.

The secular story came with the usual caveat that there is no historical proof that such rituals, purportedly originating during the Middle Ages, actually ever took place. The argument goes that these were inventions of the establishment to persecute dissenters, mainly proto-feminists, much like how the Salem Witch Hysteria of 1692 is usually spun. And I do mean spun. Whatever one might think of the efficaciousness of satanic ritual, and witchcraft in general, there are scholarly studies to back up that such activities were going on in the Massachusetts Bay Colony at the time. Does this justify the witch hunts or mean that innocent people didn't get caught up in the hysteria, sometimes at the hands of malicious opportunists? No, it doesn't. But it does mean that we need to be honest about the reality of the occult. To perpetuate the idea that black masses and witches are a part of some contrived mythology is itself a myth. And I happen to believe that these rituals do have an effect and a certain power, even though it's not the effects intended by their practitioners.

Satanists, Fellow Travelers or Useful Idiots? Elizabeth Scalia, in an excellent post on her blog The Anchoress, gives a rundown of the story, and her own take on the so called satanists behind this atrocity. She comments that these aren't real satanists at all (as she points out the real ones don't put out press releases) but atheists who use the guise of the occult to attack traditional religion. Satan has long been used by otherwise secular types as a symbol of rebellion and "freedom." These posers would be eaten alive (literally?) by the real thing. She goes on to write that what the pseudo-satanists believe isn't so much the point, the Enemy is more than willing to take advantage of these "useful idiots." And it really is the best of both worlds for him. The devil gets some free publicity (Mephistopheles and his crew love to see their names in the paper more than a Kardashian), gains an opening with which to cause some mayhem and possibly destroy a soul or two hundred, while continuing to reinforce the notion in the popular mind that he really doesn't exist to begin with. What ever you want to say about him, the Prince of Darkness knows how to manipulate the media industrial complex like a pro.

As for Harvard. A cliche I've heard repeatedly from friends this week is some variation on the "Harvard would never have the guts to allow a Koran burning on campus" motif. Just because it's cliche doesn't mean it isn't true, and in this case it is. Of course I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HARVARD, OR ANY PLACE ELSE SHOULD BE HOSTING KORAN BURNINGS. On some level the what that's being desecrated isn't the point; it's that Harvard would take such a hypocritical stance and allow this highly offensive act to go on under their sign.

The great sin of modern academia is being offensive and insensitive to others' beliefs and "life style" choices. The point of the organization hosting this "event" is to share different cultural and religious expressions in a spirit mutual appreciation. But we aren't talking about the performing of an ancient and hollowed ritual adored by countless generations. They're essentially reenacting a scene from a 60's horror movie, based on nothing more than the warped imagination of the film maker. Harvard itself, if I can read into their statement a bit, would love for this thing to go away, but they've backed themselves into a PC corner. If they cave and stop the black mass from being held they look like they're giving in to the "Man," and being untrue to their pluralistic, inclusive goals. If they let it go on, somewhere, in someone's mind there has to be the understanding that they are cooperating in a cynical, craven act that has nothing to do with cultural awareness or inclusivity.

As for the Consecrated Host. To me what's being desecrated is important, above and beyond any other considerations. It really doesn't matter what these lost souls believe. It doesn't matter to me what the folks at Harvard believe, either. As far as I know none of them thinks that the Catholic Sacraments or their satanic inversion have any power what so ever. In their post modern, deconstructed world words have no meaning, ritual has no meaning, apart from what we give them, which in their case is nothing. But words do have meaning. And they know it; no one is quicker to take offense when contradicted than your average Ivy League academic. They know deep down that words have meaning. They inspire people to action. They can cause joy and break hearts.

I believe that the divine words of Jesus Christ have supreme meaning. So yes, my main devotion is not to a book, though that Book contains the Words of everlasting life. I believe the words themselves, and when Jesus tells us through that Word that he gives us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink under the appearance of bread and wine I believe it. When he tells us, in one of the only direct commands he gives in Scripture, to "do this in memory of me," I believe it. And when someone purposely mocks and desecrates the Eucharist I'm enraged.

I hope this atrocity is canceled. Yes, because of the hurt it will cause the faithful. But also because of the harm it will cause Harvard. Let no one be deceived; this is a door opener. I fear for the Harvard community if this goes on. These are foolish, frivolous people. They are like drunks who dive head first off a cliff into water that is far shallower than they can see. Only it will not be merely themselves who will be harmed. I've seen too much damage done by people who engage in occult practice, and most of the damage happens to others; family members, the target of a spell or incantation, or simply a family that had the misfortune of buying a house or living in a building where the rituals were performed. Whether they believe it or not, the administration of Harvard should keep clear of this. No good will come of it, in this life or the next.

Consistory of Cardinals Discuses Family and Married Life

The Consistory of Cardinals that met in Rome this week was preparing for October's Extraordinary Synod of Bishops that will concern itself with the Church's pastoral care of married people and families. We can't underestimate the importance of the upcoming meetings, as well as the regularly scheduled Synod set for 2015 which will continue the discussion. Synods are held normally every three or four years, but these extraordinary synods, called by the pope when he feels that they're necessary, are not all that uncommon.

What is different this time is that Pope Francis plans on using the synod as a catalyst for possible changes, not in doctrine, but in pastoral practice. A complaint by some over the years is that both Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI used these more as information sessions, with information going from the top down, more than as opportunities for the bishops to collaborate with the pope. Whether these criticisms are fair or not, Pope Francis wants to change the perception, at the very least.

And he's beginning with a hot button topic; how the Church cares for divorced and remarried Catholics who didn't have the first union annulled, or are first time married, but in civil unions. Right now Catholics who find themselves in these situations are not supposed to receive the sacraments, particularly Communion and Reconciliation (Confession).

There are two basic points of view and both, as far as I can see, have their merits. The first is that Jesus is very clear, from Matthew 19, that marriage is an indissoluble bond. There are only two ways a person can walk away from a marriage. The first is to prove that some conditions existed at the time the partners exchanged vows that renders the sacrament invalid, thus null and void in the eyes of the Church. Or else, by way of what we call the Pauline Privilege, when two non-Christians marry and one converts to Christianity while the other opposes and puts serious obstacles in the way of the believing partner's practice of the faith. This is based on 1 Corinthians 7:10-15. While it's a sad situation, and we encourage these people to stay close to the community, in light of justice they are living in a persistently sinful condition which renders a turning away from the offending behavior nearly impossible, and so receiving the sacraments itself becomes an occasion of sin.

The other point of view is that Christ was merciful, and the Church's pastoral response needs to reflect mercy more than strict justice. The annulment process is long and arduous, and many give up or don't even begin when they see all that is involved. What do we do with people who may have been married briefly early in life but have been with their second spouse happily for decades? Surly this alone could be seen as a sign that the first union was invalid, even if it's difficult to prove juridically?  The Eastern Orthodox churches, who also see marriage as a sacrament, allow second, and even third marriages, though the ceremonies are rather penitential in nature, as opposed to the joyously ornate ceremonies surrounding a first wedding. Some say that judging the validity of the first marriage should be made by the individual conscience, others that some juridical process, albeit streamlined, would still need to be maintained. Both agree that a mistake made early in life shouldn't translate into decades of separation from the sacraments, which then could only be received when death is imminent. 

I must be honest, I struggle with this. Some on both sides see things in very cut and dry terms, but not me. Jesus is clear about divorce and remarriage being an occasion for adultery.  He was also merciful with sinners, especially those who were "victims of human passion," as Don Bosco called those who committed sexual sins. I do know that something has to be done. There are too many good, sincere people caught having to chose between their marriage and following their faith. These are people I meet almost everyday. So, I pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens the bishops as they gather and discuss, and the Pope as he makes his decisions, that we reach the right balance between justice and mercy in our pastoral practice.

The Pope and the Pentecostals

Ecumenism, the working for the unification of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians after centuries of division was one of the main prerogatives to emerge from the Second Vatican Council. An assumption that many, including myself, have worked off of is that unification will come quickest with the Eastern Orthodox Churches and possibly the Anglican Communion, which either have valid sacraments, or at least some sacramental sense, to go along with the apostolic succession (though Catholics would say that the Anglicans lack this, as well as lacking valid sacraments).  What we call ecclesial communities, those born of the Reformation in the West that lack the sacraments and apostolic secession would be harder to reach an accord with. Along with these basic differences Rome has deeper theological differences along a broad list of topics with Protestants than with either the Orthodox or even the Anglicans.

My mind on this in the last few years had changed somewhat, but not in a positive way. The Anglicans continue to drift further away from Rome on many key issues, from the ordination of women to gay marriage. Even through the Anglicans voted not to perform same sex marriages this week, there are strong divisions between progressive British and American bishops in favor of such a change and traditional Latin American and, in a more pronounced way, African bishops opposed. Over the last two decades there's been a death watch of sorts on for the Anglican Communion; though they've defied expectations and remained untied thus far the danger of splintering into a hundred little pieces seems real. The Eastern Churches, after decades of existing underground in places like Russia and the Ukraine are becoming reestablished. Their issue has always been more about authority than theology, and now that they can function openly they don't seem eager to recognize the Pope as anything other than the Bishop of Rome, and nothing more. Relations are certainly more cordial with Constantinople, as with Canterbury, these days, but I'm still not sure unification is anywhere close to happening.

Rome has made progress in patching differences with Mainline Protestantism on certain theological issues. But these historical ecclesial communities have been in steep decline, in the U.S. at least, for almost forty years. While these communities often have some shadow of the sacraments at work, and a similar approach to scripture as Catholics (even if they lack Tradition and Magisterium), I'm not sure there's any "there-there." People who identify themselves as Lutherans or Presbyterians, for instance, has nosedived since 1974. As with the Anglicans, I wonder if there will be any organized body to reunite with before long. The real vibrant forms of Protestantism exist today in the Evangelical, Pentecostal, and non-denominational communities, that tend to get lumped together in the popular mind as Christian Fundamentalists. These groups have the least in common with the Church of Rome, and some of them question if we're Christians at all. How do you begin to find common ground with people who think you're a half pagan fulfillment of the Whore of Babylon from the Book of Revelation?

So, as I looked around I began to grow a tad discouraged about the prospect of great progress being made in this front. As Bishop Tony Parker, an Anglican cleric right in the middle of both the ecumenical and charismatic movements, says in a special video I feature below, diversity is Divine, division is demonic. This is not a trivial issue. This division in the Body of Christ is a scandal, and a true turning of the culture back to Christ won't happen until all who bare the name Christian come together.

Well my mind is beginning to change again. Below are two videos. One is the long version, containing Bishop Parker's testimony along with a message from Pope Francis to a group of Pentecostals meeting in Texas, U.S.A.. Yes, the Pope speaking in fraternal terms directly to Bible Belt Pentecostals, and the Pentecostals accepting the message in love and respect. Truly a graced moment. Is reunion coming tomorrow? No, but this gives me hope in a future, and a hope in a direction I had only seen futility. As the Pope says, this is God's work, and He can make miracles happen when and where we least expect it.

I'll stop. I encourage you to watch the complete video, and I'll have further reflections next week.

Two Salesians Murdered in Venezuela

It is with a sad heart that I write to you today about the murder of two of my Salesian brothers in Valencia, Venezuela. I'm linking to the Catholic News Service report and a local secular report in Spanish. Fr. Jesus Plaza, 80, and Brother Luis Sanchez, 84 were murdered in the residence of the Colegio Don Bosco Saturday night in a apparent robbery. I'll have more to write later, but for now please pray for the repose of the souls of Br. Luis and Fr. Jesus.





Eternal Rest Grant Unto Them, Oh Lord, and Let Perpetual Light Shine Upon Them. May Their Souls, And All the Souls of the Faithful Departed, Through the Mercy of God, Rest in Peace. AMEN

Derek Jeter Begins His Long Goodbye

Now that I am a man I think like a man, and follow sports like a man. Long ago I left behind the childhood wonder that went along with winding my way up the ramps and escalators of the old Stadium with two of my older brothers. We had left the bright late spring sunlight to enter into the Stadium's dark corridors, made claustrophobic by the crush of the crowd flowing in a chaotic swirl. Inside I took in the smells of roasting peanuts, beer, cigars, cigarettes and an over used men's room, the aromas, smells and stench all mingling in the air. Once at our level we looked for our section. As we walked through the darkness I peeked up the ramps, the sunshine breaking through, back lighting the fans milling around like something out of Rafael's Deliverance of St. Peter. All I could see was the top of the upper deck and the clear blue skies. We arrived at our section, went up the narrow tunnel that lead us back into sunlight. It was like standing on a cliff, the grand stands seemed so steep. fighting my natural fear of heights, I was overwhelmed by the green of the field, the brown of the clay diamond, the blue of the seats and the massiveness of the stadium. I had seen it a hundred times on TV, but here I was. By the time I was ten I clearly understood that what I saw on television wasn't reality. But this was real, and it was spectacular. And it was my heart that beat with wonder, my mind was racing to catch up.

But now I am a man, and baseball is about free agents, syringes, urinalysis and suspensions. Statistics are the measure of the player, and managers carry three inch binders of data (how the utility infielder hits against left handed Laplanders on Tuesday's after the trade deadline in odd years when the Democrats control the House). We don't believe there's such things as clutch, choke and hustle. It's all about OBP, WAR, WHIP, pitch counts and lefty righty match ups; just the things that capture a boy's imagination. So I follow still, but without the wonder.

Then yesterday Derek Jeter announced his retirement at the end of this season. I was again a boy, this time sad that a player that exemplified clutch, hustle and defied choking was soon to patrol the clay no more.

This day was bound to come. All athletic careers end too soon, and as adults we knew that Derek Jeter's was on borrowed time. The human body can only take so much wear and tear, even in a non contact sport like baseball, and his recent injuries over the last few seasons have only gotten more and more difficult to comeback from as he's gotten older. So our adult minds told us he can't go on much longer, or that maybe be should have walked away already. The adult says it's time to get younger, especially at shortstop. The adult says it's strictly business.

But when the news started to flash across the Internet I felt like a kid again, unabel to comprehend that people get old and can't do today what they were once able to. And Jeter made you believe he would play forever. Unlike Mariano River who hinted for years before announcing his retirement that he was ready to walk away at any time, Jeter always acted like he was going to patrol the middle infield at Yankee Stadium for another ten seasons. He had been injured before, and the line was always the same; Of course I'm coming back from this. No doubt I'll play shortstop (I dare you to try and run someone else out there). And of course I'll play at the same level as when I came up to the Big Team for good in 1996. So while our adult heads told us the calendar and medical realities made such claims practically impossible, our hearts still beat the rhythms of youthful wonder, wanting to believe that Derek Jeter, and we by extension, were never going to wake from this glorious dream that his career's been.

For Yankee fans Derek Jeter has always been more than the sum of his stats and fantasy points. He came along at a time when the Yankees were the baseball version of Jerry Jones' Cowboys; a franchise making a lot of noise but living on their past glory, never coming close to winning it all, with a front office that didn't seem to have a clue. The Yankees of the eighties to early nineties were a mess. GM Gene "Stick" Michael was the mastermind who brought pride back to a tired franchise. Jeter was one piece of a big puzzle Stick was putting together, but in a particular way he embodied the hustle and commitment to excellence New York fans were starving for since Thurman Munson died (another player whose value couldn't be calculated on a spreadsheet). In his prime he was never considered the best player in the Majors, he never hit the most homers, he never even won a regular season MVP. But he was the leader of Joe Tore's Yankees before he became the Captain. He hit home runs when they made a difference and was the MVP when games mattered the most; in October. He did it all with respect for the game and a desire to win that defies mathematical formulas, but comes from the heart.

I'll have more to write as the Farewell Tour unfolds. For now, for at least this season, I'll remember to put my adult mind on a shelf as I watch the Captain say his goodbyes. Because baseball careers are short, as is life it self. If we get caught up in the techno-jargon of bloodless statistics we miss the poetry of hustle and clutch. If we get distracted by the sideshows of PED's and lawsuits we too quickly forget the wonder of green grass, brown clay and warm days in the grandstands with your brothers.

Better to Fade Away: A Requiem for Two Stars

  

In 1997 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences held a reunion of past Oscar winners at their 70th annual awards presentation.  There were many big stars there, from distinguished veterans like Sydney Poitier and Gregory Peck to the latest names on the scene like Mira Sorvino and a still teenaged Anna Paquin.  By far the loudest and most sustained applause went to someone who hadn't made a movie in 48 years, and quit the business at the ripe age 22: Shirley Temple Black.

Shirley Temple is considered the first true child star, reining as the top box-office draw four years running in the mid-1930's when she was hardly out of diapers. Like many child stars that followed, she didn't make a successful transition to being an adult actor. By the time she quit Hollywood in 1950 she had a failed marriage to go along with her dead film career.  Add to this that the vast majority of the 3.2 million dollars (in the 1950 money) that she had earned was lost due to her father's mismanagement. But in the bigger picture she made the transition to being an adult better than most actors who succeed in the business, let alone wash out young. She did some television work later on, but felt the calling to politics. After a failed congressional run in the late '60s she became a delegate to the UN, and later an ambassador to Ghana and Czechoslovakia. The career diplomats scoffed at first, but she soon won their respect with her discipline and intelligence. She even headed up the training program for new diplomats, quipping, “We teach them how to get used to being called Ambassador and having Marines saluting. Then, on Day 3, we tell them what to do if they’re taken hostage.” She is also credited as being one of the first celebrities to raise awareness about the need for cancer screenings when she went public with her own battle with breast cancer in the early '70s, something almost unheard of at the time.  Through these ups and downs she always maintained her equilibrium. According to her second husband of 55 years, Charles Alden Black who died in 2005, what you saw with Shirley was what you got. He stated that her down to earth nature, free of the psychological demons that haunt so many actors, "would be catastrophic for the psychiatric profession."


I was a little disappointed that the response to her death on Monday night was so muted. Or at least it seemed so to me. The more we know about her the more there is to admire. She didn't let stardom define her, living a full life beyond the silver screen. In some ways it's understandable that the public reaction would be less intense than for other stars. Her's was an unusual career, peaking before she was 10 years old almost eighty years ago, thus she out lived most of her original fans.

Still, I can't help contrast the coverage of Temple Black's death to that of Philip Seymour Hoffman, who died ten days ago. I understand that on many levels we are dealing with apples and oranges. Hoffman was one of the top five or six actors working right now, in terms of talent and ability. He won an actual Oscar for acting, not an honorary statuette for "selling the most tickets," as her mother Gertrude quipped when Shirley asked if the honor meant that she was the best actor in the world (she often credited her mother for not letting the adulation go to her head). In our present pop culture Church of What's Happening Now Temple Black was an artifact from an ancient time; yesterday's goddess. Though undeniably talented, she wasn't a "serious" actress; just a bit of innocent eye candy that got people's minds off of the Great Depression. Hoffman was the artist, developing characters in ways that even the script writers didn't think of. And oh yes, the "demons" that drove him on, or so the myth goes. But the greatest contrast is that one showed us how to live fully, the other how to squander a great gift.

Lest you get the wrong idea, I come not to bury Philip Seymour Hoffman. I agree; he was probably the best pure actor America had to offer right now (Daniel Day Lewis was and still is the best in the English language overall). He should be mourned, and his acting achievements remembered. Before being an actor he was a human being. He had family, children and friends who loved him, and who are devastated by his death. He certainly deserves to be remembered for the good, and this is not the time savage him for his faults. I'm just not sure that he should be celebrated, or his death made out to be some noble act like Aaron Sorkin tries to in his Time Magazine obituary.  Sorkin claims that his death saved ten lives; people who will think twice about shooting a possibly lethal dose after hearing about a famous person's death from same.  I think that such a claim is wishful thinking, as well as a tad narcissistic. I don't know what was hounding Philip Seymour Hoffman, or what it's like to struggle with his addiction. All I know is that famous public figures from Jimi Hendrix to members of the Kennedy family have been dying from heroin related deaths for decades, and by some accounts the heroin problem is worse now than ever. In light of this the only thing we should be doing now is mourning the loss, remembering the positives and hold back on rationalizing the irrational.

I do hope that Philip Hoffman's death helps raise awareness of the dangers of heroin, and that addicts will use it as an impetus to seek help. But if so many high profile deaths before his haven't done anything to stem the overall tide of this drug's use, I don't have a lot of hope that his will either.


Yes, it's too bad that more will not be made of Shirley Temple Black's death from natural causes. Somehow, considering how gracefully she handled both fame and the lack of it, I'm not sure she'll mind. She seemed content to fade from the public scene, only emerging periodically for one salute or another. Her quiet passing, by show business standards, is our loss more than her's because her life had so much to teach us.

Every life is sacred, each one has infinite value. We should pray for the repose of the souls of both the Honorable Shirley Temple Black and Mr. Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Eternal Rest Grant Unto Them, Oh Lord, and Let Perpetual Light Shine Upon Them. May Their Souls, And All the Souls of the Faithful Departed, Through the Mercy of God, Rest in Peace. AMEN

Let's Not Fool Ourselves: It's Murder in the First Degree

There is an unfortunate divide in the attitude the Catholic clergy has concerning abortion.  I'm not talking about those poor souls who are either secretly, or not so secretly pro-choice.  That's not an attitude or approach in how to view the issue, that's an out and out rupture with the truth that shouldn't be tolerated.  No, I'm writing about an attitude that recognizes that abortion is wrong, but feels the bishops and some of the faithful are "obsessed" with it, and other matters of sexual morality (I think that it's a mistake to see abortion as a part of the Church's sexual ethic to begin with, but I'll have to save that for another post).  There are other, more urgent issues like the plight of the poor and other matters of social and economic morality that needs our attention more, or so the argument goes.  There are also other life issues, like the death penalty, and the treatment of prisoners in general, that deserves equal if not more attention.  Of course the other attitude is that abortion is murder and as such should be the priority.  A society is judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable, and while we shouldn't neglect the poor, the sick or the prisoner, the weakest and most vulnerable of all are the unborn, and so they should get the first priority.

I come down on the side that says abortion is murder of the most innocent and vulnerable, and therefore gets the priority without neglecting the rest of Catholic social teaching.  In the last few years I had heard the rhetoric of the other side, and began to be lulled into a certain sympathy with it, though I never fully accepted their line of thought.  The Kermit Gosnell case has wakened me from this moral haze.  The killing of live born babies is what logically follows when you make an arbitrary distinction between life inside and outside the womb.  And the things Mr. Gosnell was doing are not new or isolated: stories that abortionists routinely leave live born babies to die of neglect after failed abortions have been circulating for decades.  That many abortion "doctors" pay no attention to restrictions on third trimester abortions is also an open secret.  Years ago one of my sisters in law played detective and called a clinic pretending to be an expectant mother in her third trimester.  She was told by the person on the other end that it was a problem, but nothing they couldn't work around. So, while I'm as shocked as anyone by the brutality of the crime, on some level I'm not surprised that these things are going on.  This case needs to be a clarion call for anyone wavering in their full throated opposition to the killing of the unborn.


There are also those who believe abortion is wrong, but don't want to use the word murder to describe it.  This is often in a sincere attempt to be pastorally sensitive to the women who procure them.  I get this.  I've had many women come into my confessional to confess this sin.  After hearing their stories would I call them murderers?  No, I wouldn't.  The decision to abort is often made under pressure and duress. As a result there is often a willful ignorance as to what is growing in their wombs.  Immediately afterward these women often try to put the whole thing out of their minds, but eventually the reality of what they've done catches up with them, and then they come to me.  My job at that point is to be the loving face of Jesus the Good Shepherd, not a harsh judge bent on crushing the already bruised reed.

As for the practitioners of abortion, no other title but murderer fits.  They know what they are doing, and some even acknowledge openly that this is the taking of a human life.  A U.S. court has decided that the actions of this abortionist were murder, the late term abortions he performed are illegal, if not meeting the present legal definition of murder, and the death of one woman under his care is man slaughter.  They're all murders as far as I can see, and we shouldn't be afraid of using the word because we might offend people.  The truth is the truth, and in this case might help to end this scourge in our land.

As for Gosnell himself, he plea bargained himself out of the death penalty. I've had friends wish great harm on the man, and while I understand the out rage I can't condone it.  I am against the death penalty, though I'm not sure I buy the Seamless Garment argument.  No, let him live.  Let him spend long days and nights, how ever many more the Lord grants him in this life, to think about what he's done.  Maybe he repents (remember God wants the sinner to return to Him, not to perish).  Maybe he doesn't.  Either way he will face God, and that's good enough for me.  

Pondering Evil, Yet Again, Wearily

The Old Testament prophets tended to be very harsh when times were good.  They tried to remind people that life wasn't all about parties and wealth creation; that in the midst of the fat years there were still poor people not sharing in the prosperity, and not to be deluded into thinking that wealth, pleasure and power were substitutes for God.  The prophets reminded Judah and Israel that all things pass, and that chastisements eventually come for injustices and immoralities, so they shouldn't come to depend on their excess, and make a good examination of conscience.  Then, once the bottom fell out they changed tone, assuring the people that God hadn't abandoned them and the present trials wouldn't last forever.  In other words, they didn't kick people when they were down.  For us today religious figures who come out after a tragedy and get their Isaiah up, blaming a terrorist attack, a natural disaster or some other traumatic event that takes human lives on the sins of the people comes off as cruelly tone deaf.

We are still left with questions though.  We are not so accustomed to having the prophetic finger pointed at us as we are to point the finger at God, asking, "where were you?"  I weary of the question, not because it's a bad one, but because it has no response that can satisfy us.  The standard Thomistic answer is that God permits evil so that a greater good can come out of it.  In the big picture this is true, but I doubt that this explanation would make any sense to the parents who just lost their eight year old son in Copley Square.

I have adult nieces, some of whom work in and around Boston, one of whom is an RM who was called in to help at a hospital in the city treating victims.  After thanking the Lord that "all the girls are where they're supposed to be," as my father put it, I felt heart broken.  My eldest niece, the nurse, works in a children's burn hospital.  She sees terrible things on a day to day basis already, and all I could think of were the fresh hells she was being subjected to now.  She'll be thirty in a few months, but all I could see in my mind's eye was the baby wrapped up tight the way they do in hospital nurseries.  I still thought of her, and the others, as they were as children.  We want to protect our children from ugly things, and now it's impossible.  Even though they're not children anymore, it's a helpless feeling, to say the least.

I long ago reconciled myself with the problem of evil.  That people make wicked choices doesn't effect my faith in God.  That God permits evil is wrapped up in the gift of freedom; that He allows us to do good and accept Him means that he also allows us to do wrong.  Without that possibility we are slaves.  It doesn't mean my heart wasn't in my throat thinking about what could have happened if someone I loved was where they "weren't supposed to be" at 2:50pm Monday.  It doesn't mean I didn't feel rage seeing what had happened to people I've never met.

As for the cosmic reasons, I thought about when people came to Jesus asking about an incident when Pilate had slaughtered a group of Jews indiscriminately (Luke 13:1-5).  Jesus told them that they, and an unfortunate 18 who had died when a tower fell on them, were not singled out for destruction because they were "greater sinners" than anyone else.  He instead pointed out the need to repent for everyone, because murderous tyrants, falling towers or terrorists' bombs don't discriminate.  Evil is a part of our human condition.  We work for justice and peace, but mustn't be shaken in our faith when there are those who are for war.  It is for us to walk in the light of Christ so that we are always ready to meet him.  We pray for a happy, provided for exit from this life, but are ready for the unexpected.

In the end words do not suffice.  I do not know what greater good can possibly come out of this.  I was not there when God created the stars and set the earth on it's foundations, as He reminded Job when he asked a similar question.  I, like most of us, am numbed by the evil, and take solace in the random acts of kindness and heroism of performed by ordinary people on the scene.  And while these victims were certainly not being punished for their sins or those of their fathers and mothers, I am convinced that this darkness that covers us right now won't lift until we return to the Lord with sincere hearts and a repentant spirit. 

Apocalypse When?

The weather here in Jersey has been a bit erratic; Friday, December 21, for instance, it was stormy in the morning, followed by blue skies before noon, and then rather raw and overcast in the afternoon.  Nothing, though, to the suggest the much hyped Mayan end times that was supposed to go down that day.  Well, it's Sunday the 23rd, and we're still here.  I'm shocked at how many people I know, all rather sensible souls, who have been truly edgy over the impending apocalypse that wasn't. 

I believe it was St. Augustine who wrote that every age is allowed to think that they are the last in order to keep them from complacency.  While ours is not the only age that thought the end was nigh, there is no doubt that we are in a period of heightened expectations concerning the End of Days.  It seems that right now there are two schools of thought in Catholic-Christian circles concerning the eschaton.  One reads the Bible, and the Book of Revelation in particular, with an absolute literalism that ignores the obvious metaphorical and symbolic aspects of the book.  These people create elaborate time lines and try to match up current events with Biblical prophesy to determine where we're at in relation to the Second Coming.  The other side totally spiritualizes the notion of the end of the world, claiming the Bible speaks of events that have already past and posits that these oracles are talking allegorically or metaphorically about the continuing change of epochs and ages; for the first century Jews the fall of Jerusalem was like the end of the world, as was the sack of Rome for 5th century Romans.  Our society will pass eventually as well and it will seem like Doomsday to those living through it.  At best what we are hoping for is some kind of "golden age" where people return to God and form a truly just society.

I'm no scholar, I'm just a humble parish priest, but both ends of the spectrum seem off.   Second Peter mentions that the "elements will be dissolved by fire" (3:10).  The letter speaks specifically of a new heaven and new earth where the just will live.  That all humanity will share in the Resurrection, and that there is a Final Judgement that goes along with it is central to Jesus' teaching.  We should beware not to try to treat the Scriptures like a newspaper, at the same time not everything in the Bible is a metaphor.  Both Peter and Paul, especially in the fourth chapter of the latter's First Letter to the Thessalonians, write in rather unambiguous terms about the last things.  Jesus spoke in parables and John saw amazing visions, but the two Pillars of the Church broke it down quite plainly.  But remember, Jesus told us that no one knows the day or the hour of his return.  He does seem to mix prophesies about the end time with those concerning the fall of Jerusalem.  People have made a living off of trying to predict the End of the World based on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict or, back in the day, the progress of the Cold War.  It's a fools errand, so don't be duped. It's not that both views are completely wrong, but that they are by themselves incomplete and tend to lead people into erroneous views on our collective and communal destiny.

So, what's the answer?  Simply be ready.  Follow your vocation in life the best you know how.  Do your daily duties with diligence and care.  Be faithful to your commitments.  The rest will take care of itself, because in the end it's all in God's hands.  But most of all, Be Not Afraid!

And, just for a little fun, and Oldie but a Goodie by our friends at REM