Why I Hope to Die When I'm Meant to Die

Dr. Ezekiel "Zeke" Emanuel 

University of Pennsylvania bio-ethicist Ezekiel Emanuel has caused a bit of a stir with an article in the latest issue of The Atlantic Monthly stating that he hopes to die at 75 years of age. I'd never heard of Dr. Emanuel before, but should have since he was right in the middle of formulating the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obama Care. Oh, yeah, and his brother also happens to be Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago.

"Zeke," as his friends call him, is clear that he doesn't believe in euthanasia, and won't do things to purposely shorten his life, but once 75 hits he won't do anything to prolong it either. No colonoscopies, no stress tests, no doctor's visits of any kind after 75 years old.

Why?

Because the data shows that overall quality of life peaks at 40 and takes a slow decline until it falls off the table at roughly 75. Dr. Emanuel is not just talking about a person's physical health, but creativity and productivity as well. Artists, composers, scientists and philosophers tend to make the most important contributions to their respective fields by forty, and their last significant one before they reach 60. Nobel Prize winners are usually recognized for some breakthrough that they made in their late 40's. As a person progresses through their 80's one's cognitive, creative and physical abilities deteriorate to the point of making the quality of life increasingly poor. He argues that the breakthroughs made in increasing life expectancy are not so much extending life as prolonging the process of dying. Are their exceptions to this rule? Sure; and he reserves the right to change his mind in the future. But for now, at 75 most people are still living a high enough quality of life that it makes it a good time to pass on before things really start going down hill.

There are aspects of Dr. Emanuel's article I agree with. We in the United States today have an almost pathological obsession with extending physical life. We believe that, with technology, we will find a way to live for ever. We really do believe that 70 is the new 50, which he says is just delusional when we face the facts. I would add that our approach to medical research is a reflection of this delusion. We just don't want to collect money to find a cure for cancer-we want to "defeat" it, as if it were a foreign enemy. Quite often those blessed to have survived a deadly disease like cancer will say that they "beat it," as if it was done purely by a force of will. I'm sure they aren't thinking this way, but it's as if to say that the guy who doesn't "beat it" somehow didn't do all he could, or gave in to an "enemy." We believe that with science and medicine, and a strong resolve, we can beat mortality itself.

But both Dr. Emanuel's position that our years are better limited and those who want to extend life indefinitely are coming from the same point of view: that this is the only life worth living and there is nothing to look forward to after we die. So on the one hand it's better to live while we're still active and productive, calling it a life once we've come to the end of our prime, and on the other we need to find a way to prolong those meaningful years as long as possible, even if in the end we're whistling past the grave yard.

I don't know what Dr. Zeke's beliefs about an afterlife are, and most people still believe in God, even if they aren't terribly religious. But we, as a culture, live like atheists. I would say that most of us take going to heaven for granted, but if we really believed that I'm not sure we would be so afraid to face the reality of death on one hand, or want euthanasia on the other (California and Great Britain are the latest places considering legalizing "mercy" killing). Life is about activity and productivity, with a touch of creativity if we're lucky. If we are disabled, sick, or in anyway less then physically or cognitively up to snuff, then life must not be worth living. The solution is simple; do all we can avoid such a fate through diet, exercises, and medication, end our lives when these don't work anymore or at least don't impede the inevitable, as Emanuel advocates.

But Catholics need to live a different way. We believe that life has a purpose beyond the goals we set for ourselves. We were sent here for a purpose, and are called to spend our time on earth figuring out what that is and doing it. Sometimes, probably most of the time, we don't know what that is until we die and are shown the path we walked and the lives we touched. It's not for us to say when it's done, but for God to make that decision.

We walk a tight rope in a way. We should take advantage of medical science and care for our health, fostering the gift we've been given. All the same, we need to know that we may have 40 years or we may have 100, but our earthly life will end all the cholesterol medicine and power walks aren't going to change that.

Attaching the meaning of our lives to our physical, or even mental, activity level is limiting the things God can do through us. It says that a disabled or developmentally challenged person doesn't have the value of a "normal" person. He can't be as happy or satisfied as a "whole" man. We forget that those the world considers the least are here to teach the strong the value of love and compassion. Those who are old, no longer active are to pass on wisdom to the young. We believe that there is more to reality to what we can see and touch, and prayer is the bridge between the visible and invisible.  Those who can't do any longer still contribute in an incalculable way when they dedicate their time to prayer.

When I was a young seminarian there was a convent of contemplative nuns in the Hunts Point section of The Bronx whose whole mission was to pray for the men in formation for the Archdiocese of New York. Each sister had three or four seminarians that they prayed for. Once a year we went down and visited. My nun was Sr. Mary Thomas. Sr. Mary Thomas suffered from Alzheimer's. I'd go over to her and say hello, but she had no idea who I was. But she prayed for the name she had on an index card, and that name was mine. I'm here, at least in part, because of her prayers. She died many years ago. I believe that she is still praying for me, only now she knows who I am.

If we understand that life is so much bigger than our activity, productivity and creativity, we would have a different attitude toward death. Of course no one wants to suffer decline, or see a loved one suffer. I'm not saying that growing old is going to be easy if you just believe in Jesus. What I am saying is that faith in Christ leads us to trust in something greater than ourselves, and possibilities greater than our fears. Life only loses it's meaning if we only believe in ourselves, our activity and our plans, because those things pass. But when we let go, and allow God to set the agenda, we will see that the grave is not to be hoped for, but it's not to be feared either.

So, I'm not going to put a time limit on this thing called life on earth. If I die tomorrow, or if I'm around for another thirty of forty years, so be it. As long as I'm living like I'm meant to live and die when I'm meant to die.

Fatima, Our Lady of the Rosary from H2ONews

Our Lady of the Rosary From AOP (2008)

The Extraordinary Synod of Bishops and a Very Public Fight

The extraordinary synod in Rome concerned with challenges facing family life in relation to evangelization has begun. Briefly, the bishops meet every three years to discuss some topic of importance for the life of the Church. The agenda is set by the pope and the curia. The bishops make recommendations to the Holy Father, who then deliberates over the suggestions and acts accordingly. These synods are usually followed within a year or so with an apostolic exhortation summarizing the synod's conclusions and laying out practical actions to be taken. Last year's Evangelii Gaudium was Pope Francis' exhortation in response to the 2012 synod on the New Evangelization. This year's, only the third extraordinary synod to be called since they were instituted in 1965, is meant to be a lead in to next years regularly scheduled gathering, also on the family.

These triennial meeting usually come and go without much attention being paid to them by the outside world. In truth, they really don't get much notice inside the Church either, at least not until the exhortation is written. But both the Catholic and secular press have been talking about it for almost a year. The reason for the unusual buzz is a very public dispute that has broken out among the cardinals over the issue of whether divorced Catholics who have remarried without an annulment, or are living with a partner out of wedlock should be admitted to the sacraments. The current discipline, based on Jesus' teaching from Matthew chapter 19, is no.

Some prelates, lead by Cardinal Walter Kasper, argue that mercy must be the guiding principle in how the Church relates to sinners, and so, under certain circumstances, the divorced and remarried should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. Penance would need to be done, and of course the new union wouldn't be considered a sacramental marriage, but to deny these people Communion is to go against the mercy and compassion of Christ.

The opposing view, taken up publicly by Cardinal Raymond Burke, is that since the words of Christ in Scripture are very clear, that those who divorce and remarry are in an adulterous relationship, the present discipline can't be changed without doing harm to the Church's understanding of the indissolubility of marriage. To allow divorced and remarried people to receive communion without first obtaining a declaration of nullity would put the Church's discipline in conflict with her doctrine.

I think in the midst of this controversy, which has been sadly played out in the press, what is lost is what I believe to be the real news about the synod; that while the Pope set the topic, he's leaving the agenda to the bishops. These synods are usually rubber stamp affairs, but we really don't know how this is going to end. A criticism throughout the St. John Paul II-Benedict XVI years was that the bishops themselves had very little input into the synods. Well, they can't make that complaint this time. It was even announced that there would be a document, to be approved by the bishops, ready for the end of this year's session. What this will look like only the Holy Spirit knows; a definite change of protocol from synods past.

I think what's also gotten lost is that the synod will be covering many topics concerning the Church's ability to evangelize the family today. The pastoral care of the divorced and remarried are one among many topics, such as how the gay rights movement has changed societal views on the family and marriage. How does the Church respond to the needs of single parents? What have been the effects on the family of the widespread availability of artificial birth control and abortion? What economic pressures face families? How has the increased secularization of the culture impacted the handing on of the faith from one generation to the next? Parents are up against a lot today, and they need to know that the shepherds of the Church are supporting them in their vocations as Christian mothers and fathers.

As for the main controversy, I don't anticipate huge changes, at least not as big as Cardinal Kasper would like. The Holy Father has already tipped his hand a bit by setting up a commission ahead of the synod to look into annulment reform. While I appreciate Cardinal Kasper's position, I can't get around Matthew 19. Cardinal Burke's been uncompromising in his position, to he point of even opposing a discussion of annulment reform, which does seem extreme. The Anchoress has a good take on the "fight" between the the churchmen. She's critical of both, but especially of the lopsided coverage in some sections of the Catholic press sympathetic to Cardinal Kasper.

I do agree with Cardinal Burke that there's been so much anticipation built up about the Church's discipline changing that a possible negative backlash could occur if it doesn't come to pass. Many thought Pope Paul VI was going to change the Church's teaching on artificial contraception. When Humanae Vitae reaffirmed the traditional prohibition you could argue that his papacy was paralyzed after 1968 because the negative response, especially from the clergy, was so great.

Let us pray for the synod fathers as they meet. They will be joined by an unprecedented number of lay observers, including married couples from around the world, to discern God's will. I'll have more to write over the next two weeks, I'm sure.

Role of the Family from AOP

Islam and the Nature of Reformation

Islamic terrorism has been with us, in one form or another, since at least the 1970's with the rise of the PLO. At that time, and for most of the decades that followed, the fact that these terrorists were Muslim was secondary to their political objectives: the destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Religion played a role, but they weren't blowing up buildings or hijacking planes over doctrine. They believed that the former Palestinian Mandate was unjustly divided by the UN, resulting in the transfer of land from the Arab natives to the the Jewish settlers. Whether we agree with this assessment or not, it's not hard to see that while religion colored the struggle, this was not a fight over doctrine but land. 

In addition, the PLO was one among many terrorist organizations, some with a religious identification, like the IRA, but also others of a purely ideological bent that were active at the time. There were Basque separatists in Spain and the FALN that fought for Puerto Rican independence from the United States. The Weather Underground and Symbiosis Liberation Army in the U.S grew out of the more radical elements of the 1960's counter culture. Even as late as the '90's there was the conservative militia movement here that spawned the homegrown terrorists responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing. Thus Islamic terrorists were one among many political groups using fear to advance an agenda. In fact they usually weren't even identified by their religious affiliation but as Arabs, an ethnic qualifier. So again, while the stereo type of the Arab terrorist existed, you also had the Irish and Marxist bomb throwers to go along with him. 

With the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993 there was an escalation in Islamic groups using terror as a weapon. These groups still wanted to see the destruction of Israel, but newer bodies like al Qaeda had broader, more purely "religious" goals in mind; the establishment of fundamentalist Islamic governments in the Middle East and the destruction of Western Society. It wasn't until the attacks of September 11, 2001 that the West really took the threat seriously. There was a sense in the last few years, with the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and the war in Afghanistan winding down, that the threat was averted, or at least pacified to an extent.  Now we have the rise of the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL or IS, depending on who you read), a group that has it's origins in al Qaeda, but makes that bunch look like meeting of Quakers. With each escalation in Islamist terrorism many in the West increasingly identify Islam with terror, in spite of calls from Western leaders to reject such simplistic stereotypes. 

Whether one equates Islam with terror, or sees groups like IS as perversions of Islam, a refrain that I've heard repeated over the last 13 years is that Islam needs to experience a sort of Reformation, much like Christianity did in the 16th century. The argument goes that the fundamentalist reading of the Koran, which is used to justify terrorism, is still the most prevalent, so Islamic scholars and religious leaders need to go back, re-read their sacred text in light of Enlightenment understanding, bringing their faith "up to date." The problem with this line of thinking is that it sees the job of reform to be one of updating and making modern, when that is the farthest thing from the truth. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli didn't see themselves as updating Christianity. Catholicism was seen as the Medieval perversion of the pure practice of the primitive church. They weren't trying to update, they were trying to get back to what they understood to be the roots of true Christianity. The Reformers didn't perceive the problem facing the Western Church to be that it had stuck too close to a narrow, "fundamentalist" reading of the religion, but had strayed too far from from Christianity's origins. What was needed was a going back to the Bible with a greater fidelity to the Word, unadulterated by philosophical speculation, which, in their view, was precisely where the Catholic Church went wrong to begin with. 

Catholicism isn't a "Religion of the Book," in so far as it doesn't see the Bible as the sole authority. Revelation has two components: Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Both are intertwined but distinct. While defining Tradition can be elusive, we can say that it represents the ongoing interpretation of Scripture through time, guided by the Holy Spirit and expressed through the writings of the Church Fathers, in the Church's liturgical prayer, and in the creeds and doctrines handed down from the time of the Apostles to today. Another way of looking at Tradition is to say that it represents what was passed on by word of mouth from the Apostles, where as Scripture is what was written down. This 2,000 year old store house is guarded, for lack of a better term, by the Magisterial teaching authority of the pope in union with the bishops, the successors of the Apostles. While they protect this deposit of faith, guided by the Spirit, they, and the Church in general understands that just because something was done in the first or second century doesn't mean that it has to stay that way. Catholic doctrine doesn't change, but our understanding deepens, and how it is lived out develops over time. The faith, as St. Augustine might say, is ever ancient, ever new, leading us back to the truth while at the same time teaching us how to live as disciples in this present moment of history. 

Even though Protestants reject the idea of a Sacred Tradition that shares an equal position with Scripture, some, more recent adherers to the Reformed tradition acknowledge that they do approach the faith in ways colored by the particular communities they have been brought up in, not simply by a pure reading of Scripture. While Presbyterians, Anglicans and Lutherans may share basic core beliefs, each too has a different take on things based on their denomination's spiritual heritage. 

Within the Catholic faith, because of this idea of Tradition, which includes things like ecumenical councils, synods of bishops, national episcopal conferences and other such ecclesiastical gatherings, the Church has a built in mechanism for reform.  And I believe many Reformed communities have similar mechanisms, whether they like to think of it in those terms or not. These mechanisms for reform work best, and are true to the real meaning of reform when they are not simply used to "update" but seek to be true to the teachings Christ; understanding his words and actions and discerning how to better imitate Him in the here and now.

I end here for now, only asking if such a mechanism of reform exists in Islam? It's not a rhetorical question, because I really don't know. It strikes me that al Qaeda and IS sees themselves as the real reformers of a religion that has strayed from the revealed word of God. They are a "People of the Book" in a true sense. It's the military dictatorship of Egypt, the monarchy of Saudi Arabia and the secular state of Turkey that are in need of reform so that they will be faithful again to the Koran. As far as I know Islam possesses no equivalent of Sacred Tradition, explicitly or implicitly, that can help be a reference point for reform as the West understands it. I don't doubt that there are Muslims horrified by the beheading, who don't to want to see a caliphate established, and do see terrorism as going against the basic tenets of their faith. But how do they go about the job of reform, especially since they do not have a clear religious hierarchy universally recognized as authoritative, or a tradition of reform in the Western sense to begin with?

There is a debate about how accurate it is to say that 10th or 11th century Islamic scholars "saved" the writings of Aristotle, but there does seem to be agreement that Muslim commentaries on the Greek philosopher were influential on European thinkers, including St. Thomas Aquinas. Maybe this philosophical tradition can be a starting point of some possible reform of Islam. But the Western idea of reform is only going to happen if there is a tradition (there's that word again) of reading the Koran in anything other than a literal way. 

At a later date I hope to explore the idea that the fundamentalist reading of the Bible is actually the more modern way of interpreting the Good Book, and that true reform involves exploring how how it was originally read in the Church, taking various senses of meaning into account. Then asking again if such a process is familiar to Islam.

Guardian Angels from AOP

Therese de Lisieux from "Who Cares About The Saints?" with Fr. James Mar...

The Life and Lessons of St. Thérèse of Lisieux

The Feast of St. Therese is today. This is a reflection by Fr. Barron from last year.

World Mission Day from AOP

Feast of the Archangels from the Apostelship of Prayer

Hating Derek Jeter

I have to pause from all the heavy news to write about Derek Jeter's swansong this week. I wrote something when he announced his retirement back in the spring, but never went back to it. While the Yankees still have a game left in Boston, Jeter made it clear that he has played his last game at shortstop. The view from short at Yankee Stadium is what he wants to take with him into retirement. So he'll probably DH at least one game up at Fenway, but the leather will be packed away for good.

I had the privilege of seeing Jeter play in his last game at Wrigley Field here back in May. The Chicago fans were gracious, giving him a standing ovation before every at bat. While New York won the game in extra innings, there was no dramatic moment for the Captain. I think he went something like one for six, and stranded men is scoring position at least twice. But that didn't really matter to me, and I'm sure the other forty thousand fans who came out that afternoon. We came to say thank you, and good bye, knowing that a special player was passing from the game; one we will never see the likes of again.

While this scene was repeated in ball parks across the Majors this summer, not everyone has shared in the good feelings. The last week or so some in the press have decided to take this opportunity to knock Jeter, not just a little, but in the most classless ways possible. I get it I guess; if ratings have traditionally been king, then trending is quickly becoming the emperor of the New Media. Nothing will get buzz going like an aggressive attack on a well loved icon. I'm not saying that these critics aren't sincere, only that I'm pretty sure they put a little more mustard on their rhetorical fastballs than they ordinarily would for the sake of a few more clicks on You Tube.

There are basically two basic lines of attack: 1, that DJ is overrated, and 2, he's been disingenuous in his exploiting of this "farewell tour."

I actually think that the second knock, exemplified by a tirade by local New York sports commentator Chris Carlin, has merit.  A bit much? Sure, but at least he had someone debating him, and questioning the appropriateness and motives for the "tour" are fair, especially because Carlin believes the spectacle to be out of step with the rest of Jeter's actions in the past.

The over rated charge has been one that has followed Jeter his entire career. Coming up during the steroid / sabermetric era, when power stats became artificially inflated, while also disproportionately worshiped by a new breed of math geek fan, DJ didn't seem to fit in. Jeter may have been a part of the first group of shortstops who could hit as well as field, but he didn't hit home runs. He also struck out too much and didn't walk enough to please the disciples of the new sabermetrics paradigm. The three top shortstops of the late 90's early 00's were A-Rod, Nomar Garciaparra and Jeter, and this was the order they were always listed in in terms of ranking. When A-Rod was traded to the Yankees and shifted to third base, the joke was that Jeter couldn't be the best shortstop in baseball since he wasn't even the best at the position on his own team. Keith Olbermann drudged up many of these arguments, using advanced statistical analysis, including a liberal use of WAR (aka WARP), to make his point. I'm not even going to get into the the debate over the validity of WAR as an accurate indicator of a player's value, only to say that I don't think it has any validity; this convoluted stat is inherently subjective, which flies in the face of what statistical analysis is supposed to be about.

But even accepting the fact that, besides ending his career sixth on the all time hit list, tenth in runs scored (and leads active players) he doesn't stack up statistically, especially in the power numbers, all time or with his contemporaries, I have to ask one question: where are his contemporaries, at least at short? Nomar, through no fault of his own, suffered from injuries in the last five years of his career and retired early. A-Rod? Do I really have to go there? Jeter is the last man standing, at least the last one standing who can lift his head high.

I think Jeter is not above criticism, especially for the overly sentimental commercials and never ending salutes that seem to go against the the well crafted image he has fostered as a team first, individual second, kind of player. I have nothing against advanced matrix or statistical analysis, but to not see that Derek Jeter's value to the Yankees, and baseball, over the past two decades is greater than what can be measured on a spread sheet is blindness. There is still a question about if he will DH tomorrow in Boston or not. But once the season is officially over I'll go into more retail about how I see Jeter's legacy.

Francis Makes News for Doing the Mundane, or: Who Am I To Judge: Second in a Series

Last time out I commented on Pope Francis presiding over the marriages of twenty couples in St. Peter's, and what a fuss it caused in the press. The commotion was due to the fact that these couples came from varying backgrounds; first time married, second tries after an annulment, or couples  who had been cohabitating previous to the wedding day. My main point was that, while the symbolic nature of the act shouldn't be overlooked, in reality the Holy Father was doing what parish priests the world over have been doing for a very long time; bringing these relationships into accord with the Christian understanding of what marriage is, and thus the people themselves into a deeper participation with the life of the Church.

This has been a hall mark of Pope Francis' brief papacy so far; offering both words and actions that appear more revolutionary than they are. In part this is because, unlike his immediate predecessors he doesn't talk like an intellectual but rather as a pastor, in plain, but colorful images easy to understand. For instance one of the Pope's more flamboyant comments came when he told an audience that if "martians" came knocking on the church door looking to be baptized we should oblige them. Obviously he wasn't commenting on the existence of extraterrestrials, but rather on pastors who put unreasonable requirements on parents seeking to baptize their children. This is not so much different than things Benedict said as pope, but only that the Pope Emeritus didn't say it in such a pithy, evocative way. Francis' comments on economics have gotten a lot of press, and criticism, but he is quick to point out that everything he has said and written can be found in the Catechism, and isn't out of step with things promulgated by his predecessor. Again, it's a matter of tone and vocabulary more than substance.

No words of the Pope have gotten more press than his famous quote, "Who am I to judge," when asked about his views on gays in the Church. The press interpreted that response as representing either a shift in Church teaching on homosexual acts, or at least a greater toleration for Catholics living the gay lifestyle. But was that really the question he was asked, and was that the totality of the answer?

I offer both the original question and answer here below.  Remember the context, which is an impromptu news conference aboard the jet taking the Holy Father back to Rome after last year's World Youth Day in Rio. He is being asked a question about a cardinal who had been under investigation for an alleged inappropriate relationship with an adult man.

The Question to Pope Francis from Ilse, a journalist on the Papal flight

Ilse: I would like to ask permission to pose a rather delicate question.  Another image that went around the world is that of Monsignor Ricca and the news about his personal life.  I would like to know, your Holiness, what will be done about this question.  How should one deal with this question and how does your Holiness wish to deal with the whole question of the gay lobby?

The Pope’s Answer

Regarding the matter of Monsignor Ricca, I did what Canon Law required and did the required investigation.  And from the investigation, we did not find anything corresponding to the accusations against him.  We found none of that.  That is the answer.  But I would like to add one more thing to this: I see that so many times in the Church, apart from this case and also in this case, one  looks for the “sins of youth,” for example, is it not thus?, And then these things are published.  These things are not crimes.  The crimes are something else: child abuse is a crime.  But sins, if a person, or secular priest or a nun, has committed a sin and then that person experienced conversion, the Lord forgives and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives.  When we go to confession and we truly say “I have sinned in this matter,” the Lord forgets and we do not have the right to not forget because we run the risk that the Lord will not forget our sins, eh?  This is a danger.  This is what is important: a theology of sin.  So many times I think of St. Peter: he committed one of the worst sins denying Christ.  And with this sin they made him Pope.  We must think about fact often.

But returning to your question more concretely: in this case [Ricca] I did the required investigation and we found nothing.  That is the first question.  Then you spoke of the gay lobby.  Agh… so much is written about the gay lobby.  I have yet to find on a Vatican identity card the word gay.  They say there are some gay people here.  I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good.  They are bad.  If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this point beautifully but says, wait a moment, how does it say, it says, these persons must never be marginalized and “they must be integrated into society.”

The problem is not that one has this tendency; no, we must be brothers, this is the first matter.  There is another problem, another one: the problem is to form a lobby of those who have this tendency, a lobby of the greedy people, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of Masons, so many lobbies.  This is the most serious problem for me. And thank you so much for doing this question. Thank you very much!

I encourage you to read the entire quote, but the highlighted parts alone give a fuller expression to what the Holy Father was saying.

The issue for the Pope is not whether an individual is gay or not, but that the person have an openness to following Christ and a spirit of repentance when he or she sins. When one sins, even in the sexual realm, even if it involves breaking a vow, and, yes, even when it involves a same sex partner, the attitude of the penitent and the Church should be one of sincere repentance, compassion, and trust in God's mercy. The earth isn't going to open up and swallow the person alive, nor are thunder bolts going to flash from the heavens and strike the person down. But if we really hear what he's saying, on the one hand we shouldn't over react, for lack of a better term, to sexual sin, even homosexual acts, but still understand their inherent sinful nature and return to the Lord with confidence. Sin is still sin, but Christ came to take away the sins of the world, and the Sacrament of Reconciliation is the concrete and effective expression of that fact.

Where the Pope does have a problem is with a gay lobby, if one even exists (and he does some fancy verbal footwork around answering if such a lobby indeed exists at the Vatican). As has been his style Pope Francis is both direct and just vague enough when he speaks to make you wonder what he's driving at. He speaks of a gay lobby as a "most serious problem", but really doesn't elaborate about what he means, beyond comparing it to a lobby of greedy people, of politicians, and of Masons (there's a blast from the past). Then the Holy Father politely, but abruptly, ends the answer.

If I could be so bold, I think that the point is that lobbies advocate for a particular cause or constituency. It tries to justify and promote the activities of the constituency represented. The gun lobby tries to secure the rights of gun owners, and fights against gun control legislation. More innocuously, the corn lobby or some other agriculture lobby will fight for the rights of farmers, seeking subsidies or some other favors from the government.  While as Catholics we are to be sympathetic and compassionate, we can't harbor lobbies that advocate for those dedicated to a lifestyle contrary to Gospel values. There are groups within the Church like Courage, made up of gay Catholics dedicated to living the chaste life. It doesn't attempt to change their orientation, but helps them live in fidelity with the Christian understanding of human sexuality. Usually when a "Gay Lobby" is referred to in the Church it's a group of people who, aren't simply looking to stop discrimination, but also looking to justify a lifestyle contrary to the Gospel. This justification is opposed to the spirit of repentance because it doesn't recognize homosexual acts as sinful. If sin is not recognized then repentance will not be manifested, and so God's mercy frustrated.

Again, as the Holy Father states in his answer, there is nothing in his words that can't be found in some form in the Catechism. But I'm not suggesting that Pope Francis isn't offering something new. He is. It's a tome of reconciliation. It's a tome that doesn't deny sin, but promotes mercy. It doesn't focus on the ugliness of sin but on the beauty of mercy, compassion and, yes, repentance.

It does acknowledge that in defending the truth Catholics can come off as judgmental and harsh. We definitely need to find a new vocabulary, because meanings and nuances of words do change over time. I'm thinking of the word "disordered" in particular. For those familiar with Thomistic philosophy there is nothing wrong with it being used in the context of sexual orientation, but today it has taken on a therapeutic, mental health connotation that makes it look like we are making a judgment on some one's sanity which isn't necessarily the case.

In the end, the Pope is still Catholic, and is trying to show all of us they way to live the truth with charity.

News Flash: Pope Francis Makes News for Doing the Ordinary, First in a Series

Pope Francis made news this weekend by doing what thousands of priests around the world do all the time; he regularized the marriages of 20 couples at the Vatican. Some of the couples were in traditional situations, meaning that they were attempting marriage for the first time and weren't cohabitating ahead of the ceremony. Others were married civilly, had had annulments or were living with their partner before approaching the altar. This may come as a shock to many none Catholics, and to even a few of the baptized, but normalizing these types of irregular arrangements is what the Church does. We do it on the parish level all the time. I would say that a healthy percentage of the weddings that I've done fall into these categories. This is yet another case of the Pope making news for doing the routine.

I will not deny the symbolic nature of the Holy Father's actions. The pope, in his day to day duties, doesn't do things like weddings and baptisms. He is not a "super" parish priest. His roles are primarily those of teaching and governance. So when he does go out of his way to perform these "mundane" tasks they become a teaching opportunity for the Church and the world. Are there still local pastors who would turn away such irregular cases, especially those couples who are living with each other out of wedlock? Sure: so a clear message is being sent that the pastoral approach, not the legal approach, should be the default. 

But it doesn't change the fact that what Pope Francis did over the weekend is very much in line with the standard practice of the Church, especially in Latin America where he comes from; a region in which many countries demand that a separate civil ceremony take place before the religious one. There can be a lag time of weeks, months and quite often years between civil and Church weddings, for various reasons. So, these are not new waters for our Argentine pontiff.

I'm not sure how the Holy Father approached the situation, but I can tell you how many priests handle cohabitating couples. Some priests might refuse to do the wedding unless they separate, most encourage them to move apart but don't make it a prerequisite for getting married. We encourage abstinence before the wedding. When they go to confession before the wedding, as all couples should no matter their situation, I always make abstinence a part of the penance. I understand; telling people that they shouldn't sin isn't really a proper penance, but by incorporating into the Sacrament of Reconciliation it stresses the importance of what they are entering into. I've never had anyone object, and I'm often thanked. Are there priests who ask no questions and give tacit approval to people living in sin (let's not be afraid to call it what it is): again, sure. But they're really not helping the couple reconcile properly with he community or grow in their personal relationship with Christ.

As for the couples who were divorced, either after a sacramental or civil marriage, I'm sure the proper canonical processes were observed to make sure that they were free to marry in the Church.

In spite of the fact that what the Pope did was so ordinary, there were still reactions from secular news sources proclaiming the novelty of it all, exemplified by this snippet from a Reuters report:


"Francis, who is the first non-European pope in 1,300 years, has expressed tolerance regarding other topics that are traditionally taboo in the Church, asking 'who am I to judge?' a gay person 'who seeks God and has good will'.

His approach contrasts with that of his predecessor, the German Pope Benedict, who said that threats to the traditional family undermined the future of humanity itself."

The now famous line, "Who am I to judge," really deserves it's own post because it's been so misinterpreted, in part because it's been removed from the context of the question Francis was asked and the relatively lengthy answer he gave, and the willful ignorance of the media in reporting it. But following the line, yet again trying to contrast Francis with the Pope Emeritus, is particularly shameful, and I will address it here now.

To suggest that the actions of Pope Francis over the weekend, or in his papacy up to now, are some sort of repudiation of his predecessor is absurd. Can we see a change of style or of emphasis?; without a doubt. But before we get too ahead of ourselves let's remember that in June it was reported that the Holy Father, while addressing a charismatic convention, said that:

"'Married couples are sinners just like everyone else, but they want to continue with love, in all its fecundity. They continue in the faith, bearing children.' ... 'Let us pray to the Lord and ask him to protect the family in the crisis with which the devil wants to destroy it,” the Pope said. 'Families are the domestic church where Jesus grows in the love of a married couple, in the lives of their children. This is why the devil attacks the family so much,' Francis explained. 'The devil doesn’t want it and tries to destroy it. The devil tries to make love disappear from there.”'

Wow, the Devil is trying to destroy the family? Bearing children is central to married love? Doesn't sound like someone trying to redefine marriage, or who believes that recent social changes effecting the family represent an unqualified good.

There has been much debate in recent months about Francis' position on gay marriage, with some suggesting that he supports or could tolerate gay civil unions. But as Archbishop of Buenos Aires his opposition to gay marriage was called "medieval" by that county's president, and he's been quoted as saying that the idea of gay marriage represents an "anthropological regression." Again, a far cry from the feel good message disseminated by the main stream press.

In all this mangling of the Pope's words and actions we lose the fact that he really is doing something new. But it has nothing to do with changing doctrines or disciplines. It has to do with getting back to the heart of the Gospel, and understanding that policies and disciplines are there to help us live as more faithful disciples of Jesus; they are not to be simply followed for their own sake. He has said that we can't be afraid of change, and that we should have the courage to change structures, policies, and even disciplines if they no longer help us in following Christ faithfully, and in spreading the Gospel to the nations.

This last part is the key. If there is a change the Pope is trying to effect it is to move the Church from maintenance mode to mission mode. The Church doesn't exist to be a self sustaining institution but to be the herald of the Good News. What that means I'll get into in the next post.

Francis represents a change of tone from his predecessors, to be sure, but not a change of doctrine. If we look at the words of both Benedict and Francis we will see convergence in mind while a difference in tone. One is a theologian, the other is a pastor. One teaches what we believe the other shows us how it's lived in practice. Unfortunately there are many reporting the news who can't, or refuse, to see the difference.

Part two of this post will cover the famous "Who am I to judge?" quote, and the mission of the Church to reach out to the peripheries.

Wars and Rumors of War, Part 1

 

Take heed that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, `I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs. Matthew 24:4-8 (RSV)

The name of this blog was inspired by the words of John the Baptist as recorded by the Evangelist St. Matthew. In this passage from Matthew 3 where he warns those who came to him for the baptism of repentance that he offered that a judgement was coming, and so their repentance needed to be sincere. Jesus was the embodiment of that judgment that John spoke of, but rather than with fire and wrath, Our Lord came with a gentler approach. John the prophet wants to spur people to follow the right path, Jesus wants to assure them that they will find a loving, merciful God when they get there and, yes, he will wait patiently for the return of the sinner.
  
Nonetheless a time of definitive judgement will come; it's simply a matter of when. As we move more into the autumn, closer to the end of the liturgical year the readings will reflect this reality. The Church has a funny way of teaching us along with the seasons; so as nature seems to be experiencing a death of sorts by way of the trees losing their leaves and the hours of daylight running short we are reminded that death, judgement and the End Times are realities that cannot be avoided. 

Trying to discern the when and how this will take place is as old as the Church herself. But this is foolishness. It's enough to know that it will happen to keep us awake and ready, or at least it should. 

People ask me now, considering all the tumult in the world, if these are the end times. Bear in mind I've been asked this question for the last twenty-five years, which tells me that people are always shocked that world and national events are, by nature, unpredictable and unstable. I will admit that the upheaval we are passing through now does seem to be more intense than we have experienced in recent history. All the same, since no one knows the day of the hour I feel foolish trying to answer the question at all. But my gut answer is no. We are not witnessing the end of the world, or even the beginning of the end. 

But this doesn't mean that I don't think that we are at crossroads, and that something is ending, with something new, that we probably can't even imagine, beginning.

The Venerable Fulton Sheen promoted a theory of historical development that cut world history into roughly five hundred year epochs. At the dawn of the Christian Era was the birth of Christ. Five hundred years later the Roman Empire fell and a new Western Civilization began to take shape. In 1054 we have the schism between Rome and Constantinople, that split the Church in two. In 1519 the Protestant Reformation begins, causing divisions in the Church as well as political divides in Europe. This coincided with the age of exploration, and revolutions in science and industry. When he spoke in the 1970's he saw that another five-hundred year period was coming to an end. A unified Christian culture in the West was on its last legs, the Arab-Muslim world was on the rise after centuries of European domination, and the culture in general was splintering. He saw the century ahead, the beginning of the Third Millennium as marking the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. 

In light of this theory I think we need to look soberly at what's going on right now in the world. Al Qaeda has morphed into ISIS (or ISIL or IS, depending on the acronym you prefer) and is engaging in terrorism of the most barbaric fashion imaginable. And yes, I do believe that their organization is present in some form here in the U.S. waiting for an opportunity to strike. 

Russia is resuming their expansionist goals that were suspended at the end of the Cold War. I personally think Vladamir Putin's objectives are more Czarist than Soviet, but either way it's foolish to dismiss him as a 19th century throwback who's on the wrong side of history. Hitler had Napoleonic ambitions out of step with the Brave New World people were envisioning after the disaster of World War I, and look at the havoc he caused along the way to personal and national destruction. 

As a side bar, in general I don't see Hitler and Putin as having all that much in common, but there is an interesting similarity in the situations that one was and the other is trying to take advantage of. It's been said that Germany was forced to sign a surrender treaty at the end of the Great War, but was never really defeated definitively on the battle field. By 1918 the war was essentially a stalemate, with the late entry of the US on the side of the Allies making victory for the Central Powers an impossible goal, even if tactical defeat wasn't eminent. The soldiers went home, Germany was forced to suffer severe "peace" conditions, but never really felt like that they had lost. What they did feel was let down by their leaders, both military and political. This made the rise of a nationalistic party like the Nazis possible. In the same way the USSR was never really defeated by the US in a military encounter. We had our Vietnam and they had Afghanistan, but we never went head to head (thank God), and so the dissolution of the Soviet Union didn't really feel like a defeat to the Russian people but was seen as a political failure. Russia has always seen itself as the protector of the Slavs, and had imperial ambitions in the region going back to the Czars, so what Putin is up to is very much in line with Russian aspirations through the ages. Like Hitler wanted to revive German national pride, so Putin is taping into Russia's recent and distant past to unify his country's resolve and sense of purpose. 

We have not heard much about Venezuela's trouble's lately, but that country is still in civil unrest, and Latin American countries like Brazil and Argentina are experiencing political, economic and social convulsions. 

Again, not much in the news about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the last couple of weeks, or about the Iranian or North Korean nuclear programs, but we know those situations can heat up on a moment's notice.

I haven't even talked about the social, political and economic crises at home, and I don't plan to. I think you get the point: there's a lot going on. Wars, rumors of war, as well as epidemics and natural disasters all seeming to be happening at once. It's easy to believe that Biblical prophesies are coming to pass and the world is coming to an end. I believe that the words of our Lord are coming to pass, but that the world is not ending. A world, if you will, is in it's final hours though. I'll leave the judgement as to whether Fulton Sheen was prophetic or lucky about his timing to others. But we are in a period of epochal change, and what this means for the faithful I'll leave for the next installment to explore.

Introduction to the Rosary | Columbia Catholic Ministry

A Video On The Nativity of Mary

First Impressions on the Suspension of Fulton Sheen's Cause

 

Venerable Fulton Sheen's cause for canonization has hit an inexplicable wall. Inexplicable because we aren't talking about some revelation of a previously unknown impropriety, or the discovery of heresy in his writings that would disqualify him being raised to the altars. No, the problem is that both the Archdiocese of New York, where Archbishop Sheen served as an auxiliary bishop, lived most of his adult life and is presently entombed in St. Patrick's Cathedral's crypt, and the Diocese of Peoria, IL., where he was born and raised and whose staff has been handling the canonization process up to now, can't agree on what to do with his remains. Peoria wants the body so it can be examined and first class relics collected. New York is saying that Archbishop Sheen's wishes, spelled out in his will, was for his final resting place to be St. Patrick's, and his family wants these wishes respected. This unexpected pause puts on hold Sheen's beatification that some were expecting could happen as early as next year.

I was ready to come out with guns blazing on this, but reading The Anchoress this morning made me take a pause and reset. But even with the cooling off period I'm seething over this development. The word that came to my mind first was "scandal." And it is scandalous that this disagreement is being handled in such a public manner. It disheartens the faithful and gives ammunition to secular critics. It gives off the impression to all that the Church is about power and politics, and is not actually interested in promoting the truth. Both Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York and Bishop Jenky, the Bishop of Peoria are honorable men, and I do have confidence, as Elizabeth Scalia does, that this is a bump in the road that will be resolved quickly.

I'm sure Peoria, which has done most of the heavy lifting up to now feels pushed around by New York, who they may perceive as trying to jump in to grab the glory at the end, and felt the need to go public with this dispute as it's only recourse. New York does have a responsibility to respect Fulton Sheen's final wishes, and the continued wishes of his surviving relatives. And while he may have been a small town boy from El Paso, Illinois, Fulton Sheen was a New Yorker through and through, and his desire to be laid to rest there was heart felt. All this is true. But we hear a lot of talk in the press these days about "optics"; that things need to look good as well as be good, that people's perceptions of reality matter almost as much as the reality itself. While both sides have a point, they really do need to think about how this all looks, sit down together and work this thing out.

For those of us who toil in the apologetics vineyard, even if only in a small corner of it like myself, Fulton Sheen is a hero. He was a pioneer in using emerging media, first radio and later more famously television, to spread the Gospel. He wrote over 60 books, and also managed to head up the U.S. office of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, a main fundraising arm for the Church's missionary efforts. During his heyday in the 1950's he had one of the most popular shows on TV, and was only surpassed by Billy Graham as the most recognized Christian figure in the U.S.. He went out of favor a bit after his death in 1979, but his stature has made a steady comeback since the 90's due to the republication of his books and videos.

I only knew the old, frail Fulton Sheen, epitomized by his encounter with Pope St. John Paul II at St. Patrick's only two months before his death. The image we usually see is of the two men embracing, Sheen with tears in his eyes. But I remember as a boy watching on television that as Archbishop Sheen approached John Paul in the sanctuary he seemed to collapse to his knees with great emotion, startling the attendants, and the Holy Father, who quickly moved to help him back up. A loyal son of the Church, as the Pope would describe him, he would have knelt for anyone wearing the shoes of the fisherman, but he knew the historical significance of this man, from the Communist Block, becoming pope at that time. He had preached vigorously against atheistic communism his whole life, could this be the one who would help turn the tide of history? It was as if he was Simeon waiting in the temple, not for the Messiah, but for confirmation that his work hadn't been in vain. With the election of John Paul II he knew that the beginning of the end of atheistic communism had begun (as some inside the Kremlin would later admit they thought themselves the day the Polish Pope first appeared on the Loggia). So while he may have knelt for the Pope simply because he was the pope, I'm not sure he would have done so with such purpose had it been another man. And yes, he was dead two months later, as if to say, your servant can go in peace; that which I have been praying for has been set in motion.

I didn't understand all that as a 12 year old boy. I only saw the devotion and the tears, and they've stuck with me all these years later. As I got older and discovered his recorded sermons and TV shows for myself it all came together. There are many great Catholic apologists around today using the internet and other new forms of social communication to get the Word out. Fr. Robert Barron, the closest thing to a Fulton Sheen we have today, has observed that the Venerable bishop would have given his right arm to take advantage of outlets like You Tube and Twitter. But whether we're out there in front, like the Word on Fire ministry, or like many of us who work the information superhighway on our spare time, we are all Fulton Sheen's children. My prayer is that whatever the disagreement is, it may be resolved soon and Archbishop Sheen's cause may carry on to a favorable end. 

Living Between Dorothy Day and St. Michael: A Reflection on my First Year as Pastor of St. John Bosco, Chicago

 

August eighth marked my one year anniversary as pastor of St. John Bosco Parsh, Chicago. It passed without fanfare, and to be honest, without me remembering that it was the date of my arrival in 2013. Someone asked me the other day if I'd been here a year yet, thus making me do the math in my head. So, with one year under the belt, here's my perspective on life at Bosco.

To put it simply, I've seen two great realities converge in this year, realities that are usually seen as mutually exclusive, but I, increasingly, think not. One is that the material needs of the people are great. Many families are being squeezed by the present economic situation. The politicians can spin it any way they want; there are many unemployed or under employed people living from rent check to rent check, utility bill to utility bill not knowing how they'll pay them. The demands on our emergency family fund and food pantry is at an all time high, and this isn't an exaggeration.

The second is that more and more people are coming reporting problems of a preternatural nature: things moving in their house, seeing unexplainable shadows or themselves experiencing some form of demonic oppression or infestation. The common link is that these people, or someone close to them or someone living in their apartment building have dabbled or are involved in occult activities. Can some of these events be chalked up to mental illness or an overactive imagination? Sure. Just like not everyone who comes to the door looking for a handout is legit, not everyone claiming some demonic episode is on the level. And with a little experience one can learn to tell the difference, in both situations. But I just don't believe in mass hysteria, and really it's not hysteria at all. The people who come are generally very discreet, and are unsure of what's happening. In a strange way this is one sign that something probably is happening.

Like I implied at the start, issues of social justice and spiritual warfare are usually seem as preoccupations of two separate "camps" within Catholicism. People who read America or Commonweal and vote Democrat are perceived as usually being more concerned about the plight of the poor and economic justice. Those who read National Catholic Register or visit the Spirit Daily website regularly and vote Republican will wear St. Benedict metals and believe in demonic possession. But that has to change.

Pope Francis has spoken a great deal about economic issues, but has also about the reality of Satan. He has even linked the two things, implying that the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a few is a product of both unjust systems and the machinations of the evil one (I read this a few months ago, and went back to try to find the article but couldn't. A reminder to me to bookmark more). 

Obviously when a family comes in need of rent assistance or food I'm not suggesting that we sprinkle holy water on them and send them on their way.  We as a parish need to do what we can to meet their immediate needs, while learning how to network more effectively with state and Church agencies to facilitate long range help. Also, we need to advocate for reforms that put people and families at the heart of our nation's economic and political life.

There is too this dark spiritual undercurrent. Secularists believe that reason replaces faith, but in truth  as traditional religion fades superstition increases, as Pope Benedict once said. We are hardwired for the transcendent, and if we don't seek it through the conventional avenues people will find others. Spiritualism and occult practices are on the rise, in part, because Catholicism demands surrender to God's will and the occult promises control over spiritual forces, and by extension the natural world. But these are uncontrollable forces and the ministers of the Church are left to deal with the ramifications of playing with unholy fire.

To wrap up, my conclusion is that as a Church we shouldn't choose between social justice and spiritual warfare; we're not either devoted to Dorothy Day or St. Michael. We don't need to be doing both at the same time, but we need to be doing both. And I admit, I can't articulate where the Holy Father is coming from when he connects the two realities; I'm pretty much taking his word for it. Not just because he's the Pope, but because I've seen it with my own two eyes, even if I don't have the words to explain the reality. 

Pius X: The Under Appreciated Pope Saint

One afternoon, when I was probably thirteen or 14 years old, I found myself hanging out around our parish school building, outside the cafeteria. This was unusual because I went to public school, and while I attended CCD classes there on Sunday mornings and, by this point, Wednesday afternoons for my entire childhood, I really didn't know the building that well. The cafeteria is in the basement, and I hardly ever went there, and had never previously exited through the outside doors. The reasons for me being in that location are lost to the fog of time, but there I was. The cafeteria, like I said, was in the basement, and this particular afternoon I decided to do some exploring, when I stumbled upon a statue of a saint that I'd never seen before. It seemed to be hidden near an outdoor staircase that lead up to street level. It was a plain, white stone statue of a bishop. The face was gentile, and the base was inscribed "Pope St. Pius X."

I was taken aback. "A pope can be a saint?", I thought. Even then I liked history, and I don't recall if the years of his reign were inscribed on the statue, or I found out later, but when I saw that he served between 1903 and 1914 I was even more astonished. I knew that the canonization process could take decades, and even centuries to work itself out, so I thought "a pope from this century, declared a saint, and we never hear about him? And why was this stature in the most inconspicuous spot on the parish property; are they trying to hide it?" I was flabbergasted. These were the days, long before the Internet, where you actually had to go to a library to get information on people, places and things. I can't say that I rushed out and began doing research, but over the years I did pick up things here and there about this saintly pope who lost favor became of changing theological fashions, and misunderstanding.

Pius X, born Giuseppe Sarto in 1835, was probably the first modern pope to have been born poor and had real pastoral experience before becoming the Successor of Peter. Most popes from roughly the Renaissance until the nineteen century came up through the aristocracy, becoming bishops at a young age due to their connections more than their sanctity. More recently, in the 20th century, many top churchmen went into the Church's diplomatic corps or curial bureaucracy soon after ordination, moving up the line because of their skills as administrators and diplomats. It doesn't mean that some of these men weren't very holy: Pope St. John XXIII, though of humble birth, went the diplomatic rout himself before becoming Patriarch of Venice and later pope. It's only to say that it wasn't uncommon to have a man ascend to the papacy without ever having served in a parish.

This cannot be said of Pius X, who went right into pastoral work after ordination, essentially serving in place of the regular pastor who was very ill. He oversaw the expansion of the parish's church building and of a hospital under his care. Don Giuseppe was a hands on priest who worked directly with cholera patients during an out break of the disease in his town. He was popular with the people, and "moved up," if you will, because of his hard work and dedication to his flock.

When he became pope in 1903 he had an understanding of how the faith was lived on the grass roots level, and set about reforms of the church bureaucracy to make things easier for both parish priests and the people they served. He reformed canon law, establishing an orderly, systematized code for the first time (this work would not be completed until after his death). He re-established Gregorian Chant as the normative musical style for the Sacred Liturgy; not just because it was traditional, but because it lent itself to congregational singing, and thus the active participation of the faithful better than the highly stylized orchestral music that had been in vogue in recent centuries. He simplified the breviary, the prayer book priests and religious use everyday, so that they could fulfill their obligation to pray for the Church more efficiently amid their busy pastoral responsibilities.

The reform that touched the people most directly was his lowering of the age for First Communion from 12 to 7. He also promoted frequent Communion, as well as confession, at a time when it was common practice to only receive Communion a few times a year. He believed firmly that the frequent reception of the Eucharist was the "shortest and safest way to Heaven."

As for the papacy itself, Pius X simplified papal ceremonies, always feeling uncomfortable with the trappings and pomp of the office. He also refused to use his office to benefit his family. His sisters continued to live in relative poverty and his nephew, a priest, remained in his small, simple parish.

Up to now, you might be wondering why Pius X fell out of favor for so long. In many ways he sounds like a lot like Pope Francis.

Pius fell out of favor with later generations because he fought modernism, a heresy, which in fairness is hard to define (the term is more of an accusation than than a name), but is connected with the integration of Enlightenment philosophy into Catholic thought, skepticism, relativism, and a rejection of the supernatural claims of Scripture. These were the early days of modern scripture study, and while some progressive scholars that fell under suspicion were later vindicated, others did deny the truth of Sacred Scripture, for instance denying the veracity of the miracle accounts, and even the divinity of Christ. Pius was ruthless, some would argue cruel, in rooting out scholars he felt were teaching doctrine contrary to the Faith. The criticism is that some wheat got pulled up with the weeds.

I can say that when I was in the minor seminary in New York many years ago Pius was not looked upon with great favor by my Church History professor, among others. His years were seen as repressive for Catholic intellectuals and scholars, and though it didn't take long for subsequent popes to step back from Pius' zealousness, it's felt that it took decades for the intellectual atmosphere in Catholic seminaries and universities to thaw.

In someways Vatican II is seen as the final triumph of the "anti-anti-modernists," where the Church finally adopted a post Enlightenment vocabulary and mindset. Pius X, the crusader for orthodoxy, who held the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas as his great weapon, just didn't fit into the narrative of updating and change that filled the post-conciliar air. I have to make it clear that those who take this point of view don't self  identify as modernists, and in fact don't believe that such a thing ever existed to begin with. While recognizing the extremes that some scholars at the turn of the 20th century engaged in, they would argue that there was no need for a systematic rooting out of dissenters. And so Pius X, saint of the Church though he is, was relegated to the back staircase near the dumpsters.

A scripture scholar I studied under at the same time put things in an interesting perspective for me. While he too did not believe that modernism was an organized heresy that needed fighting, he understood that things were moving fast in those days. There was legitimate inquiry going on, as well as those who were straying far from the faith. Pius wasn't a scholar, and had a hard time figuring out what was valid and what was heresy. So, he basically said, let's stop and give ourselves time to figure this out. Yes, some good men were hurt. Others were kept from active scholarship for a time before being permitted to go back to their work. While his methods may not have been ideal, that break is what the Church needed at that time to get whatever updating that was to happen right.

As we celebrate the Feast of Pius X today, which is also the 100th anniversary of his death, I think that we should remember a man who loved the flock he was sent to tend. He opened for them the riches of the Eucharist, knowing how powerful a means of grace the Sacrament of the Altar is. He understood what it meant to be a servant pope, much like Pope Francis today. He died as World War I was beginning, praying for peace and the reconciliation of the waring sides. He's a saint, which doesn't mean that the was perfect, but that he was faithful until the end. For this reason he should again be placed in a prominent place in our hearts, and in our churches. 

Robin Williams, 1951-2014

I was away on retreat last week, which is a partial explanation for my lack of out put this summer. But rather than make excuses, I'll dig in and get going again.

Much of the news this week was dominated by the death of actor and comedian Robin Williams. And while I don't want to make this a critique of his career, I believe that putting the actor first is right. He was Juilliard trained, acted in plays by Shakespeare and Samuel Becket, as well as winning an Oscar for a dramatic roll, and I think he was such a great comic, at least in part because of his acting sensibilities. While I don't agree with his friend Carrie Fisher, that he ranks with Charlie Chaplin, his was a unique talent that contributed to his being a complete performer. He was the best all around comedian of of his generation, and much more than that.

But more to my point.

When anyone commits suicide the obvious question the people left behind ask is why.  In this case there was no note left, as far as I know, so we are left to guess. Unfortunately, in this 24 hour news cycle - incessant media gossip driven culture, there has been no shortage of armchair psychologists lining up to give their diagnosis. There's been a flurry of speculation over his faltering personal finances, the reputed poor state of which his business manager said was highly exaggerated. Someone, a "friend" who refused to be identified, said Williams dreaded having to do a Mrs. Doubtfire sequel, and more movies in general, because of the emotional strain getting into character was for him. Some claimed he was embarrassed about having to do television again, others said he actually preferred it. The latest theory is that his Parkinson's medication increased his depression, which possibly put him over the edge. But the one person who can tell us for sure, Williams himself, can't. That is the tragedy beyond telling.

All the speculation is understandable, even if some of the coverage has been crudely sensationalized.  That Robin Williams was a famous person, and thus receives so much attention at his death, can blind us to the fact that he was a person - a human being - first. If the manner of his death helps to draw attention to the problem of clinical depression and suicide, then indeed some good will come out of this. If all it is is more fodder for the gossip page, then we've missed an opportunity. Suicide is still somewhat of a taboo subject that the surviving relatives don't like to talk about, there is so much guilt and anguish surrounding it. I've done funerals for people that I know had taken their own lives, but the family never acknowledged the fact. And I proceeded as I wasn't in the know, so as not to make a bad situation worse.

But what about suicide? What should our attitude be? From judging the public response we as a society, thankfully, still see suicide as being negative; something to be prevented. I saw one person somewhere out on the web say that Mr. Williams had made a choice so we shouldn't think ill of it. But for the most part we understand that suicide is a literal dead end that leaves no possibility of a future. There are those who support some form of euthanasia, which I don't, of course, but it was clear that what ever his physical condition he was in had not reached a point where such an action would be justifiable, even by supporters of assisted suicide.

From the Catholic stand point, suicide has always been considered a mortal sin because it is a rejection of God's most precious gift to us, life, and because it tries to seize control over life and death from from the Almighty's hands. It is a selfish act that devastates the loved ones who are left to deal with the feelings of guilt and hurt. They live the rest of their lives often times asking themselves why it happened and was their anything they could have done to prevent it.

In light of this longstanding belief that suicide is grave matter, warranting the loss of one's soul, the assumption that Catholics labored under for many centuries was that suicide meant automatic damnation to hell. Funeral services were often denied to people who took their own lives, as well as burial in Catholic cemeteries. This only added to the shame and grief of the surviving family members.

While we can judge acts, we should avoid judging individuals. We know that people who take their own lives are not in the right frame of mind, and depression and other emotional disorders can cloud the judgment, effecting people's ability to make a truly free act. For a sin to be grave in the subjective reality of life there must be grave matter, proper reflection and full consent of the will. In other words the act in question is objectively sinful, we know it's sinful and we do it anyway without any coercion. Mental illness can effect one or all of these factors.

Even before the advent of modern psychology the Church understood that you can't make blanket judgements about people who've taken their own lives. A distraught widow once came to St. Jean Vianney crying that her husband, who had jumped off a bridge, was in hell. The saint told her that she did not know that since she has no idea what went through his mind in the interval between leaping from the bridge and hitting the water. Who knows if he had sincerely repented and asked God's forgiveness or not? Only God knows. So it's for us to pray for his soul, and I would suggest we do the same for Mr. Williams. This would be far more beneficial than asking unanswerable questions and engaging in idle gossip.

Eternal rest grant unto him of Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul, and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen

1914-2014: Echoes of the Great War: From the Catholic News Service

Weird Scenes Inside the Gold Mine: "Deliver Us From Evil" Movie Review

 

The exorcism movie, a sub genre of the supernatural thriller, which itself is a sub genre of horror films in general, is a tricky feat to pull off. The main problem is that the best of these motion pictures was the first of it's kind made, The Exorcist, back in 1973. Forty-one years on and no one has been able to top William Friedkin's adaptation of the William Peter Blatty novel. This is because, whether you believe that demonic possession is real or not, there are verifiable cases of people who have exhibited the symptoms of possession, and we have an actual rite of exorcism the Church uses to help these afflicted people. We're not dealing with a zombie apocalypse or a vampire coven, both of which no one has ever seen. There is no legend here that a writer or director can play with. We know what this looks like, and The Exorcist covered the topic almost ehaustively, even if it did go over the top in places. Since there isn't any new ground to cover, all a story teller can do is imitate the movie that started it all, or else pump up the gore and sensationalism to try and mask the lack of originality. The new entry into this sub-sub-genre of horror, Deliver Us From Evil, regrettably, does both.

Deliver us From Evil is based on the story of retired NYPD police sergeant Ralph Sarchie, who first encountered the demonic on the job as a police officer in The Bronx. I haven't read the book this movie is supposedly based on, but if it's anything like The Rite from a few years ago, another "based on true events" movie taken from a book, the two renderings of our hero's story are probably very different. The Rite, as a movie, was an improbable story of a faith challenged seminarian becoming an exorcist, where as that film's source material is the real story of a veteran priest going through a preparation program for exorcists in Rome. The truth is less sensational, but more frightening, and enlightening, than the Hollywood embellishment. This is precisely where Deliver Us From Evil breaks down: director Scott Derrickson is so busy trying to scare us in the conventional way horror movies usually do he misses the real terror, and the very angle that would have given a genuinely original spin to this otherwise pedestrian run through.

Sarchie (Eric Bana) is a police officer who's seen too much on the mean streets of the City. When he responds to a call at The Bronx Zoo, where a woman threw her baby into a safety mote outside the lions' den, he figures he's dealing with another crazy person. Back at the precinct house he encounters a mysteriously hip priest, Fr. Mendoza (Edgar Ramirez) who assures him that the mother is not insane, but possessed. There's skepticism on Sarchie's part, as one would expect, but when a connection with other bizarre cases he's dealing with emerges, he comes to believe that maybe the priest is right. Eventually Fr. Mendoza helps Sarchie to understand his own gifts, which go beyond simple intuition.

I won't continue describing the goings on, because the plot is so needlessly complicated, tying together threads in a way that seems forced. A prime example of this is including Sarchie's domestic life so prominently in the story.  It seems like it was done so we can get a frightened little girl being tormented by demons in the night, a la Linda Blair (Olivia Munn is waisted, as Sorchie's wife, though she does a good Bronx accent, which is to say she hints at it as opposed to trying to do a caricature). The Exorcist is also referenced by way of an Iraqi prologue that holds the key to understanding all the spooky happenings. But the whole thing is muddled, and what we're left with is an R rated horror movie that's not going to be gory enough for the hard core fans of the genre, and too gory for fans of psychological / supernatural thrillers, like me.

If the movie had stuck to one simple story, focusing in on Sarchie and the spiritual gifts he discovers that he has, this would have been a much clearer, subtler and truly terrifying film. Instead we get possessed people who act more like zombies and vampires, along with the needless gore that follows such a strategy.  To me, this isn't frightening, just nauseating.

The sad thing is that there was potential here for originality. Making the priest second fiddle and focusing in on the layman is not an insignificant twist to the plot. Exorcisms and prayers of liberation are not done normally by a solitary priest; there is usually a team involved. The priest has the power of his ordination working for him, but each member of the team also brings gifts, which for some involve being able to perceive spiritual realities. A key part of the exorcism process is getting the demon's name. Knowing its name gives the exorcist power over it, and it won't give that name over easily. Sometimes it is one of the "seers," for lack of a better term, that is able to get the name, along with other important information that will help the priest exorcist in his work. I compare it to forward observers who help an artillery crew direct its fire. These things are hinted at, but get drowned out by all the blood and guts.

There are other issues I had with the film as well. I think it's good the make our priest flawed and human, as they do here. But in an attempt to make Fr. Mendoza a priest with a past, they go to such an extreme that I'm not sure this guy would have ever been ordained, let alone maintain his faculties to minister publicly. I understand that it's a movie, and things need to be condensed for the sake of pacing, but exorcisms can take weeks, and often months, and here they whiz through it in an afternoon. An exorcism can't be performed without the express permission of the local bishop. Even an officially delegated exorcist needs to get permission each time he performs the rite. To make a snap decision to move from simple prayers of liberation, for which no permission is needed, to an actual ritual exorcism, as is shown here, simply wouldn't be done, at least not by a priest in good standing. Exorcisms are highly controlled events that take place in churches or some sacred space, not in the basement of a police station. It can be stressful, exhausting and, yes, terrifying, but it isn't chaotic if it's done properly. I would go on, but there's just too much wrong with this movie, and not enough time and space to cover it all. The bottom line is, if they had not tired to go to extremes they would have actually had a good movie that sheds light on an important, and misunderstood topic, instead of what we have here, which is just an unholy mess.

This isn't Derrickson's first foray into this genre, having previously directed The Exorcism of Emily Rose (which I haven't seen, but plan to now). I've heard generally positive things about that film from people who saw it, but his current work gives me no sign that he knows how to handle this sensitive material with delicacy and, dare I say, grace. Forty-one years, and Heaven knows how many attempts; the champion of the supernatural thrillers remains The Exorcist.

As a coda of sorts, I was surprised at how extensively the music of The Doors was used throughout the film, including a reference to the relatively obscure piece Celebration of the Lizard: which only only hard core Doors fans, like myself, would probably pick up on. They use the master recordings, which means someone from the band's organization had to sign off on it. I only point this out, because the message seems to be that the Evil One is a big Doors fan, something I'm not sure that the surviving members of the band would want to promote.

The Pope's Prayer Intention for July from the Apostleship of Prayer