WARNING!!!!!!

I kind of went on a tear with the blogging. There are a few long posts below, so make sure you have time. They are good. I am pleased with the content and I want you to read them. Just be warned. :)

KY Bishops Take Different Stances on Controversy

As some of you may know, we Maniacs live in the Archdiocese of Louisville. We are about an hour or so from Lexington. Bishop Gainer in Lexington has come down on the
"don't receive" side of this debate. While he has not out and out said to deny pro-abort pols Communion, he has said that they shouldn't receive.

The two pols mentioned in the article fall under Gainer's authority and have basically told the Bishop to go screw himself in my opinion. Comments on their quotes will be below.

Louisville's Archbishop Kelly on the other hand has come down on the "Leave it up to the communicant" side of the debate. For clarification to those who aren't clear... That means you get to do what you want. Kelly has stated that it's up to the communicant to examine their own conscience and determine their worthiness. On the one hand that is the ideal situation in an ideal world. However, someone who is obstinately pro-abort obviously has a mal-formed conscience and cannot be trusted to make the proper choice. If they could be trusted, they would be abstaining as some have decided to do.

Also wanted to point out that the person who wrote this is hopefully a non-Catholic. Since he seems to give the pro-abort pols more ink and uses the woefully bad terminology below, I am assuming he's not one of us.

But Lexington Mayor Teresa Isaac and state Sen. Ernesto Scorsone -- both Catholics and abortion-rights advocates -- said they plan to continue receiving the wine and wafer.

Wine and wafer? If that isn't a direct attempt to deny the Body and Blood, I don't know what is...

Gainer's statement... This is pretty well in line with the procedure I advocated last week...

"A professing Catholic who has taken public stands against what the church teaches should disqualify himself or herself from receiving the Eucharist because they cannot receive in good faith," Shaughnessy said, quoting the bishop. "Were there to be such a person under his pastoral care, (Gainer) would ask to meet them privately as a pastor and attempt to challenge them to change their public position before he would take any public action."

Lexington Mayor Teresa Isaac said...

"I plan to continue taking Communion and would love to receive it from a woman priest some day soon," she said in a brief written statement.

Well, if that's the case, I guess she is planning on joining the Episcopal Church sometime soon? She obviously either doesn't care what the Church teaches dogma-wise or doesn't know. I would bet it's both to be honest.

The other pol quoted used the tired old line that pro-lifers (anti-abortion advocates which is double-speak because they must move the discussion away from what it is truly about... life) don't have a monopoly on the faith. Maybe not, but I'd say we have a better grasp of it that he does. Especially considering he's an open homosexual. He goes on to state he believe there are a lot of "good American Catholics" who believe in "choice" and that he does. Choice for whom? The baby doesn't get a choice. As we state repeatedly in the Church... No one has a right to commit evil.

Scorsone won't use the law to further the Catholic faith. Won't use the law to further the Truth? Bold statement. The Bishop's statements also won't keep him from the Eucharist he says. Another bold statement. He has formally and publicly announced his disobedience and adherence to objective sin. If he won't repent after another attempt by Bishop Gainer, then Canon 915 says he can be denied Communion.

Here's a quote from the Owensboro Bishop...

In an interview, Owensboro Bishop John McRaith said he hasn't told pro-choice politicians they should refrain from taking Communion. "I think that's something that they really have to answer themselves," he said. "They know what the church law is, so they have to answer for that. They know what is expected of them."

That's all fine and dandy, but it raises the issue of what to do if they persist in public and obstinate sin which is what is happening in these cases. Canon 915 provides the answer... Deny them!

To be fair to Kelly, he didn't come out and say he would never deny. He did explicitly say that he would work to educate and persuade all politicians about the issue and what is right. Good. I actually applaud that. God knows the Bishops need to exercise the teaching aspect of their office more often. He also said he hopes to never have to deny Communion to someone. Then he goes on with the "It's the responsibility of the communicant..." line.

There are several nice comments from the KY Right to Life group in there, but they are followed by the following section header:

'Dangerous' and wrong

Finally you get the best part. I quote in it's entirety...

But state Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, a Catholic and pro-choice Louisville Democrat, wonders why politicians are being singled out.

"I guess my question to the bishops is: 'Are the pedophile priests who are in prison receiving Communion?' I'd like to know," she said.

Marzian said it's "dangerous" for religious leaders to tell politicians how to vote, and it's wrong for them to withhold the sacraments to punish people. "I go to Communion when I want to go, and no bishop, no pope, they're not going to keep me from my religion," she added.

Pro-abort pols are being "singled out" because they manifestly persist in grave sin. And they do it publicly. They have a responsibility as Catholics to adhere to Church teaching, more so because they are public figures. The Bible warns us about bringing scandal to the Church.

Gotta love the shot at "pedophile priests" too... First of all the sex scandal is NOT predominantly a pedophile issue, but rather a homosexual issue. Second, if they have repented, confessed their sins, been absolved and done penance, I would hope they would be offered Communion. Any Catholic in a state of Grace is allowed to receive. Whatever sins they committed in the past, once confessed and forgiven, have no bearing on their standing to receive. The difference is that these pro-abort pols have not, and apparently refuse to, repented and conformed to Church teaching. By definition, they are not in good standing.

Second, no one is being told how to vote. I am so sick of that shibboleth. They are being told that if they vote a certain way and persist in that, they shouldn't receive Communion.

Third, withholding the Body and Blood is NOT a punishment. It is actually a mercy on the person so that they do not receive in an unworthy manner thereby becoming guilty of the body and blood... It's about keeping them from damning themselves and also keeping the Blesses Sacrament from being desecrated.

Finally... She goes to Communion when she wants to and no one is going to keep her from her religion? What exactly is her religion? It's obviously not Catholicism since she doesn't recognize the authority of the Bishops and the Pope. Nor does she recognize the constant teaching of the Church.

Pride is the issue. Pride in self and one's ability to determine right and wrong apart from the Church. Their religion is self and there is no higher good than personal convenience. Their own that is. Wait until they are 80 and on life support. I hope for their sake that whatever children manage to survive to adulthood don't decide that it's more convenient for them to pull the plug rather than spend the inheritance on healthcare for the infirm.

Anglicans have always liked to contend that they are the 3rd branch of Catholicism, the other two being Roman and the Orthodox churches. There are two problems with this idea. The first is that there cannot be branches of a single Church not acting in union with the other two. Can three separate branches of the same tree be ash, pine and oak?

No.

Clearly each of a tree's branches must be of the same substance as the others. They must be identical in makeup and design. This 3 Branch Theory is pure bunk.

Why?

Because the Anglicans no longer have valid Holy Orders. They changed the manner of ordination in such a substantial way that the procedure was no longer valid. My understanding of this was that the laying on of hands was removed. Later it was reinstituted... But after there were no longer any valid Bishops. That is why Leo XIII declared the orders to be likely invalid.

For proof of this invalidity we see that the Anglicans lead the way in apostasy in mainline Protestantism. They were the first to allow contraception. They now allow female priestesses. They have elevated to bishop an openly homosexual man who lives with his lover.

Now comes a rewrite of the Bible. Not just a new translation, but a change in wording that totally changes the meaning. I am posting the article below in it's entirety:

Canterbury backs updated Bible
A new translation of the Bible which seems to contradict traditional Christian beliefs on sex has been backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The book, entitled "Good as New", is aimed at refreshing the language and themes of the Bible for modern readers.

In the new version, St Paul's advice that men and women should marry is replaced with they should have a "regular partner".

Dr Rowan Williams says it is a book of "extraordinary power".

But the Church of England leader admitted many readers would be startled by its content.

A passage from the standard version of his Letters to the Corinthians reads: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman. "But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."

In the Good As New version the same passage reads: "Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women to keep right away from each other. That is more likely to lead to sexual offences. My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner."

'Epidemic profusion'

St Paul gives stronger advice in another section of the Corinthians.

"There's nothing wrong with remaining single, like me. But if you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated," he says in the new version.

John Benson, the former Baptist minister who translated the new book, made terminology changes throughout the book, such as replacing "demon possession" with "mental illness".

Mr Benson also chose "God's new world" in place of "kingdom of God".

Dr Williams said he hoped the new translation would "spread in epidemic profusion through religious and irreligious alike".

"Instead of being taken into a specialised religious frame of reference... we have here a vehicle for thinking and worshiping that is fully earthed, recognisably about our humanity," he said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/3833693.stm

Note the last paragraph...

"This is a vehicle for thinking and worshiping that is fully earthed, recognisably about our humanity."

I thought the faith was not about our earthly life at all, but rather about our quest to know God, love God and serve God. It's not about OUR humanity so much as it is about Christ's humanity, taken on for us in order to save us from ourselves.

... You're not really surprised are you?

The Froggy Parliament is considering a bill that would criminalize sexist and homophobic speech. And Teddy has apparently introduced a bill in the Senate that is similar.

Now I know Teddy isn't exactly a "good" Catholic... Nor is France exactly the defender of the faith it was 500 years ago. Still you just know this sort of thing has the implication, intended or not, to try and silence the Church (and Evangelicals/Fundies in the US) on the evils of homosexual activities. The wording of the Catholic World News story was phrased in such a way that anything deemed offensive to homosexuals would be criminalized.

Think about it...

We're not talking about speech that explicitly calls for violence against homosexuals. Nor are we talking about speech that calls homosexual persons evil or non-humans or anything like that. This is much more general and at the discretion apparently of the person(s) being offended. There's no objective standard here. Reading the Bible prohibitions against homosexual acts or saying an active homosexual should not be ordained a bishop in the Episcopal church could and probably would be considered hate speech.

I don't like hate speech laws for the main reason that they criminalize what a person THINKS! Where these laws are in effect, a person who kills someone without saying anything would be up for a lesser sentence than someone that yells "Die faggot!" Murder is wrong no matter what. By criminalizing and creating harsher penalties for what you think while committing a crime, you take basic freedoms away and impinge upon man's God-given Free Will. We can detest these thoughts, but should we criminalize them?

Doing so opens the door to criminalizing ANY thought the state (or a special interest group with money to throw around) doesn't like. Should we criminalize the opinions that all priests are child abusers? Some (far too many) think that. I find it offensive. Many other people actually hate Christians and Catholics in particular. What happens if they rob me and we find out their views? Should they get twice the sentence they would have otherwise?

Granted, that is never going to happen since Catholics and Christians are acceptable targets of criticism and hatred. What these laws seek to do is silence a majority opinion so that the minority can get away with whatever they want until their deviant behavior becomes accepted. Or at least until people are afraid to speak out for fear of Big Brother's persecution.

Steve K. is the author of Sex and the Sacred City, a great little book on John Paul's Theology of the Body. He is the pre-eminent expert I know of on issues of sexuality, marriage and the Church. He has written an awesome blog entry about how Christians basically lost the wars against divorce, abortion, gay issues, etc. in 1930 when Christians (except the One True Church) in this country and elsewhere rolled over on contraception. That changed how we viewed each other and our sexual relations. Sex was no longer a procreative act, but rather a means to personal pleasure. Your partner is really no longer a partner. He or she is now an object whose purpose is to please you. This has especially become true of men's attitude toward women. Read it.

Seems like there's a lot going on this week. Stuff to comment on and talk about. I'm surprised the rest of the Maniacs haven't picked up the slack this week. Especially Guvnur. :)

Just off the top of my head...

A priest in Canada is running for office and seems to be pro-abort. His statements were typical of pro-abort pols that say there are more important issues and that there's a responsibility that goes with having rights over one's body, etc...

Anybody else feel like you've been slapped in the face? There's so much wrong here, it's unbelievable. No one has a right to do evil and the Church has definitively defined abortion as objectively evil. Therefore no one can be a "good" Catholic and be pro-abortion. You might make the argument that a layperson can have an improperly formed conscience though it boggles my mind. But you simply cannot make that argument in the case of a priest! He has stepped outside communion with the Church. If the quotes I have seen are true, then there is no doubt. Also, there's that little directive from the Vatican that is supposed to prohibit priests from running for office. Though I am seriously trying to come down on the side of charity and mercy in situations where you must judge a person's motives based on their actions... I have to say this priest should be suspended immediately pending a review by his Bishop. If he refuses to recant and end his campaign, then more severe penalties should be imposed. Laicization and excommunication is not out of the question.

Hey everyone... Just an FYI that I am on site on a contract and will have precious little time for a lot of blogging over the next 6 weeks or so. I'll probably try to catch up on weekends if nothing else.

So that means that Deacon, Guvnur and HeathenBoy must take up the slack and start blogging.

Hop to it fellas!

Been surfing the many blogs out there and man... it's a jungle out there! Found the banal where some 20-something nobody just whines about how nothing happened today... And you expect me to read your blog when that's the gist of most of your posts? Found the politically whacked out left-wingers though not so many whacked out of the right-wing variety. Of course anyone who is unabashedly liberal with all that truly means today is whacked out to me, but I digress. Found the depraved where they rate porn sites. One guy actually has a blog about his experience with whores, or providers as he calls them.

Finally I figured out a way to narrow the search to Catholic bloggers. It seems the dox of most of the ones I found this way fell strictly on the hetero side... as in heterodox positions which are contrary to accepted teachings of the Church. I know there are plenty of orthodox, faithful blogs out there. I'd like to think this is one. But it just surprised me to find so many heterodox and so few of the orthodox.

My method by the way was to fill in the interests of my profile, view it and click on the word Catholic. That gave me a list of others with Catholic in their profile. Then I surfed to linked blogs.

The following seemed to be common in all or most of the heterodox ones I found.

We need married clergy.

We need women clergy.

The Pope is old and frail with the implication that this robs him of his authority.

The first two will happen eventually.

The Church will allow same sex marriages eventually.

The Church must become a democracy.

Abortion and birth control aren't necessarily wrong.

The Bishops lost their right to speak out against wrong over the sex scandal.

So what if pro-abort Catholic politicians and others receive Communion?

A lot of the bloggers read the same things like American Catholic and National Catholic Reporter, support Voice of the Faithful and don't understand why the Church can't change to conform to the modern world.

Though I get frustrated reading these guys, I think it's a good idea for all of us concerned with keeping the Church faithful to the Pope and the Magisterium to read the more popular hetero blogs and keep up to date with what happens on that side of the debate.

I think more research is needed and a list of who to keep up to date with is in order. Though I love apologetics geared toward Protestants, I think we need to keep in mind we need apologetics geared toward our own wayward pew-sitters in the Church as well.

The Deacon and I discussed this last week on the way back from the Abbey at Gethsemani... He made the leap a while back and I am just now coming to this position.

I am no longer for the death penalty in the United States.

For those that know me well, this is a major sea change. I used to be all for the application of the DP in cases of heinous crimes and/or those who were totally depraved and unrepentant. I saw it as an issue of justice. Now I see it as an application of vengeance.

I came to this change of heart based on the teachings of the Church and the Pope. While the Church allows that the application of the DP is responsibility of the secular rulers, she also recognizes that in a modern society there should be almost no cases of the actual use of the DP. The reasoning is that society can be protected from the most heinous of criminals by lifelong incarceration. The application of mercy and forgiveness, though not the alleviation of responsibility, is the proper Christian attitude.

This was a hard change of heart for me. I have always been totally convinced of my principles and convictions in my life. I knew what was right and wrong. Or so I thought... I had a similar time swallowing my pride in becoming Catholic. I don't speak of this in detail often, but it was probably the hardest internal struggle I had in the process. I had to give up control of my life and submit not only to Christ but His Church. In doing that, I had to go back on all the times I said or thought that I would never become Catholic. Bear in mind that I held that position not because I thought the Church was evil or bad, but rather that I didn't see the meaning in the rituals and the ceremonies. I felt excluded during the Mass. To admit I was wrong was to let go of my pride.

That's hard to do.

I had to do it again for the DP. I was sure that execution was moral because it was the killing of the guilty to protect the innocent. It's different from abortion because one is the murder of innocent life for the convenience of a few, while the DP is the killing of a guilty one to protect the many. The Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is more properly translated as "Thou shalt not murder" after all.

In reading the Catechism and the statements of the Pope, I came to change my mind about this at least for modern societies. In a country or place where it is impossible to incarcerate someone for life or until they truly are no longer a danger, it may be necessary to have capital punishment. I believe that would be permissible to the Church, though with much grief.

For example... What if you have a tribal community where a murder is committed by an individual? He is caught but they have no means to hold him. They punish by torture or scourging or some other means. Then he does it again. He clearly is a recurring danger to community. They can't expel him, because that doesn't necessarily eliminate the threat. It seems they must either construct a permanent means of keeping him alive but isolated or kill him. The former is probably not possible. So they opt for capital punishment. Is this permissible? Seems so to me, because they don't seem to have other means of protecting themselves.

That is not true in modern cultures. We have prisons and the means. The only problem I have is that prisons are not always corrective, nor are they a means to protect the rest of the population. Prisoners are often taught how to be better criminals in prison. Worse crimes are learned and committed in prison. Often they get free access to advanced education and legal services that the general populace does not. They often have way more leisure activities than would seem prudent.

To me prison must be a horrible place. No torture, but I would like to see a return of hard labor and/or chain gangs. Prisoners should have minimal opportunities to pass on skills of the trade as it were. There should be little in the way of "fun" activities. I have no problem with teaching them basic reading and math skills necessary to function in the real world. In fact, these should be mandatory. I have no problem with access to certain types of reading materials and access to workshops to teach a trade or skill useful to society. They should have access to the religion of their choice. No TV. No movies. No radio. No music.

Some will say this is cruel. But prison is supposed to be a bad place. It's not a place to hold hands and sing folk songs. It a secular place to repent of wrongs and turn your life around. It's an extremely Christian concept in reality.

Catholic World News reports that the Cardinal has sent a private letter to all US Bishops saying that...

Catholics who are "living in grave sin" or who "reject the doctrine of the Church," should abstain from the Eucharist.

Scanning the article I couldn't find anything that specifically said Cardinal Ratzinger told them to deny Communion to anyone meeting those above conditions. Seems this only amounts to what we already should know... Grave sin? Repent, then receive.

Perhaps sending this as a private letter is meant to remind the Bishops of their duty. Since there is no copy of the letter available yet, though I am sure someone will leak it against good procedure, we can only guess at the contents beyond the reminder.

This Cardinal seems to be similar to Cardinal Arinze in that he has a very outspoken form of orthodoxy. He is generally vocal and faithful, so I would hope that he has laid out something... a suggestion, order, whatever... to the Bishops to handle this situation.

Personally, I would like to see the process go like this:

1. Politician (or other public person) acts against Church teaching.


2. Bishop reminds person of Church teaching and the appropriate way to behave.


3. Person repents, confesses and lives out his/her faith.

Most likely it will go like this:

1. Politician (or other public person) acts against Church teaching.


2. Bishop reminds person of Church teaching and the appropriate way to behave.


3. Person publicly rejects the private correction of the Bishop and causes more scandal.


4. Bishop offers public correctiona and public reasoning for all to hear and benefit from.


5. Person publicly tells the Bishop and others the he must follow his own conscience on these things and he cannot impose his or the Church's morality on anyone else.


6. Media fawns over the person as someone of credibility, integrity and faith, no matter how idiotic this seems.


7. Bishop invokes Canon 915 that would allow the Eucharist to be denied to those who persist in public, grave sin.


8. Person finds a priest or several to defy the Bishop and offer Communion to him/her.


9. Media fawns over rebel priest and castigates "Vatican crackdown".


10. The Pew-Sitters get even more confused and the Faith is watered down even more in practice.

To me the next step after private correction, public correction and denial of Communion would be excommunication. Start with the person in the wrong that started this mess and move on to the priests that aid and abet them. I suppose you could/should have a process of private correction, public correction and suspension of priestly duties to parallel the lay process.

Seems this is an absolute necessity. We must safeguard the Eucharist and the souls of those that receive. This last is just as important in my opinion as the first.

OK, everyone... I expect all of you to be glued to your television sets tonight at 9pm Eastern. That's tipoff time for Game 5 of the NBA Finals. The smell of blood is in the air. The Lakers are ripe for picking...

Personally, I expect the deathblow tonight to be delivered methodically, deliberately and overwhelmingly.

Pistons in a blowout.

Fear the Fro, baby...

FEAR THE FRO.

This Sunday the 13th of June is the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, in the Latin so many of us grew up hearing, Corpus Christi Sunday.

This was a Holy Day like so many other Holy Days, and yet for some reason, it seemed to me to be the Greatest of them all as far as we faithful were concerned. It was also the one Holy Day our Protestant friends didn't seem to really understand - probably because when they left centuries ago, most decided not to take the Eucharist with them, a fact that has puzzled me all of my life.

Yes, this to me is the big one - the Holy Day that needs to be shouted from the mountaintop as the greatest gift we mortals have ever received. The Body and Blood of Christ.

Now at this point I might be tempted to go into that is the Eucharist that brings us Salvation, that it is the Paschal Sacrifice of Calvary reinstate, both assertions that are rejected by the majority of non-Catholics, but I think we need to remember something with a bit more gratitude.

The fact that Eucharist is the surest way to Salvation is without question - those who receive it regularly and properly are assured of such. (I, like many others, could assert several Biblical references and proofs here, but doing so seems too much like changing the subject - for me it's not about sola scriptura and I resist boiling it down to such.)But to me it is more than just a tool to assure Salvation - to me it is an act of love.

Christ instituted the Eucharist as a gift to us - of himself. More than just of his sacrifice on the cross, more than just the way to heaven, more than just a means of giving us the Grace we so desperately need in our daily lives, sometimes perhaps without even realizing it. He is giving himself to us because this gift is the ultimate act of love - his body and blood are for us, for our daily spiritual nourishment, he poured himself out for us and continues to do so countless times daily throughout the world, throughout time - for our sake.

Yes, I am a Eucharistic - the person who sees the Eucharist as the core of our belief and it is to it that we must consecrate or give ourselves the reason why is the gift of the Real Presence - pure and simple.

I once heard it said, that if you could tell people that Christ himself was going to appear - personally - at your church on Sunday, and were able to make people truly believe it, then no stadium would be large enough. And yet we have the Lord God Almighty in the tabernacle at all times. We hear people saying that when they get to Heaven they look forward more than anything to meeting God face to face - to me I have no such desires for such are not necessary - I meet God face to face and he lives in me directly everytime I receive the Eucharist. The grace I receive is real, and its reception for me produces a equally real physical reaction of profound peace and warmth.

God's greatest gift - all I ask is that I receive it as worthily as possible, not for my sake but in Gratitude to him.

Alicia, one of our regular commenters (or our only regular commenter), suggested a catechism by Cardinal Gasparri. It seems to be about 40-60 years old depending on the version you find. I did a search at abebooks.com and found a bunch of titles for Gasparri. The book is called Catholic Catechism and seems to run at about $10 there. Some copies may be lower, some higher.

Thanks Alicia!

Went ahead and bought my copies for me and the girls today off of Barnes and Noble's website. The three books are for 1-2 grades and First Communion, 3-5 grades and 6-8 grades and Confirmation. Since my girls are spaced just perfectly, I only needed to order 2 copies of the ones I don't have and 1 more of the one I do. Neither girl will be in the same volume at the same time.

Go here to find the books at the BN website. The first three books are the ones you want. They will cost you $3.75, $2.25 and $2.95 each. Can't beat that deal.

Guvnur wrote about this a few days ago, but I wanted to add my two cents worth to the discussion...

As a convert, and of the worst kind... zealous, I am always studying the faith. I have a pretty decent library of apologetics and theology books on my shelf for only being in the Church for two years. I'd like to think that I have a better understanding of the Faith than 90-95% of my fellow pew-sitters. I take seriously Christ's last command to the Apostles to go and teach all nations. When I went through RCIA in my parish, I was initially "auditing" so that I would be better able to raise my daughters in their faith. Fortunately for me, I had a conversion moment when the priest was talking about the Real Presence. From that point on, I was devouring all I could find on the internet, especially at Catholic Answers.

Hmmn... In RCIA, yet studying on the internet?

Yep. Because we have a horrible lack of good catechetical materials in our parish. I already knew that Catholics had been poorly catechized for years. I thought it was a lack of effort on their part, but soon came to realize that it's also a lack of good, orthodox learning materials. Our RCIA program is so light on substance at times, I want to scream. We cover things at a level that my 1st (soon to be 2nd) and 4th (soon to be 5th) graders could easily handle. I think adults can and should be expected to handle more.

My proof of this?

The Baltimore Catechisms Guvnur found. They were designed for the age group my girls are in now and they both thought it was fantastic. My oldest started to devour this book. This was more than she was being taught in class at a Catholic school. This series had more depth in my opinion than what we covered in RCIA. 40 years ago, children were expected to learn more than we expect our adult converts to know!

RCIA now seems to be based more on experiences. How do you experience God in your life? How does this Scripture speak to you? Etc. While that is a good spiritual approach to your Faith, is it really the best way to TEACH the Faith? I think it sends the message the Faith can be defined in terms that you are comfortable with. That is dangerours. While we did cover doctrines such as the Real Presence and other fundamentals, these most often seemed to be a secondary thing. Well, we have to cover some basic facts, so here they are. Now let's talk about how you feel about this touchy-feely prayer I found!

To me you need to get the doctrines and dogmas and their meanings down before you get into some of this stuff. You need a well-formed conscience and a well formed understanding of the Faith in order to pursue an authentic Catholic spirituality I believe. You may be able to get there without that intellectual background, but I wonder if it's not accidental and rare?

Can you be a spiritually alive Catholic and reject the Real Presence, support abortion, fetal stem cell research, gay marriages, remarriage after divorce, etc. etc. etc.? I am not saying our RCIA program directly or indirectly said you could. But it seems like the whole point is often that God forgives everything even if you aren't truly repentant. Or that you can't commit a sin if you pray over it first and convince yourself you are doing the right thing.

There was a time in this country that our Faith was passed on with integrity. We used tools like the Baltimore Catechism. When these tools were discarded after the theological dissenters took hold of implementing Vatican II, all hell seems to have broken loose. Much of the dissenters' agenda has been discredited (though it still lives on somehow), but we still struggle to pass on the Faith properly, because we bought into the idea that the old ways are either forbidden or never worked in the first place.

I say these things are lies. Damned lies. The Baltimore Catechism didn't cause the problems we have now. Nor did Vatican II. Dissenters in the schools, universities and priesthood got us here. Now we need to return to our theological roots and reclaim the faith and the catechesis of our children and adults.

How else do you put the sighting of Scott Hahn's books, First Comes Love, Hail Holy Queen, The Lamb's Supper, Lord Have Mercy and Swear to God at Sam's Club?

That's right, the secular, nothing but pop-Protestant book carrier has actually stooped to putting the books of one of the best Catholic authors on their shelves. To be fair, I don't want to say that they purposely exclude Catholic materials, but they sure do carry a lot of Joyce Meyer, Tim Lahaye and Rick Warren stuff. Lots of Bibles, all missing the deuterocanonicals, except the rare Catholic version of the Precious Moments Bible. Lots of stuff not particularly Catholic is my point.

I just about fell over when I saw them, especially the new one Swear to God. All of these books retail at $19.95, but you can get them at Sam's Club for only $13.88. I'd suggest you get all of them at Sam's, except that some Protestants may accidentally pick them up and start down the path to the Church.

Today we celebrate the mystery of the Trinity... One God, three persons. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one Divine Nature.

This is one that I like to roll around in my mind on occasion. It's something that we will never understand until we stand before God Himself. The very fact that we celebrate this solemnity and that so much ink has been spilled, not to mention blood, shows that our very nature is to seek to know and love God. It's more than just hoping that there is some point to an accidental existence as atheists might offer. It's a yearning to restore what was lost to us at the Fall of Man.

When Adam and Eve walked with God in the Garden, it seems likely that they understood this far better than we do now. Even if the Trinity was not revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit to them, they surely understood how God pours Himself out completely in love. That of course is how we understand the begetting of the Son. The Father pours Himself out completely and totally. That generates the perfect image of the Father which is the Son. The Son, being the perfect image of the Father can only reciprocate and pour Himself out completely. This total life pouring Love is, of course, the Holy Spirit.

Scott Hahn explains it better in his book, First Comes Love. I can wrap my mind around the Father and the Son pretty well. After all we can understand those identities, no matter how imperfectly, by our own roles as parent and child. We at least have a concept to grasp. But when it comes to the Holy Spirit... That's where I struggle to get some identity to relate to. And that's really not the way to do it anyway. We must be careful to not try and define God by how we relate to Him. That ties the Eternal to the finite creation. God was... before creation and will always be after creation. Yet we creatures seemingly can only understand God in these ways.

The Holy Spirit is the life breathed onto the Apostles by Christ. He is the Power by which Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin. He is the Comforter and the Paraclete. He is the force that guides the Church and keeps her from teaching error. His is the Sanctifer for us, but that is only one part of Him. We ask God to send the Holy Spirit to us to guide us and keep us holy. Entire Protestant denominations are based on the Holy Spirit and His gifts, most especially the speaking and understanding of tongues. Yet Scriptures seem to speak the least of the Spirit as a Person in the Divine Godhead. We know He spoke through the prophets and appeared at the Baptism of the Lord.

Yet through it all, the Holy Spirit remains the most enigmatic of the Trinity for me. Fr. John Corapi once said that the greatest thing you can pray for is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. I truly believe that and always pray that whenever I pray.

It's finally happened. We Maniacs have all known it was coming. It was certainly inevitable. We have often recently marveled at his lasting this long.

Ronald Reagan died today.

How hard it is to grasp that. Even though he has been out of the public light for most of the past 10 years, his presence has been there for conservatives. His idealism, optimism and his love of country and his beloved Nancy.

Is there any better example of pure marital love, communion and unity as we Catholics understand it than that of Ronald and Nancy Reagan in public life? You just knew when he looked at her, that he would lay down his life for her in a second. You could see she was totally and forever devoted to him. She bore that witness daily for the last 10 years, taking care of a man who in the end, could no longer remember who she was most likely.

Ronald Reagan was a man who believed in God in the Protestant tradition, not Catholic. Yet he enjoyed a very good relationship with the Holy Father, John Paul II. He was not a man who seemed willing to make judgment on other men's souls. He often stayed from church services in order to avoid disturbing the worship of others, so unlike today's politicians who see church services as a photo-op. His faith was recently brought to greater light in a book that really lets you see his love of God.

As for Nancy Reagan, I believe she has exemplified the term redemptive suffering. The Reagans had plenty of means to afford around the clock care for if they so chose. Yet, Nancy could not bear that anyone but her be the primary care-giver. Sure, she had help, especially these last years. But by all accounts they helped her, not the other way around. She suffered with and for her husband each and every day. She sacrificed what could have been in order to take care of her husband. Can you imagine the most recent ex-First Lady doing the same for her husband? I didn't think so. Nancy may not be likely to be canonized upon her death, being a non-Catholic and all, but I would not be surprised to see both of them when I get to Heaven, God willing that is.

Dave Armstrong is a fellow Michigander and he was giving the Pistons well deserved props for making it to the NBA Finals with the Lakers and the great memories it evoked for those of us that recall the 1988 and 1989 Finals between these same teams. Anyway, I just had to comment on that being a Michigan sports fan all the way. Dave read it, clicked over here and is now going to add us to his website.

I love it when that happens! :)

Gotta say I am psyched up about this one! Catholic RageMonkey has listed us under his Monkey Like Blogs section which is their list of well-liked blogs. We are listed with several of our own favorites. Gotta love it!

Cardinal George, whom I have not been necessarily lenient on, has shown that he is willing to stand up to those who want to use the Eucharist as a political statement.

See the story here.

Seems there is a gay group that wears a rainbow sash on Pentecost each year to Church. It is undeniably attached to this group and this day. There's no other meaning nor group associated that could be blamed or take responsibility. Therefore the Cardinal was emminently correct to instruct his priests to refuse communion to those wearing the sash. It's one thing not to judge people who are not public figures when receiving. How can you know their heart?

Public politicians with a track record and who have been corrected by the Church who persist should be denied. We have covered that pretty well here I think.

But now attention is being drawn to activists who are trying to make a statement by publicly identifying themselves as homosexuals who have an agenda. So it follows that anyone who presents themselves to receive should be denied. These people are trying to make a scene and get publicity. If you come to the alter with any reason other than to receive the Body and the Blood in faith and obedience, you do not belong there.

Just my opinion...