Doctor Who

Oh my friends, this has been a long time in coming.

"Long time" is relative, as is Time And Relative Dimensions In Space... (TARDIS).

Now, if you have not watched Doctor Who, you will most likely have no concept of the cult following that occurs once you have watched Doctor Who.

Not everyone is disposed to become wild star-gazing dreamers and simultaneous defenders of earth...but if you find that the elements of adventure, danger and possibility captivate you, you are meant for this show.

There is no real way to explain or describe Doctor Who. This can be frustrating for the person who is inexperienced in its wildness (that would be me, as I began to watch). Moreover, the Doctor, and therefore, the whole of the show, is not interested in revealing or explaining much either. At least, not initially. Therefore, if you embark on this journey, you need to keep in mind that Doctor Who engages one in a slow revelation. However, this is not to say that the unveiling of the story does not include numerous sudden and swift enlightenments! To the contrary, it is the many smaller pieces of knowledge and experience that begin to fit together into a masterful tapestry that soon opens your eyes to all of the nuances and creativity that hold Doctor Who above all other shows.

It is not only the experience as far as the travel or the adventures that the characters take on that captures the viewer and requires his or her utmost attention; it is in fact, the characters themselves that are the reason one cannot stop watching. The slow-coming-to-know experience that takes place is not about the story, per se, but about the man. Well, about the Doctor. It is about the Doctor, who sees time and space as relative, and whose experience and knowledge is (forgive me) in a way ever ancient and ever new. The show is about this Doctor, and his life, and his love, and his sacrifice, and all of those whose lives are changed dramatically by friendship with him.

Now, I should be clear, I cannot help but watch Doctor Who with a lens of Catholicity, as I am imbibed with theological doctrine on a daily basis (comes with the job). Therefore, I am sure that I find many elements of the character and the story to mimic or reflect certain elements or aspects of the faith, while they are surely not explicitly meant for that purpose. You have a character who is in many ways above and beyond the natural world that we know, and yet, who desires and loves to be with and among people (humans). Moreover, the character believes in a certain inherent goodness in humanity and often struggles to convince people that they are better than they know themselves to be. This, while of course implicit and hidden, still seems rather Christian to me. However, I am not trying to argue for any secret Christian mission in Doctor Who, but simply pointing to an element that I found to be obvious.

On the whole, I have rarely felt that I am best friends and intimate companions with a character in general, much less a character in a television show. I can understand that level of attachment to a character in literature, because one's imagination holds so much power in the development and experience of the story. However, this show has managed to capture that same spark of freedom where the imagination is free to explore the story while experiencing the story coming to life in front of him or her.

Ah! I love it!

Please, please go watch. Begin at season one, that is very important. And do not make a judgement call on your affection or appreciation for the show until you have watched at least four episodes, as it does take some time to adjust. Ideally, watch into season two. At that point, you should be completely lost to it. If you are not, then no worries. Enjoy something else.

David Tennant, if you ever read this, THANK YOU. From the bottom of my heart.

Daily Doctrine - Do Not Be Ashamed

"Nevertheless, many, even among the authorities, believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they did not acknowledge it openly in order not to be expelled from the synagogue. For they preferred human praise to the glory of God.

Jesus cried out and said, 'Whoever believes in me believes not only in me but also in the one who sent me, and whoever sees me sees the one who sent me. I came into the world as light, so that everyone who believes in me might not remain in darkness. And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day, because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me.'"

- John 12:42-50

Daily Doctrine - Penance

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Sacrament of Penance:


1455 The confession (or disclosure) of sins, even from a simply human point of view, frees us and facilitates our reconciliation with others. Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible.
1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."
1458 Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church. Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. By receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father's mercy, we are spurred to be merciful is he is merciful...

Daily Doctrine - Aim of Catechesis

This is a quotation taken from the Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi Tradendae, given by Blessed Pope John Paul II in 1979.

"To put it more precisely: within the whole process of evangelization, the aim of catechesis is to be the teaching and maturation stage, that is to say, the period in which the Christian, having accepted by faith the person of Jesus Christ as the one Lord and having given Him complete adherence by sincere conversion of heart, endeavors to know better this Jesus to whom he has entrusted himself: to know His "mystery," the kingdom of God proclaimed by Him, the requirements and promises contained in His Gospel message, and the paths that He has laid down for anyone who wishes to follow Him." - Catechesi Tradendae, 20

Who Defines "Person"

I will admit, it has been a while since I have been so sickened by the absolute audacity of "scientific progress" that I want to spit nails...

I will now attempt to do so, where "nails" are the figurative representation for the words I write.

First off, here is the article in question, titled "Killing babies no different than abortion, experts say". Secondly, this is not "new" as far as eugenics is concerned.

In the Netherlands, it is legal to euthanize in certain situations, and those "certain situations" map out a surprisingly broad horizon. Newborns have a place in that map. Does this shock you? Had you often thought of euthanasia as an issue only for the elderly and those in hospice?

Here's a nice little quote from the article to get your blood pumping:
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

The funny thing is, they have it right...and then so wrong. The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, because from the moment of conception, from the moment that the egg cell and sperm cell fuse into the zygote (baby) and the soul of that person is infused (sorry scientists, can't ignore that God is part of this), that person is a baby/baby is a person/cell is a person/etc... However you want to spell that out, the point is that I was me when my DNA was formed at the fusion of the oocyte and spermocyte of my parents. So they are correct there, but so sadly, they reverse the truth they just proclaimed and state that instead of the person existing from the moment of conception, the person isn't even a person until.. when? They have "reasonable cognitive functions"?

Now, if you haven't heard of Descartes (and you have, even if you don't know that you have), let me introduce you to him: "I think, therefore I am" (Part VI of Discourse on Method). Now, let's be clear about this statement - Descartes does not spend pages discussing that he exists simply by brain power, as if he was sure electricity was keeping his heart going. His philosophy is one that has been taken up by modern thought (along with Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes and others) to undermine natural law with a concept of general distrust of the material. However, the distrust of the material lead to a distrust of the spiritual as well, for the two cannot be without one another. In the end, the Cartesian separation is a dichotomy between body and soul that leads to a rejection of the reality of the state of being that we find ourselves in. There is far too much to be said on this topic for a paragraph, so it can be left to say that science (at least, as reflected in the article in reference here) has been influenced in a negative way by this philosophy.

Taken to the extreme, this understanding of what makes a human, "human", reduces man to something that excludes the natural facts of life. There are, sadly, a number of persons who have very low or non-existent brain functions, or at least are not able to present any rational thought, and yet they are people. However, this redefining of what is a person creates an unrealistic sieve where any of the "unwanted" can be safely "dropped through the cracks."

At the end of the day, we cannot stand for those trained in biology and science to claim that eugenics and infanticide are morally permissible, and almost worse, reasonable. To murder in a nonchalant and callous way is nothing short of irrational. And it is also sickeningly wrong.

Chew on that for a bit...  

Valentine's Day

I thought I'd recall the epitome of Love, on this festive day.

"For God so loved the world, that  he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life." John 3:16

"We love because he first loved us." 1 John 4:19

 
We learn the true meaning of love at the foot of the Cross.

Daily Doctrine - No Other God

For thus says the LORD,

The creator of the heavens,

who is God,

The designer and maker of the earth

who established it,

Not as an empty waste did he create it,

but designing it to be lived in:

I am the LORD, and there is no other.

I have not spoken in secret

from some place in the land of darkness,

I have not said to the descendants of Jacob,

“Look for me in an empty waste.”

I, the LORD, promise justice,

I declare what is right.

Come and assemble, gather together,

you fugitives from among the nations!

They are without knowledge who bear wooden idols

and pray to gods that cannot save.

Come close and declare;

let them take counsel together:

Who announced this from the beginning,

declared it from of old?

Was it not I, the LORD,

besides whom there is no other God?

There is no just and saving God but me.

Turn to me and be safe,

all you ends of the earth,

for I am God; there is no other!

By myself I swear,

uttering my just decree,

a word that will not return:

To me every knee shall bend;

by me every tongue shall swear.

- Isaiah 45:18-23

Daily Doctrine - Obedience

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
-Romans 6:16

Religious when it's Useful

Didn't anyone teach you at an early age these important basic principles?

They are:
1. Religion is a tool.
2. It is to be used as is appropriate for accomplishing your goals.
3. Any religion will do, as a tool, for accomplishing your goals.
4. You are not bound to any one religion, as a tool, to accomplish your goals.
5. If you desire, you may use religion only at certain times that it applies to your goals.
6. You may also discredit and ignore others who use their religion for accomplishing goals, as your tool is better than their tool, simply by the law of "individual" over "common good."
7. Religion is not to be confused with anything that has deeper meaning or applies to the values of your life. It is a tool.

Maybe something inside of your head is flashing right now, some kind of small red warning signal, hinting that this might be blatantly wrong, or at least illogical.
Hopefully, that is happening.

However, is appears that while many people (thank God), were not raised with such nonsense as what is above, some, including certain leaders, were.

Now, as I do not really know how our President was raised, I cannot say that this is so. I want to be respectful of the man who is carrying the weight of answering for the United States. I disagree with many of his policies and decisions, but I want to clarify that this is not some hateful post or something that is meant to be disrespectful.

That being said, when one reads this article, it is very hard to not assume that the principles listed above are in play. When you look at it from the objective, this is what you see:
- Religious discrimination in the form of a failure to respect religious freedom and conscience rights for the many American citizens (many who are Catholic and Christian) who do not find abortion, contraception, sterilization or embryonic stem cell research to be morally permissible.

So it is acceptable for the Department of Health and Human Services to require that organizations and institutions (such as Catholic schools and hospitals) provide contraceptive services, against their moral beliefs, while it is simultaneously acceptable for the President to state that his decisions on taxes stem from a Christian understanding of shared wealth?

I'm not arguing here about taxes... I'm going to a much more fundamental issue. This is about "when" and "where" is is acceptable in this country to talk about JESUS, and when it isn't. Did we not just see Tim Tebow taking heat for his overtly Christian messages in the public eye? Do we not also see the Susan G. Komen organization taking heat for making a fiscal decision that others are insisting is a ethical/moral decision? The problem here is consistency.

Please don't take this the wrong way: I'm not asking that "if we aren't all allowed to say, 'I live this way because of Jesus,' that no one should be allowed to." Clearly not. That would be a rather extreme persecution. However, I would like to call for some consistency in respecting religious beliefs! If the President can comfortably say that his policy on taxing the wealthy in this country is coming from an understanding of the Gospel, than by all means, I believe that any organization or institution that conscientiously objects to contraceptives/abortion/etc... should be comfortable (and in all legal rights) to say their policy of not offering those things comes from their understanding of the Gospel. End of story.

Now, I know that the President's comments were not so forceful, etc.. to be highly bent out of shape. It is still an issue that I see in the black and white - there is right, and there is wrong. It is not wrong, by any means, to help the poor and needy. I have been fortunate enough to live a life that was provided for, but I have also lived with people who have nothing, and I understand how important this message of generosity and charity is. I simply do not think that it is right to say that this particular moral truth is acceptable in this instance, but the other moral truths, those concerning life itself, are not acceptable.

Let's keep praying for religious freedom and the end to the culture of death that continues to seek ways of seeping into the fabric of our lives.

Mary, Queen of Peace, pray for us.

Daily Doctrine - Sacred Scripture and Prayer

Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church, from Catechism 131-133:


"And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."


"Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."


The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

Discrimination and anti-trafficking

I would like to draw attention to another issue that revolves around religious freedom and the movement of this great Nation.

This article, found in the Washington Post, discusses a serious debate that has begun over the decision of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award three lesser-ranked organizations grant monies that had previously been awarded to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) (specifically to the Migration and Refugee Services (known as MRS) Anti - Trafficking Services Program). The controversy comes from the fact that as a Catholic organization, MRS refuses to refer victims for contraception or abortion, as those go against the Church's moral teaching. The question presented is: does this border on religious persecution when this organization has been higher ranked, consistently, for since 2006? That's six years of successful service to victims of human trafficking and their families, and the funding that had assisted in this positive and necessary work has now been refused.

A number of congressmen have raised issue with this decision, and are now writing letters calling for legal action against HHS. Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.), Rep. Christopher H. Smith (N.J.), Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and 24 other senators signed a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary. The letter stated:
"A fundamentally religious organization, it is well known that the USCCB - in lawful exercise of its conscience rights - foes not provide abortion referrals. To ensure your department respected USCCB's conscience rights and did not violate current law in awarding this grant, we request specific information related to USCCB's grant denial, a full explanation of your department's decision, and whether the USCCB's position regarding abortion referrals was a factor in your department's decision making. As you know, your department is expected to award federal contracts to the most qualified applicants who demonstrate the greatest capability to administer a program's goals."

I applaud those who are making a stand for justice in this case. These congressmen and women are pointing to what is clearly wrong here: choosing organizations with lesser ranking and poorer performance over an organization with a higher ranking and better performance, because the organization will simultaneously maintain its religious liberty and not recommend actions to which it conscientiously objects. This can only hurt the men, women and children affected by human trafficking and their families. 

Schizophrenia and Abortion

In case you did not hear about this, a Massachusetts Judge ruled that a woman (and mother) suffering from mental illness (diagnosed as Schizophrenia and/or bi-polar disease) should have an abortion (of her five month old baby, who could most likely survive outside the womb at this point or within the next month, thanks to the beauty of medical advancements) and be sterilized.

I do not think I need to explain further why this is ludicrous. Fortunately, a higher court judge ruled that this was out of line. The first judge involved is reported to have ordered "to abort a mentally ill woman’s unborn baby and sterilize her — if it meant she had to be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed ... by ruse” into the procedure."

You can read at your convenience the two articles linked to above. Below is an email letter that I wrote and sent to a number of representatives in the Massachusetts State Congress. They are representatives that work for the committees on mental health, family, ethics, etc...

If you want to copy/paste and edit the letter as you see fit, and send it to those same representatives, please feel free. The letter is below, and the email list is pasted under the letter.


Most of all, let us keep this mother in our prayers. No matter what, the illness she is suffering from is very hard to cope with, and unfortunately, for many people who do not know how to handle such a disease, the easiest way to cope is to treat the person with little compassion or dignity. This woman needs help, and not violence.


Mary, Queen of Peace, pray for us.

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I have been appalled at the recent discovery concerning the court order for "Mary Moe" that she would be forced to abort her child and be sterilized.

After some research on Mass.gov, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Medical Assistance Provider Manual Series defines a "mentally incompetent individual" as follows:

“Mentally Incompetent Individual — for purposes of 130 CMR 405.428 through 405.430, an

individual who has been declared mentally incompetent by a federal, state, or local court of

competent jurisdiction for any purpose, unless the individual has been declared competent for

purposes that include the ability to consent to sterilization.”

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/masshealth/regs-provider/regs-commhealthctr.pdf

I am deeply concerned that there is an exception for an "individual" that "has been declared competent for purposes that include the ability to consent to sterilization." This is subversive eugenics. There is no reason why any individual person who has been declared incompetent should then be declared competent for purposes such as consent to sterilization. No one who is in a state to be judged as incompetent is able to consent to such a procedure.

In your "Commonwealth of Massachusetts • Executive Office of Health and Human Services Sterilization Consent Form (Ages 21 and Older)" you include in two instances (the "person obtaining consent" and the "physicians consent") that “To the best of my knowledge and belief, the individual to be sterilized is at least 21 years old and appears mentally competent. He or she knowingly and voluntarily requested to be sterilized and appears to understand the nature and consequence of the procedure.”

Therefore, it is unreasonable to suggest that one who is mentally incompetent should also be judged "mentally competent" and "knowingly and voluntarily requested to be sterilized and appears to understand the nature and consequence of the procedure."

No one who is thought to be schizophrenic or even bipolar should be subjected to any kind of lasting decision such as that. It is absolutely inhumane to suggest that this woman would be capable of being responsible for such a decision. Rather, if she is able, through therapeutic and medical treatments, to regain her competency, she will discover her life drastically altered by something done to her, and she will not be able to hold anyone responsible but the State.

Further, to suggest that the court order an abortion for this woman is absolutely on par with all of the above reasoning. This is a child that she has conceived. The repercussions of such a procedure are often very debilitating for women (there are numerous medical journals and studies that support this, especially concerning PTSD), and it is illogical to suggest that someone who has been ruled "incompetent" could then support such a violence against herself. Moreover, while the court should not (and before God, does not) have the power to order any such penalty on two innocent lives (because that is a death order for her child and a dangerous health risk for the mother), the woman has asserted that such behavior goes against her religious beliefs. That should be even more reason for the court to keep its hands and laws off of her body in all ways.

Please forward this to the appropriate person(s) involved in this case. I beg of you to consider that this is life and death that we are discussing here. It is not simply the convenience  or inconvenience of parents who have to deal with a daughter struggling with schizophrenia, or the convenience or inconvenience of the state who might have to support her in various ways. The individual life that is "Mary Moe" and the individual life of her child are both deserving of the care, support, nourishment and legal rights that every American citizen is given in the country, as well as the basic human dignity that is given by God. No one has the right to rob them of those things when they are innocent of any crime. Schizophrenia, or any mental illness, is a tragic disease, and one that should bring pity and mercy to the hearts of those around the victim, and not cruelty and murder.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

The email list I used is as follows:

• info@towncourtlisting.com
• William.Brownsberger@masenate.gov
• Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov
• Gene.OFlaherty@mahouse.gov
• Jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov
• Angelo.Scaccia@mahouse.gov
• Martin.Walsh@mahouse.gov
• Sonia.Chang-Diaz@masenate.gov
• Jack.Hart@masenate.gov
• Nick.Collins@mahouse.gov
• Carlos.Henriquez@mahouse.gov
• Mike.Rush@masenate.gov

Daily Doctrine - Creation

"Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with his People. Creation is revealed as the first step towards this covenant, the first and universal witness to God's all-powerful love. And so, the truth of creation is also expressed with growing vigor in the message of the prophets, the prayer of the psalms and the liturgy, and in the wisdom sayings of the Chosen People."

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 288

Daily Doctrine - Divine Office

"By tradition going back to early Christian times, the divine office is devised so that the whole course of the day and night is made holy by the praises of God. Therefore, when this wonderful song of praise is rightly performed by priests and others who are deputed for this purpose by the Church's ordinance, or by the faithful praying together with the priest in the approved form, then it is truly the voice of the bride addressed to her bridegroom; it is the very prayer which Christ Himself, together with His body, addresses to the Father."
- Sacrosanctum Concilium, 84

Daily Doctrine - The Church

"The Son, therefore, came, sent by the Father. It was in Him, before the foundation of the world, that the Father chose us and predestined us to become adopted sons, for in Him it pleased the Father to re-establish all things. To carry out the will of the Father, Christ inaugurated the Kingdom of heaven on earth and revealed to us the mystery of that kingdom. By His obedience He brought about redemption. The Church, or, in other words, the kingdom of Christ now present in mystery, grows visibly through the power of God in the world. This inauguration and this growth are both symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of a crucified Jesus, and are foretold in the words of the Lord referring to His death on the Cross: 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself'."
- Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 3

Daily Doctrine

Dear friends, 

I am going to attempt to put some doctrinal teaching, quote or instruction up each day. I intend to draw from the Catechism, from Church documents, from the Saints, from Canon Law and any other reliable sources. 


Today's "DD" is from the Catechism:

"There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith."
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 89

Wake Up Call

This article is the main topic of discussion here. It is Ms. Cecile Richards, proclaiming that 99% of women use contraception anyway, so what's the harm in HHS mandating its use?

She is so wrong!

Every once in a while I get truly upset (and that means angry). When that happens, I start posting things all over facebook and twitter about all the bull statistics that people love to falsely tout as if they were proving their agenda was correct with the backing of the masses. Last time I checked, biology is not actually a democratic issue. In other words, one cannot change something that deals with life and death simply by gathering enough votes.

That would only work if natural law did not exist. Oh wait! That MUST be the premise that Planned Parenthood is operating upon. More than that, I believe it is the end that Planned Parenthood has been striving to achieve for decades! What great leaps of discovery (and what lucrative business) will be possible if natural law isn't there to "get in the way" of progressive science?!

This is in no way as simple as "the left" or "the right" of politics. It is actually far more simple, because, as I have pointed out, it is not a political issue. It is, of course, because man has made laws concerning biology, and so constituents are called upon to vote in one way or another. At the end of the day, however, and for that matter, at the beginning of the day too, this is still a biological and natural issue, that comes before legislation and politics.

I recall about ten years ago when I was first entering the "teenage" scene. I heard comments from my parents and others' parents about "relativism" in the media. Movies, especially, were "relativistic." At the time, my comprehension of what they meant was limited. I understood that they meant that some "bad" things were being allowed when they shouldn't be. I did not really understand what "relativistic" was.

However, as an adult who can look over the progression of what was a 90's PG movie and what is a current PG movie (do they even make those anymore?), I understand the concept. I understand it, because I see it alive all around me. Particularly in any are that deals with personal/private issues (which typically are biological/natural). Health care, family planning, marital relations, sexual activity, etc...these are "taboo," but flipped upside down. These things were once taboo as far as they were considered inappropriate or improper for the public sector. Now, they are taboo in that no one should have a say about anyone else in their behavior, habits, preferences etc...to the extent that all public portrayal and licensing of these behaviors is completely acceptable SO THAT no one is excluded or isolated in negativity.

Ok, first of all, that is a ridiculous sentence. Second of all, it's sickeningly circular. No one gets anywhere in relativism. Relativism is NOT progressive. It's not exactly regressive either. It's just a status quo. That is the entire concept! Maintain some absolute LUKEWARM status quo so that everything and anything is acceptable and nothing is unacceptable.

See, even if you aren't Christian and don't find that disheartening or sickening, someone who is simply LOGICAL can understand the concept that when "anything" is acceptable and "nothing" is unacceptable, you enter into a sort of "black hole" where the vacuum of reason is constantly being sucked away, leaving nothing but the abyss of stasis. Stasis is not healthy, because it is not growing, and as it is not growing, it's more like a state of existing (which is always struggling to survive) rather than living (which is proper to the beings we are). Maybe I've lost you.

If I could put some cartoons in here, I would. Picture the following.
Little plant begins to grow.
Other little plant tries to come up next to it, but plant A is not thrilled.
Plant B needs more soil/nutrients/sunlight to continue to live.
Plant A is not sharing.
Person who is growing these plants (pretend that is all of us voters/leaders/people who decide things about our culture) tells them to share evenly, because everything is acceptable and nothing is unacceptable.
Since that clearly doesn't work well, both A and B cease to grow, because there is not enough for either of them. Why? Because the one who had the reason and logic to determine that there is a "right" and "wrong," a better answer and a poorer answer, decided to choose neither the good or bad answer, but some lukewarm crap in the middle. Death followed.

Granted, I'm not on a tirade about sharing resources or anything like that. While I do care about important social justice issues, those are not very applicable when the people themselves are dying because of legalized infanticide and other lovely forms of killing innocent children.

That is what relativism is, my friends. It says "we're all ok," and since that is not actually possible in a human society (you know, sinners and saints), the cultural theme (relativism) tries to stuff down the saints so they aren't so good and make the sinners look better so no one feels too guilty, etc...

Remember that time that everything had to be "equal opportunity," and we all have the same rights as everyone else? Too much of a good thing, is a bad thing. These concepts, when appropriately enacted, are good. I'm certainly not advocating that we pick some group of people to be "inferior" or "superior" and return to the feudal system. I am advocating that "equality" taken to an extreme actually hinders growth and health in a culture because we aren't actually the same. We do have equal dignity, of course. We are also different, though, and that is a gift that should allow us to thrive. But relativism is scared of thriving.

Ugh, anyway, the major issue I raised within the relativism umbrella is that we don't even blink an eye when people are LYING outright to the world about things that really ought to matter... you know, killing babies. 99% of women do not use birth control. I promise. That is a fabricated statistic. Beyond that, even if they did, it still wouldn't make it right to kill children (assuming that many birth controls are abortifacients, which they are). Other fabrications by Ms. Richards and Planned Parenthood include that the Catholic Church is trying to take over and force our laws upon the poor, unsuspecting world, and PP is there to work with HHS to defend everyone (that's a summary, not a direct quote, of course).

But here is a direct quote from Ms. Richard's article: "The beauty of birth control is if you don't want or need it, you don't have to use it. That's a decision women can make perfectly well on their own, without the interference of government or religion. And that's something on which we should all be able to agree." The funny thing is, and sense my sarcasm if you will, mandating that health care plans carry birth control and abortion services even in religious institutions that conscientiously object is absolutely the "interference of government." What else is it? Is HHS not a government organization? I am at a loss here. Of course women can or cannot use birth control.. they were able to before this law. I fail to see how this argument is in her favor. I think that's because I'm trying to use REASON. (Remember, in a relativistic culture, you aren't really supposed to do that.)

Here, I brought in another article, in case the first one wasn't convincing. Here, Ms. Richards states, "According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2011, state legislatures passed more than triple the number of anti-women's health provisions than in 2010 -- the highest ever." Oh no! I'm sorry, I thought those were laws to save lives, I failed to see how they were anti-women's heath. In fact, based on the many statistics about how dangerous abortions and contraception can be for women, I thought those would be laws that were pro-the lives and health of babies and mothers. I guess I'm just dumb.

This is more for the laughter, but this is further in the same article quoted above: "But now, due to anti-women's health laws passed in that state last year, those women will have to travel long distances ─and presumably go out of state in some instances -- for safe, legal abortion care. That means time away from work, transportation costs, someone to take care of the kids -- it all adds up to an additional burden on women who are already going through a very stressful experience." Well, here's a thought, Ms. Richards. Maybe the women who are pregnant might understand that the act of making love has the power and potential to bring forth new life. Maybe they would understand that even better if we are assuming that they already have kids who they are going to need to have a babysitter for, while they go have their new baby killed???

One more, than I'll stop. Here she says, "Opposing Roe and essential women's health care isn't just bad policy -- it's bad politics. That's because Americans agree with the protection that Roe provides. Polling consistently reaffirms that a majority of Americans support a woman's right to make her own decisions about pregnancy in consultation with her doctor and her family." Interesting. Here's a nice Gallop poll that disagrees with this.

Anyway, she's turning into a political issue, which means that she too misunderstands the fundamental issue that is at stake, or she willfully chooses to try to destroy it. I will certainly not pretend to know her agenda. All I can see is that these facts are not factual, and that the issue is life and death. It is black and white. It is non-negotiable. As relativistic as our culture wants to be, this isn't something that can fall into the vortex and "just be ok." The vortex will spit it back out. That is because people understand, inherently, that we come from somewhere, and go somewhere, and this experience of being born and dying is one that every person must face, whether they are in agreement or not. It cannot be "voted" away. While mankind tries to find ways to conquer or dominate life and death, he continues to be born and to die. Because natural law is what it is. It is part of the divine law, and it is based in the Truth. God has created us, and we cannot escape the reality we live in.

This blog made me very happy, because people aren't really that stupid. Moreover, it does seem that the younger generation of Americans is rather aware that life and death are very, very real things. It is full of hope, and that is what real progress is about. Living in hope, and not accepting a status quo where relativism eats us alive.

Anyway, as Padre Pio said, "Pray, hope, and don't worry." In this case, I'm praying, hoping, and writing a blog post to try to get other people to shake off the slumber and wake up.

Love Grows

You know, in this life we have many ups and downs.

In particular, with our families. I know many who have had so many burdens brought into their families, whether through separation or death, sickness or abuse, disobedience or malice, etc... Those who suffer in these ways can testify that these instances are often the greatest pains we endure. Losing a job can hurt, but it is not the same pain that we know when we lose one we love.

Something else I have been reflecting on is this: despite this truth (that life has its pains, sorrows, burdens and sufferings), there is another truth, one that comes hand-in-hand with the first. It is the truth that love grows.

To be philosophic, Aquinas said that God is fully in act, that he is always in actualization, that there is no potentiality in him because of his being. To make that down to earth, God's love, the love that we all experience and know, is a love that is not regressive. The nature of love is to act. For love, acting does not always have to be the "proactive" sense that we normally attribute to the term. It can be a residing, a dwelling-with, a being-of and being-in and being-for. It is not, however, a depletion, or reversal, or negation. Love grows. It may grow in a path other than straight up or in a linear fashion. It may grow in a large circle to include more and more family and friends, for example. It may grow to include more and more of the other person in question as one is revealed to the other. Yet, it moves.

Love becomes sick when it is asked to negate, or regress, or remove itself. In this, I do not speak of God-as-love but as man loving man. Sometimes we do have to draw away from one we love, whether that is from illness or from death, or other instances. These are the times of pain and the hardship of recognizing that our love is not yet perfect. When our love is perfected, we will be before God, and our love will be in Him and through Him and for Him. Then we will understand love's nature in its fullness. Until then, we will see it moving from all the potential we see in our earthly life into the actualization of each and every day's commitment.

That is one of the most beautiful aspects of the love of a family. It is love that begins with two who profess to love one another so much that they believe their love will continue to grow until they die. They are so convicted of this reality, that they will vow it before others and promise that each day henceforth, even though those days cannot be seen or known or anticipated at that time, they will still love one another. From then on, each and every day that they wake up, they renew that promise by living in that relationship. They make it more concrete by bringing into reality what they once said they believed would be true! Furthermore, that love reaches even beyond the two of them and their personal timelines that they have chosen to intertwine together until death, because they bring new life into this world through that love! So the actualization of the love that they possess includes the expansion of new people, who in turn come to understand, encounter and live love of their own.

Hence, we see the dynamism, the vitality, the spirit and the eternal nature that is written into love by its character of being of God. We share in it, and we come to know it, and we give it. We learn from it, we hold it close, we celebrate it. We suffer in it and we find wisdom within it that we could not have imagined. Love is a teacher and a guide. As we grow, love grows. We can only stand in awe at how we seem to lasso our figurative love-stallion at a young age and say to another as we stand at an altar, "here, I have captured my love for you, and it is yours," all the while knowing that the love is yet-to-be, yet to be uncovered as the day has yet to be lived, and yet to be known as the baby has yet to be born, etc... This is the nature of love! It is always beyond us and always within us. It is God who is more intimate to man than he is to himself. God who is the Creator who gives us our freedom and our being, and yet holds us in being. It is his love that contains us and sustains us, and yet we have the generous invitation to make that love our own and to give it away freely.

I only know that as I look back on my short life so far, I am convicted that my love has grown immensely, just as I am convinced that it will not cease to grow as long as I live. Thank God.

Poetic Last Days, December

Just because I need to put something else on this blog, I found a poem from days gone by that I wanted to share.

who knows the feeling
of a heart that's still beating
but there's no one there to hear?

who knows the feeling
of a soul still seeking
but all we're grasping is air?

breath comes but it
just runs away
taken back from where it came

light breaks but it's
stolen away
and we are in the dark

oh humanity
why do we
settle so
oh people
can we
truly believe that this
is all it is
all its worth
all that we should know?
i won't accept it as so

who knows the feeling
of empty ceilings
reaching up with no end

who knows the promise
of hope beyond this
somehow i remember

breath comes and I
gasp so that
there's life
light breaks
and I'm stolen away
far from this dark

oh humanity
why do we
settle so
oh people
can we
truly believe that this
is all it is
all its worth
all that we should know?
i won't accept it as so

beauty baby stunning and changing
cover me and put me to sleep

goodness darling startling alarming
awake for the first time and seeing

oh humanity
why do we
settle so
oh people
can we
truly believe that this
is all it is
all its worth
all we should know?
I won't accept it as so

The Word

I felt the need to give a very brief catechesis on the Word of God. I think that this is one of those important, neigh, imperative elements of the faith that somehow is often overlooked or misunderstood. We cannot misunderstand the Word, for He is Christ, and Sacred Scripture is the revelation of God given to man that we might know, love and serve God. Our faith is founded on Christ, the Word, and draws its life from His.

Here are a few quotes to help:

On the UNITY of SCRIPTURE:

"Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely: You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time."

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 102 

"All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ. The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

- CCC, 134-135

"The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God." - CCC, 140

What is so necessary for us to understand is that while each and every book in Sacred Scripture has a unique author or authors, and comes from a different historical moment or series of historical moments, above and below all of that is the Spirit of God divinely inspiring each author, and the spiritual sense that must always be read with the literal sense so that Sacred Scripture can properly be revered as the Holy Book that contains the revelation of God for his people in Christ. Therefore, throughout the Old Testament we read the preparatory covenantal history of God and his people leading up to the ultimate revelation, the "definitive Word" of Christ. We read all of Sacred Scripture through the lens of Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, who is God and man. 

 On the AUTHORSHIP of SCRIPTURE:

"God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." - CCC, 105

While it is of course true that the human authors were neither possessed nor forced or dictated to in their authorship, but freely worked with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is equally true that God is the author of Scripture just as Christ is the ONE WORD, the Word made flesh. It is for this reason that the Catechism says that we reverence Sacred Scripture as the body of Christ. 

On the DEPOSIT of FAITH:

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence." - Dei Verbum, 9

 The unity of Scripture and Tradition, making up this one Deposit of Faith, is the dynamic unveiling of God's loving invitation to participation in his life throughout time beginning at the creation of man and culminating in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, bringing redemption for mankind and establishing the Church as the means through which we may be saved. It is both the actual, historical handing on of the revelation of God, orally and in written form through the ages, as well as the Sacred Word of Scriptures that together give the Church her foundation. Above all, it is Christ who is the source and summit of the faith.