Ash Wednesday homily

As we all know, today begins Lent.

During Lent, we strip down,
we clear out the extras.
Look around church—things are sparser.
That’s what we do with our lives.
That’s why we eat less food today.
Why we go without meat today and on Fridays.

Maybe you will give up candy, or dessert,
Or something else you like, for Lent.

You might wonder why we do this?
Well, we do it for several reasons.

We do it as a sign that we are sorry;
And that we want to change.

The very act of self-denial itself changes us.

If you go without ice cream, or candy,
During Lent—you may find, at the end,
It isn’t so important to you after all!

If you decide, during Lent,
to pray some extra prayers,
You may find
you’ll keep praying them, ever after!

If you decide, during Lent,
to be more helpful to others—
That can only help make you
a more generous and caring person.

But be clear what
our acts of penance do not do:
They do not “pay” for our sins,
The Cross paid for our sins—
Not going without chocolate!

I know many of you will get “Rice Bowls”—
Your teachers will help you collect money
to help feed hungry people
elsewhere in the world.

That’s a good thing to do; very important.
But that won’t make God love you,
He already loves you.

Rather—it is how you show your love for him!

There’s one special thing we do today,
“Ash Wednesday.”

In a moment, we will come forward,
And one of the teachers
or I will put ashes on your head.

When you come forward,
you’ll see the ashes look like dirt!

The ashes remind us that everything
that seems so important is like ashes—dirt!
Compared to what really matters: knowing Jesus!
Most things in life
will end up like these ashes—
burned up, worth nothing.
But our friendship with God—
that will last forever!

These ashes—this dirt—
are just a small reminder
that when we sin:
-- when we lie, we cheat,
-- when we are greedy and selfish,
-- when we hurt others with our fists or our words,
-- when we forget to put God first in our lives,
-- when we neglect to care for other people…

All these things are dirt on our souls—
We don’t realize just how dirty they make us.

But when we realize we’re dirty,
Then we want all the more to be . . . clean!
And that’s when we realize
how wonderful God is!
He makes us clean!

More than clean, as in taking a bath;
But clean through and through!
Only God can do that!

So, during Lent,
we feel sorrow and joy at the same time!

Sorrow for sin, for being dirty;
But joy—joy!—because
we get to be friends with God;
God looks past the sin, the dirt,
in our lives;
God changes us—and makes us clean.

Mother Dagmar re-emerges

This story originated from a post at Seminarian Patrick Gallagher's blog, Veritas nunquam perit.

He describes the latest doings of Ohio's former first lady, Dagmar Braun Celeste, more recently "ordained" by a renegade, ex-Catholic bishop.

His post is hilarious; no comment is necessary on that.

Back already? Okay, so Mr. Gallagher's post gets me curious; what else has been going on with "Mother" Dagmar?

So I google her; and I find an interview with the priestess at the Ohio Free Times

"Are you still a practicing Roman Catholic?

I abide not being able to take communion, but what has happened is that ordinary lay people bring me communion. I have not felt deprived of the sacrament particularly, even though that is the intent of the excommunication. My priesthood is more important in terms of presence than in terms of presiding. What's really important is to empower people to nurture each other."

Umm . . . if she's a valid, Catholic priest, why would she need anyone to bring her communion?

Really, this is just too funny; alas, I am not good enough to satirize this. Perhaps those lovable smart alecs at the Shrine of the Holy Whapping can do it justice?

More progress on state abortion laws

Below, I posted about my disappointment with National Review and what I consider it's muddle-headed thinking on South Dakota's new law prohibiting abortion.

Online, today, I read about Kentucky considering such a law; and in an email, I got a note from Rep. Tom Brinkman, sponsoring similar legislation here in Ohio.

He shared with me, and I share with you, a web site about his legislation, House Bill 228.

Why I badger you for comments on my homilies

I confess I enjoy preparing and offering homilies.

If I can't prepare one -- if I end up offering extemporaneous thoughts at a daily Mass -- I enjoy it much less. But when I have time and inclination fully to prepare a homily: to pray over the readings, to consult various commentaries and resources, and to be able, in relative quiet and peace, with coffee at hand, to craft the text, drawing on all the blessings of my life that can enrich it -- and then, to be able to edit, edit, edit, making it tight and polished . . .

And then, to be with my parishioners, and to share it . . . and, to have another chance at it, because inevitably, feedback or sudden insights will improve it . . .

Yes, I enjoy that.

There are many other things a priest does that matter more. A man collapsed at Mass today, and someone helpfully waved me down, right during the Lamb of God, to him; and so I went. I brought him holy communion before the paramedics took him to the hospital (I offered to anoint him, but he said no). I would make a big bet that the family will remember my attention to him far more than my homily.

As much as I enjoy homilies, the rest of the Mass matters far more in my estimation; as much as I want folks to get a helpful homily -- I pray that whatever I offer is enriching to their faith -- I also want folks to look past the homily; the better it is, the more I want that. Too often, I fear, we are dazzled by externals and impressive packaging. A good homily can -- in the words of St. Augustine, teach, delight and persuade. But the Mass is an infinite treasure; and it grieves when someone says, "the main thing for me is the homily." Oh God, no!

Yet I read what folks say about the homilies they experience; and I wonder, can it be that bad?

I think folks who tend to complain and overstate things are over-represented on blogs; I think there are folks, young and old, who when they complain, ought to be challenged: "Don't tell me there was nothing for you; it was there. Instead of focusing on the problems of others, focus on the problem of yourself." The "I get nothing out of Mass" attitude, in my judgment, is itself utterly without merit; that it gets any sympathy from me is not because it's valid, but because I think I will do more good in getting the person out of that narcissism with softness than with the eight-letter response it strictly merits: bull----!" Occasionally, the latter, blunt answer is appropriate."

But I can't dismiss the comments folks far and wide offer about their experiences of the Mass, and of homilies, simply as "complaining." And then it hit me, as I thought about this, that it has been some time now since I was in that situation.

After all, for some 4 years now, most of the homilies I've heard at Mass were my own. As I like to say, I haven't gone to Mass in years; I offer it -- and that's a very different experience. I forget what it's like to "go to" Mass.

For six years, I was in the seminary. And yes, I heard some inane homilies in those years; but I had the advantage of being nourished in my faith many other ways. It's been some time since I was just a "regular Joe" Catholic attending Sunday Mass.

So I have to defer to you, dear reader, and to my dear parishioners: it's been too long since I walked in their shoes, and I really no longer have the ability to do so, in this regard.

So: if you tell me you aren't getting nourished in homilies, then that makes me say to myself, it does matter that I get it right. And that is why I solicit your feedback.

When you say you like a homily, thank you; but if you want to help me, tell me why. This may sound very odd, but it's true: just what makes a homily effective is pretty much a mystery! Oh, I don't deny all the insights, all the valid observations about technique (and I know some of them, and when I have time, I try to use them).

I mean, rather, that after all that, one can give a homily that flunks all the tests, and yet it elicits the same, "good homily Father!" Too often, I have prepared a homily I didn't like very much; but many folks at Mass, did. Too many times, folks have said I said such-and-such, and I thought, "when did I say that?" -- that's what they heard. How did that happen? A mystery to me.

I write all my Sunday homilies; I know what I said. But only you can tell me what you heard; and what it meant. Only you can tell me why you liked it; what was good about it (for you).

Also, I figure if you get into the habit of giving me specific feedback on my homilies, it can only help you be able to offer that to your own parish priest. I realize how daunting offering that to him could be; but he needs to know.

You are obliged to be charitable, and constructive, but your feedback is vital, whether he's doing well or -- even more -- badly. If you find your bishop, priest or deacon's homilies wanting, how do you expect him to change, if no one will step up and in true charity, offer some pointed feedback? (I assure you, everyone from mediocrity and up has more than enough "good homilies" bolstering their present habits.)

So, don't hold back, please. I want your feedback, and I need it.

'Moving Past' as an Archdiocese (Sunday homily)

That first reading comes from
the Prophet Hosea.
It is a very passionate book.
God is speaking to his people
as if he is a husband,
and his people are his wife.
So it starts out negatively,
Talking about unfaithfulness and adultery—
And God says, "you are not my people."

But then comes today’s reading.
"I will allure her"—God woos his people!
"I will espouse you to me forever."
God always wants to move past our sins.
We may hold on to them,
but God is always ready to forget.

Every year, we have an annual appeal
for a number of needs of the Archdiocese.
Today I’m making that annual appeal.

There’s a painful reality here
I might as well acknowledge.
Because of unfaithfulness
on the part of some who wear this collar—
because of how the Archbishop handled things—
There’s a lot pain and hurt
and it affects this fund drive.

Unfortunately, a lot of good causes
suffer as a result.
Let me tell you about some of them.

Retired priests. Last December,
you were very generous
in supporting the fund
for retired sisters and brothers.
That fund is for those in religious orders—
such as Franciscans, Sisters of Charity, and so forth.

Retired, diocesan priests—such as Father Ang—
are provided for by this fund.

Catholic Social Services. Last year,
when the hurricane hit,
hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans
were refugees; Catholic Social Services helped.

Every year, couples seek adoption and need help;
folks get in trouble, and need counseling;
someone is faced with an unexpected pregnancy,
and needs guidance;
Catholic Social Services
meets these and many other needs.

Our seminary. From time to time,
you will say to me,
"Father, we like your homilies!" or,
"Father, we like how you offer Mass,"
or other words of encouragement—
for which I thank you.

Well, I give my parents a lot of credit,
But as far as being trained as a priest,
Knowing Scripture, liturgy,
the teachings of the Church—
I learned them through our seminary.
The Athanaeum of Ohio provides everything
our future priests need—free!

It also trains folks for lay ministry
and as permanent deacons.

The St. Rita School for the Deaf
provides for children
from kindergarten through high school
who have hearing disabilities—
especially those with profound hearing loss.

As you might imagine, it’s expensive;
It requires teachers with special gifts and training.
I don’t have to say much more, except:
Aren’t you proud to support such a school?

One more good cause, especially now:
Our vocation programs
to attract more sisters, brothers, priests and deacons.

When I first called the vocation office,
Father Mark Watkins did a lot to help me.

I think you agree, these are all good causes.
But I know many wonder:
will the money go where I want it to go?

So here’s my suggestion.
You have a choice.
If you want, write your check
to the Archdiocesan Fund—
or just tuck cash into the envelope in your pew.
And that’s where it will go.

But you might prefer to designate a cause.
You’ll find a yellow slip of paper in your pews,
just like this.

It mentions some, not all,
of the causes being supported.
If you write your check,
payable as listed on that slip,
your donation will go directly to them.

We’ll separate them out,
And when we turn what is given for this appeal,
I’ll tell the Archdiocese
how you want the money spent.

If they don’t agree—I’ll give you your check back.
Our parish goal is $15,200.
If every family gives $25,
we will make that goal.
Of course, some have more, some have less.
Please do whatever the Lord leads you to do.

I invite you to put your contribution
in today’s collection,
or drop it off another week, or send it by mail.
Only what is in these envelopes
will go to this fund.

I began with Hosea, let me return there.
Despite infidelity, despite the hurt of that,
God cannot abandon his People.
You have shown that quality!

Despite the hurts and wrongs we all know about,
Here you are:
Faithful to your parish,
faithful to our Catholic Church.
Lent begins this Wednesday.

For all of us,
may God give us the grace "to move past":
Just as God moves past our sins,
may we be able to do the same for each other,
and to move forward as a parish and his Church.

National Review is wrong on S.D. abortion law

The venerable National Review has this comment, about the forthcoming South Dakota law banning virtually all abortions, in it's "Window on the Week" column:

"Federal courts will almost certainly strike down the law before it takes effect, and South Dakota will have to pay the fees of the abortion clinics’ attorneys. Subsidizing the ACLU and Planned Parenthood may not be the legislators’ intent, but it is the effect of their actions. There may be some value in putting the state’s opposition to abortion on record. But the legislators could have accomplished that by passing a resolution committing themselves to the goal of protecting unborn human life from unjust killing as soon as it becomes possible — and committing themselves to participating in a practical strategy, combining legislation and litigation, to make it possible. The current bill, though idealistic, is a distraction from that task."

I am very sorry the National Review has taken this tack. The legislators in South Dakota have done exactly the correct thing here, and all over the country, stouthearted legislators are eager to do the same. Now this National Review comment will be thrown up to them, and have the (surely unintended) consequence of aiding and abetting the promise-everything-but-do-nothing-meaningful phony prolifers who already have too much power in our political system.

Yes, it's true the the litigation will likely come out as NR predicts, and that means paying the pro-aborts' legal fees. But by that argument, you never do anything that isn't a sure thing when it gets litigated, and that's a ridiculous standard to set. And it is not certain how the resulting litigation will result. To the extent that pursuing litigation is worthwhile, it is necessary to make cases happen. Imagine, back in the 50s, if folks had given similar advice to the NAACP: "don't go there--all you'll do is lose this case, just like before, segregation will be ratified again!, and you'll put money in the segregationists' pockets!"

The relatively small amount of money that unsuccessful litigation would actually put into the pro-aborts' pockets is far outweighed by the tax money that flows to these folks -- and that's deliberate and voluntary, where -- according to the principle of double effect -- this transfer of funds is an unavoidable evil consequence of an otherwise good and worthwhile action.

Now, as to NR's charge that this is a "distraction" -- well, it depends on what your goal really is. If the NR's goal is more litigation, well that's foolish and they should know better. Litigation of such cases has some value, but it's not the main pursuit. Even if we could win every case we could present in every courtroom -- a highly dubious notion! -- we won't curb abortions there, but through legislation.

And it's rather stupid to argue that the way to pass legislation is not to try! But believe it or not, this is precisely what politicians, addle-brained activists, misguided lobbyists, and now the NR, advocates.

This is standard fare: you bring a controversial bill to the legislature (and everything that will make a significant difference will be controversial), and finding a politician to introduce it, sponsor it, say nice things about it, is one thing; start insisting that it come to a vote, and you will here advice remarkably similar to the NR's: not now, not expedient, wrong move, a distraction, etc.

The argument so-called insiders offer is, oh, you don't want to push for a vote till you have the votes! Ah, how do will you know you have them--till you have a vote? And how do you change the vote count -- until you (1) have a vote and (2) hold the politicians accountable for that vote at the next election?

Now, the NR said, oh, you can have the same effect by having a "resolution." Sorry, NR, but a non-binding, changes-nothing resolution ain't the same as a law that does change things. Know how I know? Because meaningless resolutions pass all the time when effective legislation on the same subject doesn't. Guess why? Because the other side gets a lot less upset about change-nothing resolutions. If you can guess why, you win the prize... Sorry the NR can't figure that out.

Year after year, an awful lot of good legislation is stymied when supposed allies say, "oh, that'll never pass" -- and it never gets a vote.

Thanks to the doughty Legislature of South Dakota, they can't say that there, anymore.

Being human is extrinsic to who you are...

Domenico Bettenelli has a post about a Vatican conference on the issues raised by research involving stem cells derived from embryonic human beings (linked above).

The article he cites, at Catholic World News, observes that the Catholic Church's opposition to such research "is now under attack, the Italian bishop noted, with advocates of embryonic research and of the “morning-after” pill advancing the argument that human life does not begin until the fetus is implanted in the uterus" (emphasis added).

Now, let's think about this -- not theo-logically, but merely logically.

Shall we say that "being human" depends on this exterior interaction -- i.e., the fetus being implanted in the uterus?"

Consider: what if a human embryo could mature fully without ever being implanted in a woman's uterus? Not too many years ago, that would have sounded rather fantastic, but is it any longer? Let's not kid ourselves -- someone has to be working on this -- an artificial womb.

So, shall we really say, "this? This is human, because she or he was implanted in a uterus; but here? No; because it never was."

No theology here; just basic reason. Is that reasonable? Someone defend this, please.

Because what that means is that being human is not an intrinsic quality -- but an extrinsic quality. And if that's true -- if it's something "added from outside," then others -- not the putative human subject we're talking about -- decides.

And, of course, that's where we've been with legal abortion thus far. The actual legal reasoning at work in our present law on the subject is that location makes one a person -- specifically, the location of your head: if the fetus' head is located inside the womb, he or she is not a person. Hence partial-birth abortion.

Those of us who live in societies with the expectation of safeguarding that gift of Christian civilization -- universal human rights -- live every day in the expectation that our humanity is not in question; we don't have to prove it; we don't consider that anything exterior to ourselves would make, or unmake, our humanity.

Try thinking about life without that...go ahead: imagine living in a world in which whether you are human depends on what someone else says about you; or what someone did -- or didn't do -- to you at some stage of your development. Two "beings" are in all ways essentially the same; one is human because of where he gestated; the other is not.

Sunny & about 60 in Charleston

It's a lovely day in Charleston, South Carolina, near the College of Charleston. My friend, with whom I traveled down here, had a friend to visit, so we came up to Charleston. Very pleasant city in which to walk, but not so nice in which to drive.

Heard its cold up north...

Gay Cowboys or talking animals--who wins?

Probably glad he missed the "gay cowboy" movie...

With all the hoop-de-do about the gay-cowboy movie (if you don't know, can you tell me what sort of rock you've been under the last two months?), you might have thought it was a big money-maker. If you have a "my yahoo" web page, you might see the movie ranked #8. Meanwhile, a movie that came out the very same day has faded from view, marginalized as either a children's movie or as something "those Christians liked": The Chronicles of Narnia. Guess it didn't do so well?

Turns out...

Brokeback Mountain: $66 million nationwide, cumulative (over $100 mil. worldwide)

Chronicles of Narnia: $284 million nationwide (over $500 mil. worldwide)

How about that?

Off South in a few hours...

Tomorrow (barely) I'm heading for South Carolina for some vacation. I just checked the weather report: 73 degrees today! (Yay!) High tomorrow? 59 -- hmmm . . .

I haven't blogged much, lately -- lots doing in the parish. It may be I'll blog more next week, on vacation. If you see me here, you know the weather is unpleasant . . .

How convinced--and convincing--are you? (Sunday homily)

Father Tim Schehr,
who teaches at our seminary,
often has a column in the Catholic Telegraph
about the Sunday readings—
and it’s always good.

About our first reading, he says,
It’s a little distasteful,
talking about "scabs and pustules"!
We might wonder,
what this has to do
with our relationship with God?

Leprosy was a threat
to the community’s physical health.
Shift our focus to the spiritual level:
What if we were just as careful about
hazards to the spiritual
well-being of the community?

He points out,
"the Bible includes plenty of examples,"
not of physical epidemics,
but "of spiritual epidemics
threatening their lives."

A "spiritual epidemic"—
isn’t that what sin is?

We all have an influence,
either bad, or good:
If I cheat on my homework or an exam,
will that infection
spread to others at school?

On the other hand…
What happens if a friend says to another,
"Let’s go help at the Bethany Center"?

We really aren’t loners,
even if we think we are.
We influence each other;
and if we pull back,
we’re being selfish
about sharing our good influence.

St. Paul reminds us that the most important way
you and I use that influence
is to bring others to salvation!

Our first task is get to heaven;
Second: bring as many others with us as we can!

And heaven helped—Heaven came to us!
Jesus Christ: He alone makes us clean.

When that leper came to Jesus,
he was being very bold.
The first reading said, stay away.

There are a lot of folks who stay away.
They don’t come to church,
they don’t practice faith:
maybe they were hurt;
maybe they just got out of the habit;
maybe they don’t know how to come back.
Or, maybe no one showed them how
in the first place?

That leper was bold: he came to Jesus.
Can you and I be bold—
and go find those lepers,
and bring them to Jesus?

We often talk about the future,
for the Church, our school, our parish.
We see the empty pews
and we get fatalistic.

Well, what about filling those pews?
Here we are: you and I have "caught" the bug:
We’ve been influenced!
And we’re supposed to spread it!

Every weekend, 1400 people
come to Mass in Piqua.
What if 1400 people in this area
had the Bird Flu?

You and I can do this!
We can spread our Faith!
We have all the tools we need!

What holds us back? Two things…
First: do we really believe it?
Or, are we lukewarm?
Second: do we live it?
Do we "walk the walk"?

And that leads to an obvious insight.
If leprosy is a symbol of sin,
then every one of us
needs to say what the leper said:
"Jesus, if you will, you can make me clean."
That’s what we do when we go to confession.

What did the Lord say?
"Go, show yourself to the priest."
It’s not just about "me and God";
It’s about me, God,
and his Church of which I am part.

Receiving the sacrament of reconciliation—
requires me to admit…
that I did wrong;
and that my sins affect not just me,
but the whole Body of Christ.
When my sins weaken me, they weaken us.

The first reading identifies the problem.
The Gospel shows the remedy:
Jesus! He’s the remedy.
The leper said, if you will it…
And Jesus responds,
I DO WILL IT! BE MADE CLEAN!

Those are awesome words!!

Don’t ever doubt
that Jesus wills to make you clean!
Never doubt that! Never doubt it!

When you go to confession,
it is Jesus who meets you.
And I am as serious as a heart attack here:
He absolutely DOES WILL TO MAKE YOU CLEAN!

That’s what "absolve" means!
There’s no detergent on earth
that can do what Jesus can do!

He said: "I do will it—be made clean"…
And what did we hear?
"the leprosy left him…IMMEDIATELY!"
That’s how fast—that’s how completely—
Jesus washes away our sins
in the sacrament of reconciliation.

And it’s as simple as this:
The more powerfully you experience that,
the more deeply you believe it,
and the more convincingly
you bear witness to it!

That leper—was he convinced?
Was he convincing?
He couldn’t shut up! He had to tell!

I said a moment ago that 1400 people
go to Mass every Sunday in Piqua.
What if there were 1400 lepers
in this town, who said,
"Look! He made me clean!"?

Jesus is our Word of healing (Sunday homily)

In our first reading, poor Job calls
"man’s life on earth a drudgery"—
"I shall not see happiness again," he mourns.

Job needed a word of healing.
And, like Job, so do we.

For many, life is a drudgery;
Many struggle from paycheck to paycheck;
Others would just be happy to have a paycheck.

Many are afflicted
with by the "demon" of addiction.
On radio this week, I heard about a man
who gave up everything for gambling:
his savings, his job, even his family.
The same happens with alcohol,
drugs, pornography, you name it.

Some get into relationships
that are destructive.
Haven’t we all seen it?
Someone we know gets out
of one awful relationship,
only to do it all over again!

We can’t heal ourselves;
we stay in the same cycle.
The answer has to come from outside:
We need a Savior.

The Gospel of Mark tells the story of Jesus,
The Son of God who indeed came from "outside"—
And who quickly starts making things happen.

Last week we heard
how astonished everyone was,
because he "spoke with authority"—
they couldn’t explain it,
but they knew they had experienced
some awesome power:
he spoke—and it was so;
he spoke—and people were healed;
he spoke—and demons fled!

Jesus, the Son of God,
from outside, from heaven,
came inside—he became human;
Jesus is our Savior.

He speaks with authority,
To bring healing and cast out evil.

What can he speak to your situation?

Perhaps we want the physical healing
Peter’s mother-in-law received.
But she still died, you know!

I often visit folks facing a terminal illness,
and we pray for physical healing,
and miracles do happen.

But what strikes me is how often
I hear words like these:
"I can accept this—
I’m not afraid to die.
My only concern is for my family,
for how this will affect them."

I’ve seen people lit up from within,
with a peace no one can explain:
that’s the healing!

A lot of us would love a financial healing:
How often do we think,
"If only I had X-number of dollars
more a week…"

The other day, I read about a man
who’d won the lottery—
he’d never much of anything before.
He ended up losing everything:
he went through the money; he got in debt;
friends and family turned on him;
he’s in jail today!

Whatever that man needs—
it’s not more money!

The healing we need
is to know the authority
of Jesus in our lives!

Think about this:
all those folks who came to Jesus,
whom he fed, or cast demons out of,
or he healed.
Why didn’t that fix everything?

You’d think that would be enough.

Yet, where were they
when Jesus got arrested?

What was missing?
They needed one more thing:
they needed Jesus at the center of their lives!

That’s the Word of healing!

No, it doesn’t change our bodies,
so we never get sick;
It doesn’t change our minds,
so we never make bad decisions;
It doesn’t change our checkbook,
so we never get in the hole.

But, when Jesus is at the center,
He changes us—so we’re not afraid;
He changes us—so we need not be
slaves to the world,
slaves to the past, slaves to sin;

He fills us—so we are no longer empty inside;
He fills us—so we have a center of gravity,
a Rock, that cannot be moved even in the worst of storms!
Jesus fills us with Himself: He is the Word of healing,
He is the Life that can never be taken away;
that’s healing that never fades;
that’s power that cannot be conquered;
that’s confidence; that’s peace.

Thomas Aquinas, the great, scholarly saint,
had just completed
one of his great works on the Eucharist.
He was praying one day,
and he heard the Lord
speak to him from the crucifix.
"Thomas," the Lord said,
"you have written well concerning me—
what reward would you have?"

What might Thomas have asked for?
With money, he could do so many good works;
With more wisdom, or just time,
he could have written even more.
He could have asked for
any number of good and needful things.
Instead he responded:
"Nothing, Lord—only You."

Those Mohammed Cartoons

Who knew that some satirical cartoons, penned in Denmark, would make such a splash?

By now, I'm sure you've read, or seen, stories about these cartoons, and how enraged demonstrations have followed.

Many note, as a double-standard, that politicians and others are quick to commiserate with aggrieved Muslims, but the commonplace sacrileges and blasphemies against Christians merit hardly a shrug.

That the headquarters of Rolling Stone magazine have not been surrounded by cross-bearing mobs, and torched; and the publishers, employees, and anyone in any way sympathetic, not marked down, Lafarge-like, for "annihilation," is no doubt merely coincidental.

Of course that is a credit to the Christians, although after we congratulate ourselves for not being bloodthirsty, honesty demands we ask: is it that, or have we simply stopped caring all that much?

But one remains highly suspicious of just what motivated all the handwringing.

Yes, of course, one should deplore mockery of what others deem sacred; although we draw the line somewhere -- was St. Boniface, for example, wrong to destroy the pagans' sacred tree-idol? Should the pagan goddess Victory have remained in the Senate?

Even so, there are two issues here. One is the question of courtesy -- and I agree, let us show courtesy to Muslim beliefs, as for anyone else.

But the other is freedom. One may deplore a misuse of it -- as I deplore Rolling Stones narcissistic mockery of our Incarnate Savior -- yet the fact remains, Rolling Stone has a right to publish such images, and so do the publishers of these cartoons.

And on that matter, I take a pretty hard line. The First Amendment isn't perfect, and it isn't Divine Writ; but it strikes me as awfully wise and awfully good.

Here, then, is a very telling point: these mobs, who would pause before a proffered copy of the First Amendment, only so long as to decide which to burn first -- it, or you -- are the ones our intrepid President assures us are ready for democracy.

Hmmm. Now we know what he meant when he said their democracy wouldn't look "exactly" like ours.

You will note I am not putting the cartoons on my web page. I shall be candid with you about my process of reasoning on that subject.

I don't wish to offend Muslims unnecessarily. I can't help offending them, if proclaiming the Christian Faith does so; but I could see no necessity to publishing those cartoons here. (They are certainly available.)

And yet, it does dismay me that so many secular publications are shying away -- again, how did they so suddenly become so solicitous of religious sensibilities?

Candidly, I do not wish to attract the ire of the sorts who threaten "massacre" in reaction to these cartoons. That may seem silly, except that there are millions of Muslims in this country; and I don't presume to know how they feel. I give them the benefit of the doubt; but I use my head, too.

(It's similar, by the way, to why advocates of Right to Work, of which I am one, do not use bumper stickers. They found out why this was unwise the hard way, in years past: cars with such bumper stickers invited the sort of retaliation that union bullyboys take pride in.)

You may think what you like about that. I see no merit in needlessly annoying Muslims -- I emphasize "needlessly" -- but I can't stop you from doing it, if its a point of honor for you.

The risk likely is small, and yet the sort of evil that these "protesters" are threatening, it is not my place to bring down on my parish or others associated with me.

But such is the calculation that a responsible person feels the need to make, in such an environment, even as I am safely (?) ensconced in mid-Ohio, mid-America . . . it bears some reflecting, does it not? What might it be like to be in Britain, today? In France, and other places in Europe. And what lies ahead?

"Islam is a religion of peace," President Bush assures us. Yes -- don't I feel better now?

I got tagged four ways

The Lady in the Pew "tagged" me to participate in this . . . thing -- what do you call it? A game? Anyway, I'm supposed to answer a series of questions, post it, and then subject four other unfortunates...

Four jobs I've had (in chronological order):

1. Paperboy
2. Journalist
3. Men's clothing salesman
4. Political operative

Four movies I watch over and over again (in order of quality):

1. The Godfather
2. "It's a Wonderful Life"
3. The Big Sleep
4. Dude, Where's My Car?


Four places I've lived (in chronological order):

1. Cincinnati, Ohio
2. Greater Washington, D.C. (Northern Virginia)
3. Fort Wayne, Indiana (for a summer)
4. Suwon, (South) Korea (for a month)
5. Dayton, Ohio
6. Piqua, Ohio

(Yeah, I know, I gave too many; report me!)

Four shows I watch (in order of frequency):

1. "Special Report" with Brit Hume
2. The Situation with Tucker Carlson
3. The West Wing
4. Mythbusters

Four places I've vacationed (in order of frequency):

1. Outer Banks, North Carolina
2. New York City
3. Rome, Italy
4. Gyeongju, Korea

Four web sites I visit daily (besides my own):

Dappled Things
OpenBook
RealClearPolitics
Ten Reasons

Four of my favorite foods:

Beer
Steak
Brownies
Skyline Chili
(A complete meal!)

Four places I'd like to be right now:

Someplace I've never been (only briefly, if it's awful)
Someplace sunny, warm and exotic
Eating Oysters at the Union Street Public House in Alexandria Virginia
Soaking in a jacuzzi with music playing, and several favorite foods and beers with easy reach.

Four people I'm tagging:

The first four people who read this and want to participate.

Time for some politics

I haven't offered any (overtly) political comments, on this blog, for awhile; perhaps you thought I wasn't feeling well. Rather, I've been busy, which is nice.

Several topics merit some comment: the confirmation of Alito, the President's "State of the Union" address Tuesday night, and Rep. John Boehner's elevation to Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Justice Alito. I agree with my classmate and brother priest, Father Larry Gearhart, (read him at his blog, Eyes of Faith) who noted in his ascerbic fashion, "this chicken has not yet hatched," but "hope is not yet ill-founded. "

Even so, I endorsed Alito; I would have preferred Edith Jones, but Alito was a very good choice; far better than Harriet Miers, and better than Roberts, precisely because we knew more about Alito's fundamental philosophy.

I can't help recalling the dire predictions many made, back last summer; that someone like Alito would result in a terrible battle, that unless the White House had to engage in a lot of deal-making and arm-twisting, they'd have a devil of a time getting him through; meanwhile, the Left could fire at will, and who knows what mischief they could bring about?

I wrote in this space on September 7: ". . . the sort of political fight--such as a Supreme Court pick (or a tax bill)--that Bush is supposedly "too weak" to pursue right now, is exactly what he needs--what will strengthen him..."

On September 19, I opined,

I think we need to insist, rather loudly, that President Bush's next nominee be someone whose position on "privacy" is clear-cut. Oh, of course the opposition will howl and threaten; they did so when Rehnquist, on record against Roe, was nominated as Chief Justice, yet he was confirmed. Yes, it'll be a battle; but unless the President nominates someone on record pro-Roe, it'll be a battle anyway; why not have someone worth fighting for; someone who will energize prolifers, too?
(emphasis added)

Well, now we can look back and see how things played out...

Alito veritably sailed through; politically, the opposition took some serious hits; Sen. Ted Kennedy continues to prove himself the most valuable Senator to both sides -- he's extremely effective for his side, but he does worlds of good for the Children of Light as well, as a bogeyman. His hounding of Mrs. Alito from the room, in tears, followed by his bellowing, purple-faced, on the floor of the Senate last week, could not have been better scripted by, well, me.

The filibuster was not ruined, as the muddle-headed GOP seemed willing to consider doing last year. (I have a feeling they may have thought better of their enthusiasm for wrecking this great bulwark of liberty. And while I'm on the subject, if there's one monument that really ought to be erected in Washington, it is a monument to the Filibuster. I'll donate $100.)

Indeed, the filibuster was a filifizzle, for precisely the reasons I've said in the past, and why we shouldn't tamper with it: a filibuster cannot be sustained in the face of something the people demand. So either a filibuster pursues an end that the public wants, or it may be something not enough care about.

Which means that the collapse of the filibuster against Alito can mean but one thing: the politicians knew which way the wind was blowing on this nomination. Which explains why Senator Kennedy looked like he was going to explode (a sight I enjoyed thoroughly, although I would have felt guilty if he had, really).

So what do we learn?

The argument that we need stealthy nominees falls. Roberts was stealthy; Alito not. Difference? One got confirmed by a wider margin. Oh well. Alito is just as confirmed.

And you know what? Think he feels good about what the Left tried to do to him? Did he look like a man who would care what they might say about him in the future? Unlike that esteemed jurist, Justice Anthony "What did the Post say about me today?" Kennedy, who is probably luxuriating in the prospect of being the "swing vote" for awhile. Reminds me of St. Thomas More's line from "A Man for All Seasons": "Richard, but for Wales?

The whole "political capital" theory is worthless. Note bene: with Bush's poll numbers in the 30s, you have to say his so-called "political capital" (as usually measured) was pretty thin. So, if the "he can't spend his capital" theory folks were right, Alito should have been toast -- finito!

The truth is, Alito and what he stood for, was Bush's "political capital" -- i.e., by picking a fight with the Left, around which Bush's allies could mobilize, wouldn't "cost" him capital -- it gained it for him!

In short, this was the play that should be run the next time -- if Bush gets another pick as many hope.

The State of the Union. Did Bush learn the lesson? After listening to his speech the other night, I wonder. It was mostly mush, moderated by the fact that it was less-ambitious mush. Ethanol has been a scandal of vast proportions beyond Jack Abrahamoff, but no one will go to jail for it, although in my opinion, hundreds of Senators and Congressmen deserve the pokey for that boondoggle. You might think that cabal in D.C., the greedy and the shameless, have milked the Ethanol thing for all they could, ah but here comes the Prez, riding to their rescue: we can make ethanol from wood chips! That'll save the day!

One of the talking heads on TV the other night said it best: it looks like Alito will be Bush's greatest domestic accomplishment.

John Boehner. I am disappointed, although I haven't touched base with my sources in the VRWC* to see what they think. I liked what I heard from Shadegg.

Rep. Boehner does not look, to me, as anything really new or different; just a fresh version of the same old, same old.

I have to tell you, I got disillusioned about the feckless Congressional GOP during the Clinton Administration, so I've gotten used to this mess. Back then, our hero was Rep. Dick Armey, who really was a hero to the Right. Then he went all native once he came under the spell -- or thumb -- of that human Trojan Horse, Newt Gingrich. It wasn't long before Dick Armey was muscling through pork-barrel spending, and squashing votes on conservative issues -- the exact opposite of what he stood for, and practiced, when he was our hero.

So Boehner looks to be another (bad) Dick Armey, without the consolation of thinking, perhaps the old, good Dick Armey is still there, somewhere.

One bit of evidence: when Boehner was merely a Congressman, he said he'd vote for a National Right to Work Act. Guess what he did, once he became chairman of the committee with jurisdiction? Squashed the bill! Won't let it out of committee; won't hold a vote; won't hold hearings, on the bill he once vowed to help pass.

Will conservative voters turn out this fall to help the GOP? The Senators gave them reason to; has the House?

Stay tuned . . .

*Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy

Show his power, spread his fame (Sunday homily)

"His fame spread everywhere
through the whole region of Galilee."

The reason why is not hard to see:
Because he taught with authority—
and then he showed it,
with his power to cast out evil
and to bring healing.

In this and many other ways,
the Gospel of Mark shows that Jesus
is not merely a man,
not just another teacher,
but "the Son of God"—
Yahweh, the Lord God,
come to earth among men.

God’s People, in Moses’ time,
were afraid to hear God’s voice;
God is too great, too awesome.
This is one of the reasons God became man—
so that he could come near us,
and we could bear it.

So if today you hear his voice,
harden not your heart!

What might Jesus be saying with authority
to you or to me, today?

So often, being a Christian
demands more of us than we like.

What teaching might we need to hear—
with authority?

We all "have issues" with something—
some part of what it means to be a Christian;
some part of Church teaching,
in how we live our lives;
maybe some resolution—
to pray, to get involved,
to make a change—
that we keep putting off?

Sometimes, when I’m talking with someone
in the sacrament of penance—
and, by the way,
while I will never say anything
about what you say there,
I am allowed
to say some of what I might say—
I often suggest to folks
that maybe there’s a resolution,
half-formed, in their hearts:
and if so, I encourage them
to have a conversation with the Lord:
"It’s not about what I say, as the priest—
but what might He be saying to you?
It’s between you and Him!"

What might he be asking of you…today?

Remember: he speaks with authority—
that doesn’t just mean, "I better do it"—
that’s certainly true!
It also means, he has power!
He can help you change!

Sometimes folks struggle, to get to Mass,
or to pray regularly,
or to make some other change.

You know what can help?
Ask God to give you the desire:
"Please give me the desire to"—
and fill in the blank.

Jesus is the teacher with authority—
His word is full of power—
because he is the Word of the Father,
who made both heaven and earth!

He who made the world
can remake you and me!

His fame spread throughout Galilee—
because people saw his power.

You and I want his fame
to spread through our area.
Our community needs to hear about Jesus.
Folks all around us need to hear his voice—
their hearts need to be softened.
They need his healing; they need life!

How will his fame spread through our region?
When people see that he has changed our lives—
yours and mine; when they see evil cast out—
they’ll be amazed, too:
and they’ll say: we know who you are, Jesus:
The Holy One of God.

Remiss in blog-courtesy

Several bloggers pay me the compliment of linking my page on theirs, and it is courteous to return the favor.

So you may want to look for these new additions, at right:

Gregaria
A (Little) Light from the East
Marriage as a Vocation
Quenta Narwenion
Right Wing Film Geek

Missed one: College Catholic

You need to visit the Litterbox

I am very pleased to introduce a new web cartoon, The Litterbox -- which just happens to be drawn by my godson, Maximilian.

Italian Lawsuit Claims No Jesus

Perhaps you've heard about the Italian athiest who sued a Catholic priest for asserting, in his church bulletin, that Jesus exists.

The headline above will take you to a Washington Post article on this.

The priest's attorney Severo Bruno said Father "Righi was not asserting a historical fact when he wrote of Jesus' existence, but rather 'an expression of theological principles.'

"'When Don Righi spoke about Christ's humanity ... he was affirming that he needs to be considered as a man. What his name is, where he comes from or who his parents are is secondary,' he said."

It may be the attorney misspoke, or was misquoted, or his comments mistranslated; but if he were my attorney, I'd fire him if he insisted on making such arguments.

Jesus existed in time and exists now. He was born of Mary, he walked on earth, he teached, healed, suffered and died, and he rose again.

Sue me.

The false god of 'Choice' (Homily on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade)

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

This is an uncomfortable topic to discuss.
I want to try to deal with it appropriately.
It is important to explain
what we believe, and why.

We’ve all heard the saying, I think,
about “the elephant in the room.”
So often, we have an awkward situation,
and rather than confront it,
we work around it, we try to ignore it.

After awhile, we get used to it;
somebody comes in, and shakes his head:
“what’s wrong with you?
There’s an elephant in the room,
and you act as though you don’t see it!”

Maybe you think I’m talking about abortion;
I am; but it’s much bigger than that.
I’m talking about that popular idea, “Choice.”

I love choices! Don’t we all?
What’s wrong with “choice”?
Nothing, particularly.

The problem is when we elevate “choice”
above everything else.
Because what we’re really doing
is elevating ourselves—
the one who makes the choice.

The result is corruption:
Corruption of the truth,
Corruption of our ability
to reason as moral people;
Corruption of people themselves.

Let me show what I mean.

If a couple says,
“We just found out
we’re going to have a baby!”

A single word seemingly changes everything:
baby.
Is that baby human? Is he or she precious?
Should we, as a society, protect babies?
Of course! It’s a foolish question.

But take the same situation, same facts—
but change one key word:
“we found out we have a choice…”

Somehow, choice changes everything,
even reality itself!
The baby stops being a baby;
The value of a human being
is turned off and on
like a light switch.

Here’s what we’re all told:
“Who are you to say that’s a baby?
That should be”—
wait for it…”an individual choice.”

If only it were so easy!

The obvious, terrible consequence
is the loss of unborn children’s lives:
more than a million every year.

But the corruption goes farther.

Notice what is happening
in the medical profession.
Doctors are supposed to be healers;
Instead, they merely help us “choose”—
regardless of the consequence.
So—in Oregon, doctors
prescribe drugs to kill people!

Another horror of this idolatry of “choice”
is what happens to people with disabilities.

Did you know you don’t meet
as many people with Downs Syndrome?
It’s true:
90% of children, diagnosed before birth
with Downs Syndrome, are aborted.
Nine out of ten!

It goes even further.

Sometimes we say,
“How people live their lives is their choice”—
meaning, “I don’t have to warn you—
I don’t have to try to save your soul!”

Look at the debate about marriage:
Whatever you choose, is fine:
two men, two women;
leave one marriage, and start another.

What matters above all is choice:
Not our identity as men and women;
Not the commitments we’ve already made;
Not what God asks of us.

Notice how the false god of choice
corrupts everything it touches.

And choice is a false god—
it betrays and abandons
all who trust in it.

And no one knows that better than millions
of men and women who bear the unseen,
unacknowledged wounds left by abortion.

Many will say, “you made your choice”—
and walk away.

Sometimes what they hear from prolife folks,
from the Church, does not sound welcoming.

When Jonah brought a tough message to Nineveh,
it wasn’t to condemn, but to save!

When St. Paul says, “time is running out,”
He says that, not to condemn, but to save!

Christ himself said:
I came, not to condemn, but to save!

Every time we celebrate the Mass,
we experience once again
the mystery of our faith,
that Christ died to save us!

That’s why its so important
we celebrate Mass again,
and again, and again!

Christ died once for all;
But we need lots of reminders!
We need to know his mercy endures forever!

If you need that healing—
there are people who can help you.
Project Rachel
is an organization that exists
to help heal anyone, men or women,
injured by abortion.

The Elizabeth New Life Center
in Dayton is a resource.
We’ve had information in the bulletin;
if you missed it, you can find them online,
or simply give the office a call.

If I can help, I will.
Call me, and we’ll talk confidentially.

I began by saying,
this is an uncomfortable subject.
There’s one more reason it’s uncomfortable:
because we may wonder,
“does this mean I have to do something?
Do I have to change?”

I suppose Andrew and Peter, James and John,
might have asked the same question,
looking at their nets,
just before they dropped them.

And—if you’re even asking the question,
you already know the answer!

The Oregon Suicide Law

In case you missed it, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld* Oregon's execrable suicide law today, by a vote of 6 to 3. In his first high-profile decision, Chief Justice Roberts voted with Scalia and Thomas to support the U.S. Attorney General's interpretation of federal law, allowing him to prevent the use of prescription drugs in assisting suicide.

(Correction: the Supreme Court did not "uphold" the law. The law itself was not at issue, but rather, at issue was an administrative action by U.S. government, that would have prevented doctors from using federally regulated drugs in assisting suicides.)

Here again, I confess to mixed feelings. On the one hand, there is the obvious immorality--and worse, corruption--of physicians assisting people in killing themselves, and creating a bureaucratic system to enable this.

On the other hand, I don't want the U.S. government regulating everything, not even everything that ought to be regulated; I do believe in the authority, and legitimate autonomy, of the several states.

I am not sanguine about federal drug laws, and their enforcement. There are disturbing accounts of doctors holding back from giving patients sufficient pain medication, because they fear the feds coming down on them. If true, this is a serious matter, not only because it means people being denied pain medication they should have if they need it, but also, this problem of patient pain is one of the very arguments made for euthanasia!

To cite a related, but less weighty issue: the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. I have no idea whether it's true that marijuana can help someone who is sick; I have to say, if the patient says he feels better, then it works! (Isn't that how most cold "treatments" work?) I can see very little justification for denying a dying person a joint if it really helps; yet the Supreme Court upheld the federal government on that one.

I suppose the argument can be made that the people have recourse to elections, to seek change in such federal laws; however, when does the Supreme Court protect minorities from the wrong-headedness, or simply indifference, of electoral majorities?

Also, it does matter what the federal law in question actually said, doesn't it? As much as I want to stop that abominable business in Oregon, it may be that the majority of the court is right, that the existing federal law couldn't justify what then-AG Ashcroft did.

Water Bongs are back!

I read about this phenomenon a couple weeks ago at Father Jim Tucker's Dappled Things, but the Washington Post has an article today: Hookah bars (click on headline above to see story).

A "hookah" is a water pipe, used for smoking. In this case, its for tobacco. As I recall, the hookah is a Turkish thing (as I was preparing a talk on the Crusades, I'm not feeling particularly warm about things Turkish, what with the fall of Constantinople fresh in my mind...but anyway).

Part of this is amusing. When I was a teenager, water pipes, aka "bongs," were used to smoke something more illicit; but, then again, what could be more illicit than smoking tobacco in a public place? It does look like a pleasant place, if the smoke won't bother you.

Part of this concerns me, however. I can't be all that sanguine about kids fresh out of high school pursuing smoking as a cool, trendy thing to do.

Then it dawned on me.

Wanna bet the tobacco industry is helping this along?

This is one of those issues where the Libertarian part of me and the moralist part of me go at it. No, I don't want smokers harrassed, taxed and sued, nor have I any patience for them suing the tobacco companies saying, "you tricked me!" or "you made me!" I don't particularly like public smoking bans and a lot of the mindset that goes with it.

On the other hand, smoking is a terrible thing for ones health. Oh, smoking an occasional cigar, and I guess a little pipe smoking, probably doesn't do too much harm. And in the interest of full disclosure, I used to enjoy cigars and a pipe. I gave it all up, not out of any great purpose, but that I found I didn't enjoy it anymore. Pipe smoking, in particular, is just too much trouble; and I found I got green from smoking cigars.

But pulling that stuff into ones lungs--I never understood how anyone could think that wouldn't be bad for a person.

And as for smoking bans, the one thing that recommends them to me is this: not the plight of the customer -- the customer in a business has no claim whatsoever, in my view, because he or she can go elsewhere, and also, the customer doesn't stay that long. No, my concern is for the employees who work in such establishments. Yes, they can "go elsewhere" too, but that's a harder thing to ask them to do.

I still oppose the laws, since I rather suspect the whole second-hand smoke thing is vastly overstated. I don't really know, and have no reason to do all the research; but we've all been burnt by junk, politicized, ideology-driven science in recent years, and I just don't take any of these claims on face value anymore.

A prolife search engine

A friend of mine tipped me off to a "prolife search engine": http://www.prolifesearch.com/.

I haven't tried it yet, but perhaps someone will check it out. Feel free to offer comments here on what you think of it!

Blogging Priest Speaks on 'Theology of the Body'

No, not I, but my classmate, Father Larry Gearheart, whose blog, "Eyes of Faith," is listed at right.

Here's the notice from a frequent commenter here:

The Kettering Knights of Columbus are hosting a presentation by Fr. Larry Gearhart on Pope John Paul II 's Theology of the Body this Thurs. Jan. 19, 7:30 pm. at the Christopher Club, 3150 S.Dixie Drive, Kettering Ohio. Update: the series will continue, on the third Thursday of each month, until May.

This five part series explains and explores our late Holy Father's teachings on the meaning of life and God's nuptial plan for the universe.

In the informal style of "Theology on Tap" but the beverages and snacks are free!

This presentation has been designed for everyone... whether you are single ...or have been married 50 yrs; a theological expert or have never even heard of "Theology of the Body".

Questions or directions call Tim Langenderfer: (937) 298-5133.

I regret I can't be there this Thursday, as I have a parish meeting. But perhaps I can make a subsequent talk.

'Created' & 'Uncreated' Grace

I've gotten into an enjoyable discussion at Pontifications today about grace, and a particular issue arose: does the Catholic Church specifically, dogmatically, hold to the distinction between "created" and "uncreated" grace; more specifically, in the context of the grace that sanctifies and remains in us?

I may have embarrassed myself (but oh well), but I have been arguing that while the distinction between "created" and "uncreated" grace has a very good "pedigree" as part of the tradition, it is, nonetheless, speculative rather than dogmatic -- i.e., one is not a heretic if one understands grace and justification without reference to "created" grace. My interlocutor, "Photius," sees the Council of Trent's decree on justification presupposing a "created" grace, and excluding uncreated grace, as the "formal cause" of our justification.

I'd be interested in comments, but what I'd really appreciate is someone pointing me toward something truly authoritative, and/or right on-point to this specific (and to my mind, ethereal) question.

Vocation is about Who is calling (Sunday homily)

Last week, Father Ang and I
both talked about “vocations.”

Father Ang and I emphasized
the need for more men and women to answer the call
to the priesthood and religious life.

Last week, I stressed the need for each of us
to pray for, to work for,
to invite and encourage
men and women to answer the call.

In that first reading,
Samuel came to be in the temple
because his parents brought him there:
Samuel needed their help,
Eli’s help, and many others’.

So I repeat my challenge from last week:
What are you and I going to do to promote vocations
to the priesthood and religious life?

I invite everyone to pray a very simple prayer—
five words!: “Please send us more priests!”—
which I hope you will add to your grace over meals.
Now, someone asked me last week,
“what about vocations as a sister or brother?”

My answer is we need to do it all.
But I believe the most critical need is for more priests.
Yes, we need men and women to consecrate their lives
as sisters and brothers.
We need more deacons—we don’t have a deacon in Piqua.

Not all deacons become priests.
Whereas only single men can be ordained a priest,
A married man can be ordained a deacon.

A deacon shares in the
“holy ordering” of the Church,
preaching, teaching, baptizing,
celebrating marriage;
and reaching out to the parish in many other ways.

A deacon is a powerful gift to the Church,
and I pray the Spirit calls
many of you to that ministry.

But yes, I have focused on the priesthood
because without a priest, there is no Eucharist!
Without a priest, there is no parish!

And I believe if we, as a parish,
foster priestly vocations,
we will see a growth in all vocations.

Because “the call”—at the basic level—
isn’t for someone else.
The Lord calls every single one of us
to give ourselves totally to him—
in different ways.

Now: I’ve said a lot about
praying for and encouraging vocations.
But I won’t leave it there.
It’s not just about “someone else”;
for some here, it’s very personal.
The Lord may be calling you to be a priest.

I hope you’ve received the encouragement you need,
from family and friends, from this parish; from me!
But if not, know that the Lord often calls us,
and yet we feel very alone in answering the call.

In every age, people answer the Lord’s summons,
and they find it costly,
and they feel very alone:
St. Francis of Assisi’s family opposed him;
St. Thomas Aquinas’ family tried to tempt him!;
St. Ignatius of Loyola loved being a soldier;
St. Augustine had to give up his girlfriend;
St. Maximilian stepped forward to be killed!
to save another man’s life.

On one level, there is no explaining this call.
You answer it, before you know what it will cost,
because of WHO is calling.

People ask me about my decision to become a priest.
I have to say, that’s a hard thing to explain—
because it came from an encounter too deep for words,
that began long before
I decided to enter the seminary.

In a sense, it began with my baptism—
that’s when my parents first brought me to the Lord.

But a key moment, in my own life, came when I was 19;
now, as a young adult, I was wrestling with my faith.
It was no longer “my parents made me”;
it was me asking questions, trying to sort things out.

I was reading Scripture, talking to friends,
Praying and searching.

One day—a day I will never forget—
an ordinary day in all respects, except one:
It was the day I “heard” the Lord call me!

No, I didn’t hear a voice, as you hear me now.
But in my heart, I did hear, unmistakably.
Unmistakably.
It happened; and only afterwards
have I tried to express it into words.

What happened I can describe this way:
The Lord called me.
To do what?
It wasn’t about a “what”—
it was more fundamental than that.
Because when you ask, “to do what?”
It’s like you’re negotiating:
“OK, I’ll do that, but not that”—
but how do you negotiate with the Lord?
When you really know WHO he is—you just GO!
You just say “Yes!”
And that “Yes” is the foundation of everything else.

For me, my priesthood was imbedded in that “Yes”;
but I didn’t know that then.

So if you’re wondering,
“I feel something, but I don’t yet know what”—
the best advice I can give is, “Say ‘Yes’!
Say “Yes” to the Lord without counting the cost,
regardless of what others say;
keep your gaze fixed on Him who calls you—
and each “Yes” will lead you deeper
and more certainly to His Will!

In the Gospel, when those two followed Jesus,
He asked them, “What are you looking for?”,
and their answer is odd:
They didn’t ask, “Who are you?” or,
“What do you, Jesus, want us to be?”
No—they merely asked, “Where are you staying?”:
They wanted to be with Him.

That’s the essential encounter:
We want to be with Him.
Everything else springs from that.

When you know Who is calling,
It’s not hard to answer!
Because you want to be with Him!
Wherever he takes you; whatever he asks.

That Virginia Death Penalty/DNA Story

From the Washington Post today (click on headline above to go there):

"Modern DNA tests have confirmed the guilt of a Virginia man who had proclaimed he was innocent of murder and rape even as he was strapped into the electric chair and executed more than a decade ago, the governor announced yesterday."

This is an interesting story, on several levels.

First, it does bring a bit of factuality into a subject where the obscurantists had seized the high ground.

Many opponents of the death penalty have placed heavy stress on the "you don't know" argument, which is true to a point; but as this case makes clear, they have overplayed that hand. That argument fits the contemporary mood well, but for that reason is harmful. We do not live in a world of murk, however much we want to believe that, because it exculpates us from committing ourselves, for or against matters of great moral weight. On question after question, contemporary man shrugs his shoulders and says, "who can know?": on life in the womb, life near its end, on morality, God, Christ; even Christians take this pose on many matters.

It seems such a compelling argument against the death penalty: "who wants to execute an innocent person?" Well, virtually no one does. And virtually no one can credibly assert it never happens, even if the posers of this argument can't point to any actual case of an innocent man being executed.

But there's a larger fairness question here: fairness to the larger legal system we have painstakingly erected in this country, building on traditions of justice and due process that extend back into the distant (ahem, Christian) past; a system that has imbedded in it an amazing array of protections, checks and balances, and ongoing review, both from "inside" and "outside." No system on earth can be perfect, but give ourselves our due: we go to great lengths, in dollar cost, in patience, and in forebearance of the guilty being given an easier time than they surely deserve, all with a view to avoiding that terrible fate: an innocent man being punished, let alone, executed.

Second, this story is useful for exposing the credulity of many opponents of the death penalty; sometimes, culpable credulity. "But, but, he said he was innocent all those years!" spluttered some disillusioned champions of the late, executed rapist-murderer. Gee, how surprising!

Third, this is a political story in two ways. Outgoing Virginia Governor Mark Warner has just burnished his credentials as a potential Democratic nominee for the Presidency. He's pro-death penalty, but as a Democrat, he is vulnerable to those on the left-left (there is no right-wing of the Democratic Party!) who viscerally oppose the death penalty. Warner's path to the White House lies along the trail blazed by Bill Clinton: a Southern (liberal) Democrat who seems "reasonable," which is achieved, in part, by being presented as having "conservative" positions on several issues.

The other way this is political is the longterm question: should this even have been done? Will this become routine? Is this a good idea?

In praise of Ordinary Time

"Ordinary Time" is back...and I like it.

Don't get me wrong, Advent and Christmas were great; but there are some nice things about "Ordinary" time.

First, let me explain what "ordinary" time means: it has to do with things being "ordered" -- hence the proper bishop of a diocese is the "ordinary," the "rulebook" that tells how to do things is called an "ordo," and numbers that indicate order are called "ordinal": first, second, etc. From this comes the idea of "routine," which can be dull; but it is also helpful.

So this is why I've been putting quotes around "ordinary" above: to invite you to consider that it may not mean quite what you think it does. Part of the idea is that it means "counted time": note that we designate each week by a number -- as well as each year: we are counting both from and to certain key events: the birth of Christ* and the coming of the Lord at the end of . . . wait for it . . . time. Hence what is inbetween? "Counted time": ordinary time. (This is why my green vestment has an alpha and an omega on it: in a sense, all time between the actual Nativity and the end is "ordinary time," and Christ is supreme over all.)

I like to point out the color green is useful because it reminds us of growth and life: Ordinary Time is "growing" time; while we await the Lord's return, we grow in grace and holiness, allowing him to transform us to be fit to meet him.

Ordinary time has certain charms to me, as a priest.

One is the mostly continuous readings at daily Mass, and to a lesser extent, Sunday. Last year, I was able to do a series of homilies on the Letter to the Hebrews. Both my parishioners and I learned something about that incredible section of Scripture. Insofar as daily Mass is attended by regulars, it is possible to pick up somewhat where one left off, and thus build on what was discussed previously. Insofar as at daily Mass, both the first reading and the Gospel are continuous, I can shift back and forth, both in my own study and reflection, and in what I share in homilies, if trying to focus simply on one or the other might become tedious.

Another thing I like is there are many options for the choice of prayers for Mass. Sometimes priests will say, to other priests, they get tired of the "same old" thing. Perhaps in decades to come, I will feel that. But as it is, I find more than enough options in how I offer Mass. I can offer Mass for various needs -- yesterday, "for the sick" seemed apt -- and I can offer a votive Mass at various times -- if the Gospel mentions the Apostles, a votive Mass to the Apostles may be called for.

Also, in Ordinary Time, I can use the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer, which I like very much; but because it has a proper preface, it should not be used except in Ordinary Time. There are other Eucharistic prayers that can be used, although there is a good argument to be made that too much variation is unhelpful. Again, I think daily Mass is a more suitable place for such variety, whereas at Sunday Mass, I prefer to stick to three Eucharistic Prayers: the Roman Canon, EP III, and (during Ordinary Time), EP IV.

Finally, I like praying the breviary in Ordinary Time -- it is simpler to do, less flipping around! -- and the practice of the routine is helpful, spiritually.

If you're tuned into what's really going on, there's nothing "blah" about "Ordinary" Time.

* Hence Anno Domini denotes each year since the moment of his birth, alas inexactly calculated -- and therefore, "A.D." properly is always put before the year, not after. If we were saying it in a more modern-English fashion, I guess we'd say this is the 2,006th year of our Lord; but since we don't say that, we should say, in the year of our Lord 2006: A.D. 2006.

Gas too high? Thank Uncle Sugar...

As usual, James Glassman has excellent stuff at TechCentralStation, such as this on how our oppressors--er, I mean, our government--makes gas cost too much.

New Laptop works fine...once I tame it (or it tames me!)

My new laptop arrived from Dell today. It took me all of five minutes to get it out of the box and plug everything in; it took me hours of aggravation to get my internet connection up again (a fine fellow at Roadrunner did a good job solving the problem -- Roadrunner support is 24/7, fyi), then to get my wireless router working.

Now, if only it would fetch me a beer!

Where have I been?

I haven't posted any comments this week, both because it's been a busy week, but even more, because my laptop, which I keep at home, died. Requiescat in pace.

What treasure will you lay at His feet? (Epiphany Homily)

The feast of Epiphany is about Light;
we recall the star:
and the Wise Men, following it from afar.

Notice the Gospel calls them,
not “kings,” but “Magi.”
These Magi were considered “wise”
because they looked for
the deeper meaning of things.
That’s why they looked at the stars.

“Magi” is where the word “Magic” comes from!

“Say the magic word”—and a door opens,
a rabbit comes out of a hat,
and you make someone do what you want.

In a word: power.

So notice where the star led these Magi,
these powerful Wise Men:
to Bethlehem—no place powerful!;
to an ordinary home—not a glittering palace;
to a child and his mother!

What was the “secret”?
Not some spell, or magic wand,
but that the Creator of all things,
came to earth, as a child needing his mother,
a human being facing
the troubles common to all!

The power of heaven surrendered
to the powerlessness of ordinary human life!

How strange! How surprising!

But what do these wise and powerful Magi do?
They were not impressed
by Herod’s pomp and pride;
but, meeting the Child, it is there
they “opened their gifts,”
and laid their gifts at his feet,
and then, they laid themselves before Him!

How many King Herods there are,
that seem so impressive.
The Herod who pushes us around
at school, or on the job;
the pressure to fit in,
to meet a standard set by others,
rather than Christ.

Maybe the King Herod is us:
reacting with fear or anger
when we don’t get our way.

When we are impressed by the King Herods,
we miss the Light—or, worse,
fearing what others might say,
we don’t respond;
we don’t want to look ridiculous!

That image of the Magi,
prostrating before Jesus—
Reminds me of when I was ordained,
first a deacon, then a priest.
As the bishop led the “Litany of the Saints,”
My classmates and I
prostrated ourselves on the floor.
It was an awesome moment.
This is a powerful image
of what it means to be a priest.

To many, a priest can be a “magus”—
someone people see as a wise man,
with “secret knowledge” and sacramental “power.”

I have no “magic word”—other than Him.
Jesus: He is the “secret”;
it’s not meant to be “secret”—
except that many miss it. They miss Him.

What is a priest?

A priest is a man who does as the Magi did:
he surrenders all worldly power,
he brings whatever the world thinks valuable,
He “opens his treasures,”
and lays them at the feet of Jesus Christ.

Above all, it is his life—his very self—
that he lays at the feet of Jesus Christ.

A man doesn’t simply make some promises,
and take on responsibility for life.

A priest surrenders himself to Christ;
His very self is transformed.

It’s something like
what happens to the bread and wine at Mass.

It is wonderful but also frightening.
We know how a priest can misuse that Gift.
It fills us with sorrow and horror to think of it.

Still—it is an awesome Gift!

But doing this, becoming a priest,
to many seems a very strange,
even foolish, thing to do.

I had more money before I entered the seminary.
I’ll never make as much as I did then.

I worked in politics, as you’ve heard.
I’m proud of the work I did;
but that can be a heady experience:
you try to “make things happen,”
to see people defeated, or elected:
In a word…power!

It’s like the wizard of Oz—
behind the curtain,
pulling levers and pushing buttons;
it’s impressive;
maybe it works, or maybe it doesn’t.

And if we are not careful, at the end of our lives,
we may be wondering the same thing:
were we just pushing buttons and pulling levers,
making a good show—
but what value does it have, in the end?

A priest is a man who says, I want more!
And a priest gets more.

Like the Magi, a priest will travel however far;
he will bring his best gifts,
he will lay them at the Lord’s feet;
and last the priest lays himself down,
on his face: and he waits…
“Here I am, Lord. I am yours!”
Not everyone understands that.

It’s shocking, but true,
that sometimes parents, grandparents,
siblings and friends will discourage
a man from the priesthood.

“You won’t make much money”
“Isn’t that a hard life?”
“You won’t get married!”
“What about grandchildren?”

Sometimes, the discouragement is subtle:
when showing up for sports,
or school activities,
matters more than Mass,
or learning their faith.

You might wonder why
I’m speaking so much about the priesthood.

I hope we all know how much
we need more priests?
Very soon, St. Mary and St. Boniface will—
for the first time—share a pastor.
Yours truly.

I’ve given you full time the past six months.
That will change.

Yes, we have Father Ang, and Father Boeke.
I hope Father Tom will stay in the area.
But Father Boeke and Father Ang are 87!
Father Tom faces critical health problems.

We need more priests!

So here’s the question:
What are you and prepared to do about that?

Are there sacrifices in being a priest?
Yep—as many as you want!
Perhaps too much for some.

But I won’t promote the priesthood
as soft and comfortable:
we don’t need priests who want that!

This is “Vocations Awareness Week”—
but I’m here to tell you that from now on,
every week in Piqua is “Vocations Week.”

If you and I want priests in our parish,
what will you and I do to make that happen?

You’ve seen in the bulletin the prayer
I ask everyone to pray, very simple.
Five words: “Please send us more priests!”
I ask you to add them, at the end,
when you say grace over a meal.

In the vestibule, in the back and on the side,
you’ll find some booklets that look like this.

These booklets are from the
“St. John Vianney Vocation Society.”

Here are prayers you can use;
and it invites you
to commit to daily prayer for vocations,
and to a weekly holy hour.

I asked Craig Peltier
to serve on a Vocation Committee.
He agreed. He said,
“what do you want me to do first?”
First, I said, pray.
Pray that others will step forward.

Now I’m asking: will you step forward?

There are lots of ideas out there;
I need someone to make them happen!

If you want to help, call Craig, or call me.
If you are thinking about being a priest,
or you know someone who is, or should be!
If you have questions: Call me!

Epiphany is about Light—
not an obvious light that everyone saw,
but the Light that Christ
gives to those who seek him:
not in power and worldly glory,
but in hiddenness and humility.

Will you follow that Star?
And when you have seen Him,
what will you lay at his feet?

Worst angel images

I was going to find a jpeg of angels for the post below, about Christmas carols, but I didn't find any good ones, only Pweshus Moments images that make me reach quickly for the trash can so I can (urp!) -- um, excuse me...

Ok, feeling better now (wiping my chin)...

I thought of a funny webpage I linked last month -- and sure enough, it has a "cavalcade" of bad angel images. Be sure to check out the archives at the bottom of the page . . .

(Bonus: check this out, courtesy of Going Jesus.)

'Best' Christmas Hymns

Now as Christmas settles down, I invite your comments on what you rate as the "best" Christmas hymn, or carol.

By "best," I mean more than just "favorite," although feel free to offer your favorite -- but tell us why: tell us why it's "better."

Here are my "best" Christmas hymns:

Hark, the Herald Angels Sing. It is well written, both for style and for theology. And it is rousing to sing, with lots of exclamation marks.

It moves from Biblical imagery and language to our world and our concerns -- a good "homiletic" method.

It does a good job making both Our Lord's humanity and divinity real: "offspring of the Virgin's womb," "pleased as man with men to dwell"* . . . yet also: "veil'd in flesh the Godhead see: hail th'Incarnate Deity."

(By comparison, Angels we have heard on high, which uses the same Biblical material, is -- in my opinion, weaker in substance, although certainly rousing to sing--but that, mainly, the "Gloria" refrain. I suppose the angels sang "sweetly"--but we know they were disturbing ("and they were struck with great fear," Luke 2:9). The "mountains in reply echo[ing] back their joyous strains" is a nice flourish, from Isaiah, I think.)

Another nominee I'd offer: Of the Father's Love Begotten -- right there, the title (and first line) contains implicit Trinitarian theology, as well as containing both ideas of "begotten"--eternally, before time, as well as in time, via Mary's fiat. This hymn goes on to smash heresies right and left to smithereens, like a joyful child armed with a toy mallet: "begotten, ere the world's began to be, he is Alpha and Omega, he the source, the ending he, of the things that are, that have been, and that future years shall see, evermore and evermore." Take that, Arius! Whack! Whack! Slam!

And that's just the first verse . . .

"When the Virgin, full of grace, [take that, deniers of the Immaculate Conception! Hah!]** by the Spirit blest conceiving, bore the Savior of our race." [Manages to be inclusive without vitiating second-Adam theology.]

"...First revealed his sacred face"--what a nice turn of phrase: does it mean the human face, or the divine? Or both?

Aesthetically, the hymn has the haunting, otherworldly beauty of all chant; and because it is chanted, it is easy to do without any musical accompaniment (and often better without). The tune is relatively simple, and thus easy for most to enter into.

The pity is that Gather has but four verses of this outstanding hymn -- the mostly Protestant "Cyber Hymnal" has nine verses, in both English and Latin! (This hymn, in full, would be very suitable for the offertory on Christmas, as you have both a long collection, then the procession with gifts, then, one hopes, the full treatment of incense.)

Well, I could go on and comment on other fine Christmas carols, but I offer these as two "best."

Please add your own nominees, but please do offer reasons why, if you can.

*Here's my diatribe against PC bowlderization of hymns...changing this to "us" is not only pusillanimous and pandering, it ruins both the poetry and the theology of Wesley's verse. Bleagghhh! Likewise, the following verse is ruined by this stupidity: "born to raise the sons of earth" becomes, "born to raise us from the earth" -- notice the change? It actually shifts from a creation-positive, Catholic idea, to a faintly Gnostic idea! Oh, but we mustn't allow "exclusive" language! Somebody show me the petition signatures asking for these changes, because the original verses were so "offensive"?)

** Of course, the Immaculate Conception was not formally defined in the 4th century, when this hymn originates; and the Latin original doesn't actually use "gratia plena"...comments from a better Latinist welcome...

God at his mother's breast (homily for 'e Theotokos)

As Catholics,
we celebrate Mary in many ways.
Today, the emphasis is on “Mother of God”—
So this is about Mary,
but even more about her Child.

This Feast teaches us Jesus is both God and man.
Not half-and-half; not 60-40 or 80-20!
Jesus is all-God, and all-man, all the time!

He’s really human—so he has a real mother.
Mary guarantees Jesus is truly human.

Maybe you wonder, “who says otherwise?”
The thing is, Jesus being really human
is controversial.

There are those who say
Jesus was only “sort of” human:
He pretended to be human,
to show us how to escape being human.

If you’ve ever heard of “Gnosticism”—
This is part of that movement.
And if you say, who cares about Gnosticism,
The answer is—
it’s still around,
still trying to undermine
the truth of Jesus and why he came.
Gnosticism says being human
is something to escape;
And you do it through hidden knowledge.

You know that popular novel
that caused such a stir:
The DaVinci Code?

That’s what it was about:
Gnosticism!
The blockbuster “secrets” that it “revealed”--
what didn’t come
from the author’s imagination,
came from Gnostic writings.

Remember how we heard
that this novel lifted women up,
in contrast to the mean,
old Catholic Church?

Funny thing is,
Gnosticism can be
pretty hostile to women!
One of the things
Gnosticism said you escape is…
get this—being a woman!

Here’s a quote from one
of these Gnostic writings—
and please note—
this is not Christian, but Gnostic:

“Peter said to them:
‘Let Mary go forth from among us,
for women are not worthy of the life.’
Jesus said: ‘Behold, I shall lead her,
that I may make her male,
in order that she also
may become a living spirit
like you males.
For every woman
who makes herself male
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.’”

Now, I say again, that was not from our Christian Bible!
That’s Gnosticism.

There have always been movements that said,
Being human is at odds with approaching God.

Our Christian Faith says, balderdash!
Instead,
Christ shows us that union with God
is to become more human—
truly human—not less human!

Compare that Gnostic stuff I just read,
with what we heard today:

“When the fullness of time had come,
God sent his Son, born of a woman…”

God never demeans being human!
God chose to enter
our world the same way we do!
St. Irenaeus put it well:
“the glory of God is man fully alive”!

Now, let’s acknowledge:
Jesus really being human
can be a little shocking.

Think about our images of Jesus:
I don’t know about you,
but images of him
looking malnourished—pale, thin—
don’t have credibility with me.

Jesus had a beard—
he had hair on his chest;
He had muscles—
had to be pretty tough, as a carpenter.

Jesus grew up in a house with Joseph,
who worked hard and made tough choices.
Jesus was—and is!—a real man!

Not this “wimpy, wimpy” Jesus!

Can we picture the Lord laughing,
getting angry, feeling tired or discouraged?

Can we imagine him not knowing something?
What a tough question!
As God, he knew everything;
yet as a newborn baby, in his mother’s arms,
do you think he started
explaining Quantum Physics to her,
in five languages?

The humanity of Jesus is real—
not pretend, not for show.

When Jesus was a teenager,
what was happening in his body,
his feelings?
The same thing as all of us—
Except he was not darkened,
as we are, by sin.
He had the clarity to see
and choose what was right.

And that gives us hope.

If you’re trapped in a dark place
with others in darkness,
you need someone with Light
to come show you the way out.

God became human,
and lit up our humanity
as it is meant to be—
as it can be for each of us.
That’s hope!

I’ve been stressing Jesus
is a real, flesh-and-blood man.

But today we also recall
he’s not merely human, he is God!
Not a “kind of” God, not hybrid:
true God, eternal, from forever and ever.

This, too, is controversial.
Everybody approves of
a “nice,” merely human Jesus.
But if Jesus is not God,
then he is no one’s Savior.

If he is not God,
we should take all this down—
the cross, the images;
we should take away this altar,
the tabernacle—all of it.
Because we’re committing idolatry!

If Jesus is not God,
then God remains distant.

Look at Islam.
Islam says Jesus was a prophet, but that’s all.
In Islam, God is distant.
Do you know what “Islam” means?
It means “submission.”
Yes, we Christians submit to God;
But we also call God our brother!
God came down and put himself
under the authority of a human couple—
who submitted to whom?

This is not a distant God,
But a God who comes so close he shocks us!

God became a tiny embryo in Mary’s womb!
God needed to be fed and clothed!
God knelt and washed the feet of sinners!
When God is distant,
he remains unknown, frightening;
the God of thunderbolts and retribution.

Yes, our God is the God of thunderbolts,
but our awesome God did not stay distant.

God was born of a woman.
God comes as close,
and intimate, as a mother’s womb,
a mother's breast, and a mother’s heart.

Why? Why did God do this?
Our holy father said it well, last week:
God does this
so that we might not be afraid
to love him!