Here in the Dayton, Ohio, area, the big news is the bankruptcy of Delphi, a maker of auto parts: Delphi employs 5,700 people in the Dayton area, and the loss of those jobs is frightening.
But it is part of a long and dreary story: the slow decline of the economy of Ohio. And a major factor is the cowardice of the reigning GOP in facing the rampaging elephant in the room: Big Labor's outrageous coercive power.
Talk to people involved in recruiting industries to site in their states: they'll tell you that industry gravitates to Right to Work states. Why? Because a Right to Work law, which provides that workers can't be forced to pay union dues, facilitates a more cooperative work environment, instead of the class-warfare, hate-the-boss slash-and-burn tactics favored by the extremists who seem always to end up in control of union locals.
Meanwhile, the nation's 22 Right to Work states do better in every regard: they draw more industry, create more jobs, and their economies are growing faster. They weather inevitable downturns better; they are more diverse and more resilient.
By the way, Right to Work states do fine on wages, too -- contrary to what you may have heard. Adjusted for inflation and taxes, Right to Work states perform better on wages than forced-unionism states.
I hear the outrage: "you're bashing unions!"
No, I'm bashing coercion: and it's so revealing that those who go ballistic at any discussion of Right to Work conflate the terms "union" and "forced-union."
But I am bashing Governor Bob Taft and the Ohio GOP. The GOP has been running things for quite awhile -- both houses and the governor's mansion. Sixteen years of GOP governors and a GOP legislature almost as long. But when it comes to Big Labor, Taft and his crowd haven't got the courage God gave a mouse. As President Theodore Roosevelt said of a member of the Supreme Court: "I could carve a better backbone from a banana!"
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Veritas!
Journalist Robert Lynd has the measure of us:
"By virtue we merely mean the avoidance of vices that do not attract us"
When I hear complaints that Father ____ never preaches on ______ (fill in your favorite sin), I think of Lynd's comment.
From Catholic Sensibility
"By virtue we merely mean the avoidance of vices that do not attract us"
When I hear complaints that Father ____ never preaches on ______ (fill in your favorite sin), I think of Lynd's comment.
From Catholic Sensibility
The real climax of Mass: hint--it's not the homily!
At her Open Book, Amy Wellborn has been posting on the Synod on the Eucharist underway right now in Rome. She posted this comment from Archbishop Gregory:
"Archbishop Gregory makes an excellent point. Seems as if he's listening to the arguments back home.
Increasingly, the faithful expect better homilies from celebrants at the Sunday Eucharist. Bishops must lead by our own good example as well as our admonitions to improve the quality of Catholic preaching at the Sunday Eucharist. Ritual precision alone will not bring back those who do not attend Sunday Mass."
I want to comment on Archbishop Gregory's point, about the importance of preaching, in relation to precision of the celebration of the liturgy...
I may be wrong, but I am concerned by certain hints I pick up from many active Catholics whose comments suggest that the homily is the main thing for them, at Mass.
Is anyone else hearing such things?
The priest I know very well (wink) does try to offer good homilies, and can't help being gratified when people express appreciation. He tries to elicit specific comments, so as to know what's working, what's resonating, etc.
But the main event of the Mass is not the homily.
If we think of the two parts of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, each one has a climax:
the climax of the Liturgy of the Word is the proclamation of the Gospel...
The Gospel itself is the climax, hence we stand, we greet it with Alleluias (the sequences are extended alleluias), we have a procession, perhaps with incense, and there is an option to chant it; and only an ordained minister may proclaim the Gospel. And the Gospel is kissed--by the bishop, if he's present.
The homily, the Creed, and the prayers, are a response to the Gospel; and then we begin building to a new climax, this time to the Seed of Christ, the Word in our midst, doing something new and wonderful among us.
Some have compared the Gospel procession and proclamation to the event of the Incarnation, in contrast to the Liturgy of the Eucharist bringing us to the Passion, Death, Resurrection (and glorious return) of Christ.
Thus, the Eucharistic Prayer would be the second climax--different folks could disagree on the exact moment, but I'd say you have a series of climaxes, each rising higher: the entering into the Holy of Holies, with the Sanctus; the Epiclesis, calling down the Spirit, Christ's own words of insitution; the offering of this Sacrifice (following the "mystery of faith" acclamation), to which we join all our prayers, all summarized in the concluding prayer: "Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, Almighty Father, forever and ever. Amen!" If memory serves me right, St. Ambrose described this amen as "thunderous" -- as it should be.
The subsequent parts of the Mass are, again, our response: we "pray with confidence" the Our Father, we acknowledge Jesus our Peace present on the altar ("Lord Jesus Christ, you said..."), and--if we have been made worthy, we receive the Eucharist--and then Mass concludes very quickly, as we are sent.
We might see the Agnus Dei and the Fraction as the climax; but look at the Roman Canon: at one point, the priest bows, and prays, "Almighty God, may your angel take this Sacrifice to your altar in Heaven...then as we receive from the altar..." -- i.e., the Fraction and sharing the Eucharist are a "coming down" from heaven, and the power derives from the summit of the Offering of Jesus eternally for us.
As I say, others could see it differently; but all this is to say: a good homily, devoutly to be wished for, is subordinate to the real power of the Mass, which is the Sacrifice.
(I posted this comment first at Open Book, but thought you might like to read and comment on it here as well.)
"Archbishop Gregory makes an excellent point. Seems as if he's listening to the arguments back home.
Increasingly, the faithful expect better homilies from celebrants at the Sunday Eucharist. Bishops must lead by our own good example as well as our admonitions to improve the quality of Catholic preaching at the Sunday Eucharist. Ritual precision alone will not bring back those who do not attend Sunday Mass."
I want to comment on Archbishop Gregory's point, about the importance of preaching, in relation to precision of the celebration of the liturgy...
I may be wrong, but I am concerned by certain hints I pick up from many active Catholics whose comments suggest that the homily is the main thing for them, at Mass.
Is anyone else hearing such things?
The priest I know very well (wink) does try to offer good homilies, and can't help being gratified when people express appreciation. He tries to elicit specific comments, so as to know what's working, what's resonating, etc.
But the main event of the Mass is not the homily.
If we think of the two parts of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, each one has a climax:
the climax of the Liturgy of the Word is the proclamation of the Gospel...
The Gospel itself is the climax, hence we stand, we greet it with Alleluias (the sequences are extended alleluias), we have a procession, perhaps with incense, and there is an option to chant it; and only an ordained minister may proclaim the Gospel. And the Gospel is kissed--by the bishop, if he's present.
The homily, the Creed, and the prayers, are a response to the Gospel; and then we begin building to a new climax, this time to the Seed of Christ, the Word in our midst, doing something new and wonderful among us.
Some have compared the Gospel procession and proclamation to the event of the Incarnation, in contrast to the Liturgy of the Eucharist bringing us to the Passion, Death, Resurrection (and glorious return) of Christ.
Thus, the Eucharistic Prayer would be the second climax--different folks could disagree on the exact moment, but I'd say you have a series of climaxes, each rising higher: the entering into the Holy of Holies, with the Sanctus; the Epiclesis, calling down the Spirit, Christ's own words of insitution; the offering of this Sacrifice (following the "mystery of faith" acclamation), to which we join all our prayers, all summarized in the concluding prayer: "Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, Almighty Father, forever and ever. Amen!" If memory serves me right, St. Ambrose described this amen as "thunderous" -- as it should be.
The subsequent parts of the Mass are, again, our response: we "pray with confidence" the Our Father, we acknowledge Jesus our Peace present on the altar ("Lord Jesus Christ, you said..."), and--if we have been made worthy, we receive the Eucharist--and then Mass concludes very quickly, as we are sent.
We might see the Agnus Dei and the Fraction as the climax; but look at the Roman Canon: at one point, the priest bows, and prays, "Almighty God, may your angel take this Sacrifice to your altar in Heaven...then as we receive from the altar..." -- i.e., the Fraction and sharing the Eucharist are a "coming down" from heaven, and the power derives from the summit of the Offering of Jesus eternally for us.
As I say, others could see it differently; but all this is to say: a good homily, devoutly to be wished for, is subordinate to the real power of the Mass, which is the Sacrifice.
(I posted this comment first at Open Book, but thought you might like to read and comment on it here as well.)
Monday, October 10, 2005
My fame is spreading...
I note that I have regular visitors from "down under" -- from Australia and New Zealand (question: do y'all get along well with each other, or is it like a cross-town college rivalry?), and I have had several visits from France, and now from Sofia, Bulgaria!
Thanks for visiting!
Thanks for visiting!
Beautiful words about Our Eucharistic Lord
From this morning's interventions at the Synod, an Australian bishop:
Consider the fact that the Author of the Universe took human nature to himself, was born of a Virgin, had (and still has) a human body and a human soul, lived, died and rose again on this tiny planet we call Earth. He did all of this for us and our salvation. And his presence remains with us substantially and really in the Eucharist. This Mystery staggers the mind; is beyond our full comprehension. But the human heart can know it and love it and accept it in true humility in the act of conversion.
We know that the Eucharist is the Father's pledge of fidelity to and love for the human race. Our faith is audacious and bold in its vision. It comes from God as a gift. We, who are its teachers, must mirror its staggering beauty in the way we speak of the Eucharist, in the way we celebrate the ritual of the Eucharist, and the way we live the Eucharist.
Thanks to Amy Wellborn for posting this.
I wanted to post it, primarily so that I can find it later, in case I choose to use this as part of a future homily.
I especially like the last part: "we...must mirror its staggering beauty in the way we speak of the Eucharist..." -- oh, how I cringe when anyone speaks of "the wine"! I recall having a "dry Mass" (not a Mass at all, just an instructional run-through) for RCIA participants, and I said, very strongly as I recall, "there's no wine served at Mass; no one ever tastes even a drop of wine..."
Consider the fact that the Author of the Universe took human nature to himself, was born of a Virgin, had (and still has) a human body and a human soul, lived, died and rose again on this tiny planet we call Earth. He did all of this for us and our salvation. And his presence remains with us substantially and really in the Eucharist. This Mystery staggers the mind; is beyond our full comprehension. But the human heart can know it and love it and accept it in true humility in the act of conversion.
We know that the Eucharist is the Father's pledge of fidelity to and love for the human race. Our faith is audacious and bold in its vision. It comes from God as a gift. We, who are its teachers, must mirror its staggering beauty in the way we speak of the Eucharist, in the way we celebrate the ritual of the Eucharist, and the way we live the Eucharist.
Thanks to Amy Wellborn for posting this.
I wanted to post it, primarily so that I can find it later, in case I choose to use this as part of a future homily.
I especially like the last part: "we...must mirror its staggering beauty in the way we speak of the Eucharist..." -- oh, how I cringe when anyone speaks of "the wine"! I recall having a "dry Mass" (not a Mass at all, just an instructional run-through) for RCIA participants, and I said, very strongly as I recall, "there's no wine served at Mass; no one ever tastes even a drop of wine..."
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Link me!
As I mentioned below, there is a blog "stock exchange," called "blogshares" (there's a button at the bottom of the page if you want to go there). It's a lot of fun "playing the market."
Turns out, if you link me, the value of my blog goes up.
Not that it's important (it's utterly UNimportant!), but it's fun!
So...link me (please)!
Turns out, if you link me, the value of my blog goes up.
Not that it's important (it's utterly UNimportant!), but it's fun!
So...link me (please)!
What is American Food?
A couple of weeks ago, I had a priest as a guest: Fr. Leo, a priest from Uganda, studying in Pittsburgh. He was in our parish as a "mission" speaker, inviting my parishioners to support the work of his home diocese.
After the Saturday evening Mass, I took him out to dinner, and I took him to one of the nicest restaurants around, an Italian restaurant in the next town to the south. As we sat outside, enjoying a very nice evening and a nice meal, he commented, "I'd like to try 'American food'--but I never get the chance. Always German, Italian, Chinese, Mexican..."
Hmmm, I thought; then I told him, well, I guess "Soul Food" would be true "American Food"; and I thought of ribs, and told him I'd have loved to take him somewhere for ribs, but alas, that would be a long drive. I also mentioned fried chicken, but I found myself still thinking about it now a couple of weeks later.
What is American food?
One thought occurs to me: we Americans are like the Romans of old; we absorb all sorts of things from other cultures, and give them our own flavor, and style, and often, make them better. I don't know if the ancient Romans were innovators in cuisine, but they were accomplished in the sorts of things at which we Americans excel: power, government, technology, and efficiency.
My other thought is that we haven't been around -- as a distinct culture -- all that long, so our cuisine hasn't had enough time to develop.
Of course, having said that, I realize we have many interesting regional cuisines; but is there a national, "American" cuisine?
Your comments...
After the Saturday evening Mass, I took him out to dinner, and I took him to one of the nicest restaurants around, an Italian restaurant in the next town to the south. As we sat outside, enjoying a very nice evening and a nice meal, he commented, "I'd like to try 'American food'--but I never get the chance. Always German, Italian, Chinese, Mexican..."
Hmmm, I thought; then I told him, well, I guess "Soul Food" would be true "American Food"; and I thought of ribs, and told him I'd have loved to take him somewhere for ribs, but alas, that would be a long drive. I also mentioned fried chicken, but I found myself still thinking about it now a couple of weeks later.
What is American food?
One thought occurs to me: we Americans are like the Romans of old; we absorb all sorts of things from other cultures, and give them our own flavor, and style, and often, make them better. I don't know if the ancient Romans were innovators in cuisine, but they were accomplished in the sorts of things at which we Americans excel: power, government, technology, and efficiency.
My other thought is that we haven't been around -- as a distinct culture -- all that long, so our cuisine hasn't had enough time to develop.
Of course, having said that, I realize we have many interesting regional cuisines; but is there a national, "American" cuisine?
Your comments...
The Meat'normous Sandwich: Over-the-topism
What is "Over-the-topism"?
That's my name for a curious, sometimes-discouraging, often-humorous aspect of American culture. It might be described with the phrase, "anything worth doing, is worth doing grotesquely."
You see it especially in restaurant food.
"Do you have Chocolate cake?" No, double-chocolate; no, double-chocolate with mocha ganache; no, deep-double-chocolate-decadence cake; no, deep-double-chocolate-decadence (note its no longer worthy of the pedestrian "cake") in a raspberry bath, with creme fraiche...and so it goes.
Now comes the latest monument to Over-the-topism: Burker King's "Meat'normous" (TM) Sandwich!
Here's what you get:
a huge sandwich with two omelettes, three slices of bacon, two slices of ham, and a sausage patty (what? no cheese? the bun better be buttered!); 770 calories and 47 grams of fat; the sandwich weighs 10.5 ounces.
All for $3.49.
According to the Detroit Free Press, it's available for a limited time only!
Hmmm . . . I need to get to Burger King!
(Re) teaching myself Latin
It may surprise some to hear it, but Catholic priests ordained in recent years do not necessarily know a lot of Latin. We all get exposed to a fair amount, and some of us naturally have more aptitude and interest; but it is not taught in the fashion it used to be.
Some may put this down to yet another example of the decadence of the Church, or the horrors of Vatican II, or what-have-you, but it's not that simple.
People don't realize that in the "old days" for which some pine, Latin was taught, not at the graduate-level, but in high school and somewhat in college. (At least so is my understanding.) But high-school are pretty much no more, and college seminaries are rare. Most seminarians enter post-college -- that is, at a point when, in the "old days," they would have already had plenty of Latin.
Having said that, seminaries could do more, I think, to acquaint future priests with the universal language of the Church. So could Catholic high schools, who usually offer Latin, but do not always require it. (Of course, I can imagine the protests of some, and perhaps many, parents to such a requirement.)
Ironically, I was required to take Latin--in a government school! Walnut Hills High School, alma mater mei, still requires Latin--mirabile dictu!
Alas, when I was there, I lacked motivation, so the fruits I have to show for Latin studies are meagre. But my time in the seminary did see me revive my Latin (and learn new pronunciation: VEINy, VEEdee, VEEchee, not WAYnee, WEEdee, WEEkey), and I have continued to work on my Latin since then, currently learning to pray the Office(Liturgia Horarum) in Latin.
One added reason: it keeps my mind agile!
Some may put this down to yet another example of the decadence of the Church, or the horrors of Vatican II, or what-have-you, but it's not that simple.
People don't realize that in the "old days" for which some pine, Latin was taught, not at the graduate-level, but in high school and somewhat in college. (At least so is my understanding.) But high-school are pretty much no more, and college seminaries are rare. Most seminarians enter post-college -- that is, at a point when, in the "old days," they would have already had plenty of Latin.
Having said that, seminaries could do more, I think, to acquaint future priests with the universal language of the Church. So could Catholic high schools, who usually offer Latin, but do not always require it. (Of course, I can imagine the protests of some, and perhaps many, parents to such a requirement.)
Ironically, I was required to take Latin--in a government school! Walnut Hills High School, alma mater mei, still requires Latin--mirabile dictu!
Alas, when I was there, I lacked motivation, so the fruits I have to show for Latin studies are meagre. But my time in the seminary did see me revive my Latin (and learn new pronunciation: VEINy, VEEdee, VEEchee, not WAYnee, WEEdee, WEEkey), and I have continued to work on my Latin since then, currently learning to pray the Office(Liturgia Horarum) in Latin.
One added reason: it keeps my mind agile!
That "gays in the seminary" story again
As is being widely reported, the much-expected document from Rome on whether a man's sexual orientation will be a bar to admission to the seminary appears not to be what many hoped.
According to John Allen, who writes for the National Catholic Reporter (can any good thing come from the NCR? John Allen may be it), the document will not absolutely bar any and all same-sex-attracted men from the seminary. Rather, it will call for barring those who:
* have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;
* are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);
* have a homosexual orientation sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk.
Of course, given that this is at best third-hand, given that I haven't seen the document, neither has John Allen, and for all we know, neither has the "senior Vatican official" who is his source. But since so many are getting so excited about this, I might as well pass along this information.
I am tempted to say what I think about this; but there may be yet more twists and turns, so let's just see what comes first. Roma non locuta est--yet!
According to John Allen, who writes for the National Catholic Reporter (can any good thing come from the NCR? John Allen may be it), the document will not absolutely bar any and all same-sex-attracted men from the seminary. Rather, it will call for barring those who:
* have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;
* are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);
* have a homosexual orientation sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk.
Of course, given that this is at best third-hand, given that I haven't seen the document, neither has John Allen, and for all we know, neither has the "senior Vatican official" who is his source. But since so many are getting so excited about this, I might as well pass along this information.
I am tempted to say what I think about this; but there may be yet more twists and turns, so let's just see what comes first. Roma non locuta est--yet!
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Sunday Homily on Justification*
Did you notice what happened in the Gospel:
Someone gets thrown out of the party
because he wasn’t dressed properly.
Maybe you thought what I did:
“but he was pulled in at the last minute.
How could he be expected to dress properly?”
But notice he had no response.
That is the key.
Yes, he didn’t get advance warning,
but that’s the point:
when our summons to the Kingdom arrives,
we may not get advance warning!
So be ready!
What does that garment represent?
Clearly not ordinary clothing;
it’s not even the good appearance we make.
That’s the point of the “no warning”:
If we have warning,
we’ll make sure we look good.
We might say, “I’ll do good deeds,
I’ll go to church: God’ll be impressed.”
No he won’t!
The garment isn’t about putting on a good show;
it’s about who we are.
The choices we make form us
into the people we truly are.
Someone might say,
“Father, I have a problem with lying.”
I might ask,
“Someone who tells lies, over and over—
what do we call that person?”
“A liar.”
The choices we make form us into who we are.
Like each blow of a chisel
on a block of stone:
The statue isn’t a product
of a single strike,
but of many, over time.
So: who will we be found to be
at any given moment?
At any given moment, are you and I ready
to be ushered immediately into the Kingdom?
Now, if you were dozing up to this point,
wake up now and listen to this part!
Can we be “good enough”?
Can we make ourselves “worthy?”
If you only half-hear what I’m saying,
you might think this is about
what we do to get God on our side:
how we “prove ourselves”;
how we win God’s favor.
No…No! No!
Yes, we have to change.
Yes, that change is necessary
for us to be saved.
But the alternatives are not,
“I change, God loves me,” versus
“I don’t change, God hates me.”
No. Instead it’s like this:
God loves you and me to start with:
Either I respond to that love,
and He changes me;
Or I don’t respond to that love,
and I am lost.
Whoever is in hell, God loves them!
The problem is,
they don’t love him back.
And that is what makes his love
a torment to them!
So that wedding garment represents us made perfect.
“Made perfect”: that is, God does it;
“Made perfect”: meaning,
the holiness Jesus calls us to is total.
And if that sounds impossible—you’re right!
The sooner we accept that,
we realize it’s about living in relationship
with Jesus Christ,
living in his Holy Spirit day by day.
It’s not something
we can put off to another day;
It’s not something
someone else can do for us.
That’s what will shape us,
purify us, lead us deeper;
The Spirit in us is our courage
to embrace whatever hard choices
come with following Christ.
Is it tough? You bet—tougher than anything.
Because it means for every one of us,
Something will be nailed to the cross.
Our pride, our control,
our deepest desires;
Something—and ultimately, everything—
is turned over to him
that we may have eternal life.
I’m sure you’ve seen
the commercials for the military:
This young man climbs up a mountain,
its hard and dangerous. Why does he do it?
So that, at the summit,
he can be one of
“the few, the proud, the Marines.”
God bless the Marines, we need them.
I’d love to run an ad like that
for being a priest—being a nun—
being a mother or a father—
being a Christian!
The question is,
what will you and I let Christ do,
What will we sacrifice, that you and I
may be counted among “the few, the humble,
who died to themselves, the saved”?
* Anyone who wants to know in what way I'm discussing justification in this homily, please don't hesitate to leave a comment.
Someone gets thrown out of the party
because he wasn’t dressed properly.
Maybe you thought what I did:
“but he was pulled in at the last minute.
How could he be expected to dress properly?”
But notice he had no response.
That is the key.
Yes, he didn’t get advance warning,
but that’s the point:
when our summons to the Kingdom arrives,
we may not get advance warning!
So be ready!
What does that garment represent?
Clearly not ordinary clothing;
it’s not even the good appearance we make.
That’s the point of the “no warning”:
If we have warning,
we’ll make sure we look good.
We might say, “I’ll do good deeds,
I’ll go to church: God’ll be impressed.”
No he won’t!
The garment isn’t about putting on a good show;
it’s about who we are.
The choices we make form us
into the people we truly are.
Someone might say,
“Father, I have a problem with lying.”
I might ask,
“Someone who tells lies, over and over—
what do we call that person?”
“A liar.”
The choices we make form us into who we are.
Like each blow of a chisel
on a block of stone:
The statue isn’t a product
of a single strike,
but of many, over time.
So: who will we be found to be
at any given moment?
At any given moment, are you and I ready
to be ushered immediately into the Kingdom?
Now, if you were dozing up to this point,
wake up now and listen to this part!
Can we be “good enough”?
Can we make ourselves “worthy?”
If you only half-hear what I’m saying,
you might think this is about
what we do to get God on our side:
how we “prove ourselves”;
how we win God’s favor.
No…No! No!
Yes, we have to change.
Yes, that change is necessary
for us to be saved.
But the alternatives are not,
“I change, God loves me,” versus
“I don’t change, God hates me.”
No. Instead it’s like this:
God loves you and me to start with:
Either I respond to that love,
and He changes me;
Or I don’t respond to that love,
and I am lost.
Whoever is in hell, God loves them!
The problem is,
they don’t love him back.
And that is what makes his love
a torment to them!
So that wedding garment represents us made perfect.
“Made perfect”: that is, God does it;
“Made perfect”: meaning,
the holiness Jesus calls us to is total.
And if that sounds impossible—you’re right!
The sooner we accept that,
we realize it’s about living in relationship
with Jesus Christ,
living in his Holy Spirit day by day.
It’s not something
we can put off to another day;
It’s not something
someone else can do for us.
That’s what will shape us,
purify us, lead us deeper;
The Spirit in us is our courage
to embrace whatever hard choices
come with following Christ.
Is it tough? You bet—tougher than anything.
Because it means for every one of us,
Something will be nailed to the cross.
Our pride, our control,
our deepest desires;
Something—and ultimately, everything—
is turned over to him
that we may have eternal life.
I’m sure you’ve seen
the commercials for the military:
This young man climbs up a mountain,
its hard and dangerous. Why does he do it?
So that, at the summit,
he can be one of
“the few, the proud, the Marines.”
God bless the Marines, we need them.
I’d love to run an ad like that
for being a priest—being a nun—
being a mother or a father—
being a Christian!
The question is,
what will you and I let Christ do,
What will we sacrifice, that you and I
may be counted among “the few, the humble,
who died to themselves, the saved”?
* Anyone who wants to know in what way I'm discussing justification in this homily, please don't hesitate to leave a comment.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Invest in this Blog!
Here's something fun: someone has created a "blog stock market" called Blogshares. This link will take you to my page there, where you can -- if you wish -- buy and sell shares in this blog!
Don't worry, it's not real money: you create a free account, you get free "blog dollars" and you can invest in the blog of your choice.
Stock tip: The "analysts' report says, "This is a growing blog (BUY)"; and "This stock is underpriced (BUY)"
Don't worry, it's not real money: you create a free account, you get free "blog dollars" and you can invest in the blog of your choice.
Stock tip: The "analysts' report says, "This is a growing blog (BUY)"; and "This stock is underpriced (BUY)"
The Rosary: the weapon of our warfare (daily homily)
Boy, those readings are tough,
pretty grim, aren’t they?
The prophet Joel describes a battlefield;
In the Gospel, our Lord Jesus
describes a battle as well:
The battle that we face inside our hearts.
Sometimes we talk about how good it feels
to follow Christ.
But today’s readings remind us:
following Christ sometimes means
hard choices, making sacrifices,
and fighting battles.
Think of the men and women
fighting—right now—in Iraq.
They’ll tell you: that’s a situation
where your faith
becomes as real as real can get.
Someone is lying out there on the battlefield;
Will I go out—under fire—to save him?
No, you and I aren’t facing that.
But we still face a battlefield: in our hearts!
And those choices can be just as frightening.
They can be harder in one respect:
Because in the battlefield of our hearts,
We can be lulled into thinking
we don’t have to face it;
“There’s no battle;
there’s no sacrifice; don’t worry!”
We all face these battles;
The question is,
what kind of people will we be?
Every day a hundred choices are given us
Either to be people of courage,
and sacrifice, and virtue;
Or to be people who take the easy path,
who shrink back.
First we win the battles of our hearts
before we ever face the struggle of a real war.
Put it another way:
If we have embrace courage day-by-day,
In the little choices of life,
We’ll have it if and when
we face some titanic struggle.
Do we stay silent,
or speak the truth no one wants to hear?
Do we let someone be mistreated,
or stand up for what is right?
Do we take a stand for Christ,
or go along with the crowd?
Now maybe you’re thinking,
“Gee, I know how often I lose those battles!”
I understand: me too!
What I’m saying is,
those are the battles you and I,
and all of us, are given
so that we may become people of virtue and courage.
And the good news is,
there are powerful weapons available
to strengthen us in those battles.
And here’s one of them: the rosary!
Now that may not look like much of a weapon.
But I guarantee you, there are soldiers in Iraq,
clutching their rosaries as tight as their guns!
Because you can’t use a gun against the fear
that invades right here, in the heart!
Let me tell you a story about the rosary—
It could be ripped straight from the headlines.
A powerful army and navy gathers to invade a nation.
It is an army dedicated to Islam,
to conquer and kill Christians
in the name of Mohammed.
This happened on this day, in 1571,
about 450 years ago.
The Christians were badly outnumbered;
They had very little hope.
But what was at stake was freedom,
including the freedom to worship Christ;
because where Christians
had already been conquered,
the faith of Christ
was being squashed and stamped out.
The pope appealed
for Christian nations to act together,
Both militarily—on the battlefield—
But also to fight the battle of prayer.
And the pope asked every Christian
to pray the rosary
that the invaders would be turned back.
The battle shouldn’t have been won—but it was!
It was won through prayer.
And that’s why this is
the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary.
And the rosary is just as powerful in all our battles.
Guys, do you think the rosary isn’t for you?
That “real men” don’t pray the rosary?
No: “real men” know how much they need to pray;
And they don’t care what anyone thinks!
Because they know the battles they face
in their hearts and they refuse
to be conquered on that battlefield!
Girls, do you think you don’t have time for prayer?
As we grow into adulthood,
We recognize and accept
our responsibility to do our part.
And I know you agree, because you did that
a few weeks ago for the victims of the hurricane.
Will you accept your responsibility for prayer?
Not just when we adults bring you to Mass—
But on your own—on the battlefields of your heart?
None of us wants
to face these battles; but we do.
The question is:
do we want to be people of courage,
People who accept the cost
of being a soldier of Christ,
Rather than those who shrink back
and flee the battle?
pretty grim, aren’t they?
The prophet Joel describes a battlefield;
In the Gospel, our Lord Jesus
describes a battle as well:
The battle that we face inside our hearts.
Sometimes we talk about how good it feels
to follow Christ.
But today’s readings remind us:
following Christ sometimes means
hard choices, making sacrifices,
and fighting battles.
Think of the men and women
fighting—right now—in Iraq.
They’ll tell you: that’s a situation
where your faith
becomes as real as real can get.
Someone is lying out there on the battlefield;
Will I go out—under fire—to save him?
No, you and I aren’t facing that.
But we still face a battlefield: in our hearts!
And those choices can be just as frightening.
They can be harder in one respect:
Because in the battlefield of our hearts,
We can be lulled into thinking
we don’t have to face it;
“There’s no battle;
there’s no sacrifice; don’t worry!”
We all face these battles;
The question is,
what kind of people will we be?
Every day a hundred choices are given us
Either to be people of courage,
and sacrifice, and virtue;
Or to be people who take the easy path,
who shrink back.
First we win the battles of our hearts
before we ever face the struggle of a real war.
Put it another way:
If we have embrace courage day-by-day,
In the little choices of life,
We’ll have it if and when
we face some titanic struggle.
Do we stay silent,
or speak the truth no one wants to hear?
Do we let someone be mistreated,
or stand up for what is right?
Do we take a stand for Christ,
or go along with the crowd?
Now maybe you’re thinking,
“Gee, I know how often I lose those battles!”
I understand: me too!
What I’m saying is,
those are the battles you and I,
and all of us, are given
so that we may become people of virtue and courage.
And the good news is,
there are powerful weapons available
to strengthen us in those battles.
And here’s one of them: the rosary!
Now that may not look like much of a weapon.
But I guarantee you, there are soldiers in Iraq,
clutching their rosaries as tight as their guns!
Because you can’t use a gun against the fear
that invades right here, in the heart!
Let me tell you a story about the rosary—
It could be ripped straight from the headlines.
A powerful army and navy gathers to invade a nation.
It is an army dedicated to Islam,
to conquer and kill Christians
in the name of Mohammed.
This happened on this day, in 1571,
about 450 years ago.
The Christians were badly outnumbered;
They had very little hope.
But what was at stake was freedom,
including the freedom to worship Christ;
because where Christians
had already been conquered,
the faith of Christ
was being squashed and stamped out.
The pope appealed
for Christian nations to act together,
Both militarily—on the battlefield—
But also to fight the battle of prayer.
And the pope asked every Christian
to pray the rosary
that the invaders would be turned back.
The battle shouldn’t have been won—but it was!
It was won through prayer.
And that’s why this is
the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary.
And the rosary is just as powerful in all our battles.
Guys, do you think the rosary isn’t for you?
That “real men” don’t pray the rosary?
No: “real men” know how much they need to pray;
And they don’t care what anyone thinks!
Because they know the battles they face
in their hearts and they refuse
to be conquered on that battlefield!
Girls, do you think you don’t have time for prayer?
As we grow into adulthood,
We recognize and accept
our responsibility to do our part.
And I know you agree, because you did that
a few weeks ago for the victims of the hurricane.
Will you accept your responsibility for prayer?
Not just when we adults bring you to Mass—
But on your own—on the battlefields of your heart?
None of us wants
to face these battles; but we do.
The question is:
do we want to be people of courage,
People who accept the cost
of being a soldier of Christ,
Rather than those who shrink back
and flee the battle?
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Senate Has Bare Anti-Roe Majority; stronger majority for an anti-Roe nominee
After a discussion with some friends today about this, I remembered some comments I posted at Confirm Them last month, on just how the Senate breaks out on upholding v. overturning the execrable Roe v. Wade.
Here's what I posted:
You know, we actually have a record vote on this. In 2003, Sen. Harkin brought a non-binding, “Sense of the Senate” resolution to a vote on upholding Roe. It carried 52-46. The two that failed to vote, Biden and McConnell, presumably make it 53-47. In the next election, the GOP added four Senators, to a 55-45 majority. The net prolife pickup was three seats, making it 50-50.
Now, that may sound iffy: but let’s look at that record vote in 2003, and let’s look for who might be “swing” votes on this, in relation to a confirmation vote:
We find 8 pro-Roe Republicans: Murkowski & Stevens of Alaska; Collins & Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Chafee, R.I.; Hutchison, Tex.; Warner, Va.;
We find 2 anti-Roe Democrats: Pryor, Ark.; Ben Nelson, Neb.; plus:
Four pro-Roe “red-state” Democrats: Lincoln, Ark.; Bill Nelson, Fla.; Bayh, Ind.; Landrieu, La.
Those two anti-Roe Democrats are surely good targets for a confirmation fight: they not only voted against Roe, they are from red states. Take two from that 50 “pro-Roe” total, now 48;
Now: I happen to think those last four are legitimate targets — take 4 votes out of those 48 “pro-Roe” votes, now 44.
Of those eight pro-Roe Republicans, I doubt Specter, Hutchison or Chafee cross the President on this one. Specter would lose his chairmanship; Hutchison is from Texas, and Chafee faces a primary challenge from the right and wants the White House to help him. Take three more from the “pro-Roe” total — now 41.
Five more GOP Senators who could bolt. I grant you lose some: Warner voted against Bork, for example, and maybe Collins and Snowe; Stevens and Murkowski, harder to see them going against the White House; and any GOP Senator is vulnerable to White House pressure.
So where does that leave us? We know we have 50 votes, based on that record vote of 2003, plus 2004 pickups. Plus, I’ve just come up with three probable GOP votes, five more possible GOP votes, plus a few Democrats certainly in play.
No, it’s not a landslide. But my point was simply to show, with some hard facts, instead of unsupport rhetoric, that its invalid to assume an openly anti-Roe nominee can’t be confirmed. Sure he can: I just showed you the votes.
(Sources: http://www.adaction.org/2003senatevr.htm; http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL11/index.html.)
Here's what I posted:
You know, we actually have a record vote on this. In 2003, Sen. Harkin brought a non-binding, “Sense of the Senate” resolution to a vote on upholding Roe. It carried 52-46. The two that failed to vote, Biden and McConnell, presumably make it 53-47. In the next election, the GOP added four Senators, to a 55-45 majority. The net prolife pickup was three seats, making it 50-50.
Now, that may sound iffy: but let’s look at that record vote in 2003, and let’s look for who might be “swing” votes on this, in relation to a confirmation vote:
We find 8 pro-Roe Republicans: Murkowski & Stevens of Alaska; Collins & Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Chafee, R.I.; Hutchison, Tex.; Warner, Va.;
We find 2 anti-Roe Democrats: Pryor, Ark.; Ben Nelson, Neb.; plus:
Four pro-Roe “red-state” Democrats: Lincoln, Ark.; Bill Nelson, Fla.; Bayh, Ind.; Landrieu, La.
Those two anti-Roe Democrats are surely good targets for a confirmation fight: they not only voted against Roe, they are from red states. Take two from that 50 “pro-Roe” total, now 48;
Now: I happen to think those last four are legitimate targets — take 4 votes out of those 48 “pro-Roe” votes, now 44.
Of those eight pro-Roe Republicans, I doubt Specter, Hutchison or Chafee cross the President on this one. Specter would lose his chairmanship; Hutchison is from Texas, and Chafee faces a primary challenge from the right and wants the White House to help him. Take three more from the “pro-Roe” total — now 41.
Five more GOP Senators who could bolt. I grant you lose some: Warner voted against Bork, for example, and maybe Collins and Snowe; Stevens and Murkowski, harder to see them going against the White House; and any GOP Senator is vulnerable to White House pressure.
So where does that leave us? We know we have 50 votes, based on that record vote of 2003, plus 2004 pickups. Plus, I’ve just come up with three probable GOP votes, five more possible GOP votes, plus a few Democrats certainly in play.
No, it’s not a landslide. But my point was simply to show, with some hard facts, instead of unsupport rhetoric, that its invalid to assume an openly anti-Roe nominee can’t be confirmed. Sure he can: I just showed you the votes.
(Sources: http://www.adaction.org/2003senatevr.htm; http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL11/index.html.)
Monday, October 03, 2005
Michael Luttig has a blog too...
Apparently, Michael Luttig isn't happy being passed over a second time...
Is Harriet Mier's nomination about religion?
One of the things we're learning about the new nominee to the High Court is that she is an Evangelical Christian. (One claim I picked up somewhere is she might be a former Catholic.) "Protestant Pope" James Dobson was on FOX just now, touting Ms. Miers, noting specifically that she's an Evangelical Christian, "the first in decades" to the Supreme Court.
One of the arguments made -- unofficially -- for Chief Justice Roberts was that he was such a devout Catholic, attending a parish with such a reputation for being orthodox.
A similar argument has begun to be made -- unofficially -- for Ms. Miers. Is this why we're being told, "Don't worry, trust us"?
One of the arguments made -- unofficially -- for Chief Justice Roberts was that he was such a devout Catholic, attending a parish with such a reputation for being orthodox.
A similar argument has begun to be made -- unofficially -- for Ms. Miers. Is this why we're being told, "Don't worry, trust us"?
Why conservatives should be angry about Harriet Meirs
Rush Limbaugh interviewed the Vice President today. The conversation yielded the following noteworthy comments:
RUSH: Is there a reason why conservatives' known quantities about whom the president's supporters wouldn't have questions, were not chosen -- Michael Luttig, Edith Jones and others? I mean, they've got records and the president wouldn't be facing questions he's getting today from his supporters. Any reason why those names were left off this time?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I wouldn't take this as negative on anybody. We looked at a very broad range of candidates and, frankly, I hope we have additional vacancies down the road that the president will be able to fill and some of those people you mention will be, I expect, on everybody's short list. But the president sat down and looked at all of the options and all the alternatives. He spent a great deal of time on this himself. He's convinced Harriet will do a great job on the court, as am I, and you'll find when we look back ten years from now that it will have been a great appointment. (Highlighting added.)
Before getting to what's good or bad about Miss Meirs, let me respond to the Vice President's claim: PUHLEEZE!
Maybe Roberts and Meirs will be everything the Bush White House promises; and if so, we'll all learn to live with that. But don't tell me Edith Jones, and folks of her caliber, have any serious chance at a Supreme Court seat. It's like when Michael Corleone confronts his brother-in-law Carlo after the baptism, about fingering his brother Sonny: "but don't tell me you're innocent! It insults my intelligence, and makes me angry."
If the President wanted Edith Jones, or Janice Brown, or Luttig, or McConnell, etc., on the court, he'd have named that person by now. Yes, I suppose a freak accident could wipe out everyone else, leaving Bush with a choice between Edith Jones and, say, Johnnie Cochran; at which point Edith has a good shot. Or Jesse Helms' heretofore unknown 10 clones get elected to the Senate from different states next year. Or maybe Arlen Specter and Ted Kennedy return from an Ignatian Retreat they took together, newly converted to the prolife cause; so, yeah, it could happen...
Then there's the Vice President's closing comment:
"You'll be proud of Harriet's record, Rush. Trust me."
Yeah--like we haven't heard that before.
So, to return to the theme of my headline: why should conservatives be angry?
Because it is simply unacceptable that sound, originalist jurisprudence should be treated as the crazy aunt to be hidden away in the attic when company comes; it is simply unacceptable for conservative jurisprudence to be told to pretend to fit in, as if we have something to be ashamed of.
It is the same condescending -- and deeply offensive -- approach once taken toward Jews and African-Americans: try to "pass" -- if you can.
RUSH: Is there a desire in the White House because of current poll numbers or this Katrina response that just doesn't want the fight with the Senate Democrats at this time?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we've never backed off from a fight with this Congress or any other Congress.
Right -- especially when its about expanding the power or reach of government. Remember what the Bush White House fought hardest for in Congress, twisting arms the hardest? The creation of a brand-new, mega-gazillion prescription-drug entitlement.
"Well, we've never backed off from a fight with this Congress or any other Congress."
Very true, Mr. Vice President -- not when it was something you actually cared about.
RUSH: Is there a reason why conservatives' known quantities about whom the president's supporters wouldn't have questions, were not chosen -- Michael Luttig, Edith Jones and others? I mean, they've got records and the president wouldn't be facing questions he's getting today from his supporters. Any reason why those names were left off this time?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I wouldn't take this as negative on anybody. We looked at a very broad range of candidates and, frankly, I hope we have additional vacancies down the road that the president will be able to fill and some of those people you mention will be, I expect, on everybody's short list. But the president sat down and looked at all of the options and all the alternatives. He spent a great deal of time on this himself. He's convinced Harriet will do a great job on the court, as am I, and you'll find when we look back ten years from now that it will have been a great appointment. (Highlighting added.)
Before getting to what's good or bad about Miss Meirs, let me respond to the Vice President's claim: PUHLEEZE!
Maybe Roberts and Meirs will be everything the Bush White House promises; and if so, we'll all learn to live with that. But don't tell me Edith Jones, and folks of her caliber, have any serious chance at a Supreme Court seat. It's like when Michael Corleone confronts his brother-in-law Carlo after the baptism, about fingering his brother Sonny: "but don't tell me you're innocent! It insults my intelligence, and makes me angry."
If the President wanted Edith Jones, or Janice Brown, or Luttig, or McConnell, etc., on the court, he'd have named that person by now. Yes, I suppose a freak accident could wipe out everyone else, leaving Bush with a choice between Edith Jones and, say, Johnnie Cochran; at which point Edith has a good shot. Or Jesse Helms' heretofore unknown 10 clones get elected to the Senate from different states next year. Or maybe Arlen Specter and Ted Kennedy return from an Ignatian Retreat they took together, newly converted to the prolife cause; so, yeah, it could happen...
Then there's the Vice President's closing comment:
"You'll be proud of Harriet's record, Rush. Trust me."
Yeah--like we haven't heard that before.
So, to return to the theme of my headline: why should conservatives be angry?
Because it is simply unacceptable that sound, originalist jurisprudence should be treated as the crazy aunt to be hidden away in the attic when company comes; it is simply unacceptable for conservative jurisprudence to be told to pretend to fit in, as if we have something to be ashamed of.
It is the same condescending -- and deeply offensive -- approach once taken toward Jews and African-Americans: try to "pass" -- if you can.
RUSH: Is there a desire in the White House because of current poll numbers or this Katrina response that just doesn't want the fight with the Senate Democrats at this time?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we've never backed off from a fight with this Congress or any other Congress.
Right -- especially when its about expanding the power or reach of government. Remember what the Bush White House fought hardest for in Congress, twisting arms the hardest? The creation of a brand-new, mega-gazillion prescription-drug entitlement.
"Well, we've never backed off from a fight with this Congress or any other Congress."
Very true, Mr. Vice President -- not when it was something you actually cared about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)