...Just a reminder--as if we needed one today--that we are at war, and we need to defeat this enemy.

May God bless those who foiled the plot to kill thousands; may God be with those who continue to fight the war, on all fronts. May God convert the hearts and save the souls of those who seek evil.

May Christ be our light, and in us, the Light to the world.

On Referrals-from-Amy Withdrawal

I don't know how I did it, but for the last few days, Amy Welborn, the queen of the Catholic blogosphere, decided I was the cat's meow. She kept linking items here!

The result was a huge spike in otherwise modest, but much appreciated, traffic.

Alas, now I'm yesterday's news, and the traffic has slowed. Well--you know the old, Latin saying: sic semper gloria blogospheri.

Caption this Picture!

"My staff keeps giving me different-sized chairs and different-length cassocks, to make me think I'm getting taller or shorter. They think I don't know. Um, you're not going to quote that, are you?"

Confession: I attended a woman's ordination!*

* A Protestant woman's ordination, that is...

And that's allowed.

The pastor of one of the local Protestant congregations invited me (I'm sure he invited all the local clergy) to attend, and I was happy to do so.

He did invite all the elders and ministers "and priests" present to lay hands on the candidate. I remained in my pew.

Later, when he asked everyone to pray for the well being of the family from any evil, well of course I was happy to join that prayer.

When I was in the seminary, I was part of summer education experience, involving theology students from various backgrounds. The other male in the group asked me, one evening, what I thought about women's ordination. I responded, "do you mean for you all (i.e., Protestants)? Makes no difference to me!" He laughed.

The Transfiguration shows us Who Jesus Is

We might wonder why the “Transfiguration”
is important, whether
to these Apostles, or to us.

Answer: it tells us exactly who Jesus is.

If you watch late-night cable,
or browse the bookstore,
you can find lots of people who
get pretty excited over “secrets” and “codes”—
meanwhile, we have the Scriptures
right before us!

This event comes right in the middle
of the Gospel of Mark.
The question that’s been building is,
Who is Jesus?

So just before today’s passage,
Jesus himself asks the question:
“who do people say that I am?”

The Apostles say, “John the Baptist, Elijah…
one of the prophets.”
He asks again, “Who do you say that I am?”
And Peter blurts out, “You are the Messiah.”

Jesus responds to Peter’s insight
by offering even more:
He begins to reveal his plan of salvation:
He will suffer, die,
and rise again on the third day.

That was hard for Peter to accept;
But the Lord insists:
That’s who I am; if you want to follow me,
you must “take up your cross!”

The difficulty remains: what kind of Messiah?
A Messiah who conquers,
or who suffers and dies on the Cross?

It’s both.
This is who Jesus is.

The Cross is his glory!
That’s where he reigns!
That’s how he conquers the world:
Not the Rambo-Messiah, guns-ablazing—
That’s our way.

Jesus conquers by giving his life away,
to wipe away sin, to reconcile us
to God and one another.

We like the Rambo-Messiah
when he conquers…someone else!
But for that part of us
that needs forgiveness,
aren’t you glad to have
the Cross-Messiah instead?

Aren’t you glad to hear Jesus say,
I will conquer, not by killing you,
but by dying for you!

So, now we come to today’s Gospel.
Jesus knows how difficult
the Cross will be for them;
So to strengthen them for it,
he reveals his full glory.

If we look even closer,
we’ll find even more.

Notice something Father Tim Schehr,
from our seminary, picked up:
Peter says, let’s have three shrines—
implying all three are equals.
But then the Father answers from heaven:
“This is my beloved Son—listen to him!”
That’s when they only see Jesus.

We might wonder, why Moses and Elijah?
Why not Abraham or David or someone else?

Well—again, to quote Fr. Schehr—
“Moses represents the Law;
Elijah, the Prophets.”
And both left this world…
outside the Promised Land.”
Now, we see they’ve arrived!
Jesus isn’t a prophet like them:
he’s their salvation!

One more thing.
In the Old Testament,
God spoke to a lot of folks,
but only two went up a mountain
to see the Lord’s glory.
These two!
But before, when they went up the mountain,
they couldn’t bear to see it!
Moses hid in a rock;
Elijah covered his head.

But they don’t have to hide, here!
So we ask, Who is Jesus?
Mark shows us:
He is the One who Moses and Elijah
wanted to see!
the Lord God himself! God Almighty!

If you wonder, what’s this do for us?
Same as the Apostles.
They needed this to strengthen them
for their crisis of faith.
So do we.

In years ahead, what crisis
may come for our nation?
What might we face in our families,
or our own lives?

Can anyone deny
we have our own crisis of faith?
For so many, their faith is not a priority.
Smaller families, fewer baptisms,
Nationwide, Catholic schools are struggling—
and the same is true here.

That’s when we need
to remember who Jesus is!
Our only answer is to say:
Jesus truly is Lord!

When others around us get dazzled by
secret codes and hidden Gospels,
remember St. Peter’s words
in the second reading:
This is not a “cleverly devised myth”—
We saw him with our own eyes!

Are you in a dark place?
Keep your eyes fixed on his light,
And wait for the morning star!

Last Sunday, you may recall hearing
Father Tom, Father Ang, or me, say
our homilies for a few weeks
would be on the Mass.

So what’s the connection today?
Our “transfiguration” experience is the Mass.
This is where we come to do
as the Father said:
Listen to My Son!
Especially in the Scriptures.

Some can’t hear, I know;
some don’t get much from them.
May I ask, do you read them ahead of time?

If they’re hard to understand,
How about a weekly Bible Study?
I lead one every Wednesday,
7pm, at St. Boniface.
We’re in Genesis, but we can look
at anything you like.

And if something else would help,
let me know!

In our homilies,
the priests try to offer some insights;
no question we could do better.

But again—I ask you to do your part:
Let us know!

Tell us what made sense—
and, I really mean this—
Tell when it didn’t!
All us priests need to hear that.

Let me end with this.
The glory the Apostles saw in Jesus—
where did it come from?

The answer, of course,
is that it was there all the time—
they simply needed his help to see it.

I want to do my part
to help you see that Glory;
But ultimately, Jesus himself does that.
If we ask—I mean, really ask—He will.

Poor Mel Gibson: too bad he wasn't an editorial cartoonist...

Mel Gibson said "the Jews are to blame." He was drunk when he said it. He has since apologized.

Pat Oliphant says, "the Catholic Church is to blame." He was presumably sober (but perhaps not). Will he apologize? (Don't hold your breath.)

Update (2:15 pm, 8-5-06): This isn't Mr. Oliphant's first libel against the Catholic Church. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights keeps track of these things. The report for 2002 can be found here; in fairness to Mr. Oliphant, the league's collection of his hate-cartoons is thinner in later years. This isn't even the first time Mr. Oliphant has drawn this image -- this appears to be a recycle of a 2004 cartoon, which drew a mea culpa from the Boston Globe for pubishing it.

Update: (9:43 pm 8-5-06) Amy Welborn posted a link at her Open Book to this site, and drawn a number of comments there. Here's one especially insightful one:

This is actually a very hard cartoon to interpret.
One version: the nun is drilling into "Mel" that, if caught in a DUI, he shouldn't make slurs against Jews. In this version the Church, while abusive, is right, but Mel failed to learn the lesson.
Next version: the nun is drilling to Mel that he should defame Jews if he is caugth driving drunk. This makes sense if O. (and his readers) assume that the Church (nuns) are nothing but vicious antisemites and want to preach that vicious gospel.
The third version, perhaps most hateful, is that the nun (i.e. the Church) and young "Mel" both know that Jews are scum, but that he should learn to control his tongue, so that, if he should be stopped for drunk driving, he would avoid any untoward comments.
Two out of three of these are vicious anti-Catholic bigotry, while the third is anti-Catholic stereotyping. This should be pointed out to the publishers of this cartoon and those with subscriptions should cancel them.

Posted by: Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P.

Pat Oliphant: Liar, Hypocrite & Bigot

In light of Mr. Oliphant's latest libel against Catholics, you may want to see what he published a few days ago--when he mocked those who claim to speak for God (by lying about them)--then proceeded to speak for God himself...

Missale Romanum--where can I get it?

Can anyone suggest where I can get a current Missale Romanum? I know the Vatican sells it -- for about $600, on sale at $264! (I saw it when there last, 2 years ago; however, it was a huge volume; beautiful, but it seemed impractical).

I'm also interested in having a Missal that has chant settings. Does anyone know if this is currently available? Of course, we're all waiting for the bishops...

Failing that, can anyone suggest an alternate resource--i.e., something with chant settings for the current edition, in Latin?

Sadly, if you go to Catholic Book Publishing (the outfit that prints all our sacramentaries, lectionaries, breviaries and other ritual books), the web site never heard of a "Missale Romanum." Irritating...

Update: I wasn't, perhaps, clear enough what I'm looking for.

I want the current Roman Missal, in Latin -- I mean, the Rite of Paul VI, as revised after Vatican II; the same Mass being celebrated mostly in English in the U.S. I want to have this current Roman Missal in Latin, with chant settings.

I would be delighted to have the very latest, third edition, but failing that, I'd be happy with a second edition, if it doesn't cost too much (since it'll become obsolete rather quickly).

I am not seeking an older Missal, a pew Missal, or a Tridentine Missal--but the Paul VI current rite Missal. In Latin. For use on the altar. With chant.

Systematic Catholic Theology & Calvinism

A friend of mine, a Protestant minister I got to know when I did a summer program in Fort Wayne as a seminarian, emailed me a request: could I recommend a good author for Catholic systematic theology?

He said he'd heard of Ott, McBrien and Fiorenza.

I told him I didn't know Ott, he was a little old (well, in fact, I'm pretty sure he's dead; I mean, his work is old); and to flee McBrien and anyone named Fiorenza, taking nothing with you when you go!

But as to recommending Catholic systematic texts? I said that's hard, because I think he wants something compact -- not von Balthasar's...um, how many volumes did he get to, anyway?

Plus, Catholic theology tends to specialize.

I recommended the Catechism--nothing shabby about that, and a great summary with depth and plenty of further resources suggested. I didn't recommend Aquinas, only because I didn't think that would be helpful for my Methodist friend.

What would you recommend?

He also asked me about any resources to counter Calvinism. Other than reviving the Inquisition, I was stumped for an answer. I referred him to some Catholic apologetical sites. Would you care to recommend anything?

A Scandal in Vandalia

If you read about my dinner with Rich Leonardi and Victor Morton last night at Rich's Ten Reasons, I can confirm that it happened; but I must confess, that was a highly sanitized account. I surreptitiously taped the entire evening, and herewith follow the shocking details...

"Hey."

"Hey."

"Hey."

"Hey honey, gimme a beer, huh?"

"Dude, my sitemeter numbers are way higher than yours. Heh heh."

"Better gimme a full rack; wouldn't want to hurt the owner's feelings."

"Mild sauce? I don't want anything 'mild.'"

"Hey, honey, how about another beer?"

"So, uh, what do you think about the state of catechesis?"

Glug, glug.

(carnivorous chewing noises.)

"My kids are doing great. I--"

"Hey, doll, how about another beer?"

"Huh--I thought these ribs had bones in them..." (burp!).

"The Republicans are toast in Ohio--and it's all the liturgists' fault!"

"I dunno--how do you know they aren't the world's true parents? Huh? Huh?!?"

"That's the nice thing about wearing black--hides stains... hey--you gonna use those potato skins?"

"Hey, sweetcakes, how about another beer?"

"Why not make it two?"

(Manager): "Um, I wonder if you gentleman could hold it down..."

"What? Who are you calling gentleman? Do you know who we are? See this red-headed guy? He used to be the Tommy Hearnes of Little Italy in Rochester! Don't mess with us..."

"Um, that was awhile ago..."

"Hey, toots, how about another beer?"

"Sir, if you could just calm down a little bit..."

"You talk to me that way? You know who I am?

"Well, I'm starting to get an idea..."

"Yeah, keep talking, smart guy--wait till we blog about you!

"Um, Sir, this is a family establishment, and..."

"Um, we'll take the check...I've got a long drive to Cincinnati..."

"You're a progressive, aren't you? That's it--a progressive! You're all out to get us!"

"What's the hurry? Let's have another beer!"

"Take your hands off me! I own Piqua!"

--- tape ends here because recorder was smashed in ensuing melee---

Playing bingo at the office

People wonder how a priest spends his day. One of them is playing online (free) bingo . . .

Now, before you laugh or shake your head at that, I will explain.

We have a bingo; it generates needed income to the parish. Unless I replace that income, I must look for ways to make it more successful . . .

Which leads me to want to create some promotions; only I have no idea how one promotes bingos...which leads me to wonder how others do it . . .

Which leads me to look on the Internet for bingo operations, see what they do and--here is why I signed up for (free) bingo--get on their mailing list!

Yes, that's correct -- I actually want to get on their list--I want to see how they promote their bingos . . .

So I spent about 15 minutes googling bingo and signing up for a free account. And I came really close to winning, too . . .

Can the Church excommunicate pro-abort pols?

You don't have to look far to find many who insist the Church should excommunicate pro-abortion politicians. Nor will you have trouble finding people very critical of the bishops for not doing so.

So, I got thinking: if the bishops together -- or a particular bishop -- were to do this, how would it work? (Can anyone tell me if any bishop in the U.S. has actually done this? I mean, actually excommunicated anyone over a public policy position, such as abortion or related issues?)

Here's the problem I ran into right away: in such matters, the penalty is incurred for a concrete action, but its not merely the act per se, it also includes the intention. In the example of the woman participating in a simulated ordination, that ordination is the concrete act; for those receiving or imparting the invalid ordination, how can they have any intention that is defensible? On the other hand, one who was merely present might be able to say, "I wasn't there to support it, I was there as a journalist, reporting on it," or, "I work on the boat" -- such people, while present, did not have the culpable intention: i.e., their cooperation was not formal, but only material; and not immediate (i.e., the one actually imposing hands can hardly disclaim intention).

OK now, let us apply this to "supporting legal abortion." The Church, in giving warning about this, would have to specify certain acts that incurred the excommunication; or would there have to be a hearing, an examination, etc., after the fact? Canon lawyers, please advise...

But let me share with you where this line of thinking foundered for me--and feel free to contribute constructive solutions: in trying to name the concrete act that would incur the excommunication, I found myself well able to think of an intention that would be legitimate.

So let us take poor Senator Kerry as an example. What has he done?

* He votes for tax funding for abortions
* He votes against every abortion restriction put before him -- or, if not every one, most of them.
* He gives vocal support to the status quo on abortion, he accepts financial support and endorsements from pro-abortion organizations.

Can any of these actions have defensible intentions?

Well, what if he says--as he well may--that he believes the constitution requires abortions be provided at taxpayer expense. Likewise, he could well argue that all the laws put forward violate the Constitution. (In the latter case, it's clear the Supreme Court thinks so.) However faulty I think that reasoning is, does the Church really excommunicate someone for bad constitutional reasoning?

Is accepting political contributions and endorsements from the abortion industry an excommunicable act? I'm not asking if its bad, offensive, and all that--is it such that one can be excommunicated for it? Could he not say, "I don't agree with them about abortion--I agree with my Church that it's a terrible evil. But we do agree on the constitution and on other issues, and I'm not endorsing them, they're endorsing me."

Then, supposing we took that route, that would mean he merely needs to refuse the contributions -- that doesn't help much, does it?

As far as defending the status quo -- what if he were to say (and I think he does say some of this), "As awful as I think abortion is, I believe the Constitution protects it. And I regret this, but I think the constitution is so important to us that we have to honor the constitution, but oppose abortion in other ways." Is his excommunicable act his opposition to changing the constitution? I'm not sure, but this might be the best grounds. However, would it not have the effect of meaning a Catholic is bound to support a constitutional amendment against abortion, if not another equivalent remedy?

And--supposing we took this route, and he changes his behavior, then while that would mute his pro-abortion rhetoric, and commit him to supporting a change in Roe v. Wade or a constitutional amendment, he'd still be voting mostly the same way he has . . .

You might say, he voted against Alito and Roberts. Well, whatever one thinks of that, how can that incur an excommunication? Can't a Catholic oppose a Supreme Court nominee? In any case, surely Kerry could have cited a morally defensible reason: "I voted against them because I believed they would distort the meaning the framers intended for the constitution."

I'm not trying to be cagey; the classic rule in Canon Law is to interpret strict provisions strictly -- i.e., anything that brings such a severe penalty on someone must not be done in a loosey-goosey fashion. And if you want the bishops to do this, this is the sort of examination of the matter that would have to be done, only better, because I'm no canon lawyer.

After all, consider this. Let us imagine, happily, that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Now someone introduces federal legislation outlawing abortion in all 50 states. But you have a fair number of conservaties in Congress, including probably some Catholics, who say, I want to outlaw all abortions, but I believe the states have that authority; not the federal government. I believe it distorts our federal system when Congress takes on more and more legislative power. So I will oppose this measure for that reason.

Should that person be excommunicated?

See the problem?

Has anyone else explored this in detail? What have they come up with?

Questions to ask the 'women priests'

By now, you probably heard about the plan by a group of women to stage an ordination on a boat on one of the rivers near Pittsburgh -- today, I believe. This has gotten some attention in the secular media, such as this Washington Post article and of course, on Catholic blogs such as Domenico Bettinelli's.

This may have been obvious to everyone before me, but I think I see why the media is excited about this.

Over the years, they've reported on internal struggles among Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., over ordination and sexuality issues -- and surely someone has noticed, "hmm, these things don't happen in the Catholic Church!"

Here, I think they believe they've got their "internal struggle" story -- they think this is a significant rebellion. In fairness to the media, why should they rule that out? We have faith that this will come a cropper; but even then, it could (I doubt it) be an ugly struggle nonetheless. In fairness, that is a story.

It would be appropriate, in my judgment, for the media to ask a lot tougher questions of these ladies and their movement:

* Is this only about women's ordination? Does that mean you aren't seeking any change in Church teaching on, say, divorce-and-remarriage, contraception, homosexual behavior, or other areas that are controversial?

* Do any of the women seeking ordination agree with the Catholic Church on these "hot button" issues? If not, why not? Doesn't that suggest this is about more than women's ordination?

* Where did you receive seminary training? What sort of training have you had? Shouldn't Catholic faithful expect their priests -- male or female -- to have had full training?

* You seem to think this is the "wave of the future" for the Catholic Church -- but what about what the Anglican Church is going through now: why isn't that a cautionary tale for you?

* Who ultimately decides this question? You say ordain women, the pope, backed up by a pretty long tradition -- the Church says constant -- says no. Do you believe the Church has no right to take this position? If it does, at what point do you accept the decision? And, if you won't, no matter what, isn't that what finally created a parting of the ways with Luther and other "reformers" of their time? I mean, if you give Luther full credit for sincerity, integrity, and even if you say he was right -- the fact is, he ultimately could not accept the authority of the pope or even a general council to define Catholic teaching, if that went contrary to his insights. How are you different?

* Where are the young women in your movement -- or, for that matter, young men?

* Isn't it true that you have to point to some connection with the male-only hierarchy in order to show the validity of your orders -- isn't that frustrating? And as the Washington Post author pointed out, isn't there something kind of odd about that? Either the Catholic Church has it, or it doesn't; either they're basically right, or basically wrong. Which is it?

Now, I'm not naive; I can think of at least three reasons not to expect such questions: one, because they presuppose far greater familiarity with the underlying subject than most reporters are going to have, or two, are going to want to develop (i.e., most reporters are lazy -- they freely admit this); three, such questions, while entirely fair, would be rather tough -- and few reporters, actually like grilling their interviewees.

What would be useful, however -- and may actually bear some fruit, down the road, would be for us to put a list of questions such as these "out there"; were I working as a media flack for the Church, either for a diocese or for the USCCB, I'd give a list like this to every reporter contacting me on this subject. It's just possible a few of these questions might actually get posed.

I wrote these off-the-cuff, and certainly they could be refined. Anyone who reads this, who actually does as I propose, is welcome with my thanks. You can give me credit if you wish, but I don't really care about that.

(By the way -- at some sites, this subject has excited some rather nasty, personal criticisms of those involved in these simulated sacraments. Let it suffice to focus on the wrongness of this venture, and avoid personal attacks. Puerile mockery of people's appearance or age is really not welcome here.)

The Primary Miracle of the Mass may not be what you think (Sunday homily)

Over the next few weeks,
Father Ang, Father Tom and I, in our homilies,
are going to focus on the Mass itself.

What we do is so familiar,
and yet we might ask:
“Why do we do that?

So, let’s start with a basic question—
why are we here?
What is the Mass all about?

The short answer is:
the Mass is about a miracle.

Now, you might think
I’m talking about the Eucharist, and I am;
but there is a more fundamental miracle,
that we might miss.

It’s not the Scriptures, not the homily,
not the miracle in ourselves, being his People;
not the priest,
being a living icon of Jesus Christ.

Even transubstantiation—that big word means
a total change in fundamental reality,
or substance, while the outward appearance
stays the same.

That’s what happens with the bread and wine.
It keeps the same outward appearances,
but the fundamental reality is totally changed:
truly Jesus, God and man,
body and soul, flesh and blood.

Yes, even transubstantiation
of bread and wine into Christ himself
is not the primary miracle of the Mass—
although we’re very close!

The primary miracle of the Mass
is the Sacrifice!

When the priest steps to the altar,
and there, Jesus Christ himself
makes real for us the very same sacrifice
he offered on the Cross…
That sacrifice is the primary miracle,
everything else flows from it.

So, while we try to be properly disposed
to receive communion, perhaps we aren’t:
maybe we need to go to confession;
sometimes there’s a marriage issue;
not everyone is Catholic;
maybe we neglected the hour of fasting
before communion.

Be that as it may, we are still part
of an awesome, world-changing event!

(By the way: the obligation of every Sunday
isn’t to receive communion, but to be at Mass—
to be present for the Sacrifice.)

In the Gospel, they were so impressed
with healings and with a big meal,
that they said, “Be our king!”
But “the kingdom, the power and the glory”
of Jesus is not realized in full stomachs;
nor in worldly trappings of power,
but only in the Cross.

To see the miracle of bread and fish—
that’s easy;
Seeing the miracle in the horror of the Cross?
That’s a lot harder.

For that, our hearts must be prepared for faith
by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Paul taught that;
it underlies his words in the second reading.
And the same preparation is necessary for us
to enter into the miracle of the Mass.

The Mass presupposes some things:
Catholic faith and unity:
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism,”
as Paul said;
It presupposes
“living in a manner worthy of the call”
we have received.

It presupposes faith when we look at this altar:
will we know it is Jesus truly acting there,
or is it just a fancy table,
with a guy in funny clothes?
Seeing that miracle isn’t so easy.
It takes a miraculous change in us.

This is what the opening rituals
of the Mass emphasize.
We acknowledge our sins,
to remind ourselves, why we needed his mercy;
and what we’re grateful for:
We were washed clean in baptism,
and we’ve been renewed
by frequent confession.

The more we have to be grateful for,
the more we enter into that prayer:
“Glory to God in the highest!”

If we come to Mass,
not able to come to communion,
we still know where that mercy comes from:
from His Sacrifice;
that’s the source of all mercy,
all the sacraments.

When I talk about “entering in,”
we ought to admit, sometimes,
we don’t want to do that.
We’d rather keep our distance.

Remember when we were kids…
or how your own kids, do this:
You take the kids to do something fun,
and what happens—they cross their arms,
dig in their heels, and say,
“Oh no—you can’t make me!”

Grownups do that, too!

Making that transition, from ordinary cares,
to the miracle of the Mass, is hard.

Letting go of cares and worries—it’s hard.
I’ve heard folks say,
“Somebody has to worry about that!”
Yeah—who says it has to be you?
God’ll be up all night, either way!

Let me say: if this hour, here,
is the only real time we pray,
we may find it a lot harder
to make that transition.

This is where daily prayer is so important.
Prayers like the Rosary are so powerful,
because they teach us to meditate,
we can develop the habit of inner quiet,
even when all around is insanity.

This is why quiet—here— is important;
We need a refuge—a sacred place.
This is why I try to calm
the busy-ness of the sacristy—
Why I am reluctant
to “do business” just before Mass.
I need quiet, beforehand, too!

Servers—this is why I ask you
to show up 15 minutes ahead of time—
you need it, as well.

Same for the readers and others.

Maybe a moment ago,
we weren’t really ready;
Maybe we missed our chance to prepare.
OK; let’s pause, then,
and let God give us another chance,
so that at this Mass—today, here!—
we really meet Jesus!

To be open to him, so he can change us.

It's Official: Polygamy* next after gay 'marriage'

Not that I was terribly original, of course, but I have made the argument that once one insisted on a "right" to gay "marriage," there appears no reasonable barrier to polygamy--or, for that matter, incestuous unions (the latter, especially, since we long since gave up--as a society--on the intrinsic link between marriage and procreation).

"Oh, how silly!" "You're just being alarmist!" came the responses.

Well, those folks who cannot abide not being "cutting edge" have -- shall we say -- "come out of the closet" on this one.

Here is a statement issued in -- where else? -- San Francisco. Found on its laundry-list are:

* "a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families." (Emphasis added.)

* "(Same-sex marriage) is a limited goal..." admitted the author of the statement.

* The statement lists relationships and households that would not benefit from marriage, including senior citizens living together, people in polyamorous relationships, single-parent families, extended families and gay or lesbian couples who raise children with other couples, among others. (Emphasis added.)

"But I'm sure they're just fringy wackos"--well, that goes without saying; but they appear to be from the "mainstream" of fringy wackoism, as it were: Current and former leaders of national gay rights organizations, such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, signed the 25-page statement, along with the likes of scholar Cornel West, Ms. Magazine founder Gloria Steinem, essayist Barbara Ehrenreich and novelist Armistead Maupin.

After all, it is to such luminaries that Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to turn for "Deep Thoughts," when contemplating the Constitution bores him.

Biretta tip: The Cafeteria is Closed.

(* I suppose one could say, "hey--it's not polygamy but polyamory!" Okay--you got me.)

Do you want to send me money?

I've noticed a phenomenon I find curious--people with blogs will ask for money...and get it!

Well, however reluctant I am to do this, it occurs to me my parish should not suffer because of that. I'm trying to raise money to paint the school gym -- we had smoking at bingo for years, until I made it no-smoking; but as a result, the gym ceiling and walls are pretty grimy. I'd like to get it done before school starts, and time is running out.

I need about $16,000--and I have $3,000.

Well, I can't imagine why you would, other than the goodness of your heart -- but if that is what you choose to do with your money, who am I to refuse? For that matter, someone reading this may have oodles of money, and really have nothing better to do with it. So maybe God really does want you to send it to me; who am I to argue?

So, if you want to send me money--or, that is, St. Boniface Parish--you can do so by making checks payable to:

St. Boniface Parish
310 South Downing Street
Piqua, Ohio 45356

(By the way--if I raise enough for the school ceiling, do you want the money back? Or may I spend it for new pews, or for a new baptismal font, or for repairing the exterior of the church, or for repainting the rectory? You get the idea--I don't want to accept your money under false pretenses. So if you are kind enough to add a little note answering that question, my conscience will be clear...)

All kidding aside, your gift would be completely tax-deductible, and greatly appreciated.

Calling b---s--- in the blogosphere

One of the curious phenomena of the "blogosphere" -- at least, the theological segment of it -- is that certain subjects seem to draw out the worst: niggling, obscurantistic nitpickers who are determined to muddy things up when most folks would like a little clarity.

There are subjects that especially require great precision -- and the truth is, people who blog for fun, rather than as ones main vocation -- are not usually going to bring all the erudition and precision with them. That should be taken as given: if you want tight, in-depth treatment of weighty theological questions, what in heaven's name are you doing bopping around blogs for?

I think some people like to show off just how much they know. Well, I'm a reasonably smart person, but plenty of smart people don't have to carry all the facts and citations around in their heads--that's what books and such are for. If you ask me to look something up for you, I am pretty sure I could do it; but quote it from memory, in English, Latin or Greek? Nope, sorry. If you can, bully for you.

Now, I'm not faulting people who really can plumb the byzantine depths of particular subjects, only saying that most of the time, casually blogging, I am not equipt for that, so I try to stay out of those--I think I do, anyway. I think there's nothing wrong with attempting more summary discussions of the same subjects; after all, that sort of thing is far more helpful for most folks, anyway.

What irks me when this happens is that the nigglers and flea-combers shut down an otherwise useful discussion. Such happened, recently, in a thread on justification at The Cafeteria is Closed. One poster insisted on worrying a subtle aspect of "merit" the way a dog worries a bone, and I rose to the bait, for awhile.

I'm asking for trouble raising this here--except this is my blog, my rules. If the poster in question tries to pick up as he left off, that will be shut down immediately.

If someone wants to ask a question about justification, merit, grace, and ecumenism, fine; know that I'm going to answer with broad strokes, for no other reason than I can do that briefly; I simply lack the time to juggle the various source materials on my lap to frame extremely subtle answers, and if that's what you want, you came to the wrong place.

And know, "He who spouts the most esoteric rule, wins" ain't one of my blog's rules. I don't accept the premise that someone gets to set the terms of the counterpoint, simply by how one makes the point--i.e., your fancy claim doesn't mean I have to respond in equal, fancy measure. Sometimes, all it takes is to call b---s---.

Pat Oliphant, Liar and Hypocrite

Here's the cartoon:

Now, who is Mr. Oliphant describing? President Bush? I'm not sure; but certainly, everyone who agrees with his veto of legislation using your tax dollars to murder embryonic human beings to harvest their cells for research?

Now, let us pause only briefly to note Pat Oliphant (whose work I admire--he's very talented, and in past years, before his monomania with Mr. Bush, insightful) is lying, repeatedly: (1) virtually no one opposes "stem cell research," the issue is such research that requires destroying embryonic human beings; (2) the veto was not of such research, but of legislation forcing taxpayers to pay for it; (3) he calls opponents of embryonic stem-cell research flat-earthers and people who believe the sun revolves around the planet--and that, too, is a lie...

But then, let us note the colossal hypocrisy of this cartoon: the opponent of embryonic stem-cell research (somehow, Mr. Oliphant can't be bothered to note this crucial detail -- part of his lie) also believes, "here's the kicker--that God speaks through him."

Uh-huh; now we all pause to chortle and guffaw at that groaner...I mean, how dare anyone be so presumptuous, so arrogant, so self-righteous? And, as the cartoon indicates, so brainless?

But then pause and notice the cartoon itself: note that Mr. Oliphant is, himself . . . speaking for God.

After all, according to Mr. Oliphant, God approves of embryonic stem-cell research--only brainless flat-earthers want to veto its tax funding.

And Mr. Oliphant knows this is what God thinks . . . how?

Learn to drive online--FREE

Thanks to the efforts of two members of Congress, it is now possible to learn -- and practice -- driving online!

I checked it out; there's no charge, the software is very easy to download and it takes only a few minutes to get into it.

Try it out here.

Biretta tip: Redstate

See Him, not me (Sunday homily)

A few minutes ago, you heard
what the Lord has to say to pastors:
Woe to the shepherds
who mislead and scatter the flock of my pasture.

The Lord Jesus is the only truly good shepherd;
the rest of us try, for better or worse, to point to him.

Of course, it helps if we, pastors, follow Him.
I am trying; but I am a sinner.
Pray for me, please. I know you do; thank you.

Also, I am aware that in recent years,
some priests and some bishops
have let down God’s flock;
on their behalf, I apologize.

It is not easy to be a shepherd of souls:
Aside from the obvious temptations
that all men are prey to,
there are the subtle ones:
“I know best”;
“I deserve it, because I work so hard”;
“That’s good enough.”

But if anyone here
is thinking about the priesthood,
certainly don’t be overwhelmed!

For one thing,
there is such a great joy in being a priest—
precisely because of what St. Paul,
who was a priest, said in the second reading:
“In Christ Jesus you who once were far off
have become near by the blood of Christ.”

Through his Cross,
Jesus reconciled God and humanity;
and that is what a priest’s whole life is all about:
bringing those “once far off” near to Christ!

I don’t mind the challenges of being a priest.

I imagine a father must burst with joy
when he sees his newborn child;
how do you suppose I feel
when I baptize someone?
When I lead someone to faith?
When I help someone
return to his or her faith?

You visit someone in the hospital,
and bring the peace only Jesus can bring,
and it’s all worth it;

You sit in the confessional,
And help someone find his or her way back to Jesus,
After wandering in the wilderness for many years—
And there’s nothing to beat that.

Watch children grow, not only physically,
but also in their faith, and what pride to say,
“I had a hand in that!”


Yes, it can be hard to be a priest—
well, it’s hard to be anything,
unless you don’t mind being mediocre at it—
but, oh, it’s worth it!

And the Lord knows what he’s working with!

You heard in the Gospel
how our Lord brought his Apostles—
his first priests—back together.
They were overjoyed
at all they’d helped make happen in his Name.
But he could see they were tired, too.
And he knew, better than anyone, all their limits!

He chose them, all the same.

One thing comes through—
for us priests, and I hope for you.

If we have any wisdom at all,
we know who really makes it happen:
Jesus Christ!

I really hope you know that!
When I stand at the altar,
Yes, that bread and wine is transformed—
It is a miracle, and it becomes Jesus himself!—
But it is not I who does it.

You see me, but it is Jesus here;
You hear my voice, but Jesus speaks the words,
his own words, and he makes it happen.

Honestly? I don’t have enough faith for this moment:
When I hold bread the wine,
and then it becomes His Body and Blood,
I believe it; but not nearly enough.
How can I remain standing?
How can I not fall on my face for my own sins?

It is not my faith that makes it happen,
But his Love—he is the shepherd,
He is the Bridegroom, who is faithful to his Church.
So for all the honor and awe of being his priest,
which I feel, and I need to recall as often as I can,
I ask you, I beg you:
Don’t see me! See him!