Sotomayor

I'm not worried, I explain why down below (in an older post).

'We're in heaven' (Sunday homily)

(This homily was from notes, and I've tried to recreate more or less what I said, although it was somewhat different each time.)
One of the sayings from the early Church Fathers goes like this:
"What is not assumed, is not redeemed."*

What does that mean?

It refers to the Incarnation--God becoming man--
and it means that everything God took to himself in becoming human, was redeemed.
The Son of God, in becoming man, not only took on our same human nature,
he also took on the suffering and pain that is part of our experience,
and he even embraced death.

These things too are redeemed--
meaning, they are no longer of no value, but of infinite value.

So, it isn't just our souls that are saved; our bodies are part of salvation as well.
This means our bodies matter; this is why we care for them.
The choices we make, with our bodies, are bound up with our eternal destiny for good or ill.
And our goal isn't to "escape" our bodies once they wear out.

This leads to something else, and it may startle you, but it's true:
Heaven is not our final destiny!

Heaven is where our souls go--if saved--
while we await the "new creation"
which we heard mentioned in the opening prayer:
a new heavens and a new earth.
We will wait for the Resurrection, when we get our bodies back, new and improved.

We might wonder, what is this new creation? What will it be like? What will we be like?

We don't know. But we do have a glimpse: Jesus rose from the dead in his human body.
He still has his body; it lives forever.
He ate and drank food with the disciples; they could touch him.
His body had remarkable qualities, such as his ability to pass through walls--
and he didn't look exactly the same.

Also: he still had his wounds.
Which I take to mean that what trials we face in this life,
will not be left out of the new creation, forgotten, as if they didn't happen;
rather, they will be transformed.
I find that comforting; because if something has been a part of our lives here on earth,
would we like to be told, when we arrive in heaven, none of that has any meaning anymore?
Instead, they will be transformed--redeemed--
and turned into something beautiful, like the Cross.

In view of all that, we are, on this feast, looking up to heaven with the Apostles
as the Lord ascends to his throne. But we're not saying goodbye.

Remember, what is assumed, is redeemed!
Our humanity ascends to heaven--it's the same humanity, his and ours, Saint Augustine said.
We are one with him: he is the head, and we are the body.
Not only that, Saint Augustine said, we are in heaven! We are already in heaven!

Does that mean we're already saved? It's all done?
No--we still have to wake up to this reality and that's not certain.

Let me give you an example.

Some years back, before I was a priest, I went on a vacation
with my sister and my brother and my sister's daughters.
We were at the beach, and one night we went out to a restaurant,
one of those places with a band that plays Jimmy Buffet tunes.

Well, my niece was in sixth grade--she's a grown woman now--
and she was at that age when--anything unusual adults do is infinitely embarrassing!
So, when we went to dance, and my niece buried her face in her arms on the table.
"Kara, do you want to dance?" "No!"
"Kara, the food is here" "Leave me alone!"

She stayed like that the entire time we were there!
So, we danced and ate and had a good time.
An hour and a half later or so, she finally looked up. "What's going on?"
"I'm sorry, honey--we're going home!"

She'd missed the entire party!

So: you and I still have to wake up to the reality of heaven around us.

Are we awake to it?

I'm going to say something here, it may get me in trouble, but...

We have something of a tug-of-war about the Mass.

If Mass goes five minutes too long, "Father, what's wrong with you?"
If we try to add something to make Mass more special--
if I sing the prayers, or if we use incense--
"Father, why are you making such a big thing about it?"

We're in heaven!
This--the Mass--is the most important thing we will do;
it's the most important thing that happens, in Piqua, in the universe!
And I confess this "tug of war" is frustrating to me.

Let me show you something that we do in the Mass that expresses this reality.
In a moment, the servers will bring me the chalice, I'll pour wine in it,
and then I'll add a drop of water. And I'll say this prayer silently:
"By the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in the divinity of Christ,
who humbled himself to share in our humanity."

The wine represents Christ's divinity; the water, our humanity.
When the water joins the wine, the wine does not become water;
symbolically, the water becomes wine!
That's our destiny: to be joined to God!

What an awesome thing to say! Words fail me at the thought of it!

This is why the martyrs die!
This is why Saint Isaac Jogues, who went to preach to the Huron Indians,
and they** sawed off two of his fingers, and after he went back to France to recuperate,
went back to those same Indians to continue sharing the Gospel!
This is why, in so many places around the world, they don't drive to Mass, they walk;
and they don't walk a few blocks, they walk many miles, to get to Mass!

Are we awake to this reality--what we have?

If it seems I'm reproaching you--I'm reproaching myself.
Please pray for me that I will never go through the motions,
or see the Mass as just part of my job! It's the easiest thing to do!

Later on, as we receive communion--or if we make a spiritual communion--
maybe we can offer our communion for each other:
That we'll wake up to the reality that we are in heaven.

* Saint Gregory of Nazianzus; when I jotted down my notes in the confessional, I didn't remember who said it.
** It was actually a rival tribe of Mohawks, not the Hurons.

The Archbishop visits

Today, a very special thing happened in Piqua: the Archbishop came to offer Mass, and to administer the sacrament of confirmation.

As you might imagine, lots of people had lots to do to get ready: to prepare the young people, to have a rehearsal for them, for the servers (I did that), to set up a reception for all concerned, and to coordinate so many elements.

I confess I was very absorbed with making sure everything went well. Some priests who have been ordained awhile may feel differently, but for me--both personally and as a pastor--I think it's a big deal with the Archbishop comes. He ordained me a priest; I have only offered the Mass a handful of times with the Archbishop; and my priesthood is only complete in the archbishop. I told him, several times, we were glad to have him and it was very special that he came.

Well, thanks to lots of folks, everything came off very nicely. The music was good, the servers were diligent and showed up and did well, the church was packed, and everything unfolded well. Archbishop Pilarczyk gave a good homily about the qualities of being a good Christian, which the grace of confirmation strengthens, using Olympian athletes as an extended example.

After the Mass, and after a reception, at which the Archbishop greeted the families and the newly confirmed, the other priests and I took him to dinner at a restaurant in Troy. We enjoyed a drink and some bread and some good food and company. This may seem rather ordinary, but--I don't have this opportunity very often, to visit with the Archbishop--who has the fullness of the priesthood, is the visible expression of unity in our diocese, and succeeds the Apostles--so...yes, it's special. We enjoyed some stories and jokes and good company, and at last, Archbishop Pilarczyk--who had a long ride to Cincinnati with the deacon who accompanies him--took his leave, and headed home.

Oh yes--I know a lot of folks are talking about President Obama visiting the University of Notre Dame. I'm not saying that's not important, but--I had no time to pay any attention to that. I had the joy of paying attention to a special day for our eight graders. (And I thanked the Archbishop for speaking out about the situation at Notre Dame.)

Live in Love (Sunday homily)

Last week at this Mass, we heard about the great things
happening at Lehman Catholic High School.

And you heard about the needs Lehman has.
This week—and I ask the ushers to come forward
with the response cards at this time—they look like this.

This week, you have an opportunity to help continue the great work
of our Catholic high school.

I ask that if you can make some sort of pledge or gift,
please fill it out completely…
please write in the amount of your gift or pledge,
and please sign it, here…

Now, while you do that, some details:
The campaign aims to raise $3.5 million,
and it has reached over $2 million—so we’re closing in.

This will help replace a 50-year-old boiler;
Make major improvements in technology used in the classroom—
we have to keep up;
Provide an endowment to improve teacher salaries—
our great teachers get about 2/3rds
of what public school teachers get.
It’s a matter of justice
but also a matter of keeping the best people.

Just so you know—helping Lehman is a great investment.
Not to your own, personal finances,
But to the most valuable resource we have:
Our children and our future.

They get an excellent education—
Our Lehman students score high across the board,
And they are awarded large amounts
of scholarship money year in, year out—
which show colleges know how well-prepared they are.

Last year’s graduating class
got an average of $30,000 in such help—per student!

But it’s not just a quality education;
It’s Catholic education.

Now, I realize you might need a bit more time.
So let me go on to say something about the readings.
I’m going to pose a heavy question—are you ready?

Do fish know they’re wet?

A fish lives in water—does it know what that means?

Our readings keep saying, “live in love.”
Do we know what that means?

In the Gospel, the Lord says, “Remain in me, live in me.”
Last week, he said, “I’m the Vine, you’re the branches”—
and what flows between us is the Life of God.

Whether we know it or not,
genuine love is a participation in God’s own love.

That means there is no such thing as
a merely human love!
Whether we know it or not, you and I are destined
to be drawn up into the Life of God.

As a fish is made to live in water
and must have water to live,
so, you and I exist, we live and move, in God’s love—
and we cannot live without it.

To answer my opening question,
I have no idea if a fish can ever “wake up” to its reality.
But the reason God became man, in Jesus,
was to wake us up to our true identity!

Either we wake up, and we respond, or, we tune it out.
In the end, it’s heaven or hell.

You see, many think of hell as a place without God,
or his love—but that’s not true.
Hell is actually full of God’s love—same as heaven.
The problem is, those in hell want nothing to do with God.
And that is the torment.

Heaven, on the other hand—whatever it may be like—
Is that state of being entirely happy to be with God—
to live in love.

Fish may not wake up to their reality;
But Christ came to wake us up to a great destiny—
to be Sons and Daughters of God.

This is why we are so grateful for our Faith.
We are not left here in this world, to fumble in darkness.

Rather, we are given light to show us the way;
We are given life in the sacraments;
We are given a voice of truth—in the Holy Spirit,
Alive in our hearts, and at work in the Church.

So if someone says, “what’s the payoff—
why should I care about the Christian faith?
Why should I change my life?”

Why should we share our faith?
Why do we emphasize Catholic education for example?


This is why.
Practicing and living our Faith is how we wake up
to the grace that surrounds us—
and how we open ourselves to receiving it—
that it might transform us.

And then we are not just recipients—but bearers.
One fish says to the other—“I’ve got good news!
Do you realize what this is we’re swimming in?
It’s God’s love, God’s life—it can change us!
Drink it up!”

Two thoughts about the pending Supreme Court vacancy...

Some prolifers have made the point, see this is why McCain would have been better than Obama. Well, of course only God can really know what would have been. But I point out to you that had McCain won, and he was faced with a heavy Democratic majority in the Senate, just who do you suppose he would be looking to nominate right now? In that alternate reality, I think we'd be very lucky to get someone as good as Justice Kennedy--i.e., someone who votes right on some things, but who, yes, upheld the Partial Birth Abortion ban, but who voted to uphold Roe in 1993.

You may say, oh, but McCain said he'd offer better nominees. Yes, he said that; but you're kidding yourself if you think McCain--in this present situation, with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, the economy tanking, etc.--would go ahead with a nominee who would face long odds of confirmation unless McCain made a huge fight of it. Also: while I believe that that would be worth doing, even if the nominee got defeated, I think it's foolish to assume McCain and his folks, in the White House, would have beleved that.

Rather, I think President McCain would want to get someone who would be "acceptable" to the right, but also who would be confirmed and he would have a win and he could move onto other pressing matters. And his folks would surely go out and work the circuit, ahead of time, to convince the right that the pending nominee would really be better than it might seem, and anyway, the "best we can get in this situation," andanyway, everyone needs to be a team player.

If that sounds vaguely familiar, it is pretty much what John Sununu, chief of staff for the first President Bush, said and did when the White House chose David Souter. The situation was similar, except the Democrats did not, I believe, have as large a majority in the Senate as now--something a McCain White House would cite endlessly to explain why they didn't offer anyone better: "get us a GOP Senate in 2010, and then we'll put up better nominees.

As you may have noticed, the chatter--while everyone waits to see who the President will pick--has included, "will he go mainstream or go for an ideologue," or some variation. Some are talking about this as if it matters. I think it doesn't much matter; or, rather, it matters, but there are benefits either way so don't worry about it.

Start with the supposed worst-case: he picks some really wild, out-there leftie, but who also has all the right ethnic, gender and other "qualifications" that make the Senate and the media swoon.

Yes, they'll all gush over the "youthful" Hispanic, female judge, who grew up in the South Bronx amid gunfire every day--thus she suffered the injury that leaves her in a wheelchair to this day, (cue boos to the gun lobby and those who oppose embryonic stem-cell research), and went to Harvard, Yale and Oxford thanks to Pell grants and loans, graduating summa cum laude, and who--when she isn't empathically dispensing justice for all and sundry, lives with her gay partner--oh, did we mention she's gay?--in an ecologically sustainable ashram in whatever state is deemed most valuable to get or keep in the 2012 election. And then she'll come before the cameras, and she'll be beautiful, brilliant, and funny, and the Republicans will all fall at her feet as though dead.

Well..maybe. Rather, I think it is more likely that, apart from the preferred narrative of the White House and the big media (which I just gave you), is that it won't be long before someone finds all the whacko things she ruled in favor of, and it won't be much longer before someone--either inside the Senate or outside--makes a big stink of it and a political fight.

"But she'll still get confirmed!" Probably; maybe; but suppose she does? Do you really think this new justice is going to take control of the Court because the New York Times thinks she's the new Oliver Wendell Holmes? This supposed nominee would be to the left of everyone now on the Court--she's going to win over Kennedy, and keep Breyer and Stevens, for every flaky thing she wants? Sorry, it's a bit far-fetched. These folks on the High Court did not arrive where they are so they can simply be empty receptacles for someone else's "brilliance." They will offer their own "brilliance," with which they are, of course, intimately familiar. Haven't you ever noticed how frequently the Court's decisions come down in fragmented decisions--not just a majority and minority view, but partial assents and dissents?

Meanwhile, what do you suppose will be the impact on the political fortunes of those Senators, in competitive states, in their next re-election, of a vote to confirm this justice? Every whacko thing decision and vote, before and after, will be tied around their necks. And that of President Obama.

Maybe the White House and the Senate majority are fine with that; but I suspect cooler heads will prevail.

Perhaps you say, no, the worst-case scenario is not this, but a "stealth" candidate. You mean another Breyer or Souter? My point is, (a) these guys are occasionally reasonable and (b), why is a new Souter for an old Souter such a terrible peril? Who knows? The new "stealth" candidate may occasionally be good on something, a marginal improvement.

The choice for the White House remains: either pick someone "reasonable" and "moderate" and go with a quicker confirmation battle--that means status quo--or else go for the ideological home-run, go with a "game-changer," and then we have valuable, useful political fight that will do three things: (a) mobilize prolifers and other good folks to get involved and make a difference; (b) create problems for any Senators who vote for such a polarizing figure and (c) bring front-and-center to national attention the problem of judges who invent law, rather than interpret it.

And, I maintain, even if such a Justice Granola gets confirmed, it still won't change the outcomes of the Supreme Court much, if at all. Because if Justice Kennedy is really that wobbly, then we never "had" him to begin with, and this doesn't really change anything. It's like saying, the problem in the crumbling door isn't the termites, but that you pushed against it.

Oh, and one other benefit, which I've mentioned before: all the time and energy spent on confirming the left's essential fourth vote on the Court is time and energy not spent on a host of other things President Obama, and his allies in Congress, want: government takeover of health care, carbon taxes, Big Labor power grabs, and so forth. And that's true even with a "consensus" choice, because it will still take some time; and even more true with a extremist nominee. Since I believe we are better off to the extent Congress is busy with trivialities, a huge fight over a Supreme Court justice could be a really good diversion for the next six months or so.

Sunday's homily notes

Sorry folks, I've been kind of tired lately. Just a lot going on and this time of year, at least for me, could best be represented by a battery running down. Some have said, oh, didn't things slow down after Easter? Nope. It stays just as frenetic right until school lets out; although as that nears, it is slowing down a bit.

One result of all that is I have had less time and energy for composing homilies. Last Sunday, I composed my homily notes in the confessional, and took my wad of little slips of paper to the pulpit with me. What follows is my reconstruction of my homily based on that--although it varied each time.

The word "disciple" showed up in the first reading and the Gospel--we might want to reflect a moment on just what that word means.

A disciple is one who is taught. Not exactly the same thing as saying, one who is learning--because one can learn without a teacher; to be a disciple means one has a teacher.

So if we call ourselves disciples--then we have to have a teacher. Who is that for us? Are we seeking someone to teach us?

Someone is influencing us all the time--we might want to pause and reflect on who that might be. Of course, the teacher we need is Christ. And also the Church. The Latin word "magister" means teacher--and from that comes the word "magisterium," or the teaching office of the Church. The Church teaches us through the pope, the bishops and priests, and others who work with them.

So that raises the question, are we seeking to be life-long disciples? We know that sometimes, young people taking part in religious education will drop out after 8th grade or 12th grade, as if they are finished. But if we are still disciples, we still need to be taught.

This is the purpose of our Adult Faith Formation group, which works hard to put together opportunities for us all to grow in faith. Please take part. And if you've thought, "If they offered _____, I would go"--then please let us know! We want to help.

Also, let me plug the Wednesday evening Bible study I have, every week, 7 pm, at the Caserta Center. We're looking at Acts; and don't worry about just showing up, we'll help you feel at home even if you've not been there for the earlier stuff.

So we need to have a teacher--and we need to be teachable. That is, we need to be open--and that comes as a result of the Holy Spirit at work in us. Just as rain softens hard ground, so the Holy Spirit softens us to receive the seed of faith.

We might notice how our culture sends contrary messages: "I can do it myself" or, "No one is going to tell me what to do!"

The older I get, the more I recognize how slow I am to learn. I'm 47, and I realize I wasn't as smart 20 years ago as I thought I was--and no doubt when I'm 97, I'll see how dumb I am now! My mother had a pithier way to say it: "too soon old, too late smart." My mother had a lot of wisdom, as our parents always do. I thought my parents didn't know what was going on when I was a kid; and somewhere in my 20s, I had the embarrassing realization that they were wise to all my tricks the whole time.

Today is Mother's Day--and of course you knew that, even if you didn't say anything about your plans for mom; of course, you didn't forget, you were just going to surprise her, right? How about some nice roses [here I was referring to the live roses being sold after Mass by the pro-life group]? When you're with mom today, it would be a good time to thank her for being a good teacher.

Now, there was a curious thing in the Gospel just now--did you notice? Our Lord said, we were to "bear much fruit"--and then he said, we would "become his disciples." Maybe you would have expected it the other way round? I think I would have expected that: we become disciples, and then we bear much fruit. But that's not what he said.

I think he's referring to the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. That's the life of the Vine, shared with the branches. And as we increase in the life of the Spirit, we will bear fruit. And part of that fruitfulness will be being teachable--being open. [This was the point I wanted to make--but I am dubious I made it very clearly over the weekend.]

Now, another point I'll share with you. Father Tom mentioned something over lunch--a study in the paper about how much members of different religious groups pray. Catholics were right in the middle, in line with the national average: 58% of Catholics (and Americans) pray daily. Then Fr. Tom made the point that the groups that were higher than that, were also the groups you hear are growing; and those below, are often those not growing.

We often talk about wanting our parish to grow--this suggests that it may be as simple as focusing on how we are growing in the Holy Spirit; and also, that this is not just about our own, personal, growth, but our growth as a Catholic community.

As we continue to take part in the Mass, and our Lord is about to offer us life in his Body and Blood, we might ask his help to grow. That we might bear fruit.

Weekend report

Sorry not to post for several days. This post, also, will need to be brief.

> Friday afternoon: lovely May Crowning with the schoolchildren, "the best I remember" our venerable retired priest observed after taking part. Our faculty and students did all the work--I was happy to take part.

> Friday evening: wedding rehearsal, followed by dinner with a couple other priests and a seminarian visiting, who I hope will work this summer. He stayed overnight and we had some good conversations.

> Saturday: various things with the wedding, plus there was a funeral--I didn't have the Mass, but I was checking to make sure the luncheon was taken care of, and then we had a group of women making a canopy for the Corpus Christi procession. Then confessions and Mass.

> Sunday: 10:30 am Mass was with catechists and students in the religious education program.
Then we had a gathering for one parish that evening, with Mass at 6 pm and a series of presentations afterward on various matters of interest. Good comments and interest from those taking part.

> My three homilies this weekend varied, but I keyed on the gap I feel between the Good Shepherd and we mere pastors, and talked about the power of his grace that works through us, for baptisms, confession and the Mass. And that we are supplied this grace, through the Eucharist, so that we will lift up the Name of Jesus in our world. I said more, but that was the gist of it.

> After the gathering, I hooked up with three other priests around 9:30 pm for dinner and some fellowship.

> Monday: a day of rest, capped by a "blognic" in Columbus, meeting up with Jay Anderson, the Darwins and TS. I would enjoy writing something witty about it all, but I got back rather late last night, afterward, and today's a busy day. But it was a lively and fun conversation.

Souter's retirement: don't worry

A quick note about the news late last night that Justice David Souter is stepping down...

> He's been a reliable and utterly unremarkable member of the "liberal wing" of the Court. On the issues that matter most to prolifers and conservatives, he's been no help at all. So his replacement cannot make that any worse.

> In theory, President Obama could pick someone less of a cipher, and that could, perhaps, be a plus for the pro-abortion side, but it's hard to see how. The swing vote is Justice Kennedy, who seems to gravitate to other, brighter lights on the Court, but also tends to seek "balance." It's hard to see how a new pick makes any real change.

> All the angst from prolifers is that, oh no, we've lost our chance! Not really. It means we have to wait a bit longer for that seat to open up, and that's just as well, because what hope do we realistically have of anyone good taking it? Why assume the president elected in 2012 is going to be any good? It just doesn't matter for the time being. (On the other hand, losing one of our good justices would matter.)

> A lot of thinking on this is what a friend calls "trick play" thinking: we can trick our way into getting what we want. So, for example, we can get the President and the Senate to overturn Roe--by approving nominees--when they manifestly won't do it legislatively...which, contrary to what most think, can be done--but it's hard, hence the preference for the trick play. Well, guess what: it hasn't worked. I think if we stopped going for the trick play, and actually did the hard work on the legislative front, we'd make more, real progress. Prolifers have good support in Congress, not enough, but better than is realized, and when we mobilize prolife opinion and bring it to bear on Congress, we can make a real difference, particularly in gumming up the works enough to stop bad legislation.

> So I think this is not something to worry about; but there are opportunities. Prolifers will be very interested, and this will have the good effect of helping mobilize more of our folks to take an interest in these matters. That's good. Also, there will be a tug-of-war between those around the President who want someone more "mainstream" vs. the "true believers." Fine, whichever way that turns out, it's good. Either we get someone who votes better; or we get someone who makes no actual difference, yet serves to illustrate vividly the problem. Win-win.

> The downside is that Justice Souter, being minimally effective and a non-spokesman for his side, might be replaced by someone who actually is a litttle more interesting and useful. But that's a very marginal matter. The prolife cause has Scalia who even his worst critics concede is brilliant and eloquent--and we still haven't prevailed. In the end, it's who has the votes. They already have this vote, so maybe they'll get a marginally more interesting person to cast it.

> The real benefit of this I've saved to describe last: this will consume time and energy on the part of the White House and the Senate for several months. That's very good. The time and energy spent on this, the next few months, is time and energy not spent on other things, that actually could make things worse in the here-and-now. If it means action on other stuff gets delayed a few months, that could really be very useful in the long run.

'The Plan' (First Communion Homily)

Imagine this conversation,
between God and an angel, and a long, time ago.
God calls the angel over for a talk.

He says, "I’m putting together a plan to save the human race.
My Son is going to earth, to become one of them."

"Wow, that’s pretty impressive!"
you tell God.

"Wait, there’s more.
They’ll call him ‘Jesus’— and he will suffer and die — and rise from the dead!
That’s going to show everyone the true evil of sin,
and also show them there’s a way out of sin, back to life!

"Wow, that’s awesome," the angel says to God.

"Yes, we think this will give the human race a totally new focus.
They’ll know they can be forgiven; and that they can change!
And, they won’t have to be afraid of suffering and death,
they’ll know they can share the very life of God!

"That will give them hope!"

"That’s a really great plan," the angel says to God.

"Well, there’s more.
We think it won’t work, unless the human beings are part of it, not just spectators.

"See, a lot of folks will come long after Jesus’ dies and rises again—
and they need to be part of it, too!"
"Have you noticed," God says, "how the baby humans want to touch everything?
And, everything goes into their mouths!
They love to eat!"

"So, I’m thinking: food!
Food could really help the human race get deeper into what
Jesus is going to do for them."
"I’m thinking of using bread and wine."

But you ask, "God, how can bread and wine save them?"

"Well, it can’t!
Bread and wine are nothing if that’s all they are!"

"So, would it be, like, a symbol?
Like a picture on the wall?"

"No, a symbol can’t save them, either!
It has to be really BE Jesus, or else it’s nothing!

"What they need is to eat and drink the life, and love,
the suffering and dying, and rising, of Jesus!
Eat and drink it.
That’s how it’ll be real to them; that’s they’ll experience Him
being part of them, and they’ll become part of Jesus!

"So," God says, "I want them to eat Jesus’ Body and Blood."

"But, God, that sounds kind of yucky…"

"Well, it is yucky," God says.
But Jesus is going to suffer and die—it is his Body and Blood that will save them!
They need to understand that.
But—so they won’t be afraid, we will use bread and wine!

"It will truly be Jesus—because only Jesus can save them;
but it will still look and tastelike bread and wine—
so it will be pleasing and attractive.

"This is how they will literally be united with Jesus!"

"Wow, God! That’s quite a plan!"

"Well, I’ve been working on it for all eternity," God says with a smile.

But you have another question.
"Gee, isn’t all that a lot for them to understand, all at once?"

"You’re right," God says. "That’s why they won’t do it just once.
They’ll need to receive Jesus over, and over, and over!"

"Even every day?"

"Yes, if they want to.
Certainly every Sunday; that’s the ‘maintenance plan’:
Mass every Sunday is how they’ll come to understand what Jesus did for them.

"Plus, Jesus will be present in their churches, in the Eucharist.
They’ll know how real he is!
They’ll be able to bring their friends, and say, ‘See? Jesus is here! Jesus is real!
We receive Jesus’ Body and Blood in the Eucharist!

"What’s more, sharing the Eucharist this way will show them a new way of living.

"When they come together at Mass, it’ll be everyone—
rich and poor, black and white, grownups and children,
healthy people, sick people—everyone!

"And they’ll realize that only in Jesus can the world be one!
And when they realize how much God forgave them,
they’ll be able to forgive one another."

So, finally, you ask: "Why are you telling me—just an angel—about this?"

"Because you’re going to be a guardian angel!

"Way in the future, in a place called Piqua,
someone will be born that you’ll be responsible for!

"You will help that child grow up, and grow into,
the life and love of Jesus Christ!
And the Eucharist will be absolutely central to that!

"Guardian angel, you will encourage that child:
to come to Jesus in the Eucharist;
not just one time, but week after week, even daily!

"I’m going to give that child a hunger for the Eucharist;
I want you to keep reminding that child:
‘Jesus is my Food; Jesus is my Life.’

"So, let’s practice that, guardian angel:
‘Jesus is my Food; Jesus is my Life.’

"Guardian angel, you whisper that into that child’s ear
every day of his or her life. Every day!
‘Jesus is my Food; Jesus is my Life.’

A day with a great end...

Today was a long slog at the office.

I had an important letter to circulate around to the Pastoral Council in advance of the next meeting; and then I had to get it out via email. Alas, we had some confusion, so I fielded a couple of calls and several emails. I had plenty of mail to open and lots of checks to sign. I had some meetings--I missed one I didn't have on my calendar--and I had some conversations about some other meetings coming up. I had something extremely delicate come up and I won't say anymore about it, but it took a fair amount of time and some emotional energy.

We had an important meeting tonight, something planned for some time. It's purpose was to brief all concerned about some ideas being considered to strengthen our Catholic school, and to get feedback. It's very delicate, because all manner of rumors circulate. Many of us involved were concerned that it wouldn't go well. I didn't know what to expect.

Well, as far as I can see, it went extremely well! A large crowd showed up--a great testimony to how much our folks care about our Catholic schools. The chairman of the committee laid out the facts very clearly, and laid out various options. Many people asked questions and offered comments--exactly what we wanted! A lot of folks have been anxious that decisions would be made without them, and God willing, tonight's meeting helped allay that concern.

I couldn't be happier! The committee did so well--the work that led to this was considerable, and the success is due to that. The chairman handled everything so well. Part of what I , personally, appreciate is that there are so many things to manage in the parishes, and having our good folks step up and do this...is so encouraging.

Of course, more work remains to be done. The next steps will depend on what we find in the written feedback. But I confess the great outcome of tonight's meeting is a relief and encouragement to me, and I have no doubt it is to the group that put it together.

When I got home, around 9:30, I had my dinner and am relaxing a little.

What love is and is not (Homily for Divine Mercy)

If there is a word and idea that is misused, it is “love.”

We have so many songs and stories:
a boy falls for a girl; a girl is broken-hearted over a guy.
Movies about all the dumb and funny things we do for love.

That’s all fun.
But I confess some of what our culture gives us
makes me angry—I know many of us feel the same way.

Here’s a typical story line:
A man and a woman meet—sparks fly—and they’re in bed.
They enjoy each other; they use each other.
But they do not love each other.

Now, let me explain what offends me.
It is not that it is explicit.
It’s the manipulation:
a lie wrapped up in beautiful packaging.

Part of the lie is that love is something that just happens;
an impulse that comes and goes.
No; love is a choice.

It is the most powerful thing that can happen.
It is more than romance;
Not everyone experiences epic romance;
but without exception, everyone
has the choice and the risk of love.

It is all that’s wonderful and awful: a package deal.
Just like the Cross.
“Jesus loves me”: and he shows us his hands and his side.

Another part of the lie is that we can have it all;
we can be individuals, do what we like, and find happiness.

In the first reading, it says, they loved one another.
The price wasn’t just that they shared their stuff.
That is relatively easy;
being accountable to one another.
That’s what is really hard.

The pitfall—the counterfeit that can fool us—
is that sometimes what we count as part of “love”
is really more about us—our needs—
then about the other who we claim to love.

It takes a lifetime to discover—let alone unravel—
this complexity of ourselves,
this tangled mixture of our own virtues and sins.

This is how frequent confession can do us so much good.

Let me give you a very current—and very delicate—example.
Someone says, I want a child. I have a right to a child.
A single person—a couple—mix or match.
A woman out west used treatments to have eight babies.
was that about the needs of the children—or her own?

This whole controversy about some “stem-cell research”:
it arises because of attempting conception in a laboratory
rather than in human acts of love as God designed.
What did the President say?
These embryos are “extra”—they’ll “go to waste”—
So why not “use” them for research?

Our hearts ache for those facing this dilemma.
But a child is a gift.
A rose so beautiful—yet so fragile,
we crush it if we grasp too tightly.

We are critical of our President on the stem-cell issue;
Let us praise him on another issue:
He made it clear
that human dignity demands we never torture.
Yes: love is hard—such as loving our enemies.
Some things we never do because God’s law—
not “national interest”—comes first.

This is Easter. The Feast of Divine Mercy.
What’s the connection?

If Easter is about anything, it’s about the power
that has come into this world through Jesus Christ,
poured into our lives in baptism;
and through us, to change the world.
That power is love—Divine Mercy is another name.

Jesus says: I want a heart, a mind, a set of hands, consecrated to me—
I will change you, and through you, the world!

Jesus shows us his hands and his side:
“This is love—will you take part?
Will you join me in saving the world?”
It is a challenge hard to say yes to; yet impossible to refuse.

It is, also, the Mass, the Eucharist.

Sometimes we approach the Mass
in terms of feelings or likes and dislikes.
I’m aware of it; I hear both the compliments and complaints.
I am not dismissive; but I find myself thinking,
how can I ever hope to give everyone what they like?
Is that even what love does?
Someone said, folks at Mass are like “customers.”
Maybe so; but I think love takes us a good deal further.

If our community of believers
is to be of one heart and one mind,
likes and preferences can never be ground for unity.

The Mass is, first and last, not about us or what we do;
it’s about what Jesus Christ does:
He shows us his hands and his side;
and we respond: “My Lord and my God.”

The Lord is Risen!

I think I'm getting a little better at the Vigil.

That may sound funny, but--a priest only gets one go at this each year, and it's a pretty complicated liturgy; a lot of moving parts.

Spent the day running around, over to St. Boniface, to make sure all was set for tomorrow (no Vigil Mass there); almost forgot to put out the new Easter Candle--gee, wouldn't that have been embarrassing? Got antsy about the Vigil before 8--didn't need to be there early, but I went early, and piddled around. Everything came together pretty well, forgot a few things, nothing essential; I'm pretty sure I did the sprinkling rite out of order. Hint: the Ritual for Christian Initiation is laid out in an unreliable fashion--it tricks you into thinking you are on the right page. And I forgot the final blessing and skipped to "The Mass is ended..."

We did all the readings, the vicar was especially moving as he sang the Exsultet, and the Gloria was...glorious. We sang the Litany of the Saints as we led the catechumens to the font, then I sung the blessing of the water. We used the Roman Canon, and everything was complete in 2-1/2 hours. After Mass, we passed out Easter candy to the kids, and gave the new members of the Church Easter baskets, which I blessed. Then, I took a Host to St. Clare Chapel, to resume perpetual exposition (no exposition during the Triduum). The retired priest, who has the early Mass, will take care of the holy water at that time. (These are some of the awkward things about having one Triduum liturgy between two parishes.)

My homily? Well, I wish I had written it, but I never got around to it. I'll try to recall some details...

I began by talking about the scope of time represented by the readings: 4,000 years back to Abraham, untold millions of years back to the Creation. Although one could discern more than one progression in the readings, what I saw was God progressively getting closer to us--until we have God becoming one of us.

I talked about the Plan of Salvation, and how it makes clear the great concern God has for humanity. And we might be tempted to say, oh, isn't that convenient--someone came up with a religion that exalts man! But most religions don't do that; most religions see God as distant, and humanity as unable to attain heaven. The best we can do is appease God. (I had thought about saying something more on this, but I didn't.)

Well, I cannot recall just what I said next, but I touched on the added wonder that not only does God come to us, and enter our plane, but he then draws us up into his plane. Oh I remember--I talked about how the Story doesn't end with the readings; the next part of the liturgy is how God inserts us into the Story! That's what happens next, with baptism and confirmation. God became one of us; and God lifts us up into God--that is the meaning of baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist.

I talked about the new heart and new spirit mentioned in Ezekiel--and pointed out that we Christians the heart of the world--we are the ones bringing the Spirit into the world--until Christ is all in all. I said something like--if only our church could be 100 times brighter--that a geat beam of light would shoot up into space, and people would say, something is going on in Piqua--in Columbus--in Troy--in Cincinnati, Washington, Rome, and everywhere else! Until the whole world were engulfed in the light of Christ! That day will come. The story does have an end, when Christ is all in all; in the meantime, we are sent to bring that Light, to bring Christ to the world. That's also the meaning of baptism and confirmation, and I told the catechumens and candidates they were accepting a great responsibility. I ended with something like, "till the whole world knows Jesus Christ."

Well, I'm winding down with a beer; I have the 10:30 am Mass tomorrow. Thank God for the two holy priests who assist me!

The Triduum begins...

The day started with a phone call...where's the Eucharist?

Last night, I transferred the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle of St. Boniface, to the chapel, where we have perpetual exposition. The rubrics say to do it sometime before the evening Mass of Holy Thursday, so I do it following the Wednesday evening Mass, insofar as the people can take part if they wish--but we do it simply.

I got into the office, and dealt with matters there; I still had one more person to recruit to have his feet washed, and that was taken care of. Then I ran over to church, to get chairs set up, and get everything else in order. Then a quick run to the wine shop for beer and wine for dinner.

Every Holy Thursday, I invite priests from the area for prayer and dinner, and we had lamb, ham, potatoes, green beans Piqua-style, rolls, butter, salad and dessert. The parishioners who help me with this were wonderful; they took some leftovers home, including some bottles of wine.

The priests all have to leave around 5 of course, for their own Masses; so I got a little rest before heading back to St. Boniface to rehearse things with the servers. We had more experienced servers, so all went well. They handled all the special parts just fine. We had incense throughout, of course, including at the elevations.

Father Tom preached, so I was grateful for that; I focused on offering the Mass. I confess it is a little spine-tingling to offer this Mass, thinking of that evening so long ago, yet so fresh in our minds.

The procession went well, and many came along to pray in the chapel afterward. After stripping church, I headed home for a little rest.

Then--a phone call. It was the police! "There's are lights going on and off in your school, the police think someone may be in there." So I shot over there, and we went in...it was a just a bulb that was flickering, crisis averted! "Guess this won't make 'Cops!'" The officers said they wished their whole night could go like that. I seconded that wish for them.

So, now I'm back after that. Tomorrow is a busy day, confessions in the morning, then run over to St. Boniface to bring the Eucharist, consecrated tonight, for the Good Friday liturgy, then our version of the "tres ore," with stations, a talk on the Seven Last Words, then the solemn liturgy, then we begin the Divine Mercy Novena. Then I take the Holy Eucharist back to St. Boniface, for the evening liturgy there, which the vicar will lead. He, too, has confessions beforehand.

Sorry I haven't posted...

I wouldn't really take time to post now, except I'm waiting for a phone call back. What I really need to do right now is make calls; except I keep missing someone's call, so...I wait.

My homily for Palm Sunday was brief, which it always is that day. Most of the priests I know give very brief homilies. Of course, in a less time-conscious culture, it might be a great day to give a fuller homily...but there it is.

My homily made these points:

> This week is so important, please make time; pray for God to help you. Let us pray for each other in that regard.

> If you thought you missed a chance to go to confession, we'll have confessions Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, and twice on Good Friday and Holy Saturday.

> I shared a passage from the Office of Readings for last Saturday, which invited us to think of ourselves as the Good Thief, or Joseph of Arimathea, etc.

As you might imagine, I'm busy these days. Not just Holy Week details.

Another thing a pastor does...

Today started with Mass at 8 am, mostly in Latin, as we do on the first Wednesday of the month. Attendance is good, and people are praying the Latin prayers better and better.

Then I picked up breakfast on the way to the office, here by 9 am.

A fair amount of paperwork (I have a vast supply in reserve); some phone calls and emails. But the major project today was to write a grant.

As you may know, since 2006, I've been working on a variety of projects for Saint Boniface Parish. When I arrived in 2005, the maintenance crew and many other parishioners made me aware of many urgent projects. I launched a "Rebuild Saint Boniface Fund" drive in 2006, with a goal of $580,000. It seemed so far out of reach, and yet, with prayer, a lot of events and hard work by many people, plus some big hitters, we've just about reached it. We still need to raise some funds for windows in the school; the rest of the projects are all funded.

Although the name of the project might lead you to think it's all for the church, in fact almost a third goes to the school: new windows, roof repairs, resurfacing parking/play area, and painting the gym. A chunk goes to the parish office (former rectory): interior and exterior repairs, plus improving electrical service so our computers don't trip our circuit breakers. The bulk of it goes to the church: the exterior stone-facing (a kind of stucco) needs significant attention, trim paint, the front vestibule roofs had major leaks we had to repair, thus the vestibule needed plaster and paint, the stained-glass windows needed restoration before they began to fall down in chunks, the pews need major attention (if we can save them; we may not be able to), and the like.

But there remained one element I didn't include--because it wasn't a critical need: repainting and beautifying the interior of the church. In addition, even though I anticipated a need for new flooring, should we replace the pews as may prove likely (fear not, they will have classic design; and when folks ask, "will they have kneelers," I say, "this is me!"), I didn't include the cost, because again, not a critical need as everything else was.

So, today, I was meeting with my director of maintenance to review costs, and prepare the proposal for a $75,000 grant to provide for new flooring, and most important, new painting. And not just a fresh coat of paint, but a real improvement in the interior decoration.

Some of you wonder--will the new flooring be carpet--or something harder?

Well, that depends on several factors. We priced carpet and tile. Carpet came in at around $6 a square yard, tile at $10; other options such as wood or stone, much higher. There are other options we are exploring, such as stained and polished concrete, that may give us most of the benefit of tile at a carpet price.

I'd very much like a hard surface if possible. The benefits would be beauty, far better acoustics for music--the carpet does such a good job at absorbing sound, people don't hear others singing, so they don't sing, unless church is very full--and permanence: we would not have to replace it for a very long time. The downsides are: added cost, higher maintenance cost, and greater risk of slipping in wet and icy weather. We can compensate for the latter to some degree; so if I can bring down the initial cost, the longer life-span may compensate for the increased maintenance cost.

Also, I have a dream that someday, somehow, we will get a real pipe organ back in Saint Boniface Church. A new one would be over $300,000; but if we made the right match with another church, we might be able to obtain one for the cost of moving it--still many thousands, but well worth that to have such beautiful music back. If we ever had a pipe organ, carpeting would be a very effective way to negate its power and beauty.

As I see it, re-adorning the interior of Saint Boniface is the crowning task for the church, so that other projects can be pursued. (Meanwhile, other projects are being pursued, for the benefit of the school--but it's too soon to talk about those.) I am blessed, as a pastor, that my predecessor--who also happens to be my parochial vicar--saw to a variety of needs at Saint Mary, and the people of Saint Mary helped me with several items, such that the school, church and rectory are all now in top shape. So as these projects come to fruition for Saint Boniface, we will have two beautiful and well-maintained churches in Piqua.

Anyway, I spent several hours on this grant application; my maintenance man is getting some visual aids put together, so God willing, we will submit it by week's end.

Please pray!

(And if you want to help--especially if you have a pipe organ--write me at frmartinfox@yahoo.com.)

Ohioans: Hi-speed trains are going to pick your pockets!

This article from Sunday's Dayton Daily News caught my eye. It is very revealing, if you read it closely.

A high-speed rail link for Ohio?

Gov. Ted Strickland has requested $250 million in stimulus funds to develop the 3-C Corridor, a passenger train system from Cleveland to Cincinnati, according to Stu Nicholson, spokesman for the Ohio Rail Development Commission. Also requested was $7 million to study development of the Ohio Hub, a proposed system of crisscrossing high-speed train lines that would connect Ohio to other states.

So, let's see what we've learned: Ohio officials are seeking to spend $257 million on this. That's a lot of money--but what does it buy us? Something vaguely called "study" and "development."

When we read further, we get a better idea of the full cost: "Developing the Ohio Hub would probably involve installing new rails in existing right-of-ways, and the eight- to 10-year project would cost up to about $7 billion."

"About"? Ever notice how TV ads will say, "it cost you 'about a dollar a day'?" What do you immediately think? "It'll cost more than a dollar a day, because if it cost less they'd have said that." How much more than a dollar a day, you don't know till you read the fine print; same with that "about $7 Billion." And if you re-read that paragraph, the hedging about the time-frame and the cost leaves ample room for it to be a lot more than that. This from the same folks who built all those e-check stations at whatever huge cost, instead of licensing existing car-repair places to handle it.

OK, but let's call it $7 Billion on the dot and move on. What's the payoff?

The next paragraph is priceless; the reporter wrote it so artlessly, that either he didn't catch the joke, or he just played it straight. So just for fun, I'll hold back the key information for last, so you can get the full picture:

"An economic impact study by Wright State University economists, however, predicts the Hub would generate about ______ in economic benefit over 30 years. In addition to the jobs created by construction and operation of the trains, the study projects economic development around the train routes and stations, significant fuel cost savings and environmental benefits.

Oh, my think of all that economic benefit! Jobs! Trains! Development around the stations--which have to be built of course, more jobs! "Significant fuel cost savings"! And best of all: "environmental benefits!" Oh, rapture!

How much might all that add up to, you wonder?

"$17 Billion." (over 30 years).

Now, I realize not everyone is good with numbers; I'm not all that good. But I know a little about compounding interest, and my antennae popped up on that one. "Just how much return is that on the original $7 Billion," I wondered.

I googled "interest calculator" and arrived here. Here's how I calculated things, so that you can evaluate whether my method was valid:

I put in 70 cents initial outlay (representing 1/10 of $7 billion), adding the same for the first 10 years; then I took the total that gave me, and recalculated for another 20 years' growth, To arrive at $17 (i.e., $17 billion) required a 3.1% interest rate.

That means that this ballyhooed investment is equal to slightly more than a 3% return! Meanwhile, if you check the rates at the U.S. Treasury, you'll find 30-year notes are currently earning 3.62%.

In case you didn't get the joke: this is the rate of return on this so-called "investment"--based on the most sunny projection they could come up with! Just like the ads that say, "about a dollar a day"...if they could have said this would yield $30 or $50 billion in "economic benefit"--they would have! "Economic benefit" is an extremely loose term and from a strict business point of view, it's meaningless. Prove it to yourself this way: go open a restaurant (or any business) this week--empty your savings, or take out a loan, and get yourself all set up. Proceed to lose money every week, until you are broke. But be consoled--you will have generated an amount of "economic benefit" far larger than the amount you lost. Get the picture?

Notice something else: if they could have said this would make a profit, they would have! Go read the story--and you tell me if that single word ever appears. Hint: it doesn't.

If you still think this is a good idea, then I have an offer to make: send me money. As much as you want. As often as you want. I won't promise you any profit or return; but I guarantee to generate lots of "economic impact." Deal?

Today's homilies

I had two homilies this Sunday, because at 9 am Mass, we had the "Third Scrutiny" for the benefit of the Elect--those to be baptized at Easter. That means using the readings from "year A"; whereas at the other Masses, we used "year B" readings.

For the Scrutiny, I said something along these lines...

I explained why the last three Sundays featured the readings they do: the woman at the well, the man born blind, and the raising of Lazarus from the dead. They all serve to illustrate what baptism and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is about: everything changes for us.

I also explained that central to our Faith is a kind of exchange: we choose to exchange our merely human life for Divine Life, by embracing the death and resurrection of our Lord. Another way to put it: our Lord offers an exchange: we exchange our mortality, our death, for his. We shall surely die; but we can embrace his death and his resurrection, in place of what we face without him. (I said more, but honestly cannot recall what else I said.)

For the other Masses, I said:

I offered the illustration of watching a movie--there are two ways to do it. One way is to have the TV on, have a newspaper or magazine in our lap, which we're skimming, having a laptop nearby, as we check our email, and having the clicker at the ready if the action lags. That's how many of us do it (including yours truly). the other way is to turn off the phone, put away the laptop, not have a clicker, and simply focus on the film. For those who don't care for movies, the same lesson applies for a football or basketball game--you enjoy the game a lot more if you focus on it and enter into it; the person who comes in, during the last two minutes, doesn't really get why everyone is so enthralled.

Our Faith is like that; Lent is like that. We can choose to carry on our usual activities, and we'll miss what's going on; or we can focus in, and realize the drama of our Faith, especially during Lent.

The theologian Hans urs von Balthasar wrote a series on the Faith, which he called the "Theo-Drama"--he presented the idea that everything that God has done for us--not just in Christ, but the entire story of salvation, from the Creation, forward to Christ's coming, death and resurrection, and to the great conclusion--is all a kind of Drama. But it is not only a great story; it has the added benefit of being true. And we are not spectators; we are part of the drama; not bit players, but important to the Story. In fact, we are the reason for it--the whole thing is about our salvation!

We may find that Lent has gotten by us, and we wonder what happened. But we have two more weeks till Easter. The fourth quarter is just beginning, and there is still a lot of action! We might want to focus in during the next two weeks, and we will discover the power of the Drama of our Salvation. Yes, it's not easy; and while I don't know what each of you faces, I do know busy! And it happens to me, if I'm not careful--all of a sudden, it's Good Friday, and I have to rush over and lead prayers. Please pray for me that I will enter into this time, as I pray the same for you.

(I made some other points--about each Mass recapitulating this Drama, and I invited everyone to take part in Holy Thursday and Good Friday.)

One of those days...

Grabbed some coffee and donuts for breakfast on the way to the office. Plenty waiting for me, as always on Tuesday morning. Took awhile just getting through emails, and snail-mail and phone calls. Was in the middle of responding to an email when a call came--one of our parishioners had just died; the parochial vicar had been visiting, but he was unavailable. (He was performing a wedding at a nursing home--not for a resident, but for a couple who elected to be married there so an elderly parent could take part. That required special permission from the Archbishop, by the way.) I was also having a short meeting with a member of the staff, and we cut it short, and I went over to the house. Spent about an hour there, praying with and consoling the family, until the funeral director arrived.

Back to the office, back to the same stuff. That death--plus another one--meant planning funerals. Turned out both families wanted the funerals the same day and same time. Various phone calls and emails later, we worked it out.

In between all this, I'm preparing for tonight's penance service. Thank God for the parochial vicar, who was planning to preach. I put a program together and had my secretary run it off just before she headed home for the day. Oh, I forgot--someone stopped by, unexpectedly, needing to talk. That happens a lot.

Around 5, I ran to Rallys for a late lunch; back to the office, and wasted a little time, before heading over to set things up for the penance service. Opened the doors, turned on the lights, set up chairs in various places for the priests and penitents. Eight locations (including two confessionals), all but one had option for anonymous.

A nice number of folks showed up--but never enough. We finished in an hour. That's why I always get as many priests as we can accommodate. No one complains if you get done earlier, and we're ready if lots show up.

I invited the priests back for a drink--"a little conviviality"--afterward, but this time, everyone had to go. I got back home around 8:30 pm, ordered up some Chinese for dinner (some House Special Soup and some more of the Singapore Chow Mei Fun I ordered last week).

Sat back and watched the President's news conference; Bill O'Reilly was haranging about the President being "boring." Who cares? News conferences aren't usually anything else, and it's hard to see what's in it for the President to try to keep things other than boring. Actually, for the part I saw, I thought Mr. Obama handled himself pretty well--setting aside how much of what he advocates, I disagree with.

He sometimes fumbles around without a teleprompter, but he seemed reasonably good most of the time. I noticed, however, when he tried to describe the moral and ethical considerations of embryo-destroying "research," he fumbled a lot. I wondered--is this the first time he's tried to say, out loud, what those moral considerations are? Or was he aware that he might, unwittingly, give away the game? It sounded to me as though he was well rehearsed in saying things like, "I know many people have serious moral and ethical objections to this research, and I respect that..." but utterly lacking in comprehension of just why.

While all that was going on, I'm browsing the 'net, catching up on the news, and reading amusing things. I am saddened to read about what's going on at Notre Dame University; I think this is a major sell-out, and I fear this is a crossing-the-Rubicon moment.

Well, it's about 10:30--that's my day.

Should Our Lady's University honor Obama?

Sign the petition protesting the scandal of Notre Dame honoring pro-abortion President Obama with an invitation to speak here

A little exercise in reasoning and in politicized science reporting

The Washington Post had an article with this headline that caught my eye:
"Study Finds Eating Red Meat Contributes to Risk of Early Death."

Does the study really "find" that? Let's see what the article actually says...

The lead paragraph: "Eating red meat increases the chances of dying prematurely, according to a large federal study that offers powerful new evidence that a diet that regularly includes steaks, burgers and pork chops is hazardous to your health."

Oh my! Let us read on to see how this study demonstrates this. The next graph says:

"The study of more than 500,000 middle-age and elderly Americans found that those who consumed the equivalent of about a small hamburger every day were more than 30 percent more likely to die during the 10 years they were followed, mostly from heart disease and cancer. Sausage, cold cuts and other processed meats also increased the risk."

Hmmm...can you see the logical fallacy revealed here?

The second paragraph tells us the study discovered an association. People who eat certain meats are more likely to die. But is that the same thing as causation?

The answer, dear reader, is that it is not. Why not?

Well, for example--aren't you curious, as I am, to know anything else about these folks who died earlier? And about those who, despite stuffing all that meat down their gluttonous throats, did not proceed to die earlier? Why weren't they 100% more likely to die earlier?

Perhaps because of...other variables? Such as exercise, weight, smoking, stress, other vices...who knows what?

The article says, later, that the study accounted for those variables. Over a half-million volunteers filled out detailed questionnaires in 1995; then, "Over the next 10 years, 47,976 men and 23,276 women died."

Okay; that's concerning, no question. But again, this inquiring mind wants to know: how inquisitive were the researchers into other behaviors and stresses, and changes in habits, over the following ten years?

The article proceeds to say that "routine consumption of fish, chicken, turkey and other poultry decreased the risk of death by a small amount, the study found."

It occurs to me that they may have cause-and-effect backwards: perhaps people who lead healthier lifestyles tend to eat fish and turkey; and those attached to decadence prefer those "bad meats" we just heard about.

In the interest of full disclosure, I happen to love all those "bad meats" and I don't keep measures of how much I eat; and I am rather more, er, "ample" than I ought to be. Certainly, there may be a direct causation there.

Trouble is, there is also interesting evidence that folks who go on diets consisting overwhelmingly of such meat--bad plus good--lose weight! Hmm, how to factor that in?

Now, I would have ignored this article, as garden-variety sloppiness, until I read this:

"'This would be the Rolls Royce of studies on this topic,' said Barry M. Popkin, a professor of global nutrition at the University of North Carolina, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study. 'This is a slam-dunk to say that, "Yes, indeed, if people want to be healthy and live longer, consume less red and processed meat."'"

I suppose it's rather uppity of me to cross swords intellectually with Professor Popkin, but--wouldn't the "Rolls Royce" of a study such as this eliminate other variables, in order to demonstrate, clearly, cause-and-effect?

The Meat Institute ("boo! hiss! we know their agenda) makes the reasonable--but not devastating--observation that "the findings...were based on unreliable self-reporting by the study participants." Which--if such self-reporting is unreliable (I don't know if it is, but it seems that it might be), it might mean anything: the early-to-die folks might have eaten rather more meat than they wanted to report, or done other unhealthy things they didn't like to talk about, or overstated how much they exercise, etc. Or it might mean something else; or it might be that self-reporting is, in fact, as reliable as other tools. Might have been nice to have had a rejoinder to that point; but the Washington Post didn't expect anyone would take seriously what a trade group would say in, harumph!, obvious self-interest!

After that offensive interlude, the article takes us back to the voice of sweet, non-profit wisdom: the National Institutes of Health, AARP, and the Harvard School of Public Health! Surely we can trust them!

Now, sarcasm aside, I concede the study itself may well be more probative than is clear from the article; my criticism is directed against the article, and I am, yes, skeptical about just what the study does, and does not, demonstrate. We would all do well to be skeptical of such things, particularly as reported in the media.

But it was the final two paragraphs that caused me to chuckle knowingly, and write this post. Just tell me if you can see what it might have been:

In addition to the health benefits of reducing red meat consumption, a major reduction in meat consumption would probably have a host of other benefits to society: reducing water shortages and pollution, cutting energy consumption, and tamping down greenhouse gas emissions -- all of which are associated with large-scale livestock production.

"There's a big interplay between the global increase in animal food intake and the effects on climate change," Popkin said. "If we cut by a few ounces a day our red meat intake, we would have big impact on emissions and environmental degradation."

Nope, no political agenda there, is there?