"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the
one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,
did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not
drive out demons in your name? Did we not do
mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare
to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart
from me, you evildoers.' Everyone who listens
to these words of mine and acts on them will be
like a wise man who built his house on rock.
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds
blew and buffeted the house. But it did not
collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And
everyone who listens to these words of mine but
does not act on them will be like a fool who
built his house on sand. The rain fell, the
floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted
the house. And it collapsed and was completely
ruined."
Matt. 7:21-27

This is another difficult Gospel, perhaps because we're approaching the Lenten season and the Church wants to challenge us with some words that will be difficult to hear. There are plenty of times when we hear in the Bible that believing in Christ and proclaiming him Lord is how we will be saved. Still, elsewhere it is made clear that our actions are also important to that salvation. Here we could say that Christ goes even further, dismissing not only faith without works but also works without faith. We can work all we want, feed the hungry and clothe the naked, but if we don't also cultivate a love of God and a relationship with Him then it will all be for nothing.

Christians don't have the monopoly on charitable acts, in fact even atheists are often aware of the need to give to those less fortunate. Jesus says elsewhere that those who do good for those they love are no better than pagans, that even they know how to take care of their own. Society is already well aware of the "we are all neighbors" narrative, and many in the world do good works for those in need. What we must seek is the thing that sets us apart from the rest, the thing that we can have that they don't, which is love. It is easy to help others when you feel obligated, or when you get a good feeling out of it, and indeed many in the world who would never think of worshiping God have this down to a science. The truly difficult thing is to turn "help" into service, to act not because you feel obligated or because you get something out of it but rather because you couldn't imagine any other reaction to the needs of your brothers and sisters in Christ. To serve is difficult, because you can't just stop doing it when you're not "feeling" it or when you have something else you'd rather do. We are called to love all humanity, and to put the needs of others above our own. Only then can we truly act like children of our Father in Heaven, and only then will Jesus know us. Works are important, but faith is essential.

"No one can serve two masters. He will
either hate one and love the other, or be
devoted to one and despise the other. You
cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I
tell you, do not worry about your life,
what you will eat (or drink), or about
your body, what you will wear. Is not life
more than food and the body more than
clothing? Look at the birds in the sky;
they do not sow or reap, they gather
nothing into barns, yet your heavenly
Father feeds them. Are not you more
important than they? Can any of you by
worrying add a single moment to your life-
span? Why are you anxious about clothes?
Learn from the way the wild flowers grow.
They do not work or spin. But I tell you
that not even Solomon in all his splendor
was clothed like one of them. If God so
clothes the grass of the field, which
grows today and is thrown into the oven
tomorrow, will he not much more provide
for you, O you of little faith? So do not
worry and say, 'What are we to eat?' or
'What are we to drink?' or 'What are we
to wear?' All these things the pagans
seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you
need them all. But seek first the kingdom
(of God) and his righteousness, and all
these things will be given you besides.
Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will
take care of itself. Sufficient for a day
is its own evil."
Matt. 6:24-34

This reading goes along well with the Gospel from last Sunday, in that this reading provides the method by which we can fulfill the command from the last one. If we renounce our claim to the things that literally and figuratively surround us, then we can begin to understand how to "turn the other cheek" and respond peacefully to insult and injury. We protect our possessions because we do not think that we can survive without them. We spend our money on insurance and security systems because we think that they make us safe, and yet we forget that we could be dead in the morning and our hold on our possessions would vanish with our dying breath. This isn't to say that possessions aren't useful or that we shouldn't have them, but rather that we shouldn't allow ourselves to become obsessed with them to the point where we give over our happiness to them and make them idols. This brings us back to the beginning of the reading, where Jesus says that we must choose between God and Mammon. When we focus too much on keeping what we have then we turn it into an idol and forget about our worship of God. What we must do is put our possessions into our own service while remembering that they are not important and that we can do without them. Only then will we be willing to embrace the radical peace that God leads us to without consideration of what must be left behind.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
But I say to you, offer no resistance
to one who is evil. When someone strikes
you on (your) right cheek, turn the
other one to him as well. If anyone
wants to go to law with you over your
tunic, hand him your cloak as well.
Should anyone press you into service
for one mile, go with him for two miles.
Give to the one who asks of you, and do
not turn your back on one who wants to
borrow. You have heard that it was said,
'You shall love your neighbor and hate
your enemy.' But I say to you, love
your enemies, and pray for those who
persecute you, that you may be children
of your heavenly Father, for he makes
his sun rise on the bad and the good,
and causes rain to fall on the just and
the unjust. For if you love those who
love you, what recompense will you have?
Do not the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet your brothers only,
what is unusual about that? Do not the
pagans do the same? So be perfect, just
s your heavenly Father is perfect."
Matthew 5:38-48

These are difficult words to hear, even more difficult to follow. Who among us can actually say that we've done these things? We are accustomed to defending ourselves against attack, and most of us would say that self-defense is justified. Still, we cannot deny that Christ seems to be pointing us in a different direction. I think that this passage points to a movement toward total dependence upon God, toward an end to concern about safety and security. People in modern society, even those who are religious, are always looking toward securing themselves and their families against loss and destruction. Think about all the different kinds of insurance that exist, all the products that we buy that are designed to protect us from threats both natural and man-made. We pray to God for blessings, and yet our lives seem designed around the idea that we're alone and can't rely on His aid in times of trouble. Perhaps it's just human nature to live like this, to rely on ourselves and on those things that we can see and touch rather than putting our hope in that which is beyond our grasp and understanding. Still, this is exactly what Jesus is asking us to do in today's Gospel reading. The only way that we can live up to this calling is through the grace of God, because we certainly won't do it on our own.

"Again you have heard that it was
said to your ancestors, 'Do not
take a false oath, but make good
to the Lord all that you vow.' But
I say to you, do not swear at all;
not by heaven, for it is God's
throne; nor by the earth, for it
is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem,
for it is the city of the great
King. Do not swear by your head,
for you cannot make a single hair
white or black. Let your 'Yes' mean
'Yes,' and your 'No' mean 'No.'
Anything more is from the evil one."
Matt. 5:33-37

Our modern society is built around the idea that a person's word is not to be trusted. Everything that we do requires a signature, a password, or some other assurance that we aren't pretending to be someone we're not or trying to do something that we shouldn't. How much better would our world be if every Christian took these words from the Gospel of Matthew to heart? Certainly it could serve as an opportunity for evangelization in a world that has forgotten how to trust. We always hear from non-believers about how they love Jesus but don't believe that the faithful actually live out his message. Can we deny that there are many cases in which their accusations are well-founded, that much of the time we do indeed fail to live as followers of Christ? If we actually listened to Christ and embraced honesty in our lives, perhaps those who ignore Jesus would see him in us and find the grace to accept him.

Thus saith the Lord: A voice was heard
on high of lamentation, of mourning, and
weeping, of Rachel weeping for her children,
and refusing to be comforted for them,
because they are not.
Jeremiah 31:15

If anybody actually reads this, I'm sorry that I haven't been posting lately. It's been a tough winter, and I really haven't had the time or the energy to think much less put my thoughts down. I decided that the thing I would start back up with would be a though about yesterday's anniversary of Roe v. Wade, especially in light of what has happened recently in my neck of the woods that has cast some light on what actually goes on at the clinics that provide abortions throughout our country.

I'm sure that people throughout the world, not just in the Philadelphia area, have been hearing about this. I remember when this guy's office was raided back at the beginning of last year, the details then weren't as clear as they are now but it was known that horrible things were going on in that clinic. Now, of course, we know all the gruesome specifics. This "doctor" is charged with killing one woman and seven children, and that's just the deaths that can be documented. God only knows how many other women and born children died because of the conditions there, not to mention how many viable unborn children were killed and whose deaths will never be remembered because of the horrible mentality that exists in this country about the value of unborn life.

This man's practice was particularly horrible because he was known to take cases where the woman was far along in her pregnancy, cases where the child may very well be born alive in the course of the abortion. Still, he is not the only so-called physician who takes such late-term cases and the conditions that exist at regular abortion clinics are no doubt just as horrible. When you deny the humanity of one child it becomes easy to then deny the humanity of all children, and then even further to deny the humanity of pregnant women and indeed of all people. As far as Gosnell seemed to be concerned, the children he murdered were just lumps of cells and the women he neglected were only worth the amount of money they put in his pockets. Closing ourselves off to compassion for one human life risks destroying our compassion for all life, and that is certainly what we have here. That this was one clinic does not mean that the abuses seen there aren't present elsewhere, certainly they are not universal but they are probably more widespread than the media will ever let us think about.

On this weekend where we remember when the U.S. Supreme Court made conditional the very right to life, perhaps we should look at this case and think about how 38 years under the shadow of abortion has made our society colder and less concerned about humanity. Perhaps we should think about how many people in our country will ignore this story, or worse yet try to justify his actions. We should definitely pray for the women who are making these decisions, that they may not be coerced into destroying their children's lives and that they will accept the grace of God to say "yes" to life both for their children and for themselves. It is 38 years later and things in our country have only gotten worse over time, we need to pray that God will steer us back on a path of peace and love that will heal the wounds that have been created and bring us back to life.

When John heard in prison of the works of
the Messiah, he sent his disciples to him with
this question, "Are you the one who is to come,
or should we look for another?" Jesus said to
them in reply, "Go and tell John what you hear
and see: the blind regain their sight, the lame
walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the
dead are raised, and the poor have the good
news proclaimed to them. And blessed is the
one who takes no offense at me."
Matthew 11:2-6

But a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse,
and from his roots a bud shall blossom. The spirit
of the LORD shall rest upon him: a spirit of wisdom
and of understanding, A spirit of counsel and of
strength, a spirit of knowledge and of fear of the
LORD, and his delight shall be the fear of the LORD.
Not by appearance shall he judge, nor by hearsay
shall he decide, But he shall judge the poor with
justice, and decide aright for the land's afflicted.
He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his
mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall
slay the wicked. Justice shall be the band around
his waist, and faithfulness a belt upon his hips.
Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the
leopard shall lie down with the kid; The calf and
the young lion shall browse together, with a little
child to guide them. The cow and the bear shall be
neighbors, together their young shall rest; the
lion shall eat hay like the ox. The baby shall
play by the cobra's den, and the child lay his
hand on the adder's lair. There shall be no harm
or ruin on all my holy mountain; for the earth
shall be filled with knowledge of the LORD, as
water covers the sea. On that day, The root of
Jesse, set up as a signal for the nations, The
Gentiles shall seek out, for his dwelling shall
be glorious.
Isaiah 11:1-10

Apparently liberal anti-Christian hatred isn't just confined to the Left Coast

I would draw attention to the second image on this page, the one with the man in the clerical shirt wearing the "ignore the poor" button. If the Minnesota Democratic Party had the intention of attacking one specific Protestant minister then perhaps they should have chosen an image that singled him out specifically. As it stands, this ad appears to be an attack on all conservative clergy and is therefore inexcusable. Liberals attack conservatives who use bigotry to gain votes, for them to turn around and stoke the flames of anti-Christian hatred for votes in hypocrisy at its worst.

Apparently the whole Establishment Clause thing only protects religious beliefs that liberals agree with

The sad thing is that this isn't even surprising. This is the Ninth Circuit, after all, the court that never found a liberal violation of the Constitution that it couldn't excuse or a conservative opinion that it couldn't quash. Nobody should be surprised at San Francisco's bigoted condemnation of the Catholic faith, considering the anti-Catholicism that has come out of that city in the past. I'm sure that the establishment in that city was quite hostile toward Cardinal Levada when he was Archbishop and quite happy when he left, now of course they're upset that his successor has proven just as immune to their corrupting influence and so they're looking for a way to justify discriminating against him and his flock.

Any impartial observer would have to admit that San Francisco's resolution violates the Establishment Clause. The First Amendment doesn't only prohibit the government favoring a particular religion, it also clearly forbids discrimination against a particular religion. If any liberal denies that they would reject the Council's action if it involved any other religion, think about what the response would be if some city in the conservative part of California passed a resolution condemning the Episcopal Church's vocal opposition to Prop 8. Better yet, think how people would react if San Francisco's City Council condemned the anti-gay marriage beliefs of Muslims or Orthodox Jews. It is a fact of life that anti-Catholicism is a permissible bigotry, not even considered a bigotry by many, and that Catholics are attacked in ways that few other groups would be forced to endure. People may attack Muslims for the actions of a few that are not supported by the many, but this comes from an ignorance of the typical beliefs of Muslims where the attacks on Catholics come from knowledge of our universal teachings and are therefore attacks on the integrity of all the faithful. Hopefully the Supreme Court will hear this case and instruct the Circuit Court to revisit their decision, otherwise we may see many more of these "no Catholics allowed" resolutions by liberal cities in the future. I'm very grateful that I don't live in San Francisco right now, because the Council has sent a clear message that Catholics don't have freedom of worship within city limits, and I am also relieved that I don't live under the jurisdiction of the obviously biased Ninth Circuit. New Jersey is quite liberal, but I haven't heard anything about Newark or Camden passing such a hateful resolution so at least for the moment I have hope of tolerance here. Unless the higher court steps in I fear all tolerance may be lost forever in the western states.

He that is faithful in that which is least,
is faithful also in that which is greater: and
he that is unjust in that which is little, is
unjust also in that which is greater. If then
you have not been faithful in the unjust mammon;
who will trust you with that which is the true?
And if you have not been faithful in that which
is another's; who will give you that which is
your own? No servant can serve two masters: for
either he will hate the one, and love the other;
or he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
You cannot serve God and mammon.
Luke 16:10-13 (D-R)

In how many ways do we serve mammon instead of God? It doesn't have to be money, many things in our society take the place of God in our lives. It could be fame, or sex, or objects like iPods and designer clothes. It could also be people, those around us who we look to for validation and whose approval we seek when we should be looking to God. How much better would our world be if we sought God in the same way we seek out the latest celebrity news? How many could be converted if we approached evangelization with the same energy that we bring to seeking our own wealth? Even among Christians, there are many who look to personal advancement while rarely thinking about what God may want from us. Many see religion as only involving an hour's obligation on Sundays, while they spend the rest of their time behaving no differently from any of their non-Christian neighbors. We cannot be devoted to God while we're also devoted to the things of this world, and if we become obsessed with the pleasures of the physical world then we risk pushing God out of our lives. You cannot put your trust in God and the world at the same time, because they stand in opposition and seek to eliminate the other's influence on us. We must remember that the world provides benefits that are fleeting and only of this life, while God's benefits are eternal.

It seems that Christopher Hitchens has decided to resurrect the old hate-mongering in anticipation of Pope Benedict's visit to the UK, namely that the Pope is guilty of crimes against humanity and should be arrested when he sets foot on British soil. Never mind the fact that nobody has been able to lay any blame on our current Pope for the abuse crisis, no matter how much they've tried (and how they have tried!). Never mind that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith only received jurisdiction over cases of child abuse by clergy in 2001, long after most of the cases were alleged to have occurred, and every indication is that Cardinal Ratzinger pursued justice for the victimized pretty quickly after being given the authority to do so. Never mind that Pope Benedict has, in his five years as Pope, shown himself to be committed to justice and has repeatedly made it easier for cases to be investigated and if necessary turned over to civil authorities. People like Hitchens don't really care about the victims, they only care about punishing the Pope for being conservative and brow-beating Catholics into bowing before their destructive brand of hedonistic narcissism. I will quote and respond to particularly egregious sections of the article below.

I came across the following passage from Cardinal John Henry Newman's classic statement of belief, his Apologia Pro Vita Sua:

The Catholic Church holds it better for the Sun and Moon to drop from Heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die from starvation in extremest agony … than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.

I doubt that Hitchens is operating under any misunderstanding, rather I think that he is intentionally mischaracterizing Newman's statement in an attempt at character assassination. Newman obviously wasn't saying that Catholics want people to starve and suffer, rather that we hold apostasy to be a horrible thing and do not desire it to happen to any person. We certainly don't enjoy the suffering of human beings, but so much more than that do we deplore the loss of souls to sin.

As we have recently been forcibly reminded, the Roman Catholic Church holds it better for the cries of raped and violated children to be ignored, and for the excuses and alibis of their rapists and torturers indulged, and for a host of dirty and wilful untruths to be manufactured wholesale, and for the funds raised ostensibly for the poor to be paid out in hush money and shameful bribery, rather than that one tiny indignity or inconvenience be visited on the robed majesty of a man-made church or any limit set to its self-proclaimed right to be judge in its own cause

We've recently been reminded, actually, that human beings are sinful and that applies as much to human beings in the Church as it does to those outside. Peter Tatchell, a leading opponent to the Pope's visit, has said in the past that nine year old children could consent to sex with adults. If a Catholic priest said that then Hitchens would put the blame for it directly on the Pope, and yet I hear nothing from him about his ally's reprehensible beliefs. Hitchens is also overlooking, of course, the many actions that have been taken by the Pope to safeguard children in the wake of the abuse scandal. Not only has the Pope raised the statue of limitations to 20 years, an action that Hitchens would hail if it had been undertaken by civil leaders, but he has also put together concrete rules governing the removal of accused priests and religious from their positions. When he was given responsibility for these cases as head of the CDF the Pope essentially had to create rules from scratch, and personally I think that he's done an admirable job of it.

I asked a simple question in print. Why was this not considered a matter for the police and the courts? Why were we asking the church to "put its own house in order," an expression that was the exact definition of the problem to begin with?

That's exactly what has been done. In fact, in many cases the accusations were brought before the civil authorities and they either declined to prosecute or else investigated and found no basis for an indictment. There was certainly a cover up in some dioceses, but the blame for a lack of prosecutions lies in the hands of civil government at least as much as in the Church's hands.

I followed this up with a telephone call to Geoffrey Robertson, a British barrister with a second-to-none record in international human rights cases.

Robertson is the moron who tried to stoke anti-Catholic hatred in England to gain support for his plan to put the Pope on trial at the Hague, solely to increase his own name recognition and make himself look good without any concern for those who actually suffered from the actions of clergy. I am not at all surprised that Hitchens would be allied with this guy, after all they're birds of a feather.

Consider: The now-resigned bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, stands revealed by his own eventual confession as being guilty of incest as well as rape...Very belatedly, a few months ago, the Belgian police finally rose from their notorious torpor and raided some ecclesiastical offices in search of evidence that was being concealed. Joseph Ratzinger, who had not thus far found a voice in which to mention the doings of his Belgian underlings, promptly emitted a squeal of protest—at the intervention of the law.

The problem that the Church has with the civil investigation is in its methods, not its motives. In executing their warrant the police violated the crypts of two bishops, a horrid sacrilege without justification. The Church has no problem with civil authorities investigating accusations of abuse, so long as they don't intentionally insult our religion in the process. How would Muslims react if the Belgian police had desecrated a Koran in a search for evidence? How would Jews react if they had searched for evidence by tearing apart the ark that contains the Torah scrolls?

Robertson's brief begins with a meticulous summary of the systematic fashion in which child-rape was covered up by collusion between local Catholic authorities and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, an office that under the last pope was run by Ratzinger himself.

Funny, considering that the CDF did not gain jurisdiction over such cases until 2001 at around the same time that many of the cases came to light. During most of the time of cover-up, and in fact when the vast majority of cases were alleged to have been committed, the responsibility for investigating cases and bringing them to the attention of law enforcement fell on individual bishops rather than any central Church authority. That was the problem, and giving the power to the CDF and then-Cardinal Ratzinger was the solution.

The Catholic authorities have now rudely disinterred the bodies, finding nothing that had survived decay or could serve as a relic.

Hitchens seems crudely satisfied at this fact, as if it proves that Newman wasn't a saint. Of course, the Church does not teach that a saint's body must be incorruptible in order for that person to be a saint. Many saints have shown such incorruptibility, and it can be seen as a sign of sainthood, but it is not required.

The sun and moon don't need to fall and the species doesn't have to die in agony in order to expiate this sin—a little application of simple earthly justice is all that is required. Will it really continue to be withheld?

Hitchens hates the Catholic Church, and in spite of his protestations to the contrary his words and actions scream hatred for those who choose to believe in the Church. Since he can't brow-beat the Pope into renouncing the faith and dragging its followers down with him he'll try to destroy the Pope by putting him on trial for false accusations and making him rot in jail. May God bless the Pope in his journey to hostile lands, and if he must be martyred by Hitchens and his pagan friends may his martyrdom obtain blessings for the Church and conversion for the English people who so desperately need it.

Then he said, "A man had two sons, and the
younger son said to his father, 'Father,
give me the share of your estate that should
come to me.' So the father divided the
property between them. After a few days, the
younger son collected all his belongings and
set off to a distant country where he
squandered his inheritance on a life of
dissipation. When he had freely spent everything,
a severe famine struck that country, and he found
himself in dire need. So he hired himself out to
one of the local citizens who sent him to his
farm to tend the swine. And he longed to eat his
fill of the pods on which the swine fed, but nobody
gave him any. Coming to his senses he thought,
'How many of my father's hired workers have more
than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from
hunger. I shall get up and go to my father and I
shall say to him, "Father, I have sinned against
heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be
called your son; treat me as you would treat one of
your hired workers."' So he got up and went back to
his father. While he was still a long way off, his
father caught sight of him, and was filled with
compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and
kissed him. His son said to him, 'Father, I have
sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer
deserve to be called your son.' But his father
ordered his servants, 'Quickly bring the finest
robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and
sandals on his feet. Take the fattened calf and
slaughter it. Then let us celebrate with a feast,
because this son of mine was dead, and has come to
life again; he was lost, and has been found.' Then
the celebration began.

Now the older son had been out in the field and, on
his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the
sound of music and dancing. He called one of the
servants and asked what this might mean. The servant
said to him, 'Your brother has returned and your
father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he
has him back safe and sound.' He became angry, and
when he refused to enter the house, his father came
out and pleaded with him. He said to his father in
reply, 'Look, all these years I served you and not
once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me
even a young goat to feast on with my friends. But
when your son returns who swallowed up your property
with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened
calf.' He said to him, 'My son, you are here with me
always; everything I have is yours. But now we must
celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead
and has come to life again; he was lost and has been
found.'" Luke 15: 11-32

Today's very long Gospel reading contains a very important message, and I hope that you all heard the long version so that you were exposed to this parable. One of the Devil's most favored tactics to separate us from the faith is to tell us that we are beyond hope, that we have sinned so much that God has given up on us and we are certainly damned. The idea, of course, is that a man without hope of salvation has no reason to behave like a man in search of salvation. This is, of course, a lie, and what we find in the parable of the Prodigal Son is a God who loves us and never stops seeking us out no matter what we do against Him. It doesn't matter how many sins we commit, how far we drive ourselves away from God and His Truth, because He will always be there waiting for us when we return. It is also good to look at the Second Reading from the First Letter of St. Paul to Timothy, where Paul gladly acknowledges his own sinfulness because he knows that God's mercy and love are most apparent when we come to him in our sin and ask for His forgiveness. We all sin and fall short of what we should be, but that is no reason for despair because God is Love and He will never abandon or disown us. We are His children in our sin, even in the moment of our commission of sin, and He is always waiting to rejoice when we come to our senses and seek Him out again. How blessed indeed are we to have this wonderful gift, to know that our God loves us so much that He will suffer infinite disrespect from us without ever rejecting us or turning His back on us.

So apparently Christopher Hitchens is at it again. I'm constantly surprised at how many publications seem to view this hack as a genuine thinker, having seen his hatred spilled on the pages both of the Washington Post Religion Section and also on Slate. It is on Slate that I found this particularly objectionable bit of atheist rambling. Not content to satisfy his superiority complex with internal derision of us foolish theists, apparently Hitchens feels that it is his duty to neuter those of us who dare to believe in what he doesn't. Never mind the fact that he is dead wrong, Hitchens feels he has the right to dictate to religious groups what of their doctrines can and cannot be carried forward into the future. Perhaps he can call it the "Bright" Man's Burden, his obligation as an intellectually advanced person to bring enlightenment to us pathetic throwbacks who haven't gotten it through out heads to abandon religion and embrace hedonistic naturalism. Personally I just call it hubris, and I pray to God that he gets over it before he goes to meet his maker. I'll bring attention to the more egregious statements that he makes below, along with my responses.

Take an example close at hand, the absurdly named Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...Thus, to the extent that we view latter-day saints as acceptable, and agree to overlook their other quaint and weird beliefs, it is to the extent that we have decidedly limited them in the free exercise of their religion.

It is true that the Mormons have had some strange beliefs in the past, beliefs that were framed as eternal dogma right up to the point where prophetic revelation exiled them to the dustbin of history. Still, the elimination of these objectionable doctrines had more to do with the internal decisions of the hierarchy than it did with any kind of governmental intervention. The US government may have made it clear that a continuation of polygamy would have doomed Utah's chances at statehood, but Utah could have carried on as an independent country if Mormons really wanted to keep things the way they were. In a like manner, they could have very easily maintained their beliefs against black people just as many small religious groups have to the current time and while it might have made them unpopular it probably wouldn't have lead to governmental intervention. Plenty of religions do things that are considered discriminatory against one group or another, the Catholic Church's exclusion of women from the priesthood being one example, and none of them have the police knocking on their door for it. Hitchens, who is British, may not fully understand what freedom of religion means, but it is solely limited to governmental action. Mormon beliefs about homosexuality may make them unpopular with the "No on 8" crowd, but that doesn't mean that their freedom of religion is being limited unless the government starts arresting them or otherwise impedes their free exercise. In other words, they limited themselves to be popular and weren't really forced to do so by the government or even by society.

One could cite some other examples, such as those Christian sects that disapprove of the practice of medicine. Their adult members are generally allowed to die while uttering religious incantations and waving away the physician, but, in many states, if they apply this faith to their children—a crucial element in the "free exercise" of religion—they can be taken straight to court. Not only that, they can find themselves subject to general disapproval and condemnation.

Hitchen's argument in this case conflates two very different things, the governmental prevention of faith-based violence against children and what he advocates as the societal neutering of faith in general. Later on in the article he brings up non-Christian examples, such as the disgusting practice of metzitzah b'peh in Orthodox Judaism and female circumcision in Islam, as examples of cases where religious exercise is limited. Of course, what he misses is that public safety has always been a limitation to most of the rights granted in the Constitution. Freedom of speech has always been thought to exclude "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" or other such threats to safety, and all but the most rabid NRA supporters would agree that limits on gun possession in certain buildings and areas are perfectly reasonable. On the other hand, when public safety isn't affected the law is quite clear in granting religion a wide latitude. The government can stop a church from performing human sacrifice, but current interpretation doesn't even allow them to force religious groups to abide by zoning and historical preservation laws as recent cases in Pemberton, NJ and Washington, DC attest.

We talk now as if it was ridiculous ever to suspect Roman Catholics of anything but the highest motives, yet by the time John F. Kennedy was breaking the unspoken taboo on the election of a Catholic as president, the Vatican had just begun to consider making public atonement for centuries of Jew-hatred and a more recent sympathy for fascism.

Always one to appeal to base emotion and hatred, Hitchens once again brings up the idea that the Church was a big fan of fascism. One must wonder what he thinks of Mit brennender Sorge and the other cases where Popes Pius XI and Pius XII spoke out against nationalism. I guess that he could be talking about Franco's Spain, which was supported by the Vatican, but I'm not sure what he expected when Franco's opposition was extremely anti-clerical and wanted nothing more than to burn the Pope at the stake. It would be akin to Hitchens allying himself with fundamentalist Christians who want to kill him for not believing in God. At any rate, the Church still has many views that Hitchens hates (like, for instance, being the Church in the first place), so I guess our socialization isn't quite finished.

t is generally agreed that the church's behavior and autonomy need to be modified to take account both of American law and American moral outrage.

I don't know if I'd call this "generally agreed." It is obvious that Church leaders can be held accountable for breaking civil laws, as the Church has admitted and is assisting in the cases of child sex abuse. Still, "moral outrage" is vague and could apply to anything from forcing the Church to turn over abusers all the way to compelling the Church to accept women priests and stop believing in the Real Presence. I doubt that most Americans support the latter, in fact I'd guess that it's only popular among cynical atheists like Mr. Hitchens.

The Church of Scientology, the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, and the Ku Klux Klan are all faith-based organizations and are all entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. But they are also all subject to a complex of statutes governing tax-exemption, fraud, racism, and violence, to the point where "free exercise" in the third case has—by means of federal law enforcement and stern public disapproval—been reduced to a vestige of its former self.

First of all, the KKK isn't a religious organization. At best it's a fraternal order like the Freemasons or the Elks and is therefore protected under Freedom of Speech rather than of Religion. Still, it is not a limitation of free exercise to force people to abide by legitimate laws. Preventing violence isn't a violation of religious freedom any more than preventing speech that endangers public safety is a violation of free speech.

There's an excellent chance of a healthy pluralist outcome, but it's very unlikely that this can happen unless, as with their predecessors on these shores, Muslims are compelled to abandon certain presumptions that are exclusive to themselves. The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization.

There is a huge difference between forcing religion to abide by laws on the one hand and on the other forcing religion to become assimilated to the moral sensitivities of the majority. The first is perfectly reasonable, the second is not. Hitchens seems to want both, but if the Catholic experience is a sign then the second part will never occur. Catholics have plenty of beliefs that are objectionable to the world, and yet we still believe them centuries after we came here. Hitchens wants to neuter religions by forcing them to get rid of things that are "exclusive to themselves," removing its potential by removing its distinctiveness. While this may have worked on mainstream Protestants, making it almost impossible to tell between a Lutheran and a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian and a Methodist, it will never work on the Catholic Church and certainly not on Islam. We are all different, and while he'd like to subjugate us to secular control he'll always be disappointed.

Last night I happened to catch a small portion of the Rachel Maddow Show. My brother was watching it on the television and I was listening to music on the computer, but in between songs I noticed that Maddow was talking to Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania and since he's the governor of the state next to mine I decided to listen. What I heard was horrifying, and should be even more so to any orthodox Catholic who lives in that state. Maddow asked him about the "extremist" views of Tea Party candidates on abortion, expressing outrage that they would oppose abortion even in cases of rape, and Rendell stated that he has never met a single rational person who opposed abortion in these cases. I have to wonder whether he's ever met Cardinals Bevilacqua and Rigali, both archbishops of the largest city in his state and both steadfast opponents of abortion in cases of rape. Perhaps he's just saying that these two courageous champions of human dignity are irrational, I certainly wouldn't put it past him.

The argument that Gov. Rendell offers contains a false dichotomy, and does so intentionally as a kind of trap to neutralize the pro-life movement. When he states that he knows and respects many "pro-life" people who support the rape exception what he is trying to do is weaken the resolve of his opposition in order to destroy it. There is no difference between a fetus conceived of love and one conceived of rape, and therefore we should not allow the destruction of the child conceived of rape any more than we should allow it for any other unborn child. If we compromise on one group of children and say that the circumstances of their conception invalidate their right to life then we should just give up and support abortion completely, and therein lies the outcome desired by Rendell and Maddow among many others. Extremist liberals like these two will be satisfied with nothing less than an unlimited right to abortion, at any point in pregnancy and with any conceivable justification or no justification at all, and therefore when they talk about the respect they have for "compromising" abortion opponents there is no reason to believe it. Just as liberals pretended to care about Rep. Stupak's opinion right up until the point that they destroyed his amendment and launched a campaign of vilification against him, should Rendell and company ever succeed in destroying opposition to abortion then the pragmatists among us will find their friendship to be non-existent. We have a choice between faithfulness to life or compromise against it, the ultimate reaction from the left being the same, and I know which one I'll choose.

Someone asked him, "Lord, will only
a few people be saved?" He answered them,
"Strive to enter through the narrow gate,
for many, I tell you, will attempt to
enter but will not be strong enough. After
the master of the house has arisen and
locked the door, then will you stand
outside knocking and saying, 'Lord, open
the door for us.' He will say to you in
reply, 'I do not know where you are from.'
And you will say, 'We ate and drank in
your company and you taught in our streets.'
Then he will say to you, 'I do not know
where (you) are from. Depart from me, all
you evildoers!' And there will be wailing
and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the
kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out.
And people will come from the east and the
west and from the north and the south and
will recline at table in the kingdom of God.
For behold, some are last who will be first,
and some are first who will be last."
Luke 13: 23-30

The last two verses here are ones that I think really speak to our situation as a nation and indeed as a culture in the "Western" world. It is a message that was unthinkable to the Jewish people of Jesus' time, just as it seems to be equally incomprehensible to our current age. God came down not only for the pious and the self-righteous, not only for the rich and the light-skinned, but indeed for the whole of the human race. God does not care if a person is a CEO or a fruit picker, a descendant of the Pilgrims or an illegal immigrant, a rich man or an unemployed single mother of multiple children on public assistance. What He cares about is located within the heart, and I think that many rich and supposedly pious people will be shocked on Judgment Day to find that their riches are inadequate to earn salvation. God will indeed gather together people from every nation and language, from every class and situation in life, and those who are considered last in our society will indeed be the first ones welcomed into Heaven.

In our society today there are many who would question the worthiness of the immigrant and the laborer to be counted among the righteous. Just today in his homily my pastor mentioned some grumblings that had been expressed to him about the creation of a Spanish Mass at our parish. Our parish has had non-English language masses for a long time, having been blessed with a large Portuguese and then Brazilian immigrant community since I was a child, but this would be the first time that the Spanish immigrant community has been welcomed in such a way there. Unfortunately, there are many among us who think that even the Portuguese-speaking Mass is a problem and that adding a Spanish Mass is a move in the wrong direction. To them I would say that God does not love us because we speak English or because our families have been here for some "respectable" period of time. He loves us because we are His children, and He loves the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking people here just as much as He loves us. God does not look at our "pedigree" as if we are pure-breed dogs, he does not care where we come from or how we got here. What is important to God is whether we are willing to serve Him and love our brothers and sisters, and from experience I can say that there are many among the immigrant communities who would put many of us "well-established" Americans to shame in those departments.

In my experiences of the marginalized and downtrodden I have always found that the poorest and most disregarded among us feel the closest to God and have the richest faith. I didn't grow up rich but compared to many even in our own country I was relatively well-off, so my experience of this phenomenon didn't begin until I was in college. For my first spring break of my time in college I decided to participate in an Alternative Spring Break service trip to Kingston, Jamaica, a trip that brought me face to face not only with crushing poverty but also the gaping divide between rich and poor that exists in many countries but is often not acknowledged by those who can choose to ignore it. In my time there I was blessed to meet a man whose condition would be considered a curse to most of us, and yet his outlook was one of intense faith and gratitude to God. This man had been stricken by leprosy back when that disease was less treatable, and by the time that he gained access to life-saving treatment he had lost his sight as well as all of his toes and fingers. The disease had scarred his body, and yet his spirit was unafflicted. To hear him sing praise to God in spite of his sufferings brought into perspective a truth that is not easy for those of us who are more affluent, that true faith comes not in thanking God for an easy life but in praising God through the hardships and trials. How many of us in our comfortable existence would choose to praise God instead of blaming Him for our pain and becoming bitter and angry? I think that many would choose the "curse God and die" response favored by Job's wife rather than keeping the faith as Job himself did. It is not for no reason that Jesus preached the difficulty of salvation for the rich, indeed great wealth fosters a mindset of self-reliance and even self-adoration that is antithetical to the teachings of Christ. The poor have nothing and therefore have no choice but to lean on God, their utter helplessness leads them to the true Rock in a way that is impossible for those who have learned to put their trust in self and in temporal riches.

It is a shame that so many among the Catholic faithful have embraced the millennial rhetoric of those like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, rhetoric that poisons them against their neighbors and makes them see enemies and rivals where they should see brothers and sisters in Christ. You can see this in the objections that some have leveled against the Park51 project, objections that seem to imply that all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Imam Rauf was previously such a non-controversial figure that he was sent on bridge-building missions to the Middle East by President Bush after 9/11, but now that the right wants to start a fight they're condemning him for insufficiently condeming the actions of other Muslims. They chastise him for making (in my opinion accurate) statements about US policy contributing to the popularity of groups like Al Qaeda, and they attack him for not being penitent enough for the attacks on our country by supposed followers of Islam. I have to wonder what these conservatives would say about Christian sins against human dignity, such as the treatment of Native Americans not to mention the current atmosphere of xenophobia that prevails among many so-called followers of Christ. I'd also wonder whether they think that Americans should express penitence for the terrorist actions of our government in places like Dresden, Nagasaki, My Lai, and Baghdad (anyone remember "shock and awe"?), but then I think that I already know the answer. The great irony is that people like Beck and Palin hold up our nation as the chosen land of God Almighty a land of justice and peace obedient to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and yet in their actions and their disdain for the poor man and the foreigner they betray themselves as descendants of the Pharisees and bring down upon themselves the condemnation chosen for that group by Jesus himself. May God have mercy on them, and on us all.

Et factum est ut audivit salutationem Mariae
Elisabeth exultavit infans in utero eius et repleta
est Spiritu Sancto, Elisabeth et exclamavit voce
magna, et dixit: Benedicta tu inter mulieres, et
benedictus fructus ventris tui. Et unde hoc mihi ut
veniat mater Domini mei ad me? Ecce enim ut facta
est vox salutationis tuae in auribus meis, exultavit
in gaudio infans in utero meo. Et beata quae credidit,
quoniam perficientur ea, quae dicta sunt ei a Domino.
Et ait Maria: Magnificat anima mea Dominum: et
exultavit spiritus meus in Deo salutari meo; quia
respexit humilitatem ancillae suae, ecce enim ex hoc
beatam me dicent omnes generationes. Quia fecit mihi
magna qui potens est, et sanctum nomen eius, et
misericordia eius in progenies et progenies timentibus
eum.

And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the
salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb.
And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And
she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed
art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy
womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my
Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice
of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my
womb leaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast
believed, because those things shall be accomplished
that were spoken to thee by the Lord. And Mary said:
My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath
rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded
the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth
all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that
is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is
his name. And his mercy is from generation unto
generations, to them that fear him.
Luke 1:41-50

I can't believe that I didn't mention this here before, but tomorrow I'll be attending a Solemn High Mass being sponsored by Mater Ecclesiae Catholic Church at St. Peter Church in Merchantville, NJ. The Mass will be in the Extraordinary Form, and it will be my first experience of Mass in that Form. I honestly have no idea what to expect, my only knowledge of this Mass is theoretical and it seems so different from the Ordinary Form as to make comparisons to that Form impossible. At any rate, tomorrow I should have a much better idea of what I'm talking about when I discuss the differences between the two Forms.

If anybody else here is interested in coming and is in the area, the Mass is at 1pm at St. Peter Church and the directions can be found here. The flyer can be found (in PDF form) here.

If anybody out there reads this blog, please pray for my brother who is suffering from physical ailments and also facing difficulty in finding a job. Please pray that he may be healed physically and spiritually and that he may find employment soon.

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out
to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; he
went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he
sojourned in the promised land as in a foreign country,
dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs of the
same promise; for he was looking forward to the city with
foundations, whose architect and maker is God. By faith
he received power to generate, even though he was past
the normal age--and Sarah herself was sterile--for he
thought that the one who had made the promise was
trustworthy. So it was that there came forth from one man,
himself as good as dead, descendants as numerous as the
stars in the sky and as countless as the sands on the
seashore. All these died in faith. They did not receive
what had been promised but saw it and greeted it from afar
and acknowledged themselves to be strangers and aliens on
earth, for those who speak thus show that they are seeking
a homeland. If they had been thinking of the land from which
they had come, they would have had opportunity to return.
But now they desire a better homeland, a heavenly one.
Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he
has prepared a city for them. By faith Abraham, when put to
the test, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the
promises was ready to offer his only son, of whom it was said,
"Through Isaac descendants shall bear your name." He reasoned
that God was able to raise even from the dead, and he received
Isaac back as a symbol.
Hebrews 11:8-19

As the people of Christ, a community of hope and faith, we are called to trust in the love of God when He calls us out of our comfort zone and asks of us more than we think we can accomplish. Abraham was told by God to leave his homeland, to make a dangerous journey, so that he could take possession of a foreign and hostile land that he had never even seen before. Even after his arrival in the promised land, his life was not easy. Abraham had been promised descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky, not a likely outcome considering that he was at the time childless and he and his wife were too old to conceive. Still, he trusted and God rewarded his faith with a son. How shocking must it have been to Abraham, after all he had been through and the faith he had put in God for the life of his son, when Isaac's life was demanded as a sacrifice? Even in spite of this seeming contradiction, Abraham trusted that God would keep His promise and ultimately He did just that. How much more should we trust God when He asks the seemingly impossible from us, considering that He is unlikely to ask of us nearly as much as He did of Abraham? Most of us are called simply to bring Christ to those around us, not in hostile lands or empty wilderness but in our own backyards where the Good News is just as desperately needed. Will we respond with faith and acceptance of the love of God, or will we favor instead our own will and plan for our lives?

I'm not saying that it's easy, Lord knows it isn't and I'm the least of all when it comes to subjugating my own will to His. It is only through the grace of God that we are able to answer His call and do what is pleasing to Him and yet we are called to ask for that grace and seek that which is pleasing to Him. It is the great contradiction vocalized in the plea of the man in Mark 9:24, "I do believe, help my unbelief." We are called to ask for that which we cannot even fathom on our own much less obtain, to reach our short arms out to Him who comes down to meet us where we are. We are called to have faith in that which we cannot see and to seek that which we cannot fathom, and only through the grace of God can we finally obtain this great gift which brings eternal life.

So apparently a judge in California declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, setting the stage for more appeals and possibly leading to the nullification of every "traditional marriage" referendum in the country. Personally I find it ironic that a homosexual judge from Illinois can be celebrated for spitting on the will of the people but when a religious group like the Mormons that has members in California but is headquartered in another state tries to get people to vote then it's suddenly the worst thing in the world and they have to be punished for it. Of course, this doesn't mean that I'm surprised. It was only a matter of time before they found a judge to do this, and history has told us that many radical changes in our country both good and bad have come about through a judicial disregard for the will of the people.

This may seem like a small thing, like an inconsequential movement toward something that will have no effect on those who don't approve, but if history has taught me anything it's that California is the harbinger of doom and things always end up worse than they were when they started. Looking at abortion, many probably didn't believe that the actions of a few liberal states like California and New York would shortly be mandated throughout the country. They also probably didn't think that we'd be experiencing such a breakdown in the family, such catastrophic rises in child and spousal abuse as well as other sorts of domestic violence, and in fact many in the pro-abortion movement seem to have thought that legalized abortion would lead to the eradication of such evils. In five or ten years we may face a situation where a federal judge declares all "marriage between a man and a woman only" laws unconstitutional, and then we'll all be in this situation. It will be tragic, but it certainly won't be surprising.

The real question here, the real uncertainty about the rapid movement toward entropy and chaos that is defines our culture, is whether this will be used to persecute religious groups that oppose gay marriage. This sort of thing has happened in the past, where churches that rented out halls for wedding receptions were sued for not renting them out to gay couples. If the courts decide that church weddings are a "service" like renting out facilities, what would stop them from deciding that such services have to be offered equally regardless of sexual orientation? What would stop them from penalizing churches that performed weddings for straight couples but refused to perform them for gay ones? Even if they couldn't punish churches and clergy for their inconvenient beliefs, what stops them from using litigation to discourage laity from supporting those churches and clergy? We may very well end up in an era of persecution of the Church in this country, perhaps not tomorrow or next year but soon enough, and I only pray that God graces our leaders and the faithful with the strength to endure. Perhaps after a while our culture will realize the error of its ways and return to God, hopefully before we become so morally bankrupt that we end up like the Roman Empire and fade out of existence as a society, and at that point we'll need somebody to reintroduce His ways to a fallen world.