Quiet Grace

The other night, I unexpectedly had to drive my eldest daughter to her ballet class. I rarely do this as I'm usually working in the evenings and this is something that her mother is much more engaged in. But I always relish the chance of spending more time with my eldest and so set my evening plans aside to drive her to her class.

Her class was a few towns over, across about fifteen miles of open country. She has the last class of the evening, so it was already quite dark when I dropped her off at 8:30 PM. What would I do with myself for that free hour? Lately I have taken to jogging whenever I have free time, which is great for clearing my mind on top of the obvious health benefits.

Though it was only about 8 degrees, I started jogging around the town. It's a very small town; those who are from the Midwest will recognize it's type intuitively in my description. An old, Victorian era settlement with all it's historic buildings clustered along one main strip. Tall, two and three story stately brick structures with their Italianate facades, ornate cornices, and oversized rounded-arched windows, all running together. The side streets filled with imposing, Victorian homes of equal splendor, but still quaint in their own small-town USA sorta way.

I started jogging down the main strip, my breath a vaporous fog in front of my face as I moved. I passed by the dark windows of boutiques and resale shops, offices of lawyers and insurance agents, and flower shops - by now all closed. The town was still and quiet. I have always found a certain kind of loveliness in the stillness of a cold, winter night, a beauty that even the ridiculously frigid temperatures of a February winter night in Michigan cannot efface. The snow, the ice, the cold...there has always been a sort of purity about it for me.

I passed under the eerie flash of the town's solitary blinking yellow traffic light. Presently I passed out of the main section of town and saw ahead the looming spire of a church. Upon getting closer, I saw it was an incredible old neo-Gothic structure made entirely out of fieldstone. In the old days it used to be a custom that when a rural congregation was ready to construct it's permanent church, farmers would all contribute stones from their fields to the building of the church. The resulting structure would be neo-Gothic stylistically but constructed entirely out of raw, rounded fieldstone instead of brick. This is somewhat common in rural communities around the Midwest; I assume there are similar traditions elsewhere.

I was pleased to see it was a Catholic church, and even more pleased when I spied warm, yellow light glowing inside the windows. Could they possibly be open, I wondered? In this desolate, cold little village could the Catholic church alone have its doors unlocked at this time of night? I jogged over to the parish steps, huffing, and walked up. Sure enough, not only was the church unlocked, but they were having Eucharistic Adoration. Two older gentlemen were reading and praying quietly. Of course! It's a First Friday, I said to myself.

I was pleasantly surprised with the interior of the church (the pic atop this post). Sure, it had a table altar and the original high altar had been removed. But at least the tabernacle was in its rightful place. Sure, some of it had been modernized.  But by and large it was very aesthetically pleasing. And when the Lord is on the altar, everything is more beautiful.

As I walked in and crossed myself, I noticed the confessional light was on and door ajar. Could I be so fortunate? Yes, indeed! A priest was waiting in the confessional...and there was no line! I had not planned on making a confession this night, but I wasn't about to pass this up. I ducked right in there and did the best I could to make a spontaneous confession. I could tell from his voice that the priest was African. Considered naturally, how very out of place, an African priest in a town like this! But in the order of grace, it was just as it should be. I made a decent confession, received some very consoling words from the warm, slow voice on the other side of the screen, and walked out with my soul lighter.

I knelt in the pew and spent some time adoring the Lord and thanking Him for this unexpected, quiet moment of grace He had made for me here, in this unexpected place. But that's all how the beautiful things in life are. It is easy to point out the ugly, the wicked, the cold, the disappointing...these things manifest themselves easily to us and require no labor to search out. But the beautiful, the good, the unexpected little quiet moments of grace...these things are found only by the diligent who search for them, who are willing to labor on their behalf. The beautiful things in life do not yield themselves up easily, but when they do, they compensate for the ugliness fourfold.

After sometime I meandered back down the main street to my daughter's ballet studio. I was able to spend some time warming up before she came out. She's old enough now that I was able to slump into the passenger seat of my truck and let her drive me home - deo gratias!

Yes, the quiet simple moments of grace are always there. They might not always be a little Catholic parish with the Blessed Sacrament exposed and an open confessional, but grace is always there for those who are disposed to see it. Lord, give me eyes to see and ears to hear.

+AMDG+

October 2017 Current Events Round Up

There are basically two types of articles I post on this blog: articles where I talk about how I don't feel the need to keep a running commentary on everything going on in the Church, and then articles where I offer just such a commentary.

And if such commentary is needed, it is today. My, there is a lot going on, isn't there? Let's review some of the wild events that have occurred in the past few weeks.

Pope Francis Reboots the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family

On September 19th, Pope Francis signed a motu proprio which effectively retooled the John Paul II Institute For Marriage and Family; well technically he abolished it. The text of the motu proprio Summa familiae cura states that the new entity, the John Paul II Theological Institute for the Sciences of Marriage and Family, will effectively "substitute" for the prior entity, annulling St. John Paul II's 1981 motu proprio.

The new institute for studying the "sciences" of marriage and family will have a broader mission than the old institute. Whereas the old institute was largely grounded in theology and philosophy, the new institute will incorporate the social sciences—in fact, elevating them to be the primary focus of the new institute. Philosophy and theology are not even mentioned in Pope Francis' motu proprio. Thus, we can assume the work of the new body will be more influenced by secular sociology. Francis has stated he wishes the new institute's focus to be primarily scientific, “expanding the field of interest, both in terms of the new dimensions of the pastoral task and the ecclesial mission, as well as in the development of human sciences and the anthropological culture in such a crucial field for the culture of life" (source). The reason for this is "to fertilize the vast field of engagement...effectively contributing to make it fully correspond to the modern needs of the pastoral mission of the Church” (ibid).

The purpose appears to be to institutionalize the teachings of Amoris Laetitia. St. John Paul II essentially did the same thing when he created the institute in 1982 for the purpose of promoting the teaching of Familiaris Consortio, a much worthier document. He hopes the new institute will work towards making Amoris Laetitia a more permanent fixture of Magisterial teaching. At the September 19th press briefing at which the change was announced, Archbishop Paglia called Amoris Laetitia the "Magna Carta" of the new institute.

Two interesting things here: First, Pope Francis said the purpose of the change was so that the teachings of St. John Paul II on marriage and family could be “better known and appreciated in its fruitfulness and relevance” (ibid); Familiaris Consortio "finds its realization" in Amoris Laetitia (source).

Of course, there is reason to fear that some of the implications of Amoris Laetitia are in fundamental conflict with the teachings of John Paul II. We are left with the irony that the teaching of St. John Paul II is being potentially undermined in the name of making his teaching more widely known! It's like a retirement party that is ostensibly to honor an employee's service but whose real purpose is to simply shove them out the door.

Second, if you are one of those people who believes Amoris Laetitia and Familiaris Consortio are in agreement with one another, then why is a new institute needed? If Amoris Laetitia is not a break in continuity with tradition, why dissolve an institution empowered to carry out that tradition? It gives leverage to those who suggest Amoris Laetitia is a document of rupture.

The Filial Correction

On August 11th, the document now known as the "Filial Correction" was delivered to Pope Francis at his residence in Domus Sanctae Marthae. This document was made public on September 24th. Originally signed by 62 scholars, that number has now ballooned to around 100 at the time of this post.

It would take too long to summarize all of the nonsense surrounding this document, both by those for and against it. Those who are ridiculously enthusiastic about it as well as those who are writing it off as insignificant are missing it, I think.

The document itself is very beautiful. I read it in its entirety the day it was released, along with the addenda. It is a splendid explanation of the Catholic tradition on marriage, reception of the sacraments, and the moral nature of our actions. I personally thought the tone of correction was very charitable and humble. It extended to Francis the benefit of the doubt, taking the "Sire, evil counselors are doing bad things in your name" sort of approach, and it made clear that the signatories did not claim any sort of jurisdiction to formally accuse the pope of anything. The title "Filial Correction" is somewhat of a misnomer; it is more a deep, impassioned plea for clear, decisive action.

The mainstream Catholic media is shrugging this off and saying none of these people have the authority to issue any sort of correction (despite the precedent of Europe's theological faculty correcting John XXII in 1333). I saw one apologist whose response to this was to impugn the signatories by trying to dredge up snippets of other comments they'd made over the years which he found objectionable, as if that somehow was relevant to the arguments put forward in the text of the Filial Correction itself.

Others are viewing this in terms of a political power struggle. "The Correction won't amount to anything because the signatories are not really clerical heavyweights." Ultimately, the Church is not a political movement; its fortunes are not measured in terms of the "power" wielded by different factions. And the fact is, to the degree that the Filial Correction speaks God's honest truth, it will bear some sort of fruit. "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Isa. 55:10-11). God will bring some good out of this, even if it is nothing else than to edify the authors and signatories.

But...(and this is a major "but"), it may not be the good traditionalists are expecting. While I think the content of the Filial Correction needs to be considered in and of itself apart from the signatories—and while I have faith that God will use this for good and that it may be part of a larger puzzle—we are kidding ourselves if anyone thinks this is actually going to do anything. The Filial Correction's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness, the same weakness conservative Catholics have been making for fifty years: it offers a beautiful and honest exposition of the faith, but ultimately, in this struggle, words do not matter. Yes, God will not let them go unrewarded who speak His truth, as I said above.

But for fifty years conservatives have been deluded into thinking that if they just clearly, patiently, and charitably explain the truth that their efforts will prevail. That is simply not true. It's why honest, orthodox scholars who see Vatican II only as a series of documents are fundamentally missing the point. The progressives don't care what you write or how eloquently you explain it. As long as they can keep you shut out of diocesan leadership and out of important positions, you can say whatever you want. Conservatives view this in terms of speaking the truth; the liberals view it as a movement or progression of action. Conservatives have seen Vatican II as sixteen documents. Liberals have seen it as a moment in history with that moves the Church on a new historical trajectory. Whether one is right and the other wrong is sort of irrelevant because the liberal view is more dynamic. Merely saying what the truth is - especially in the face of a pontificate like Francis - is not really going to have any substantial effect in the temporal order.

Also, the historical precedent for this is a little over argued. The scholars who corrected Pope John XXII in 1333 were the most eminent theologians of Christendom, the heads of theological faculty at Europe's premiere universities. Many of them were eminent clerics. There is a marked contrast between the credentials of the men of 1333 and those of 2017. Save for a few notable names, most of the signatories of the 2017 document are obscure men, at least in the big picture. And in many cases their objection to Pope Francis' behavior comes as no surprise. Roberto de Mattei disagrees with Pope Francis! Bishop Fellay thinks the Franciscan pontificate is confusing! Call out the press! Are we supposed to be surprised by this?

Am I writing off the signatories like I just complained others were doing? No. I am not. What they are doing matters. But honestly, it would matter more if the signatories were cardinals and bishops who were not already known opponents of Pope Francis. It's true; the document would matter more if the signatories were more eminent—just like it would matter less if the signatories were merely a bunch of bloggers. A smattering of parish priests, religious brethren, and isolated professors and authors is not tremendously impressive, even less so given that Bishop Fellay is the sole representative of the episcopate on the list. They couldn't even get Athanasius Schneider to sign.

Am I belittling the effort? No. It was a worthwhile effort, the document is very well put together, and the objective ambiguities swirling around the subject made such an effort necessary. Maybe—hopefully?—it will encourage other, more eminent men to do the same. But at the same time I would like to see this in perspective, for what it really is. It's not some groundbreaking beginning; much less does it merit any sort of "So now it begins!" revolutionary gravitas. A bunch of the pope's critics got together and put together a very cogent, well-argued piece calmly explaining the truth of the faith. Effort applauded. Next.

The Reappointment of Cardinal Burke to the Apostolic Signatura

Earlier this month Cardinal Burke was reappointed to the Apostolic Signatura, although not to his previous post as prefect. From a personnel standpoint, this makes very little sense. Personnel is policy, and a leader's appointment or dismissal of personnel is a strong indicator of the leader's policy. When I was in political office, I appointed many people. And I refused to reappoint people as well. One thing I never did was dismiss somebody and then reappoint them. That just...never happened. I understand that the Church doesn't operate along the same guidelines a political body would, but the principle "personnel is policy" is true across the board for any organization, political, business or ecclesiastic. I can't understand why the pope would have reappointed Burke to the Signatura save as some sort of compromise he felt compelled to grant, probably against his own preference. It seems it was a kind of bone tossed to some faction in the Church to rehabilitate Burke, but without restoring him to his previous level of influence.

Of course, some are calling to mind the famous line of line of Vito Corleone; however, I do not think this is why Francis has reappointed Burke. I doubt its a secret plot to undermine him. I suspect it was more about making a compromise with some other faction or individual. I think, if Francis had his way, he would not have reappointed Cardinal Burke whatsoever. But who knows.

Pope Francis and the Death Penalty

In remarks commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church - a book which specifically says "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" (CCC 2267) - Pope Francis announced that the death penalty is "in itself contrary to the Gospel." The pope went on to explain that previous historical applications of the death penalty only "seemed" logical, but weren't really - this was followed by an apology for the use of the death penalty within the Papal States.

Francis did not offer any explanation as to how something that is "in itself contrary to the Gospel" can be affirmed by the Catechism as "the traditional teaching of the Church." It apparently did not strike him that this would need to be explained. I am not certain what is more troubling, that Francis says something taught in the Catechism is contrary to the Gospel, or that he feels that no explanation is needed to explain how this is possible.

Of course, the pope's homily does not supersede the Church's official teaching. But it does muddle things.

And by the way, before the situation changes, can we all go back and find articles from mainstream Catholic apologists defending the use of the death penalty and screen shot them before they try to pull them down and pretend like they never happened? After all, we are no longer at war with Eurasia. We are at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with East Asia.

Some are reporting that the pope is "changing" the CCC. This is not true. The Vatican, however, is releasing a new "commented" edition of the book in which will feature a running commentary on certain sections drawn from the preaching of Pope Francis.

Football Players Kneeling

Does anyone actually care what these football players actually think about anything? Are they not solely valued in terms of how well they throw, run, and catch? I'm serious here - does anybody actually give a damn what their opinions are about anything whatsoever? I think celebrities get this weird sense of self-importance where they think that people care them outside of their area of professional expertise. We don't. Or at least we shouldn't. Someone doesn't get a platform just because they are well known.


By the way, in case you are interested in following the things I spout off from my platform, follow Unam Sanctam Catholicam on Facebook. 

The Beauty of the Catholic Homeschool Mother

Friends,

Recently, I attended the Southern California Catholic Home Educators Conference at St John the Baptist Church in Costa Mesa as a vendor for Alleluia Audiobooks.  I was there with a dual purpose, to hand out free Catholic audiobooks and to educate myself a bit on homeschooling as my oldest daughter will be starting kindergarten next year.  

What still brings me joy when I recall the conference is this: I had never seen so many modestly dressed women in one place at a single setting (even Mass).  I have lived in Southern California my entire life, and needless to say the standards for dress, especially when it gets warmer, aim more towards revealing than concealing.  

Not so among these faithful. I had the joy of interacting with many mothers who came by the booth who could not be accused of any of the following: bitter, weird, frumpy, socially awkward, unkempt, or angry. Rather, they were full of joy, modesty, kindness, and a general manner of behaving that could best be characterized as graceful.  

If you think about it, the life of a Catholic homeschool mother is one of exceptional modesty.  The vocation of motherhood (which is held out today with much contempt) is lived in the fullest manner: the personal supervision of the entire upbringing of a child without major delegation to another adult. To make the choice to homeschool one's children (and in a faithful Catholic way) will not win human respect among the majority of society, but rather a lot of ridicule.  Outside of close family and friends, the main work of this endeavor will go without praise (sometimes even within the family).  Children, who must be trained in the ways of virtue and learn wisdom through time, will oftentimes not show gratitude for the extent of the sacrifices that their mother and father make for them.

However, what should stand out to all, even if they do not have children or who never plan to homeschool: this work is done without payment and oftentimes at great sacrifice and expense. This fact, in my opinion, is one of the great indicators of the purity of heart that  homeschooling mothers practice. Perhaps you are saying "no duh!". But consider that many apostolates never get off the ground because of an unwillingness of those who do the labor to actually sacrifice the personal cash to make it successful. There is a book I have on ancient monastic writings from Ukraine that was recently translated from ancient Slavonic into English, most people probably do not know that the book even exists let alone some of the wisdom within its pages, but its copyright notification is so strict at the beginning of the book that I cannot even provide a direct citation (outside of a book review) without violating it.  I am certain you can think of other apostolates which either stifle themselves or have failed because of money.

Despite there being no economic incentive (other than viewing it as a cheaper alternative to private school) there are plenty of pitfalls that one can fall into that could damage purity of heart.  Many a monastery in history has shown how men vowed even unto poverty can fall into greed; we should not think that homeschooling children will preserve a family from worldly ambitions, delusions of grandeur, or the inordinate love of scholarships and high test scores.  However, the later opulence of some monasteries was not so easily found in the early days of monastic life where one needed to be sustained by a great religious fervor in order to persevere through the hard living.  One could get the feeling, with the absolute destruction of the Catholic education system by the modernists, that we are returning to the primitive rule, per se, of Catholic education.  St John Climacus and St Teresa of Avila both preferred monastic systems of a few monks to one elder over both solitary life and huge monasteries (though they acknowledged that each had their own distinct merits).  The intimacy for home life presents unique circumstances for the rooting out of vice and the development of virtue through correction that is more difficult when overseeing many students, or parents being separated from their children for long periods of time. 

There are some who have characterized the Catholic subculture as bitter, weird, cranky, and mediocre,   whose "scene" is overflowing with overly sentimental blogs and tacky Catholic memorabilia. What I saw at the Homeschooling Conference was the opposite, and I believe that the Catholic homeschooling subculture is and will continue to yield those great fruits of hope and charity. Kitschy JPII mugs and 3D Divine Mercy images  will pass away, but the fruit of homeschooling will yield great results that are eternal. 

Honor your Father

We can never repay our Fathers enough for their cooperation with God in giving us life.  No matter how we were conceived, or even their shortcomings in raising us, without them we would not exist.  It is a point worth repeating from a previous article on motherhood, that God put the 4th commandment above the 5th for a reason.  In Gods eyes, it is a more hateful thing to have contempt for those who created you, than to kill a man, because without being created you would not even exist to make decisions. 

Throughout history mankind reverence for Fathers even extended beyond just paternal fathers.  In the times of chivalry, a Knight was not allowed to meet in combat the Knight who had trained him (often times this was not the paternal Father as the Father would try to find the most distinguished Knight to train his son in warfare).  Even St John Climacus in the Ladder of Divine Ascent, one of the great ascetical works from the early church, took this point to excess when he said it worst to offend our spiritual father than to offend God (his reasoning was because our spiritual Father made intercession for us before God).  

How does a little boy show love for his Father?  By obeying him, learning from him, following his examples, being courteous to his friends, speaking like him and admiring his various perfections.  An older son carries the name and beliefs passed onto him (in the name of God) and strives to not shame him from departing from the instruction and good example that his Father has given him.  An adult Son seeks his advice, shows him attention, cares for him in his needs and speaks well of him to others and passes down the wisdom that he has received from him to his children.  

That does not mean that the son will be a copy of the father, no Father would want a copy but rather he would want the son to be more excellent and a better man.  In becoming a better man the son gives a great honor and reward to his father for his labors in raising him.

Can we see any departure from this model proposed in our relationship with our heavenly Father? No; rather we see a more excellent version of the same thing. With the notable exception that we can never even equal to God, but even here we are told that we may do yet greater things: “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these”  John 14:12

Our greatest joy was when onto us a Son was born.  The best example we saw was a Son doing the will of His Father.  Our whole reason for hope in salvation is because of the Love that the Father has for the Son and the Son for the Father.

Can a world that does not love and respect their Fathers, learn to call upon God as a Father and love and respect him, no.  Can a person be saved who does not honor their mother and father, no.  We can say beyond a doubt that a world that does not respect its fathers, does not respect God the father, and is going to hell both literally and figuratively.

But my dearest friends, we are the adopted sons of God.  Who amongst the just is not humbled to call the holy patriarchs, prophets, apostles, saints, our fathers in faith.  But God has called us His Sons.  The confused world holds Gods law and our Fathers confession and service of him to scorn and contempt. These reeds are so shaken in the wind that they even condemn what they said yesterday let alone what our Fathers said even less than 20 years ago.  Is it any wonder that there are so many sad songs, so much rebellious rage mixed with tearing fear.  They have neither a refuge in God, their parents, nor the memories of the days of old, while Christians have a refuge in all three.

It is easy sometime as society continues to grow darker to think that we are isolated and alone.  No society has lasted long that has thrown off the natural law, and when we ignore the stories past unto us, history will repeat itself. Do not be shaken in practicing the faith of our fathers no matter how many brazen impiety, dimwit novelties and stupid theological nuances seek to destroy the faith passed on by our fathers to us.  As God did not condemn our Fathers who were faithful then he will not condemn those who are faithful to what they received.  As God did not leave the Apostles orphans he will not leave us, also his children, orphans. We are in good company when we stand with our fathers before us confessing that Apostolic Faith which has always been and always will be victorious.

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon us and save us.

On Perrielo's Fishwrap Piece

Last week, Pat Perrielo published a real piece of tripe at the NCR ("Fishwrap") on communion for the divorced and remarried. Laughably entitled "The Traditionalists are Trying to Regain Control" (as if the "traditionalists" have ever had anything close to "control"), he offers one of the most ignorant and juvenile arguments in favor of relaxing the Church's discipline that I have ever read. I offer his piece in its entirety below, with my glosses in italics.

'The Traditionalists are Trying to Regain Control'
by Pat Perrielo, NCR 15 May 2014

As the time for the Synod on the family draws near, there seems to be an effort by traditionalists to control the process and shift the focus to doctrine rather than serving the pastoral needs of people.

Repeating a progressive canard that 'doctrine' and 'the pastoral needs of the people' are in opposition; that must must choose one or the other, 'law' or 'mercy.' In fact, it is love of God's law that most perfectly fulfills pastoral needs. Remember Psalm 1: 

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
He is like a tree
planted by streams of water,
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers. (Ps. 1:1-3)

Archbishop Samuel Aquila of the diocese of Denver has reiterated church teaching on marriage and sees the pastoral element as simply doing a better job of explaining traditional Catholic doctrine.

This is true. Archbishop Aquila understands that doctrine and pastoral practice compliment each other and should not be set in a relation of antagonism.

It seems pretty clear that Pope Francis is talking about something else. Francis said, “The question is not that of changing doctrine, but of digging deep and making sure that pastoral care takes into account situations and what it is possible for persons to do.”

Francis is asking the question as to whether it is really possible for many in certain life situations to change their circumstances. Must one wait around for a spouse to die in order to receive Communion? Too many traditionalists seem unable to comprehend what a pastor must take into account to serve the needs of his people. They have a copy of the rule book, but what they may not have is a sensitivity to the people they serve.

I don't think traditional Catholic ethics insists that these people do always have the power to "change their circumstances"; it does insist that they are obliged to do the right thing within the circumstances they find themselves in. "Must one wait for a spouse to die in order to receive Communion?" No. One can always leave one's adulterous 'second marriage', and telling a person otherwise does not "serve the needs of his people" but leads them further into error, making it even less likely that they will "have life, and have it more abundantly" (John 10:10), which is what Jesus desires for everyone. 

What is being examined is not the indissolubility of marriage, but rather the distribution of the Eucharist. In the Scriptures it even appears that Jesus may have shared the Eucharist with Judas at the Last Supper. The Eucharist is meant to nourish the faithful. It is not a reward for the holy. It is not insignificant that most Protestant churches, including Episcopalians, always make clear that all are welcome at the Lord’s Table.

The Eucharist has never been seen as a reward for the holy. Hence, "Domine, non sum dignus..." The Eucharist is the "medicine of immortality", in the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch. And if it is medicine, it is because we are sick. But not all sicknesses are alike; some are sick because, despite our best intentions, we are still weak humans prone to failure. Others are sick because they refuse to amend their lives and obey God's commandments. There is a huge difference between someone who bombs a test because they did not do well and one who bombs because they intentionally left all the answers blank. Just because we are all sinners does not mean there are no standards. All are welcome at the Lord's table, but not on any terms they choose. If you don't like it, take it up with St. Paul and the New Testament, which says, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11:27).

By the way, if the Episcopalians are doing it right, why are Episcopalians in a "death spiral"?

Those having difficulties of any kind have the greatest need for the Eucharist. Yet we pompously walk around picking and choosing who can receive the graces and mercies of a loving Lord. If we want to deny Communion to all who are unworthy we should simply stop giving communion to anyone. None of us are worthy, but all of us are in need. That is why Jesus gave us this wonderful gift.

"Those having difficulties of any kind have the greatest need for the Eucharist." This statement would be true if the clause "of any kind" were removed. Difficulties are not of the same stripe. By long-standing custom, those whose "difficulties" are sins of their own deliberate choosing are not fit to present themselves for Holy Communion precisely because they are not in Holy Communion because deliberate grave sin puts one out of Communion. This is standard sacramental-moral theology, and shows that this is not just a disciplinary problem of who we will give the Eucharist to, but a theological problem. All are in need. Yes. And if we really believe we need Jesus, we must begin by confessing our need to be free of our sins. "Go and sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you" (John 5:14).

Those opposed to sharing the Eucharist with divorced and remarried Catholics continue to focus on the doctrine of marriage. Yet no one is questioning the doctrine of marriage. Francis and other pastors of the church are simply looking at those who love the Lord and are saying, come, taste and see how good the Lord is.

I beg to differ, Mr. Perrielo. The doctrine of marriage is being questioned. If the divorced and "remarried" are allowed to Communion, it means either (a) second putative marriages are no longer regarded as adultery, or, if they are (b) one can still be in God's grace whilst simultaneously being in a state of adultery, or if not, then (c) Communion can be received in a state of mortal sin with no danger to one's soul, in which case (d) the theological importance of being in or out of a state of grace has been obliterated. As you can see, there are HUGE doctrinal implications from this discussion.

If the Synod fathers buy in to these sorts of lame, ignorant arguments, is there any hope?

Motherhood, More than a Hobby

Recently, My family attended a company day of recreation where workers were allowed to bring their family and friends. We had our four children under 4 and had our hands full (literally) but we were not short on help being surrounded by friendly people willing to help us out.

In fact a couple of my coworkers also brought their children with them, including their babies. So it made a certain statement made by a guest particularly flummoxing when they referred to having children as an expensive hobby to another person who was kindly pushing a baby stroller for us.

I shot back that a hobby was something unnecessary that we do for pleasure, the person acted as though they did not hear my remark and remained silent after that. Later, when I looked up the definition of a hobby I was pretty close to the mark: “an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure.”

There are some people who hate mankind, or perhaps wish to see a significant portion of mankind die or not reproduce in the name of population control, but she did not refer to my children as parasites, but hobbies. In the misanthropic view, they are at least something that is powerful, powerful enough to destroy the world, but in this view they are something that is not even necessary.

Even Marxism, which hated the family, still valued the importance of having children, if only to further the revolution. This hit home with more force recently when I was finishing recording a new audio book on the Divine Maternity of Mary, by Abbot Vonier, when I read this:

“True civilization is easily tested by its attitude towards motherhood. There can be no real refinement of human feeling where mans heart is not full of delicacies for the dignity of motherhood; therefore there can be no true civilization where motherhood is either shunned or degraded. If there is anything that belongs to the health of the nations that dwell upon the earth, it is a loving reverence for the burdens of human motherhood. ” An Invocation, The Divine Motherhood of Mary

People forget that the 4th commandment is put above the 5th for a reason. Without parents a person would not exist. It is a tremendous evil to take another persons life, but God put the 4th above the 5th because it is a terrible sin to not show reverence for the parents that bore you, no matter how good or bad parents themselves are. Those who live lives of nihilistic despair, and hate living every day I can imagine hate their parents, the damned in hell hate their parents. Both are full of this hatred because they wish for the suffering that they are enduring to go away, and because it will not they wish they had never been born.

“Christianity’s moral power, Christianity's social contribution to the life of mankind is the sanctity and obligatoriness of the laws that govern the birth of man.” The Divine Motherhood of Mary

To date, Christianity as a whole has failed to make that social contribution since the sexual revolution. When women started bringing home little packages of pills, motherhood itself become compartmentalized, something that people were told could be turned on or off. Motherhood was no longer viewed as a duty of the married women to her God, to her family, to her country but a personal choice that at most might include her husband. To many in the west sex was no longer for procreation but pleasure, and so the begetting of children is now not viewed as a duty but as an optional, expensive, pleasure. In a word a hobby,

Yet, the reality is different even while we live in this age of sexual revolution. Once a mother holds her child and that child and her love one another, that is to say that the women suffers for the well being of the child, any idea that a child is a hobby would be quickly displaced by that reality of sacrificial love. That love of the father to the mother, of the mother to the father leading to a child that loves them both and that came from both of them is one of the most beautiful things our eyes probably will ever be privileged to see in this life, as it is a reflection of the love that exists between the persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

Motherhood is worth fighting for, it is worth suffering for, it is worth dying for, it may not be life itself but without it you and I would not exist.

Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us.