Concerning Monarchy

I just saw Boniface's post of last May in which he discusses a Monarchial Dilemma. I have only a couple of comments to make in that regard.

1. The first commenter (anonymous) stated that Otto von Habsburg is the last living descendant of Blessed Kaiser Karl I. This is simply not true. Otto is perhaps the last living child of the blessed Kaiser, but he is far from being the last living descendant. In the last count that I saw, he had 7 children, 23 grandchildren, and already 1 great-grandchild. Although Otto is still alive, his eldest son HI&RH Archduke Karl is already the titular Head of the Imperial family.

2. The commenter "Creary" mentioned St. Thomas' De Regno (one should also look at ST I-II 105.1 in which he basically describes constitutional monarchy as the best form of government) in response to Boniface's lament over not having found a good systematic presentation / apologetic for the superiority of monarchy. Unfortunately, I don't know of any modern works along those lines either, but I'll throw out there an even older source instead: St. Thomas draws on Aristotle's Politics; so might we. It should be no surprise, after all, that Aristotle treats this topic a bit more thoroughly than St. Thomas did, since the question of democracy vs. monarchy was a bit more pressing in ancient Greece than in Medieval Christendom.

3. WARNING: What follows should be taken cum grano salis since it may contain traces of peanuts. How's this for an apologetic for monarchy? Let's take as a premise that roughly 10% of a given population is really virtuous in the precise sense of being generally willing to act for the common good even against their own private good. The result will be that democracies will elect virtuous leaders 0% of the time while monarchies will produce virtuous leaders 10% of the time. Let me explain: in a democracy, people who are more interested in their own private good than in the common good will elect as leaders those who promise to provide for their private goods. The virtuous who would like to elect a virtuous leader will never gain more than 10% of the vote, and thus will fail 100% of the time. Arguing that 15% or 20% of men are really virtuous has no effect on the 100% failure rate. Only if one really thinks that 50% or more of the men of a population are virtuous can democracy function well.

In the case of a hereditary monarchy, however, roughly the same percentage of kings should be virtuous as of any other men, hence 10% of kings should be virtuous. Now whether one thinks that this percentage should be lower than that of the general populace because "power corrupts" or that it may sometimes be higher because of the thorough education in virtue that a good king will see that his son gets, and he his son, etc. matters little. Even on the most pessimistic view, a good king may at least once just happen to turn up, and in fact history shows us many examples of good kings.

The odds of having a virtuous king will thus always be at least 1% and more likely something like 10% while the odds of having a virtuous democratically elected leader will always be 0%. Therefore, monarchy is a superior form of government.

Medjugorje Rumblings

There has been a lot of rumblings about Medjugorje this fall from many different sources and on an amazingly broad spectrum: some of pro-Medjugorje crowd have been claiming that the (non)pilgrimage site is about to get a big endorsement from a visit by Cardinal Schönborn this December. On the other hand, there have been rumors in the Vatican that a very high level pronouncement about Medjugorje is about to be issued - before the end of 2009 - and that this pronouncement will probably be a condemnation of the alleged apparitions (this would make logical sense since every action the CDF and the Vatican has taken with regards to Medjurgoje connected issues in the past few years has been negative, as in here and here).

First, Cardinal Schönborn's visit. This news originally broke about ten days ago, and Medjugorje supporters immediately began trumpeting it as a victory for the cause of the apparitions. Schonborn has apparently supported them, even hosting one of the "seers" in his cathedral. It was reported (as here) that Schönborn was supposed to visit from December 8th to January 4th (a month long visit?). All the old quotations from Cardinal Ratzinger allegedly supporting Medjugorje were also brought back out, quotations which Ratzinger has said are "freely invented."

This has become somewhat embarassing for the Cardinal, who apparently was making the trip as a private individual and was a little chagrined that the news was leaked to the public, who immediately started taking it as a sign of support for the apparitions. The Cardinal's secretary, Fr. Johannes Fürnkranz, told CNA:

"It was supposed to be a completely private visit, it was not supposed to go out to the internet...The cardinal's visit was supposed to be absolutely personal and not public, but since it has been leaked, I can only confirm that it will take place. There is no statement whatsoever involved in the visit" (source).

In my opinion it is extraordinarily naive of the Cardinal to think that such a high-ranking ecclesiastic as himself could pull off a visit like this and have it kept private - he is also naive for thinking that a visit by such a high ranking member of the hierarchy would not be construed as support for the apparitions, especially since the Medjugorje movement has shown itself unscrupulous in the past when attempting the dredge up alleged support for itself from the Vatican (see here). At any rate, Schönborn probably shouldn't have arranged his visit in this manner anyway - there is protocol that must be followed when one bishop visits another bishop's territory, and at least it seems that Schönborn planned and announced this visit without notifying or consulting the Bishop of Mostar, Ratko Peric. This is just speculation, but this seems to be one reason why Schönborn got so upset when this was made public - Peric had not yet been informed or involved. It would be interesting to get Peric's opinion on the matter, since he has specifically stated that Medjugorje is not a shrine and has no business acting like one (see here). The announcement of Schönborn's visit, even if private, is an admission that the Cardinal is violating protocol. I personally have been suspicious of the prudential judgment of the Cardinal since this episode.

The controversy over the visit apparently prompted a leak from the CDF, in which an unnamed official reported the following, which was published by CNA on 11/11/09:

Speaking on background, an official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith told CNA that the Roman dicastery remains behind the bishops of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

"The local bishops have the ultimate authority on this matter, and their arguments against the alleged apparitions are doctrinally solid," the official said.

Asked if Medjugorje should not be judged by its fruits of many conversions and vocations to the Church, the official responded: "It is not the duty of this Dicastery to make a pastoral assessment, but a doctrinal one. But regarding the argument, it can equally be argued that God can write straight with crooked lines, just as it has been proven in several previous occasions with patently false apparitions" (source).

By making the comparison between the fruits of Medjugorje and other "patently false apparitions" is the CDF making an allusion to the Vatican's mind in the matter? This brings us to our next news item regarding Medjurgorje: the rumors that the Vatican will issue a ruling on Medjugorje before the end of 2009. This I think is more than a rumor, for it was stated quite categorically by Cardinal Vinco Puljic, head of the Bosnian bishops' council (their UCSSB). He stated on October 7th, 2009:

"We are now awaiting a new directive on this issue. I don’t think we must wait for a long time, I think it will be this year, but that is not clear… I am going to Rome in November and we must discuss this” (source).

This is exciting news, indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some statement upon the issue on one of the major Marian feast days coming up - perhaps Immaculate Conception, Guadalupe (which would eb especially fitting since Guadalupe is a true Marian apparition as opposed to these false ones, and it would send the signal that the Bosnian bishops are not against Marian apparitions per se, as is often claimed), or maybe January 1st.

Let's hope this is more than just rumors - and if so, given the actions of the CDF with regards to Fr. Vlasic, the new directives on Medjugorje from Mostar and the unswerving support of the Vatican for the local Bosnian bishops, I think we can safely say what way a ruling would fall.

How much are you taxed?

For several months now I have kept a very detailed, itemized account of every penny my family spends in attempt to reign in our spending to the most frugal level possible. I have a spreadsheet file of every single expenditure down to the cents, with everything placed into one of fifteen categories. I thought it would be interesting, given the present waste of tax-payer money going on, to take these records, plus information from my pay stubs, mortgage statements and other forms to find out exactly how much I pay in taxes every year and to where it goes. Here's the breakdown:

Taxes Paid Yearly

Property Tax = $2870

Income Tax, Social Security, Medicaid, etc. = $4800

License Plate Renewal = $90

Gas Tax (in Michigan, $0.62 per gallon - see here for your state's rate) = $892

Taxes on my phone bill = $240

Sales Tax (6% in Michigan) = $1322

Ten cent bottle deposit on bottled/canned drinks = $54

Total Amount of Taxes I Pay in a Single Year =

$10, 268

This amount represents almost 32% of my income. Granted, I get most of the income tax back, but that still leaves about $5800 per year in taxes I don't get back, or close to 18% of my income. When people talk about how much they pay in taxes, they are often only referring to the income tax. But if you were to add up every type of tax you pay, as I have above, what would your total be? And more importantly, do you think it is a just amount? Is it just that one in the second to lowest tax bracket, like myself, has to give away over one third of my earnings in taxes?

I know the government has the right to collect taxes, but if someone in the lower brackets, like myself, ends up giving over 32%, what does someone in the middle brackets whose income tax alone in 25% pay when you factor in sales tax, property, gas, etc.?

Just a thought...

Doctrinal Minimalism

Sometime ago I did a post on Athanasius Contra Mundum in which I made reference to something called "doctrinal minimalism", which I cited as hurtful to the Church and associated with those who are zealous, orthodox Catholics but whose understanding of the history of the Church and the Church's Tradition were somewhat lacking. Dave Armstrong did a counter-post in which he questioned the use of this phrase "doctrinal minimalism." He asked:

What is "doctrinal minimalism"? What apologist is advocating this? It makes more sense as applied to liturgical matters....How "minimal" must one's views be to be classified in this way, liturgy-wise?

This is a fair question for Dave to raise. Often we hear only about liturgical minimalism (as here). I intend not to rebut Dave Armstrong (I think he had some good critiques of my post and I can grant some of his points); rather, I am seeking here to elucidate a point I raised in another post but failed to elaborate on in the time. As it could give rise to misunderstanding, I hope to clear it up here.

First, I admit that, as far as I know, I invented the phrase "doctrinal minimalism", so I am not surprised that Armstrong, or anyone else for that matter, would question me about it. On this blog I frequently discuss trends and ideas in the Church and sometimes classify them according to my own terminology. I've always maintained that my blog is a place, among other things, to throw ideas out and discuss them. I've never maintained that I'm publishing scholarly, peer-reviewed material here; it's a blog, for crying out loud. I do try to give my posts a touch of professionalism and research (who wouldn't want to?), but at the end of the day they are just my own beliefs and opinions in my own words.

But though I think I coined this phrase "doctrinal minimalism", it refers to a real phenomenon in the Church. Just as liturgical minimalism is an attitude towards the liturgy which sees the bare essentials as being good enough, so doctrinal minimalism is an attitude towards doctrine which takes as important only the bare minimum and nothing more.

How does doctrinal minimalism look in practice? I frequently give talks on a variety of topics to different groups; when I do these talks, I always draw from many sources, such as the Catechism and the Bible, but also the lives of the saints, writings of the Fathers and St. Thomas and other eminent theologians. One time (I don't recall the topic, but I think it was eschatology), a woman kept raising her hand every time I said that something was a long-held tradition of the Church and would ask, "Is that in the Catechism?" Sometimes what I was speaking about was in the Catechism, other times it wasn't; she told me that "If you can't show it to me in the Catechism, you shouldn't be saying it." She seemed to have a "Catechism alone" understanding of theology.

I explained to her that the Catechism, while being a sure norm for the faith and an excellent exposition of the faith, does not in itself exhaust the faith. There is much more to Catholicism than just what is in the Catechism. To be sure, the CCC has all of the essentials - Creed, Commandments, Sacraments, Prayer - but it doesn't contain the fullness of the Church's doctrinal, moral and mystagogical tradition. Catechisms are meant to be summaries, not exhaustive expositions. She seemed to accept this and was satisfied, but it got me thinking about this question of the degree to which one can get to the real heart of Catholic Tradition through the CCC alone.

An example - a few weeks ago, my pastor was looking for a list of the works of mercy, but to his surprise found that the list in the CCC does not mention praying for the dead as a spiritual work of mercy. At first we could not believe this, but it is true: in 1473 we are urged to do works of mercy; in 2447 the works are listed, but only six spiritual works of mercy are enumerated: praying for the dead is omitted. Paragraphs 958 and 1032 instruct us to pray for the dead, but not in the context of the works of mercy. If we were to go by the CCC alone, we would completely miss the fact that there are seven, not six works of mercy. Yet I would say that the seven spiritual works of mercy, with praying for the dead among them, are a firm part of Tradition, something that can be taught and asserted regardless of whether or not the CCC happens to mention one of them.

Perhaps this is a typo or innocent mistake; I'm willing to bet it is. However, the problem is not with the CCC, but with an approach to it that assumes that it is exhaustive, and that if you can't "show it to me in the Catechism" then it is not important and is therefore dispensable. The Catechism just gives us an introduction to the basics of the faith and points us to a further learning and understanding - we ought not to confuse the starting point for the end. Granted, the Catechism is rich and in itself is an excellent study, but it is not the fullness of Catholic dogma. This is because (and perhaps Trads would part ways with other Catholics here), just because something is not defined de fide or part of the CCC does not mean that it is dispensable; in popular terminology, the "small-t traditions", though not always infallible or irreformable, are not therefore simply dispensable.

An example is Church architecture - traditional architectural principles were in practice jettisoned in the 1960's and 70's on the belief that architecture was extrinsic to the faith; after a generation of horrid architecture and its liturgical and doctrinal consequences, I don't think any orthodox Catholic would today argue that architecture isn't important. The whole experience of the 60's, 70's and their aftermath teaches us that things assumed to be extrinsic to the faith are actually more integral to it than we thought. Bad architecture really can damn souls, depending on what sort of practices and beliefs it leads to.

No faithful Catholic wants a bare-bones liturgy where the norm is the least - likewise, we shouldn't content ourselves with an intellectual apprehension of our faith that is content with just the bare minimum, with solely the CCC. We shouldn't take a sola scriptura approach to the Catechism or stand on it like a Protestant on the Bible; I am not denigrating the CCC by any means, but only pointing out that it's not the entirety of the faith.

In my original post I stated the belief that perhaps Protestant converts are responsible for this mentality in places - I think now that this is too great a generalization in order to be of any constructive use. Instead, I would challenge all of us to simply go further. Study the CCC, but look what the CCC references in its margins and citations. What do these documents say? And what earlier documents were these documents inspired by and built on? What did the Fathers say? One great weakness of the CCC (in my opinion) is that it tends to reference in the majority only Conciliar and post-Conciliar documents; it would be good for any Catholic to round this out with a thorough study of the Fathers and the Medievals.

Does doctrinal minimalism exist? Absolutely, and I think liturgical minimalism leads to it. This explanation is just a rough essay, I know; perhaps it can be refined and fleshed out more in the future. But I definitely think there is a danger of reducing our beliefs to just a few important essentials and not taking in the fullness of what our Tradition has passed on to us. For me, being a Traditionalist is just about bringing in the whole of our Tradition to bear on our life and outlook - so for me its not about the specifics; not about just the TLM, or the pro multis, or the music (although all these things are important) - it's more about just being part of the entirety of Catholic teaching and practice, past and present. I'm sure there are many Catholics who adopt this position who don't consider themselves Trads, and some Trads who think this is too simplistic and explanation. Let every man define or not define himself as he sees fit; I can only speak for myself.

Related Articles: On the Need for Theological Precision, What is Traditionalism?

Flashback: Vatican official says Traditional Anglican Union "unlikely"

In response to the new norms for the reception of Anglicans into communion with Rome, I went back and dug up this article from Feb. 2009 in which some Vatican spokesman says that such a union would be very unlikely. Quite amusing, and a testament to how little some Vatican spokesmen actually know about what is going on.

Problems of Multiple Authorship

In many books of the Old Testament, such as Daniel, Isaiah and especially the Pentateuch, it has become commonplace among scholars to attribute the authorship of these books to multiple authors (First and Second Isaiah, or especially J,E,D and P in the Pentateuch). I have in the past stated my opinion that these multiple authorship theories subtly undermine faith (see here and here). One commentator stated in the combox to one of these posts:

"I agree with the idea that scholarly concepts as the Documentary Hypothesis or multiple authorship of Isaiah are potentially detrimental to the idea of a consistent and unitary Revelation, I still don't think that there's a necessary link between the two. In other words, it's hard for me to see what difference it makes how many people over however long a period of time wrote the book of Isaiah, so long as we are guaranteed that the ultimate author of its content is God and that He will guide the Church to the true meaning of the text."

This is a fair question. Though I have maintained the traditional authorship of Isaiah by a prophet of the same name living in the 8th century BC, what difference does it make to Revelation if in fact the book was a compilation of two or more authors? In the first place, I point to the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1908 statement on Isaiah that there is no good reason to doubt a single authorship (see here). But beyond this statement, how does asserting a second author to Isaiah in particular (or multiple authors to any biblical book in general) undermine faith? In the words of the commentator, where is the "necessary link" between multiple authorship and heterodoxy?

I personally think the link is not in the fact of multiple authors, but of the chronology one builds around those alleged authors. There is nothing inherently wrong with postulating multiple authors of the Scriptures. At the minimum, we already have 50+ human authors to the Bible, probably a ton more if you factor in scribal additions to the Old Testament throughout the centuries. What is the real difference whether we posit 50 authors or 75 authors? The Church acknowledges that God inspired these authors, and so who they are is not entirely of that much importance in and of itself (although I would suggest identity is much more critical in the New Testament). Was II Samuel the work of a single scribe or mutliple scribes over decades? These type of questions, in and of themselves, are not problematic.

They do become problematic in two cases, however (1) When the book in question is prophetic in nature, and when (2) positing additional authors causes us to shift the date of the composition of the book to beyond the events prophesied.

Say we take the Book of Daniel. Daniel traditionally was composed during the period of the Exile, sometime between 550-450 BC. However, the book prophesies many events that do not occur until the time of Alexander and then some things that occur in the time of Christ. Now, suppose we look at these prophecies from an anti-supernaturalist viewpoint by assuming that they could not be legitimate. If we take this as our axiom, then the only way we can explain away these prophecies (which would otherwise be miraculous) is by saying that the prophetic portions of the book must have been written in what is called ex eventu ("after the event") narration. This means there must have been a second author who added to the book of Daniel, in a sense writing prophecy backwards to make it look like Daniel had made accurate prophecies when in fact they were written by some other person after the events prophesied had already come to pass (see this article on Daniel's historicity).

Now we have come to a place where the assertion of a second author causes a real problem, for by saying that this second author came centuries later and added ex eventu prophetic portions to Daniel, we are in effect denying the supernatural prophecies of the book and thereby denying the supernatural nature of revelation; Daniel (or Isaiah, or whatever) clearly says such-and-such is a prophecy still to come, but by positing a second author, we offer a naturalistic explanation for the prophecy and rob these passages of their supernatural character.

Interestingly enough, the PBC condemns this thinking in the same response in which it deals with the question of Second-Isaiah. The following position is condemned:

That the predicitions read in the Book of Isaiah-and throughout the Scriptures-are not predictions properly so called, but either narrations put together after the event, or, if anything has to be acknowledged as foretold before the event, that the prophet foretold it not in accordance with a supernatural revelation of God who foreknows future events, but by conjectures formed...and shrewdly by natural sharpness of mind...

Regarding Isaiah in particular one notices an abundance of prophecy. The Exile and return are foretold; the name of the king who would issue the edict of return is stated (Cyrus); future judgments on Egypt and the nations are described that later come to pass, not to mention all of the Messianic prophecies found throughout Isaiah. Now, if Isaiah prophesies the Exile to Babylon and the return, this is truly miraculous, given that these events did not occur until almost two hundred years after Isaiah. But if we say there was a Second Isaiah writing after the exile, then we can just say "ho hum" when the book makes these prophecies, for we have vacuumed out the supernatural, or in the words of the PBC, asserted that the alleged prophecies are simply "narrations put together after the event." And this is what Second Isaiah is all about; do a simple Wikipedia search on "Deutero-Isaiah" and you will find this explanation:

Passages of Isaiah 40-66 contain some events and details that did not occur in Isaiah's own lifetime, such as the rise of Babylon as the world power, destruction of Jerusalem, and the rise of the Persian king Cyrus the Great and his destruction of Babylonian Empire.On the other hand, the first section of Isaiah saw the destruction of Babylon at the hands of the Medes and the Elamites(13:1-20, 21:2) . This is generally explained by either considering Isaiah to have been given such information by divine means, or by considering the later sections of the book to be, not written by Isaiah, but written by those who lived later than Isaiah himself. Those that reject the supernatural revelation of God's foreknowledge to Isaiah hold to the second explanation and the mainstream scholarly understanding.

Therefore, yes, positing multiple authors can be very damaging to faith, if they involve prophetic books and chronologies.

Is there ever a licit recourse to multiple authorship? Sure. The PBC said, in its day, it saw no reason to posit more authors for Isaiah, and nor do I. That's not to say there couldn't have been, only that the PBC saw no necessity in arguing for them. But let's say that maybe Isaiah dictated his prophecies to a series of scribal pupils who compiled them over several decades. This is highly possible and would account for various stylistic variations. Let's say Isaiah wrote half of it and the latter portion was composed by pupils after his death who nevertheless heard his words, just like Aquinas' pupils finished the Summa for him. That is plausible, too. But if you are going to say that it was added to centuries later by persons who wrote in prophecies retroactively, then that is damaging to faith.

So, to answer the commentator, it is not simply sufficient to say one the one hand that we believe the author is God and that the Church gets the true context if, on the other hand, we take up critical exegetical positions that lead us to deny everything supernatural about the book.

Happy Guy Fawkes Day

I'm sorry I haven't had anything more substantial lately - I am going to be very busy in the upcoming week with a student observation, so I probably won't get a lot of time to post. Check back next week, and raise a mug of ale to Guy Fawkes and to the Gunpowder Plot of 1605!

All Saints Day Pics

Here's two pictures of me with my son at our parish's All Saints Day party last week. He obviously is St. Francis - I am my 85 year old alter ego, Walter Grabowski. I know he's not a saint, but I had no other costume.

EU ratifies Lisbon

This week the European Union finally, after eight long years of floundering, managed to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, which effectually strengthens the power of the EU, establishes a two and a half year presidency instead of the 6 month rotating presidency, gives much more political clout to the bloc and creates an astonishingly complex gaggle of new bureaucratic positions (the EU president alone will have 3,500 workers immediately under him).

The Treaty is not the final step in creating a United States of Europe, but it brings them a great deal closer. It does call for a single EU currency by 2020, even in states (like Britain) that have rejected such proposals in the past.

I think Christians should be inherently opposed to such schemes - and I do not use the word "inherently" lightly. In my opinion, we should have a default attitude of skepticism and mistrust towards any centralization or conglomeration of states into such blocs. The technology is so advanced, the mores so anti-Christian, the human heart so prone to corruption that these experiments cannot end in a way favorable to Christians. Perhaps I am not as enthusiastic about giant multi-national entities as the Vatican apparently is. Centralization and conglomeration are two of the biggest ills of the modern age - we need things broken up and individualized, not conglomerated.

It is not surprising that the EU, at the same time that it is being given more teeth is also trampling on the religious traditions of Italy. In a new ruling out of Strasbourg, an EU court is commanding Italy to remove crucifixes from their classrooms so as to avoid offending non-Christian students. The order has sparked outrage in Italy (see here). Rocco Buttiglione, a former culture minister, said, “This is an abhorrent ruling. It must be rejected with firmness. Italy has its culture, its traditions and its history. Those who come among us must understand and accept this culture and this history.”

I happen to agree with Buttiglione, but I have to ask him whether or not this is not what you get when you bargain away your sovereignty to foreign multi-national courts? Protest as they might, the Italians have gotten themselves into this mess by going along with this EU debacle. This ought to be a sign to all those in the Vatican who are still clinging to the notion that a one world government or a stronger EU or UN would be beneficial - these institutions are fundamentally anti-Christian and will only use their influence to destroy Christian culture.

Authority of Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur

One of the most puzzling things for new Catholics is sorting out the various degrees of authority within the Church and understanding from whence different "official" statements they come. This happens a lot with the media, as well, as when some Vatican official gives his opinion in an interview, which is later touted as the view of "the Vatican." For someone who really hasn't learned that much about the hierarchy and degrees of authority, how are you to react when somebody takes a questionable book and flashes its Imprimatur. To the new Catholic, this Imprimatur is impressive because it is an "official" statement that comes from "the Church." One reader came across this exact problem in an RCIA class. This following is from a question in the combox:

In the New American Catholic Study Bible, 2nd Edition, there is commentary in the reading guide that says that the taking of Jericho, Ai and Gibeon were not historical events. I was given this text along with a paragraph out of a New Jerome that I do not have handy since I do not have my own New Jerome. My question to you is, what exactly is Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur because this Study Bible claims both. I need to know if the Reading Guide in a Study Bible holds the same authority as a standard Bible or an Encyclical. If it does, then what? -Michael

The question originally came in the combox of the series on the Book of Joshua, and for the full context please see the comments after the post Genocide in Joshua Part 3 (the whole series is linked up on the sidebar). Basically, Michael's RCIA instructor told him that the Book of Joshua was not historical, citing certain battles that (according to this instructor) never happened. When Michael protested that he thought the Book of Joshua was in fact historical, he was referred to the NAB Bible commentary that says it is not and the instructor used the fact that the NAB has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur as evidence to browbeat him into accepting the NAB commentary as Church dogma.

First off, the NAB has its own peculiar set of problems, specifically what my co-blogger in absentia Anselm has called a "poisonous" commentary - I recommend this article from 2007 on the NAB commentary and some of its errors. My own pastor, when he came to our parish, removed all the NAB's and stored them in a box because he didn't know what to do with them. On the one hand, the primary text was the (slightly mistranslated) Word of God, so he felt it would be wrong to destroy them; but ont he other hand, the commentary was heretical, so they were dangerous to leave out. He ended up actually burying them in the parish cemetery in their own plot! I imagine he had the verses from 1 Maccabees 4:44-46 in mind...

At any rate though, regarding Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. Any book dealing with theology, Catholic morality or anything written by a cleric is supposed to get these before going to print. Both of these declarations are given at the diocesan level under the competency of the local bishop. In brief, a Nihil Obstat is a declaration from a theologian called the Censor Librorum that a book is free from doctrinal or moral error - it literally means "Nothing Hinders." If the bishop's Censor Librorum grants the Nihil Obstat, then the Bishop, in his name and by his episcopal powers, confers the Imprimatur, which means "let it be printed." The Imprimatur is the result of the Nihil Obstat -i.e., "Nothing hinders", therefore, "let it be printed." Both can be taken as gurantees that the book is free from moral or doctrinal error, but because the Imprimatur comes directly from the Bishop and is the final step in the printing process, it is commonly considered to be more authoritative, though I'm not sure whether or not this is true.

Many works will include this statement:

"The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."

Notice the statement says only that it is free from doctrinal or moral error - this means that what is contained in the book may still be completely false; however, as long as it doesn't contradict faith or morals, the Imprimatur can still be granted. For example, a book on Church history might errantly and ignorantly report the commonly stated canard that 9 million people were killed in the Inquisition. This is a completely false statement, but it does not conflict with faith or morals (just common sense) and so the book could still get the Imprimatur.

Furthermore, we should understand that since these declarations come from the Diocesan Bishop, they can ultimately only be as good and reliable as the Bishop who grants them. This is the key principle to keep in mind with these declarations. They are not authoritative statements of the Magisterium, nor are they in the least bit protected by the charism of infallibility. They are the opinions of a private theologian (the Censor Librorum) and the official declaration of the Bishop, who in most cases is simply going along with what the Censor Librorum says.

If a Bishop is a solid theologian or good repute and orthodox disposition, then you have every reason to implicitly trust the Imprimatur - however, even that does not mean that what you find in the book is not errant, especially in your example (historical facts relating to archaeology). An Imprimatur issued by a very unorthodox Bishop would be suspect by that fact alone - remember, as stated above, these declarations are extensions of the Bishop's own ideas of what is acceptable and what is not. They are only as reliable as the Bishops who issue them and possess no inherent protection from error.

To bring it back to your case - the fact that the NAB has an Imprimatur does not in any way sanction the historical accuracy (or inaccuracies) of the commentary. It merely means that nothing in the commentary contradicts the official teaching of the Church - which might not even be the case depending on who granted it. Therefore, I would continue to protest the ignorant and dishonest ruse of persons who try to say that the historical books of the Old Testament are not historical. In general, denying the historicity of certain parts of the Scriptures is a method of modernists to undermine the spiritual authority of the Bible. Please see this post for more on these tendencies within Bible commentaries.

I hope this helps, Michael.

Shocking the luekwarm through violence?

One of the largest problems facing Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general is the apathy or spiritual slothfulness of many professing believers. There are many reasons for this apathy, most of which have been discussed in depth by Trads and everybody else concerned with the state of the Church. To a great extent it is true that things like lax discipline, heresy preached from the pulpit, and ambiguous or unreadable statements from the Magisterium can certainly lead to laxity and apathy among the congregation. But this is not really what I am pointing at here: I am talking more about the general kind of apathy or disinterestedness among believers that plagues the Church throughout any time in history. Even in the High Middle Ages there were pious Catholics and then there were worldly Catholics, and the temptation to worldliness is a reality even in the best of times. Perhaps a better term for it would be the Biblical phrase "lukewarmness" from Revelation 3:16, the spiritual state that comes about through a person not taking seriously the things of God, showing general disinterest in the state of their soul and living practically as if God did not exist.

This lukewarm existence describes my own Christian experience for the first five years or so, from the time when I first intellectually believed in Christ to the time several years later when I actually started praying, reading the Scriptures and attending Mass. When I was living a lukewarm Christianity, I did not really go to Church at all, or just went when I felt like it. That of course changed when I got serious about my faith. Some persons, on the other hand, come to Mass every Sunday but do so out of impure motive and maintain a kind of minimalist worldly Catholicism.

The one thing these people need (and that I needed) is true conversion, which is ironically the one thing nobody is able to give to another. I can give books, take them to liturgies, talk with them, but true conversion is due to a movement of grace in the heart that only God can give. I remember when I was in this state that the one thing I did not want to hear about was anything that would make me uncomfortable, guilty about my sin, or think too heavily about my mortality. It is very difficult to shock a lukewarm person out of their apathetic state if they intentionally do not want to be "bothered" with spiritual things, but in my almost ten years as a practicing Catholic I can recall a few things that have been successful.

One is the stories of the martyrs, not just the martyrs of olden days but the martyrs of Communist China, Vietnam and Mexico. I once was giving a talk to a group of young people about the faith of the martyrs, and in the process I told some truly gruesome martyrdom stories. Now, I do not like violence for the sake of violence, nor do I think any of us here. But there is a certain kind of violence that is perhaps fruitful to dwell on: the violence done to our Lord for the sake of our salvation, and also the violence endured by the martyrs for their faith. Well, I recall that one young boy, who we could describe as well-intentioned but worldly, was very disturbed by the stories of the martyrdoms he heard. He took them home with him in his mind, ruminated on them, and even had some dreams about them. He was disturbed that any human could do such things to another, but he was also moved to the core with the idea of someone willingly suffering such things for religion. I would say he was undergoing what may have been the first steps in a true conversion. Marveling at the deeds of the saints and martyrs was the thing that first set St. Ignatius Loyola on his way after his injury at the Battle of Pamplona. Unfortunately, the boy's mother did not recognize this as a moment of grace. She was upset that we had talked about "violence" at a Youth Group meeting and did not like her son thinking about these stories. He was promptly pulled from the Youth Group and sent to another parish where the Youth Group plays foolish games, gossips and hardly talks about God at all. In the meantime, he continues to watch violent movies and play violent video games unchecked.

But following up on this theme of violence, consider also the sad reality of abortion. I know of one kid who was 13 and pretty ignorant of what abortion was. Her parents, of course, had not really bothered to form her on this issue, and when another adult told her what abortion really was and how the babies were dispensed with, she was horrified and deeply troubled. However, like in the first case, the parent intervened. Instead of agreeing with her that abortion was horrid and talking with her child about how it could be stopped, she instead directed her anger against the faithful Catholic who had dared to tell her child about this procedure. I don't know what happened to this girl, but I imagine her enflamed conscience was quickly quenched by a worldly parent who saw the beginning of a moral conscience in her child and decided it was too much. There are certain things that only a parent should discuss with a child, but on the other hand, if you are a Catholic and still ignorant of what abortion is by the time you are 13 and about to reach High School age, then I think something is amiss.

In both scenarios, we see that a gruesome story happened to be the vehicle by which the conscience was awakened. This, of course, is the mentality behind the strategy of showing people pictures of aborted babies to get them to see the evil of abortion. I am not sure how successful this is, and I am shocked by the number of adults who simply see these pictures and say, "That's gross. Don't show me that," as if the gross thing is not the dead baby, but the fact that you are showing them a picture of it. When people see pictures of the Holocaust, the disturbing images usually lead one to take moral action: you see the horrid, shrunken shapes of the victims and the mass graves, and you are moved in your emotions, which lead you to think about the tragedy mentally and form some kind of judgment about the Holocaust and the men who perpetrated it. But when it comes to abortion, or the case of the martyr stories I told above, this natural progression from seeing to forming a judgment was snuffed out in its formative stage, at the time the kids were being moved by the images but before they could make definitive judgments on what they had seen.

Is shocking the lukewarm a good way to wake them up from their apathy? I guess it depends on the person and the propriety of how and what you are shocking them with. I certainly think pulling out pictures of aborted babies is not the most prudent thing to do in every situation, but it does have a time and a place. Of course, meditating on the wounds of our Lord is a time tested technique of growing in devotion, but it is usually done by persons who are already devout - not thrown on people who aren't. It's the reason why my Catholic mother is moved to piety by watching the Passion of the Christ but my fallen away father is disgusted out by it. The stories of violence suffered for righteousness sake is powerfully moving to the pious but seems foolish to the worldly.

"Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints" (Psalm 116:15).

The Personal Nature of Charitable Giving

My in-laws were up from Florida visiting for the week and I got to spend quite a bit of time with my father-in-law. I have often referenced my father-in-law on this blog; he is an fundamentalist Protestant and often provides me with a lot of fodder to delve into on here. This weekend, however, as we went out to breakfast at a local diner, we had a really great conversation in which we were both in general agreement. This conversation was about the state of charitable giving in America, both Protestant and Catholic.

My father-in-law was pointing out that, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the son is enabled to live a licentious lifestyle so long as he has money to blow:

The younger son, gathering all together, went abroad into a far country: and there wasted his substance, living riotously (Luke 15:13).

However, it is only when his money is gone, and furthermore, when nobody was found that would give to him, that the son repented and returned home:

And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks the swine did eat; and no man gave unto him. And returning to himself, he said: How many hired servants in my father's house abound with bread, and I here perish with hunger? I will arise, and will go to my father (Luke 15:16-18).

Notice how it is immediately following the statement that "no man gave unto him" that the son returned to his senses? My father-in-law took this and made the case that perhaps when we give to the poor we are actually enabling their poverty by creating dependency. Perhaps, he said, it would be better to not give to them, or to only do so conditionally, and to allow them to get to the point where "no man gave unto them" and hopefully bring about a conversion.

Well, I could not fully agree with this line of thinking, which to me sounded too much like changing the Gospel to suit the palate of American conservatism.

I pointed out that the command to feed the poor is universal and without restraint, even if you are taken advantage of ("If someone takes your coat, give him your cloak as well"); furthermore, I reminded him that the parable of the Prodigal Son is meant to be a story about the Father's forgiveness and mercy, not a blueprint for how we are to treat homeless people. The command to reach out and help the poor trumps any concerns we might have about the social impact of charitable giving. Certainly there are prudent and imprudent ways to give, but everybody agrees that we must give. Also, who are we to decide when someone "needs" to hit rock bottom? I leave that to God.

He agreed with these qualifiers, I think, but it got me to thinking about the nature of charitable giving, dependency, cycles of poverty (especially in light of our current President and the looming welfare state he endeavors to establish). Even though I don't adopt my father-in-law's thinking here, I agree with him in that I think the manner in which charitable giving is carried out can breed dependency and a welfare mentality.

Almost all of our major charitable giving today, in the Church or the world, is carried out by institutions; St. Vincent de Paul, Salvation Army, Meals on Wheels, Charity Motors, Purple Heart, etc. These institutions exist because they can gather resources and distribute them to the poor with much greater efficiency than could any one individual.

Though this is in itself a good, it leads to two negatives: (1) Christians end up not giving to the poor directly but giving to an organization which then gives to the poor (2) The process of charitable giving becomes institutionalized; i.e., it becomes subject to the same shortcomings as any bureaucracy, because it is no longer people giving but a "system" which is "distributing" aid.

Consider this: all of the corporal works of mercy in the Scriptures are very personal acts. Feeding the poor; clothing the naked; giving drink to the thirsty; visiting the imprisoned, etc. These are all very human acts that require person-to-person contact and an element of compassion. Perhaps we are giving in a bit too much to our American pragmatism and focusing too extensively on the end alone: "Who cares how they get the aid? The important thing is that they get it!"

But is the end really all the matters in charitable giving? When Christ commands us to succor the poor, is He saying this simply because it is the most expedient means of getting aid to poverty stricken persons, or is there perhaps another reason for this, one that has to do with the compassion and person-to-person interaction involved in any work of mercy?

When we perform a corporal work of mercy, we see the humanity of the other - we make a real human connection. In doing so, if we are spiritually minded, we can also discern the presence of Christ. This is very valuable; almost as important as the actual deed itself. Caring for the poor is an extension of the command to love all men and is meant to be an act of compassion and personal charity.

In other words, the command to care for the poor is about us as much as it is the poor.

How does this change when we run our giving through an organization? Well, the poor may still get the aid, but the human element is completely siphoned out. Now you never see the poor person, or the hungry person. You write a check from your kitchen table, pop it in an envelope and get a nice bi-monthly pamphlet explaining how your money is being put to work. That's better than nothing, but have you really learned compassion as much if, say, you would have had to literally clothe a naked person or feed the hungry physically? The human-contact element is gone.

This also puts the giver in the dangerous place of feeling like he has fulfilled Christ's mandates because he has written some checks. I'm not saying the checks aren't important, but I am asking whether or not charitable giving through third parties kind of sucks the spiritual value out of the act somewhat - while the poor still get fed, we don't get to interact with them on a personal level.

In the old days, the medieval kings used to fill their halls with beggars and feed them or sometimes (as is told of St. Louis IX) personally put a gold coin in each of their hands. The modern scoffs and asks, "How does giving one beggar a gold coin address the underlying issues of poverty?" I say, "By reminding the king that he, too, is but a man, equal in dignity with the very least." At least much more so than a president ordering a grant for $1 billion to some UN fund or something...

Once I had a friend who was hurting financially. He needed assistance with his mortgage payments. We were talking with a third friend about the problem, when my third friend pulled out his checkbook and wrote the man a check for $500, no strings attached. My friend was flabbergasted that another just so easily handed him a check, with no means of expecting it back. He was profusely thankful, and I think my other friend won some serious treasure in heaven for the act.

Not everybody can do that - but how different is that from what could have happened: my friend could have pulled out a business card and referred the other to some aid organization where his "case" would have been processed bureaucratically: fill out these forms, interview with this "case worker," get some contact info, start your "file", etc. etc. Everything spiritually vivifying about the work is lost.

One more thought: third party giving can turn the charitable works into bureaucratic systems, and like any system they are capable of being "played." Sometimes these organizations do create a dependency in people, as they go from organization to organization, knowing they can get their weekly ration of bread and noodles here, their soaps and hygiene products there, their free dinner over at that place, etc. We all know of people who have played the charity system this way. Because they are coming to get their food not from a person immediately but from an institution who disburses it, there is less gratitude and no chance for the giver to make a connection with the poor.

If we all simply watched out for one another and took the corporal works of mercy to be models for behavior in a very personal and immediate sense, I think things would be a lot different. Sure, we need big organizations to get food and aid to out of the way places, but we can't let these organizations exhaust our charity - nor can we think of giving solely in terms of sending money to some group who then disburses it at their discretion. To do so promotes unhealthy dependence on charity and makes what is supposed to be a very personal act into another administrative action of some bureaucracy.

Missa de Angelis Sighting

Some time ago I announced that for the remainder of October I would only be dwelling on positive developments in the Church today - the biggest being the announcement of the structures to receive members of the Anglican Church back into the fold. This is a wonderful development for the Catholic Church, and it underscores a truth about our present Holy Father that so many in the mainstream have failed to pick up: he is a Pope of unity. Now the big question is that if we can reconcile Anglicans who have been in schism and heresy for 500 years, what on earth is stopping us from reconciling the SSPX? That's another topic.

On a more local level, something wonderful happened at my parish this week. I was praying in Church Thursday night with the men's prayer group that I am a part of when the pastor and our music director came in and went up to the choir loft together. As I prayed, I heard her rehearsing the Gloria from the Missa de Angelis with him; she was teaching him how to intone the first line. I thought to myself, "That's awesome. He wouldn't be rehearsing that unless he is going to use it. I hope we use that in our Mass here someday soon."

Well, the someday came sooner than I thought, because this past Sunday at all the Masses the Gloria from the Missa de Angelis was sung (hitherto we had been using some English Gloria that was based on the Missa de Angelis Gloria). The pastor came out before Mass, announced that we were going to start doing this Latin Gloria, and then gave an excellent little summation of why we were doing it, which can be summed up in two main points:

-Latin was never meant to be abolished after Vatican II and this is how we ought to be doing the Mass parts.

-Latin is the future of the Church, and part of the job of a pastor is to keep parishioners abreast of what is going on in the Church and teach them something that they will probably be hearing more often.

Then we rehearsed it twice with the music director leading and we were ready to go. It went over flawlessly and (as of yet) I haven't heard of any complaints; granted it has only been one day.

I attended an NO parish years ago that did the Missa de Angelis Gloria acapella. It was the most beautiful part of the Mass and what I looked forward to every week. I am so very grateful that this beautiful piece of music has been restored to our parish. I know that some of you out there hear it every week, and I am aware that the Missa de Angelis has been called the pre-Conciliar "Mass of Creation" (as here) and that there are other settings for the Mass. Fine. But you have to admit it that if you've not had a Latin Gloria in your parish for over thirty years then this one is a pretty good one to start with.

But how about my pastor's explanation of why the Latin Gloria was being used? Most of us who consider ourselves inclined towards traditional things instinctively revert to an argument from the past as to why certain things ought to be done (it's tradition; we've always done it that way; this is what the saints did, etc.); my pastor instead made an appeal to the future: "This is the way the whole Church is going, and you are going to be seeing a lot more of it in the future. This is the mind of the Church and a well-rounded Catholic needs to know these Mass parts." While this argument can't really stand alone, I think it is a very interesting and valuable addition to all of the other arguments (both historical and liturgical) for a liturgical praxis of continuity.

Kudos to my pastor and the music director for getting this done.

New Medjurgorje Directives

This June (2009), Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar-Duvno in Bosnia and Herzegovina sent letters to the pastor and a parochial vicar at Medjugorje, with specific directives about how they and the parish are not to promote the alleged apparitions of the place. Bishop Peric is the ordinary of the diocese in which Medjugorje is located and per Paul VI's 1978 CDF instruction "Norms for the Congreagtion for Proceeding in Judging Presumed Apparitions and Revelations", has jurisdiction over affairs at Medjugorje.

The English translations became available last month and are available in their entirety at Catholic Light (here). The Bishop uses some very strong language and made some substantial directives on how things are to be done in Medjogorje. Here are the most important points of the directives, though I suggest you read them in full.

Regarding priests who come to Medjugorje to hold retreats or promote the apparitions:

"The rule is still valid that in the parish of Medjugorje priests coming from elsewhere are not permitted to conduct retreats or spiritual exercises, nor to hold conferences, without the approval of this office. Analogously, neither foreign nor domestic priests can promote alleged "messages" or "apparitions" which have not been proclaimed authentic in that church or on church property."

Regarding the use of the title "shrine" in reference to Medjugorje:

"The parish of Medjugorje cannot be called a shrine, neither privately, nor publicly, not officially, because it is not recognized as such by any level of competent ecclesial authority. And that wording cannot appear on the web site of "Medjugorje - place of prayer and reconciliation", where it is currently found in many places....As the local Ordinary, in this present letter, I declare that the so-called "shrine" has no mission to declare itself a "Shrine", nor to present (the parish) with that title, because it has no ecclesiastical mission to present itself in the name of Medjugorje, nor to spread or interpret the "apparitions" and "messages" of Medjugorje."

Here is a reaffirmation of a previous directive absolutely prohibiting the seers from appearing and delivering any messages:

"In September 2007, on the occasion of your installation in the office of parish priest, I indicated to you that the so-called "seers" cannot present themselves on any occasion to promote their private "apparitions" and "messages", nor to preside, nor to have anyone preside in their place, at the recitation of a certain number of prayers "received" in an "apparition". Therefore, they cannot use prayers from scripture or those approved by the Church as a means of introducing "numbers" and "messages" from the private "apparition"."

And regarding praying the Rosary:

"It is equally not permitted to introduce intentions received in an "apparition" or "message" during the prayer of the Rosary of Our Lady. We have sufficient official intentions (from the Pope, from the bishop, for the missions) and there is no need to arbitrarily have recourse to alleged apparitions and messages and mix them with the Church's public prayers."

These preceding directives all came in a letter dated 12 June 2009 to the parish priest of Medjugorje. The following excerpts come from a second letter, dated the same day, to the Franciscan parochial vicar of the parish, Danko Perutina.

The first directive prohibits seers from sending messages from abroad and having them published in the parish bulletin. The prior directives already forbid the seers from delivering messages in person, but this one prohibits the parish from acting as a messenger on behalf of the seers:

"Marija Pavlović, married name Lunetti, daily "seer" who lives in Italy, and temporarily also at Medjugorje, sends to the parish office or to some one of your pastoral workers in the parish of Medjugorje, her "message" of the 25th day of the month, which is then published on the Medjugorje web site and in other mass media. And you regularly make commentary on the monthly "message", which is published in various languages.

When I asked how the "messages" of the 25th were published, and not the other "messages" said to be "private", I did not feel I received a clear and convincing answer. I do not know who has sent and authorized you to comment on them and publish them on the site. What sort of person is assuming the right to decide that some "messages" be omitted and others published, and that this is done through the parish office and the site connected with the parish of Medjugorje?"

...To avoid any misunderstanding, in this present letter I declare that you, according to my decree, are not authorized, either in the name of the parish office or as parochial vicar, to comment upon and publish the "messages" of the 25th or any other day of the month. These are private "messages" of private persons for private use. And we cannot permit that this is given the form of a message from the parish office, from the parish priest, or any parochial vicar, or even of the "Shrine" which is not recognized as such at any level: not diocesan, or the level of the episcopal conference, or of the Holy See."

We may be mistaken, but Bp. Peric seems to be forbidding any communication of the alleged "messages" whatsoever other than on the entirely private level. The letter to the pastor of Medjugorje prohibits seers from delivering messages in person, and his directive to Danko Perutina prohibits them from sending messages abroad to be published. This rules out any type of official mass communication of alleged "messages."

This final statement from the Bishop expressed admirably what he is attempting to do here:

"We are gradually succeeding in distancing the unrecognized "apparitions" and "messages" from the parish church and from church property, and the appearances of the "seers" before or after Holy Mass."

Why would the Bishop want to do this? For the obvious reason that these messages are unapproved, will not be approved, and are so dubious that the local Ordinary wants everybody to understand that the local Church does not endorse them.

Here is a summary of everything contained in these directives:

1) Seers are not to deliver any messages in public
2) That alleged messages and commentaries on them are not to be published
3) That prayers from the apparitions are not to be used publicly

4) The parish church is not to be called a "shrine", even privately

5) That foreign priests may not give conferences or retreats without permission of the bishop

foreign priests wishing to offer Mass must present a celebret from their diocese or order, and the information is to be recorded

5) A privately-built church has already been closed and is not to be used
6) Unauthorized religious communities have no permission to set up residence in Medjogorje

Can anybody really think that this bodes well for Medjugorje? It is gradually being distanced from the official Church and will someday be condemned, at which point it will either peter out (hopefully) or go into schism.

"Yes, but the fruits, the fruits..."

Ten Years

Today, October 21st, is a very special ten year anniversary for me; not the ten year anniversary of my marriage, but the ten year anniversary of my commitment to follow Christ. It was ten years ago tonight that I abandoned my indulgent, semi-agnostic and nihilistic stupor to follow the call of Jesus. Here's what happened.

I was nineteen years old. The year was 1999. I had a very nominal religious upbringing - a basic understanding of the most rudimentary basics of Christianity (the Ten Commandments pretty much). I was baptized Catholic, but had never been to Mass in my life - in fact, I was so ignorant of the faith that I did not even know I had been baptized.

After a raucous youth full of fleshly gratification and some drug use, I found myself at 19 full of misery and nihilism, not wanting to get up in the morning, failing to see any purpose in anything I did. I was a fresman student art an art college in Detroit pursuing a career in animation and graphic design, but my spiritual malaise so was so intense that it became debilitating. My grades began to suffer and a very deep depression set in. I recall sitting outside in the courtyard of the college, watching the leaves fall from the trees in the early autumn and the cold blueness of the sky and being utterly unable to find any joy in it - I even thought to myself, "Everybody has to die someday, so what difference does it make if I live out my life to the end or shoot myself right now? It makes no difference whatsoever..." These types of thoughts clouded my mind continually and life was bereft of joy.

One evening (this very evening) I went to a party at the home of an old friend. I had a really good group of friends in high school, sincere and caring and though not without their own troubles, very sturdy souls to have about. But by 1999 the first dynamism of our friendships had spent itself, and all that was left of what had once been an idyllic and innocent youth was cynicism and despair, which meant a lot of drinking. The mood of the party was dour and it did little to soothe my aching soul.

But then a friend of mine showed up, a very special friend whom I had known in my youth and who had actually taught me how to play guitar. He had recently put off his former life and had embraced Christ and came to the party to preach to his friends still mired in the world. Most blew him off or scoffed at him, but my soul drank in his words like parched earth drinking in the rain. He went off to walk with another kid to talk to him more, and I tagged along because the name of Jesus seemed to light some kind of fire in my heart and I desired to hear more.

We walked for a ways, and the other kid eventually went his own way. Yet I remainded and said, "Tell me more." So we left the party and went for a long walk by night, where amidst the frigid blasts of Michigan October wind and the blustering skies he spoke to me of Jesus Christ, of God's love for man and of Christ's death on the cross - and of the forgiveness of sins. The particular type of Christianity he was preaching was simple Protestantism ("believe in Jesus Christ and confess He is Lord and you will be forgiven"), but oh how powerful the message was to one mired in misery.

At the end of the discussion I grapsed his shirt and asked to be baptized. I don't know where this came from, but I think I just knew that Christians were supposed to be baptized (and I was ignorant of my own baptism as a Catholic). He took me down to a lake by a park (pictured above), and under the churning clouds and among the choppy and blisteringly cold waters dunked me and pronounced the words of baptism. I know thaty sacramentally nothing occurred there, for I had already entered the holy laver as an infant, but the act of faith and the desire to truly start a new life must have been effacacious because I immediately and sensibly felt the greatest outpouring of grace and mercy I had ever known. This was by a special mercy of God.

The world seemed brand new, and as I came dripping (but not cold) from the waters, the whole earth seemed as fresh and beautiful as it did the moment it came forth from the hand of God and was beheld by Adam newly formed. I know grace is entirely of the supernatural order and not something knowable experientially, but at that moment God pulled back the veil and allowed me to feel and experience what was working in my soul - a true turning, a pulling back, the metanoia talked about by St. John the Baptist and likewise experienced so intensely by St. Augustine in the garden. This is what happened to me on this evening ten years ago today.

As I went home, my mind told me, "Nothing has really changed. You will wake up tomorrow and feel the same." And I did feel the same in the morning - but different; lighter, happier. It was the subtle and silent presence of joy for the first time. I became hungry for the Scriptures and devoured the Bible with zealous intensity, underlining and marking it up until the pages were worn thin. I did not intentionally set out to lose my old friends, but by and by as my interests became more focused on Jesus and His Kingdom, my old friends just sort of fell away. Before I know it I was a Christian and had only Christian friends. And though life was not easy, I was happy.

Well, there is more to the story - how I started going to a Protestant non-denominational church and met my wife; how through the study of the Scriptures and disputes with my friends I began to see the fallacy of sola scriptura and how I slowly became aware of my Catholic baptism and origin; how the historical fact of the Church's existence and the Catholicity of the early Fathers drew me Rome-ward, and how I was finally received into full communion with the Church on the Feast of St. Francis, 2002.

But today I commemorate that first wonderous night when the grace of God first blew apart the blindness and despair of my heart and let in the glorious light of Christ. It was that event which knocked me on a different course - and everything I have done subsequently has drawn its momentum from that initial burst of grace, just as an object in space once propelled will continue in that direction forever. Every night on this date I revisit this spot by the lake, as close to the original time as I can, and venerate the spot where God struck me from my horse. It has become a pilgrimage and an occasion of rededication, as well as repentance: repentance for years wasted, opportunities to do good thrown away, sins stubbornly clung to and selfishness yet to be rooted out.

Praise and thanks be to Jesus Christ our Lord. His mercy endures forever.