In the reading from Sirach we are given advice for navigating turbulence in our life.  We are told to be steadfast and hold to the Lord and in the end we will not be forsaken.  In this reading we find hope for times of desolation.  We might also use our times of consolation to prepare, knowing the hopelessness that can creep up and leave us feeling abandoned.  When we are feeling the consoling warmth of God’s love let us prepare for the cold time ahead.  What treasures of comfort has the Lord given to you that you might recall in times of despair?  When you are feeling consolation do you remember to ask that you might persevere in times of doubt and pain?

Christ tells us today “If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.”  Let us strive not for our own consolation, but rather use our times of desolation and consolation for the benefit of strengthening others.  Let us ask the Lord for the faith, hope, and love to endure all that we might bring His love to others.  Let us use our own times of consolation and desolation to bring about a radical change in our own lives and through our lives strengthen those we meet along the way to our heavenly home.

Reflections on the Readings of the Day: Tuesday, May 21, 2013
1st Reading Sir 2:1-11
Psalm   PS 37:3-4, 18-19, 27-28, 39-40
Gospel  Mk 9:30-37

Some colleagues at work were talking about going to a bar/restaurant that is known for immodestly dressed servers.  This is my response.

I will not go because the women there are worth more than that.  The value of a single human soul is higher than the entire rest of the created universe.  These women, made up of body and soul, should never be made into objects.  They exist as the queens of creation: they are the crown, not the footstool.  They deserve to be honored as such and should never be reduced to a mere occasion of lust.  As a man it is my duty to protect the dignity of women, not exploit them for my own pleasure.  My own dignity, too, is at stake.  Am I a better man for lifting those around me up or putting them down?  Do I fulfill my own kingship by drawing others into the lofty goal of a dignified life or by lowering their value to my utility?

I will not go because I am married.  On my wedding day, I surrendered my own sexuality to my wife.  Even before that day it was not mine to give away, it was reserved for her by God.  Christ said I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Mt 5:28.)  I know that my wife does not want me staring wide-eyed at other women, just as I would not her to look longingly at another man.  It is not a fear of sexuality or a belief that it is evil, but rather a belief that it is sacred and an utmost respect for the divine gift that it is.  In our marriage it is sex that is the closest expression of our union with God’s will to become one flesh and be not ashamed (Gen 2:24,25.)

I will not go because I have a daughter- and a mother, a sister, a father, cousins and friends.  I wouldn’t want any of them to be treated as less than a daughter, mother, sister, father, cousin, or friend.  Truly, the place in question does not treat people as badly as people can be treated, but it does exist as part of a larger culture of objectification, particularly of women.  I hope to be part of a new culture that emerges treating people not as means to selfish ends but as their own beautiful end.  I want the entire human family to operate in a familial way in which each member looks out for the other.

I will not go because I want to love as I should.

Judith, cutting off the head of Holofernes

There are a set of books in the Old Testament that the Catholic Church refers to as deuterocanonical, coming from the Greek word deuteros meaning second.  The books gained this name as they were contested as being non-Scriptural in the early Church and then once again during the Protestant movement, in which they are commonly referred to as the Apocryphya, a word connotating questionable origin.  Early councils affirmed the inspired nature of the books, which was later reaffirmed at the council of Trent.  It is commonly asserted by those that reject these books that there is no reference made of them by the New Testament authors.

There are many sources that make good defenses of the Dueterocanonical books as a whole, but here we will be focusing on of those books, that of Judith, and one New Testament epistle, 1 Corinthians.

In the 8th chapter of Judith, the title character gives a speech to rally the Israelites, admonish their rulers, and declare her intentions to inspire them through a heroic deed.  Here speech shows a well developed theology and an understanding of the timeline of salvation which is quite profitable to read and ponder, which is why I believe St. Paul did just that before writing 1 Corinthians.

In the beginning of her speech Judith asks: Who are you, that have put God to the test this day, and are setting yourselves up in the place of  God among the sons of men?  You are putting the Lord Almighty to the test–but you will never know anything!   You cannot plumb the depths of the human heart, nor find out what a man is thinking; how do you expect to search out God, who made all these things, and find out his mind or comprehend his thought? No, my brethren, do not provoke the Lord our God to anger (Jdth 8:12-14.)

St. Paul, writes: God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.  For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:10-11.)  St. Paul here echoes  Judith’s question of knowledge of the heart and mind of God vs. that of simply knowing that of a man.  Both agree that it is difficult and nearly impossible to know that of a man, and even more so to know that of God.  St. Paul agrees that only God can know his own mind and heart, but living in the fulfillment that Judith ached to see, has been given the Spirit of God.  He continues,  Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.  And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.  The unspiritual  man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.  The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.   “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ (1Cor 2:12-15)  Again, St. Paul comes to the point of Old Testament fulfillment and where Judith asks who can find his mind, St. Paul replies, we now have the mind of Christ.  St. Paul tells us that pre-incarnation Judith’s questions are unanswerable, but with Christ all things are answered for as he says elsewhere in him all things hold together (Col 1:17.)

Judith proclaims: For if we are captured all Judea will be captured and our sanctuary will be plundered; and he will exact of us the penalty for its desecration (Jdth 8:21.)  She advises that those who would lead to the destruction of the temple will themselves be destroyed.  Again, Paul repeats her and expands: Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?  If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are (1Cor 3:16-17.)  He declares, after the example of Judith, that those who destroy the temple will be destroyed.  He continues though, as before, as one redeemed by our Lord.  The temple is no longer limited in time and space as it was for Judith, but subsists in Jesus’ eternal Church.  St. Paul tells us that within each one of us is a temple to the Lord because as St. Peter commands like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1Pt 2:5.)  Paul again transfers what Judith proclaimed into a post-Salvation context.

Judith tells the Israelites Now therefore, brethren, let us set an example to our brethren, for their lives depend upon us, and the sanctuary and the temple and the altar rest upon us.  In spite of everything let us give thanks to the Lord our God, who is putting us to the test as he did our forefathers (Jdth 8:24-25.)  She tells them to give thanks in spite of all that is occurring, and that through this thanksgiving the lives of their brethren, along with the temple, will be saved.  St. Paul references his own continuous thankfulness and exhorts us to the same saying, If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?  So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.   Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,  just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved (1 Cor 10:30-33.)  St. Paul tells us as well that our our own thankfulness will save our brethren, which are no longer confined to our own people but extend to Jew, Greek, and the entire Church.

Read the Scriptures, my friends, and profit much from them.

I have heard it said, Lord
That you speak in silence
In a still small voice

Let my voice, Lord
Let my voice be still
That I may hear

I have heard it said, Lord
That you bless the man
Who delights in your law

Let my delight, Lord
Let my delight be always
In your precious word

I have heard it said, Lord
That you are a rock
a rock and a fortress for your people

Let my rock, Lord
Let my rock be my God
and my safety within his walls

I have heard it said, Lord
That the hills sing to you
And the forests clap for you

Let me join, Lord
Let me join the joyous song
That all creation sings to you

I have heard it said, Lord
That you vindication
Is for the pure of heart

Let me remain, Lord
Let me always remain pure
And walk in faithfulness to thee

I have heard it said, Lord
That you are a consuming fire
a consuming fire and unshakeable

Let me stand, Lord,
Let me stand unshaken before you
That I might be consumed by your love

 I have heard it said, Lord
That you were nailed to a cross
And suffered for me

Let me also, Lord
Let me also be nailed to that cross
And suffer for you as you for me

Morning:

Afternoon:

_______________________________________________________

WILLINGLY PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE OCCASION OF SIN

_______________________________________________________

WHEN I WAS A KID AND INSISTED WE GO TO MIDNIGHT MASS

_______________________________________________________

WHEN THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESS WAS AT MY DOOR AND I STARTED ANSWERING HIS QUESTIONS

_______________________________________________________

WHEN I WAS 7 YEARS OLD AND WANTED TO SEE WHAT “JESUS’ FACE FELT LIKE”

After consuming the Eucharist:

_______________________________________________________

WHEN AN EX-CATHOLIC PLAYS ME THE TALK THAT GOT THEM TO LEAVE THE CHURCH

(Hint: I’m on the left)

The following are from an interview turned book by Peter Seewald called “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times”

Peter Seewald: The great majority of [the abuse] cases took place decades ago. Nevertheless they burden your pontificate now in particular. Have you thought of resigning?
Benedict XVI: “When the danger is great one must not run away. For that reason, now is certainly not the time to resign. Precisely at a time like this one must stand fast and endure the difficult situation. That is my view. One can resign at a peaceful moment or when one simply cannot go on. But one must not run away from danger and say that someone else should do it.”

PS: Is it possible then to imagine a situation in which you would consider a resignation by the Pope appropriate?
BXVI: “Yes. If a Pope clearly realizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically, and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has a right and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign.”

_______________________________________________________

WHEN SOMEONE ASKS IF I’M GOING TO MASS ON ASH WEDNESDAY

_______________________________________________________

WHEN I TRIED TO DO ALL NIGHT ADORATION

_______________________________________________________

GO FORTH, THE MASS IS ENDED

Half the congregation:

_______________________________________________________

WHEN I TELL PEOPLE I HAVE A RELIC OF ST. ELIZABETH ANN SETON

_______________________________________________________

WHEN PEOPLE ACCUSE ST. THOMAS AQUINAS OF STRAW MAN FALLACY

I just look at them like:

Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you (1Thess 5:16-18.)

When it was time for me to enter school, my parents took me to test for a private Christian (non-Catholic) institution.  I was not admitted to the school.  I was sad that they did not want me.  My parents sent me to a public school for kindergarten and decided they would try again for private school the following year.  If I had got into the first school, I would not have applied for Catholic school the next year.

I made it in to this one, and stayed for my elementary and junior high years.  As I got older, I noticed that our school did not have state of the art equipment and was often low on money.  I would sometimes wish that I went to another school with greater material wealth.  If I my wish had been granted, I never would have seen the flyer for an all boys Catholic summer camp.

If had not seen the flyer, I would not asked my parents to go.  When I was away at the camp I wished that I was not the only boy from my school who was attending.  I wondered what might friends were doing at home with their summers and how I might enjoy that more.  If I was not there, I would not have fallen in love with the Norbertine priests running the program and their abbey.

If I did not love that abbey, I would not have begged my parents to go to the on site boarding school.  When I was at the school I was sometimes homesick.  I missed my family, my friends, television, and girls.  Early on I even once asked my mom if I could leave mid-year.   She said no.

If she had not denied my request, I would not have graduated from that high school.  I would not have spent those formative years learning from the priests.  I would not have looked at my life and wanted something more.  I would not have looked back fondly at my time at the abbey and made the decision to enter the seminary.

I was accepted into the seminary and began studying to be a priest.  I began to think that I might not have a priestly vocation and with the help of my superior discerned that I did not.  I was frustrated with the time I had spent working towards a goal that was no longer in sight.  I was embarrassed to be returning home and see all the people I had said goodbye to forever.  I had given away most of what I owned and was in need of an income.

If I was not in such need, I would not have taken a job that was below my qualifications.  If I had not taken that job, I would not have been quickly promoted.  Despite that early promotion, I felt like I was stuck.  I applied for various other positions but didn’t get them.  Each time I was more and more disappointed.  If I had got any of those positions  I would not have met John.

If I had not met John we would not have become friends and spent time outside of work.  If we had not been out with him one night I would not have met Pamela, who knew John’s wife.  We would not have been married one year later and we would not have a beautiful daughter.

Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you (1Thess 5:16-18.)

In her set of thought experiments, as they are called, titled A Defense of Abortion, Judith Jarvis Thomson sets up several analogies to make the case for legal and morally acceptable abortion.  Probably the most well known, and the one she touches on the most, is the analogy referred to as the “Famous Violinist Problem.”  For those who want to read the full text, follow the link here.  But to summarize the analogy: Thomson asks us to imagine that we were kidnapped against our will and wake up to find ourselves back to back with a famous violinist.  We are told that his circulatory system has been “plugged in” to ours and that to remove that plug would kill the violinist.  The doctors say that we were kidnapped by a society of music lovers who feel that this violinist must be saved.  They tell us that we must remain plugged in because of the violinist’s right to life.  Thomson proposes different time-frames for the plug in, from 1 hour to 9 months (equal to a pregnancy) to 9 years to an entire lifetime (as the bond between mother and child might last.)  The question she asks us is “Do you have an obligation to stay connected?”

Her answer, and the answer of most, is that you do not have an obligation to stay connected to the violinist on account of your being forced into the situation.  The problem, though, is that the analogy is not actually equivalent to abortion for a number of reasons.  We might look at the four conditions of the principle of double effect, as laid out by Thomas Aquinas and how they relate to each situation.  The principle is used to make a decision between actions when an otherwise morally good or neutral act has an unintended bad effect.

St. Thomas Aquinas

The first condition is that for the action to be morally acceptable the act in itself must be morally acceptable.  In the violinist experiment, the act of unplugging is not necessarily immoral in itself.  In the case of abortion, however it is not a mere unplugging but a direct and willful killing.  If instead of unplugging from the violinist we outright killed him, we might say that the violinist experiment fails this condition.  As it stands, however, the violinist case passes and the abortion case fails.

The second condition is that the bad effect must not be the means by which we achieve the good effect.  In the violinist case, we are not relieved of our burden because the violinist dies, but because we are unplugged from him.  In the case of abortion, we would be relieved from the burden of carrying the child directly from the death of the child.

The third condition is that the intention must be the good effect and the bad effect must be an unintended consequence.  In the violinist case we would say that we prefer the violinist to live and that if he does indeed die it is not by our intention.  In the case of abortion we are purposefully killing the child and it is the bad effect that is intended.

The fourth condition is that the good effect must be proportional or superior to the bad.  In the violinist case it might be argued that some of the time limits Thomson proposes might make a case for an obligation to remained plugged into the musician.  Ultimately though, allowing a sick man to follow the course of his disease and pass away is not proportionally equivalent to ending the life of the child as in the case of abortion.

Judith Jarvis Thomson

Another argument against Thomson’s analogy is to look at the nature of the two beings, the violinist and the child in the womb.  We are not told the age of the violinist but we can safely assume that he is not a child in the womb.  That being the case, his nature is to have his own functioning circulatory system not dependent on the direct interaction of another person.  The very nature of the child in the womb, however, is to have a circulatory system that is connected to the mother.  To remove the child from the womb is to deprive him/her of his/her nature.  The violinist  unplugged, is not denied his own nature.

I would counter Thomson’s analogy with my own, which I believe to be more fitting.  Thomson mentions that the violinist analogy is formed to be compared with rape, so I will form my analogy with a similar approach.  Say that you are home one night and an insane man breaks into your house with a baby strapped to his back.  The man attacks you, harms you greatly, and then leaves.  In the scuffle, the baby comes unstrapped and the man leaves him/her behind in your home.  Do you not have the duty to care for the child until those with the proper capability and authority arrive?

Rome (FireofThyLove) –

POPE BENEDICT XVI has seen the “Ordain a Lady” video below and released the following shocking statement:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

When the question of priestly ordination for women has come up, I have often referred to my blessed predecessor’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.  In the first sentence of the letter he confirms that priestly ordination “from the beginning always been reserved to men alone” and in the final sentence before his farewell blessing stated “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

I have been of mind to agree with him of whom I said, “My own service was sustained by his spiritual depth and by the richness of his insights.”  But that was before I saw the Women’s Ordination Conference parody of Carly Rae Jepsen’s Call Me Maybe, titled Ordain a Lady.  I was first struck by the brilliant idea to release a parody one of the summer’s most popular songs at the end of December; it was as if their timing was meant to reflect their message that the Church is falling behind the progress of the secular world.  As I listened to the song again and again, first because of its beauty, I became convinced that the Catholic Church should indeed ordain women.  I, and my hat, yield.

The first lines that stood out to me were “Don’t listen to St. Paul/’Cuz I can lead the way.”  I began to think, why do we listen to St. Paul?  Does writing half of the books of the New Testament, which we believe to be the inspired Word of God, give him any weight to us Christians?  As Catholics, should we care that St. Thomas Aquinas, who I once declared to have “had an exquisitely Eucharistic soul,” refers to St. Paul as “The Apostle?”

I was struck that the singer still felt “glowing” despite having been excommunicated.  She points out as well that she has obtained a Masters of Divinity degree and wears a chasuble, which I now understand to be the two essential characteristics of a Catholic priest.  I had previously thought the primary role of the priest was to offer the body and blood of the Lord so that the Church might proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (1Cor 11:26.)  But there I go again listening to Paul.  In the next chapter Paul asks a series of questions Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?  Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1Cor 12:29-30.)  Today we answer Paul: YES!

I close with the opening of the song.  The singer mentions St. Therese of Liseux who once wrote “I want to be a priest.”  Reading over that saint’s autobiography, I came across that statement along with another “to be a Crusader, a Pontifical Zouave.”  To that end, I call for a new Crusade, so that all women, who were denied participation in the previous crusades, may now join.  I also authorize all my crusading women priests, each one at once “a fighter, a priest, an apostle, a doctor, a martyr” as St. Therese desired, to wear a zouave style uniform under their flowing chasubles.

The Uniform of a Zouave

-If you can’t already tell, the above is complete satire, a part of our series Friday Funnies: http://fireofthylove.com/category/friday-funnies/