The Blue Collar Antidote to Loophole Catholicism

 

One of the most useful and pertinent posts I read by my friend Fr. Dave Nix on his blog was The Over-Intellectualization of the Catholic Faith. It spurned me to write The Time For Preaching and Teaching Is Over, the gist being to question the premise that "if we just catechize people better, or present the beauty of the faith in a more media-friendly manner, or up our homily game, or get out there and evangelize more, etc..." we would have a better 'conversion-rate.' 

I wasn't trying to be dire, just bringing light to the fact that the house is on fire and we're quibbling about God's permissive will versus His perfect will (or whatever). I think all these things do have the potential to save some people, or bring them deeper in their understanding or practice of the faith when also moved by grace, but on a mass scale (in the way of St. Francis Xavier in Japan, say) it is dribs and drabs, one-off saves (which, by the way, is never to be discounted either). 

Fr. Nix nailed something I couldn't put my finger on, especially as I reflected on my Catholic formation as a young college student, and in years of spiritual direction with a Jesuit priest after college, being told things like "it's very rare anyone ever actually commits a mortal sin because of limited knowledge, habit, [fill in the blank] which would negate their culpability and thus render a sin venial." How I *heard* this as a 19 year old college student was, "Soo, masturbation (as one example) is ?not? a mortal sin if it's a habit?" (which it was). Nuance and grey gave way to permission and license. 

It took about a decade of essentially unlearning everything I had been taught, and years more of a kind of Augustinian wrestling, and a flood of grace opened up by way of sacramentals (like the Miraculous Medal, for one) to arrive on the shores of Continence. And the vantage point in the distance, as I stood drying off and catching my breath, open to the colors and vividness with which a state of grace affords, made me realize just how off course what Fr. Nix refers to as a kind of "loophole" Catholicism had taken me off course. 

Loophole Catholicism is a kind of nuevo-Jansenism is disguise which employs dogmatic theology at its disposal. It's how you get the "gift and blessing of children" spoken of in the Psalms which has given way to a liberal discerning of "grave reason" to keep them at bay by way of NFP. Is it a sin to use NFP to space children? No. Can it lead to a kind of theological acrobatting in a couple's marriage to replace trust and abandonment (a recipe for good sex) with fear and trepidation (a recipe for bad sex)? It can. I wouldn't say it if we hadn't lived it out. 

This is just one example of course, and there are others of the way we 'dip the toe in' the water to test it. There is an alternative way of getting wet, though, one that I tend to employ now whenever we go to the beach--just jump in. The initial shock is acute but the body seems to acclimate quicker in full body immersion in the ocean. I can't help feeling kind of effeminate when I wade in and complain about how cold the water is, especially when it gets to waist level. At least when you just dive in, the shock is over quickly, akin to essentially "taking it like a man."

Fr. Nix writes about this 'over-intellectualization' in the context of the traditional Mass, and how even a common peasant or laborer was catechized by the Mass itself, even if he didn't have access to Formed or some other program. But I've also experienced this excessive "theologizing" in grad school, where I naively thought that studying Theology (at a more or less not-orthodox Catholic university) would make me a better disciple of Jesus Christ. What I found was that it was not the questions I had that would be answered (through study and dogmatic teaching), but "asking the questions" for their own sake, or better yet, "questioning the answers" which became the pen ultimate and mark of a contemporary student of Theology today. To paraphrase Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting says, "I dropped thirty Gs on an education I could have gotten for $1.50 in late fees at the public library (reading the Church Fathers)"

As a result, I have become wary of theology as a discipline when it seeks to justify itself not in the pursuit of Truth (which can be known by Revelation, and is a worthy end), but to find the loopholes to rationalize things contrary to the Truth. Sometimes, it's not that things are so hidden that we need advanced degrees to recognize them; it's that they are in plain sight, and contorted by a kind of Pharisaical intellectual pride and the sin of curiosity compounded by deliberate obscurification. The truth is not meant to confuse us, but set us free as it's primary goal (Jn 8:32). 

Anyone who has done labor-type work knows that the fence post holes don't dig themselves, the dirt doesn't move itself, the oil doesn't change itself. You could set to pontificating about the best way to actually set a post, move a mound, or unscrew a plug, but these aren't complicated tasks. They do, however, take a degree of work and subsequent discomfort, which is how I have come to think of the work of virtue despite the wiliness of sin--often times, we're just looking for ways to suffer less, or delay the work that needs to be done. And in the process, we often suffer more, just in different ways. 

Our Lord sometimes takes the 'blue collar' approach to making his teachings clear--if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. If you have something against your brother while offering your gift, leave the gift and make amends. Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Etc.

Sometimes we have just have to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Theology can inform, and certainly in the field of things like bioethics, things are not always so black and white. But when it becomes an end in itself, or seeks to subvert the Truth, it's purpose has become wayward. When it seeks to widen the path, rather than employ the tools needed to walk the narrow way, it fails to serve it's intended purpose. Pursuing holiness may be hard, but it doesn't have to be complicated. 

Saint Joseph's Pain

 Fr. Calloway has done a great service to the Church in promoting devotion to Saint Joseph during this year of the great saint. As he mentions in his book, Saint Joseph lived much of his life in the shadows. Sometimes, though, the greatest witnesses are those hidden from view. 

Many pious women have lauded Fr. Calloway's book and devotion to the saint, and laudably so. A man by his nature will never know the discomfort of carrying a child in their body the way a woman can, or the pain that gives way to joy in birth but can only admire it from afar. But for the man carrying his burden, trying to do the right thing, protect and provide for children, and do what the Lord is calling him to, Saint Joseph reserves a place to enter into his hidden life in a way which, I suspect, may be hard for a woman to fully experience. 

As I reflect on St. Matthew's gospel account of the Annunciation, I imagine Saint Joseph being in the Divine shadow from the beginning. Bestowed with special graces, and an essential figure in the Holy Family, he was nonetheless a human being--unlike Mary, in that he was not spared from Original Sin; and unlike Jesus, his foster son, not Divine. And yet his quiet obedience was unparalleled. His fiat was expressed wordlessly and in deed, "being aroused from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took him his wife" (Mt 1:24).

Just prior to his dream and the angel's proclamation, however, he must contend with (if I can speculate) the pain of misunderstanding. Perhaps he didn't care what people thought, or how they talked. But that his wife "was found with child," a child not his own, he is faced with the decision of what to do according to the law, which called for Mary to be "put away." Again, in obedience, he sets off to do so, though "secretly" so as not to exposure her to public example. What was in his heart? A mere man, could he not have felt what he could only have perceived as betrayal, at least initially and if only for an instant? And when it was revealed that Mary was with child "by the Holy Spirit," how to explain such a thing? 

We can see that what others think and any preoccupation with it is not mentioned in scripture; he does only what he is called to do. But his burden (which is, in fact, great privilege) is to not only endure the whispers and the pain of such misunderstanding among his own people and kin, but to bring up and provide a child not his own. 

The dangers magnify when the holy family takes flight into Egypt to escape King Herod, as he is charged with protecting not only the child Jesus, but his holy mother as well. What provisions could they have had? Where might they have had to sleep? How many sleepless nights did he endure in living out his role as foster father of the Redeemer in a foreign land not his own? Not long after, the wails of the mothers for their dead children echoed through the land--massacred, every last one (Jer 31:15). The literal future of the human race hinged on the protection afforded the child by grace and deed in St. Joseph's obedience.  

We do see in Matthew 2:22 that Joseph was "afraid" to go to Judea under the reign of Archaiaus, and again heeds the guidance of the angel to turn aside into Galilee to Nazareth. It is here, as we see in Luke's gospel, that the boy Jesus "grew and became strong." It is fathers who raise their sons in such a way, and while Jesus "increased in wisdom and stature" it is no doubt Saint Joseph formed him as he was called to do, and as if he were his own flesh and blood. Though his son was the God made man whom Joseph served, Joseph was the spiritual head of his household as scripture says, "he was subject to them" (Lk 2:40). 

What does it mean to be the spiritual head? The responsibility can not be overstated. Were St. Joseph to trust his own judgment, rather than listen to God; were he to doubt or falter to the point of saying "this is too much; I can't do this," we may not have the inheritance of the son. It is not easy to follow God's will when we do not understand. 

Let me repeat that: it is not easy to follow God's will when we do not understand. As any father knows, there is a burden we shoulder, often alone, even when willingly undertaken, that is the birthing ground for faith. Because we know what is at stake in raising a family, in heading a household. How many targets we have on our back, the value of the cargo we are charged in protecting. If we rely on our own power and intellect to make the decision which affect our family's well being, we are vulnerable to error. This is what we often fall back on in times of fear and doubt. 

And yet Saint Joseph by his silent witness and deep well of trust in being led paved a way for us as fathers today to do what is right by God first, for the benefit of our family, even when we do not understand what is going on. We need to tell ourselves this, remind ourselves of it, for Saint Joseph even in these scant passages in scripture, gives us the example of what it means to truly be led by God when you can't see two feet in front of you; when you only have faith to guide you. 

We all go through this, as fathers--doubting our abilities, facing our failures and imperfections, second guessing our calling. Tonight was one of those nights for me, when I needed (and obtained) the comfort of Saint Joseph's silent standing by my bedside when I lamented "I don't know what I'm doing. Saint Joseph, help!"

Thankfully, he always comes to our aid. This is why consecration to Saint Joseph is a medium of grace one would be foolish to leave on the nightstand.  He leaves us breadcrumbs in the desert to follow when we are leading our own family in the dead of night. He affords us powerful protection against our enemies, both human and spiritual, as the Terror of Demons. When we trust him and enter into his long night watch, we enter into a place where we learn what it means to walk by faith, what it means to be a father of the family, and what it means to hold safe the precious cargo entrusted to us in Christ.

The Vigano Effect

 One thing I struggle with constantly is the battle for affirmation. It's my "love language" and I'm sensitive to it, thrive on it. It's part of the reason I got off Facebook to not only free up some mental energy and brain space, but to try to extricate myself from the constant need for affirmation of what I was putting out there.

One nice thing about doing that is it has in fact freed up a lot more energy to just focus on writing. It's almost like a "if a tree falls in the woods" Zen koan though--if a writer writes and there's no one to read his words, does it make a sound? Does it serve any purpose, and what are my motivations? My wife posts my recent blogs to her Facebook for me to kind of let people know there is a new post, but otherwise it's just kind of existing in internet space. Some days, I wonder if it matters at all.

Honestly, I have wanted to quit many times--of course I don't make my living off it by any means, and so I'm not forced into it. It's not that it's unenjoyable either, and I usually don't spend more than 45 minutes tops on any one post, so it's not a huge time suck. I always want to make sure I'm writing for the right reasons, and always figured if it helps just one person out there somewhere come closer to Christ, it's worth it. Even though I try to quit and pull back, feeling like I'm writing too much, I feel the words of Jeremiah very acutely, "Then I said, “I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in His name.” But His word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones; and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not hold back." (Jer 20:9) 

I try to "stay in my lane," and just write about what I know, what I have experience with, and consider what I can offer anyone who finds it of benefit. I write mostly about faith, family, manhood, marriage, chastity, struggles, and trying to cultivate the virtues necessary to live an authentically Catholic life. My first blog (I've been blogging for about 15 years or so) wasn't all that successful because I just wrote about anything and everything; it lacked focus and direction. Now that I've been doing it a while, I find that I'm most comfortable and it seems best for those reading that I stick to the aforementioned, which is fine by me. Always plenty to write about on those topics. I think one thing that one who writes always has to be cognizant of is who their audience is, and to be true to your voice without being so self-focused that it serves no other purpose than for the self. You also have to be willing not to write just to garner likes, but to speak to the heart of others using whatever God has given you to do so. 

Related to the title at hand--I remember when Archbishop Vigano came on the scene, it was a very tantalizing message and scenario. He was "in hiding" and delivering these letters to warn people of things that were pertinent to the situation at hand. Seemed pretty solid, albeit sometimes unbelievable if you're not familiar with the rot in the Church. 

I think at some point people started to latch on to him. The merchandising and things ("'V' coffee mugs, etc) started to kind of make me say "Hm." Though this is just my personal speculation, I imagine he may have begun thinking "the message I have to deliver is so important that people simply must hear it." He sent a letter to President Trump. I read the letter, and I'm not a fan of buzzwords ("Deep State," etc.) so I was pretty turned off and felt like it undermined anything of substance he may have to say. He became like a Sydney Powell with a clerical collar. The message became diffused to the point that he would write warnings about all sorts of things, with more frequency, and I'm thinking to myself, "maybe he knows he's getting attention now, and feeling like he's someone important." 

Again, this is something I struggle with personally. If something is not worth saying or doesn't have any value, I try not to say it. But the temptation towards thinking you're someone important, that the world cannot live without whatever message you have, can crop up from time to time, and keeps me on guard. It goes back to that affirmation thing. I also take very seriously that I never want to lead anyone astray in the faith; I try to stick to the saints and the Catechism to keep from doing so, and qualify any personal stories as my own experience. I still don't call myself a writer, more just "a guy who writes some things." 

I watch YouTube videos, and Jordan Peterson is another one who came on the scene whom I was impressed by for his stand for free speech and not being bullied into using language inconsistent with reality. A university professor of Psychology at the time, when he was outed, he took to speaking engagements and publishing books on ways to live more authentically. He always had a kind of stoic bent, and seemed sympathetic and even close to the edge of belief, but stuck to the mythological narrative of Christ as the perfect man and always stopped short of would be a relatively straightforward profession: "Jesus Christ is Lord, and I believe He is the Son of God." 

But he hasn't done that, and that's fine. Maybe he is on a journey. But he took the Vigano route as well, in pumping out videos and doing interviews on every topic under the sun in a kind of self-assured manner that "if one just does x, y will happen." Again, his background is in psychology, not philosophy or theology, and has has a bent towards Stoicism. He is a smart man, and he knows it. Is he open to more? To being corrected? I think so, but it must be a challenge when you're that smart. I wonder if it's kind of an issue of getting your name out there and hitting the circuit to pay the bills, now that he is not a professor anymore? In any case, it seems he has something to say about every topic imaginable. I still like some of his videos (I was watching his "Epic Rant" on YouTube last night about why there aren't more women at the top in corporate America), but the diffusion makes me think it's just about being a figure now that perhaps regards himself as more important then he really is. 

Consumer culture is tough. It's tough for the faith, it's tough for religion, and it's tough for anyone to stay relevant for too long. Things change so fast. People's tastes change, and consumers have all the power to simply tune you out. It doesn't lend itself to slow, steady consistency or depth. You have to manipulate algorithms and use click-baity titles to keep people tuning in. That's not a way to invest in "building up the health of the soil" when you don't have time to self-reflect because you're always pumping out letters or videos to stay in the public eye. 

It's always hard to keep our motivations pure. I think what's important for the person of faith who has been gifted with whatever God has given you--whether it's athletics, or comedy, or math, or whatever) is to use all things for the glory of God. We shouldn't be afraid to use our gifts and we shouldn't bury them, but we shouldn't get carried away by big heads either. If you do, you'll feel it, because the fall is swift. It would be good to pray for the intercession of St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, who regarded his voluminous writings and work as nothing but dross when compared to the glory of God. We do not live for ourselves, but for Christ! 

To Have Become Like Orphans

I've been getting texts and Rorate-Caeli links about the Holy Father's flowery letter to Fr. James Martin congratulating him on his work and apostolate. You can read it for yourself if you like here. 

Remember that infamous clip of the liberal head explosion making the rounds on the internet after the 2016 election, of the woman (?) screaming into the universe? Does this letter have the same head-exploding potential for conservative/orthodox Catholics? Sure. Heads will explode. We are hungry for scandal. We're no better than liberals when we lap it up like dogs.

My response by text to my priest friend and others was simple:

"All I feel is peace, because the fissures are so clearly drawn, and we have no excuse not for girding our loins for what's coming. 

Just because your father is passed out at the wheel doesn't mean there's not work that needs to be done and siblings who need to be fed and cared for."

 

If the "smoke of Satan has entered the Church" as Pope Paul VI said, is it any wonder the Barque is as turned upside down as the world outside? Where the Pope himself affirms the construction taking place at Sodom and Gomorrah just prior to it's razing? It is enough to baffle the mind and razzle the most fervent souls. 

For those who let it.

I am not an ostrich type, with his head in the sand. I know what's going on in the Church. If I am a fool, let me be a fool for Christ, who is married to His Bride. But are we fools for staying on the ship? You almost need a kind of 'holy ignorance' today, which seems like a grace that allows the follower of Christ to continue to advocate and hold fast to the most dysfunctional, corrupt, and perverted institution in existence today. 

Of course, if that was all She was, I'd have jumped ship when I saw the smoke. But we're in it for the long game, even through the birth pangs and agony of foolishness. 

When your wife is in labor and you are by her side, what do you do? "Look at me," you say. "Focus on me. Breath. This will not be forever." As she tightens her grip on your hand to the point of cutting off the circulation, you tell her "Look at me. Focus on me" to keep her from entering into the pain, which is so blindingly acute that it seems an agony that will never end. And then she gives birth, as scripture says, and the pain is forgotten and her joy complete.

I read the letter from the Holy Father. If this were five or more years ago, I might have thrown up in my mouth a little, might have suffered a kind of spiritual aneurysm. But this pontificate has been a grace and blessing in that all the stops have been pulled out. During my time trying to extricate myself from sin and the influence of my secular friends, I felt like I had both feet on opposing fence posts which were being spread apart, and felt the acuteness of the the pain as I continued to try to straddle. When I stepped off, and left it all behind, I had peace, and could get to work; at least the suffering that came with choosing had merit, not for naught, "suffering for doing good," as St. Peter says (1 Peter 3:17). I have taken to heart that we "should not be surprised when the fiery trial comes upon us" (1 Peter 4:12). Nothing surprises me anymore. Nothing. 

Does that mean there are not siblings to be fed, like I said? Work to be done? Souls heading to perdition to fast for? Orphans that need to be cared for? It has gotten to the point that we are being gaslit so badly that we just have to tell one another, "don't listen to him. He's not in his right mind" and do the best we can as teenage parents in the faith. God gives us the grace. Passed out at the wheel or not, abusive or not, we cannot not call him father. We may be adopted by another family (Orthodox? High Church Anglican?), offered a more comfortable environment in the suburbs away from the abuse, but we know our history. Can we leave? Sure. Can we divorce our spouses? Sure. Can we give back our birthright? That may be another story altogether. 

It is interesting that all of the above verses from scripture that seem so apt in this trial to hold on come from the first Bishop of Rome himself in his epistles. I'll end with one as well. Remember--people still need to be fed. The house still needs to be cleaned and maintained. The bills still need to be paid. We as brothers and sisters of the Church are like the Lost Boys of Sudan. But it is those same fools who have chosen their Master to follow--the man with no guile on his lips, who always told the truth and did not relish in falsehoods, who loved and died and rose and did not leave us orphans--who will inherit the kingdom. 

How clear are the lines drawn in the sand. What a grace we have for this breaking open of falsehood in full view for those with eyes to see to view. What delineation between angels and demons who used to resign themselves to the shadows. What a sifting taking place, wheat from chaff, and we are spared no grace to get off the fence and double down to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, and great confidence. The perversions of this world are so apparent, so in your face, that we almost have to shield our eyes as one would look away from the sun lest we burn out our eyes. But as the Master says, "Fear not! I have overcome the world!" I have such great hope. Such great hope.

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.

Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.

They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—an animal without speech—who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.

These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.” If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” (2 Peter 2:1-22)

When A Relic Comes Into Your Home

 For a while now, I have been feeling what I refer to as "uncomfortably comfortable." It's not an unsettling feeling; after all, everything in your life is good and seems to be in place. Health? Good. Finances? Good. Job? Good. Marriage? Good. Kids? Good. A former pessimist by nature, I do have these pangs of waiting for the other shoe to drop, and that these times have the potential to be a kind of 'eye of the hurricane.' As anyone knows, the eye of the hurricane is deceptively calm, but a dangerous place to be, since just on the wall outside of it is the most vicious part of the storm cloud. When it starts to move, and you're not in the eye anymore, well...you might want to get prepared for what's ahead. 

The discomfort of the comfortable is what people of faith can sometimes experience, as it is not always God's will that we stay in this place for long. For those living "in the world" it's a foreign concept. Comfort and leisure is the well-earned reward of hard work and deferred gratification to be relished and enjoyed. But our Lord offers us a warning in the parable of the rich fool, which I have often reflected on in Lk 12:17-21:

“The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

“This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”

What does it mean to be "rich towards God?" For those who are, they give everything they have been given back again, to be used for His purposes. They "do the work even with the wages of work," knowing it will bring forth a hundred fold (including persecutions) not only in the next life, but in this life as well (Mk 10:30). Though contentment is a good disposition and good for mental well being, it is not enough to be content in this life with what we have been given if we are running the race to win. Everything we have belongs to God to be used for His purposes.

I've been praying through this "uncomfortable comfort" for a while now--what does it mean? What is it's purpose? What is the 'next step' for us as a family in doing God's will? Patience is not one of my virtues, and I find that this kind of waiting game (in this case, waiting for marching orders) can be hard. We have been through many seasons as a family--moving, new jobs, the loss of children and parents, caring for the sick and aged--and so God has blessed us, I think, with this season to offer respite. We don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, obviously. But I keep feeling in prayer and circumstance that this season of rest is coming to the end of its term. The Lord is gently calling us to the next chapter, or at least putting it to us in prayer, "I have given you this time. Are you ready now to get back to work?"

I was recently given a particular 1st class relic of St. Maria Goretti. St. Maria is one whose story I know well, but do not have a particular devotion to. One of the churches I frequent for Adoration has a statue of the child St. Agnes and I find when praying I am moved by her saintliness and ask for her intercession. A relic of St. Maria the child virgin-martyr, sometimes known as the "20th century St. Agnes" assumed a place in our home about a week ago, and I find she is already weaving her story, in ways unknown, into our own.

I kind of forgot about the relic until this morning, when I awoke not from a dream, but a recollection of her story. The young Maria came from a poor family in Italy, and her father had died when she was young, forcing her and her siblings to farm and share a home with another family while her mother cared for the younger children. 

Alessandro Serenelli was eighteen years old around this time. His story is tragically familiar to those who are broken and come from brokenness. Shortly after he was born, his own mother attempted to drown him.  Several months later, while in a mental asylum, she herself died.  His brother would also be subsequently interned in an asylum, where he also died. Alessandro’s father, Giovanni, was an alcoholic who struggled to provide for his children.  He moved the family multiple times trying to earn a living as a manual laborer.  Unfortunately, his alcoholism prevented his holding down a job for very long.  It was while endeavoring as a sharecropper that he met Luigi Goretti, father of Maria Goretti.  Both families living in poverty, it was decided that they would partner together and attempt to work as a team for those hiring sharecroppers. 

When Alessandro one day found himself alone with the young Maria, he forced himself upon her in sexual advance. Maria resisted, and also warned him that such a sin was worthy of damnation. In his anger at her resistance, he stabbed her fourteen times. She died within twenty four hours. 

Alessandro was convicted and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. He had no contrition, and deflected blame to Maria who was, of course, innocent. Six years into his sentence, he had a dream in which the young martyr Maria came to him and offered him lilies which burned up in his hand. This act of forgiveness was enough to fill him with contrition, and he awoke a changed man. Upon his release, he sought the forgiveness of Maria's mother, who in the spirit of her saintly daughter, withheld it not, and even figuratively adopted the murderer as her own son. Alessandro died in peace as a lay Capuchin in 1970.

Our family will be beginning a nine day novena to both St. Joseph and St. Maria Goretti this evening, to conclude on July 5th, in which we will be asking for their powerful intercession that we might be led by God to be revealed His holy will, that we may follow it, and for the graces to do so. I have a feeling the story of both St. Joseph and St. Maria Goretti will make sense somewhere down the road. God is the author of life, and can bring men back from the dead as well. For now, in your charity, I would be most appreciative if you may unite with us in this nine day prayer as well. I don't ask for much here at Pater Familias, but I do feel God is preparing us for something, and always respects our free will when we decline his invitation. 

But we don't want to do that. We want to follow Him wherever He leads us, even when we don't know the way or what it entails, and we need grace and fortitude to do so, to say, "Jesus, I trust in you!" The uncomfortable comfortable has been a nice season, admittedly. But from where I sit, I don't think we're meant to stay in it. We are called to work, and there's work to be done. 

The Case For Frugality In The Christian Life

Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, `Who is the LORD?' Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.

(Prov 30:8)

The Book of Proverbs speaks of the many "traps" the disciple is to be on guard against. Traps against adulterous women (Prov 7); fear of men (Prov 29:25); laziness and deceit (Prov 26). Etc.

The wisdom of Solomon is in the order of things. Of course his father David, and he himself, was entrusted with kingdoms and riches, yet he writes, "give me neither poverty nor riches." Of course this squares with the example of the storing up (and rotting) of the manna in the wilderness in Exodus, and our Lord's words in the Our Father to "give us this day our daily bread." Our Lord gives us warning in the parable of the Rich Fool not to store up to much so that we can just "eat, drink, and be merry" lest we be caught of guard at the Judgment (Lk 12:19).

This is very much the attitude in the secular financial blogs I read--to work your tail off and make bank early, let compound interest and investments build momentum, retire at 40, and live the good life in travel and leisure, often at the expense of the decision not to have oh-so-expensive children.

Their strategies are often good, but for Christians we have a different mindset. All we have is a gift to be used and given back to God for His glory and the benefit of our brothers and sisters in need. That doesn't mean we "can't have nice things," but sometimes we take liberties with this to unwittingly 'entrap' ourselves with lifestyle inflation that we find can get sometimes put us in a pickle later on.

What do I mean? Well, often our difficulties in finances comes down to the discrimination between wants and needs. We also need to balance our faith in Divine Providence with prudential stewardship and planning for unforeseen events, retirement, giving, etc. We are still expected to manage our finances, but in light of the Gospel. For the family, this will look different than a religious, who like St. Martin de Porres or St. Francis, may have more liberties to give away everything he has to the poor to follow Christ. 

This is not as much a theological post, but a nuts and bolts primer on the sometimes touchy subject of finances in the Christian life. It's also just my personal perspective, what has worked for us and may not apply to everyone, but one may find some useful bits here and there on the how and why of frugality in the Christian life. 

1. True freedom is found in Christ. But prudent management of finances also holds a degree of freedom. Money is not "an interesting luxury, nothing more, " as Che Guevera once said (truly woke!). It is practically essential to our livelihood, and few can live without it. But since it is not money itself, but the love of money which is the root of all evil (1 Tim 6:10), we can regard it like the internet--a tool of neutrality, to be used for good or conversely, selfish purposes. 

My dad used to say, "Money means options." There is some truth in this, as long as you are not ruled by it. We all know the psychological studies of "choice paralysis" that have been done in supermarkets--sometimes too many choices, too many options, inhibits and paralyzes our faculties; limit choices to a few and it becomes easier. And, of course, as the Notorious B.I.G. said, "Mo Money, Mo Problems." Again, I think this goes back to the sensibilities of Solomon, "give me neither riches nor poverty." We neither want to forget our reliance on Providence, nor compromise our morals due to destitution.

2. Freedom in finances can free you up to more charity, more children, and more peace of mind. I have spoken to friends, and it was our story as well, that dual income/daycare is a kind of trap--most people realize daycare is not worth it after 3 kids, so people will unconsciously panic at having more when that's in the equation. Not to mention if you choose private school, you internally multiply it by how many kids and you get a little more...closed off to welcoming life. 

3. Hard work is a reward in it's own right. What happens when you sit around all day, not working, living a life of leisure? You get soft. You get spoiled. You get isolated. There is solidarity in work, and reward in labor. It feels good to put a hard day's work in, either with the body or the mind, so we are compensated not just monetarily, but with the satisfaction of contributing, producing, and being pushed a little beyond just eating, drinking, and being merry. Leisure is more appreciated, because it is partaken in in the shade provided by work. I have worked since I was twelve years old, and though none of my jobs were particularly high paying, I gained a lot of satisfaction in delivering newspapers, testing welds in a propane factory, editing blueprints for an architect, waiting table and washing dishes, working as a bike courier, a teacher, a swimming pool cleaner, and probably twenty other jobs I can't recall now. Work gives us perspective, and is central to a man's identity and sense of self. 

4. Living on one income as a family and budgeting accordingly is an admirable and necessary goal. This is an important one. It requires a good hard look at one's finances, budget, assessment of needs versus wants, and everyone being on board. It provides a buffer, ironically, against unforeseen circumstances more so than when both spouses are working. Even if both are, budgeting on one income can lead to a healthier emergency fund and frees one from other expenses and 'convenience buying,' which equates to less stress, which is healthier for a marriage and for one's health, and less financial precariousness. 

Think it can't be done, especially with a large family? Check out this Catholic family of 15 doing just that. 

5. Adjusting one's tastes and habits to acclimate to a lower threshold of expectation leads to greater enjoyment of the "little things." Have you ever wondered why so many superstars and wealthy tycoons are so unhappy? After a while, it just becomes a matter of 'zeros' (ie, the difference between $100,000,000 and $1,000,000,000) and you lose perspective on the value of money. I heard once some studies done was that happiness does not increase after a certain salary; a kind of 'sweet spot' for meeting needs and wants after which point the contentment factor levels off. 

Personally, I do not gain any enjoyment out of 'entertainment' that is marketed to me (ie, things like Disney World, resorts, etc). I don't like 'manufactured fun.' Over the years I have learned to tune out what I should be spending my money on into what I want to spend my money on. And I found that it doesn't take much, often. A trip to get ice cream for the kids can be as big a sense of enjoyment as a trip to the waterpark for kids that have been more or less trained in this way. Camping, a trip to the beach, or a hike in a local park can be as enjoyable an outing as something more commercialized that might cost ten times as much. 

The rich don't have this luxury (ironic use of term). There comes with wealth a certain expectation, and the rich who are attuned to it know that 'everyone is out to get something from you.' Of course much of the arts, culture, etc is financed by the rich, so they serve their place in society, especially for artists, laborers, etc., who would not have work were it not for the financers.  But there is sometimes, I suspect, an unhappiness and a desire to go back to the simpler days before they came into wealth when they could appreciate these little things that cost little to no money. Happiness is not dependent on money--probably one of the biggest lies we have been fed in our consumer culture. Which brings me to my next point.

6. Marketing will employ every means available, including psychology, to part your money from you. It is relentless, and you have to be attuned to it. We are trained to think we can not have a good time without buying, financing, or traveling to x place. We're subtlly led to believe that we love our kids more if we buy them nice things and shower them with gifts at Christmas, and that if we don't we are depriving them. It's all. A. Lie. When you are separated from your money, it cannot work for you, and a dollar spent today may be five dollars less you have a few years from now due to lost opportunity cost. 

7. Buy used cars. Sensible millionaires employ this, because they know that cars depreciate as soon as you drive them off the lot; let someone else take the hit. Don't finance. You also save on insurance premiums, because when you finance you don't have the option to go liability (with high coverage), but need to add comp and collision as well. Plus you don't have to worry as much if it gets dinged or nicked in the parking lot. Let's face it, if you have kids, that 'new car smell' will wear off pretty quick anyway. They only come to pillage and destroy!

8. Give. Ten percent if you can, less if you can't, more if you can. Everything we have is God's. Support your parish, support your brothers and sisters in need. No one says you have to donate to established charities (often with high overhead). We have organically written mortgage checks, electric bills, etc, for Catholic families we knew in need with money set aside for this purpose for families that may have had trouble getting assistance through more regulatory channels. Remember, everything you give, God gives back one hundred fold. Worry less about who is 'deserving' and just give it away like Zacchaeus (be prudent, of course). You'd may be surprised the blessings of a generous heart and a cheerful giver incurs in the spiritual economy.

9. Save (but don't make money an idol). You can't spend or give money you don't have. Learn to invest, and there are options for moral investments as well should that be a concern. Passive, low-cost index funds are a good option. Use a compound interest calculator to teach your kids about the magic power (it's just math!) of compounding and the importance of saving early. I told my kids as soon as they get their first job, in order to incentivize saving, that I would open up a Roth IRA in their name and if they max it out, I will give them twice what they invest, in addition to the money put away. 

10. Money is not an "interesting luxury," but a tool like all things to be used for good. Use it well. Give God control over your finances. Learn, watch YouTube videos, talk to other frugal people. Be on the same page with your spouse, and don't make money or finances a taboo topic. Cut out the emotionalism (this can be very hard for many people). Plan for worst case scenarios, but don't become obsessed by them. Cultivate generosity early, so that your kids can see what it looks like, and for the benefit of spiritual reward. Learn the difference between wants and needs. The things of the world are temporal. Marketers are relentless. Where your heart is, there your treasure will be. If you are given much, must will be expected. But the more you have, the more you can bless others.  Invest in relationships and "human capital." Who knows--at some point you may be the one who needs help!

The Pain of Mortal Sin

I'm getting a lot of flack in the combox on my article published on the topic of rigidity--basically being accused of being the very thing I am pointing out. Those commenting note with horror the quote I used and affirmed by Queen Blanche, mother of King St. Louis IX, to her son that "I would rather see you dead at my feet than commit a single mortal sin." 

One of my responses, for what it's worth, to a commenter who noted that he would drop dead of shock if he heard Jesus utter that quote, and that there is a fundamental difference in how "traditionalists" see the will of God in Christ. My response (to save me from rehashing):

"And yet the Lord says, ““If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.” (Mt 5:29-30). Is he misspeaking? Does anyone really think one should self-mutilate at the reception of Jesus’ words after they are delivered to him? Of course not. The Lord Himself drives home the gravity of sin in this hyperbolic (not literal) manner to make the point. I interpret Queen Blanche’s words not dis-similarly. Do I ‘wish my children dead’ as one commentedr put on me? Don’t be ridiculous, and quit missing the point. The point is all the saints had an abhorance of sin to the point where they would echo her sentiments for themselves. St Teresa of Avila wrote, “If we knew how much damage one mortal sin does to the soul, we would go to the “greatest trouble imaginable” to avoid committing such a sin. “No thicker darkness” clouds the soul than mortal sin: it produces nothing but “misery and filth,” bringing “endless and eternal evils in its train.” (IC 33-34). If I recall Mother Teresa (is she rigid as well?) felt similarly. I am nowhere close to a saint, but like I said, I stand behind the hyperbole. We are not all called to be Saint X….but we are all called (and given the grace and means) to attain sanctity in order to wear the crown (but not without suffering)."

The thing I wanted to add (as I wasn't able to edit the comment) was that the nature of mortal sin is that it kills the life of grace in the soul, and severs the relationship between the sinner and God. Does that mean God does not love us? Of course not, for nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. Does it mean, as the Church teaches, that the relationship between God and sinner is severed and in need of redemptive repair by way of sacramental Confession? Yes. 

Additionally, this: for those who would be so aghast, the litany of saints throughout history would probably affirm the Queen's words, because they know (like St. Teresa) what death sin produces in the soul, and reel from even it's suggestion, such was their sanctity, and that one would suffer in such a way that they would want what is the "better part" for their children--the salvation of their souls; and that Christ himself used the image of cutting off and casting off one’s very members should they lead them to sin (again, hyperbole, as we don't see masses of one-armed pirate saints throughout history, since they didn't miss Jesus' point but saw it for what it was); if that wasn't enough,

God sent His own Son, HIS VERY OWN SON to SUFFER AND DIE on a cross, for ungrateful men who DIDN'T EVEN CARE! 

Put yourself in the shoes of God the Father. Why did He do this? To save us. From what? The pain of sin. Why was it necessary? The severing of relationship after the Fall was so great, so severe, such an affront to justice, that it was only the perfect sacrifice of GOD HIMSELF made man in Christ, His divine Son, that could redeem and ransom back what was lost in disobedience. 

Do you think God made that sacrifice, even in love, lightly? Do you think it does not pain Him to the point of grief to see the lukewarmness with which men regard their ransom? Knowing the nature of mortal sin, that it separates one from God eternally if unconfessed...is God Himself not grieved to the point of suffering at this loss of the ones whom He wants to love so ardently, so fully, so completely who have cut themselves off by their own free will? He will do anything and everything to get us back to Him, even sending his OWN SON to SUFFER AND DIE so that we might have a chance. 

But! He will not interfere with our free will. Because He knows (of course) and we know (but forget) that love means nothing if it is not free to give; ie, coerced. 

We think God doesn't understand. That we endure temptation. That we suffer. That we lose people we love. 

Could there be any religion which understands human nature and the love of the Divine more fully than Christianity, which makes the sole claim of God COMING DOWN and abasing Himself to become not just like us in appearance, but FULLY HUMAN? And doing so not because He owed us anything or out of a sense of duty, but because He LOVED US with such an incomprehensible love that He would literally offer up His own son, who shared in Him the Divine Nature, to suffer humiliation, torture, and yes, death. For us.

I recalled a story from the life of St Felicity. Appearing before the prefect of Rome with her pious sons, he exhorted her to sacrifice to idols, but in reply heard a generous confession of faith. “Do not threaten me,” she said. “The spirit of God is with me and will overcome every assault you make.”

“Wretched woman,” he said to her. “How can you be so barbarous as to expose your children to torments and death? Have pity on these tender creatures, who are in the flower of their age and can aspire to the highest positions in the Empire!”

Felicity replied, “My children will live eternally with Jesus Christ if they are faithful; they will have only eternal torments to await if they sacrifice to idols. Your apparent pity is but a cruel impiety.”

I was starting to get a gaslighty feeling reading some of the comments. Like, "Do I really want to see my kids dead?" "Is mortal sin that big a deal?" "Was that quote a bit much?" Second guessing, you know? What made me hot was the subtle implying that I was an abusive parent, or that I did not love my children with a fervent love, or that I was 'rigid' to the point of sadism...all from strangers on the internet. That such a prospect would somehow not rend my heart in two with grief. 

But I still stand by it, when I reflect. For some the road we work out to sanctity looks this way and for some that way, but no one can avoid the cross (whatever that is for them) that God lays on us, because if we are to be true imitators of Christ we can only be called worthy as disciples if we take it up. Otherwise, "we have no inheritance with him," for "he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (Mt 10:37)

Now, would I tell my kids that to their face? Certainly not at their current age, and even when older I would be reticent except should it be used as a nuclear option to drive the essence of the point home and shake them up to how great God's mercy and love is, and how sin unequivocally seeks to undermines everything that God the Father did for us, how it gives birth to nothing but death, and how it separates us from the only thing that spiritually sustains us in this life--sanctifying grace--the indwelling of the Spirit of God, the inner light that sin attempts to snuff out by any means necessary. Call it a "rigid love"--the love of the soul.

Should we resist sin to the point of death? You bet. If we do we're in good company. If we heed the voices of the world that claim this too extreme, sadistic, cruel, unreasonable--we can lay down our crown then. We have forfeited the race, not run well. Because Christ did not promise that we would not suffer, possibly even to the point of death, and it is not necessarily contra to His will, as St. Paul says, "In your struggle against sin, you have not suffered unto blood" (Heb 12:4). 

Christ did, though. And if we are not willing to follow...well, I'm sure there are plenty of options in the world for someone that may be more agreeable to one's sensibilities. 

Can Men And Women Be Friends?

 

I'm a "friends" guys. My friends are important to me, and have also changed over the years. I wrote about this shift in All My Friends Will Soon Be Strangers.

I'm somewhat 'gender-blind' when it comes to who my friends are. I have old friends and young friends, Christian friends and some non-Christian friends, and female friends as well as male friends. But I'm much more cognizant of boundaries today then maybe I was in the past. As I recounted in 'I'm Living the Cliche'--Extramarital Affairs And The Illusion Of Happiness, 

A few years ago I had a good friend that I reconnected with, though I can't remember the circumstances. We had worked together in the city years before, and she was a Christian. I knew her husband. We would text and email every now and then, nothing that I wouldn't show my wife if I asked, mostly conversations about faith and Christian living. I so desperately wanted Christian friends to connect with during times when I felt under siege in a pagan culture that I was willing to be somewhat gender-blind.

Still...I had a feeling I was on a slope that was a little slick. What if things got hard with my wife and I turned to this other person who seemed to understand my spiritual struggles? We had plans to get together with our kids at a park or something when she was in town one time a few years ago, but I thought better of it and said that while innocent enough, it probably wasn't a good idea. She mentioned she was relieved I had called off the meeting for similar reasons. While there was never any explicit attraction, the potential was there, and I think both of us, sensing it, distanced ourselves and eventually fell out of touch.

I've never been a good lier, or even tempted by it. As a kid I would get so anxious and sick to my stomach at the prospect of having to keep stories straight under pressure that I just vowed to never get caught in a lie by never telling one. I did have a couple friends who dated compulsive liers, which wasn't apparent right away (they was that good). There's something psychologically off about someone who lies about even little things that don't matter in order to maintain a web of untruths. I just figured, in my adult life, it was just easier to always tell the truth.

So, my wife knows I can't really lie, and that I won't really try. If I do something wrong, I fess up to it pretty much right away, for my selfish sake as well as hers.

But adultery isn't just "something wrong" that one does, like saying you took out the garbage when you really didn't. No; adultery is a complete and utter betrayal. It breaks vows, it rends hearts, it destroys families. While forgiveness is possible, some marriages never recover from such a blow, with trust never getting restored. It is such a serious threat that I don't think being a little extra cautious, a little extra 'extreme', is unwarranted.

My litmus is if I catch myself looking over my shoulder, or feeling like there is something I need to hide from my wife, that's a red flag. I have plenty of platonic friendships with members of the opposite sex, but as a general rule I don't "hang out" or get together without including her. I also will hand over my phone or email if she asks to see it (she rarely does), and because I have yielded authority of my body to my wife (1 Cor 7:4), I use her feelings as a gauge. She is a reasonable person and a sensible woman: if she's uncomfortable with something, it's for good reason, and I need to pay attention to and respect that. I can also be gullible and naive, not unlike Marilyn Monroe in the apartment scene, so she is a good point of defense in the event I am missing something.

I try to adopt the 'Pence Approach' with a little bit of latitude in my personal life when it comes to boundaries. Billy Graham recalls during his time of ministry that,

"We all knew of evangelists who had fallen into immorality while separated from their families by travel. We pledged among ourselves to avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion. From that day on, I did not travel, meet or eat alone with a woman other than my wife. We determined that the Apostle Paul’s mandate to the young pastor Timothy would be ours as well: “Flee . . . youthful lusts” (2 Timothy 1:22)

It's a little different for more high-profile people who can easily be set up or compromised, sometimes even if they weren't expecting it, by others. But I do think men and women can be friends as long as some intentional boundaries and some unspoken common sense is enacted: 

-In the 'one flesh' union of your marriage, everything that's yours is hers (your wife's) and everything that is hers is yours. That means, in the context of our marriage, if my wife ever asked to see my email or phone, I would hand it over to her, and vice versa. This keeps trust, and accountability, at the forefront of our marriage so that we give no reason for suspicion. But it only works when you are open and use that as a motivator to be honest. 

-Don't put yourself in potentially compromising situations, either in regards to temptation or public scandal. I think it goes without saying that you should not be having lunch with a female friend if you are married, and that most interaction if it takes place should be in the context of other groups of friends. This may look different for different people in different contexts, but it should go without saying.

-For phone conversations I do have with other women, in almost every case, my wife knows the woman. Any conversations should not be of a personal or intimate nature, or related to personal aspects of your marriage, but should be focused on the objective. I called a female friend last night to ask advice about a particular topic, but it was nuts and bolts stuff. Be wary of the emotions. Keep things objective. Do not confide anything or place an uncomfortable burden on someone of the opposite sex that is in any way hidden. If you find yourself looking over your shoulder for your spouse suddenly walking into the room during the course of your conversation, that's a red flag. 

-Live your own life with integrity so that you guard against immorality. If there is even a hit of inappropriateness (which can sometimes be difficult to discern) in the context of a friendship, by either party, flee. It's not worth the risk. I'd say in 99% of cases, there is no attraction between the females I am friends with--not because they aren't attractive, but because you don't let yourself go there. If you feel that you are, best to play it safe and put some distance there. These women have strong marriages, and in the vast majority of the cases, I also know or are friends with their husbands. Not to say it can't be an issue, but it does help to have that so there's no secrecy. 

These are just a few things to consider, I'm sure there are others. It is also a matter of personal comfort level and personal boundaries. Not everyone may feel comfortable and may take a more Amish approach, either for their benefit of the benefit of their spouse. I'm a little bit more liberal, but I also have a wife that trusts me and I give her reasons to. The last thing I want to do is betray that trust. If that was ever threatened, I (hope I) would back off whatever situation was putting that in danger. Common sense goes a long way, having your marriage on good footing, and appropriate boundaries. So I wouldn't take the approach of "men and women can never be friends," at least for myself. Just be smart, prudent, discerning, honest, and never give reason for scandal. There's a lot of weirdos out there. Thankfully my friends, both men and women, don't seem to fall into that category.

The "Wide Net" of Modern Media Protestantism

 I have often said that our Christian brethren do four things admirably: they lean heavily of the Word on God in scripture as they understand it and in prayer; they take fellowship seriously; they evangelize boldly and care for the vulnerable; they often tithe generously.

It's not hard to see why: we have met and are friends with many Protestant Christians who love Christ and intentionally work on cultivating a personal relationship with Him. Everything they do flows from that love and relationship. They are generous and often joyful, and not afraid to talk to you about Jesus and give you an ear to listen with or a shoulder to cry on. They make themselves approachable and want work to bring the reality of God's Kingdom to life. In short, they want everyone to know the joy of Christ, and they are not afraid to share it.

My wife and I were talking last night, though, about the curious tendency of many Protestant Christians to essentially 'erase' the existence of the many, many saints throughout history (both before and after the Reformation) who have also done just what I mentioned above: immersed themselves in scripture, taken the need for community seriously, evangelized boldly, cared for the sick, dying, poor, and orphaned, and given away not just ten percent, but all they had to follow Christ. In a Protestant classroom or Sunday school lesson, it's as if they never existed.

This isn't all, of course. We consider all our Christian friends "brothers and sisters in Christ," by nature of our common baptism. We often engage in overlapping efforts to protect life, strengthen families, fight a corrosive cultural climate, and ensure our Judeo-Christian heritage. But again, when it comes to the nuts and bolts of what those moral issues are, or how to interpret the Bible, or how one should respond to challenges to the Faith, we Catholics have a blueprint and map that has withstood two thousand years and is as relevant today as it was when Christ founded his Church on the Rock; it is watertight! When one knows his Catholic faith and lives it out, it’s only his lack of will (not an absence of grace) that keeps him from joining the ranks of those saints throughout history we read about in books. 

Modern Evangelicalism has built up its ranks on the mass of now ex-Catholics (walk into any evangelical Church and you'll find a sizable number of this populace, guaranteed) who were the opposite--who didn't know their faith or what it stood for, who viewed Catholicism as nothing but a "bunch of rules, and who really did desire fellowship and a "personal" relationship with God that wasn't satisfied with the way their religion was passed on to them. 

How does it do this? Like I said earlier, Protestants don't have doctrine, the Sacraments, or a magisterial and intellectual/theological framework as part of the core of their faith, so what they do have in that absence, they tend to do well. Catholicism is a kind of robust 'maximalism' that leaves no tool unavailable in our toolbox to attain sanctity; Protestantism, in contrast, is a kind of religious 'minimalism' that works with what it has. When you only have three shirts, two pants, and one pair or shoes in your wardrobe, you want to make sure it's of the highest quality!

That's something else my wife and I were discussing last night--why many of the 'themes' in Christian preaching (especially among female evangelical influencers and ministries) seem so repetitive and tend to 'dilute and diffuse' anything with meat into what I call the "wide-net" hypothesis. It goes something like this: 

You take a common theme that any human being (but especially women) can relate to: we are all broken. We all crave love and acceptance. We have all made mistakes. None of us likes to be judged. Etc. 

Then you offer the affirmation, by way of support, acceptance, and yes, even spiritual platitudes that can apply to a wide range of personal situations, and tap into one's emotional response to these deep human needs. Nothing controversial, nothing you can really pin down. You're not looking to divide, but bring people in.

Finally, you show how the Bible, and the God of the Bible, is a way of addressing those desires of the heart. And you welcome them in to the fellowship of believers with open arms.

Here's a good example I found online from a social media post by a popular Christian woman/influencer that gets at this "wide-net" approach:

"When I pray, I position my heart to see and receive what God is already doing. 

God is not absent.

But when I deafen my ears with my own thoughts and opinions and stiffen my neck by only looking in the direction of what I think should be happening, I miss Him. 

And I think He’s not moving. So I kick it into high gear. I wear my body ragged and my emotions into a tangled fray. 

I just need to stop trying to fix, control, and achieve what God wants me to slow down enough to receive. 

He has the answer. He is the solution. And I can rest in these truths."

Of course, none of this is necessarily wrong. As a Catholic who does read scripture pretty regularly, though, I also find another approach that our Lord gave us when his disciples requested of Him, "Teach us how to pray." Jesus responded, 

"When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation." 

(Lk 11:2-4 DR) 

The Lord's Prayer (the Our Father) is a more or less formulaic prayer, but it is also a "complete protein" and "the perfect prayer" that would not be very common at a (non-mainline) Protestant worship service, which gives more credence to the spontaneous and unscripted way of praying. What I find interesting from my experience of it, is this type of unscripted "reinvent-the-wheel" prayer often ends up being somewhat counter to our Lord's instructions of "When you pray, do not babble like the heathen, since they think that they will be heard because of their many words" (Mt 6:7 EHV). 

Of course, as Catholics in our rich spiritual heritage, we have many different types of prayer, including ejaculatory prayers similar to this. But it's not our only way of praying. Like I said, we are a religion of "Maximalism," not minimalism.

Maybe it's also because of our rich heritage of the employment of the faculty of reason (which also informs our moral choices and gives them a foundation to be built on) which complements faith as a set of "two lungs" that sees as somewhat shallow the front-row-emotionalism present in many evangelical churches. Again, Catholics are playing the long game, and recognize that any faith steeped in an overly-weighted ratio of emotive response does not have the fortitude to stand the test of time. Emotions are not bad or wrong (and of course, many of the saints have been known to weep over their sins and experienced the ecstasy of God's love in their prayer), but by their very nature are fickle and fleeting--not the kind of stone you want to build a house on! 

But reason was held suspect, I suppose, during the Reformation and seen as overly-scholastic. In throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Protestants now find themselves not only without a magisterial body to interpret scripture with God's authority, but without any substance to articulate why a particular moral act is "against the bible." The Bible clearly states that divorce and remarriage is adultery, but we find many Christians justifying this very act using the Bible itself! Of course, Catholics divorce and remarry as well, and we have our own issues with this, but at least the teaching body of the Church has a methodology (the rota) for determining whether a marriage was in fact sacramental and binding so that if one still chooses to go this route, they are at least not ignorant and are subsequently culpable. 

All this being said, as Catholic Maximalists, we really do "have it all." The Catholic Church and our faith as Catholics has formidable intellectual clout, a rich history, and is theologically and scripturally sound. We have a testament of saints who had a true "personal relationship with Christ" to show that living it out and being "saved" is possible, a robust liturgy to ground the heavenly here on earth, a guidebook for the tough moral issues of our day that are not based in one particular preacher or teacher, is one of the biggest charitable organizations in the world, and the tangible sacraments to aid us with grace. Protestants may cast a "wide-net" by appealing to the lowest-common-denominator with the things that were handed to them and that they retained (from Catholicism, no less!), but Catholics know that the Way is narrow, and few find it. Why dump out the tools in your box in preparation for such an arduous journey when we need (and have been given by the Lord Himself!) everything we can get?

When Catholics pray for unity in the Church, we also pray for our "separated brethren" because we have experienced the fullness of  the Christian faith, the cup of grace which is filled to overflowing. We want them to know not just the Truth, but the Way and the Life as well! Catholicism is the farthest thing from reductionism...we want it all! God wants to give us all "so that our joy may be complete" (Jn 15:11) and the means to enter into life with every possible grace. He does that through the Holy Spirit, and through the Church guided by that same Spirit, as much today as on the day of Pentecost. 

We can learn a lot from our Protestant brothers and sisters who love Jesus and the Bible and live lives of faith and moral uprightness. Let's offer them just as much, as Catholics, in return, by using everything we have been given for the glory of God--to the max!

A Watershed Moment For The Successors To The Apostles?

A friend sent me a tweet from a bishop the other day condemning this or that action. We are living in an age where the bar of expectation is so low that we see a "courageous" tweet as worthy of admiration.  

I'm sad to say I have stopped expecting much of anything from our bishops except a kind of administrative functioning. I wrote in a past article somewhere that I stopped thinking "the bishops have our back" long ago. I also have grown weary of "strongly worded statements" as I wrote in Converts Are Made By Witness, Not Pastoral Letters.

But it looks like the bishops may have a chance to redeem themselves if they are to take a unilateral and unequivocal stance in denying, in a spirit of charity and for the salvation of their souls, pro-abortion politicians who obstinately persist in advocating for such egregious threats to life and formenting the sin of public scandal. The bishops have the chance to not only draft some kind of statement, but actually enforce it on a national level. 

Will they do so? It remains to be seen. My thinking is that ship has sailed a long time ago, but if given the grace of courage and fortitude, they have the opportunity to surprise us and salvage what credibility they may still possess by nature of their divine appointments. 

My friend Peter Kwasniewski expresses my own thoughts well on the matter:

"Can one watch the USCCB without horrifying fascination at its dialectic of paralysis and its bureaucratic inefficacy?

Here is a body of men entrusted with upholding the divine law, the natural law, and the law of the Church, voting democratically whether or not they will teach and enforce the divine law, the natural law, and the law of the Church. Here is a body of men who inherit the name and power of apostles, deliberating about whether or not the slaughter of infants in the womb is enough to merit the withholding of the glorified Body of Christ, which is eaten by heretics to their damnation.

The USCCB makes it possible at once to perpetuate the useless documentation of platitudes and to hamstring the real efforts of individual bishops to proclaim and protect the truth. Those who say that the issue of communion for pro-aborts must be left to the discretion of individual bishops are effectively shelving the entire question, because politicians are from one diocese but live and work in another (or in several). The responsibility falls through the cracks. 

What is needed here is a unanimous and exceptionless national policy. The lack of such is perceived, rightly I would say, as an implicit statement that the Church's teaching is of little or no importance and may not even be true, and, moreover, as an implicit denial of the Church's own authority in this area, which is superior to that of the State in regard to the moral law, divine revelation, and ecclesial government.

Now that certain pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians are boldly defying the bishops, we will see if they are capable of concerted action as befits successors of the apostles, or if (once again) they will settle for the mouthing of idle reminders sponsored by a mere majority in a voting body. The truth of Christ should never be seen as the subject of a voting body."

There is no doubt if they do not back up their words with action, they will be railroaded over and dismissed just as easily as they always have for the past half-century. If they do, they will endure a beating in the public square, and I'm not sure all of them are up for a pummeling. 

There is a great scene in Of Gods And Men where the old Trappist monks in Algeria are put in this position of having to dig in and take a stand. The Abbot acts like a true father, but the monks are still rightly scared and concerned for their future. The monks are asked "do we stay or do we leave?" And they vote to stay.

I hope and pray our bishops will do what's right and have the courage to lay it down in a way that backs up what most of us who believe in the True Faith have been trying to do on our own, but without the office or clout. They have it, and canon law supports it. They are in a difficult position, in large part to their own decisions over the past decades not to enforce something that should have been enforced all along, and need prayer. If they don't do something meaningful, they will lose whatever shred of credibility they possessed, and such pro-abortion politicians will be emboldened and act like the Philistine Goliath taunting the Living God. If they do back up their "statements" with meaningful action, they will take a beating for it for sure. But maybe it will help contribute to a renewal in the Church in the end. After all, converts are made by witness, not pastoral letters.

"If We Are Wrong, God Almighty Is Wrong"

Cry, cease not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their wicked doings, and the house of Jacob their sins. For they seek me from day to day, sad desire to know my ways, as a nation that hath done justice, and hath not forsaken the judgment of their God: they ask of me the judgments of justice: they are willing to approach to God. Loose the bands of wickedness, undo the bundles that oppress, let them that are broken go free, and break asunder every burden. 

(Is 58:1-2,6)

I used to think the abolitionist/anti-segregationist argument used by those in the pro-life movement was just another rhetorical angle to strengthen the argument against abortion; another "arrow in the quiver," so to speak. 

Logically, it made sense. If life (personhood) begins at conception, the "deprivation of life" protected against under the 14th Amendment seemed to naturally apply to the unborn. The most vulnerable in society have been snuffed out, legally, for almost fifty years--a modern day holocaust. 

In Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Letter From Birmingham Jail, the great civil-rights activist drew deep from scripture and adjured those who know the moral law to apply it in civil-disobedience to address the issue of segregation, as he wrote: "An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." He continues,

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”

I have known people involved in Red Rose Rescue who have been arrested and jailed in defense of innocent life, both religious and lay. I will be bluntly honest--I have always felt it admirable but pretty extreme. For those not familiar:

"During a Red Rose Rescue a team of pro-lifers enter the actual places where the innocent unborn are about to be "dragged to death." In the words of Saint Mother Teresa, they enter the "dark holes of the poor."  Red Rose Rescuers peacefully talk to women scheduled for abortion, with the goal of persuading them to choose life. They offer to them red roses as a sign of life, peace and love. Should the unborn still "totter to execution" Red Rose Rescuers stay in the place of execution in solidarity with their abandoned brothers and sisters performing a non-violent act of defense through their continued presence inside the killing centers remaining with them for as long as they can. The Rescuers stay with the abandoned unborn, as the manifestation of our love for them recognizing that unborn children, as members of the human family, have a right to be defended.  The rescuers will not leave the unwanted, but must be "taken away." 

 

A year or so ago I wrote to pro-life witness Mary Wagner, whom some familiar with the movement may know, while she was serving a prison sentence. She was arrested (yet again) for prayerfully and firmly applying what was written in scripture: Rescue those being dragged to death, and those tottering to execution withhold not. If you say 'I know not this man!' does not He who tests hearts not perceive it? (Prov 24:11)

Though I can't remember exactly what I wrote, I was basically confessing my lack of courage and commitment to the cause. When I received her response by mail from Canada, I really did feel like I was holding what might be a relic at some point years from now. She was quietly confident in her words, prayerful and reassuring, encouraging that we have nothing to fear, and that she is merely following her conscience, not trying to be heroic. 

This evening I watched The Long Walk Home, which recounted the early days of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in Alabama in 1955. What struck me in the film was just how deep-seated and normalized racism and segregation was, and has been for much of our history. As the white wife and mother in the film who has affection for Odessa (Carter), her black maid, recounted her childhood as a white woman in the South, "When the rest of the world is just living that way you just don't think about it anymore." At one point, her husband sits her down to set her sympathies straight, "You don't know her life, and you will never know her. It's like a dog knowing a cat. It's a different species." 

"Different species." "Clump of cells." Does this language of de-humanization sound familiar? Not to mention, 

“The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, letter to Clarence Gamble, 10 Dec 1939) 

(note: good luck finding this on the internet; it has been completely scrubbed. The only source from this quote I was able to track down came from a 27 November 2017 article in America Magazine (of all places!), which links to the Sanger files at NYU (since scrubbed)). 

The wife/mother in the story is troubled by her conscience over the injustice blacks faced everyday, personalized in her household maid. She eventually begins to take part in the organized carpools undertaken by sympathizers, "Once you step over that line," Odessa tells her, "you can't ever go back." It's a sobering proposition in light of the pressure to keep things "as they are" and live a comfortable life, not to mention the very real threat of violence and intimidation. 

I began to reflect on this issue in parallel, and I couldn't shake it all evening. I sat down and read Dr. King's Montgomery Bus Boycott speech which was delivered on December 5, 1955 and remembered the words of the white husband in the film who mentions to his wife, as the civil rights movement was gaining steam, "Even I thought this boycott business was silly at first."

When I speak with the seasoned pro-life activists I am friends with who have been on the front lines for years and who started meeting in basements and each other's houses to organize, they sometimes speak of the weariness they experience when it seems like it's just setback after setback of advocating for not only the overturn of Roe v Wade, but the complete abolition of abortion supported by "unjust laws." 

  

"We are here, we are here this evening because we’re tired now.  And I want to say that we are not here advocating violence. We have never done that. I want it to be known throughout Montgomery and throughout this nation that we are Christian people. We believe in the Christian religion. We believe in the teachings of Jesus.  The only weapon that we have in our hands this evening is the weapon of protest.  That’s all."*

 

Civil disobedience is not neat and tidy. When Odessa begins walking to work instead of taking the bus to work all day, she is so tired, and her feet so battered, day after day with no end in sight. Yet she draws on a deeper source (the church meetings she attends with other blacks, to be fortified in faith for what is ahead) to continue the work. Those who enter abortion mills to offer roses and speak to women waiting for abortions, pleading with them to give the life in their womb a chance, are painted by the media as extremists, zealots, "trespassers and criminals." I think of the quiet, resolute, prayerful, and peaceful witness of Mary Wagner and others who see clearly what is happening and "desire to see right exist"

My friends, don’t let anybody make us feel that we are to be compared in our actions with the Ku Klux Klan or with the White Citizens Council. There will be no crosses burned at any bus stops in Montgomery. There will be no white persons pulled out of their homes and taken out on some distant road and lynched for not cooperating. There will be nobody amid, among us who will stand up and defy the Constitution of this nation. We only assemble here because of our desire to see right exist. My friends, I want it to be known that we’re going to work with grim and bold determination to gain justice on the buses in this city.*

The thing is, as Catholic Christians, we know abortion is unequivocally wrong--not just an unjust law, but a moral evil. We are not on the "wrong side of history" in working for a culture of life and seeking legal protection for the unborn. We are not blind, but see.

But if abortion is unequivocally wrong, how wrong? And laws supporting it unjust, how unjust? When the President of the United States not only tolerates, but advances support for this sanctioned killing in the name of "reproductive rights," keeping things comfortable and not rocking the boat for those who choose to do so, are those putting it on the line because they know an unjust law when they see one wrong?

And we are not wrong, we are not wrong in what we are doing. If we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong.  If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong.  If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong. If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer that never came down to earth. If we are wrong, justice is a lie.  Love has no meaning. And we are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until justice runs down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.*

When I reflect on my reticence with regards to pro-life activism (such as Red Rose Rescue), and I see my friends being arrested and jailed in conscience, but how few of them they are out there doing this work, I see that I am not much different from those whites in Alabama in 1955 going about their daily lives to the point where one "just doesn't think about it anymore." When one lays down, and then another, and then another, a critical mass begins to build. But when those who know what is right and don't act sit on the sidelines, the brothers and sisters go to jail alone.

I want to say that in all of our actions we must stick together.  Unity is the great need of the hour, and if we are united we can get many of the things that we not only desire but which we justly deserve. And don’t let anybody frighten you. We are not afraid of what we are doing because we are doing it within the law. There is never a time in our American democracy that we must ever think we’re wrong when we protest. We reserve that right. When labor all over this nation came to see that it would be trampled over by capitalistic power, it was nothing wrong with labor getting together and organizing and protesting for its rights.*

The early martyrs of the Church would not have died or endured the suffering and humiliations they did without the deep well of faith to draw from. And who was the source of this faith? Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. This is what I see in the vast majority of those committed to the pro-life cause for protection and assurance of life for the innocent, the most vulnerable, the poorest of the poor: you cannot commit to this cause without fortitude, and fortitude requires faith to endure for the long game.

We, the disinherited of this land, we who have been oppressed so long, are tired of going through the long night of captivity. And now we are reaching out for the daybreak of freedom and justice and equality. May I say to you my friends, as I come to a close, and just giving some idea of why we are assembled here, that we must keep-and I want to stress this, in all of our doings, in all of our deliberations here this evening and all of the week and while—whatever we do, we must keep God in the forefront. Let us be Christian in all of our actions. But I want to tell you this evening that it is not enough for us to talk about love, love is one of the pivotal points of the Christian face, faith. There is another side called justice. And justice is really love in calculation. Justice is love correcting that which revolts against love.*

What impresses me about those I know in Red Rose Rescue and other pro-life activism is they are learning to "take a beating" as blacks did for the cause of civil rights. This is not academic pontificating, "hearing but not doing" as St. James says. When one comes before God they will have to answer to Him for what they did, or did not do, for the least of these. And He will look for your scars.

The Almighty God himself is not the only, not the, not the God just standing out saying through Hosea, “I love you, Israel.” He’s also the God that stands up before the nations and said: “Be still and know that I’m God, that if you don’t obey me I will break the backbone of your power and slap you out of the orbits of your international and national relationships.” Standing beside love is always justice, and we are only using the tools of justice. Not only are we using the tools of persuasion, but we’ve come to see that we’ve got to use the tools of coercion. Not only is this thing a process of education, but it is also a process of legislation.*

We seem to be standing at a landmark moment, where abortion has become so normalized, so accepted, so rabidly defended, and yet so at odds with the Natural and Moral Law, at odds with science and the Hippocratic Oath, at odds with our own future as a human species, that future generations will look back at the barbarism of this era in the culture of death as we look back at the vitriol leveled against blacks who dared to take a stand for equality. They will view our age with disgust and amazement that this could have ever happened to a civilized people.

As we stand and sit here this evening and as we prepare ourselves for what lies ahead, let us go out with a grim and bold determination that we are going to stick together. We are going to work together. Right here in Montgomery, when the history books are written in the future somebody will have to say, “There lived a race of people a black people, ‘fleecy locks and black complexion’, a people who had the moral courage to stand up for their rights. And thereby they injected a new meaning into the veins of history and of civilization.” And we’re gonna do that. God grant that we will do it before it is too late. As we proceed with our program let us think of these things.*

My friend who was just arrested after a Rescue attempt will be holding a RRR meeting next month with Fr Fidelis (first picture, top). Her husband, too, has been to jail many times for his pro-life civil-disobedience. They put their money where their mouth is. Like the white mother and wife in the film, reticent but stirred by conscience, I will attend. It takes prayerful discernment to "step over this line," but I'm reminded of those who did in 1955, and what those in the pro-life movement are willing to put on the line as witnesses and collaborators today to put an end to the injustice and scourge of abortion.

But just before leaving I want to say this. I want to urge you. You have voted [for this boycott], and you have done it with a great deal of enthusiasm, and I want to express my appreciation to you, on behalf of everybody here. Now let us go out to stick together and stay with this thing until the end. Now it means sacrificing, yes, it means sacrificing at points. But there are some things that we’ve got to learn to sacrifice for. And we’ve got to come to the point that we are determined not to accept a lot of things that we have been accepting in the past.

So I’m urging you now. We have the facilities for you to get to your jobs, and we are putting, we have the cabs there at your service. Automobiles will be at your service, and don’t be afraid to use up any of the gas. If you have it, if you are fortunate enough to have a little money, use it for a good cause. Now my automobile is gonna be in it, it has been in it, and I’m not concerned about how much gas I’m gonna use. I want to see this thing work. And we will not be content until oppression is wiped out of Montgomery, and really out of America. We won’t be content until that is done. We are merely insisting on the dignity and worth of every human personality. And I don’t stand here, I’m not arguing for any selfish person. I’ve never been on a bus in Montgomery. But I would be less than a Christian if I stood back and said, because I don’t ride the bus, I don’t have to ride a bus, that it doesn’t concern me. I will not be content. I can hear a voice saying, “If you do it unto the least of these, my brother, you do it unto me.”*

Those who were moved by conscience in Alabama in 1955 faced a Goliath of opposition and intimidation. But their faith was in Jesus Christ and their assurance that they were not wrong any more than the God of the Bible was wrong. But it costs, and many have taken beatings on your behalf. As Arthur Schopenhauer noted, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-​evident." 

And I won’t rest; I will face intimidation, and everything else, along with these other stalwart fighters for democracy and for citizenship. We don’t mind it, so long as justice comes out of it. And I’ve come to see now that as we struggle for our rights, maybe some of them will have to die. But somebody said, if a man doesn’t have something that he’ll die for, he isn’t fit to live.*

*: passages from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "Montgomery Bus Boycott Speech," Holt Street Baptist Church, December 5, 1955