Tag: Faith & Current Events

Posted on

Congressman Ryan on Being Guided by Catholic Social Teaching

In yesterday’s National Catholic Register Congressman Paul Ryan, a Catholic, takes up the topic of how Catholic Social teaching can guide our discussion on public policy. Since we have recently discussed this very topic here in the Blog I’d like to present some excerpts of the Congressman’s reflections and add a few of my own. As is often the case, the original comments by Mr Ryan are in bold, italic black text. My comments are in red plain text. The full article can be read here: Applying Our Enduring Truths To Our Defining Challenge

The Catholic Church offers a rich overview of its thought, summarized in the Compendium of Social Doctrine, to guide Catholics in bringing truth to society’s problems. In his introduction, Cardinal Renato Martino, then president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, wrote, “This area belongs in a particular way” to those lay faithful who are active “in the social sector.”

Here is an essential point. It is the special role of the laity to apply these social principles and teachings in the temporal order. We have had many discussions here on this blog of how the renewal of the temporal order is the special arena of the lay faithful. And while Catholic laity may sometimes disagree at the policy level how exactly to best apply these principles, it is their special role to apply them.

Principles as such, will usually present general norms, which then require specific application. Clergy will do well to encourage the lay faithful to take an active interest in the temporal order, especially, as the Congressman notes, those who have special expertise or roles in the social sector.

Clergy too, having once annunicated principles, do well to entrust the lay faithful with their rightful task and seek counsel with them as to various ways the principles can be applied. Clergy will also do well, it seems to me, to avoid excessively critiquing the details, but rather, to allow the lay faithful to interact with each other as to the details of how best to implement Catholic social principles.

Surely this will involve the lay faithful actively engaging the legislative and political sector, as well as the business and other private sectors. At times the process will be conflictual, and involve compromise, and gradual movement toward goals. But here again, after principles are annunicaited, the clergy ought to allow the laity their rightful role in influencing the temporal order and actively engaging it.

…. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am tasked with applying these enduring principles to the urgent social problems of our time: an economy that is not providing enough opportunities for our citizens, a safety net that is failing our most vulnerable populations, and a crushing burden of debt that is threatening our children and grandchildren with a diminished future.

There is no doubt, and it would seem that all agree that we are in a significant fiscal crisis that requires creative and bold solutions.

These problems are related: The debt is weighing on job creation today, closing off the most promising avenues for the poor to rise….We cannot continue to ignore this problem. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has rightly termed this attitude “living in untruth … at the expense of future generations.”

Yes, here too is a principle that must be considered. It is critical in analyzing the problem that, although we want and need to care for the poor among us today with the social safety net, we cannot ignore future generations either, and fail to realize that we owe them substantial consideration. As is frequently declared by those in the environmental movement, justice cannot only regard the living today, it must also act with concern for those who will live tomorrow.

In approaching this problem as a lay Catholic in public life, I have found it useful to apply the twin principles of solidarity (recognition of the common ties that unite all human beings in equal dignity) and subsidiarity (respect for the relationships between individuals and intermediate social groups such as families, businesses, schools, local communities and state governments).

This is exactly what I was saying in the post last week. Namely that subsidiarity and solidarity are twin principles, not opposed ones. Both are need to support and and complete the other.

It is not as though Republicans and Conservatives can only follow Subsidiarity and Democrats and Liberals follow Solidarity. The principles are both rich enough to include wide application and they are surely not polar opposites.

Both should richly guide public policy, along with other principles that flow from them and support them as well, such as the universal destination of goods and the right to private property, commutative justice and distributive justice, and so forth.

When applied in equal measure, these principles complete and balance each other. But when one is applied exclusively, the result can be harmful….We need a better approach to restore the balance, and the House-passed budget offers one by reintroducing subsidiarity, which the Holy Father has called “the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state.” Our budget…us[es] a federal subsidium to empower state and local governments, communities and individuals — those closest to the problems of society….When solidarity and subsidiarity are in balance, civil society is revitalized, not displaced. We rightly pride ourselves on looking out for one another — and government has an important role to play in that. But relying on distant government bureaucracies to lead this effort just hasn’t worked.

And while there are other Catholics who may disagree with Mr. Ryan and what exact level of government, private, federal and local balance is required, it is nevertheless good to have Catholic principles as an essential part of the discussion.

Catholic laity who agree or disagree with Congressmen Ryan’s application are free to engage him in the public and legislative debate.

Again may I say, as for we who are clergy, I think we owe it to the laity to allow them to work in the temporal order and to use their skills to apply these principles without a lot of interference and amateur commentary from us.

There is enough diversity among the Catholic laity, it seems to me, that the discussion can be both vigorous and complete without lots of pulpit commentary on the specifics. Finding the balance that the Congressman speaks of is both critical and always on-going. Course corrections are needed at every stage of our history to avoid losing that balance.

But pray God that Catholic principles, which are both solid and balanced will continue to influence and guide the discussion. I am happy in this case to see Mr. Ryan specifically and clearly pointing to these principles as an essential guide and a kind of schema for the discussion.

In the discussion that I hope you will participate in, I am going to try and follow my advice and stay back from the details allow you, most of whom are laity, to engage the issue that is rightfully yours. I will limit myself to addressing only comments that are directly addressed to me.

Posted on

Turn Down that Microphone and Preach from your Soul! How the excessive use of microphones has adversely affected preaching

OK, so I tried a couple years ago to float the idea that microphones have had an overall bad effect on preaching. As I recall, I was largely overruled by those who considered the idea. But let me try again.

In my own parish I largely preach without a microphone. That said, I have a large cavernous Church, built of stone and plaster and both music and voice resonate well. Only with with a fairly full church at our principle liturgy do I use a little amplification. Not only do people say they can hear better (less echo), but I also experience an energy that comes from it.

Yes, generally I like to preach the old fashioned way, I belt it out.

How powerfully the modern use of microphones has affected preaching and to some extent singing. Consider, that to preach without a microphone means to preach with elevated volume and it requires one to strongly project the voice. In effect one has to preach authoritatively and passionately. Without a microphone I have to speak boldly. And as I preach in this manner, the physical requirement affects the message. As adrenaline began to build, enthusiasm and a kind of confident joy overtakes me.

Now I am not generally known for a quiet style of preaching anyway 🙂 but preaching in this manner strengthens my message even more. Body and soul are fully engaged in proclaiming the message.

Ah what power the preachers of old had to have! Imagine Jesus preaching out in the open to thousands. He surely did not speak gently, he needed power to project.

I have discussed with brother priests before the concern I have at how too much microphone harms our preaching. Too much microphone causes the priest to adopt a gentle, lyrical style of preaching. His style too easily becomes suggestive, rather than using bold proclamation. The suggestive and conversational tone of many a modern preacher can, if not balanced by other things, amount to an “uncertain trumpet.” St. Paul warns, “For if the trumpet produces an uncertain sound, who will muster for battle?” (1 Cor 14:8) It is a sure fact that many of the Catholic faithful have no readiness or appetite for battle and this can partially be laid at the feet of uncertain and uninspired preaching and teaching.

So perhaps a suggestion….Use less microphone for the preaching moment and for the proclamation of the Word. It is a very different type of preaching that emerges from such a context, and I think, a far better, bolder and braver preaching. The lectors too will benefit from a louder and bolder style.

It is a true fact, not all churches, (especially the ones built after 1970 and until recently), are well suited for this option. But many are, and we surely need bolder preaching today and trumpet that is more certain. Some of preaching simply comes down to the physicality of the moment. If a priest needs to project his voice he is affected by that very fact and his message inevitably turns bolder and braver. He will feel the very voice of the Prophets echo though him.

Lectors too will find a whole new experience for they will not merely read the Word of God, they will proclaim it. And those in the pew will be less sleepy and the authority of the Word of God will reach them in a whole new way.

And finally, music will also benefit. Too much modern Church music, if you ask me (and I know you didn’t but I’m saying it anyway), is rather sing-songy and lyrical. Meditative music is nice and has its place but we also need a return of some of the bold and brave singing enshrined in the hymns of the past; before heavy use of P.A. systems influenced us to sing more softly and in a more folksy manner. Different musical styles all have their place but good gutsy singing has taken something of a hit and I blame the loud microphones for some of it.

Less mike and more manpower may well re-energize the proclamation of the Word, the preaching of it and the singing of praise to God. A certain trumpet can awaken even the dead! (cf 1 Cor 15:52).

You will say, not every preacher has a booming voice. Perhaps, but I didn’t either. To some extent the technique can be learned. All I am saying is don’t just rule it out. At least consider the possibility of less mic, and in some cases, like mine, no mic.

This video shows Jesus preaching to an unruly crowd in the synagogue. No Microphone in those days!

Posted on

Clarifying Certain Misunderstandings About Confirmation

Yesterday we discussed a bit about baptism and some of the pastoral practices surrounding it. Today in a kind of companion piece I’d like to address some of the distortions and confusion that often surround the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Some one once said that Confirmation is the Sacrament in search of a theology. While not true, the statement does capture that there is a lot of incorrect and sometimes silly teaching about this sacrament to young people. And since it is the season for Confirmations, it may be helpful to explore what the Catechism teaches about the sacrament.

It will also help to exclude certain common, but incorrect notions about Confirmation.

1. Confirmation is not a Sacrament of Maturity – Canon Law (891) states that Confirmation is generally to be administered at about the age of discretion, which age is understood to be seven (Canon 97.2). It may be administered earlier if there is “danger of death” or for another “grave cause.” The same Canon allows the conference of bishops to determine another age for reception of the sacrament. While one may argue that a later date for the Sacrament is pastorally advisable, (e.g. to keep young people engaged in catechetical instruction) one simply cannot argue that it is a “Sacrament of maturity” when Church law generally presupposes its celebration at the age of seven. This is made clearer by the fact that most Eastern Churches, and the Orthodox confirm infants.

2. Confirmation is not “becoming an adult in the Church.” – This is just plain silly. I was taught this as a mere seventh grader, and found it laughable even then. Seventh graders are not adults. They are children and remain so even after Confirmation.

3. Confirmation is not a sacrament where one claims or affirms the faith for himself – Baptism confers faith. To claim that Confirmation “allows me to speak for myself” is to imply that this is how faith comes about. It is to imply that baptism somehow did not actually give real faith, or at least gave inadequate faith,  and now I am getting it by “speaking for myself.” No, Faith is a gift, it is not something I cause by speaking for myself, it is something I receive as an unmerited and free gift of God. It is true that the grace of faith mysteriously interacts with our freedom. But faith is received at baptism. Confirmation strengthens faith that is already there, but it does not cause it. Further it is a bit of a stretch to say that seventh or eighth graders really “speak for themselves.”

4. Confirmation does not “complete Christian initiation” and “make me a full Catholic.” – One of the problems with delaying Confirmation is that the three Sacraments of Initiation are celebrated out of proper order. The proper order of celebration is: Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Communion. Hence it is Holy Communion that completes initiation, not Confirmation. That we celebrate it out of order creates a lot of confusion and makes initiation a little murky. The Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults observes the proper order. Some diocese in this country have returned to this for children as well. In a couple of diocese of which I am aware, the bishop comes to the parish and confirms the seven year old children and then, at the same Mass, gives them First Holy Communion. While this preserves the order of Initiation, and there are pastoral advantages in this regard, it  must be clear that each Bishop is able to set the policy that makes most sense for his diocese. He will obviously weigh a number of pastoral concerns in making his decision.

So what is Confirmation?

1. Confirmation is the Christian’s Personal Pentecost – The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, The sacrament of Confirmation is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost (# 1302) Before Pentecost, the Apostles were fearful, confused and secretive, gathering only behind locked doors.

But, Suddenly from up in the sky there came a noise, like a strong driving wind which was heard all through the house where they were seated. Tongues as of fire appeared which parted and came to rest on each of them. All were filled with the Holy Spirit. They began to..make bold proclamations as the Spirit prompted them. (Acts 2:1-4)

Consider the change in these men! They had been fearful and confused. Now they are courageous, boldly proclaiming Christ, with insight and an effectiveness so great, that three thousand were added that very day to their number. This is what can happen when we really yield to the power of the Holy Spirit.

It is in the Sacrament of Confirmation that we called to experience the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to strengthen us for our mission of spreading and defending our faith. The very word, Confirmation comes from the Latin word Confirma, meaning to strengthen.

2. Confirmation strengthens and quickens our faith for witness and mission – The essential grace (or gift) of the Sacrament of Confirmation is that we should be strengthened equipped for mission. And what is that mission? Again the Catechism teaches, Jesus Christ has marked a Christian with the seal of his Spirit by clothing him with power from on high so that he may be his witness (CCC # 1304). The Catechism also teaches how the sacrament accomplishes this great strengthening within us: Confirmation…is the sacrament which gives the Holy Spirit in order to root us more deeply in the divine filiation, incorporate us more firmly into Christ, strengthen our bond with the Church, associate us more closely with her mission, and help us bear witness to the Christian faith in words accompanied by deeds (CCC # 1316).

See too how this sacrament is given to us not only for our own sakes but also for the world: …enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit…the [confirmed] are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith…( # 1285) Further, A candidate for Confirmation…[must] be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs [i.e. “the world”] (CCC # 1319).

3. The Biblical roots of the Sacrament – Jesus had promised to send the Holy Spirit. For example He said,

Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you….I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:7ff).

He also told them, But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth. (Acts 1:8) And yet again, Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high. (Lk 24:49)

Within days, while they were gathered in prayer, the Holy Spirit descended on them like tongues of fire (See Acts 2:1-4 recounted earlier). The Apostles began to boldly proclaim the gospel from that day on.

Those who believed in the apostolic preaching were baptized. But in addition to baptism these Apostles also laid hands on the faithful that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Sometimes this was done at the time of baptism and sometimes it was done later. Consider for example these two texts.

When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down to these people and prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit. It had not as yet come down upon them any of them since they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. The pair, upon arriving imposed hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:15-19)

This text shows some separation between the time of baptism and the time of confirmation (the “receiving of the Spirit). The text also explains our Catholic tradition of generally reserving the sacrament for the bishop to celebrate since, in the early Church, the Apostles made it part of their mission to impose hands for the outpouring of the Spirit. Phillip the Deacon had performed the baptisms in Samaria but he waited for the apostles to confirm them in the Spirit.

This next text shows the Apostle Paul baptizing. Because he, an apostle is present, there is no delay in confirming the newly baptized in the Spirit

“When they heard this, [Paul’s preaching] they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. As Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came down upon them and they began to speak in tongues and utter prophecies.” (Acts 19:5-6)

Thus we see the Biblical roots of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Jesus promised the Spirit and did in fact send Him on the day of Pentecost. The Apostles understood that they were not to keep this experience to themselves. So, as the catechism teaches, From that time on the apostles, in fulfillment of Christ’s will, imparted to the newly baptized by the laying on of hands the gift of the Spirit that completes the grace of Baptism….The imposition of hands is rightly recognized by the Catholic tradition as the origin of the sacrament of Confirmation, which in a certain way perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church. (CCC # 1288)

4. The Importance of our Confirmation – More than ever, we need to take the power of God given in this sacrament seriously. All too frequently many Catholics are hindered by fear and confusion from proclaiming the Gospel to the world. This need not be so. There is just too much that needs to be done in proclaiming the Kingdom. We must speak boldly for Christ and announce his salvation day after day. [F]or God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self control. Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord..! (2 Tim 1:7-8) And this gift is not just for some; every member of the faithful is called to receive a special out-pouring of the Holy Spirit.

We have a mission to spread the Gospel in union with the Church by what we say and what we do. It is tragic indeed that so many have seen fit to leave this essential task to others. There is a saying that is sadly true: “Evil triumphs when the good remain silent.” Is this not what has happened in our day? How could a nation with so many Christians living in its midst have so many confused and lost sheep?

If the Apostles could be so changed for their mission by the Holy Spirit, so can we. We are called to spread that faith handed down from the Apostles to our family, friends, co-workers and neighbors. And we must do so in season and out of season. In our Confirmation Christ unites us more firmly to himself and his Church, increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit within us and gives us special strength to live holy lives and to spread and defend the faith (cf CCC # 1303).

It is in Confirmation especially that Christ lays his hands upon us to strengthen us for this mission of evangelization. The task may seem daunting but this is exactly why Christ himself strengthens us so that we can truly say I can do all things in Christ, who strengthens me. (Phil 4:13)

This Blog Post is available as a PDF Document here: The Sacrament of Confirmation

Here’s a little video I put together for the youth on Confirmation. The Song says, “You should be a witness. Why don’t you testify? Stand up and be a witness for the Lord! Don’t be afraid to be a witness!”

Posted on

Parents: Don’t Delay Baptism for your Infants!

There is a trend that has set up for years now, and that is that Catholics are waiting many months to get their children baptized. I suspect that what we have here is a combination of a much lower infant mortality rate and, also, a less fervent practice of the faith by many. Further, there seems little sense among the faithful today that an unbaptized infant would be excluded from heaven.

As regards the last point, I think it is pastorally sound to trust in God’s mercy for infants who die before baptism. However, I do not think it follows that we ought to disregard or substantially delay a sacrament which Jesus commands, and which the Church indicates ought not to be delayed. The Code of Canon Law says the following:

Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptised within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it. If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any delay. Can. 867 §1,§2

The Catechism also states: The Church and parents deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth. (CCC # 1250) So it seems clear that a higher priority should be given to scheduling the baptism of babies within the first few weeks after birth.

Protestant practice departs from the received Tradition – Another factor for American Catholics is that many are influenced by the Protestants. Protestants, (though not all of them) disagree with our Catholic practice of baptizing infants. They usually wait until a child is between 8 and 12 to baptize,  reasoning that the child will know and understand what is happening and be able to claim Christ for themselves.

But, I hope you see the supreme irony of this in the fact that the Protestants, who so emphasize that salvation does not come from works, delay baptism on the grounds that the infant has not achieved (i.e. worked up to) the proper level of maturity. To know, requires one to learn, which is a work. And we Catholics, who supposedly teach salvation through works (we do not), baptize infants who can work no work.

Novelty – Indeed, the Protestant denominations (mostly Baptists (another irony), Pentecostals, Fundamentalist and Evangelicals) who refuse baptism to infants, engage in a novelty unknown to the Church until recent times.

It is a simple historical fact that the Church has always baptized infants. Even our earliest documents speak of the practice. For example the Apostolic Tradition written about 215 A.D. has this to say:

The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. (Apostolic Tradition # 21)

Scripture too confirms that infants should be baptized if you do the math. For example

People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (Luke 18:15-17 NIV)

So the Kingdom of God belongs to the little children (in Greek βρέφη (brephe) indicating infants and little children still held in the arms, babes).

And yet elsewhere Jesus also reminds that it is necessary to be baptized in order to enter the Kingdom of God: Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. (John 3:5 NIV)

If the Kingdom of God belongs to little children, and we are taught that we cannot inherit it without baptism, then it follows that baptizing infants is necessary, and that to fail to do so, is a hindering of the little children which Jesus forbade his apostles to do. So both Tradition and Scripture affirm the practice of baptizing infants.

Many of the Protestants who do refuse infant baptism also water down (pardon the pun!) the fuller meaning of baptism, no longer seeing it as washing away sins and conferring righteousness per se, but more as a symbol of faith that they claim to have already received when they said the “sinners prayer” and accepted Christ as their savior. But what a tragic loss for them, since baptism and particularly the baptism of infants, says some very wonderful things about the complete gratuity of salvation and the goodness of God. Consider these points:

1. The baptism of infants is a powerful testimony to the absolute gratuity (gift) of salvation. Infants have achieved nothing, have not worked, have not done anything to “merit” salvation. The Catechism puts it this way: The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. (CCC # 1250) The Church is clear, salvation cannot be earned or merited and infant baptism teaches that most clearly. Salvation is pure gift. How strange and ironic that some of the very denominations which claim that Catholics teach salvation by works (we do not) also refuse, themselves, to baptize infants. They claim that a certain age of maturity is required so that the person understands what they are doing. But this sounds like achievement to me. That the child must meet some requirement, seems like a work, or the attainment of some meritorious status wherein one is now old enough to “qualify” for baptism and salvation. “Qualifications….Achievement (of age)….Requirements….it all sounds like what they accuse us of: namely works and merit. To be clear then, the Catholic understanding of the gratuity of salvation is far more radical than many non-Catholics understand. We baptize infants who are not capable of meriting, attaining or earning.

2. The Baptism of infants also powerfully attests to the fact that the beauty of holiness and righteousness is available to everyone regardless of age. To be baptized means to be washed. Washed of what? Original Sin. At first this seems like a downer, “Are you saying my baby has sin?” Yep. All of us inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve. We are born into a state of alienation from God that is caused by sin. The Scriptures are clear: [S]in entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (Rom 5:12). So even infants are in need of the saving touch of God. Now why would we wish to delay this salvation and resulting holiness for 7 to 12 years? The Catechism says this,

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by Original Sin, children also have need of new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and be brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God….The Church and parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth. (CCC # 1250).

St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage in the 3rd Century was asked if it was OK to wait to the 8th day to baptize since baptism had replaced circumcision. He respond with a strong no:

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day We [the bishops] all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. (Epist# 58).

So then here is the beauty, that infants are summoned to receive the precious gift of holiness and righteousness and that they are summoned to a right relationship with God by having their sin purged and holiness infused. Infants are called to this dignity and should not be denied it. With this done, some of the holiest and most innocent days of our lives may well be our first years. Then, as the will begins to manifest, and reason begins to dawn, the grace of holiness gives us extra strength to fight against the sinful world that looms.

3. The Baptism of Infants also attests to the fact that faith is gift for every stage of development– To be baptized is to receive the gift of faith. It is baptism that gives the true faith. Even with adults, true faith does not come until baptism. Prior to that there is a kind of prevenient faith, but it is not the Theological Virtue of Faith.

Now faith is not only an intellectual assent to revealed doctrine. It is that, but it is more. To have faith is also be be in a righteous and trusting relationship with God. An infant relates to his parents long before he speaks or his rational mind is fully formed. He trusts his parents and depends on them. It is the same with God. Thus the infant can well trust and depend on God and be in a right relationship with God, in an age appropriate way.

With his parents, his or her relationship of trust with parents, leads the infant to begin to speak and understand as he or she grows. It is the same with God. As the infant’s mind awakens, the infant’s faith grows. It will continue to grow until the day he or she dies (hopefully) as an old man or woman.

That faith accompanies us through every stage of our life, and develops as we do, is essential to its nature. An infant needs faith no less than an old man. An infant benefits from faith no less than a teenager or an adult. To argue, as some Protestants do, that you have to be a certain age before faith can exist, hardly seems to respect the progressive nature of faith which is able to bless EVERY stage of our human journey.

I have some very vivid memories of my experience of God prior to seven years of age and I will say that God was very powerfully present to me in my early years, in many ways even more so than now, when my mind sometimes “gets in the way.”

Too many Catholics are waiting months, even years to have their children baptized. Precious time is lost by this delay. Infant Baptism speaks powerfully of the love that God has for everyone he has created and of his desire to have everyone in a right and saving relationship with Him. Surely baptism alone isn’t enough. The child must be raised in the faith. It is the nature of faith that it grows by hearing and seeing. Children must have faith given at baptism but that faith must be explained and unwrapped like a precious gift for them.

Don’t delay. Get started early and teach your child the faith they have received every day.

Posted on

On the Sin of Rash Judgment as Humorously Depicted in a Commercial

On of the most common sins committed, and yet, one of the sins least confessed, is the sin of Rash Judgment. The commercial below humorously depicts the sin and how wrong we can sometimes be.

But in reality the sin is not often humorous and can lead us to some very dark places. We may, on account of rash judgments, harbor grudges, resentments, fears, and unjust anger. We may allow rash judgment to foster our pride as we feel superior to others, and we may carry deep hurts, or even seek revenge, all based on misinformation, or misinterpretation of what others do. And gossip is usually the daughter (or son) of rash judgment.

St. Thomas speaks of rash judgement as those times, When the human intellect lacks certainty, as when a person, without any solid motive, forms a negative judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter, it is called judgment by suspicion or rash judgment. (Summa Theologica, Quest. 60, art 2)

According to Fr. John Hardon: Rash Judgment is unquestioning conviction about another person’s bad conduct without adequate grounds for the judgment. The sinfulness of rash judgment lies in the hasty imprudence with which the critical appraisal is made, and in the loss of reputation that a person suffers in the eyes of the one who judges adversely (Modern Catholic Dictionary).

The Catechism places rash judgment in the context of the obligation we have to preserve the good reputation of others:

Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

– of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

– of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;

– of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way (CCC 2477-2478)

All this said, rash judgment is often committed in weakness. Our minds are weak and we often lack patience or determination to carefully discern the whole truth. Sometimes we commit this sin based on hurts of the past, or the general climate of cynicism that permeates our culture.

On account of these roots in weakness, the necessary antidote is humility, and a quick appreciation that, in most incidents, we do not have all the facts at first. Further, we must often admit that we may never have all the facts in certain cases. In our humility we ought, usually, to presume the more benign interpretations of uncertain matters unless, and until, the facts require otherwise.

In our instant media culture of 24/7 news, we are encouraged to make quick judgments. News outlets often rush to “analysis” before most of the facts are in. And, with plausible “experts” at the anchor desk, rash judgments often seem “credible” when, in fact, they are little more than rash judgments.

Be very careful. Rash judgment, especially when shared with others, can do a lot of damage. It is not a sin to be taken lightly, even if it is often committed in weakness.

Perhaps then a little humor will make the point. In this commercial, a man with all the best of intentions, looks quite guilty of all the worst intentions. Enjoy.

Posted on

When God says "No"

It is common for all of us to have to struggle as to the great mystery of God’s providence and will. If it is not our own struggle then we must often commiserate with others who are in distress. One person is losing her young daughter to cancer, a friend is struggling to find work, still another has a husband who is drinking. Some will say to me, “I’ve been praying, Father. Nothing seems to happen.” I am not always sure what to say and God doesn’t often explain why we must suffer, or why he delays, or why he says, “No.”

Just think of how he answered Job. Job wanted answers as to why he was suffering. And God spoke from the whirlwind and upbraided Job with provocative questions meant to humble him. But in the end he gave him no real answer. He DID restore Job though. And somehow in the midst of God’s mysterious ways we DO have to remember that if we are faithful God is going to more than restore us one day. But in the midst of trials, future restoration seems pretty theoretical.

So, often in the midst of trials, the best we can do is to be still. To breathe, to sigh and yearn, and to weep with those who weep. Scripture says, The LORD is good to those who wait for him, to the soul that seeks him. It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD (Lam 3:25).

Scripture does give some answers as to God’s delay and to his “No.” And while these explanations may not always satisfy us emotionally, they do provide a teaching which can ultimately assist us in not allowing our sorrow, anger or disappointment to interact with our pride and lead us away from faith. Let’s look at a few of these explanations as to God’s “No” and his delay. Some of these explanations pertain to God and some to us. I place the word “sometimes” before most of these since they do not all apply to all of us, all the time.

1. Sometimes, “No” is the Best Answer – We often think we know what is best for us. We want to have this job, or we want that person to fall in love and marry us. We want to be delivered from a certain illness or receive a financial blessing. We see these as good outcomes and are sure that God must also see them this way. But God may not, in fact, agree with our assessment as to what is best for us. And thus his “No” is really the best answer to our prayers.

For example we may always prefer that God answer our prayer that none of our children be born with any disabilities. But God may see that the experience of disability may be just the thing that we or the child may need in order to be saved ultimately. St. Paul prayed for deliverance from some sort of physical affliction: Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it might leave me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me. Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Cor 12:7-10).

The fact is, we really don’t know what is best for us or for someone else. We may think we know, but we do not. God’s “No” to Paul helped to save him for it helped him better understand the power of the cross in his life and how we must learn to depend on God. So too for us. We may prefer certain outcomes, but God alone really knows if our preference is truly good for us or just apparently good.

2. God is love – Many confuse love with kindness. Kindness is a common attribute of love but it is not the same as love. Any parent knows that they must often times discipline their children, and that it is the loving thing to do. A parent who is always kind and never punishes, spoils that child and does not exhibit true love. Parents will sometimes inflict pain on a child by limiting their freedom and insisting that they do what is right. They will bring an unwilling child to the doctor for shots, they will insist that they finish their homework before play. They may give a firm “no” to certain requests that they know are harmful or interfere with greater duties. Kindness always wants to say yes, but love sometimes says no and even inflicts hardships where necessary.

God is a Father. Kindness has its place but love is more essential for us than mere kindness which is but an attribute of love.

Scripture says, My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son….God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. (Heb 12:5-6, 11). And Again: Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus….Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this (2 Tim 2:3,7)

3. Sometimes our request cannot be affirmed without violating another’s freedom– It is a common thing that we may pray for the conversion of another person. Or we may pray that they make some decision that we prefer. God is all powerful and could force outcomes, but this would violate the freedom of others to truly decide. If freedom is contingent upon God’s whim then it is not really freedom. God can exhort through his Church and the Scriptures. He can send special graces to be of influence, but in the end, we are free and he will not generally force an individual to choose what we want or ask in prayer. The Scriptures affirm our freedom. For example: There are set before you fire and water; to which ever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, which ever he chooses shall be given him (Sirach 15:16-17).

4. Sometimes our request cannot be granted due to the harm it might cause to others- We can sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that we are the most important thing on God’s agenda. We want a sunny day for our picnic but the farmers are in desperate need of rain. Whose need is more important? It would seem that the farmers might be a bit higher on God’s list than my picnic, however, even this, I leave up to God.

The prophet Jonah went reluctantly to the Ninevites to preach. And he didn’t want them to be converted. He wanted them to refuse repentance and be destroyed within 40 days. He had, in his own mind,  good reasons to want this. The Ninevites (Assyrians) were amassing an army that was a great threat to Israel, and if they were destroyed Israel would be spared any further threat. But the Ninevites DID repent. And Jonah was sullen and bitter. God rebuked him for wanting the Ninevites destroyed with these words: Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city? (Jonah 4:9) We may not be praying for another’s harm but it may sometimes be the case that what we ask for would adversely affect others.

5. Sometimes our faith is not strong enough – Jesus said: “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” (Matthew 21:22) And the Book of James says, But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; (James 1:6-7) There is also the sad fact of Nazareth where the Lord could work few miracles so much did their lack of faith disturb him (Matt 13:58)

6. Sometimes we ask for improper things or with wrong motives – The Book of James says : “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures”

7. Sometimes unrepented sin sets up a barrier between us and God so that our prayer is blocked – “Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor His ear too dull to hear. But your iniquities (sins) have separated you from God; your sins have hidden his face from you so that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:1-2).

8. Sometimes we have not been generous with the requests and needs of others – “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered” (Proverbs 21:13)

9. Sometimes God cannot trust us with blessings for we are not conformed to his word or trustworthy with lesser things – If you remain in me and my word remains in you, ask whatever you wish and it will be given to you” (John 15:7) and Again: So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own? (Lk 16:11-12). Thus we must prove trustworthy in smaller matters to be trusted with greater blessings.

Again, please remember the “explanations” above may or may not apply to you personally. Some, others may not. In the end we have to accept the mystery of prayer and come to accept that not everything is fully explainable. We see so very little of the whole picture God sees. Humility must be our constant disposition.

This Song says that some of God’s greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

>

Posted on

Nancy Pelosi – A Strange little Video on Public Policy, Scripture and Abortion

The video below is almost two years old and I recall hearing something of this story then, but I have never seen the full video. I remember only hearing a grainy recording and so it made less impact. But in this video two statements by Mrs. Pelosi are juxtaposed and the impact is stronger than the story I heard back then.

In the first half of the video, Minority Leader of the House, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi goes on at some length about the Word becoming flesh. She sort of goes into preacher mode and I get the feeling that she is suddenly quite uncomfortable with where she finds herself. Suddenly a woman who is not unaccustomed to public speaking becomes slow and halting and rather grasping for words. But the gist of her comment is this:

When people ask me about my word, I say it is the Word. The Word became flesh and that is beautiful. And we need to give voice the Word in terms of Public Policy.

She goes so far as to say that we are going to answer to God for whether we do this or not.

OK, I am with you Mrs. Pelosi. The Scriptures should surely inform public policy. But I want to add immediately that I’d like to see the unabridged version of Scripture used. Care for the poor, the immigrant, the prisoner, the disadvantaged, all to be sure. But also the unborn. And while we’re at it, there are a few teachings about homosexual activity, and the sacredness of traditional marriage, and more than a few comeuppances to people in power. We could go on but you get the point.

But wowsa! Talk about setting yourself up for a doozy of a followup question. The Word made Flesh…are you really sure you want to go down that road with your pro-abortion stance?

Perhaps this explains her rather sudden stammering and searching for words. You can almost see the gears turning in her head, and the discomfort on her face.

Sure enough the question comes later. In the second half of the video the reporter asks in effect,

Mrs. Pelosi at a community conference, you have remarked how the Word becoming flesh should be reflected public policy. Can you state when the Word became flesh? At the annunciation or at the birth?

Mrs. Pelosi’s answer indicates a sudden shift away from the notion that faith should be discussed in public or affect public policy. She consigns any such discussion to the closed doors of a Church. So much for the Word becoming flesh being reflected in public policy. Her exact quote is:

Whatever it [i.e. the Word made Flesh] was, we bow our heads when we talk about it in Church and that’s where I’d like to talk about that.

Hmm… So in one public setting, at a community conference,  she gets to wax eloquent about the Word made flesh and even with the fire of preacher warns us of judgment day, if we don’t abide by the vision. In the another public setting she dismisses it as a topic unfit for a setting outside the Church.

A word about this video. I do not personally care for the subtext “Pelosi eats her words in xx Seconds.” In the first place, though I vigorously disagree with Mrs. Pelosi on most things, I consider it disrespectful to refer to public officials merely by their last name. This is done a lot today even at the presidential level, Bush this…. Obama that. Public officials, even those with whom we have vigorous disagreement, should be called either by their title, their full name or by the prefix Mr., Mrs., or Ms.

Further I don’t know if eating her words is an appropriate expression. It is too gleeful for a tragic situation. Mrs. Pelosi is tragically misled on the question of abortion and other matters of the faith. To the degree that she has voted to fund abortion or advocated for such funding she is guilty of at least material cooperation in abortion. Gleeful attitudes, while understandable for those who have been in the fight so long, are not the right attitude. Prayerful hope that the reporter’s question may have sparked her conscience is better, and prayer for a conversion of mind and heart in this matter is best.

With that in mind, here is the video. I beg your pardon if this is old news for you. But I missed it, and thus suspect others did too.

By the way, in the comments let’s prescind from the question of denial of communion to pro-abortion Pols. It’s above our pay grade and there’s nothing we can do about it. Leave it to the bishops, and/or send your remarks directly to them. I am only a pope…err… a Msgr. Pope.