only sexually active once a week...good enough to be celibate?

My homily will be late once again this week. Instead, here's something I found posted on a different blog that speaks volumes as to why the church speaks out against the homosexual subculture.

QIn your last column, you said it wasn't necessary to list hobbies (especially unpopular ones) on a resumé. I'm a 26-year-old, gay male thinking seriously about entering the Catholic priesthood. I'm sexually active, but only once a week, at a Saturday night club with a small group of friends. I think of that as my hobby.
Given the Catholic Church's stance on gays in seminary, do I have to tell them about this? After all, even if I kept this up after ordination, I'd still be as celibate as most other priests.

ACelibacy is like pregnancy: either you are, or you aren't. You aren't, and more to the point aren't prepared to be.
The Catholic Church does not consider its priests "employees;" the relationship, according to doctrine which you'd have to affirm, is more like marriage between the priest and the Church. So, yes, tell them. Whether other priests are celibate is not your concern; "everybody's doing it" is a poor basis for ethical decisions. The fact that the Church's stance on gays in the priesthood is morally wrong is also irrelevant. They've taken their position, you know what it is, so 'fess up and let the pieces fall where they may.
I have another concern, though. Frankly, if you think of sexuality as a "hobby", you're not likely priest material anyway. All the world's major faiths consider sexual intimacy to be an expression of deep, long-lasting commitment and love. Many priests who violate vows of celibacy do so not simply because they are horny, but because they are deeply in love with another person, and consider that love a gift from God. Sex is not a game, and cannot be treated on a resumé or in life, as akin to playing crokinole or raising geraniums.

come and follow me and I will make you fishers of men

When I was in the Holy Land, I noticed how eclectic that the people there dressed. I can still remember walking down a narrow Jerusalem street with a Muslim cleric in robes on one side and a Orthodox Jew in black suit on the other, while I was wearing Jeans and a T-shirt, thinking that I looked rather slovenly. I began to take solace in seeing the Franciscan friars who are in charge of the holy sites around Jerusalem. One day, I noticed something particular to Franciscans friars. They wore a simple brown habit with a white rope around their waste, called a cincture. Even the instructor that accompanied us overseas who was a branch of the Franciscans called “Third Order Religious” or TOR sometimes wore a black habit with the same white rope cincture around his waste. I noticed one day that my instructor and all the friars had three knots tied in the their cincture. However, they weren’t where you’d expect them to be, being used to hold the rope on the Franciscan’s body, or making sure it wouldn’t blow in the wind, or connecting the two ends of the cincture. Instead, the knots were tied on one side with, seemingly, no purpose whatsoever. One night while sitting around the supper table, I worked up the courage to ask the instructor what they meant and received the answer that probably should have been somewhat obvious, “these stand for the vows I made when I became a friar, poverty, chastity, and obedience.

That made me start to think about those three things: poverty, chastity, and obedience. Poverty made sense to me. I mean I didn’t become a priest because I wanted to make money. And, I understood that whole idea of not wanting to have stuff sitting around that would interfere with prayer or my service to the people of God and willingness to pull up and go wherever ministry might take me.
And then there was chastity, which I also understood. I mean, who could think of becoming a priest nowadays and not think of celibacy. And, all of us are called to be chaste and faithful to the state of life God has called us to.

Then there was obedience. Ugh! I was glad the Franciscans were called to this life and not me. You can imagine how surprised I was when I discovered that part of the ordination ritual to become a deacon meant that I would place my hands in the prayer position between the Archbishop’s of Dubuque and swear obedience to him and his successors. What did I know about obedience? What did it mean? And, priests aren’t the only ones that are scared of being obedient. I’ve met a good number of couples that need to make sure that the words, “love, honor, and obey” aren’t a part of the vows to a catholic wedding. I think part of this might come down to the fact that many people remember the fifties as a time when women were forced to be subservient and “obedient” to their husbands.

It is no surprise that obedience is such a confusing term since it is that way in the readings too, though you wouldn’t necessarily see it if you just read the readings for today. That first reading, in particular, is a bit deceptive because it isn’t the first chapter in this book. In reality, it is the third chapter of a four-chapter book. We are right in the middle of the story. Before this, Jonah is called to go to this terrible, horrible town to call the people in Iowa City…I mean Nineveh…to repent. But Jonah has no intention of going to this awful city to get them to repent. Jonah is afraid that if he does go and preach repentance, they will repent and God will not destroy their city. Now, you may be asking what Jonah is thinking since that should be his goal but he’s too selfish for that. He’s afraid that the Ninevites will repent, his prediction will not come true and he will be made to look the fool. So, he goes as far away from Nineveh as he can go. But, God sends a storm to batter the boat that he’s on and the sailors throw him off the side where he is swallowed by a large fish. He spends three days and three nights in the belly of the fish and ends up being tossed up on the shore of a lake. Finally, at this point, Jonah figures out that God’s call is not easy to avoid. He goes back and God starts at the beginning with his assignment to convert Nineveh.

This is in stark contrast with the gospel. Jesus, while beginning his public ministry, goes along the Sea of Galilee and sees, from among hundreds of boats, two brothers named Simon and Andrew. Using a beautiful turn-of-phrase, he calls these fishermen to fishers-of-men to leave their livelihood and follow him. They aren’t like I, who would likely have told the Lord to wait while I gather the net. They leave it all and follow Jesus. They walk a little further and see James and John with their Father and his hired hands. When Jesus calls them, they leave their family behind and follow him, another prospect that I find quite impossible to do. You may say that Peter and Andrew obediently followed Jesus into poverty and James and John with chastity.

So, it seems to me, obedience is a central part of the Christian vocation. We learn this obedience in the context of the human family, beginning when two spouses pledge mutual obedience, husband to wife and wife to husband, since both are obedient to the Lord. They, in turn, teach this obedience to their children. Yet this doesn’t stop at the level of the nuclear family because children must learn to obey each other and aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents; all in an obedience of love to God the father.

All of this is meant to foster the kind of obedience that drove the first disciples and is at the heart of the members of the church. That’s why I find it so troubling when certain priests and even some bishops immediately denounce controversial stands that the Vatican takes. Sometimes even before reading the document, the priests air their “grievances” in public and create a culture of disobedience.

If we are to be faithful followers of Jesus, we must be obedient to his word. That means we listen to the leaders that he has set to lead the church, the bishops along with their head the Pope, and be open that, sometimes, church teaching is slow in changing because the church is very cautious. And sometimes the church is not going to go the way we’d like them to go. We must be like the first disciples and obediently follow the voice of Christ and his successors, the bishops.

There's Hope! When CNN can't even find a way to spin the movement of America to respecting human life in the womb, it's a good day!

"Anti-Vatican?"

We received a note from a student parishioners here at St. Thomas. One line just made me angry. In Part, it read, "I was often troubled by homilies I heard at your church, mostly from Fr. Miller, hearing anti-traditional Catholic sentiments and even ANTI-VATICAN sentiments at times..." I publish my homilies on this website and on our parish website and this is the first time anyone has ever alleged that I'm anti-Vatican. Now, admittedly, the man admits that he has a myopic vision of church since he is from the diocese of Peoria. Would you believe that he requests a "return to a more traditional Catholic service and a focus on the entire faith, not a selected version of it?" So, we are supposed to celebrate the holy mass (a MUCH more catholic term than "service, by the way. Protestants have services. We have mass/liturgy/eucharist.) like he wants it to be done in the diocese of Peoria so that we can focus on the entire faith, not a selected version of it.

But, aside from the proof that what the current generation of students needs is a class in logic, I came to a stark realization while reading this. I'm offended that someone thinks I'm not squarely on the side of the Vatican. And, I think that the bias of this kid is easily shown by the fact that he thinks my pastor is more traditional/conservative than I am. I'm not sure what his measuring stick is but he needs a new one.

But, is it a bad thing that I want to be identified with the (so called) conservatives? Is it bad that, of all the things I've been called in three years of priesthood, the two terms that have been most hurtful were "anti-traditional" and "anti-vatican"?

Am I getting old and grumpy?

Why is is that when I read sentences like "Members of Parish church design committees sometimes suggest that the tabernacle makes the church Catholic; not, apparently, the Catholics assembled there nor the Catholic liturgy celebrated there" it makes me so angry that I could just spit blood? I read this sentence in a publication recently and I couldn't help but ask myself, "Is it possible for a catholic to think that the tabernacle AND the people AND the liturgy are all important?

What does Vatican II say that we might want to focus on? Doesn't it stress that God is present in the people and the priest but pre-eminantly in the eucharist?

Why do I feel like Charlie Brown running towards the football that Peppermint Patty is holding whenever I start to read these articles?

Get ready for the circus

The rumor is that Pope Benedict's new encyclical (his first one, really) will be out this week, perhaps on Friday. The opponents of Benedict have been looking for a reason to hate him since he was elevated. They tried to make the issue with the document about homosexuals in seminary but it wasn't really from him and some of them even noticed a bit of reticence on the part of Benedict in his signature. This new document is undeniably a statement that is his and, I am afraid, will be the ultimate oppertunity for them to make quasi-intellictual arguments to prove that the Holy Father, the successor of Peter, is "closed minded", "mean spirited", etc. So, here's a challenge to the church. Read the document before you read the commentaries. Let the pope make the point before Andrew Greeley says how mean he is

Another great conversation

One of the highlights of my year comes each January when I get to sit down with my archbishop, along with the other newly ordained priests of this diocese, talk about concerns, pray, and eat. It happened yesterday and it truly is a moment of grace for me. Archbishop Hanus' sense of humor and hospitality make it easy for hours to drift by in what seems more like a few moments. I especially appreciate how candid my brother newly ordained priests can be and how the Archbishop responds. He never makes promises that he knows he can't keep. He isn't going to say that all our assignments are perfect, because no assignment is perfect. But, if we he is going to listen to us, which is a reminder that he knows what we are going through and empathizes with us. It's hard for us to understand that "this too shall pass."

But, there are times when I wish I would be able to keep quiet and not speak. I remember one of the evaluations at St. Paul Seminary saying that I surely know how to put his foot in his mouth. That was no less true yesterday than it was four years ago. I brought up a topic that led the archbishop to ask me about his seal and I had to admit that I probably couldn't pick it out of a line up. I figured that it was more important to be honest than it was to lie. But, of course, the first thing I did when I got back was look up the Archbishop's seal!

The value of doubt

Where is the newborn king of the Jews? This question, posed by the magi in our gospel today, is in many ways, a fitting way for us to reflect on as we wrap up the Christmas season. While, on the surface, it seems rather mundane and somewhat antiquated, perhaps even a childish question, it is, I believe, the most important question of Christianity today. Basically, the magi wonder what we believe. Amidst all of these celebrations of Jesus’ birth, who of us has ever sat down with the birthday boy and had cake and ice cream with him? Oh, you may be like my sister who does bake a cake and sing happy birthday with her kids on Christmas, but Jesus wasn't there to the extent that he enjoyed the marble cake. So, where is the newborn king of the Jews?

I was recently reading a book by Pope Benedict XVI, written when he was simply known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, entitled Introduction to Christianity, which posed the question this way. He cited a story by Jewish theologian Martin Buber that described an encounter between a very learned man and the Rabbi of Berditchev. One Day, the intelligen man "paid a visit to (the rabbi) in order to argue, as was his custom, with him...and to shatter his old-fashioned proofs of the truth of his faith. When he entered the Rabbi's room, he found him walking up and down with a book in his hand, rapt in thought. The Rabbi paid no attention to the new arrival. Suddenly he stopped, looked at him fleetingly, and said, ‘But perhaps it is true after all.’ The scholar tried in vain to col­lect himself—his knees trembled, so terrible was the Rabbi to behold and so terrible his simple utterance to hear. But (eventually the) Rabbi…turned to face him and spoke quite calmly: ‘My son, the great scholars of the Torah with whom you have argued wasted their words on you; as you departed you laughed at them. They were unable to lay God and his Kingdom on the table before you, and neither can I. But think, my son, perhaps it is true.’” According to the Cardinal-turned-pope the “perhaps” turns both ways. “…both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief...” This doubt necessarily connects believer and unbeliever in a struggle for understanding. For our present pope, then, the real challenge to faith is not doubt but when we abandon the search for faith and become complacent. In some ways, our faith becomes too small and we find it too easy to replace the mysteriousness of God with an explanation of ourselves, as though we were making God in our own image and likeness.

It seems to me, this is at the heart of the irony of today’s gospel. There are, basically, three characters the play some kind of role. Working backwards, there are the chief priests and the scribes of the people. These people are the intellectuals of Jerusalem that know the truths of our elder brothers and sisters in the faith. When asked where the messiah would appear, they pass along the correct information to Herod. Some people think that their fault was that they should have known that Herod would have evil intentions toward the messiah, as though they could have been mind readers to know that this man who had done so much to repair the temple would be so afraid of the messiah. No, the real fault that these people have is that, even though they know the information, they don’t let it affect them. In other words, they knew that the messiah was to be born in Bethlehem but where are they? In Jerusalem! They have put their faith in the messiah to rest and no longer grapple with it.

Then there’s our second character, Herod, who is, in some ways, the successor of David, though I doubt most Jews would have thought him so. He has only one way of observing the world; through power and authority. When he hears that a new king of the Jews, a successor of David, was born he, naturally, cannot comprehend that the kind of king that this would be was not in worldly power but a king that takes away the sins of the world and leads us to everlasting life. This eventually leads him to a blood-lust campaign to destroy all the newborns in Bethlehem. His need for power takes away any fear of God that he may have felt.

Lastly, we hear of an unnamed number of magi carrying three gifts for the newborn king. These astrologers had no way of knowing anything about the descendant of David but they were open to whatever light God put in the sky. This openness leads them to become the first gentiles to see, believe and give thanks.

We, too, are called to be gentiles who see, believe, give thanks, and continue to follow the star. We must grapple with the realities of our faith and never become so complacent that we fail to adhere to God’s call to follow a new path. There are many things that are a part of this path that are easily enough written off and ignored, like the need to fast for an hour before coming to communion, the need to give to the poorest among us, or the need to love our enemies. God’s call is often shrouded in mystery and is not easily known. It not only makes us uncomfortable but is easier to turn aside from. The challenge we feel is when we hear God's call is…perhaps it is true.

A quick vacation

I've been gone for the last week and a half and haven't updated. Now I'm too tired to do so.

Go read this instead.

respecting your elders irrespectively

I've felt the need to reflect on a rather complicated issue recently and I need help from anyone who has a good idea.

And, before I go too far, I'm not really speaking about my relationships or trying to imply anything here. In other words, don't read anything into this.

The question is: how do you show love to someone that you don't necessarily respect. I ask this in the contemporary church situation in which younger "conservative" clergy are replacing older "liberal" priests. The younger priests are, generally, walking into parishes and restoring long-lost pius practices. The older priests hear about this and think we are taking our people back into a "pray, pay, and obey" situation prior to vatican II. We say we are just trying to put beauty, regularity, and sanity back into the church.

The hardest situation that I've had with several of my contemporaries is that we just want to do what's in the book. We walk into parishes that, for years, have done something different than the rest of catholicism and we can't understand what would prompt a pastor to need to be "different". It's hard not to lose respect for someone who seems to, rather easily, throw the book out the window and "do it my way."

I think the most uncharitable response we can have is to demonize these brothers and make them seem bafoonish. Yet, how should we respond? How can we show them love?

The cloth and the cave

On behalf of Fr. Ev Hemann and myself, I welcome all of those people we see weekly, those that are not quite as frequent and especially those who we have not seen in some time. All are welcome here. There is an old principle that I learned in seminary pertaining to mass. It says that the more solemn the celebration, the less apt we are to change things. During this time of year, this principle applies equally well to our readings as it does to sheered pine trees and colorful wrapping paper. So, in the spirit of this tradition, I humbly submit the following reflection. It is in the style of an early church catechetical homily, which means it is a little more poetic, a little more scriptural symbolic, and little more affective than most homilies. If you like it, I say sleep in heavenly peace. If not, you will just have to come back next week to experience a different style.

How cold it must have been for them…how dreadful! Can you imagine the opulence they enjoyed, the fruit they feasted, or the peace they felt with God’s dominion in one hand and original grace in the other? This first male and female were, likewise, the first to defy their God and be punished to here. This place, with its winter and floods and drought and other such discomforts. The first woman and man could have had no knowledge of what to expect with the first pregnancy. Undoubtedly, expecting that all good gifts had been forsaken by their act of disobedience, they had no idea that God left one blessing not forfeited by original sin nor washed away in the flood. They were the first to share in God’s sacred rite of matrimony. They shared in God’s fruitful fecundity and bore, first Cain and then Abel, two sons. Both boys were born wrapped in the cloths of original sin in a rock hard place outside their paradise where no one should have had to walk. Before long, through the original act of fratricide, Cain murdered his brother and forced the original sinners to also be the first to lay a son in burial cloths in a rock-hewn tomb where no one should have laid.

It was through the offspring of this first disobedience, David the King, that the knot of our original sin would begin to be undone. That king, born the son of a meek shepherd, would succeed the shameful Saul and shepherd his people toward unity. Yet, David was not to undo original sin through obedience, but through coveting his neighbor’s wife, murdering him, and having his children. In this we see that God can even make something good happen from an evil act – and so he did in the person of brave Solomon who was wrapped in a mantle of military might with a rock-hard determination. He continued what no one else could do and made Israel a great nation in history.

Israel was to be the scene of the final undoing of disobedience when a new Eve, at the angel’s invitation, joyfully accepted the arduous responsibility of giving birth to the son of god. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light, upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom a light has shone. For the yoke that burdened them, the pole on their shoulder, and the rod of their taskmaster you have smashed...For a child is born to us, a son was given us; upon his shoulder dominion rested.” Wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger because there was no room, this child whose birth we hold dear was born. He was thought to have been the new David, the new Solomon whose wisdom would unite the country of Israel and overthrow her oppressors. In truth, he was the new Abel, another fratricide whose mother, the new Eve, was forced to redo the horrifying responsibility of the first one by wrapping her son in the swaddling clothes of burial and laying him in a man made tomb where no one had laid before.

Yet, unlike the first fratricide, this was no mere act of disobedience for all people, a simple effect of the original sin. This obedience began when his mother said, “Let it be done according to your word,” and concluded when he said, “Father forgive them.” His obedience pulled off the veil that veils all peoples, the web that is woven over all nations; his obedience destroyed death forever. As we adore Christ the child wrapped in swaddling clothes, in a manger, with no room in the Inn, let us give thanks to the savior of the world and join our voices the angels in adulation, “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

America Magazine

Some of you may read America Magazine. I found this interesting article about how they published an ad that featured a statue of the virgin Mary covered in a condom. The person who put the ad there claimed that he did it in protest of the church's stance on contraception.

I have two questions that come to mind. #1: Should we really believe that America didn't know that this was a part of their magazine?

And, #2: how is an ad like this going to have any effect but to prove that the people who are pro-contraception are really just anti-catholic?

Santa Benedict?

What is this world coming to? click here

A new vatican representative

I was reading on Catholic News Service this morning that the pope as appointed a new representative to the U.S. You can read all about it here.

You will learn that this man served in the Holy Land, which made me wonder if there is a parallel between the relationship of liberals to conservatives to the relationship of Palestinians to Conservatives?

Give the gift of yourself

There is a story told about a little boy whose father worked very hard at a very important job often bringing work home with him to do at night. One such night, the little boy came into his father’s study and stood for a while unnoticed. Finally, his somewhat oblivious father sensed his son’s presence, acknowledged him, and asked what his son wanted. The son asked the normal pleasantry question about what his father was doing to which his father replied something about earning his paycheck. The son then asked how much the father made per hour, a question that seemed to irritate the boy’s father. Figuring that his son was in some kind of silly game of comparison with classmates at school, the father told him that that was a very rude question and that it was none of his business. The son left the room and returned a few minutes later. The father, annoyed at being distracted and still thinking about how rude the son’s question was finished the sentence he was writing and then quickly looked up to find his son holding a small ceramic pig with an Iowa State Cyclone emblem on the side. The son opened the bottom of the pig and, much to the surprise of his father, emptied a few quarters, nickels, dimes, and many many pennies onto his desk. He looked at the tear stained eyes of his son who asked, “I’d like to buy one hour. Is this enough?” The father smiled at his son, put down his pen, and went to spend time with his son. And he never brought work home again.

For the past several weeks, I’ve heard a lot of people talking about the obnoxious level of commercialism that plagues Christmas. A lot of people recognize that this is a problem but few offer any kind of solution. I believe that we hear a solution in the scriptures today. The first reading and gospel are one of the few times when it is apparent that one passage is directly citing another. In the first reading, Nathan, speaking on behalf of God, promises David an heir who will be great and a son of God. In the gospel, the angel Gabriel, speaking on behalf of God, tells Mary Jesus “will be great” and will be called the “Son of God.” In the first reading, Nathan promises David a kingdom forever; in the gospel, Gabriel tells Mary “of his kingdom there will be no end.” In the first reading Nathan promises David an everlasting throne. In the gospel, Gabriel promises Mary that Jesus will inherit the throne of David his Father.
Yet, there is a striking difference between these readings as well that give us instruction as we approach Christmas. In the first reading, David feels blessed by God. The Ark of the Covenant, which had been traveling all over Israel to be kept safe, arrives in Jerusalem. His troubles with Saul’s daughter were resolved by God who made her barren. David has it made. So, he wants to do something nice for God for all the good things God has done for him. He decides to build a house or, more precisely, a temple. The problem is that God didn’t ask for a house. He didn’t even want one! He was perfectly fine in his tent. Instead, God decides that he’s going to build a house for David, a lineage so that all of David’s offspring can serve God.

Mary is also coming off of a pretty good stretch. She has got engaged to Joseph, an event that, I’m told, is very exciting. But, Mary’s first act is not to go out and get a gift for God in thanks. She didn’t sacrifice the fattened calf. Mary, instead, thanked God for her good fortune. She simply spent time with God in prayer. This thankful attitude is what allowed her to be the first tabernacle for the body of Christ.

This, then, is the antidote to the problem of commercialism; to focus on relationships instead of things. In other words, our first and foremost gift this time of year should be more about time than money or trinkets. No amount of money, no perfect toy, no ticket to a bowl game is as important as being with the people we love and being with our God…though tickets to Iowa State’s bowl game come close. But, seriously, now is the perfect time to take some time to be with those we love and spend time with God in prayer. Don’t make God send a prophet, an Angel, or a crying child to get you to do it.

a bit of humor

In reading some blogs, I found this entry. My favorite part is

"If you liked the hip cool not-so Mediterranean, Wonder White Bread-o-life iPod Jesus, then you'll just love the Talking Jesus Christ Doll. Comes complete with the patented kung fu grip bearing an authentic sword of the spirit AK-47 (not pictured). Your kids will become the talk of their Bible studies as they learn life verses such as 2 Kings 2:23-24 and John 11:35 merely by pulling the Savior's string. "

Narnia

Today is my day off, my sabbath rest. I used part of it to go see the new movie "The chronicles of Narnia". It's a good movie and has some of the major Christian symbols.

I hope this doesn't ruin the movie for you but, if so, sorry. The most important part of the book is that there is this hundred year winter that is only stopped when Azlan comes back to life after death. Yet, this movie got that all wrong! That was disappointing. Not so disappointing that I left in a huff but enough to make me a little sad.

Rejoicing with Mary

When you think of someone who is really holy, what are some of the characteristics that come to mind? Do you think of a monk off in a cave in the middle of the desert fasting and praying constantly? What about the parents of five kids doing their best to raise faithful children by teaching them how to pray and coming to church? What about a sister working in the inner city of a major metropolitan area teaching poor students? What do their faces look like? Are they joyful?

Today is traditionally called “Gaudate Sunday” from the latin phrase, “Let us rejoice.” We get this phrase from St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians that is the opening antiphon to today’s mass, though we hear it just as strongly in the second reading today from Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians. Paul says to us, “Rejoice always. Pray without ceasing. In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.” This joy is a constitutive element of Christianity. We are to rejoice always. Our prayer is filled with rejoicing for the God who has accomplished so much in Christ Jesus. This means that we joyfully give thanks, which is another way of saying the word Eucharist. We cannot live dour lives if we are faithfully giving thanks for what God has accomplished in Christ Jesus. This is a distinctive feature of Christianity. Atheism leads to futility, frustration, and lack of meaning. Hedonism, or love of pleasure, cannot find joy in suffering and pain. Christianity, on the other hand, leads us to a profound sense of thankfulness and can even see through the pain of this world to the joy we will have in our everlasting home in heaven.

But St. Paul is no Pollyanna; He’s a saint. He recognizes three things that can take away the joy of faith. First he says, “Do not quench the Spirit.Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good. Refrain from every kind of evil.” Let’s face it, along our journey, there are people with different gifts. Some people are better at things than we are and, for some of us, there seems to be a lot of people that are better at things than we are. I can almost guarantee that all of you are better at science and math than I am. That’s not the way that my brain works. The danger is when someone is good at living the holy life. We can get jealous of them and their spirituality. This may lead us to try and prove the hypocrisy of them or we may try to copy their spirituality and find that it is not ours. This is why we are to try it out. If it draws you to God then it is good. If not, then don’t do it. This wisdom also governs the church’s attitude to private revelation. In other words, when people see an image of Mary or receive an appearance of Mary somewhere, the church never mandates belief in that because it is a personal, private experience that helps them grow in faith. If it helps other people to draw closer to God, then we tell them to retain it. If it doesn’t, then refrain from it.

So, living a joyful life means that we are called to live a life of holiness. Paul says, “May the God of peace make you perfectly holyand may you entirely, spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This life of holiness to which we are called is the definition of a joyful life. Sin is what brings about sadness. In our Eucharistic Prayer, it says, “Your Spirit is at work when understanding puts an end to strife, when hatred is quenched by mercy, and vengeance gives way to forgiveness.”Yet, the life of holiness itself can seem like a frustration. Oftentimes, in trying to rid ourselves of sin, we can become so fixated on our inadequacies that we can lose light of the forgiveness of God. There are people who become so fixated on this that they will confess the same sin over and over again. Others, in their frustration, simply stop trying to live the life of holiness and indulge in sensuality. This is why Paul prays “The one who calls you is faithful, and he will also accomplish it.” We cannot become frustrated in our sins and lose sight of the forgiveness of God and the forgiveness of the church. This Tuesday we will celebrate the last of our communal reconciliation liturgies, which is a sacramental way to celebrate God’s forgiveness. But, this Eucharist itself, forgives the minor sins that we commit and draws us closer into the body of Christ. It enflames our heart with the joy of Mary who’s joyful hymn was sung during the responsorial psalm, “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked upon his lowly servant.” Let us rejoice with Mary this Sunday.

sede vaticansists

I've recently become re-aquainted with a group of people that believe there has been no legitimate pope since John XXIII. They found my email address somehow and were sending me evil material attempting to subvert my love of the pope and bishops.

It's sad. They have nothing positive to add to the conversation. They just complain about how everything has changed and is, therefore, bad. Because of their own ignorance and obstinence, they lead others away. They do incredible damage to the unity of the church and are, in many ways, acting as the anti-christ. I pray for them constantly in the hopes that they will realize that they not only don't have a leg to stand on but are being Judas. After all, Judas thought that, in betraying the Lord, he was saving the movement. These people think that they know more about what the truth of the faith is than the pope and can, therefore, betray him. Someday they will have to look God in the face and see how they are ripping apart the body of Christ, the church.

Pray for them, not only for the leadership but for the lost sheep that believe what these false prophets teach.

Limbo

Here's a great article about how John Paul II and Benedict have eliminated the concept of Limbo and a little bit about why. I love the line "...people should not think the changed focus is a lightweight embrace of warm, fuzzy feelings." See, that's why I don't hug!