The wisdom of Abraham Lincoln

When I read history, it tends to revolve around three subjects; Church History, World War II in Europe, and the Civil war. With the last of these three, I especially like the figures of General Grant and President Lincoln. In the book that I'm currently reading, entitled Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin, I have discovered just how policially savy Lincoln was. I was unaware that Lincoln chose his rivals for the election to be his cabinet. One of them, a man named Salmon chase, was a particular thorn in Lincoln's side because he wanted to replace Lincoln after one term. I found this paragraph to be particularly humorous/educational:

"...Chase's incessant presi­dential ambitions reminded (Lincoln) of the time when he was 'plowing corn on a Kentucky farm' with a lazy horse that suddenly sped forward energeti­cally to 'the end of the furrow.' Upon reaching the horse, he discovered 'an enormous chin-fly fastened upon him, and knocked him off,' not wanting 'the old horse bitten in that way.' His companion said that it was a mistake to knock it off, for 'that's all that made him go.'"
"'Now,' Lincoln concluded, 'if Mr. [Chase] has a presidential chin-fly biting him, I'm not going to knock him off, if it will only make his depart­ment go.' Lincoln agreed that his secretary's tactics were in 'very bad taste,' and 'was sorry the thing had begun, for though the matter did not annoy him his friends insisted that it ought to.' Lincoln's friends could not understand why the president continued to approve appointments for avid Chase supporters who were known to be 'hostile to the President's inter­ests.' Lincoln merely asserted that he would rather let 'Chase have his own way in these sneaking tricks than getting into a snarl with him by re­fusing him what he asks.' Moreover, he had no thought of dismissing Chase while he was hard at work raising the resources needed to support the immense Union Army."

Sometimes you have to let someone who thinks they are a jack of all trades do the thing in which they excell and not worry about their inflated ego.

Bishop Blase Cupich

Bishop Cupich guided my retreat before I became a deacon and he's wise, pastoral, caring, and good. He's got a blog...interesting that even bishops can have blogs. Here's his summary of a visit he had to visit the pope and an oppertunity to reflect on Deus est Caritas.

"The best description of the liturgy is that it is this very same event. God, who loves us so passionately, empties himself to the point of giving us everything he has, including the life of his only Son. Our response, called “worship” is our acceptance of the life God gives us to the point that our life takes on a new direction. Yes, this happens every time we celebrate the sacraments, but in each instance God is giving us himself and we are stretched just a bit more, gradually growing in the likeness of God himself. Someone once described the liturgy as a revelation of the beauty of God’s love for us."

Another interesting Catholic New Service story

I try to go to Catholic New Service once a day to find interesting stories. I found this yesterday and had a couple of thoughts...

Godspell

Jesus Christ Superstar

There are more that I don't know...less popular and more local. But, the question that comes to mind is: Is this authentic evangelization or just more christian novelty that won't move anyone's hearts and minds to Christ? We'll see.

My future

This is one of the saddest stories that I've heard in a while.

I know that, as a priest, I'm going to have the painful job of walking in to parishes that are dying...with no baptisms, confirmations, first communions, etc. in order to close them down. I know that this is probably an action by a people that are voicing frustration for the complete incompetence of government; state, local, and federal, in securing and rebuilding New Orleans. But, I wonder how much of this has to do with our vehement hatred for bishops and lack of obedience that has come since the Second Vatican Council. The Council didn't prescribe this. Has the church in the United States completely lost its sense of reverence for the successors of the apostles? Do we have any humility whatsoever?

And, perhaps the most disturbing thing to me, is the desecration of the Eucharist that took place there. These people prevented Christians from sacramental grace...because their building wasn't as available as it used to be. People complain that younger priests like myself want a smaller church. Are you honestly going to tell me the church is going to be worse off without people who have NO RESPECT FOR THE EUCHARIST? People who hate the Body of Christ?

Example 2: The USCCB to Pro-choice Democrats

You may have missed this because not only did the mainstream media not cover it but, as far as I can tell, no one did. I hear so many complaints from bloggers when the bishops say the slightest thing that they don't like to hear and yet no one says anything when they do something good. In any case, here's what struck me.

"...At the same time, we also need to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s constant teaching that abortion is a grave violation of the most fundamental human right – the right to life that is inherent in all human beings, and that grounds every other right we possess. Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on the vocation and mission of the laity, Christifideles Laici, which the Representatives’ statement cites, declares:

'The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination…. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor (# 38).

While it is always necessary to work to reduce the number of abortions by providing alternatives and help to vulnerable parents and children, Catholic teaching calls all Catholics to work actively to restrain, restrict and bring to an end the destruction of unborn human life.
As the Church carries out its central responsibility to teach clearly and help form consciences, and as Catholic legislators seek to act in accord with their own consciences, it is essential to remember that conscience must be consistent with fundamental moral principles. As members of the Church, all Catholics are obliged to shape our consciences in accord with the moral teaching of the Church. (Emphasis mine)

Example One: Sean Cardinal

First they find his sense of Humor...

Then

To a diocese that has, undoubtedly, believed God has left them, this cardinal says...

"Belief in God for many people today is more like a hangover. They feel the effects of the religious activities of the past, but their own consciousness borders on agnosticism. They still make space for God in our churches, but He is given very little space everywhere else.
A hundred years ago, when Friedrich Nietzsche made his declaration that “God is dead,” he was not suggesting that God in the heavens had died. Nietzsche was saying that God no longer mattered in everyday life. “God is dead,” he said, “but His shadow is a long one and we must first conquer this shadow.”
These images of faith as a hangover, of religion as struggling with God’s shadow, of an absent God whose calling card we still possess, describe in general the attitudes of many contemporary Christians living in a thoroughly secularized culture. For secularism there are no absolutes, there is no forever. We wake up in this world as orphans.
To be a believer is to have a Father, a God who loves us. That faith and knowledge can give us a strength and serenity that is unshakeable. In one of the Nazi death camps during the Second World War, a believer wrote on the wall:
I believe in the sun, even when it isn’t shining.
I believe in love, even when I feel it not.
I believe in God, even when He is silent.
I know that for many God seemed silent during those awful times, but God is speaking in the heroism and goodness of so many people in those dehumanizing circumstances who shared their last crust of bread, who cared for the sick and dying and even forgave their persecutors.

Defensorum Episcoporum

Okay, so as I read most other blogs, it seems that bishops can do nothing right. I frequently post comments like, "Crazy successors of the apostles...." or "What did Christ think by setting these fools up as the hierarchy...we could have done so much better than he." Of course, I'm trying emphasize the point that THESE ARE THE BISHOPS. They make mistakes but, if you openly mock them and their leadership abilities, you are mocking the hierarchy of Christ's Church. Did the Apostles make mistakes? Yes, of course. Were they, nonetheless, the people Christ chose to spread his message. Just as assuredly yes.

So, I'm proposing a slight change in format until I get tired of it. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, I'm going to find an article by one of the successors to the apostles to post. I'm sure that someone who doesn't know me will accuse me of having "episcopal ambitions" (an actual accusation I've received!) but there are so many problems with that idea that I don't need to even acknowledge it. First of all, just look at my posts. I'm not very intelligent... And, yes, I'm going to cite all bishops, not just (so called) liberal or conservative ones. I know that leadership automatically makes critics. I hope to be the one who cheers for Christ's church as Christ meant it to be.

Here's the way I see a week playing out:

Sunday: posting my homily
Monday: my sabbath rest
Tuesday: In defense of the successors of the apostles.
Wednesday: Something whitty from my life.
Thursday: Same as Tuesday, only with more research.
Friday: Probably something critical of the weeks news...or just another whitty ditty.
Saturday: leave me alone. I'm working on my homily that should have been done Thursday instead of doing research.

In lieu of a homily...

So my homily was kind of weak this weekend because I was visiting a parish that isn't used to my sharp fidelity to the holy church. So, instead, I had some good jokes and offered a centeral thought that, I thought, was pretty good. Here's the core of the homily....

"We learned in seminary that there’s a difference between having a private life and leading a secret life. The difference is that private lives are morally acceptable in nature. For instance, prayer, kissing a loved one, reading a book or looking up information on the internet. Ultimately, none of these actions harm your relationship to God but they aren’t things that everyone has to know. In other words, you could tell people all about them but you don’t have to.

A secret life, on the other hand, is deliberately done in darkness because it involves doing things that harm our relationship to God and each other. We want to live as people in the light but the forces of darkness have a tendency to creep in, whether that’s by using the Lord’s name in vain, by viewing pornography, by reading anti-Christian literature or whatever else we would be too ashamed to tell other people we have done. The true power of sin is to take our private lives and turn them into immoral secret ones. And, as Christians, we need constantly be transforming our secret lives into luminous moral ones."

Worshipping Mary

I found this elsewhere. On another blog...but I can't remember which one.

Be forewarned. It's frightening stuff...totally pagan. Yet, for some reason, they feel like they have to have all this Catholic imagery as a part of it. I don't understand why people who believe that church is not "big enough" or good enough for them would still want to dress and act like us.

Pray a Hail Mary for these folks that, despite their ignorance, they will find Mary who will lead them to her Son.

Luther would be so pissed...

We worship Christ crucified

This past week, I had the privilege of accompanying five students to two Benedictine Monasteries in Northern Missouri. After dropping the one woman off at the Clyde Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, the remaining four guys and I traveled the mile and a half to Conception Abbey. As I walked in, in some ways it felt like I was being transported back to the best aspects of past generations. Some of it was familiar for me. I’d been with different communities that chanted morning and evening prayer, my seminary being the most influential in my life. Yet some of it was entirely unfamiliar. The particular chant tones, for instance, were very unfamiliar. Imagine trying to sing the words to “On Eagles Wings” to a different tune. It was hard. But, eventually, even I became accustomed to the differences. We were also invited, this past Monday and Tuesday, into the part of the monastery where most people do not get to go, the cloister, to eat with them and pray in their choir stalls. It was in these two sacred places that we noticed many times where we didn’t know what was happening because traditions had been built up about when to stand, sit, and kneel that we didn’t know. When we asked the brothers why we did such and such action we would usually get two answers. The first was a profound theological statement about reverence and letting your posture reflect that reverence. The other was something like, “We think they brought this tradition with them when they came to this country 150 years ago. And, we think they were doing that in the monastery in Switzerland.” But, it wasn’t empty piety, doing things because it’s the way we always have done them. They passed on the meaning from generation to generation and continued many of the practices that were handed onto them. In the end, it was hard for me to leave this place because the holiness was so profound and the faithfulness so genuine.

I can’t help but contrast this with what Jesus is dealing with in the gospel. In order to understand what probably made Jesus so upset, you have to understand what the Temple symbolized when King Solomon built it. It was a place that farmers would come to bring one of the best of their animals to give some of it to the priests and offer the rest to God. There would have been a certain attachment to the animal since the farmer had raised it and it would have been terribly difficult to sacrifice the best animal you had. Over time, this simple act of sacrificing one of your animals, became a sacrificial system wherein people would come to the temple mount that would have been filled with animals. Instead of bringing along an animal to sacrifice from your herd, you would travel to the Temple and purchase an animal to which you had no connection. And, since you couldn’t use that idolatrous currency with the picture of a false god on it, the emperor, there were moneychangers that could take your denarius and exchange it for an Israelite shekel. And, since you were there with money, you could pay for your temple tax to support the priests. Jesus must have asked himself how this had developed from the simplicity of the time of Solomon. And, the real problem that Jesus has is that there was supposed to be development from the original theology of taking your prize bull to the temple to be sacrificed, but it was supposed to be a change from animals to him. In other words, instead of sacrificing the animal they loved so much, they were supposed to be sacrificing him for their sins. But, their changes have distorted the original meaning so much that they may not be able to recognize the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifices in the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

I started to think about this in our present day context and I asked myself: what we expect from our churches. Do we expect our church experience to be entertaining? If you do, I imagine we are sadly disappointed each week. Or, do we expect it to be a place to make friends and have social experiences? Or do we expect it to be a place that affirms our own beliefs and practices and never challenges us? Or, do we expect our church to be a mega-church that supplies all this and many more programs like exercise, childcare, and a coffee shop? If so, I would suggest Jesus’ actions in the temple are just as pertinent to us as they were for the Jewish temple priests. We need to remember that, at our heart, we don’t come here to worship laughter or conversation. We don’t come here to worship our own beliefs. We come here because we have become part of the body of Christ (just as these elect hope to do at Easter) and we come to eat the body and blood of Christ. Yet, we can’t lose the heart of this worship and allow it to change into something Jesus never intended it to become. Especially during this season of Lent, we take time to slow down, to pray, fast, and give alms. We do this to remind ourselves of the saving power of God through which we become holy. Or, to use Paul’s terminology from the second reading, we worship Christ, a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others but to us who were baptized and believe he died on the cross and rose three days later, we worship Christ, the power and the wisdom of God.

Abortion: Two dead, many wounded

Women need RU-486 for their health....

Right.

logic 101

If you read the following two paragraphs...

"As teachers, administrators, coaches, and religious educators know all too well, there is no easy answer to this question. Events for parents are not generally well attended, and those parents who come are the ones who are already actively engaged in school and other activities. This is true for both churches and public and private schools and other organizations.

In addition to having tools for creating effective conversations with parents about what’s missing in their participation with their child, it is important to find a way to engage the parents from the beginning. One way to start the process is by inviting parents to come together to talk about issues and to brainstorm policies and solutions. This can lay the groundwork for any future conversations about these issues."

Would you say the two statements in bold....

1. Seem contradictory but are not.
2. Are a logical contradiction.
3. Show the weakness in the liberal "let's get together and talk about things" solution to all problems.
4. Need further clarification that, hopefully comes after this paragraph.

Scholastica and Benedict

Having just got back from an incredible experience at a Benedictine monastery, a monastery which almost turned my heart toward this community, I find this story to be particularly appropriate. Even if you've read it before, it's still good to review. It's about the love that brother and sister can have for one another. From Gregory the Great's Dialogues

CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE: Of a Miracle Wrought by his Sister, Scholastica.
GREGORY: Who is there, Peter, in this world, that is in greater favor with God than St. Paul was: who yet three times desired our Lord to be delivered from the sting of the flesh, and obtained not his petition? Concerning which point also I must needs tell you, how there was one thing which the venerable father Benedict would have done, and yet he could not. For his sister called Scholastica, dedicated from her infancy to our Lord, used once a year to come and visit her brother. To whom the man of God went not far from the gate, to a place that did belong to the Abbey, there to give her entertainment.

And she coming thither on a time according to her custom, her venerable brother with his monks went to meet her, where they spent the whole day in the praises of God and spiritual talk: and when it was almost night they supped together, and as they were yet sitting at the table, talking of devout matters, and darkness came on, the holy Nun his sister entreated him to stay there all night, that they might spend it in discoursing of the joys of heaven. But by no persuasion would he agree to that, saying that he might not by any means tarry all night out of his Abbey.

At that time, the sky was so clear that no cloud was to be seen. The Nun, receiving this denial of her brother, joining her hands together, laid them upon the table: and so, bowing down her head upon them, she made her prayers to almighty God: and lifting her head from the table, there fell suddenly such a tempest of lightning and thundering, and such abundance of rain, that neither venerable Benedict, nor his monks that were with him, could put their head out of door: for the holy Nun, resting her head upon her hands, poured forth such a flood of tears upon the table, that she drew the clear air to a watery sky, so that after the end of her devotions, that storm of rain followed: and her prayer and the rain did so meet together, that as she lifted up her head from the table, the thunder, so that in one and the very same instant, she lifted up her head and brought down the rain.

The man of God, seeing that he could not by reason of such thunder and lightning and great abundance of rain return back to his Abbey, he began to be heavy and to complain of his sister, saying: "God forgive you, what have you done?" to whom she answered: "I desired you to stay, and you would not hear me, I have desired our good Lord, and he hath vouchsafed to grant my petition: wherefore if you can now depart, in God's name return to your monastery, and leave me here alone."

Departure Delayed
But the good father, being not able to go forth, tarried there against his will, where willingly he would not stay. And so by that means they watched all night, and with spiritual and heavenly talk did mutually comfort one another: and therefore by this we see, as I said before. that he would have had that thing, which yet he could not: for if we respect the venerable man's mind, no question but he would have had the same fair weather to have continued as it was, when he set forth, but he found that a miracle did prevent his desire, which, by the power of almighty God, a woman's prayers had wrought.

It is not a thing to be marvelled at, that a woman which of long time had not seen her brother, might do more at that time than he could, seeing, according to the saying of St. John, "God is charity" [1 John 4:8] and therefore of right she did more which loved more.

PETER: I confess that I am wonderfully pleased with that which you tell me.

CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR: How Benedict Saw the Soul of his Sister Ascend into Heavenly Glory.

The next day the venerable woman returned to her Nunnery, and the man of God to his Abbey: who three days after, standing in his cell, raising up his eyes to heaven, beheld the soul of his sister (which was departed from her body), in the likeness of a dove to ascend into heaven: who rejoicing much to see her great glory, with hymns and lauds gave the almighty God, and did impart the news of this her death to his monks, whom also he sent presently to bring her corpse to his Abbey, and had it buried in that grave which he had provided for himself; by means whereof it fell out that, as their souls were always one in God whiles they lived, so their bodies continued together after their death.

The Dan Brown Code

Okay, I promise this will be the last post that I make before I go on Spring Break...

But, I had this thought last night while lying in bed. The unfortunate thing is that I don't have the creative ability to do something like this. I tend to limit my stories to anecdotes that relate to a moral...ie a homily/sermon. So, here's what I think someone should do.

We should do to Dan Brown what he has done to the Lord. Now I know what people are going to say, "Turn the other cheek, Father" and "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you, Father." That's exactly what I'm doing. Someone needs to point out how evil this type of literature is and one way we can do it is by doing to Dan Brown what he has done to our Lord. God will forgive him for blasphemy...if someone shows him that he has been blasphemous.

Here are some ideas: Start off with the same kind of caveat that he has, "This is a work of fiction, but there are some facts in it. In fact, there are a lot of facts in it." Then go on to say that Dan Brown is, in truth, Adolf Hitler who faked his own death. No, that's too evil. What about Elvis? No, too corney. Even better, Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth and it's impossible to kill him. I also thought you could say that "Dan Brown" isn't his real name, it's a code. I thought of his initials D. B. and thought they could mean "Database", as in Dan Brown is compiling a list of people throughout time (since he is immortal) and killing those who discover his attempts at world domination. You could also show a picture of him like this one and make up a story about it. Do it all under the banner of "fiction - with a lot of fact mixed in."

I think there's huge potential...maybe even a movie starring Tom Hanks!

Britain gone mad

Yesterday, while listening to BBC on my trusty Sirius Satelite Radio, I heard that a group of European doctors are angry that the US army is "force feeding" Guantanamo detainees. They say that people have the right to refuse treatment. My immediate thought was: how sad when Europe, that was a strong voice of ethical morality at one point, has gone so far astray. I even thought that, if what I'm hearing is true, Europe will soon be dead. Their abortifacient/contraceptive lifestyle has caused so few children to be born that they are not only not replacing themselves, they are killing themselves. And these are the "moral voices" that we should hear about Guantanamo Detainees?

Then, while perusing other blogs, I found a story about a church being charge 75 pounds for a cross. The city claims that it is an advertisement. The bloggers are asking if the same fee is charged for minarets on the tops of mosques. I don't particularly care about that, to be honest, because I think this is a most unjust law. This is truly the act of people who have lost their way. When churches are fined for identifying markers, it displays the hatred for religion that has developed in England and all of Europe. When you lose sight of God, God looses sight of you. When terrible things happen to Europe in the next few years, they have no right to ask where God is. They turned him away. He didn't turn away from them.

Monastic Spring Break

I'll be leaving Saturday to take a group of students to a monastery in Northern Missouri. I'll try to blog a couple of times more but I am probably going to be a little busy packing and getting organized. Please pray for us and for the monks and nuns we are visiting.

offer one compliment

Do you ever get tired of coworkers that can't seem to do anything but point out every time you make the slightest mistake?

I think we should all make an effort to (in hope) tell someone that they are doing a good job. That's the way we build people up and build up the kingdom of God

weird day in Iowa

The dream that I remember from last night was so bizarre that I can't help but mention it. I was the real son of Hulk Hogan and his wife. No explanation but I felt like I was imposing on them the whole time. They would throw dinner parties and introduce me around but my age kept shifting from being in my teens to being in my thirties. I was glad when I woke up. Too weird.

So, then I went to work and, a rumor has started to spread that I'm leaving my current assignment to go to Waterloo. The rumor mills are usually wrong but it cracks me up that they think the archbishop would move me again after just one year in an assignment. I'm probably staying put.

Then, Today, on March 7th in Iowa, there was a thunderstorm with hail! Not snow or freezing rain but the stuff we don't expect for another month, those April showers that bring May flowers.

I'm trying not to see ominous sings in all this but the archbishop is coming to town tonight...

Bishops and immigration

See, the church is not the religious right.

The Desert

I found myself reflecting on the desert and the covenant yesterday.

I remembered five years ago when we stopped somewhere in the Sainai Peninsula and spent a couple of hours in the desert. I was in my third year of seminary with my class from St. Paul Seminary needing a little time alone. It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life spiritually.

Abortion and Depression

A couple of good articles on www.zenit.org on the above topic.

fasting...when all you can thing about are meatballs

Fridays during Lent are times of fasting from meat for Catholics. I hear varying reports as to the history of this practice. One person said that a certain pope, while walking "undercover" by the ports of Rome, discovered that the fisher people were the poorest and decided to implement something to help them. Others said that this is actually a theological statement about the earlierst believers being fishermen...and fishers of men. I don't know.

I find that the majority of time during the early stages of Lent, I preach about how this is not supposed to be a time to lose weight or remind yourself of how good fish is supposed to be. Lent is supposed to be a time of sharing in the cross of Christ. I think it's funny that we have exchanged the cross of Christ for Richard Simmons.

New motto: Don't just lose weight. Lose Hell.

What do you think?

Russia tried to kill John Paul the Great

And so it goes.

The Soviet Union is dead.

The Church is still alive and growing...and not killing people who try to kill her leader.

As Muslims murder, rage, and hate because of cartoons, Christians will continue to do the work of God...the work of peace.

And liberals will claim the real problem in the world is religion.

Ashes and Fire

If you are from Ryan or Manchester and this kind of sounds familiar, it's because it's a slightly reworked homily that I did when I was with you all. All that work wasn't for naught.

The most difficult thing that we Catholics have to deal with on this day is the fact that we read the gospel and then seem to do exactly the opposite of what it tells us to do. In case you didn't catch it, it said, "When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your father, who sees what is hidden, will repay you." So the point is that, as far as the world is concerned, there would be no change in the followers of Christ when they fast. We aren't supposed to draw attention to ourselves like the hypocrites, which, biblically, refers to actors on stage. Actors seek to get people's sympathy and attention through their actions. We seek only to love and worship our God.

So why do we spread ashes on our forehead as we begin this season of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, an act that is very visible, especially in our clean obsessed society? Is it just another case of the Catholic Church being hypocritical? Hardly! And I'll tell you why I think this fits entirely into the Spirit of this gospel. I'd like to suggest that the ashes that are spread on our foreheads are more personal than they are for show. We spread ashes on our foreheads to remind ourselves of just how important this season of Lent is for our own salvation.

Nonetheless, why use ashes? Why not just go to the inner room of our house and make a firm committment? In pondering that I asked myself one question: What are ashes? Aren't they the remnants of a fire, what's left over? In that context, then, there is a multiplicity of symbolic messages that are connected to this practice. First of all, it connects us to our forbearers in prayer, the saints. Many of them were subjected to fire as a part of their torture and even more went through the fire of temptation to leave the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in order to save their lives. These martyrs suffered much pain for the cross of Christ to have the reward of eternal life, sometimes to the point of shedding blood. These witnesses to the faith were willing to give all they could in service to Christ. We, in turn, must reach out to the least among us by giving of ourselves just as Christ gave himself to us on the Cross. This season, after all, culminates in the Triduum, those sacred three days when we remember the central mystery of our faith, the death and resurrection of the messiah.

Yet, fire also connects us to the Holy Spirit, whose tongues of fire came to rest on the apostles at Pentecost, the celebration that brings an end to Easter. It was at Pentecost that God made the church the only vehicle of salvation for the world. We see, therefore, the beginning of a giant circle in this celebration. We both begin and end in fire, the refining fire of the Holy Spirit that first drew us from the darkness of sin to the light of Baptismal grace and then, each year, pulls us deeper and deeper into the mystery that is the church. Our only responsibility, our only way of participating in this divine sacrament, then, is to pray, to fast, and to give alms. Yet, in doing these three actions, we are really saying to God that we are giving over our entire life to him. We truly aren't hypocritically telling the world anything by the ashes on our forehead. We are telling our God and ourselves that we are ready to go through fire to be with him. We are telling our God of our willingness to turn away from sin and be faithful to the gospel.

Being sick

I have the flu and should be at home. I don't really have anything to contribute other than the fact that this sickness allowed me to complete Weigel's book on John Paul II.

I'm done.

I've been reading it slowly since last July...since I got to Ames.

It's a fascinating book and I learned a lot about the great pope but there was one or two things that disturbed me a little.

Toward the end, the papal biographer seemed to be speaking as though he were already dead. He was listing the things that were left undone. But, unless if I'm wrong, he was writing five full years before John Paul's death. And, at points, the author seemed to allow his political biases (with regard to global warming, for instance) interfere with his reporting on his subject.

But, in terms of a book that clarifies this man's fascinating life, it takes pains to ensure that the more thorough answer is offered.

fasting and feasting with the bridegroom

There is a persistent Biblical inaccuracy that I like to dispel. It says that the God of the Old Testament is a mean, vengeful, God of wrath while the God of the New Testament is kind benevolent, and nice. I like to dispel this inaccuracy for three reasons. First, the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament. There is but one God. Secondly, it can lead to a kind of anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism in which the Jews had a mean God and then Jesus came to show us God’s love. But, another just as important thing is that it ignores those times when Jesus gets angry at people, like when he went into the Temple and turned over the money changers tables. It disregards the times Jesus got frustrated with Pharisees, lawyers, or even his own disciples, at one point saying to the prince of Apostles, Peter, “get behind me Satan”. It also ignores the number of times the Old Testament talks about the tender relationship that God has with his people, Israel.

One such instance of the tenderness of God in the Old Testament is from our first reading from the book of Hosea. This three-movement reading shows the compassion God has for his people using some very shocking phrases. First, it says that God will take his people back into the desert. The desert is a place of fasting – of removing the complications of life that tend to interfere with our relationship to God. Yet, the desert is also a place of feasting, feasting on the unique relationship God has with his chosen ones. It was through the desert that God led his people from slavery in Egypt to a new life in their Holy Land. In taking his people to the desert, God wants to renew the relationship he first made with them there.

The second movement in this reading says that Israel must respond. God is not like the false gods of the nations that surrounded his people. He isn’t going to interfere in their lives and take away their free will. He is neither Baal nor Zeus. Israel will respond like she did when she was young.

Which leads us to the third movement, that God will espouse her, she will become his spouse. In the second chapter of Genesis, it says that marriage involves a partnership. This engagement, then, is surprising because it acknowledges a partnership on the part of God to his people. This means that the Israelites are expected to live by the statutes and decrees God has given to them and that God will always care for them. In a sense, it is an exclusive relationship that God had between himself and our elder brothers and sisters in the faith, the Jewish people.

Thank goodness, therefore, that the gospel widens things. In a debate on fasting and feasting, Jesus identifies himself as the bridegroom, thus revealing his divine person to those who were paying attention, and he acknowledges that something new is happening. The new movement, his followers, will still have times of feasting and times of fasting but they will be different than the Pharisees and the disciples of John. Something new is happening here. You can’t just expect that these new followers, new faithful, will do the old practices. The new movement, the church involves an inclusive partnership with God for all people created in God’s image and likeness. As members of this new faithful, we must feast on those things that draw us closer to God – prayer, almsgiving, Eucharist. And we must fast what whatever draws us away from God whatever that may be, maybe Internet, television, alcohol. Above all, we must be honest to decide what it is we need to feast upon and what we need to fast from in order to be partners with God.

As we move closer to Ash Wednesday and the beginning of the season of Lent, we the call of the bridegroom who takes us into the desert to fast and feast. We must respond by deciding when we need to fast from something and when we need to feast on something in order to remain faithful to the God who calls the church to be his bride.

Da Vinci Deception

An blogger that I have a good deal of respect for named Mark Shea has an interview about a book that he wrote by the above title. The article is on www.zenit.org.

Here's an excerpt that explains my concerns about this book exceedingly well and why I call Dan Brown evil.

...tens of millions of people have read "The Da Vinci Code" and many have had their faith in Christ and the Catholic Church shaken. This blasphemous book has become a major cultural phenomenon, largely by attacking the very person and mission of Jesus Christ. It must be addressed... "The Da Vinci Code" has become the source for what I call "pseudo-knowledge" about the Christian faith. Pseudo-knowledge is that stuff "everybody knows," such as the "fact" that Humphrey Bogart said "Play it again, Sam" -- except he didn't. Pseudo-knowledge doesn't matter much when the issue is the script of "Casablanca." It matters greatly when it adversely affects the most sacred beliefs of a billion people, and when it levels the charge that the Catholic Church is essentially a vast "Murder Incorporated" network founded on maintaining the lie of Jesus' divinity and resurrection.

retreat reflections

As I said Monday, I focused on John Paul II (and Benedict) when I went on retreat. I'll (hopefully) have a longer post about Benedict by Tuesday.

I used the document on priests, I will give you shepherds (Pastores Dabo Vobis) as the voice of John Paul II. I was really struck by some of the connection JPII made between celibacy/priesthood/image of Christ. Here's what I mean in paragraph 29...

"For an adequate priestly spiritual life, celibacy ought not to be considered and lived as an isolated or purely negative element, but as one aspect of the positive, specific and characteristic approach to being a priest. Leaving father and mother, the priest follows Jesus the good shepherd in an apostolic communion, in the service of the People of God. Celibacy, then, is to be welcomed and continually renewed with a free and loving decision as a priceless gift from God, as an "incentive to pastoral charity " as a singular sharing in God's fatherhood and in the fruitfulness of the Church, and as a witness to the world of the eschatological kingdom. To put into practice all the moral, pastoral and spiritual demands of priestly celibacy it is absolutely necessary that the priest pray humbly and trustingly, as the Council points out: "In the world today, many people call perfect continence impossible. The more they do so, the more humbly and perseveringly priests should join with the Church in praying for the grace of fidelity. It is never denied to those who ask. At the same time let priests make use of all the supernatural and natural helps which are now available to all." Once again it is prayer, together with the Church's sacraments and ascetical practice, which will provide hope in difficulties, forgiveness in failings, and confidence and courage in resuming the journey."

The noble picture of the noble saint from whom the humble servant is named

St. Denis (from newadvent.org)

Bishop of Paris, and martyr. Born in Italy, nothing is definitely known of the time or place, or of his early life. His feast is kept on 9 October. He is usually represented with his head in his hands because, according to the legend, after his execution the corpse rose again and carried the head for some distance. That, however, while still very young he was distinguished for his virtuous life, knowledge of sacred things, and firm faith, is proved by the fact that Pope Fabian (236-250) sent him with some other missionary bishops to Gaul on a difficult mission. The Church of Gaul had suffered terribly under the persecution of the Emperor Decius and the new messengers of Faith were to endeavour to restore it to its former flourishing condition. Denis with his inseparable companions, the priest Rusticus and the deacon Eleutherius, arrived in the neighbourhood of the present city of Paris and settled on the island in the Seine. The earliest document giving an account of his labours and of his martyrdom (Passio SS. Dionsyii, Rustici et Eleutherii), dating from the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century and wrongly attributed to the poet Venantius Fortunatus, is interwoven with much legend, from which, however, the following facts can be gleaned.
On the island in the Seine Denis built a church and provided for a regular solemnization of the Divine service. His fearless and indefatigable preaching of the Gospel led to countless conversions. This aroused the envy, anger and hatred of the heathen priests. They incited the populace against the strangers and importuned the governor Fescenninus Sisinnius to put a stop by force to the new teaching. Denis with his two companions were seized and as they persevered in their faith were beheaded (about 275) after many tortures. Later accounts give a detailed description of the confessors' sufferings. They were scourged, imprisoned, racked, thrown to wild beasts, burnt at the stake, and finally beheaded. Gregory of Tours simply states: "Beatus Dionysius Parisiorum episcopus diversis pro Christi nomine adfectus poenis praesentem vitam gladio immente finivit" (Hist. Franc. I, 30). The bodies of the three holy martyrs received an honourable burial through the efforts of a pious matron named Catulla and a small shrine was erected over their graves. This was later on replaced by a beautiful basilica (egregium templum) which Venantius celebrated in verse (Carm. I, ii).
From the reign of King Dagobert (622-638) the church and the Benedictine monastery attached to it were more and more beautifully adorned; the veneration of St. Denis became by degrees a national devotion, rulers and princes vying with one another to promote it. This development is due in no small degree to an error prevailing throughout the Middle Ages, which identified St. Denis of Paris with St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and with the Pseudo-Dionysius, the composer of the Areopagitic writings. The combining of these three persons in one was doubtless effected as early as the eighth or perhaps the seventh century, but it was only through the "Areopagitica" written in 836 by Hilduin, Abbot of Saint-Denis, at the request of Louis the Pious, that this serious error took deep root. The investigations of Launoy first threw doubt on the story and the Bollandist de Bye entirely rejected it. Hilduin was probably deceived by the same apocryphal Latin and Greek fictions. The possession of the Areopagitic writings (since 827 in Saint-Denis) strengthened his conviction of this truth. Historiographers of the present day do not dispute this point. All attempts of Darras, Vidieu, C. Schneider, and others to throw some light on the subject have proved fruitless.

Mark Twain's caution against the next few days of my blog

I am still working on putting together a few thoughts from my retreat but, in the mean time, here's a great quote from the free reading I got in Hawaii, "Mark Twain's letters from Hawaii". Twain was trying to convince people in the states to invest in Hawaii before France and the UK get their hands on it. In his letters, he often makes referance to a fictitious character named "Mr. Brown" who is the comic relief. Twain is still finding his writer's legs, if you will, so they aren't quite as humorous as other of his writings. But it made me laugh and will guide me as to what I write in the next few days.


In Central Kona there is but little idle (sugar) cane land now, but there is a good deal in North and South Kona. There are thousands of acres of cane land unoccupied on the island of Hawaii, and the prices asked for it range from one dollar to a hundred and fifty an acre. It is owned by common natives, and is lying "out of doors." They make no use of it whatever, and yet, here lately, they seem disinclined to either lease or sell it. I was frequently told this. In this connection it may not be out of place to insert an extract from a book of Hawaiian travels recently published by a visiting minister of the gospel:
"Well, now, I wouldn't, if I was you."
"Brown, I wish you wouldn't look over my shoulder when I am writing; and I wish you would indulge yourself in some little respite from my affairs and interest yourself in your own business sometimes."
"Well, I don't care. I'm disgusted with these mush-and-milk preacher travels, and I wouldn't make an extract from one of them. Father Damon has got stacks of books shoemakered up by them pious bushwhackers from America, and they're the flattest reading—they are sicker than the smart things children say in the newspapers. Every preacher that gets lazy comes to the Sandwich Islands to 'recruit his health,' and then he goes back home and writes a book. And he puts in a lot of history, and some legends, and some manners and customs, and dead loads of praise of the missionaries for civilizing and Christianizing the natives, and says in considerable chapters how grateful the savage ought to be; and when there is a chapter to be filled out, and they haven't got anything to fill it out with, they shovel in a lot of Scripture—now don't they? You just look at Rev. Cheever's book and Andersen's—and when they come to the volcano, or any sort of heavy scenery, and it is too much bother to describe it, they shovel in another lot of Scripture, and wind up with 'Lo! what God hath wrought!' Confound their lazy melts! (sic) Now, I wouldn't make extracts out of no such bosh."
"Mr. Brown, I brought you with me on this voyage merely because a newspaper correspondent should travel in some degree of state, and so command the respect of strangers; I did not expect you to assist me in my literary labors with your crude ideas. You may desist from further straining your intellect for the present, Mr. Brown, and proceed to the nearest depot and replenish the correspondent fountain of inspiration."
"Fountain dry now, of course. Confound me if I ever chance an opinion but I've got to trot down to the soda factory and fill up that cursed jug again. It seems to me that you need more inspiration—"
"Good afternoon, Brown."

pray for the church in Australia

I don't know the argument, let alone the circumstances of the argument but here's an interesting article.

I think the bishops statement is telling. It makes me suspicious that he's dealing with the corruption of Vatican II that has happened in the last few years. The author's referance to a "reforming council" made me laugh. Wasn't it an ecumenical council? There were reforms that came about from it but was that the real intent of this (non-dogmatic) council?

I could get into the bastardization of Vatican II for a million years. But, I find it interesting that these people demean their own argument by comparing moral statements about abortion, contraception etc. with the moral statments of a man that killed six million jews (and six million others).

Is the propoganda surrounding Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII) so pervasive that we automatically connect strong stands by church leadership with the Nazis? What biases might the signers bring that would make the vatican suspicious?

Sister Veronia Brady - partisan democrat speaker

Professor Max Charleston - "Overwhelmingly the view of people applying for IVF (in vitro fertilization) was we just want to have a child you know. We don't want to you know do all those terrible things that people are accusing us of, you know we want to buy a child. They'd never think in that way. And so just leave us be and lets make up our own minds about this. Now that gradually led me to become much more libertarian in the field that we're talking about." (ecclesioogy: Come be part of our community until you don't want us around.)

Historian Paul Collins - "Dr Collins acknowledged an implicit criticism of John Paul II in his desire for a more modest pope. Later in the interview, he was less subtle. “I like Benedict because he’s not John Paul. John Paul so dominated the church that we all became altar servers. This man exhausted the church; he took it over and became the church. That’s the danger for young people. They think the pope is the church.” (Historically: Be more like those popes that stayed in Rome and had no effect on the day-to-day lives of people. Then we can accuse you of being removed and out of touch with modern civilization!)

NSV judge Chris Geraghty - "Chris Geraghty is a judge of the NSW Compensation Court. He was a Catholic priest for 14 years but left the priesthood in 1976...'But, if you want to know, what I would like to see - I'd like to see actions. I'd like to see a whole change of the way priests are trained, how they're assessed, how they're selected. I'd like to see lay people involved in the appointment of bishops. I'd like to see another Vatican council. But not in Rome. I'd like to see it Dunedin or in Sydney or in Jerusalem. Maybe that's the solution to the Palestinian problem. Geraldine Doogue I don't think they need that added...
Judge Chris Geraghty And they've got to stay in for as long as they can to solve these problems. I want actions. I want to see fruits.'"
(transllation...I want it done my way!!!)

Now, I know that these thoughts don't encompass all the thoughts of these folks. I actually agreed with part of the article from Paul Collins. But my question is: Can these people honestly say they're surprised that a hierarchy that they have probably tried to undermine for forty years isn't rushing the first minute they cry wolf?

Real Hope

This past Friday, I awoke at 8:00 and walked out on our porch in shorts and T-shirt. The morning was a little cool, 65 degrees but the sun quickly warmed it up to closer to the mid seventies. I was in Hawaii on retreat, not in the midwest where you were enjoying temperatures closer to the freezing point. It really was a beautiful experience of seeing mountains, rainbows and flowing plants. Part of the time, I was on retreat in prayer, which is always so rewarding. Yet, I must admit that there's something nice coming back, even if I did go from 72 degree weather in Hilo to 18 below in the Twin Cities. There's just something good about the familiarity of home!

In this way, I think I can sympatize with the gospel for this weekend. In it, Jesus goes home. But, it's not the home that we might expect. It's not Bethlehem of Judea, where he was born. No, he was forced to leave from there as a baby by Herod. And it wasn't Nazareth, the place his mother and father brought him to be raised. A town, by the way, that, in another passage of scripture, nearly throws him off the top of a cliff. Jesus' home in the gospel if a town called Capernaum.

Now, you may wonder why Jesus called Capernaum a home. Some say that it may have been the place Jesus and Mary went after the death of Joseph. That sort of makes sense since it was another growing city at that time and it was just up river from the Jordan. Jesus could have easily heard about John the Baptist in this town much easier than in Nazareth.

Yet, I think there is a larger theological significance to the referance to home. I think the gospel writer is using code. Jesus finds himself in the ideal preaching scenario. He's literally surrounded with people listening to him, even people standing in the doorway. Yet, the reason he's attracted the attention of so many people is not because he's such a good story teller or because he's so funny. They come because he is preaching the word. This is the environment where Jesus is at home...when people listen to the word and seek to draw closer to him. It's, basically, what the first reading calls "something new." We all need something new to maintain our hope.

Yet, something new is different than something novel. Let me clarify the distinction that I'm making with an example. When I was in Dubuque last year, I was approached by a teacher who wanted the students in the catholic grade school to have a particular prayer experience. We approached the principal who thought it was a good idea. The students took turns coming over to church on Friday morning and experiencing. Yet, the prayer experience was adoration of the blessed sacrament, something that we do at the end of mass on Holy Thursday and that probably harkens memories of forty hours for the majority of you. It's an ancient prayer form in which we remind ourselves of the value of the eucharist, not something novel. The kids walked away with a deep respect for the eucharist and a respect for silence, as well. The newness was more interior than exterior.

Too many times when we seek for hope in the church, we think we have to reinvent the wheel. We put on new programs and try something novel. Maybe we use a new eucharistic prayer or walk into church in a different way. That's okay, I suppose. But, in truth, what gives us the hope is when God does something new to our spritual life and draws us closer. Maybe it's when we hear something new in church, not because it's not been there before but because we made a connection or really listened when it was taking place.

This is why the church feels like a home to us, because it is a place of hope for us, a place to experience the newness of Christ. In it, we are called to be open to God making this church our house, making us anew, and giving us hope in his powerful spirit.

long absence

Sorry for being gone for so long. I went on retreat. The good thing is that I've come home with a ton of great quotes from my two retreat masters...John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Let me wet your whistle...

"The (Last) Supper without the Cross, the Cross without the Supper, would be void, but the two without the Resurrection would be the wreck of hope..." Benedict "Journey to Easter"

More to come when I can explain what it was like to be in such a holy place as Hawaii and drink from the wisdom of two spiritual greats. Right now, I need to pause and reflect.

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!

Immaculate Conception

Since the death of John Paul II, I've felt very close to his spirituality. He felt a very close connection to Mary, an aspect of my own spirituality that I'd never felt before. He even attributed being saved from death to Mary.

I see this Immaculate Conception as a beginning of this spirituality in my life. I heard in the reading Mary's powerful role in reconciliation today. Her statement, "May it be done to me according to your word." undoes Adam and Eve's evasive statement's. Mary's trust in God is the example to all of us that, despite the difficutlties, we must we willing to submit to the will of God.

J P II loves you...shouldn't we too?

I read other catholic blogs to get an idea of what is being written. Some of the priests tend to be more conspiracy theorist than I am but I they almost always have somthing that I'd have missed otherwise. Here's one great example

JPII article

Now, I will admit that I am probably a little biased in this matter. I feel a special connection to John Paul the great, perhaps more after death than during his life. I've been reading his autobiography and some of his writings and I find them to be profoundly rooted in prayer. But even if I didn't believe that, I can't believe that people think that, since John Paul didn't do their pet project, he wasn't holy.

Gay Priests and LIES

I've been reticent to comment on the new document from the Congregation for Catholic Education because I was waiting to hear what "commentators" would say about it. I've heard the common misconceptions. People like William F. Buckley think priests need to have sex in order to be healthy...as long as it's heterosexual sex. Some give the relativist, "I don't believe that" attitude. Some believe the church is putting it's foot down on the sexual abuse crisis or call gay people evil. All of this is wrong and I'll show you why.

The vatican, in it's typical way, didn't root this in politics or sociology or anything secular. The vatican said, "By means of the sacrament of orders, the Holy Spirit configures the candidate to Jesus Christ in a new and specific way: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, the head, shepherd and spouse of the Church...The candidate to the ordained ministry, therefore, must reach affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate correctly to both men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood towards the Church community that will be entrusted to him."

Further, "In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.' Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women."

The argument, as far as I can tell, could be briefly stated in the following statements;
1. A priest is configured to Christ and must, therefore, mirror Christ.
2. Christ was not gay.
3. A priest cannot be gay.

This has nothing to do with married priests. This has nothing to do with the sexual abuse crisis. This has to do with the unique notion of priests "in personae Christi" (in the person of Christ). That's all.