Addendum to the Rules for Social Media...

Earlier this week the USCCB provided a blog post on the The Gospel and Social Media. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf generalized the blog post into a list of rules. I provide the condensed list to combat white space. Emphasis mine:

1. Translate church teaching. [Know your audience, Don't fall into heresy while attempting to 'translate'. Popular speech does not always convey the sacred.]

2. Avoid church speak. [Know your audience. Some words cannot be replaced without changing the meaning of the message. Some people will find offense no matter how you attempt to phrase innocent honest speech.]

3. Use images, as Jesus did. [Know your audience. It is good to imitate Christ. I don't remember Jesus ever making things less clear with His explanations, but He certainly knew His audience.]

4. Understand that social media is social. [Um hmm...]

5. Social media sometimes calls for a suit of armor. [See #4]

6. Use the delete button if comments cross the line of decency, but, hopefully, not often. [comment deleted]

7. Spread Catholicism’s fun parts. ['Fun parts' or what might be known as the 'treasures of our faith'. For example, share lives of the saints that inspire virtue. Be sure not to treat adults like children.]

8. Remember rules are changing. [This certainly sums it up.]

9. Remember web messages live forever. [Not to be confused with being naked. It is true, don't sin on the internet, or at all for that matter. On a side note, someone should let our Holy Father know that the pictures of him hoisting a beer are still floating around the internet.]

10. Keep it short. [There is supreme value in being able to take that which provides complex philosophical ponderings, and reduce it to only the critically essential; therefore, remembering the ideals of briefness to which we subscribe, let us make every effort to curtail our words, our sentences, in short, our very paragraphs, that both the former and the latter may be quickened for the sake of our dear reader, his friends, and co-workers.]

While reading the comments on Fr. Z's post, I came across an addendum to the rules written by Jason Pascucci. I find the additional rules less obvious, but specific and practical for use by the Catholic social media users. Again, emphasis is mine.

11. Don’t eviscerate the truth in an attempt to be popular. It is the hard parts and hard sayings of being a follower of Jesus are what make it compelling to the soul.

These two go together:
12a. Avoid respect of persons.
12b. Ignore people who say “judge not lest ye be judged” as if it covered all criticism. We’ve been instructed to “judge with right judgement”. As with Aquinas, above: look for causes rather than at persons.

13. All heresy begins in disproportion of related truths. Avoid being disproportionate. Being silent on a topic which ought to be spoken of is a sin of omission against truth, if you are in a position to speak rightly and fully.

14. Niceness is not a Catholic virtue, indeed it is opposed to such. Kindness is, as is gentleness and longanimity, which are fruits of the Holy Spirit. Know the difference between those and 'nice'’.

15. Avoid adhering to those who gain approbation from "the world" or are lionized by it: chances are very high they are doing something wrong. If they are hated by “the world”, chances are they’re more reliable. It’s not an infalliable guide, but you’ll go less wrong.

16. The enemy of your enemy is probably not your friend, as it’s very possible to error on both extremes.

These two go together:
17a. Don’t mess with people who cite the Fathers, the Councils, and the Saints as authorities. Chances are, they’re right. Indeed, when dealing with other Catholics, do use this form of "Church speak".
17b. Conversely, people who quote a lay or Jesuit theologian from the last century as an authority on any topic are probably wrong. Don’t do that.

18. There is a licit range of theological opinion on many topics pertaining to the Faith. Sometimes it's wider, but these days, it’s usually vastly narrower than the range generally presented. (Pro-tip: "Tantamount to heresy" is not within the licit range.)

19. The roots of the 'liberal/conservative' split lie in modern philosophy. They are both wrong, because modern philosophy is profoundly broken. GBTA (Get back to Aristotle).

20. Don’t be humble because it is becoming and makes a good and attractive outward appearance. Be humble because you’re a sinner and too often a complete doof.

21. Don’t do theology in a state of serious or mortal sin: your mind is darkened by your illicit acts. Go to confession. They aren’t kidding about this stuff.

22. Avoid intellectual mollities: don’t overreact to the presentation, make sure you understand the heart of the matter.

For more content from Mr. Pascucci, please visit his blog: "Ex-Couchthedra"

Nice Thoughts

"Our Lord was crucified by the nice people who held that religion was all right in its place, so long as its place was not here, where it might demand of them a change of heart. The gravest error of the nice people in all ages is the denial of sin."

"Those who were aligned against Him were the nice people who stood high in the community---the worldly, prosperous people, the men of big business, the judges of law courts who governed by expediency, the “civic-minded” individuals whose true selfishness was veneered over with public generosity. Such men as these opposed Him and sent Him to His death."

- Fulton J. Sheen, Peace of Soul

A Fortnight Later...

In 1521 Henry VIII was declared "Fidei Defensor" by Pope Leo X for his pamphlet accusing Martin Luther of heresy. Thirteen years later Henry abandoned Rome completely through the Act of Supremacy. That same year Parliament also passed the Treasons Act which made the king the "Only Head of the Church of England on Earth."

Those were guilty of treason who:

"...do maliciously wish, will or desire by words or writing, or by craft imagine, invent, practise, or attempt any bodily harm to be done or committed to the king's most royal person, the queen's or the heirs apparent, or to deprive them of any of their dignity, title or name of their royal estates, or slanderously and maliciously publish and pronounce, by express writing or words, that the king should be heretic, schismatic, tyrant, infidel or usurper of the crown..."

Anyone who denied in thought, word, or action that Henry VIII was the "Supreme Head of the Church in England" was guilty of treason, punishable by death. St. John Fisher was the only English bishop who refused to swear to the Act of Supremacy. St. Thomas More also joined in committing this praiseworthy act of treason.

Before their deaths, the stripped, emaciated bodies of both St. Fisher and St. More shocked the crowds at the scaffold. They had suffered utter destitution during their fifteen months in the Tower. St. John Fisher marched towards death courageously and was executed on June 22nd. (Interestingly, his sentence and death by beheading greatly paralleled that of his namesake whose feast was the very next day.) A fortnight later on June 6th, his body was laid beside that of St. Thomas More who had been executed earlier in the day.

Both saints serve as a model of courage and strength during these odd political times. Both saints had practiced mortification from early manhood. They had disciplined their bodies with fasting and other penitential acts. They had strengthened themselves with a devout prayer life. These virtuous habits prepared them for the political persecution they endured, and helped them to accept their eventual imprisonment and execution.

In today's world that encourages over indulgence, we run the risk of being weak in times when strength is required. As seen in the example of today's saints, mortification and prayer bolsters our human nature, and cuts out diseases wearing on the soul.

St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, pray for us so that we may be prepared for what trials God permits us to endure.

Religious Toleration

The topic of "Religious Liberty" is sprinkled about through various forms of media and discussions in recent months. Unfortunately language used in reference to the topic is often "nuanced", and discussion is unclear.

God created man for a purpose, namely to "know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven." To this end, sin plays no part. God did not create man to sin. Certainly God gave man free will. With our will we can choose good or what we perceive to be a "good"; so it is possible for us (albeit insane) to choose sin over God. Thus the materialists twist freedom into a matter of choosing whatever one desires. In reality, choosing God and fulfilling our purpose is to choose freedom. Choosing sin on the other hand is an abuse of freedom.

Man's God given rights, the "natural rights", are those that assist man with his created purpose. Sin plays no role in assisting man towards his goal. While man is capable of sin, it is never his right to sin.

Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Romans 14:23).

If by "religious liberty" it is meant that man cannot be coerced into religious belief against his conscience by the state, or if it is meant the right of man to hold the Catholic faith, then we can concur with this. The latter is not contradictory as we know that the Catholic Church serves to bring us to God, and thus participating in the Faith is in union with our natural rights. The former is known as religious toleration with an emphasis on the true meaning of the word "tolerance".

If by "religious liberty" it is meant as a right of man to choose any religion, dogma, belief, etc., that is contrary to God, then it should be obvious that man has no such right. Often the phrase "Religious Liberty" is used when what is intended is "freedom (meaning right) to worship how we choose (including that which is contrary to God)." This might be a "right" granted by the state, but it is no true natural right any more than something like abortion is a right.

...no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its reaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion...

- Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei (references: 1, 2, 3)

I believe it necessary for one to have a strong grasp on "religious toleration" before one can properly understand the Church on what some call "religious liberty". The Catholic Encyclopedia has a very extensive article on the topic of "Religious Toleration" that deserves study.

Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference

The following is a chapter taken from The Charitable Anathema written by Dietrich von Hildebrand. The book itself is a collection of the author's essays that I have had on my bedside bookshelf for almost 10 years now. It is not the only book or the most important book on the self, but it is one that I return to on many occasions. I copy this essay here because I seek to encourage others to add this book to their home collection.

The essay has relevance to the many struggling Catholics who have a misinformed understanding on obedience to the Church. The obvious end of the spectrum are the Catholics who fail to see the need to be obedient even when an object of faith does not seem to be appealing. There also exists those Catholic on the other side of the scale who respond with a level of hyper-acceptance to novelties that should be questioned and/or disapproved of. The emphasis in the essay that follows is my own.

The Charitable Anathema
by Dietrich von Hildebrand
Chapter IV - Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference
Copyright 1993 Alice von Hildebrand

Is it true, as a certain Father Virgilia Levi charged recently in L'Osservatore Romano, that the defenders of the encyclical Humanae Vitae are now contradicting themselves by expressing their deep concern over then new Missale Romanum? Do Catholic orthodoxy and filial submission to the Vicar of Christ require one to hail every practical decision of the Holy Father? What should be one’s inner attitude toward practical decisions of the Pope, decisions that seem ill-advised or dangerous in their consequences or even decisions that seem to compromise with the spirit of secularism?

Such questions increasingly preoccupy Catholics striving to defend the true doctrine of the Church against the onslaught of today’s innumerable heresies. In order to answer them, in order to understand the nature of the authority of the Church, we must, from the beginning, clearly distinguish between theoretical and practical authority.

Theoretical authority is a guarantee of the truth of a statement. In the natural, human realm we find only relative theoretical authorities. We accept the truth of a generally admitted scientific discovery–the existence of cosmic rays, for instance–although we ourselves are not able to verify it and still less capable of grasping it as we grasp an evident fact. What is learned in a school or university, and is not intelligible in itself (as is, for instance, the fact that two plus two is four) is learned only through acceptance of the teacher’s theoretical authority. But, obviously, this authority is only a relative one: many scientific "truths" once universally accepted have subsequently been discredited. It would be unreasonable not to accept what such a theoretical authority teaches–it would even be foolish–but we know, nevertheless, that this authority is not infallible, and thus is relative.

There is but one absolute theoretical authority: the Church in matters of faith and morals. It is a basis of our Catholic faith that Christ has entrusted His divine revelation to the Holy Church and that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is infallible in matters of faith and morals–that she is an absolute theoretical authority in these matters.

It is because of this absoluteness that we are obliged–even morally obliged–to accept the Church’s word as true, to believe in it; whereas to accept the word of human, natural–relative–theoretical authority is never obligatory. Not to accept it may be unreasonable, but it is not morally evil. And obviously belief in the teachings of the Church has the character of faith–that is, an unconditional, solemn clinging to her teaching; whereas all belief in natural theoretical authorities is a mere natural conviction and differs radically from an act of religious faith.

Practical authority, on the other hand, appeals not to belief–to the acceptance of a truth–but to obedience. We are obliged to obey an authentic practical authority and to submit to its commandments. Whereas no natural theoretical authority is obligatory, there are true and binding practical authorities in the natural realm. Such is the authority of the parents over the child; such is the authority of the state. The Church is a practical authority of a higher order, because here the partial representation of God has a sacred character. It is a sacred authority and, in all matters which belong to her realm and competence, her commandments and administrative measures have a solemn and morally binding character.

Thus we can see that the theoretical authority of the Church appeals to our belief, while the practical authority of the Church appeals to our obedience. Clearly, then, the infallibility of the Church applies only to the Church as a theoretical authority.

Now, obviously, the essence of infallibility implies that there are never any contradictions between a formerly defined dogma an a new authoritative declaration de fide. At the moment such a contradiction comes to pass, the infallibility of the Church would explode, would have been proved a mere illusion on our part. Other possibilities do not exist. New dogmas may differentiate and explain former dogmas, they may complement them, they may refer to something which has never been defined before but was implicit in the faith or its logical consequences, or in any case does not contradict a former dogma. But no dogma, once authoritatively taught, can ever be authoritatively denied. For instance, the rejection of Luther’s sola fides theory could never be superseded by an affirmation of Luther’s theory. The consequence would be a collapse of the Church’s infallibility.

In what concerns the practical authority of the Church, her positive commandments, the question of infallibility simply does not apply. A positive commandment, an administrative measure, or any prescription cannot be true or false but only valid or invalid, good or evil, useful or useless. Truth is never the theme in the positive commandments or laws of any practical authority. If in a particular state the voting age is reduced from 21 to 18, we may find the measure wise or unwise, felicitous or disastrous, but it makes no sense to call it true or false. This applies also to the practical authority of the Church. When a pope introduces changes in canon law, or when he splits one diocese into two, or permits children to receive Communion at an early age, or changes laws of fasting, it may be felicitous or unfortunate, it may be more adequate than a former law or less adequate–but questions of infallibility and of truth are irrelevant.

The history of the Catholic Church offers innumerable examples of changes made according to the decisions of the practical authority of the Church; often, but not always, the authentic spirit of the Church–that is, the spirit of Christ–motivates her to revoke a former prescription and to introduce an opposite one. In this case we are bound to obey the prescription or commandment; we should accept it with the respect due it–but we are not obliged to find it felicitous. We can regret it and pray that it may be again revoked.

Now, even though there are differences in the required attitudes of the faithful Catholic to the theoretical and the practical authority of the Church, we must emphatically stress that there are important links between the two authorities. First, the practical authority of the Church presupposes the Church's theoretical authority. The practical authority of the Church is different from that of parents, of a judge, of a minister of state, of a policeman, We can with out reason grasp the legitimacy of illegitimacy of their claim to a natural, practical authority; but all practical authority in the Church, and above all that of the Supreme Pontiff, has its roots in faith, in the divine institution of the Church, in her supernatural character, in the infallibility of her theoretical authority. Thus as soon as one loses faith in the absolute, theoretical authority of the Church, as soon as one no longer believes in her infallibility in matters of faith and morals, as soon as one begins to speak of pluralism of dogmas and no longer believes in the divine institution of the Church-at that moment the practical authority, all disciplinary authority of the Church, loses its foundation. A bishop, for instance, who adopted the theories of certain modern theologians who replace the infallibly teaching of the Church with a Hegelian world-spirit evolving in history, would by this assumption undercut the basis of his own authority; if this assumption were correct, his episcopal authority would be a ludicrous show.

The second link between the theoretical and practical authority of the Church is that any disciplinary action of the Church that would, in its effect, contradict any dogmatic truth of the depositum Catholicae fidei, or any moral teaching of the Church, would be invalid. If a pope were to abolish auricular confession, for example, his commandment would be doubtful in its validity because it would be incompatible with a canon of the Council of Trent concerning the sacrament of Penance.

On the other hand, all manifestations of the practical authority that are by their very nature necessary consequences of a dogma or moral teaching of the Church are beyond all possible changes and are absolute in their validity. Thus the practical authority has an extremely wide range, reaching from fundamental canon laws down to measures that refer to momentary situations-an interdict, for example, or promotion of an individual prelate.

Having briefly analyzed, then, the relations between the Church's theoretical and practical authority, let us turn to the different responses required of the faithful to manifestations of the two authorities.

In the case of the theoretical authority, the important question is whether a teaching refers to matters of faith and morals and does not contradict the deposit of Catholic faith. Here infallibility is in question when a teaching is pronounced ex cathedra or de fide. A specific case may help to illuminate the matter.

The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared in its Constitution on the Church that all the teachings of the Council are in full continuity with the teachings of former councils. Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican Council I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II is de fide; the Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretations were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not. (It must be stressed that any such "conflict" would be, of course, apparent and not real.)

Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teachings of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of the teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.

The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: cause finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.

...[examples given of a movement and religious order that was dissolved]

The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church.

Today, many theologians propose to replace the deposit of the Catholic faith with their own subjective opinions about Christ, His virginal birth, His resurrection, and so on. This is not only clear apostasy, but also the most ridiculous presumption-as if, in matters of faith, their subject opinions could have any weight...

...

Nor can I conceal-and here we are returning to the point from which we started-the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat. I share the view of the great, venerable Cardinal Ottaviani-a true rock of orthodoxy-and of the group of Roman theologians who authored a critical study of the "new" Mass for Cardinal Ottaviani, that this liturgical innovation implies a contrast, at least by omission, with the de fide canons of the Council of Trent about the Mass.

On account of my deep love for and devotion to the Church, it is a special cross for me not to be able to welcome every practical decision of the Holy See, particularly in a time like ours, which is witnessing a crumbling of the spirit of obedience and respect for the Holy Father.

But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the rubrics of the new Ordo (as distinct from the text itself) are at variance with the definition of the essence and raison d'être of Holy Mass as given by the Council of Trent. Consequently it must be feared that in their sermons, many priests, will be encouraged to emphasize the character of the "assembly of the people of God" at the cost of both the mystery of the sacrifice of the Holy Mass and the ineffable gift for every individual soul granted in the sacrament fo the Eucharist-faith in which is already menaced by certain heretical trends rampant in the church.

...

Our unconditional submission to the theoretical authority of the Church, because Our Lord has entrusted to it His divine revelation, manifests itself primarily in our faithfulness to the deposit of Catholic Faith. Let us, as we answer the call to defend orthodoxy, reflect on the glorious history of the Church. Let us take faith from the fact that no pope has ever proclaimed anything heretical, anything contrary to the deposit of Catholic faith; and let us also recall the innumerable graces flowing from the Church into the souls of the faithful throughout the centuries. Let us remember the innumerable saints to whom the Church has given birth. Let our hearts be filled with ardent love for the Church, the Bride of Christ. But when this love inevitably fills our hearts with deep sorrow over a practical decision imposed on us-which we cannot but think unfortunate and dangerous in its consequences-let us not fall into despairing confusion. Let us realize that it would be disastrous to identify the God-willed response of faith to the infallible theoretical authority of the Church with the completely different response of obedience to the practical authority of the Church. Though we must obey such a practical decision, we must not approve it; nay, we must even pray for its revocation, and, in full respect, strive with all legitimate measures to persuade the Holy Father of its danger, all the while proclaiming wholeheartedly: Credo in unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam!

Choosing Evil

Pope Pius XII, March 10th, 1948, stated in a speech on Vatican Radio:

1. In the present circumstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who have the right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections. Whoever abstains from doing so, in particular by indolence or weakness, commits a sin grave in itself, a mortal fault.

2. Each one must follow the dictate of his own conscience. However, it is obvious that the voice of conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the candidates who offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching.

From this speech, Pius XII sets forth a specific situation where Catholics are morally required to vote. One may conclude that in the event one was presented with only one candidate who was truly Christian in his platform, that Catholics would have a moral obligation to vote for such a candidate.

In our upcoming election, it is my current opinion that we have no truly Catholic candidate. I concede that we have (or had) candidates who are Mass attending Catholics, who seemingly stand on pro-life / anti-abortion platforms. On other areas of Catholic Moral teaching, the stances of these candidates have been less certain if not in specific contradiction. We are seemingly left to compare and choose from what is popularly referred to as the "lesser of the evils."

Morally speaking the defense of innocent life, defense against the horrors of abortion, has highest priority when comparing candidates. End of life issues such as opposition to euthanasia comes in close second. Other topics such as the regularization of homosexual activity, unjust wars, care for the impoverished, and materialistic economic policy are also topics of importance, but are significantly outweighed by the proclivity of this society to destroy innocent human life.

Then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in his 2004 memorandum "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion" wrote:

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

Proportionate reason can speak to the topic of voting for a "lesser evil". Proportionate reason can also come into play where one candidate holds to an immoral view that far outweighed the grotesqueness of abortion. Currently, it is difficult to imagine a situation that is more demanding than the millions of innocent lives being taken.

While voting for a true "lesser evil" is permitted in certain circumstances, it is difficult to state that the Church has taught that one is morally required to vote at all in a situation where none of the candidates "offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching."

The Persecutions Are About to Begin

It is foretold that at the end of time we will see the greatest persecution of the Church and the most heroic of martyrs. Given the state of the world and the Church it's conceivable that we might get a front-row seat to the end time, persecutions and all. While there will certainly be martyrdoms in the final persecutions, the goal of the persecutors will be to separate the Faithful from the Church and their souls from Sanctifying Grace.

And the persecutions are about to begin.

The serpent is subtle and it appears one of his first goals is to reduce the number of his enemy by making excommunicates of a great number of American Catholics. According to LifeNews.com, a provision of the "individual mandate" of the Obamacare legislation -- which will require every American to purchase a government-approved insurance plan or pay a penalty -- is the collection of $1 per month as a surcharge to cover the cost of abortion services. According to Canon Law (Canon 1398) Catholics incur latae sententiae(that means "automatic" in American English) excommunication if they have any voluntary part in the performance of an abortion, including paying for it.

And so it begins fellow Catholics: separate from the Church or be separated from your money. It seems pretty clear to me that my Catholic duty, when Obamacare comes into force, will be violate the individual mandate portion of the law by either not carrying health insurance or carrying a non-approved policy, which in either case will require me to pay a fine.

The Weight of Your Vote...

It should be obvious that voting is an important function of the citizens of a democracy, but it is not the most important function of the citizens. Above voting, citizens are obliged to create a moral and spiritual atmosphere in the society they are part of. Without this atmosphere, voting becomes somewhat meaningless. In a society that lacks morality, a good candidate has his God given authority undermined before voting even begins.

This is not to suggest that we should refrain from voting for a truly good candidate in a failing society. I make this point to highlight the important role we each personally play in the success of our society. It is not the politicians alone who encourage us to kill our children in the womb. It is not the politicians alone who warmonger. It is not the politicians alone who eat away at our God given rights. Society, by its actions and omissions have allowed and encouraged them to be this way.

Those who intend to use their vote to change the society we live in have the scales loaded against them.

Prepare for Warfare

Our Lord was led by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil. Why did he allow himself to be tempted? So that he might, as our mediator, help us to overcome our temptations, not alone by assisting us, but also by His example. Christ entered the desert with courage and fortitude. He shows us how to fight temptation by his example.

Prepare to engage in war, a war for your souls, so that you may enjoy the Beatific Vision. Please listen to the Audio Sancto sermon: "Merit is Gained Through Temptation".

Series on Marriage

Many of you may have already heard these sermons, but they are still good reminders to listen though on occasion. If you are married or preparing for marriage take some time to add these to your mp3 player, or stream them online.

Part I - Rules on Marriage
Part II - The Meaning of the Ceremonies
Part III - The Marriage Contract
Part IV - Periodic Continence and NFP

The Eagle and the Arrow

As with most of Aesop's fables there are various "morals" that can be gathered from the story. Without searching the internet for an answer, what "moral" can you provide? This is intended to be a creative exercise, and not an in depth conversation on Aesop's contradictory morality.

An Eagle sat on a lofty rock, watching the movements of a Hare, whom he sought to make his prey. An archer, who saw him from a place of concealment, took an accurate aim, and wounded the Eagle mortally. The Eagle gave one look at the arrow that had entered his heart, and saw in that single glance that its feathers had been furnished by himself. "It is a double grief to me," he exclaimed, "that I should perish by an arrow feathered from my own wings."

We Are Left to Battle Paganism On Our Own

Since a week ago last Saturday, we can no longer expect them to defend the law of God. These sects will work out the very logic of their ways, and in 50 or 100 years there will be only the [Catholic] Church and paganism. We will be left to fight the battle alone, and we will.

The previous quote was said by then-father Fulton J. Sheen in March of 1931 in reaction to the United States Federal Council of [Protestant] Churches' endorsement of the use contraception by married couples.

In recent weeks our Holy Father stated:

Is it imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church's public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life.

The day following our Holy Father's address to US Catholic Bishops, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued their own statement:

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA-approved forms of contraception.

[...]

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law.

The words of Fulton J. Sheen were prophetic. With many of the protestants drowning in their own inherited doctrines on marriage, Catholics are left to battle this alone. Some may stand up against this government action in the name of "religious liberty" but that defense is weak and lacking. True fortified defense is rooted in the Catholic teaching on marriage and its purpose.

I invite you all to listen to and share the latest Audio Sancto sermon: "The Sanctity of Marriage: We Are Left to Battle Paganism On Our Own"

Paul Vs. Santorum?

(Hat tip to Frank Weathers)

Catholic writer Tom Woods (author of How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) shares his opinion on the Ron Paul vs. Rick Santorum debate.

Personhood forum recording...

Earlier this week, the Personhood forum interviewed some of the candidates on the topic of life and abortion. The responses are worth paying attention to.



Use the following links if you want to jump to a particular candidate:
Rick Perry: 3:08
Newt Gingrich: 23:38
Rick Santorum: 42:20
Ron Paul: 1:00:30

"Who gets to be Caesar?" vs. "What things are Caesar's?"

This post on Curmudgeon's Cave is a must read for all Catholics who are engaged in or know someone who has engaged in the "Santorum or Paul?" debate. The late, great Frank Sheed, in his book Society and Sanity, regarding Christ's comment "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" asserts that the two main political questions of the day are "Who gets to be Caesar?" and "What things are Caesar's?"

The upshot? Only one of the candidates for President in this election cycle are more focused on the latter than the former.

Read Mr. Curmudgeon's post at: http://curmudgeonkc.blogspot.com/2012/01/i-and-dozens-of-other-folks-received.html

Are You Praying, or Just Thinking?

In her book "The Foundations", which tells the story of the establishment of her monasteries, St. Teresa also takes many opportunities to teach on the spiritual life. Although she has many other works on prayer which go into more detail, there is one section in the book where she pauses in recording the history of her doings to talk about prayer in a way which is very helpful to those whom God calls to an active (as opposed to a contemplative) life.

2. First, I want to treat, according to my poor understanding, of the substance of perfect prayer. For I have run into some for whom it seems the whole business lies in thinking. If they can keep their mind much occupied in God, even though great effort is exerted, they at once think they are spiritual. If, on the contrary, without being able to avoid it, they become distracted, even if for the sake of good things, they then become disconsolate and think they are lost. Learned men will not fall victim to these misconceptions, although I have already met learned men who have had some of them. But it is fitting that we women receive advice with regard to all these misunderstandings. I do not deny that it is a favor from the Lord if someone is able to be always meditating on His works, and it is good that one strive to do so. However, it must be understood that not all imaginations are by their nature capable of this meditating, but all souls are capable of loving. I have already at another time written about the causes of this restlessness of our imagination, I think (cf. Life, ch. 17, nos. 5-7; Way of Perfection, ch 31, no. 8; Interior Castle, IV, ch. 1, no. 8); not all the causes -- that would be impossible-- but some. And so I am not treating of this now. But I should like to explain that the soul is not the mind, nor is the will directed by thinking, for this would be very unfortunate. Hence, the soul's progress does not lie in thinking much but in loving much.

3. How does one acquire this love? By being determined to work and to suffer, and to do so when the occasion arises. It is indeed true that by thinking of what we owe to the Lord, of who He is, and what we are, a soul's determination grows, and that this thinking is very meritorious and appropriate for beginners. But it must be understood that this is true provided that nothing interferes with obedience or benefit to one's neighbor. When either of these two things presents itself, time is demanded, also the abandonment of what we so much desire to give God, which in our opinion, is to be alone thinking of him and delighting in the delights that He gives us. To leave aside these delights for either of these other two things is to give delight to Him and do the work for Him, as He Himself said: What you did for one of these little ones you did for Me. (Mt. 25:40) And in matters touching obedience, He doesn't want the soul who truly loves Him to take any other path than the one He did: obediens usque ad mortem (Ph. 2:8, "Obedient unto death").

4. Well, if this is true, from where does the displeasure proceed which for the greater part is felt when one has not spent a large part of the day [or even a small part] very much withdrawn and absorbed in God, even though we are occupied with these other things? In my opinion, there are two reasons for this displeasure: The first and main one is the very subtle self-love that is mixed in here. This self-love does not allow one to understand what it is to want to please ourselves rather than God. For, clearly, after a soul begins to taste how sweet the Lord is, it is more pleasing for the body to be resting without work and for the soul to be receiving delight.

5. ....It would be a distressing thing if God were clearly telling us to go after something that matters to Him and we would not want to do so but want to remain looking at Him becuase that is more pleasing to us. What an amusing kind of progress in the love of God it is, to tie His hands by thinking that He cannot help us except by one path!

From The Foundations, by St. Teresa of Jesus, chapter 5, numbers 2-5, with my emphasis and brackets.

Mindless Perpetuation...

"Wait for complete life stability before you get married."

"Two children families are the perfect size, especially if you have one boy and one girl."

"The homosexual lifestyle is normal and should be accepted or even celebrated in our culture."

"Women must work to fulfill what it means to be a true woman in our culture."

"Freedom comes from management and control of fertility."

"Sterilization is encouraged for those who have already had children."

"Contraception should be free and available to all."

"Abortion is a woman's right."

Readers of this blog should be disgusted by those statements. Our current culture is being taught to accept this nonsense, and to provide sophistic argument to support it. Men and women both rattle off these slogans of population control without giving them a second thought. People cling to these concepts as if they were sacred religion, and those who rail against this insanity are treated as blasphemers of this new found fertility goddess. The birth of this "Venus" is the death of our civilization.

Today I came across an article by Abby Johnson about the Jaffe Memo. I believe that the memo is authentic and I have no reason to doubt it. Even if the memo was forged, the listed population control concepts are proposed in other eugenic based literature. The memo lists a number of the concepts covered in the above quotes.

When I worked at Planned Parenthood, there was something that we were not allowed to talk about. If we didn’t talk about it, then maybe no one else would either. It was called the Jaffe Memo. In 1969, Planned Parenthood was asked by the government to produce some ideas to help with overpopulation. They did just that. What is in the memo as a “solution” to overpopulation is astonishing. And, I’m sorry to say, it looks like the Jaffe Memo is starting to show its face in our culture.

I encourage you to read through the article, and look over the memo. Also note that RealCatholicTV.com has produced some documentaries on the subject of population control. To list a few: "CIA : Global Warming Unmasked, the Hidden Agenda", "CIA : The Rockefeller Foundation", and "CIA : The Contraception Deception".

The Trees and the Axe

As with most of Aesop's fables there are various "morals" that can be gathered from the story. Without searching the internet for an answer, what "moral" can you provide? This is intended to be a creative exercise, and not an in depth conversation on Aesop's contradictory morality.

A man came into a forest, and made a petition to the Trees to provide him a handle for his axe. The Trees consented to his request, and gave him a young ash-tree. No sooner had the man fitted from it a new handle to his axe, than he began to use it, and quickly felled with his strokes the noblest giants of the forest. An old oak, lamenting when too late the destruction of his companions, said to a neighboring cedar: "The first step has lost us all. If we had not given up the rights of the ash, we might yet have retained our own privileges and have stood for ages."

Need and Want...

Here we are the day before the holy season of Advent begins. Here we are the day after "Black Friday". The reports of materialism driven shopping violence fill the media headlines. I recognize the desire of people to be frugal and to make their dollar stretch, but I see the "Black Friday" sales as a psychological gimmick that also happens to be very telling.

The masses who participate in the madness to gain mere gadgets and gizzmos provide a glimpse of another possible scenario. Imagine a situation where these people are not salivating over iPods and plasma screens... but instead are starving from lack of nutrition and thirsting from lack of clean water. If our fellow man can act as they do over their "wants" how might the act over "needs" if the resources for them are lacking?

I am not criticizing all of the people who went out shopping yesterday. I am not criticizing those who purchase electronic devices, or spend money on entertainment. I only desire to point out the danger of forfeiting even simple common respect for our fellow man for worship at the altar of materialism.

Pius XII wrote:

45. But the world, which today affords so many justifiable reasons for pride and hope, is also undergoing a terrible temptation to materialism which has been denounced by Our Predecessors and Ourselves on many occasions.

46. This materialism is not confined to that condemned philosophy which dictates the policies and economy of a large segment of mankind. It rages also in a love of money which creates ever greater havoc as modern enterprises expand, and which, unfortunately, determines many of the decisions which weigh heavy on the life of the people. It finds expression in the cult of the body, in excessive desire for comforts, and in flight from all the austerities of life. It encourages scorn for human life, even for life which is destroyed before seeing the light of day.

47. This materialism is present in the unrestrained search for pleasure, which flaunts itself shamelessly and tries, through reading matter and entertainments, to seduce souls which are still pure. It shows itself in lack of interest in one's brother, in selfishness which crushes him, in justice which deprives him of his rights -- in a word, in that concept of life which regulates everything exclusively in terms of material prosperity and earthly satisfactions.

48. "And I will say to my soul. the rich man said, Soul, thou hast many good things laid up for many years; take thy ease, eat, drink, be merry. But God said to him, Thou fool, this night do they demand thy soul of thee."

49. To a society which in its public life often contests the supreme rights of God, to a society which would gain the whole world at the expense of its own soul and thus hasten to its own destruction, the Virgin Mother has sent a cry of alarm.

This Advent, consider prayers and fasting against materialism as one way of preparing for Christmas.

If you could will it to be so...

A question for any and all readers of this blog who are same-sex-attracted:  If you could, by a single act of the will, cease to be attracted to persons of your own gender, would you make that act of the will?