Just Plain Stupid….

Today you can read some of what’s happening in England with regards to the celebration of Christmas.  Take note.  Much of the attitude you see there, you see or soon will see here.  Europe is usually a couple of years ahead of the US in adopting the liberal, secularist mindset.  But we’re running close behind them…

So what’s happening?  First, In the Church of England (Anglican) some Christmas Carols have been deemed “oppressive” or “intolerant” and they are being rewritten.    This is the lunacy I’m talking about: “O come let us adore Him” – has been changed in one church to “O come in adoration”, both changes apparently made for fear the original was sexist.”   Oh, please.  Jesus was a baby BOY.

Secondly, it seems that Westminster Abbey can’t decide what religion it should be during the Christmas season, so it is puting up decorations for all of them.  (I can’t make this junk up!)   The Abbey staff has added “Hindu snowmen, a Chinese dragon and a Jewish temple to the lawn where the traditional scene of a baby Jesus, angels, and the three wise men used to be displayed alone.”

It’s Christmas.  That’s CHRIST-MASS.  The celebration of Jesus Christ’s birth.

I’m wondering if the synagogue or the Hindu temple feels compelled to put up a manger scene?

Probably not.  Only Christians seem to be willing to dumb-down and deny their faith on the altar of political correctness.

Merry Whateveryouwannacallit!

I’ll still call it Christmas.  Read the full stories below.

On the changing of the Carols >>>

On Westminster Abbey’s “Nativity Scene” >>>

“Sentire cum Ecclesia” (Thinking with the Church)

Great article from our local Diocesan paper.  Enjoy!

Chris, Editor, H2R

______________________________

Bringing your mind into union with the mind of the Church

by Karen Pagan

from The Tennessee Register

Joe, Linda, Bill and Dave are participating in a Why Catholic? faith sharing session. Joe is the small community leader. They are about to discuss the Sharing our Faith questions in their text. Let’s listen in to their conversation.

Joe: The first question we are asked to consider is: “Share your understanding of the mystery of the Trinity. How do I relate to God the Father, to Jesus the Son, or to the Holy Spirit?” (The Profession of Faith – What We Believe, p. 22)

Linda: I don’t relate to the masculine language in that description of the Trinity. I prefer to understand God as Mother, and Jesus as the One who is Sent or the One who Saves. I think that masculine language about God marginalizes women, so I prefer inclusive language and feminine imagery. That’s my understanding of the mystery of the Trinity.

Bill: I don’t relate to God as Trinity. I can’t because it’s a mystery. We as humans can’t understand God. How can we say things about God like, “‘Father’ refers to a person and not simply to modality”? (The Profession of Faith – W hat We Believe, p. 21) How can our limited language and ideas describe an infinite God? Your question, Joe, is: How do I understand the mystery of the Trinity? My answer is: I don’t!

Dave: I relate to Jesus as man rather than to Jesus as God. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but I don’t think he knew it all the time he was on earth. I believe that Jesus had an authentic human experience of life. And Jesus couldn’t have had a genuine experience of the human condition if he was always consciously aware of himself as Almighty God, if his entire life was spent in perfect knowledge of God. Jesus had to have faith in God, like we have, because Jesus was human, like we are. That’s my understanding of the mystery of the Trinity.

Joe: Wow! Wait a minute. You all have expressed three totally different views about the Trinity. According to Linda, we shouldn’t talk about God as a man, according to Dave, we should talk about God as a man, and according to Bill, we really can’t talk about God at all. How can we arrive at any understanding of the Trinity?

Linda: Why should we arrive at a single understanding of the Trinity, Joe? If Dave sees God as masculine, if he relates better to Jesus as a man, I have no quarrel with that. That’s his reality. It’s just not my reality.

Dave: That’s right. And, Joe, if Bill wants to opt out of the whole discussion, he may do that, too. That’s his choice. Bill’s view is true for him, and Linda’s view is true for her. There is no single correct view. All views are equal.

Joe: What! That’s Relativism.

Linda: What’s wrong with that?

Joe: Let me explain. Each of you has stated his or her mind on this question of the Trinity. These three statements are opposed to each other but, you say, none of these three accounts is to be preferred as true over the other two accounts. You all can just agree to disagree, and each may have his or her own view. Do I understand you correctly?

Linda, Bill, and Dave: Yes.

Joe: But we must consider something else. What is the mind of the Church?

Continue Reading >>>

Advent 3: Downsize!

by Chris Findley, Editor, H2R

The other day I went to McDonald’s with my boys. Since we all were hungry I ordered a meal for them and one for me. Then came the question that we all have grown so used to hearing— “Would you like to supersize that?” Not just “Would you like a large order?” Not even “Would you like an extra-large order?” but would you like a “Super-Sized” order? I figured that enough supersized fries would result in a supersized me, so I declined. But it got me to thinking, “What are some other ways that I do ‘supersize’ me?” While I passed on the fries, I realized that there are many ways that I sometimes try to make a larger “me” than I should. I don’t think I’m alone in this temptation either.

In C.S. Lewis’ popular work, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, two characters, Lucy and Edmund, are described as very different people. Lucy is honest, patient, compassionate, and selfless. Edmund is presented, almost from the first page of the book, as spiteful, mean, and very self-centered. Edmund is deceived and tempted by the White Witch to betray his brother and sisters in an old and very simple way. The White Witch offers to supersize his ego. She says:

“I want a nice boy I could bring up as a Prince and who would be King of Narnia when I am gone. While he was Prince he would wear a hold crown and eat Turkish Delight all day long; and you are much the cleverest and handsomest young man I have ever met. I think I would like to make you the Prince- someday when you bring the others to me.”1

She appeals to his ego. She flatters him and pulls all the right strings- strings that trip him up and lead to a major crisis in the book. In some ways Edmund is a type –sort of an example of what trips up almost everyone in one way or another. The temptations that we all face, as varied as they are, are almost always a temptation to place ourselves at the center of the universe. The temptation is to crown ourselves Prince or Princess.

Today, which marks the beginning of the third week of Advent, continues in the vein of weeks one and two by calling us to prepare for the coming of Christ –after all, that was the expressed task of John the Baptist.

John’s Goal is Preparation
The first thing I think we can see is that John’s goal is preparation. When the Priests and Levites come to question John in today’s gospel lesson they say, “What do you have to say for yourself?”  And John the Baptist replies, “I am the voice of one crying out in the desert, ‘make straight the way of the Lord.’” His role is to prepare the way!

Our goal is preparation also isn’t it? Many of us begin preparing our homes for Christmas before the Thanksgiving dinner is cleaned up! Think of all the ways that we prepare for Christmas. We save money to buy presents, we make lists of who to send our Christmas cards to, we shop around for our Christmas tree, we take time to pull out the ornaments and decorate the house. We may hang lights on the porch, buy plane tickets, or plan our trip to see relatives.

Many people put out nativity scenes in their home to represent the birth of Christ. But St. Liguori writing in the 18th century once noted that, “there are few who think of preparing their hearts so that the infant Jesus may be born in them.”2 This is put very well in the lyric of a song by my friend Jennifer Martin:

“Baby born in Bethlehem, Come be born in me again
Since You don’t mind dirty stables, Here’s my heart not fit or able
To receive such majesty, Still You humbly come to me”3

The question that John places before us is “Are we ready for the Christ to come and be born?” Are we preparing our hearts as well as we prepare our homes?

Was Jesus Nice? by Steve Ray

I’ve always enjoyed the witty and thought-provoking work of Steve Ray.  His book Crossing the Tiber was a great help to me in my own conversion.  I use his “In the Footprints of God” videos regularly in my high-school theology classes.  The following article touches on something that could warrant an even larger discussion, the “niceness” of Jesus and Christianity.  The theology of “nice” is only superficially helpful and ultimately harmful.  It’s akin to me allowing my kids to play in traffic, because I value being “nice” over being a loving Father whose chief concern is the welfare of my kids.  Christianity in America is, in large part, obsessed with “nice” and not being truthful.    This not a call in anyway to be a jerk or to be a pig-headed fundametalist unable to garner compassion, spewing insults at those who disagree.  But I think it is a call to be honest, perhaps directly honest when needed and risk the discomfort that my bring.  The late Mike Yaconelli had a great quote along these lines.  He said that the challenge of Christianity today is not so much the issues we see, but the type of Christianity we embrace,  “Christianity is no longer life-changing, it is life-enhancing. Jesus doesn’t change people into wild-eyed radicals anymore; He changes them into nice people.”

Well, here’s to it.  Maybe we need a few more “wild eyed radicals”…Jesus certainly was.

Here’s Steve Ray’s piece on the matter.  Enjoy! (The pic is from his article…lovin it!)

Chris, Editor, H2R

___________________________________________________________

Was Jesus Nice?

by Steve Ray, from Defenders of the Catholic Faith

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has said to me. “That was not very Christ-like.” This response usually comes after being honest to the point of making someone upset. The implication is that Jesus was a cuddly little nice guy who was always smiling, always accepting with kind words – in short NICE.

In America we tend to be pretty nice, except maybe if you live in New York City. But in contrast to the rest of the world we tend to be very polite, genteel, gracious and nice. Tour guides in other countries say that Americans are the nicest people. We transpose our niceness onto Jesus and think he was a lot like us.

But does LOVE = NICE?

Of course Jesus was loving. He is God after all and God is love (1 John 4:8). We also know that love does not always equate to NICE. God allowed Paul to have a thorn in the flesh to keep him humble (2 Cor 12:7). Three times Paul prayed for it to be removed. God said NO. God was not acting very American. He certainly wasn’t very nice about it.

Nice is defined primarily as “pleasant or commendable, kind or friendly” (Collins English Dictionary). It originally comes from the Latin meaning “simple, silly or ignorant.”

There is such a thing as “tough love.” It is the kind of love that cares enough to be honest, to confront, to discipline, to cause temporary pain to bring about eternal glory. On the surface “tough love” does not always appear to be nice. How often has a child, sent to the corner blurt out “You are not very nice!”

Was Jesus nice?

Like Aslan the Lion in C. S. Lewis’ Narnia series, Jesus is approachable and loving, but don’t ever consider him “tame” or too cuddly. Jesus is God as well as man. He expressed the wrath and anger of God as well as the mercy and love of God.

Imagine coming to the Temple in Jerusalem one day to pray. You hear a great commotion and run over to see an angry man throwing over tables, grabbing the money from the merchants and throwing the money on the ground.

But worse, you see him make a scourge of cords – a whip – and striking people with it. You are shocked that anyone would be so rude and destructive, so inconsiderate and mean to lash people with a whip. People ran in fear! Everyone was upset. Jesus was red in the face and scowling. It certainly wasn’t very “Christ-like.” How nice was that?

Jesus was always loving, but he was not always nice, as we Americans count niceness. Here is just one example. Jesus spoke very harshly to his fellow Jews.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. . . . You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? (Matthew 23:27, 28, 33).

Ouch! Doesn’t sound very kind and courteous: not very thoughtful or nice!

So, maybe there is more to WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) than we’ve been led to believe. Maybe we shouldn’t worry so much about being nice, being liked, acting like genteel Americans. Maybe we ought to be more honest and forthright about the things that really matter. Maybe we should be more willing to hurt some feelings, step on some toes, show tough love to those in sin.

Maybe we should be more Christ-like.

Practical Evangelism Part II: Live it!

By Chris Findley

Any discussion of evangelism usually comes to the question of action: “What should I do?” Quite often these discussions center on how to move a conversation to spiritual things or how to tactfully bring someone to Mass or how to pass out material in a non-threatening way. These actions, when done in the right way, are certainly helpful. But they are secondary. The opportunity to have spiritual conversations, or to invite someone to Mass, or pass along a relevant book will come seldom, if at all, if we are not living our faith ourselves. But this does not mean that we have to wait until we arrive at some level of holiness before we have the ability to act. If so, I wouldn’t be writing and none of us would ever do anything! No, to live our faith to the best of our ability is a pre-requisite because we simply cannot share what we do not have. If our relationship with our Lord is strained or broken, our Mass attendance and devotion weak, or our conviction about truth of the Church diminished, then our attempts at evangelization will be stunted and our effectiveness hampered.

On the other hand, when you are actively engaged in your faith, regular in prayer and Mass attendance, and intentional about diving into spiritual reading, you are laying the foundation for much more effective evangelization. Why? Because you truly know who it is you are talking about when you speak and act on your faith. This gives you credibility through authenticity. So live it!

Evangelism techniques have come and gone through the years. Many of them worked well at certain points in history. But techniques and presentations are constantly changing to suit the changing demands culture. Most of these methods are based in modern rationalism and seek to explain the faith in the ways that people are thinking. Our Protestant neighbors have often excelled in actively seeking to engage the culture.

But there is something, one thing, that has been effective since the days of the first apostles right down to the present. It is the power of example. It is the power of a devoted Catholic Christian unflinchingly living out their faith right in the midst of daily life. They say their prayers, pray their rosary and read their Bibles. They faithfully live out the church’s teaching, difficult or not. They make progress and stumble. The fall down and get back up. They simply live their faith and those around them notice.

Fr. Edward Garesche noted, “There is an argument stronger than any logic –a way of preaching that is open to everyone and to which no living soul can choose but listen: the argument of a steadfast good example, of a consistent living up to our Catholic principles and our Catholic beliefs.”1

You may not feel gifted in persuasion in one-on-one evangelism, in making direct invitations or passing books out, but you can be a witness with your life. You can, by your life, speak more persuasively than any argument could.

The principle is this: A Catholic Christian lifestyle is contagious when lived authentically.

The Catholic Vote: Will It Be a Vote for Life?

by Chris Findley

At the risk of attracting the ire of a few people, I wanted to comment a bit on our upcoming Presidential election and the Catholic vote.

Tonight I came across the following on Fox News’ website:

“In addition to independents, white Catholics are another important swing voting group and they support Obama 50 percent to 39 percent. White Catholics have voted for the winner in each of the last four presidential elections.” (Source >>>)

Politics in America is a nasty game, and it is a game of imperfect choices where seldom does any candidate meet all of anyone’s criteria.  But for Catholics (according to this poll) to support someone as contrary to Catholic teaching as Barack Obama is truly sad. It’s naive.

I have Catholic friends who are adamantly pro-life and yet are equally adamantly pro-Obama.  Now, how in heaven’s name does that work?  How does one twist their logic to rationalize voting for someone so anti-life as Obama and maintain a clean conscience?  Some say they are against the war in Iraq and want our troops home.  Great, so do I.  But the troops are coming home anyway.  Agree with the invasion or not, it’s done.  And the draw down is coming no matter who’s in the White House.

Some want to blame the Bush administration for every conceivable problem we have today in America.  I’ll gladly concede it has been far from a stellar presidency.  But remember when the Republicans lost control of congress and how that was going to fix everything?  It didn’t work out that way.  Our Democrat-controlled congress’ approval rating is hovering around 18% according to Gallup (source here>>>)  That ties the record for the lowest approval rating in history.  As to the economic crisis again, the call is to blame the Republicans.  But it was the Democrats that refused any regulation of the housing market, particularly of sub-prime loans.  The New York Times ran an article in September of 2003 reporting how the Bush administration had identified serious problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and wanted to step in because, “We have seen in recent months…mismanagement and questionable accounting practices.” (source here>>>)  Democrats blocked the move because it would impact “affordable housing” (code for giving low-income families loans that they could not afford…what a great idea!?)

So, Catholics who are ready to vote for Obama will discuss any issue but abortion.  Healthcare, the Economy, the environment, the poor etc.  All of these are indeed important but they do NOT justify voting for someone who so ardently supports and encourages an intrinsic evil such as abortion. All of these other issues do not form a moral equivalent (see this article from Fr. Dwight Longenecker).  Abortions account for over a MILLION DEATHS per year in the U.S.

I can’t say it any better than the Bishops of Dallas and Ft. Worth:

“As Catholics we are faced with a number of issues that are of concern and should be addressed, such as immigration reform, healthcare, the economy and its solvency, care and concern for the poor, and the war on terror. As Catholics we must be concerned about these issues and work to see that just solutions are brought about. There are many possible solutions to these issues and there can be reasonable debate among Catholics on how to best approach and solve them. These are matters of “prudential judgment.” But let us be clear: issues of prudential judgment are not morally equivalent to issues involving intrinsic evils. No matter how right a given candidate is on any of these issues, it does not outweigh a candidate’s unacceptable position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or the protection “abortion rights.” (Italics original) (Source article >>>)

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not happy with the Republican’s entire platform either and obviously neither Presidential could be considered to be fully in line with Catholic teaching on every issue.  However, on perhaps the greatest issue of our day, abortion, it is quite clear.

Think about it.  Even if we solved the economic crisis, made significant progress in eliminating poverty, improved our foreign relations, and yet still sanctioned the killing of the unborn at the rate of one million a year, would that be a change worth voting for?

On Sacred Heart Radio

Here’s my latest interview from Sacred Heart Radio.  We’re discussing “Cultural Catholcism”, based on this article >>>.   Thanks to Matt at SHR for the opportunity.

Sacred Heart Radio Interview, 10/16/08

The Latest On the Shelf…

I came across Michael Novak’s new book the other day and promptly purchased a copy.  I had been surfing the net and found a sample online and loved it.   Yesterday he was interviewed by Laura Ingram and I was so impressed that I went ahead and bought the book.  I’ve only made it through the Preface and Introduction, but so far I am absolutely loving it.  It is very well written and well thought out.  It respectfully and humbly deals with the “dark night” we all face.   It offers a way for believers and skeptics to converse respectfully and it offers a strong return to reason, divine and sanctified reason, which has been all but abandoned in many Christian circles.  If you’re looking for a uplifting and thought-provoking book to really sink your teeth into, get this one:  No One Sees God, by Michael Novak.

Here’s what Peggy Noonan had to say about it:

“This book is one of the most lyrical and moving reflections on God I have encountered. It is also remarkably generous, both to believers and nonbelievers. Most helpfully it is about how to pray, and how to suffer through the dark night in which answers, and communication, seem absent. A remarkable book by a remarkable man.” – Peggy Noonan

First Things Interview with Novak

Take a look yourself.   Chris, Ed., H2R

---

From the Introduction, “No One Sees God’ by Michael Novak

This text/link is from http://catholiceducation.org

Just as I was writing this book, Christians and non-Christians alike wrote to question me about the meaning of Mother Teresa’s forty-five years of inner emptiness, feeling “neither joy, nor love, nor light . . . and on a darkling plain.” The experience of this darkness is common to all, believer and unbeliever. The fact that Mother Teresa experienced it surprised many people, friend and foe. It should not have. But it did.

In a way that has startled many readers today, Mother Teresa revealed her own darkness in confidential letters written to her spiritual directors during the long time that she suffered from it. Since these letters necessarily became part of the inquiry required for the process of canonization, and since this process would become public fairly soon, an editor was charged with putting them together in a book for the general public. The point of picking out an outstanding Christian in a public way as a “saint” is to shed light on one unique way in which the gospel of Jesus Christ was realized in history. We learn a great deal from the lives of others. There is a “community of spirit,” which is also a community of those who have experienced the common darkness.

Many of my correspondents had not recognized Mother Teresa’s inability to sense the presence of God, and the inner agony in which this left her. All they had seen was her amazing smile, as if she felt God’s love in her heart (when in fact her heart felt empty) during long days and nights when she brought tenderness to abandoned persons dying in the streets of Calcutta. If she couldn’t find God, why did she go on believing in Him? Why did she go on bringing tender care to the abandoned, when she herself felt so abandoned?

Some atheists, such as my friend Christopher Hitchens, now gloat that Mother Teresa was just an unbeliever like the rest of “us.” But few atheists — and, alas, not many believers — understand the depths of the interior life of Jewish and Christian faith. They don’t understand that it is a never-ending struggle. In the Talmud, Moses points to the vision God has shown him of the great Rabbi Akiba viciously tortured to death by the Romans. Moses says to God, “Master of the Universe,” “This is Torah and this is the reward?” And God can only say, “Quiet! This too has occurred to me.” Biblical faith demands putting childhood behind, and adolescence, and the busyness of young adulthood. It requires an appetite for bravery — for going into unknown territories alone to wrestle against inner demons, and a willingness to experience darkness, if darkness comes. Faith is not for those who seek only man-made pleasures.

I had one tiny reason for feeling especially close to Mother Teresa from the first time I heard of her. My younger brother Richard was also a missionary to Bengali speakers, as Mother was. But Richard did his work across the ocean from Calcutta, in Dhaka, then part of east Pakistan. Two years after he arrived there, as he was setting out by bicycle on a mission of mercy during the cruel Hindu-Muslim riots of January 1964, Dick was knifed to death by a group of young men who seized his bicycle and his wristwatch. He was twenty-seven years old. They threw his body into a river already thick with corpses.

Dick’s favorite saint was Saint Thérèse of Lisieux (1873-1897), a frail Carmelite nun, the most beloved of all Catholic saints, second only to Saint Francis of Assisi. (I have only once in years of traveling around the world found a Catholic church without some depiction of her.) Saint Thérèse lived for most of her adult life in utter darkness and dryness and abandonment by her divine Lover. She wrote an autobiography about her experience, and how it led her to interpret the inner heart of Christianity. So powerfully and clearly did she write that Pope John Paul II inscribed her name among the historic handful of “Doctors of the Church” — teachers so profound and so sweeping in their wisdom that they instruct the whole Catholic people.

The canonization of Saint Thérèse in 1925 was at that time one of the swiftest on record. Miracles attributed to her care and her attention to the needy — which she promised she would “shower down” from heaven — were too many to count. As early as the war of 1914, Thérèse was the favorite saint of French soldiers in the trenches, held by them coequal with Saint Jeanne d’Arc. And so she remains today, this twenty-four-year-old victim of consumption, who after the age of fifteen never set foot outside her cloistered contemplative convent — with Jeanne d’Arc copatroness of France.

The kernel of Saint Thérèse’s teaching is often called “the little way,” meaning that no Christian is too humble or too insignificant to follow it and no thought or action too negligible to infuse with love. In other words, God cherishes not only great actions of love, but also minor, childlike ones. No matter what spiritual darkness you find yourself in, choose as your North Star a tender love of the persons that life’s contingencies have put next to you. Do not go looking around for more fascinating neighbors to love. Love those right nearest you.

You cannot see God, even if you try. But you can see your neighbor, the tedious one, who grinds on you: Love him, love her. As Jesus loves them. Give them the tender smile of Jesus, even though your own feelings be like the bottom of a bird cage. Do not ask to see Jesus, or to feel Him. That is for children. Love him in the dark. Love for the invisible divine, not for the warm and comforting human consolation. Love for the sake of love, not in order to feel loved in return.

It happens that Agnes Bojaxhiu of Albania eventually became a missionary nun in Ireland, and chose for her religious name Thérèse, in the footsteps of her patron saint of darkness from Lisieux. In Spanish, the same name is Teresa, and Saint Teresa of Avila (1515-1582), Doctor of the Church, builder of scores of convents of Carmelite nuns all over Europe — administrator and guide extraordinaire, and a canny operator in bureaucracies, running rings around most of the male hierarchy of her time — was also an experienced traveler in inner darkness. Saint Thérèse of Lisieux took the name Teresa as an honor, and followed her in her way, as inscribed in Teresa’s books and in the traditions of the Carmelites. (Pope John Paul II was a close follower of the Carmelites.)

For those who love God, that way is excruciating. They would like to feel close to God, but they find — nothing! Like Saint John of the Cross, Teresa gradually came to see that if God were a human invention, a human contrivance, then warm human feelings would be quite enough. But God is far greater than that. He is beyond any human frequency. He is outside our range, divine. One must follow Him without any human prop whatever, even warm and comfortable inner feelings. That may be why Jesus loved the desert as a place for prayer.

Continue Reading the Introduction Online>>>