Christmas begins December 25th

Shocking no? Yes it is true, however it seems that 'Christmas' starts earlier and earlier each year and for most it seems to End on Dec. 25th. Lots of stores get decked out starting on All Souls Day (no doubt they consider it the day after Halloween). I walked into a Starbucks a couple weeks ago (well before Thanksgiving) and it was Christmas in there already and I was looking for some beans to brew at home. The Owner (I know he's the owner because I am a regular there) asked me if I wanted to get the 'Christmas blend'. Huh! I was already shocked by the decorations up so I said, "It's WAY to early for that!", and proceed to purchase the 'Gold Coast blend' (which, by-the-way, is my personal favorite -- yes I am a coffee addict)

Fortunately there is this thing called Advent. It's between three and four weeks long and it's job is to prepare us for Christmas. I know Christmas is not Easter, and therefore does not need quite the prep time or penance associated with Easter, However some preparation of our hearts and souls should be done so that the idea that the Creator of the Universe has become a creature for our sakes can seep into our consciences. We also need to understand that Christ first coming is a precursor to his final coming and prepare ourselves to be able to welcome him on that occasion as well.

So for our family Advent is purple (another shocking revelation, I know). The traditional Advent wreath sits on the table with 3 purple and 1 pink candle. The Cresh is set up, but only animals are placed in side while we wait for Mary and Joseph to arrive and later Jesus on Christmas morning. The Christmas Tree is not cut down (we always get a real tree) until Gaudete Sunday, and then left completely bear until a few days before Christmas. (If it were a perfect world I would decorate the tree on Christmas, but with all the preparations needed for Christmas, it is simply to much to get everything done on one day). I don't have any outside lights, but if I did, I wouldn't turn them on until Christmas Day and leave them on until the entire Christmas season is over. (which is much longer than anyone I've seen keeps their lights on, their generally off by Jan 2nd)

I encourage every one to remember that Christmas STARTS on Dec 25th! Don't skip advent.

Continue reading "Christmas begins December 25th"

Collapse Christmas begins December 25th

Et Tu Ranger Rick?

My eldest (9) has had a subscription to Ranger Rick for about as long as I can remember (and I'm sure as long as he can), mostly because at an early age he has expressed a great interest in animals and his grandmother has been kind enough to give him the continuing subscription. If you ask him what he want to be when he grows up, he doesn't say fireman or policeman or astronaut, he says "Marine Biologist". How am I to argue with that?

Not that I have any desire to. Often he come to me and give me some outrageous animal fact like: did you know that a Camel can do spit 100 yards? (OK, I made that up, but you get the idea) I used to tell him 'that can't be right' until he hands me his Ranger Rick. Now I have learned that he probably knows more than I do about animals and I should just trust him.

On the whole Ranger Rick has been a great asset to him and I am happy to have it in my home, and really haven't given it a second thought. However, (you knew this was coming , right?) yesterday what do I see on my counter but his Ranger Rick on the cabinet opened to a page Entitled "What's Up with Global Warming" by Gerry Bishop. Crap! Can't they just stick to animals? Of course 'What's Up' is that Humans are causing the earth to warm because of all the CO2 that we put into our environment. And if we don't drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels it will be a disaster. Did they present the other side? Did they state that there is a growing number of reputable scientists that doubt that Global Warming is caused by humans? Is it possible that Global Warming could be a good thing? Is there a 'right temperature' that earth should be at? Nope, not one word.

Ranger Rick's young readers now know as a fact (because they trust Ranger Rick to be right - even when their own parents didn't know things that are in the magazine) that Global Warming will be a disaster and it is being caused by humans. I started explaining this to my children at supper yesterday and I got this interesting question, 'What does bias mean, daddy?' Do you see how influential our children are? be sue to fill them with the right stuff.

Upon further examination their website is full of Scary Global Warming 'Facts' and even links to Greenpeace. I suppose I should not have been so naive. It's still sad to see how acceptable it is for a magazine as reputable as this to push an agenda on our children, and that they have bought into our non-thinking culture. Ranger Rick will continue to come to my home, but I will spend a bit more time looking it it myself. Maybe then I will be able to tell you some cool stuff you didn't know about animals...

Continue reading "Et Tu Ranger Rick?"

Collapse Et Tu Ranger Rick?

What Bishops Do -Or Refuse To Do- Matters

Last Week I wrote about Canon 915 which requires people who are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion"

Now we have a good practical example of what happens when our Bishops are loath to apply this canon: This week 16 of the 25 Catholic Senators voted to fund overseas abortions

First of all I'd like to point out just how corrupt Sen. Bob Casey really is. As noted in the story, it is now clear that he essentially lied to his constituents in his bid to defeat former Sen. Rick Santorum (Who was a great Catholic Senator and probably the best senator we had until his defeat) when he proclaimed that he was pro-life. I only hope the people of Pennsylvania are not fooled again.

On a more Catholic note: How sad is it that the in the United States we can't even get half of our Catholic Senators to vote against killing children? How confusing is that to the faithful? Why do our Bishops continue to only give lip service to protecting the unborn?

I loathe to go in this direction, but I fear that I must... I have a high suspicion that the reason many Bishops will not enforce Canon 915 is because they are politically liberal. Not on Abortion itself, but in virtually every other issue. A quick glance at the list of the 16 Catholic Senators who voted for the amendment in question shows that 15 are Democrats and only one (Susan Collins (R-ME)) is a Republican. How else can we explain this travesty?

I can understand the liberal position on social justice and welfare. I can even understand why many in the church support that position, but to believe that these ideals trump the very basic tenets of the right to life is beyond the pale. Something must be done. I think that it should be clear now that Catholicism and Liberalism are two things that are fundamentally diametrically opposed to each other. Certainly Catholicism and the the Democrat Party are. I cannot honestly say that a good catholic can be a Democrat any more than they could be a member of the Post WWII Communist Party.

What is currently passing for much of Catholicism in this country cannot stand together with liberalism for any length of time without it ceasing to be Catholic entirely. Either our bishops need to reverse course, bring their worthy desires for increased charity for the poor back from the State to the Church where it belongs or there will eventually be another split in the church.

Maybe I'm jumping the gun here, and truthfully I hope I am. But if so it's not by much. The current state of affairs cannot last indefinitely. In any case, Please pray for our country and our Church.

Continue reading "What Bishops Do -Or Refuse To Do- Matters"

Collapse What Bishops Do -Or Refuse To Do- Matters

This Just In... You Can't Starve People

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has recently released a new document responding to a few questions from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB):

Question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a "permanent vegetative state", may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?

Response: No. A patient in a "permanent vegetative state" is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.

Well I'm glad that's out of the way. It's sad that we need to be told that we cannot starve people, but at least it's here in no uncertain terms. Apparently there are Catholic hospitals that continue to starve people when they want to be rid of them. Let's pray that they now change their practices and not continue to disregard the clear teaching of the church.

Read the Whole Document

Continue reading "This Just In... You Can't Starve People"

Collapse This Just In... You Can't Starve People

Two Sad Stories

Stand To Reason Blog reports on two sad stories about abortion which reflects on our decadent culture.

The first one The Right To A Dead Baby is about how 'physicians' (if they can be called that) are using procedures more dangerous to Expectant Mothers in order to skirt the partial birth abortion ban because it is better for the doctors legally.

The Second one Is There A Baby In There? is about how the New Jersey Supreme Court has decided that either 1) its OK for to for Doctors lie to Expectant Mothers who ask questions about what they have in their womb or 2)They actually believe that a an unborn baby us just 'blood' or 'tissue'. I'm hoping it's actually #2 because that would just mean that they are grossly ignorant and/or stupid. If in truth it is Case #1 then they are actually Evil.

Sorry to end the day on such a sour note. Hopefully I'll have some good news soon.

Continue reading "Two Sad Stories"

Collapse Two Sad Stories

Canon 915

"Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion"(emphasis added)

That is the Full text of can. 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law

It seems relatively straight forward right? Unfortunately many United States Bishops do not take this Canon very seriously. Many (if not most) of them would not deny communion to anyone regardless of what manifest grave sin they are engaged in. This case becomes particularly relevant when it comes to Catholic politicians who support euthanasia and abortion. One US bishop put his position in the matter this way:

The archdiocese will continue to follow church teaching, which places the duty of each Catholic to examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive holy communion. That is not the role of the person distributing the body and blood of Christ

In other words: "Come on in and receive the Eucharist, if you don't think your persisting in a grave sin, neither do we"

Fortunately for us Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has just published an article in a prestigious Canon Law Journal arguing for the application of can 915 entitled "The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin". The Article is quite long and gets a bit technical at times so I suggest you read In Light Of the Law's Post on it (who thinks it's even cooler that I do). Then if you are so inclined (which I do recommend) Read Archbishop Burke's entire article

It will be very difficult for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to ignore this highly public article and the arguments therein. We will see just how obstinate our US Bishops really are.

I cannot do any real justice as to any commentary regarding Burke's article (not being a canon lawyer, nor playing on on TV), but I do have just a few observations after reading it

First of all there are some tangential issues raised in the article worth noting. The holiness of the sacrament is paramount to the argument Burke is making and in doing this he quotes from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - Now Pope Benedict XVI (B16):

Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria.... The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion merely as a consequence of being present at Mass is an abuse that must be corrected

This is a huge problem in the church and is something I have been mulling about for some time. The pressure to receive communion while at mass is enormous. Just try and not receive communion once. You may get stares, people wondering why you are not receiving. Absolutely EVERYONE goes up to receive communion. Even people outside of the church and children who have not yet made their first communion. These people may only opt for a 'blessing' which is preferable to be sure, but the fact that everyone get up and proceeds down the isle creates tremendous pressure to receive communion regardless of your particular worthiness to do so. This is one of the reasons I object to giving 'blessings' in lieu of receiving the sacrament.

Secondly the article address the misconception that the disagreement among catholics in regards to abortion is no different than the disagreement regarding war and the death penalty. Again Burke quotes B16:

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia

The difference here is what is considered a 'prudential judgement'. There are legitimate cases where War or the death penalty is justified although they should be avoided if possible. The distinction between when it is acceptable is left to the individual to make a prudential judgement upon. In the case of Abortion there are no acceptable uses because of it's intrinsically evil nature and therefore all knowing cooperation in deeds that are intrinsically evil are always immoral.

Thirdly, as a Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EMOHC) myself I found the following to be something I was not aware of before:

Father Felice Cappello, S.J., noted commentator on the Pio-Benedictine Code [i.e. the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The one used until the 1983 code was established], describes the principle which underlies the discipline of can. 855. He reminds us that the minister of Holy Communion is held, under pain of mortal sin, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy, that is, "to those who are indeed a capable subject of the sacrament, but are not able to receive its effect, because they are in the state of mortal sin without the will of reforming themselves (emphasis added)

That's harsh language, and directed at all ministers, either ordinary or extraordinary. Now, before anyone reading this decides to start denying communion to people, there is one caveat. The person manifesting great sin must first be notified by their pastor that they are doing so and that they should not attempt to receive communion. So until an EMOHC is aware of this having been done, the onus is still on the pastor.

I really enjoyed How Burke handled one of the chief objections in executing Canon 915 and I cannot due it justice without a somewhat lengthy quote, I'll offer no further commentary except the emphasis in the quote which is mine:

John M. Huels, the commentator on can. 915 in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, reduces scandal to a subjective reality, ignoring its essential connection to what is objective, what is right and wrong. He states:

"The fact of actual scandal is, moreover, culturally relative. What causes scandal in one part of the world may not cause scandal elsewhere. In North America the faithful often are more scandalized by the Church's denial of sacraments and sacramentals than by the sin that occasions it, because it seems to them contrary to the mercy and forgiveness commanded by Christ."

If a word, an action or an omission leads another into error or sin, there is scandal, whether the person who is led astray knows that he has been scandalized or not. If, as the commentator suggests, the faithful in North America believe that persons who publicly and grievously sin should be admitted to Holy Communion and that it would be wrong to deny to them the Sacrament, then effectively the faithful have been scandalized, that is, they have been led to forget or to disregard what the perennial discipline of the Church, beginning with Saint Paul's admonition to the Corinthians, has always remembered and safeguarded.

Two kinds of error are involved. One has to do with the supreme holiness of the Eucharist, that is, the necessity to be well-disposed before approaching to receive the Sacrament. The other regards the objective moral evil of the acts which the person is known to have committed. Giving Holy Communion to one who is known to be a serious sinner leads people astray in two ways. Either they are led to think that it is not wrong for an unrepentant sinner to receive Holy Communion (and to be given the Holy Eucharist), or they are led to think that what the person is known to have done was not gravely sinful.

(later Burke argues)

A similar argument has been used to deny the application of can. 915 in the case of a Catholic politician who votes for legislation which gravely violates the natural moral law. For example, during the discussion of the matter prior to the meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June of 2004, after citing the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the conditions necessary for a sin to be mortal, one Bishop wrote:

"Given the long-standing practice of not making a public judgment about the state of the soul of those who present themselves for Holy Communion, it does not seem that it is sufficiently clear that in the matter of voting for legislation that supports abortion such a judgment necessarily follows. The pastoral tradition of the Church places the responsibility of such a judgment first on those presenting themselves for Holy Communion."

The opinion expressed effectively, in the language of the Declaration, would make it impossible to apply can. 915. It confuses the norm of can. 916 with the norm of can. 915 in a way which makes can. 915 superfluous.

For clarification, it is canon 916 that deals with the examination of one's own worthiness of receiving communion.

Finally Burke concludes:

I am deeply aware of the difficulty which is involved in applying the discipline of can. 915. I am not surprised by it and do not believe that anyone should be surprised. Surely, the discipline has never been easy to apply. But what is at stake for the Church demands the wisdom and courage of shepherds who will apply it.

The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts. Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.

Well said Bishop. USCCB is so notified, we await their response!

Postscript: One thing that I ran across as the particular grievous sins were quoted throughout the article that in the past were grounds for denying communion was the sin of usury. Usury is a difficult issue and which has been pointed to as proof that the Church has changed it's moral teaching over the years. This is an issue you can expect to see me explore in a future post.

Continue reading "Canon 915"

Collapse Canon 915

Slipery Slopes

This Post by my favorite new blog Creative Minority Report is a must read. Here's an excerpt:

Well, now comes a story out of Canada that tells of the difficulties prosecutors are having going after serial polygamists due to fears that the prosecution won't hold up because...you guessed it, the legalization of same sex marriage.

Sometimes the future really isn't that hard to see.

Continue reading "Slipery Slopes"

Collapse Slipery Slopes

Just Because You Can Do Something...

...Doesn't necessarily mean you should.

The UK has just given the green light to make Human - Cow Chimeras.

Stop and think about that for a moment, I mean actually read it again and think of the consequences of it. If you can't think of any I suggest you pick up a copy of Brave New World(you should probably read it even if you can think of what some the consequences of creating Human - Cow Chimeras might be)

According to an article from This Is London the reason for doing this is two fold:

I. A shortage of human eggs led scientists to seek permission to make hybrid embryos from human skin cells and animal eggs such as those from cows, which are plentiful in slaughterhouses.
II. Stem cell expert Dr Stephen Minger, who wants to use the embryos to study conditions such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and motor neurone disease, said the work could "revolutionise drug discovery". [emphasis added]

That's Wonderful. Lets start down the road of Human - Animal hybrids because I. its economical and II. we (i.e. the rest of us humans) might get some benefit from it at some point. Mind you, so far embryonic research has produced exactly zero benefits to date while Adult Stem Cell research (that's the kind which doesn't kill people) has already shown progress in curing such things as Crohn’s disease.

However even if the arguments were 1000 times stronger there wouldn't be cause to start down this slope. Hasn't anyone in the UK the sense to check the temperature of the water in the proverbial pot they're sitting in? I'm sure it rose by several degrees at this ghastly decision.

See the diagram below for a more detailed illustration of how the gruesome procedure is performed.

Continue reading "Just Because You Can Do Something..."

Collapse Just Because You Can Do Something...

Our Schizophrenic Culture

I'm sure you've heard of similar cases like this one about Jessie Davis, where tragically a pregnant woman is killed along with her unborn child and the murder is charged with dual counts of homicide.

I would think that it goes without saying that this is completely absurd in a culture that believes in the evils of abortion on demand, if it wasn't actually happening. I therefore (apparently) need to comment. This type of thing shows how desperately we need people in our culture who have the ability to think, and is a glaring example as to the fact that our education system is only producing people who know what to think, not how to think. The idea that an unborn child is a human only when it suits our own interests would be an impossibility in a culture of thinking people.

How desperately does our culture need a TJEd now?

Continue reading "Our Schizophrenic Culture"

Collapse Our Schizophrenic Culture