Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown

Last night I watched my favorite Christmas special, A Charlie Brown Christmas, for the third time this year. As I listened to Charlie Brown rail against the commercialization of Christmas while pleading for someone–anyone–to explain “what Christmas is all about”, I realized that our national economic crisis has forced many Americans to confront the Truth of “what Christmas is all about”. Below is an example.

Each year St. Ephrem’s Church in Brooklyn, NY, decorates Christmas trees with cards containing the age and gender of a poor child who will have no gifts to open on Christmas morning. Some are orphans; others have families but no money. Parishioners who would like to help these children can take a card and buy an appropriate gift for that child. The gifts are collected and held on the Church’s altar. Last Sunday as I entered the Church for Sunday mass, I noticed that despite the current economic turmoil there were as many gifts on the altar as there had been in years past. It was comforting to see that although people may be hurting financially, they still want to thank God for giving Himself as a gift to Man. And what better way to repay that gift than by giving gifts to the less fortunate.

Keep in mind that these Catholics who donated are not people who have “of their abundance cast into the offerings of God” (Luke 21:4). They are Catholics who have donated despite having lost their jobs or watched their savings plummet because of the tanking stock market. As members of Christ’s flock they know it is their responsibility to take care of the less fortunate sheep.

Maybe it’s naive but based on the outpouring of help that I’ve witnessed, the next time Americans are asked to explain the true meaning of Christmas, I believe more of us–Catholic and otherwise–will respond as Linus did to Charlie Brown:
“And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. 9 And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. 10 And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people:

For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: 14 Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.”
Luke 2: 8-14)

Donald Tremblay

Greed

The Associated Press used a term today that aptly defines the corporate greed that sustains today’s Wall Street culture: casino capitalism. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gOZTtahVNy4kICgeQueTNyWQybJAD93H9HL80) Simply put it is the practice of accepting whatever risks necessary, short of breaking the law, to earn substantial profits. It is an unfettered game of craps.

"The managers of big business took huge risks out of greed," said President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, whose economy is highly dependent on U.S. trade. "What happens in the United States will affect the entire world and, above all, small countries like ours."

In fairness it’s not just the U.S. who is at fault here. As the AP points out, big business across Europe is guilty of the same carelessness and greed:

“It's harder for European leaders to point the finger directly at the United States since many of their financiers participated in the recklessness. London was home to the division of failed insurer AIG that racked up huge losses on credit-default swaps, and many reputable European banks disregarded risk to load up on higher yielding subprime assets.”

Swaps, derivatives, you name it. All were recklessly created to bring big returns for investors. But there’s one thing about greed people forget: it cannot be sated. The more it gets, the more it wants. It is a ravenous beast.

Capitalism is the best economic system that Man has developed to-date. However, there are fundamental flaws with it. It is a lot like Nature in that when acts it doesn’t discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong. Free-market defenders will argue that the system works because as was the case with Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers, the market weeds out inefficient, unprofitable companies. And macro-economically speaking, they are correct. But at what cost is this done? “This Survival of the Fittest” mentality leaves financial carnage in its wake, and the victims usually are those who have nothing to do with the questionable business practices.

I remember studying economics when I was younger and reading that a company’s stock value rises after it lays off workers. I understood the math behind it: Fewer salaries means lowers costs which in turn translates into a better bottom line. But my first thought was that there is something wrong with a system that rewards a company for sending its workers to the unemployment line.

I still feel that way today.

Donald Tremblay

Spinning Stalin

As George Santayana once said, “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.”
21st century Man is quick to portray itself as evolved. We argue that more money than ever is donated to humanitarian causes, and that “Save the planet” is the mantra most-heard today. Yet it is important to remember that we are no different as a species than we were just 60 years ago during WWII. Within the past 20-25 years we’ve witnessed Man’s- inhumanity-towards-Man on a scale equaling the brutality inflicted by Nazi Germany. Genocide erupted in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. In Iraq the former “president” of the country gassed his own people. And let’s not forget the Islamic terrorist who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Why is it important to remember this generation’s evil deeds?

On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal published an article that indirectly supported Santayana’s warning. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122229545606472921.html) Recently the Kremlin and the Russian state media created an online poll asking their countrymen to select the nation’s top historical figure. The contest’s purpose is to strengthen national pride. To the dismay of many the man who repeatedly appeared at or near the top of the list was none other than mass murderer Josef Stalin.

Alleging that hackers had used automated voting in an effort to start trouble, RTR “corrected” the “inaccuracies”, which dropped Uncle Joe’s supporters from two million to one million (as of last week). Did hackers really inflate the numbers, or was it merely a case of a citizenry longing for mythical “better” times? Who knows? But one has to wonder if the RTR “corrections” were enacted solely to avoid the embarrassment the Kremlin would face globally if the tally was acknowledged as accurate. How many other Russians agree with Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, who said earlier this year “that Stalin, if alive, could solve Russia's problems ‘in one day.’”

Last October I traveled to Moscow to promote a boxing match between Evander Holyfield and Sultan Ibragimov. The company I work for represented Holyfield. It became apparent quickly that the country was split according to the haves and the have-nots. You were either wealthy or poor . . . and clearly there were more of the latter. Many elderly women could be seen begging for money or hustling trinkets to foreigners. Yet, the hotel we stayed in during fight week regularly costs guests $800 per night. (We did not pay this) This year Forbes magazine announced that Moscow is the most expensive city in the world.

Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany at least in part because of the dire economic conditions in post-WWI Germany. When you are forced to spend your life savings on a loaf of bread it becomes very easy to embrace the person who promises you the quickest solution.
The Russian people are demoralized. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the majority continue to live a meager existence. Stalin murdered an estimated 20 million people; yet, he transformed the Soviet Union into a major superpower. When you no longer have to worry about watching your family carted off in the middle of the night by the secret police, it’s much easier to forget history. One worries whether Russia is doomed to repeat its errors.

Donald Tremblay

We are the Author of Our Sins

An adage that irks me is, “Hate the sin; Love the sinner”. The clear implication is that the sin is distinct from the sinner, which encourages people to “view the sinner as a victim of his sin, rather than the author of the sin he commits”. (“Hate the Sin but Love the Sinner': Not Scriptural, Not Catholic Doctrine” by Erven Park , New Oxford Review, June 2006) This is a dangerous concept with eternal repercussions.

Separating the sin from the sinner implies that the offender is not damaged by his wrongful action. For ex., the man who slanders another needs to worry only about how the victim is hurt by his act—as if he himself is not adversely affected by it.

Quite the contrary, it is only by recognizing the sinner as the source of his sin that we can understand Canon Ripley’s warning that “sin is disastrous for both the soul and the body.” (This is the Faith, p 57) And as the catechism explains it, sin is like a snowball rolling down a hill, gathering speed and size as it travels:

“Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1865)

Only through penance (reconciliation) can the marred soul be healed. “Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion." (Catechism, 1422)

How can we ask for pardon if we don’t recognize ourselves as authors of our sin?

The biblical account of the stoning of an adulterer offers testimony to the importance of recognizing sinners as the source of their sin. An angry mob is on the verge of stoning an adulterer when Christ instructs, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7) Shamed, the angry mob disperses. Christ informs the woman that since nobody remains to condemn her, then neither will he. But he adds these departing words:

“Go, and now sin no more.” (John 8:11)

Christ’s warning is clear. He is telling the woman, “You may go, but do not assume that my words to the crowd were approval of your actions. You have sinned and are responsible for it. Do not offend my Father again.”

If hating the sin were enough, there would have been no need for this final warning.

Donald Tremblay

False Saviors

In my junior year of high school I took a course in American History. Late in the semester our teacher discussed World War II and Nazi Germany. Many of the students sat dumbfounded as he explained how Germany fell under the spell of Adolf Hitler. We couldn’t understand how a nation could deify a man and follow him as if he were the return of Jesus Christ.

As I watch people embarrassingly fawn over Barack Obama I begin to understand how this can happen.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting Obama is another Hitler. I am merely commenting on the ridiculous Messiah-like attention many Americans are showering the presidential candidate with. Think I’m exaggerating?

The July 27 edition of the Sunday NY Daily News published a story about former Cincinnati Bengals linebacker Reggie Williams, who is trying to recover from multiple operations to replace his right knee. A photo of Williams walking in a leg brace accompanied the article. Written in marker across the straps of the brace is “Obama Heals”.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine’s Joe Klein jokingly explained what happened when two Obama supporters visited his house: “’When two activists rang my doorbell, I wondered whether they had taken Ecstasy. I was afraid that they might hug me.’"

· In a February 13, 2008 article entitled, “Obama-The Savior Superstar”, Le Monde journalist Corine Lesnes declared, “The United States is a country that prides itself on its insistence on the merits of individualism. Nothing is more embarrassing to this country than these great moments of collective obsession (shared, of course, with Super Bowl frenzy), where every critical faculty appears to have been abandoned in the service of a universal pursuit.

Mark Steyn, in his column for the blog Falling Panda, quotes Ezra Klein of The American Prospect: "Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair."


And let’s not forget Oprah Winfrey who at a December 2007 campaign rally in Iowa referred to Obama as “The One”.


There are many, many other examples. These are just a few.

I suppose this was inevitable given the secular society we’ve become. A secular society will yearn for secular heroes and saviors. For years many have compartmentalized God in their lives—that is those who haven’t outright rejected God as irrelevant or non-existent. We have figuratively pushed God from His throne and installed Man in His place. Whether it has been through worshipping New Age spiritualities that promise to unlock your inner god, or through embracing pseudo-psychologies that preach self-empowerment and self-actualization, our society’s self-worship has risen to levels never before seen in our nation’s history.

And now we have reached a new plateau: American citizens looking to a politician to lead them to the Promised Land.

Unbelievable.

How many times does history need to repeat itself before people realize that salvation is not of this world and that it will not be brought by any human other than he who was both God and man, our Lord Jesus Christ. Americans need to be reacquainted with John’s Gospel:

But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men, and because he needed not that any should give testimony of man: for he knew what was in man. (John 2: 24-25)


Donald Tremblay

Time to Clean House

The current issue of the New Oxford Review examines Leon Podles latest book, Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church. (http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0708-bower) Podles is also the author of The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity. Reviewer Paul Bower describes Sacrilege as “thoroughly researched and painstakingly detailed” and adds that it “inspires anger and disgust”. Among the more shocking allegations in the book is that there has been “networks of child-abusers in the priesthood, some of which spanned entire geographic regions and crossed several diocesan borders. The most notable of these were in New Mexico and Iowa .” According to Podles it is a desire for power, and not sexual gratification, that drives these abusers. They are classic narcissists in his view.

At 675 pgs Sacrilege should provide a wealth of information. I am eager to read the tome since Podles take on the sexual abuse crisis differs so widely from my own.

A Feb 2007 article in the National Catholic Register (http://ncregister.com/site/article/1876) states that “between 75% and 80% of the abuse involved adolescent male victims”. Some argue that the reason so many of the victims are males is because the abusers had greater access to boys than to girls. Possibly. But I tend to agree with the analysis of Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital , who argues that “the abuse crisis wasn’t pedophilia but ‘homosexual predation on American Catholic youth.’” Why homosexual predation and not pedophilia? The overwhelming majority of the victims were adolescent males, not prepubescent children of both sexes. There is a major psychological difference between the two. Acknowledging this distinction is essential because only by properly defining a problem can you expect to solve it.

So what should the Church do to prevent this disgrace from happening again?

Pope Benedict’s apology on behalf of the Church and his willingness to confront the issue is an excellent first step. In addition, the standards spelled out in 2005 by the Congregation for Catholic Education are a very important step in preventing future abusers from entering the clergy:

“In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.” (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=40891)

But the cleansing of the seminaries should not end here. The Church needs to purge the seminaries of those ecclesiastics who have allowed or encouraged the gay subculture to exist in seminaries. Numerous articles and books have been written about this subculture. Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose is probably the most recognizable. Among the sickening tidbits exposed by Rose are the nicknames given to some American seminaries: “Notre Flame” for the Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans ; “Theological Closet” for Theological College at the Catholic University of America in Washington , D.C. ; and the “ Pink Palace ” for St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore .

After classifying the church sexual abuse crisis as “homosexual predation on American Catholic youth,” Dr. McHugh added, “’I’m astonished that people throughout America are not talking about it, thinking about it, and wondering about what the mechanisms were that set this alight.’” We the laity need to assume this responsibility. Stiff resistance can be expected from entrenched ecclesiastics who favor the status quo, so we need to actively and zealously support the clergy who want to enforce these “changes”. In a society where Catholic doctrine and dogma is anathema, reform-minded clergy desperately need our reinforcements.

“Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18) Although we may take comfort in knowing that the Lord is protecting His Church, we cannot use this knowledge to absolve ourselves of responsibility. We are soldiers of Christ and we are called to defend His Church against the gates of hell.


Donald Tremblay

Click here to hear what the Pope is talking about

Who Are You?

A disturbing article has been posted on the Christian Newswire (http://christiannewswire.com/news/568387358.html) There is a group called the Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc (CRCOA) who are accusing the Knights of Columbus of failing to “to expel pro-abortion and pro-homosexual politicians” from their midst. Boston CRCOA member John O'Gorman accuses the Knights of Columbus of the following:

“On June 14, 2007, at least 16 members of the K of C in the legislature defeated the efforts of 170,000 signatories to put traditional marriage on the 2008 ballot. 170,000 signatures far exceeded the required number to place the question on the ballot! Seven of these K of C politicians have the highest ratings from the USA 's biggest abortionists, Planned Parenthood, who performed 289,000 abortions in 2006. On 4/May/08, Supreme Advocate (lawyer) Paul Devin, who gave money to Pro-Abortion politicians Ted and Joe Kennedy (OpenSecrets.org), ruled that a State Convention resolution by Grand Knight Joe Craven to suspend pro-abortion and pro-gay politicians was 'unconstitutional'."

This is a disgrace should any of it be true; though, I am hardly surprised by it. Groups like the Knights of Columbus may have been relevant in the 1950s and 1960s, but by the late 1970s and the 1980s they were virtually non-existent in many neighborhoods. The people of my generation probably knew more about Ralph Kramden’s raccoon lodge then we did about Catholic men’s clubs like the K of C. In fact, despite being a loyal Sunday churchgoer, I wasn’t even aware that the Knights of Columbus was a Catholic organization until I was in my late teens. What does that tell you about how it promotes itself as a Catholic organization?

Come to think of it I cannot remember a single time when the words “Knights of Columbus” were ever uttered by a priest before, during, or after Mass.


Donald Tremblay

Smaller, But More Devout

An interesting column can be found on www.spirit.daily.com entitled “DOES POPE AIM TO BRING CHURCH BACK BY MAKING IT SMALLER, PURER, MORE

DEVOUT?” (http://www.spiritdaily.com/smallchurch.htm) Perhaps Pope Benedict is reading the signs of the times. Secular humanism has enticed many in this world, reminding one of Christ’s words that His second coming would be preceded by the deception of many. This deception would naturally lead to a smaller, more zealous flock. Smaller because of the loss of those lead astray; more zealous because those who withstood the trial by fire emerged spiritually stronger. Could the Pope have this in mind?

Another reason the Pope may be working towards a smaller, purer Church is for ecclesiological reasons, as is mentioned by Dr. Joseph Maucier in The Millennial Papacy.

"We might take a moment here to ponder the thoughts of Pope Benedict on the character and activity of the Church in the coming decades of the third millennium. His analysis is not economical but ecclesiological. Nonetheless he looks at both possibilities. Pope Benedict has spoken of a smaller, more faithful Church as perhaps the model of the Church for these perilous times, not unlike the early Church in its intense solidarity.”

There’s a lot to be said for Maucier’s view. Arguably, the Church never flourished as much or saw a greater intensity of devoutness than in the early days of its inception. Despite the persecutions its sized continued to grow exponentially. One might even argue that it grew as quickly and as strongly as it did because of the persecutions. Many believe the Church is facing its greatest persecution since those early days. If so, that smaller, purer approach may be just what is needed.

After all it did work once.

Donald Tremblay

We Are Not Expected To Be Perfect, But To Be Made Perfect

The spiritually zealous often labor to live sinless lives. They want to live for Christ alone and to completely reject their own wills in favor of Our Heavenly Father’s Will. It is commendable, but unrealistic. In fact, more than being unrealistic, it is a complete misunderstanding of what God expects from us.

Throughout history God has chosen the most unusual people, unusual by the world’s standards, to fulfill His wishes.

David became King of Israel and one of the most revered figures of the Bible. Yet, this is the same man who became criminally drunk with power. He slept with and impregnated a married woman (Bathsabee); then, after finding out about her pregnancy, he compounded his sin by sending her husband, Uriah, to “the front of the battle, where the fight is strongest: and leave ye him, that he may be wounded and die.” (2 Kings 11:15) All this so that he could have Bathsabee to himself.

St. Peter, “the Rock upon which I will build My Church”, three times denied knowing Christ when accused by others of being a disciple.

St. Paul, perhaps the best example of a strange choice by God, was originally Saul of Tarsus. Before his conversion Saul persecuted and killed Christians.


These men certainly appear to be a motley crew intimately familiar with sin—which is exactly what God expected and wanted.

Humility is a Catholic’s best friend. God wants people who are open to His mercy and to obeying His will. Sometimes it is those who sin most who recognize their weaknesses and are thus more open to God’s care.

In her book The Way of Divine Love, Sister Josefa Menendez makes it clear that during her near-daily visits from the Lord that it is her nothingness that appealed to Him. She quotes Him as follows:

“That soul may and will fall often again, but if she humbles herself, if she recognizes her nothingness, if she tries to repair her faults by little acts of generosity and love, if she confides and surrenders herself once more to my Heart . . . she gives Me more glory and can do more good to other souls, than if she had never fallen.” (p 199)

The same is said by the Lord to Sister Mary of the Holy Trinity:

“I love you because you are so, so wretched . . . I love you because you cannot do without me.” (The Spiritual Legacy of Sister Mary of the Holy Trinity, p 87)

It is when we recognize our weaknesses and our need for the Lord’s guidance that He is most with us. During these times our humility opens the door of our soul wide to allow Him entry. When confronted by their sins, the three biblical greats mentioned above displayed great humility:

The Lord sends the prophet Nathan to David to tell him a parable about a rich man, a poor man, and a ewe. The rich man must provide a feast for a visiting guest. Rather than kill one of the many sheep or goats he owns, he takes the only sheep owned by a poor man. The poor man is saddened since this ewe was raised as a member of the family. Outraged, David promises to punish the rich man, only to learn from Nathan that he is that rich man. David doesn’t offer excuses or attack Nathan. Instead he confesses, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2Kings 12:12)

Following his third denial of Jesus, Peter hears the cock crow and remembers Jesus’ prediction of betrayal. Devastated, the apostle “wept bitterly“. (Matthew 26:75) Does the Lord abandon him? Hardly. He becomes the first Pope, the first Bishop of Rome. Moreover, in his later years Peter is given the strength by the Holy Spirit to erase his betrayal. Facing crucifixion Peter refuses to deny the Lord and instead embraces the same death as Christ. (Peter reportedly chooses to be crucified upside-down, believing he is not worthy to die in the same manner as the Lord)

Saul goes blind after seeing a vision of the Lord. His sight returns after being touched by Ananias. Saul is humbled and embraces Christ as his Lord. He changes his name to Paul and spreads Christ’s gospel further than any human in history—all while enduring physical attacks, imprisonments, and threats of death.

It is the Lord who makes us perfect through our willingness to be transformed. We can no more make ourselves perfect than a leopard can remove its spots. Let God be God and He will take care of the rest.



Donald Tremblay

A Get Out of Jail Free Card...Not

The Pew Forum released a report today reminding Catholics, albeit unintentionally, of the damage caused by the misguided notion of "primacy of conscience."

"A newly released study from the Pew Forum shows that many self-described American Catholics ignore Church teachings on both theological and social issues." (http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=89626) According to the report, "the Pew Forum found that 48% of Catholics respondents favor legal abortion (16% in all cases, 32% in most cases), while only 18% agree that abortion should always be illegal. A substantial majority of the Catholics polled-- 58%-- said that society should accept homosexuality. On theological issues, only 16% of American Catholics believe that the Church is the one true means of salvation."

This shouldn't surprise anyone given the morally relativistic culture we live in. Your truth is your truth, and my truth is mine, and we agree not to pass judgment on one another. What better fertile ground for the concept of primacy of conscience to blossom?

Australian Archbishop George Pell best defined primacy of conscience as "secular relativism with a religious face." Dissenting Catholics embrace primacy of conscience as their "get out of jail free card", because it allows them to justify their refusal to accept Church teachings: "After all, I'm just following the conscience that God gave me. I'm making the choice I feel is right. How can I be held responsible for a bad choice if I only followed my heart, my conscience?"


Well, guess what? You will be held responsible.


The problem with primacy of conscience is that it assumes the conscience in question is mature and well-formed. In many cases this is not true. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following in regards to the formation of our consciences:


“In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church” (Catechism, 1785).


Refusing to be 'guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church' is to willfully reject the proper formation of our consciences. Our consciences stagnate, leaving us in a state of ignorance for which we are responsible:

"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man 'takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.' In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits." (Catechism 1790, 1791)

Pray. Pray for those who willfully scorn the Church's teachings and for those who mistakenly believe that our consciences alone can distinguish between right and wrong. Otherwise, there will be many smiling souls who will be surprised to learn that the path they are treading leads not to the Beatific Vision, but to the place where Dante warns, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." (Inferno, Canto Three)


Donald Tremblay

Adam and Eve . . . Or is it Cornelius and Zira?

“Take your stinking paws off me you damn, dirty ape!”

This famous line from the film classic The Planet of the Apes has taken on new meaning thanks to a decision last week by the Spanish Parliament: “Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.” (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL256586320080625) According to Reuters, “Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain 's penal code.”

I kid you not.

If it wasn’t so frightening it would be laughable.

"This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project. Evolutionary comrades? Although it would be tempting to dismiss these ridiculous comments as proof of an unknown gas leak in the Spanish parliamentary building, Pozas statements are in actuality indicative of the chaotic views of our increasingly secular, anti-Christian western society.

Scripture tells us that God made Man in His own image. Secularism rejects God and tells us that Man is merely a rational animal, with the emphasis placed on the word animal. Few realize that once God is rejected, Man’s self-view as a transcendent creature with the authority “to fill the earth, and subdue it” is discarded as well (Genesis 1:28). Ultimately, Man is of no greater value than an ape, or any other creature, despite Christ’s words to his apostles as he sent them off on their first mission:

“29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows.” (Matthew 10: 29-31)

Proof of this equating animal life with human life can be found among the extreme sect of the animal rights movement. Here are a few examples from news items published during the past few years:

· During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage. (ADL - http://www.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/Ecoterrorism.asp)

· On July 30 the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair unveiled its latest plan to combat extremists operating on British soil. Irish Republican Army militants? Islamist radicals? No: animal-rights activists. (Aug 30, 2004, Business Week-European Business: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_35/b3897069_mz054.htm)

• Officials in Indian-Kashmir have poisoned hundreds of dogs and aim to kill all 100,000 strays in the region's main city - saying the animals pose a risk to humans and make urban life unbearable. With the world's highest rabies fatality rate, India has long struggled to control its millions of stray dogs, a problem exacerbated by rapidly growing cities and slums. Animal rights activists vowed Thursday to go to court to stop the slaughter planned by Srinagar , saying it is an illegal and cruel solution to a problem that could be addressed in other ways. (Associated Press - Friday, March 7, 2008: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNT2VEUPC.DTL)

Spain may be the first nation to devalue human life by officially proposing measures that subordinate Man to the level of the animal kingdom, but don’t expect it to be the last. In fact, don’t be surprised if the United Nations jumps on board and adds a “Wildlife Civil Rights” clause to its charter.

Donald Tremblay

Job: A Man for All Ages

In 1981, Harold S. Kushner wrote the bestseller When Bad Things Happen to Good People. Why good people suffer is a question we ask daily when we open a newspaper or turn on the evening news. Tens of thousands of innocents die in an earthquake or a tsunami; young, hard-working husbands and wives are stricken with terminal illnesses or are the victims of violent crimes. The amount of suffering in the world overwhelms the mind. As Catholics we believe that “all is part of God’s Plan”. Yet no explanation, not even this one, satisfies the intellect or the emotions. One is forced to learn that it is only Faith that is capable of navigating a person through these existential dilemmas. And there is no better biblical tale to explain this than the Book of Job.

Job is an honorable and righteous man who loses everything. His family is killed; his livestock is captured or killed; and he is afflicted with an ulcer that reaches from the “sole of the foot even to the top of his head” (Job 2: 7). Having lost virtually everything the distraught Job demands an explanation from God as to why he has been victimized by this evil. Job expects God to justify His actions. God responds defiantly:

1” Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: 2 ‘Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? 3 Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. 4 Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding.’” (Job 38: 1-4)

And later:

3 “’Wilt thou make void my judgment: and condemn me, that thou mayst be justified? 4 And hast thou an arm like God, and canst thou thunder with a voice like him?’” (Job 40: 3-4)

Stunned and realizing that the servant has no right to question the master, Job apologizes profusely:

2 “’I know that thou canst do all things, and no thought is hid from thee. 3 Who is this that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have spoken unwisely, and things that above measure exceeded my knowledge. 4 Hear, and I will speak: I will ask thee, and do thou tell me. 5 With the hearing of the ear, I have heard thee, but now my eye seeth thee. 6 Therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes.’” (Chapter 42: 2-6)

Job learns the difficult lesson that we all must learn: God’s ways are not our ways. And because He is the Omniscient Creator, He is not required to justify His actions to us, His creations. Our responsibility is to accept and trust in His decisions, acknowledging that His plans are beyond our understanding.

Make no mistake about it. This is a lifetime endeavor that does not sit well with our emotions or our intellect. Our instincts tell us to rise up in rage against God . . . and that is okay. God doesn’t expect us to be robots. What He does expect from us is Faith—Faith in His mercy and His love. Faith is not an emotion. It is an act of the Will. It doesn’t mean living life oblivious to evil and suffering. Quite the contrary it means that despite evil and suffering you believe that ultimately our lives are in God’s protective hands. Faith is the reed NOT swayed by the wind.

No, Job’s way will not prevent bad things from happening to good people. Nor will it prevent pain and anxiety from reaching us. But it really is our only choice when facing the miseries of this world.

One side note: Interestingly, once Job allows God to be God, his fortunes return in twice the amount he had previously. Perhaps this is the Lord’s way of saying that if we stand fast by our Faith now, the rewards in the afterlife will be greater than we could ever expect.

Donald Tremblay

Bless Me Father, For I Have Sinned . . .

Whatever happened to confession (Penance)? Or as it is now referred to reconciliation? According to a November 21, 2003, Seattle Post-Intelligencer article (Catholic Confession Has Evolved Over Time) “sociologists estimate that fewer than 25 percent of Catholics regularly go to confession, and that nearly 60 percent never or almost never go.” Much has been written about how “there is no such thing as sin anymore in our society”. Although it’s true that moral relativism has infected our society, blurring the lines between right and wrong, good and evil. There’s no denying the fact that the Church dropped the ball for several decades in teaching the importance of this sacrament.

In Vatican II there was a strong feeling that “the fire and brimstone” approach to sin had alienated the flock. In response confession would be renamed reconciliation and would be portrayed as a healing of the rift between the sinner and God, and between the sinner and the Church community. The Church decided that it would stress God’s love and mercy, often to exclusion of all else. As a result a whole generation of Catholic children grew up during the 1970s—of which I am one—who learned that God is Love, but learned little else.

For ex, many adult Catholics mistakenly believe that the General Absolution given during Sunday Mass wipes away our sins and negates the need for confession. Others wrongly believe that because God is Infinite Mercy that He automatically forgives all our sins, again removing the need for us to confess through a separate sacrament of penance. Even worse, a greater majority argue “that I confess directly to God. Why do I need to go through a priest?”

The Gospel of John tells us why we need a priest:

“He [Jesus] said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20, 21-23)

Christ couldn’t have said more plainly.

What is the purpose of confession? Confession cleanses the soul by washing away the sins that soil it. Most people have a misconception that when you die you are sent by God to either Heaven or Hell. No. When you die your soul voluntarily sends itself to Heaven or Hell based on the choices you’ve made in your life. A cleansed soul will naturally seek Heaven, while a soul marred by sins will naturally gravitate towards the abode of the “Man of Iniquities”, which is Hell. Cleansing the soul through confession makes it worthy of eternal salvation and of experiencing the Beatific Vision.

An added benefit of confession is that it “increases the grace of God in the soul” (This is the Faith, Canon Francis Ripley, 2002 edition, p 280). The confessor receives a grace that helps him/her “to avoid sin in the future”. (Ripley, p 287)

Thankfully, within the past decade the Church has placed greater emphasis on the importance of this sacrament. Prior to receiving first Holy Communion children must experience reconciliation. The Church makes an event of the sacrament by inviting the families of the participating children to the ceremony where they watch from a distance as their sons/daughters make their first confessions. The ceremonial character of the event impresses upon children the importance of Penance, and will hopefully serve as the inspiration for a lifetime commitment to it.

Now if we could only convince Catholic adults to believe similarly.

Donald Tremblay

Dignity and Death

The Houston Chronicle today (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5850176.html) reports on Washington State ’s right-to-die initiative (I-1000). According to the Chronicle, “The initiative would let a doctor prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill patients who are believed to have less than six months to live.”

Before I go any further let me make it clear that I am not minimizing the pain suffered by many people. In fact, I am often shocked at the amount of sadness and pain there is in the world. Clearly those victims of it need compassion and assistance; the question is how does one define “compassion” and “assistance”?

Perhaps what I will remember most about Pope John Paul II is the way he faced the final years of his life as his body deteriorated from Parkinson’s disease. I can visualize him standing by open windows, uncontrollably shaking, waving to the flock. John Paul understood suffering and dignity . . . and that is why he insisted that others see him in that broken state. Our Lord suffered the greatest of indignities and the most painful of deaths, and the Polish Pontiff wanted us all to understand that suffering, when embraced, is redemptive and not de-humanizing. When we suffer we walk in the shoes of Christ. One of the wonders and beauties of Christianity is that our Lord doesn’t ask us to accept anything that he himself didn’t also face. We can shake our fists and cry out in anguish to God for our suffering, but we cannot accuse of Him “of not knowing what this pain is like.”

It is often argued by right-to-die advocates that “it is my life, so I should be able to end it as I choose”. No, it is not your life. As The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear, “We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of” (Catechism 2280). Herein lies the fallacy of the right-to-die movement. Only those who have brought about their own lives have the right to dispose of it. Since none of us have created ourselves, we do not have the moral right to eliminate ourselves.

Besides the spiritual arguments there are other problems with assisted suicide. First off is the contention that this initiative will only apply to those who are terminally ill. How does one define “terminal”? Chris Carlson, who was press secretary to former Idaho Gov. Cecil D. Andrus, is spearheading the coalition against the Washington State initiative. In 2005, Carlson was diagnosed with cancer and was declared terminal, and yet three years later his illness is dormant: “’That points to a major flaw in this initiative. Doctors can, with some authority, tell someone they have six months or less to live,’ Carlson said. ‘I was supposed to be dead two years ago, but I'm still here.’"

Add to that the question of whether the sufferer is clear-minded enough to know that ending their life is what they truly desire. Individuals go through stages before they accept their impending death. Anger and depression are normal psychological states that precede acceptance of terminal illness. The sufferer’s desire for immediate death may be a manifestation of these temporary states of mind.

No, suicide is not the answer. The time and money being spent to pass this right-to-die measure would be better spent on research for better pain medications or on initiatives that provide terminally ill patients with psychological care equivalent to the medical attention they receive.

Donald Tremblay

The Scattering of the Flock

After His Crucifixion our Lord appeared to His disciples on several occasions. One of these instances was on the Sea of Tiberias . Several of His disciples were unsuccessfully fishing until He instructed them to cast the net on the right side of the ship. It was then that they recognized Him. According to John’s Gospel there were seven in the group: “There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and Nathanael, who was of Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples” (John 21:2). As they sat around the fire eating the fish they’d caught, the Lord charged Peter to “Feed my lambs” (twice) and “Feed my sheep”. Six other disciples sat with Peter, but only Peter was given these instructions. Why?

“Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)

Through these words Jesus announces to all that Peter would lead the faithful after His death. As stated by the Catechism of Catholic Church, “Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. . . . His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.” (Catechism, 552) The catechism also teaches that “the power to ‘bind and loose’ connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church” (Catechism 553). Thus, Peter becomes the first Bishop of Rome, the first Pope.

Why is this important today?

Today, The Telegraph, a daily newspaper in London , reports that “ Hardline Church leaders have formally declared the end of the worldwide Anglican Communion, saying they can no longer be associated with liberals who tolerate homosexual clergy. The traditionalists dealt a serious blow to Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, by claiming that he can no longer hold the Church together.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2153935/Hardline-archbishops-declare-Anglican-split.html)

The Archbishop of Canterbury does not hold the authority of the Pope. There is no central authority in the Episcopal Church, meaning there is nothing to stop rogue dioceses or movements from scattering the flock. Decisions are made jointly by bishops. Painfully, Archbishop Williams is learning that democracy may be great for governments, but not for religions. The “buck” needs to stop with someone. What is doctrine if there is nobody to enforce it? I am reminded of an adage I learned from one of my college professors: “Never accept ‘No’ from someone who can’t say ‘Yes’.” The liberals in the Episcopal Church have clearly learned this. Archbishop Williams is in no more of a position to strike down their changes than he is to install them as doctrine.

Once again the Holy Spirit-inspired wisdom of the Roman Catholic Church makes itself apparent.

Donald Tremblay

Misunderstanding Faith

On Tuesday Neil Beagley, a 16-year-old boy from a faith-healing family, died after refusing treatment for a medical condition. According to the Associated Press (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368863,00.html), “’He likely had a congenital condition that constricted his urinary tract where the bladder empties into the urethra, and the condition of his organs indicates he had multiple blockages during his life,’ said Dr. Clifford Nelson, deputy state medical examiner for Clackamas County .” In Oregon anyone 14 years of age or older is allowed to refuse medical treatment. A few months ago a toddler cousin of Beagley’s (Ava Worthington) died when her parents allegedly refused to seek medical treatment for Ava’s “bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection”. The AP reports that both families are members of the Followers of Christ church.

Here is an example, a tragic example, of people who do not understand what Faith means. To ignore medical attention is no more a display of Faith than is standing in the passing lane of major Interstate highway and saying, “God will protect me”. These faith-healers are similar to the sects that handle poisonous snakes to “prove” their faith in God. Not only is this foolish, but it also violates the command Christ gave Satan following the Evil One’s final temptation in the wilderness:

And he brought him to Jerusalem , and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and he said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself from hence. 10 For it is written, that He hath given his angels charge over thee, that they keep thee. 11 And that in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. 12 And Jesus answering, said to him: It is said: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Luke 4:9-12)

The faith-healers and the snake handlers are actually guilty of pride. To test the Lord by not treating an illness or by handling poisonous snakes is to treat the Lord as if He is your servant. It is to act as if He is at your beck-and-call. Thus, you are the Lord and not He.

In addition, Catholicism teaches that the human body is the temple of the Spirit. As such, you have a responsibility to take care of it. Life is a gift from God, as are medical advancements. You are to cherish it as a gift. You wouldn’t be happy if through neglect someone destroyed the new car you bought them. It seems logical that the Lord would view your health in the same manner.

Unfortunately, it is too late for Neil Beagley and his 15-month old cousin Ava to learn this.

Donald Tremblay