Knock and the Door Will Be . . . Locked

I am someone who didn’t finished college until I was an adult. Prior to getting my degree I worked an assortment of miserable jobs that I credit for giving me the motivation to go back to school. One of these depressing jobs, which I quit after three months, was Accounts Receivable Clerk for a jewelry manufacturer. The company was located near Madison Square Garden in NYC. I hated the job and dreaded getting up in the morning. Often my only saving grace was that at lunchtime I could walk to Saint Francis of Assisi Church and pray for the strength to get through the rest of the day. On those days I would eat quickly and hurry to the church to participate in what was left of the midday mass. When it ended I would just sit in the pew and reflect . . . and pray.

I was lucky. Had I worked somewhere other than Manhattan , chances are the churches in the area would have been closed. The days of arbitrarily walking into a church to light a candle or to just pray are a memory. Very few churches leave their doors open anymore. It’s unfortunate. Being able to visit St. Francis of Assisi Church when I needed spiritual inspiration was invaluable during those trying months. And I know I am not alone. Years later when I worked uptown, I would sometimes stop in St. Patrick’s Cathedral during the afternoon. After I passed the tourists milling around the doors, I would often see people intensely praying or even crying because of some hardship in their lives.

It’s a sad fact that in today’s world churches cannot leave their doors open for fear that relics may be stolen, or worse, that violent criminals will use the church as a means to attack people:

· The Houston Chronicle (http://www.nacssm.org/houston_churches_lock_door.htm) published an article on June 13, 2007, about how crime was forcing that city’s churches to lock their doors during non-mass hours: “Faced with thievery and violence, churches increasingly have adopted security measures that, in some cases, are so stringent that the Messiah might face obstacles gaining entry.”

· Just three weeks ago on July 6, 2008, the Chicago Sun-Times printed, “Church Offers Solace but Some Locked Doors”. In the article a parish secretary explained the need for the church closings: “’It's more or less for security's sake, because there's too many places for people to hide,’ said Alvina Donnelly, the longtime secretary at St. Andrew Church on North Paulina. ‘And especially with altar kids around and things like that, you never know what could happen.’" (http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/1041448,CST-NWS-churches06.article)

Who is to blame for the locked doors? We are.

Don’t blame the bishops or the priests. We are the ones who have created a society where virtually nothing is sacred anymore. What a disgrace.

Donald Tremblay

Thou Hast Hid These Things from the Wise . . .

“I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones.” (Matthew 11:25).

As a child these words confused me. Wouldn’t the wise and the learned find it easier to grasp Christ’s teachings? And because of this understanding wouldn’t they be likelier to embrace the Truth? As I aged I realized my assumptions were incorrect: often it is the smarter, more-educated individuals who have the most trouble accepting the teachings of Christ and his Church.

The July 13 issue of the National Catholic Register published a front-page story—“Leaders Weigh in on the Kmiec Controversy”—that indirectly addresses the above issue. (http://ncregister.com/site/article/15383)

Doug Kmiec “is a pro-life Catholic law professor at Pepperdine University who made his name in the Reagan administration, at Notre Dame University and at The Catholic University of America”. To the surprise of many, this past Easter Kmiec announced that he is supporting Barack Obama for president—the same Obama who told a group of abortion supporters last year that “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act”. As the Register points out, if enacted, the bill “would prevent any federal, state or local government entity from restricting access to abortion.” What is Kmiec thinking you ask?

On www.slate.com’s legal blog “Convictions”, Kmiec says, “’I am convinced, based upon his [Obama’s] public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.’” Kmiec’s conviction is curious considering Obama’s “perfect pro-abortion voting record and his campaigning on an abortion-rights platform with the endorsement of NARAL and leaders of Planned Parenthood.” There doesn’t seem to be much open-mindedness there.

Kmiec adds that in his view Obama is not pro-abortion because “’those who are pro-abortion, as I see it, are those who advocate the practice as a matter of fundamental right or as part of a radical feminist agenda that takes no account of the moral weight or significance of unborn life.’” How’s that for rationalizing? I have one question for Kmiec:

If Obama doesn’t defend abortion-on-demand as a fundamental right for women, then why does Kmiec later state that “Obama believes the decision should be left to the pregnant mother”? I’m not an attorney, but leaving the decision to the pregnant mother sounds an awful lot like giving her the fundamental right to have an abortion.

Finally, this next quote wins the award for Most Convoluted Logic. Kmiec contends that John McCain is also pro-choice, despite his perfect pro-life voting record, because he believes that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and that the abortion issue should be decided by the states. Furthermore, he suggests that “’from a standpoint of subsidiarity and prudence, one can make an argument that the Obama position is preferable since it does not arrogate to a higher level that which can be done more effectively below in direct relationship with the mother.’” Father John Neuhaus describes this argument as “disingenuous”. Deceitful is the word that comes to my mind.

But Kmiec is not alone. Many educated Catholics either dismiss the Church’s teachings outright or perform intellectual gymnastics to prove their views don’t violate Church doctrine and dogma. Why is this antagonism toward the Church so common among the learned?

Education is what you make of it. Knowledge is empowering; understanding builds confidence. Unfortunately, as humans we too easily cross the line from confidence to arrogance. As we gain knowledge we often assume that we are shielding ourselves from errors in judgment. We begin to treat our opinions as if they are declarations from the Oracle at Delphi. As with everything else in life there is no substitution for humility. It is important to remember that when our views conflict with the Church’s, we are disputing principles that have been cultivating for 2,000 years. Some of the most intelligent, most educated, and most holy men and women ever to walk this earth have crafted these teachings—all with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

I may not be as smart as Einstein or St. Thomas Aquinas, but I am intelligent enough to know that believing my wisdom surpasses 2,000 years of Catholic tradition is dumb.

Only a fool would believe that.



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