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

Oh, the Irony

If there weren’t human lives being lost, and many of them at that, the irony would be comical. Liberal feminist groups like NOW made abortion-on-demand their defining issue. What they never anticipated was that this “right” would be used to murder tens of millions of girls. Lifesitenews.com posted an article yesterday announcing that sex-selective abortions are now happening on a “wide scale” in the United States because of the influx of Asian immigrants from countries like China and India where the practice is widespread. (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072401.html) The United Nations says “this practice has already claimed the lives of over 100 million girls worldwide.”

Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (PRI) is incensed because American feminist groups are silent on the issue:

"Where are the feminists when you need them? . . . I challenge the National Organization of Women," says Mosher, "and other feminist groups, to join us in the battle to ban this terrible form of sex discrimination that is killing so many unborn baby girls. Their continued silence only facilitates the killing."

Mr. Mosher should not hold his breath while waiting for this condemnation. You see, feminist groups have backed themselves into a philosophical corner. To criticize an abortion for any reason violates their 1^st commandment: A woman has the right to do whatever she wishes with her body. Any restrictions on choice would compromise this tenet.

A corollary to this commandment is that everything, and everyone, must be sacrificed to the abortion-on-demand cause.

Back in the 1990s when President Clinton was accused of sexual harassing Paula Jones and of receiving oral sex from Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, Americans openly wondered why liberal feminist groups were silent. Barely a word was heard in support of these women. Why?

President Clinton was the most pro-choice chief executive in our nation’s history and neither NOW nor or any other liberal feminist group was going to sacrifice his abortion support for any woman, regardless of the circumstances.

Oh, the irony.

Donald Tremblay

ReplyReply All

Move...8glass 4kidsaccount infoapproved aff pgrmsDeleted ItemsInfo sent out by And...INTRO MERGE LETTERMISCMY DREAM NETWORK-CON...NY DREAM NETWORK- GU...PasswordsPROMO FOLDERSent Items

Religious Entertainment

Yesterday, Catholicexchange.com posted a column entitled, “Hold the Applause: Confessions of a Conflicted Clapper” (http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/07/22/113245/) The op-ed writer says she began to question clapping at Mass after reading then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, which says the following : “Whenever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of the liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment.” (Ratzinger, p198) Religious entertainment is something all churchgoers have had to suffer through. And because of its flawed objective the Novus Ordo mass is the main culprit behind the growing prevalence of this problem.

Following Vatican II the Church decided to “democratize” the liturgy (“Six Marks of the Novus Ordo Mass”, http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/marks.html).They wanted increased laity participation in the Mass, so they changed the liturgy’s objective from that of a sacrifice to one of a celebration. The Traditional (Tridentine) Mass was “a sacrifice linked to the sacrifice of the Cross”, while the New (Novus Ordo) Mass is “a meal linked to the Last Supper”. (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/comparison.htm) The congregation became the focus of the liturgy instead of God. Need examples:

· No longer does the priest face God as he consecrates the bread and wine. Now he must face the congregation as if he is performing for the crowd, sort of like a magician at Radio City Music Hall .

· Parish Councils – Lay members in consultation with the pastor decide on the direction of the Church. In the case of the liturgy “it means that the Mass should be led not just by the priest, but by many lectors or readers taking turns, by many communion ministers, including women and even teenagers, by many ushers or so-called ministers of hospitality, and above all by a parish liturgy committee that decides the style and structure of the various Masses. The cantor or leader of song is another player on the team of the democratic liturgy.” (“Six Marks of the Novus Ordo Mass”)

And no discussion of religious entertainment would be complete without addressing the issue of Church music. Perhaps the best commentary on this disaster is my experience last week at a beach town parish. Prior to the opening of the liturgy, the pianist played a solo that must have been written by Charles Schultz since it can only be described as “Peanuts-like”. From there a set of drums, a violin, an organ, and a guitar were added. (Never did I fathom that a Responsorial Psalm could be turned into a Jazz-like tune with a drumbeat setting the rhythm). Rounding off the Twilight Zone-experience was the performances of the singers themselves. The main singer, a gentleman with a wonderful voice, felt the need to smile and gesture with his arms throughout as if he were giving an aria at Lincoln Center .

And people wonder why Mass attendance is down.

Donald Tremblay

Learn more about the Tridentine (Latin) Mass

The Mystical Body of Christ

Sunday’s gospel reading focused on the “Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat” (Matthew 13: 24-30). In the allegory a gardener sows good seed in his field, only to have someone defile it overnight by adding weeds to it. When the crop emerges the gardener’s slaves see the weeds and ask if they should tear them from the ground. The gardener answers, “No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until the harvest.”

Most commentaries on this parable suggest that Jesus was instructing his followers to be patient with the lost sheep of the flock. In fact, The New American Bible’s footnote (Memorial Bible Publishers, 1976) to the tale explains the “moral of the story” as such:

“The refusal of the householder to allow his slaves to separate the wheat from the weeds while they are still growing is a warning to his disciples to not to anticipate the final judgment of God by a definitive exclusion of sinners from the kingdom.” (New American Bible, p 1174)

The above analysis is logical and corresponds with Jesus’ other parables describing God’s infinite mercy and love. (For ex., from the “Parable of the Lost Sheep” we learn that even the loss of one soul deeply saddens God.) However, after contemplating the Weeds among the Wheat parable, I believe Christ’s message is more concerned with protecting the Mystical Body than with sinners and their exclusion from paradise.

Pope Pius XII discusses the doctrine of the Mystical Body in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi:

“We would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ—which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church—we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression ‘the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ’—an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.” (Mystici, 13)

“That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. ‘Christ,’ says the Apostle, ‘is the Head of the Body of the Church.’ If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: ‘Though many we are one body in Christ.’” (Mystici, 14)

“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

(Mystici, 22)

Catholic thought teaches that Judgment Day will come when the Mystical Body is complete, fully-matured:

“For this reason St. Paul says that Christ is being brought to fulfillment, and thus he achieves the fullness of life, that is, the mystical stature that he has in his mystical body, which will reach completion only on judgment day.”

(The Mystery of Christ in us and in the Church, St. John Eudes)

This eschatological principle is essential to understanding the gardener’s refusal to tear out the weeds. He does not reject the option in the hopes that the weeds will eventually become wheat or because they may serve a future unknown purpose. He rejects the choice because the slaves “might uproot the wheat along with them [weeds].” Tearing out the wheat would prevent it from ripening, maturing to full-growth. Without full-growth the harvest would be incomplete. Similarly, passing judgment on the wicked before the souls of the elect have matured would leave the Mystical Body incomplete, immature.

One final note: When explaining the parable to his disciples, Christ defines the weeds as “the children of the evil one”—hardly a sympathetic term asking for patience. (Matthew 13:38)

Donald Tremblay

Mass Conversion in Rome ’s Future?

Damian Thompson covers the Roman Catholic Church for the London newspaper the Daily Telegraph. His “Holy Smoke” columns often raise issues that you rarely read in American religious publications and virtually never read in our secular newspapers. An example of this can be found in his Wednesday, July 16 column “Benedict is Encouraging Anglican Converts” (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2008/07/16/benedict_is_encouraging_anglican_converts)

Thompson correctly points out that “progressive” American Catholics are horrified at the prospect of a mass conversion of orthodox Anglicans to the Roman Church. In response they are spreading the fallacy that Pope Benedict rejects any support of those in conflict with the Anglican churches latest moves supporting homosexual clergy and women bishops:

“Liberals claim that Pope Benedict has ‘let it be known that he does not support the defection of conservative Anglicans to the Roman

Catholic Church’. He has done no such thing.

The Pope is supporting moves by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to construct a model whereby a group of rebel conservative Anglicans, the Traditional Anglican Communion, can be received en masse and occupy their own structures inside the Roman Catholic Church. This model which is being constructed in secret – could serve as a blueprint for mainstream Anglicans wanting to convert as a group.”

Thompson also reminds readers that this is not the first time that Pope Benedict has supported conservative Anglicans. In 2003 then-Cardinal Ratzinger “sent a personal message of support to conservative Anglicans meeting in Dallas ,” an action that put him in conflict with the Vatican ’s ecumenism representatives.

Read Thompson’s column.

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