Silence and Reflection

Advent is upon us, that period of anticipation heralding the arrival of that great feast of the Church, Christmas. Advent is one of the two periods of anticipation during the Catholic liturgical year during which the faithful are called to reflection and repentance; the other season, more well known, and perhaps more widely observed, Lent, the preparation for the celebration of Easter. In this post, I wish to discuss one aspect of that call of the Church, that is, reflection. Specifically, I wish to address one of the primary things required to affect that reflection, namely silence.

At my core, I think, deep down under my gregarious veneer, there dwells a monk. It wouldn't surprise me to find this bit of monk buried deep down in all people. It is a symptom of the deep yearning to respond to the tireless call of God to join with Him in that mysterious encounter known as prayer. St Augustine realized this when he made his famous prayer, "Our souls are restless until they rest in Thee, O Lord!" And this is as it should be, not in the sense that we are all called to the cloister, but in the sense that we are all called to spend time in silence; the physical and interior silence which houses the presence of God.


But, and I believe that this is no mere coincidence, our culture discourages, even disdains, silence. The noise that pervades modern life is certainly distracting, sometimes deafening, ultimately blinding. Modern life bombards us with aural and visual stimulation most of it noise, that is, sensory stimulation of no value. Some of this noise has a neutral message, but most, in fact, carries messages of a negative nature and due to its omnipresence we cannot help but absorb some of it.

We are made to feel by our friends , coworkers and relatives, that if we are unable to discuss the intricacies of every play of the football game, that if we are unenlightened as to the hi jinks of the featured dysfunctional celebrity of the week, that if we have failed to download the latest pop hit onto our iPod, that we are somehow not in touch with that which really matters. We are bewildered and benumbed by the minutiae with which we are required to absorb simply to be considered to be in touch with the world.

I am not advocating an extreme position which requires the abandonment of any form of entertainment. What I am advocating is "time out". I'm advocating moderation. What is it about silence that frightens the world? Why does modern culture fear that we should spend some moments of quiet reflection? Could it be that those who would have us heed other sources, other foundations for society realize that in those moments of stillness we could hear the voice of God?
I think that that is exactly the case. The world realizes, as did Elijah, that God is not in the mighty wind, that He is not in the power of the earthquake, but that He is in that small quiet voice that stirs within us, and that, given half a chance to hear that Voice we may just heed its message.

Take some time, then this Advent, to be still. Spend some time in quiet anticipation of the arrival of the Messiah (no, not the President-elect). Turn off the TV set, turn down the car radio, pull the ear buds out of your ear and listen to the small, quiet, insistent voice that you'll hear. The message it speaks is that of great hope. You'll be glad you did it.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Unseen Contradictions

First, a short housekeeping note. If anyone's reading this, please say "hey" in the comments. I'm not trying to stroke my ego, I'm just curious whether this is going into anyone's head, or just out into the vacuousness that is "byte-land".

Now, on to today's business.

I have a very dear young friend whom I'll call "Charles". A handsome young man, possessed of a fierce intellect, Charles was raised with a generic sort of religious faith, a vague theism, but has always been fascinated with things Catholic. His understanding of Catholic doctrine is amazing, his love for the Eucharist is very deep, he prays the Rosary regularly, from time to time he even sneaks into Mass. He's stood for some time at the door of the Church, casting furtive glances at the interior, but remains hesitant to step in.

Recently, Charles and I discussed his hesitance to enter. In response to my query about his conversion quandary, he said that he was "having to much fun sinning right now", and that I shouldn't worry, there was plenty of time for his conversion, it'd happen sooner or later because he was still young. Right here in front of me was a perfect example of the proverbial "intellect darkened by sin" spoken of by St Paul. Here was a bright, promising young man, convinced of the truth of Catholicism, balking at the call of the Holy Spirit because of the pleasures of the flesh. I was reminded of the prayer St Augustine had murmured in his misspent youth, "Lord, grant me conversion, but not yet."

His sin, it turns out to no surprise, lies in the discovery of that awesome gift of God known as sexuality. Charles couched his argument for becoming sexually active in terms of "self-esteem". I listened carefully, but limited my response mindful of Chesterton's admonition "that one foolish word from the inside does more harm than a hundred thousand foolish words from outside". I've since given some thought to the discussion, and now, though I may be too late, make my reply here.

Let me admit, right out of the gate, that I have not always adhered to what I'm about to write. I, like St Augustine, misspent my youth. I wallowed in the same sin and hurt people in the process. Even now, my adherence to that which I expound on here is imperfect. My discovery of the value of restraint is more that of "an old cad who has discovered that celibacy is better than woe" (I can't find the article I read this in, so I can't attribute it, but I love the turn of phrase).

Certainly it's true that one's ego is mightily stoked by the attentions of the fairer sex, especially when those attentions become physical. But one must admit that there is a certain personal, as well as spiritual satisfaction to know that one is able to exercise self-restraint and self-discipline. These characteristics serve one well throughout life, and can be mighty ego boosters as well. It is not in submitting to desires and fears that we find men becoming saints or heroes, it is resistance to temptation that makes a saint, it is clinging to beliefs in the face of the ridicule and opposition of others that makes a hero.

Since Charles is engaging in sexual activity as a pastime, as a means of boosting his self-esteem, it's not his purpose to engage in acts of procreation. Therefore, it's quite probable he's using some form of contraception. By doing so, he's falling into a couple of great traps of the contraceptive mentality that I fear he's failed to consider.

First and foremost, he runs the risk of objectifying his partner. At the heart of the Catholic philosophy lies the ideal of the inherent dignity of each and every person as an individual. The sex act, once uncoupled from its procreative purpose, becomes merely a form of entertainment; one's partner becomes nothing more than that by which one obtains pleasure, an instrument of that pleasure, no longer a person.

Further, Charles has neglected to consider the link between contraception and abortion. This failure runs contrary to his deep pro-life convictions. Consider this, there is no means of birth control which is foolproof (and I'm not using the word "fool" lightly, for there's nothing in this world like sex to make a man act the fool). In spite of this widespread knowledge, and the universal knowledge of the natural purpose of our sexuality, we are often surprised when a pregnancy results in spite of "precautions" and we panic at the thought of the responsibility we now face, that of raising a child. Hence, there's Plan B, abortion.

Finally, those habits we establish in our youth are generally those to which we adhere for the rest of our lives. If, in our youth we deny the exclusivity of sex, then we are more apt to do so as we get older. Even when we think we're ready to "settle down" and get married, we find the temptation to violate the marital bond so much easier to break since we have detached the sacredness from the act.

This is a short examnination of a subject on which so much has been written. Humanae Vitae, the awesome and prophetic encyclical of Pope Paul VI forms much of my thought here.

I know that, from time to time, "Charles" stops by here. I'm sure that, as insightful as he is, he will recognize himself. I hope he knows that I write this because I care, that I don't condemn him. I don't possess any moral high ground from which to preach here and he knows it. I only speak that which St Paul calls "the truth in love".

Charles, LYNS!

St Charles Lwanga, patron of black Catholics and converts, pray for us!

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Giving Thanks vs Pay as You Go II

In my last post I looked into the clash of cultures occurring between the Spanish Conquistadores and the Aztecs in the 16th century. I primarily saw the Aztec religion as the last great civilization to pay homage to demons in the guise of gods through a purely religious medium. This thought was inspired by the combination of the writings of G.K. Chesterton, and a couple of documentaries I saw on TV.

The war on childhood

I ended with a thought of thanks that we had moved beyond such episodes in out history, that the evil of human sacrifice had been excised from the human experience. Or had it? Again, the voice of Chesterton in The Everlasting Man gave me pause:

"...it may be noted as not irrelevant here that certain anti-human antagonisms seem to recur in this tradition of black magic. There may be suspected as running through it everywhere, for instance, a mystical hatred of the idea of childhood. People would understand better the popular fury against the witches, if they remembered that the malice most commonly attributed to them was preventing the birth of children. The Hebrew prophets were perpetually protesting against the Hebrew race relapsing into an idolatry that involved such a war upon children...This sense that the forces of evil especially threaten childhood is found again in the enormous popularity of the Child Martyr of the Middle Ages. Chaucer did but give another version of a very national English legend, when he conceived the wickedest of all possible witches as the dark alien woman watching behind her high lattice and hearing, like the babble of a brook down the stony street, the singing of little St. Hugh."

Is it just coincidence that the primary gods of Carthage, Baal and Moloch, favored the children of the Carthaginian nobility as their victims? What can we make of the claims by their non-Aztec contemporary vassals, the Mexica of Central America, that one in five Mexica children were levied as sacrificial victims for the Aztec gods?

Coming full circle

There are those who contend that religion is evil because it leads to such acts. They point out that human reason divorced from faith has defeated the superstitions that gave rise to such acts. I respectfully must call, please pardon the vulgarity, "bullshit" on those who take this point of view.

We have found new idols, however divorced from the influence of religion they seem to some, to whom we offer the blood of our children. In numbers exceeding those attained by Carthage, in scale far surpassing the bloody efficiency of the Aztecs, we offer the sacrifice of our unborn children to Chesterton's demons walking "abroad like dragons" through that thoroughly modern scientific ritual known as abortion. In the United States alone four thousand children a day, fully a quarter of those conceived, are dispatched by the knives of abortionists in payment to the gods of progress, convenience, comfort and freedom. We've come full circle.

Thanksgiving

Which brings me to the point of these two posts.

Today is Thanksgiving, a holiday ostensibly set aside for giving thanks to whatever higher power we individually subscribe to.

Some will give thanks to the gods of the religion of humanity. Demons masquerading as gods who demand that most precious substance for the sustainment of our way of life. I, however, will follow the path of the psalmist, "Never will I offer their offerings of blood. Never will I take their name upon my lips." (Psalm 16)

No, I, personally, choose to give thanks to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who led His people through the wilderness; the God who sheltered them from taking up the abominations which surrounded them in abundance in the ancient world. I will give thanks to Him for the universe he designed to operate to my benefit without payment, which He bequeathed to me as a gift.

Happy Thanksgiving and as always, until next time, all the best. Joe

Giving Thanks vs Pay as You Go I

It sometimes amazes me the way that things come together. Or maybe it's just the way that things get put together in my head. This is the first of a two part post.

Demons and gods

First, I happened to be rereading (go figure) G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. In the book, Chesterton dissects the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage, normally cast as a struggle for economic supremacy, and comes to the conclusion that it was actually a war between demons, masquerading as gods, demanding human sacrifice; and struggling philosophy with its nascent realization of the basic human rights. Chesterton says that in the ancient world "demons often walked abroad like dragons. They could be positively and publicly enthroned as gods. Their enormous images could be set up in public temples in the center of populous cities...overlooked by the moderns who speak of all such evil as primitive and early in evolution. That, as a matter of fact some of the highest civilizations of the world were the very place where the horns of Satan were exalted, not only to the stars, but to the very face of the sun."


The Aztecs

Then, the other night I was watching The History Channel (it may have been History International, I'm not sure, it was like 3:00am) and they aired back to back documentaries about the Aztecs. The first was a fascinating piece covering the alleged sacrifice of 20,000 (yes, that's twenty thousand) human victims over a period of four days during the re dedication the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan (bear with me, I'm working from memory here) in 1487. It was pretty much a forensic kind of "could they really have done this" thing. The conclusion of those involved was a solid "yes". It was pretty chilling stuff actually.

The second documentary focused primarily on the conflict between Hernando Cortez and Montezuma. The gist of the film ended up being that the ignorant Cortez, blinded by his Catholic worldview and lust for wealth, ignored what essentially amounted to a simple misunderstanding between cultural worldviews. It was the contention of the film makers that the Aztec view that the gods required human blood to maintain the universe was just as valid as Cortez's "Eurocentric" view that the universe was a system designed by a God who allowed it to function on its own. The Aztec view was that man was required to "pay as you go"; the European view was that the universe was the gift of a benevolent God.

The errors

I have no issues with the first documentary. It was fairly cut and dried and seemed to realize that there is such a thing as an objectively evil act, and that the Aztec civilization was based on such evil. The second missed this point entirely. In fact, the second documentary actually attempted to excuse the Aztec evil as being valid, since definitions of what is evil varies from culture to culture. That view is rubbish!

In order to illustrate Aztec knowledge of the abhorrence of their actions, let's examine the history of that meeting between Cortez and Montezuma. During their initial meeting, Montezuma himself, the most powerful man on the continent, conducted the new arrivals on a tour of his capital. Tellingly, he saved the Grand Pyramid for the last stop on the tour. Its purpose was readily apparent to the Spanish. Montezuma's guided tour was not an act of mere hospitality designed to acquaint his visitors with the quaint practices of his benign empire. Not at all. Montezuma's purpose was to let the Spanish know that which every other people whom he Aztecs had subdued already knew all too well; that is, the fate (victims of human sacrifice) which awaited the interlopers if they stepped out of line.

As one who believes in the existence of the preternatural, I wholeheartedly agree with Chesterton's contention that there are demons who masquerade as gods. I further agree with his assessment that these demons actually produce results which benefit, or seem to benefit, those cultures who deny the natural law inherent in all men and fall into their thrall. Hence we see the concern of the Abrahamic God when His people fall into apostasy and the punishments visited upon His people for that apostasy; we see the harsh treatment of those idol worshipping civilizations by His people when they conquer those peoples. It is illustrated in the cry of Cato before the Roman Senate that "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed), not merely brought to heel. Cortez, with a handful of Spanish Conquitadores brought down the greatest civilization ever to exist on a newly discovered continent. An outraged world united to battle the evil of European Fascism whose highest priority, even in the midst of the fight for its very survival remained its extermination of an entire race.

Thankfully, this chapter of our history has been closed. Our civilization, our culture has progressed beyond this point. Or has it? Tomorrow (I hope) we'll see.

Until then, all the best. Joe

The Basis of Barack Obama's Political Philosophy

I posted on 11/20/2008 "Catholic Influence on American Government" examining Christian influence on the foundational philosophy of the Founding Fathers. There's an interesting article today outlining Barack Obama's views on the basis of the Republic at http://www.thecatholicthing.org/ . It gets to the crux of the matter much better than I did.

Thoughts on the Feast of Christ the King

Today (Sunday) is the Feast of Christ the King according to the liturgical calendar of the Church and, of course, the Gospel reading was from St Matthew. I love the Gospel of Matthew. Don't get me wrong. The other Gospels are awesome as well; Luke with its awesome prayers; Mark, the memoirs of St Peter; St John's beautiful prologue. But St Matthew, with his emphasis on the kingship of Jesus Christ just resonates powerfully for me.

Let me tell you why I love St Matthew so. When, shortly after my wife's death, I first got serious about religion again, I set out to read the whole Bible. I started with the New Testament, and I started in the traditional order (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Over and over again, it struck me that Matthew emphasized the kingship of Jesus, Of course, I had attended a Catholic high school, so this idea was already in my head, but this time it dawned on me, I finally got it.

But here's the thought that really floored me as I read on and on. Matthew calls Jesus "the Christ", that is, "the Anointed One" (not to be confused with "the one", there's a hell of difference between being anointed by Jesus Christ and being anointed by Oprah). In the Old Testament, prophets and kings were anointed. Jesus, the Anointed One, the King. Kings, at least good kings, are pretty serious guys. They mean what they say. Not only that, but they just don't hang out, they have a Kingdom, and those Kingdoms are pretty well defined places. I mean this King, Jesus, tells us that the Kingdom of God is among us. But where?

Then, in chapter 16, like a thunderbolt, it comes out of nowhere. The King turns to His trusted retainer, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the powers of death will not prevail against it..." Where Peter is, there is the Church! Wow!

I had, for along time, held the opinion that religion was a private affair between me and my God, and so, I distrusted "organized" religion. But here was the King, handing on His Kingdom to a man he trusted, St Peter. How could I love the King, but distrust His Kingdom?

And, of course, there was only one place, only one Church, where I could find an unbroken line of succession which, when traced to its beginning, orginates with St Peter, the Catholic Church. At last I was at home, at last I had found the Kingdom. I knelt at the feet of the King.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

They Both Have a Dream

I was watching a recent episode of Judge Mathis (those court shows are my secret vice. Yeah, I love 'em). The shows are syndicated and are obviously taped well in advance of their air date, but in this particular episode, as an aside, Judge Mathis mentioned that Barack Obama's acceptance of the nomination of the Party for President of the United States would coincide with the date of Dr Martin Luther King's powerful I Have a Dream speech. Dr King's speech galvanized the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's.

This set me to thinking that it might be appropriate (however belated I am) to compare their dreams. Dr King's words appear in quotes. Mr and Mrs Obama's words, where cited, appear in italics. My commentary appears in blue text.

"I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream."

Michelle Obama: For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country...

Granted, Michelle is not Barack. That being said, it must be fair to say that they share a lot of core beliefs, one of which seems to be that the American dream of which Dr King spoke is a phantasm. It seems to me that Dr King saw in the American dream something worth attaining. It seems to me that Dr King saw something worthwhile in the America which preceded him, something of which to be proud. Dr King saw, as Mrs Obama fails to see the struggle amongst the Founding Fathers to come to grips with the "peculiar institution" of slavery. Dr King saw the blood willingly shed to end that peculiar institution. Dr King saw the soul of a generous nation striving to cast off the remnants of that great evil. He saw nation will to expend its blood and treasure in the defense of freedom in struggles against tyrannies. Dr King could see the hope expressed in the blood and suffering, the sacrifice and soul searching of our forebearers. Mrs Obama cannot.

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'"

Barack Obama: ...that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

This was in response to a question regarding the point at which life begins. Mr Obama has no idea when a "man" becomes a "man". Hence, he, who will take the oath of office as President of the United States on January 20th, has no idea when the rights guaranteed by the Constitution he will vow to "uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic" attach to a human being! I'm 47 years old and cannot, with any certainty say whether Mr Obama thinks that I'm alive and whether I have rights! But we all know from high school biology that when egg and sperm unite to form a fetus that the genetic makeup is that of a unique individual. It's DNA is, from the moment of conception distinct from that of either parent. Theologically the issue is even more succinct, as God reveals to us through the prophet Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." Even if one were not certain of that scientific fact, or of the Divine Revelation through the Christian Scriptures (which faith Mr Obama professes to believe) logic would dictate that we err on the side of caution and assume that life begins at conception.

"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice."

Barack Obama: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

Mr Obama favors this legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, which clearly states, "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

The sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will not sit on the table of brotherhood, but will recline together on the altar of convenience, presided over by the high priest of the religion of selfishness, the abortionist.

Mr Obama sees the red hills of Georgia tinted with the blood of children; he sees Mississippi's struggle to become an oasis of freedom and justice turned back upon itself so that the bodies of innocents may be consumed in sweltering ovens

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Barack Obama: I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.

I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by which side of the womb they are on, but will be given the opportunity to be judged by the content of their character.

What a sad thing it will be for Mr Obama's children to one day read this statement and wonder whether they were the blessing that Mr Obama surely must view them as, or whether they were a "punishment" for their parents folly. I was adopted by my parents. I was probably born out of wedlock, quite fortunately before the era when abortion was an alternative solution to an unplanned pregnancy. I was dearly loved, I was never viewed as someone else's punishment which had been foisted upon them. I am not now a punishment to anyone, I have never viewed myself as a punishment, I am, quite simply, Joe.

Children are not a punishment, they are the goal intended by the sex act for nature. It amuses me when I hear folks talk about "accidental" pregnancies. Were you having sex when you got pregnant? Sounds to me like everything worked just the way it was intended to. Nothing acccidental about it.

I have a dream today.

Dr King had a dream. Mr Obama proposes the nightmare of an expanded holocaust.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

I don't think Dr King pictured these children holding hands on the way to their deaths. I don't think Dr King had in mind the queues at Auschwitz.

"I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day."

Amen, Dr King! Now that's a dream. Perhaps Mr Obama should take another look at hope.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

If Human Rights Aren't Derived from a Higher Authority, Then What?

I changed my mind. Instead of following on with the founding documents of the republic known as the United States, I thought a "what if..." scenario could prove interesting. What if human rights aren't derived from God? Then what...?

Just to recap, we saw that the Founding Fathers were convinced that there was indeed a Creator, who views all men as equals and by extension that the State was obligated to do the same. If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for the State.

If we deny, for any reason, that human rights descend from God we begin to encounter some serious difficulties.

The first is this. The State is not accountable. If rights come only at the whim of the State, then the State (in reality, merely a collection of powerful individuals acting in the name of the collective) has the freedom to restrict, revoke or rescind our rights unilaterally without question. The State becomes the highest extant authority. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Liberty, then, becomes license. Everything that appeals to us as individuals is not in the best interest of the common good, that is, that which makes me "happy" may not be best for the community. The State extends individual rights at the expense of society and society suffers as a result. Don't think that it's true? Take a look at the sorry state of marriage in modern America. It seems to have become nothing more that "serial monogamy". The impact this has on society is reflected in our children's behavior. Soaring teen pregnancy rates, substance abuse, and teen violence all are correlated to divorce rates as children miss the influence of a stable family or the constant model of missing or "absentee" parents. But as long as the individual is happy, what the hey....

As the State denies its accountability to a Higher Power, as liberty becomes redefined to mean that happiness of the individual at the expense of the collective, small, vocal and extreme special interest groups become more powerful. Just take a look at the homosexual rights movement's attempts to redefine marriage. Or the assisted suicide lobby. Or extreme animal "rights" groups.

I'm sure that this subject has been covered in more detail and by greater minds than mine. Maybe I'll find time some day to revisit it and do more justice to it. I think another post may be in order to examine some examples of where the denial of the rights of man as a derived benefit of his Creation by a God might be in order. We'll see.

Till the next time, all the best. Joe

The Influence of Catholic Thought on American Government

I was originally going to post a synopsis of St Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God as a starting point for my examination of the origin of human rights. This made sense to me, but I decided against it since so many examples were already available. A basic tenet of Catholic theology is that the existence of God can be known through the proper use of reason. One of my favorite proofs is http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605uan.asp. Check it out.

Once the existence of a God is established, it's not a far piece of reasoning, at least from a Christian perspective, that if we are sons by adoption through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, then we are all entitled to an equal portion of the inheritance of His Father who created us. If that Jesus Christ is the King by His Father's will, then we are, by that adoption, nobility. We are imbued with a certain dignity, each and every one of us, that cannot be denied.

It should come as no surprise that this line of reasoning found its way into the foundational documents of the United States. Although the members of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention were a varied lot as far as denominations are concerned, most were practicing Christians of one brand or another. Even so, there are those who contend that Christian thought played no role in the establishment of the new nation; that the founders set out to establish a secular nation uninfluenced by their religious views. The notion that these men were somehow able to act uninformed by their most basic beliefs is patently absurd, and is not borne out by what they wrote.

The foundational document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. True, the Declaration does not have the force of law, but it does outline the philosophical underpinnings of the new republic. The beliefs outlined in the declaration guided the actions of the government prior to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1781. It predates the Constitution by eleven years and the Bill of Rights by thirteen years. The philosophy of government expressed in the Declaration is obviously carried to realization in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, so it is on the Declaration on which we will focus here.

A committee of five was appointed to write the document, but in the main its author was Thomas Jefferson, a deist of no particular religious denomination. In spite of Jefferson's somewhat vague religious beliefs, the Declaration of Independence is rife with Christian, even Catholic, thought (only one member of the Continental Congress was Catholic, Charles Carroll of Maryland, and he was not a member of the committee). While much is made of the influence of John Locke and other contemporary philosophers on Jefferson's writing in the Declaration, it is seldom mentioned that another source for the thought expressed is St. Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit writer, theologian and cardinal of the 17th century.

The idea that "all men are created equal", that they are endowed by God with "certain inalienable rights", that to protect those rights "governments are instituted among men", that said governments "derive their powers from the consent of the governed", that when "Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Following that train of thought we see that God is the author of all human rights; that governments are responsible to the people upon whom their power rests; as well as to God from whom their authority derives; that governments who usurp or undermine these rights must be opposed.

I don't know what's next. I'm thinking a brief piece connecting the Declaration of Independence, the foundational document of the Republic, to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the laws that translate that foundation into action. But I never know.

Till then, all the best. Joe

An Open Letter to Vice-President Elect Joe Biden

The following is an open letter to Vice-President Elect Joe Biden which I originally published on Facebook. I thought it fit right in with what I'm trying to accomplish here. It also takes up some space an tme while I work on my next "from scratch" post. Til next time, all the best. Joe

Dear Mr Biden,

May I call you "Joe"?

Please accept my congratulations on your recent election to the office of Vice-President of the United States and on the sweeping victory of your Party overall. Unfortunately, I was unable, in good conscience to support many Democratic candidates due to the Party's opposition to the right of life for the unborn.

Further, I feel I must voice my disappointment with your obscuration of Catholic teachings regarding the sancitity of life for the unborn. While discussion of the concept of when life begins has occured among the Fathers within the Church, none of the Church Fathers, none of the great thinkers of the Church, from the Didache through Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to John Paul the Great has favored or condoned abortion. In the early days of the Church, thinkers like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas had doubts about when life began because they did not have the benefit of modern science. That doubt has, in modern times, been thoroughly eradicated by the knowledge that, from the moment of conception, the DNA of the newply concieved child is totally unique, wholly and totally distiguishable from that of either of its parents. It is, for all practical intents and puposes, a new and unique human being, entitled to the protection extended to every other human life by virtue of that humanity. The death of that entity by natural causes is a tragedy; its death at the hands of another human being is murder, pure and simple.

For Catholics like you and Mrs Pelosi to deny the cold, hard logic of this case is either an act of ingorance, or an act of selfishness. Since you are obviously not, sir, an ignorant man, I must assume that, for the sake of political expedience, you are a selfish man. That is truly a shame, since other than that, I believe I could be the ardent supporter of you personally, and of the Democratic Party overall. As the most prominent Catholic in the public square today, it is your duty to "secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity." Get over your narrow self-interest and do your job.

As the playwright Robert Bolt has the character Thomas More say to Wolsey in "A Man for All Seasons", "...I believe when a statesman forsakes his private conscience for the sake of his public duties, he leads his nation by a short route to chaos." Don't do it, Joe!Rest assured, that I, and many other orthodox Catholics are yearning to stand fully in support of the new government in areas where the policies of that government strive for the common good. Where however, those policies run counter to the common good, count on us standing in vigorous but loyal opposition to the government.

Best wishes and Godspeed, Joe!



Joe Henzler

My Dori

How to even begin this post....

I don't think a chronological story is what's in order here. The timeline of our love is not as relevant as the lessons I drew from that love, the things she taught me knowingly or not. I met her at the little diner I told you about. Her energy, mischievous sense of humor and easy bright smile swept me off my feet. She was beautiful, a small black woman, dark skinned, with shining brown eyes behind round glasses, her hair cut very short, nearly shaved.

I'm not going to canonize her here. She was no saint, but I wasn't either. In the parlance of today, Dori had issues. She'd been deeply hurt several times in her life by those close to her and harbored some deep anger that from time to time would manifest itself in bursts of temper. She suffered from bipolar disorder which sometimes would get the best of her. She was a recovering anorexic. Our relationship had it stormy moments when our "issues" collided. Technically, we probably had no business being together. We did it anyway. We were married in November 2001.

A week after our wedding, Dori was diagnosed with breast cancer. On the one month anniversaery of our marriage, she underwent a lumpectomy followed by six weeks of radiation therapy. Over the course of the next four years, she'd undergo three more surgeries including a mastectomy; chemotherapy; whole brain radiation treatments as she battled her cancer. She never complained.

Dori introduced me to the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. She allowed me to end my period of "white knuckle" sobriety and find healing through the help of a Higher Power who could and would help me, if only I asked.

It was through Dori that I turned back to the God I had abandoned. I learned that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could comfort as a "mother comforts her child". Even when we don't understand what is happening to us, even when others have hurt us, even when hardship stalks us, we are not forgotten. We are more valuable to God than many sparows.

She taught me that suffering could be embraced, that a disease could be a way of living a full life. I learned that some crosses have a purpose. Quiet perseverance in the face of a losing battle can be a victory.

I learned from her that the love of others is the reason for our existence. As difficult as it is, we can and must love all, even those who we think have hurt us the most. Love isn't just an emotion, it's action. We can love through a quiet smile of reassurance, a small gift picked up as a whim at the thrift shop, a phone call to a lonely friend, or a short visit.

I owe her a great debt, but I can't go on. This is far more difficult than I thought and words fail me. I'm sorry. It was three years ago today that she died.

I have a framed copy of a letter by a man named Sullivan Ballou, a soldier in the Civil War. Just before he died at Bull Run, he wrote a farewell letter to his wife. Dori always thought it was the most beautiful thing she'd ever heard. When I think of her I always remember her reading these lines aloud:

"...if the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen among those they love, I shall always be with you; in the gladdest days and the darkest nights..always, always. And if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath; as the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by....Do not mourn me dead, think I am gone and wait for me, for we shall meet again."

An Introduction III

I intend to make this my last installment of my world acclaimed series cleverly titled "An Introduction" . It's my hope that having read this you'll have a better appreciation for the events that have formed me, and for some of the life experiences I bring to the table.

In my last post, I think I left off with my stunned surprise at the failure of my first marriage or the second time. I've already confesses to you the fact that I'm alcoholic. By this time I was firmly in the grip of that dread disease, and if you know anything about alcoholics, then you know that most are convinced that they are the center of the world. It was no different with me. My failure in the domestic arena could not possibly be my fault. I could solve that problem by drinking more. That'd ease the pain.

It didn't work. My job performance plummeted. Bills piled up. Friends got pissed off. I ended up in a deep depression which required hospitalization. It was during this treatment that I made the connection between my life's failures and my love of drink. I don't claim credit for this epiphany, I had to have a professional draw a map for me. It took a while, but I finally managed to connect the dots.

Questions had answers. What did I most want to be in life? An Army officer. Why didn't you become one? I quit university. Why did you quit university? Because I partied instead of studying. Why did your marriage fail twice? Because I was hanging with buddies drinking instead of being with my family. Why don't your friends come around and support you? Because I'm usually out drinking, or sleeping off a drinking bout. Why isyour commander pissed off at you? Because I'm late and doing shoddy work because I'm drinking all night and hung over.

Yes, I really had to pay some guy cash money to point this out to me.

So, I had a problem with drinking. The solution was easy. I'd just quit. So I did. But, what I didn't realize was that I didn't have a drinking problem...I had a thinking problem. Things got somewhat better, but not much. I left active duty.

I moved in with my mother and got a job selling cars. I was actually a pretty good salesman. My mother and I couldn't get along though. Too many rules. I moved in with a friend. Too many rules, we couldn't get along. I got my own shoddy, run down apartment. Not enough rules, I was too tempted by my old habits.

I decided on the old geographic cure. I moved to Georgia with my brother and his family, got a job selling cars. The job went fine, but my brother and his wife had too many rules. The same with the room mate I took closer to the city, too many rules. Our room mate-ship ended nearly in physical fighting. I left Atlanta literally in the middle of the night bound for the home of another kind friend in Indianapolis. I got a job as a waiter, I was really good at that. But, of course, my friends with who I lived had too many rules. It was time for me to have my own place anyway.

I found a nice little apartment in an artsy-fartsy section of town. When I describe the surroundings, I'm sure that anyone familiar with Indianapolis with recognize the locale. It was an old building, dating from the 1920's, brick, with large windows. It stood near a corner. Two doors down was a jazz club. Just north, across the street was a grocery store. Across the street to the west, a bar and grill with awesome burgers. Next door to that, a coffee shop with wonderful sidewalk seating where you could enjoy a smoke and coffee whizz watching the world whizz by. It was a major hangout for all the neighborhood characters, of which there were plenty. Everything was within walking distance, a video store, a barber shop, a dry cleaner, a news stand selling selling tobacco products, even upscale cigars.

The most important feature, though; the one feature which was to change my life forever, was the little diner right next door. The food was bad, inconsistent and rather bland; the coffee reminded me of dishwater; the decor was weird; always crowded, the owner never made money because the employees were giving away the store. But it wasn't the food, nor the coffee, not the decor that made it important. It's importance lay in the woman I was to meet there. She would change my life. Over the course of the next six years she would teach me so much about myself and about others that I may never otherwise have learned. It's through her that I formed some of the most treasured relationships I have today. She is Dori and to her I owe everything.

The next post will be "My Dori". Sorry if my promise to end this series seems deceitful, but after writing this, I realize that to try to summarize Dori in a paragraph would be unfair. You're just going to have to get over it. Until then, all the best. Joe

An Introduction II

So, dear Reader (if I have any yet) I know you've been waiting with bated breath for this second installment of Top Meadow. I can tell you I have too. I generally have no idea what's going to end up on the screen until my fingers hit the keys. So, without further ado, let's get started...

I'm 47 years old, a white male citizen of the Midwestern United States. I've been married three times, twice to the same woman (I have no idea why, either). I'm currently single, a widower, father of two (by my first wife), stepfather of six (the children of my second). My kids live with their mother, we're a bit estranged due to the tension between their mother and I. Four of my six step kids live locally with their dad, we see each other regularly. They're the light of my life.

My birthday's April 30 (cash only please). I'm a Taurus, if you put any stock in that kind of thing (I don't).

I was raised in the midwest, the oldest of three by adoption into a middle class Catholic family. My primary education was provided by the Sisters of Notre Dame. My secondary education by the Oblates of St Francis de Sales. Both of these religious orders have my deepest gratitude. When I finally acknowledged the values they had imparted to me during my formation, I found those values to be true and useful.

In my elementary school days, I entertained thoughts of the priesthood. I really believe it's a pretty common experience for young men who are seriously Catholic. I wanted to attend a high school seminary program. I let my folks talk me out of it, a decision i now regret, but perhaps was for the best.

I was raised in a loving, if alcoholic, home. My father came from a family of hard drinking Germans, so he came by his alcoholism honestly. He was strong as a bull and as stubborn as one, as well. He worked two jobs all of his life. He was a distant man who wanted to love, but really didn't know how to. My mother was of German extraction as well, but they were temperate people. Her way of showing love was material. I have no idea from whence her drinking came.

Following a brief and futile attempt at college, instead of following a religious calling I became a soldier. In the profession of arms I found a home. I excelled. I loved the Army and the Army loved me. In soldiers I found some of the finest people I'd ever met in my life. Although a coarse lot, who must, due to the nature of their job seem a bit distant and gruff, I found most of my comrades to be among the most caring and giving people I'd ever met. Few professions call upon their adepts to sacrifice more than the profession of arms. I love those guys. I ended up spending twenty-one years with the colors, eleven of those on active duty. I was deployed overseas twice.

It should surprise no one, however, to learn that military service is hard on marriages and family life, Long duty hours, deployments, and separation from family is difficult and some are unable to overcome these challenges. My marriage was no exception. Combine that with the family tradition of alcoholism I proudly carried on, my selfishness, and a propensity for marital infidelity and it should be no surprise that my marriage failed - twice. Seriously, she married me twice! The one bright spot of that union is the two wonderful children born of it. My wife has since remarried. I hope she's happy. I pray for it daily. I'm estranged from my children, a bright, energetic and strapping boy; a bubbly, free spirited girl. I miss them very much.

My religious journey during these years suffered as a result of my deteriorating morals. My personal experience is indeed that sin darkens the intellect. I could rationalize all of my behaviors. The young man of my high school years slid from devout to observant; observant to lapsed; lapsed to a vague theism; to deism; to a pronounced agnosticism.

The breakup of my marriage should have been no surprise to me. Actually I was stunned.

Do I have you on the edge of your seat yet, dear reader? I, myself, can hardly wait to see what's next.

In our next installment, An Introduction III (I'll get better with the titles, I promise). I'll deal with hitting bottom and recovery. If you sense the influence of a 12 step program here, you're right.

Until then, though, all the best. Joe.

An Introduction

If you're reading this, I pity you. It's gonna be pretty boring for a bit while I take care of the basics.

The first order of business should probably be a statement of purpose; and after that a bit about myself so you might get an idea about how my ideas are formed. With that foreword out of the way, let's get started...

What am I doing?

I suppose, that if you want to get right down to it (which most folks do) that this blog will focus a lot on the reformation of American culture. Not that I believe I can have much influence, I'm not naive enough to believe that I possess such eloquence, but I want to get my views into the public square even if it means running the risk have having them viewed as a dying shriek as adherents of my worldview are, more and more, seen as the rearguard of a fading conservatism, which they may well prove to be.

What can you expect from me?

You can expect social commentary from an orthodox Roman Catholic perspective on a semi-irregular basis. If ever you should find that my commentary varies from that perspective I encourage you to bring it to my attention. You will find that in most cases, I'll be right.

You can expect plain speaking. I'm not a fan of mental or verbal gymnastics. From time to time you may find my words a bit .....er....hmmm...colorful. I may stoop to vulgarity from time to time, but I'll avoid obscenity. Just be forewarned.

I can, from time to time, get a bit cranky. It's a character defect. I ask you to bear with me and to remember that it's nothing personal. In most cases, after a bit, I'll relent and probably apologize.

You can expect my honest personal opinions. I am not a philospher, nor am I a logician, scientist, doctor, psychiatrist, bartender, politician, mysoginist, communist, Unitarian, beet farmer, or theologian. I have no agenda here other than to express my views. I'm just a guy who tries to view things in the light of faith and reason. Let me know when you disagree because I don't know everything, on the contrary, the longer I'm alive the more I'm forced to concede how little I really do know.

You can expect me to correct errors in fact or reason. I'll try to do so kindly, "try" being the operative word. If I don't reply to comments it's for one of three reasons.

1. I agree. Silence implies consent.

2. I disagree, but am unable to reply in a civil manner.

3. I'm too lazy to be bothered.

Feel free to choose one.

What do I expect from you?

Not much. You're doing me a favor just by reading. I ask your forgiveness if I offend, your forebearance when I err, your civility when we disagree.

Where do I get this stuff?

I'll tell you up front that my actions are undoubtedly formed by my faith. Therefore, my thoughts as expressed here will be formed by Catholic thought.

In philosophy I'm influenced by Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Dietrich von Hildebrand and Jacques Maritain. There is an "is" and we're stuck with it. Yes, I'm a Thomist. Don't like it, don't read it.

In economics I lean towards distributism. I'm sure we'll talk about this later. Don't know what it is? Look it up.

In theology I'm a loyal son of the Catholic Church. I'm a huge fan of John Paul the Great. Pope Benedict is the successor of St. Peter as the Head of the Church established by Jesus Christ. As such, His Holiness, when he speaks ex cathedra (ie, from the chair of Peter) speaks infallibly. This is not my opinion, it is a fact supported by the historical record.

Politically, I'm conservative. Although I voted for John McCain, I'm not a Republican. If I were to align myself with a political party it'd probably be the Constitution Party. I believe firmly in the principle of subsidiarity, that is, the notion that where government influence is required in society such influence should be exerted at the lowest level possible. I feel that the further one gets from the black hole known as the "federal government" the more responsive government is to the will of the people. Hence, for example, the federal government has no business establishing or running a Department of Education. Is that whacked or what? I like the idea of a fair tax, preferably a program that eliminates an income tax altogether. I think a national sales tax is a fine idea.

My heroes tend to be those who have bucked the system, most of them unsuccessfully. St Thomas Becket lost his life defending the rights of the Church against the State; St Thomas More refused to abandon his conscience to conform to the wishes of his sovereign, King Henry VIII, with remarkably unpleasant results ( for both England and St Thomas); G.K. Chesterton, in tribute to whom this blog is named (Top Meadow was his home) was certainly the most prolific, arguably the greatest Catholic writer ever in the English language.

Others you may see cited frequently include John Henry Cardinal Newman, Hillaire Belloc, St Robert Bellarmine, Thomas Jefferson.

What's next?

That's probably enought for today. In my clevery titled next post, "An Introduction II", I'll delve into some personal history. I know you can hardly wait. Until then, all the best. Joe