Top Meadow

Called to Conversion

2010-04-12T12:06:00.000-07:00

The busy Lenten season culminating in the wonderful celebration of the Easter Triduum is behind us. Hopefully this will leave me time to write more here. I really just want to post a short note here to welcome my new friends whom I met helping with the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) at my parish both as friends into my life and home to the Church of Jesus Christ.

I apologize for the times I was caught short or seemed unprepared for your questions. If ever in the future you have questions or concerns about the Faith, feel free to contact me.

I also want to thank you, for in teaching I learned so much. You made me delve deeper into the faith with your questions. This has been a great gift and I don;t know how I can ever repay you for that.

Now the task before you is great. You must live the Gospel. To this end, never stop learning, never stop questioning and seeking answers. You are the heirs of two thousand years of thought pondered by some of the greatest minds the world has known.

Preach the Gospel. And, when necessary, use words.

Pray without ceasing. Remember that our work can be our prayer when we perform our work for the greater glory of God. Place yourself with Jesus Christ becfore the Father for the sake of your loved ones and the whole world.

Persevere. My favorite Catholic writer of the last one hundred years, G.K. Chesterton once wrote that "the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting, but has been found difficult and left untried."

Finally, know that you and yours are in my prayers daily. I ask that you do the same for me.

God bless you all, and til next time, all the best. Joe

Truly, He is Risen!

2010-04-05T09:49:00.000-07:00

What an incredible seventy hours the Easter Triduum is! All the mysteries and perplexities, all the hopes and dreams of the Church compressed into a three day period of prayer and contemplation. Numerous reflections have been written on various aspects of the Triduum by better minds than mine, so I won't dwell on any of those right now. I do, however, want to relate to you what, for me, was one of the most moving episodes.

My parish, St Mary's, is an old parish downtown. The population of the parish is about 60% Hispanic, and special Masses are celebrated in both Spanish and English. At the Easter Vigil Mass, the church was filled to capacity and we had failed to reserve enough pews for the RCIA catechumens and candidates and their families, and since I was busy helping prepare for the Mass, I found myself sitting in a side pew by myself. In front of me a sizable Hispanic family filled the pew to overflowing. The oldest son, a boy of maybe 11 or 12, was forced to sit next to me, a stranger. I prepared to be distracted, as one must especially at the three hour Easter Vigil Mass, to be distracted by fidgeting and fussing youngsters. This isn't a complaint, simply an observation. And there was indeed some fidgeting on the part of a toddler, there was a seven year old who made about three restroom trips.

But the boy next to me was the joy of the night. I've never seen such attentiveness and devotion apparent in a youngster, I've seen it very few times in adults. I think my attempts to participate with my weak "liturgical" Spanish were pretty amusing to him and he was kind enough to help me keep up with the readings and hymns. I was amazed, especially during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This kid, this child, was quite clearly in love with the Mass. as we knelt side by side on the bare floor, his eyes never seemed to leave the hands of the priest and he quietly whispered the words of the Eucharistic Prayer along with Father. He was tranfixed by the drama unfolding before him on the altar and through him I too was taken into that mystery. It was one of the most beautiful things I've ever experienced.

Near the end of Mass, the strangest thing happened. As the boy paged through our shared missal looking for the closing hymn, I leaned down and barely aware that the words were coming out of my mouth, but not feeling the least bit awkward about it I said, "God is speaking to you. You should think about being a priest." He smiled a broad and beautiful smile and replied, "Thanks, I am."

As the closing strains of Jesus Christ Has Risen Today echoed through the church, the boy turned to me and extended his hand. As we shook hands he said, "Happy Easter. He is risen."

"Truly, He is risen", I replied.

Truly, He is Risen.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Naked on the Golf Course

2010-02-13T11:27:00.000-08:00

Don't ask me what nudity and the golf course have in common. I really have no idea. But my 15 year old friend has somehow experienced these two things together. I must really give him credit since he seems to have done so recently and lives in the middle of Montana. Now that's fortitude of the type that one only finds among adolescent males. I'm glad his clothes were nearby.

He has other problems right now, of course. We all do. His other problem is rooted in that oldest of human issues, the problem of evil. It seems that he's abandoned his faith in God because of evil, specifically because of the fact that two young girls he knows were killed by a drunk driver. "Where was God," he demands to know, "when this happened?"

I must admit that this an easy question to ask. Of all the reasons for doubting the existence of a benevolent and powerful God, the old "problem of evil" is certainly the most sympathetic. We've all wondered the same thing. I asked this question long ago and I abandoned God myself. I sought other solutions. The idea of a loving God didn't make sense when I held the hand of my dying mother; it didn't make sense when my wife died in my arms; it doesn't make sense in the suffering of my daughter in her illness.

But giving up on the notion of God poses a new and serious perplexity. We've gotten rid of God, but the evil, the suffering, still exists and we seem to be powerless to do anything about it. We have made ourselves gods, and a pretty sorry excuse for gods we are. There is no God, and hurricanes ravage our coasts, we can't stop that. There is no God and illness strikes down our loved ones, we can't stop that. There is no God and drunk drivers plow into teen aged girls, we can't stop that. Now what? Our suffering is meaningless. Where is our hope?

In order to find our hope, I would suggest that we have to re-examine the question of God. For us to have hope in the face of the evil and misery in the world any deity we seek would have to have suffered for and with us. Only in the Christian tradition do we find such a deity, that is Jesus Christ and "Him crucified." Only in the Christian tradition, and most especially in the Catholic tradition, are we exhorted to join our sufferings to that of our God. In this way, and only in this way, does suffering, does evil, have any meaning whatsoever. In fact, our suffering takes on an infinite meaning.

Without that hope, left to our own devices limited as we are by our faults, we're left as naked as a fifteen year old boy on a Montana golf course in the dead of winter.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Do You Think Jesus Would Like All the Crosses?"

2010-02-05T11:37:00.000-08:00

The title of this post is taken from a question I was recently asked on an atheist forum I visit occassionally. My answer to the question was simply "yes". One poster responded wanting to hear further explanation and commenting that my belief was a bit presumptious. I offer further explanation here.

In fact, I think it is the crucifix, with the corpus hung upon it which is the most potent symbol. 'The man known as Jesus' spoke repeatedly of crosses.

Matthew 16:24 'Then Jesus told his disciples, 'If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me...'' Then He proceeded to set the example by doing exactly that. When taunted by bystanders to save himself and to come down from the cross, He desn't. He remains and fulfills His mission.

St Paul in his letter to the Romans speaks of the Cross as a a scandal to the Jews and a stumbling block to the Greeks, yet he continues to preach '...Jesus Christ and Him crucified...'

For Christians, specifically for Catholic Christians, one of the great lessons of the Cross is that suffering has a real value. Suffering came into the world through an act of the will of Man via the Fall, for some reason that suffering cannot be alleviated, but must be endured. Somehow, suffering figures into God's plan of salvation and is so central to salvation history that even God is not above suffering. Like Christ, we do not seek suffering, but when it is necessary, when it is unavoidable, we accept it willingly. Like St Paul, we unite our sufferings to the sufferings of Christ; hence that uniquely Catholic concept taught to Catholics by their mothers to 'offer it up'.

In the heaveny liturgy revealed to St John in the book of Revelation it is the sacrificed Lamb who sits upon the throne. It is the crucified Christ who reigns as King."

It is the Cross of Christ, then, whic becomes for Christians the central point of history, the focal point of all that has transpired and all that is to come. We view the world through the lens of the Passion, but not just the Passion, since the Passion of Christ is inextricaly linked to His Resurrection. It is through the suffering of the Cross that the hope of the Ressurection, that promise of Christ to make all things new, is realized. There, at the Cross, the "scandal" and the "stumbling block" become our hope.

And, as Pope Benedict XVI tells us, "He who has hope lives differently."

What's Wrong with the World

2009-10-07T18:22:00.000-07:00

Cade, my 17 year old stepson, and I met to celebrate his enlistment in the US Army. The discussion, naturally enough since Cade is a senior in high school, turned to his plans for the future. Cade wants to be an archaeologist which requires him to first study history or anthropology. His goal in studying these fields is to discover , he says, "What's wrong with the world?"

I couldn't resist answering with GK Chesterton's reply to The Times when asked to write on essay on the same subject, "I am". Cade smiled, thinking it a joke. So I repeated myself, unsmiling, "I am what's wrong with the world."

I think Alexander Solzhenitsyn summed it up nicely, "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to spearate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

The Socratic notion that who knows the good, does the good fails miserably, especially when we try to live it as individuals. Time after time we deny the common good in pursuit of personal desires.

I, Cade, am what's wrong with the world.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

The Order of Mercy at Gethsamane

2009-09-17T10:42:00.000-07:00

Take a read of this and let me know what you think. Is this the courage of one's convictions or lunacy?

Whichever you think, please pray for Mr Doe and his family.

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6802&Itemid=48

If that doesn't work, go to InsideCatholic.com and read the article entitled "Rescue Me?" by John Zmirak.

Til next time, all the best, Joe.

Hail and Farewell

2009-09-16T10:16:00.000-07:00

I took the summer off, partially for good reason and partially out of sloth. I apologize for not announcing my intention to do so prior to disappearing, but it doesn't seem as though I've been missed much. The internet seems to have continued buzzing along just fine without me.

It's been an eventful summer. There's been a sparation from one whom I love deeply and a reunion with several persons for whom my love has continued unchecked during our spearation. It is doubtful that either of these parties reads what I post here, but I want to let them know how my heart droops and soars at their departure and return.

If I may cite from Julius Caesar here, I think from his Commentaries, and I ask the reader to bear in mind that I'm working from memory here, so please don't call me out on a misquote.

"If a man were to know the end of this day's business 'ere it end, but it suffices that this day will end, and then the end will be known. Then, if we should meet again, we will smile. And if not, the this parting was well made."

Hail and farewell, my friends.

And to my readers, til next time, all the best. Joe

Chestertonians to Academe: We Are Here and We Are Not Leaving!

2009-08-15T15:47:00.001-07:00

Chestertonians to Academe: We Are Here and We Are Not Leaving!

Shared via AddThis

2009-07-04T08:34:00.000-07:00

Happy Independence Day!

Today we celebrate the foundation of the United States of America. The founding document, The Declaration of Independence, bears careful reading. The full text is available here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html .

How some people sleep after reading this, I have no idea.

An interesting discussion of the influence of Catholic thinker St Robert Bellarmine on Thomas Jefferson is available here: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6607&CFID=9647080&CFTOKEN=44014111

God bless the United States of America!

Until next time, all the best. Joe

The Dark Night

2009-06-11T11:08:00.000-07:00

I've been quiet here lately. In fact, I've been quiet everywhere lately. I don't know what I should attribute this to. I know that I've made some things more important than writing. I've actually been wasting a lot of time, especially with computer games. That's something that's got to stop, it's a sure fire way to kill a muse.

Here's some news to catch you up:

Last November, in my post entitled "Unseen Contradictions", I wrote of my young friend whom I named "Charles" (not his real name) and his journey towards Catholicism. Charles called me on the vigil of the Feast of Trinity Sunday with the news that he has resolved to "cross the Tiber" this summer. While this news delights me, I know Charles all too well, right down to hus remarkable penchant for procrastination, so I coninue to pray for his perseverance, and would ask prayers from you as well. To those who know Charles and have been praying for him I extend my deepest gratitude. This news arrived at an auspicious moment, wedged as it was between the feast of St Charles Lwanga (whose intercession I have been pleading) and that of the Holy Trinity. A special thanks to, and wish for many blessings on, Denis, who actually made Charles' conversion his special prayer intention at the Mass celebrated at the Shrine of the Ugandan Martyrs during his pilgrimage there on the feast day.

St Charles Lwanga pray for us.

I've become an official product reviewer for the Catholic Company. My next post will probably be a review of one of the products they offer, "Magnificat Magazine".

More will follow. As always wishing you all the best. Joe

This is a test. This is only a test.

2009-05-29T10:59:00.000-07:00

Til next time, all the best. Joe

"Duty, Honor, Country"

2009-05-25T09:45:00.000-07:00

"Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless."

"His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast.
But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements."

"In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people.
From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I listened to those songs of the glee club, in memory's eye I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads; to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God."

"I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory. Always for them: Duty, Honor, Country. Always their blood, and sweat, and tears, as they saw the way and the light."

"And twenty years after, on the other side of the globe, against the filth of dirty foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts, those boiling suns of the relentless heat, those torrential rains of devastating storms, the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails, the bitterness of long separation of those they loved and cherished, the deadly pestilence of tropic disease, the horror of stricken areas of war."

"Their resolute and determined defense, their swift and sure attack, their indomitable purpose, their complete and decisive victory - always victory, always through the bloody haze of their last reverberating shot, the vision of gaunt, ghastly men, reverently following your password of Duty, Honor, Country."

Thus, General Douglas MacArthur's recollection of the American soldier from his famous address at West Point. I've always thought it a masterpiece of American oratory, and arguably the finest spoken tributes to fallen comrades ever.

My prayers today for those who have fallen in the defense of freedom. Set a place today for "absent friends", raise a toast to their memory. God grant them rest and May God bless the United States of America.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

ND Response Transcripts

2009-05-19T20:05:00.000-07:00

Transcripts of speeches and videos of the ND Response demonstration at Notre Dame University last Sunday are now available at http://johenz-topmeadow.blogspot.com/ . Espcially interesting, in my opinion, is Father Raphael's speech.

Til next time...all the best. Joe

A Thunderous Silence

2009-05-18T06:36:00.000-07:00

The day before President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame, TIME Magazine ran the following story by Amy Sullivan stating that the Vatican had remained completely silent on the issue.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599189875600

This is not the case. At least two American members of the Roman Curia, the body of cardinals and bishops which functions as the Pope's cabinet, have spoken out on the issue. I fact, Sullivan quotes one, James Francis Cardinal Stafford, in her article.

Sullivan totally ignored the remarks of Archbishop Raymond Burke on the matter. Archbishop Burke is the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, an office roughly corresponding to a combination of Chief Justice and Attorney General for matters pertaining to Canon Law. In remarks to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on May 2, Archbishop Burke said:

"In a culture marked by widespread and grave confusion and error about the most fundamental teachings of the moral law, our Catholic schools and universities must be beacons of truth and right conduct. Clearly, the same is true of our Catholic charitable, missionary and healthcare institutions. There can be no place in them for teaching or activities which offend the moral law. Dialogue and respect for differences are not promoted by the compromise and even violation of the natural moral law. The profound granting of an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame University to our President who is as aggressively advancing an anti-life and anti-family agenda is a source of the gravest scandal. Catholic institutions cannot offer any platform to, let alone honor, those who teach and act publicly against the moral law. In a culture which embraces an agenda of death, Catholics and Catholic institutions are necessarily counter-cultural. If we as individuals or our Catholic institutions are not willing to accept the burdens and the suffering necessarily involved in calling our culture to reform, then we are not worthy of the name Catholic. "

Archbishop Burke reiterated his position on the EWTN news program The World Over in a taped interview conducted by Raymond Arroyo, which was broadcast on Sunday.

If that is silence, it is a most thunderous silence indeed.

So-called "liberal" Catholics and the toady media outlets are currently gloating over Monday's editorial in L'Osservatore Romano applauding the President's words at Notre Dame encouraging dialogue on the abortion issue, but have totally ignored the statements made by these prelates of the Church. They fail to notice that the Vatican newspaper and its editorial staff are not part of the Curia. If we compare the relationship of newspapers to members of the cabinet to the Vatican newspaper and members of the Curia, we must ask an important question, "Is an editorial in the New York Times as authoritative as the statements of the Attorney General made in an open forum?"

Further evidence of the Vatican's displeasure with the views of the Obama administration lies in the fact that the Holy See has rejected three candidates proposed thus far for the post of ambassador to the Holy See based upon the "pro-choice" views of the candidates. (BTW, Mr President, if you're reading this, I'm available). This would seem to me to underscore the Vatican's viewpoint that there is no room for "dialogue" on life issues.

If Ms Sullivan thinks that this is silence she would do well to think again. The Pope himself does not need to address this issue individually, it has been addressed in such Church documents as Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which outlines the role of Catholic institutions in the world, and those documents remain in force.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

A Day Spent in the Company of Heroes

2009-05-18T05:08:00.000-07:00

I spent yesterday at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, IN attending the ND Response rally countering the University's invitation to President Obama to be the commencement speaker and receive an honorary law degree. The demonstration was thoughtful, well planned and organized, and, above all, deeply Catholic.

As with all Catholic demonstrations, this one was centered on Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, providing overnight Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, Benediction with the Blessed Sacrament (which packed the tiny chapel in Alumni Hall to overflowing), and Mass on the South Quad.

The event was well attended by a well behaved crowd of several thousand including such Catholic heavyweights as Bishop John D'Arcy, Father Frank Pavone, Father John Corapi and Dr Charles Rice. The speakers for the event were thoughtfully chosen. Especially touching was the address of Lacy Dodd, who took the stage accompanied by her nine year old daughter, Mary. Lacy is a 1999 graduate of the University who found herself pregnant three months before her graduation and rejected the abortion option favored by her child's father. Most inspiring, though, was the address of Fr John J. Raphael SSJ, the black principal of St Augustine High School in New Orleans, LA, who took the podium to refute the ridiculous charges of racism levelled at the organizers of this demonstration. Father Raphael laid the racist charges back at the feet of the Presidential Administration, pointing out that nearly a quarter of all abortions take place among the black community which comprises on 13% of the US population. His address brought the crowd to its feet and left them there for the duration. Keep checking http://www.ndresponse.com/ for transcripts of the speeches.

The Rosary in the Grotto was a beautiful event, with meditations on the Glorious Mysteries provided by Father Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life.

Father Jenkins, since you have an spare Laetare Medal laying around around gathering dust, why not present it to ND Response for putting the Catholic principles they learned at Notre Dame into action?

I spent yesterday in the company of true Catholic heroes. My congratulations and best wishes to the Class of 2009. God bless you all, you are the hope of the American Church!

More thoughts on this event to follow. Til next time, all the best. Joe

Christianity: Narcotic or Cure?

2009-05-11T23:59:00.000-07:00

My friend, my very old friend, wrote a while back to me after noticing some of the posts to my Face Book account asking "Have you lost your mind? I just can't believe in this overly simplified, pre-packaged narcotic for reality...while I remain basically spiritual in my outlook on life, I can't buy the myth of organized Christianity...to quote Jimmy Buffet 'the god's honest truth is it ain't that simple'..."

Perhaps I have lost my mind. But, if that is so, then the disease, to borrow a phrase from Edgar Allen Poe, has "sharpened my senses, not dulled them or destroyed them". Then again, perhaps the illness is not mine. I think that for the first time in years I now see more clearly. Perhaps, just perhaps, the medication is a cure and not a narcotic. Does the possibility exist that the medication, the "pre-packaged" therapy, which my friend so decries is a cure for my ills? Is it possible that the places where I have sought solace before, that the cures of the world, are what induces narcosis?

I think it not only likely, but highly probable. I've tried finding solace in the things of the world, and they availed me nought. My drinking didn't work, my sexual escapades got me nowhere. You know about that. Talk about pre-packaged. Whatever makes me feel better. Forget the common good. Forget the intrinsic dignity of every human being. There's no need to worry about others. Self-restraint, self-discipline, self-control count for nothing. There's your narcotic, my friend. Numbness.

Now I feel, and what I feel is something quite different from narcosis. It's not pre-packaged in the sense that you think, it's more a regimen, and as part of that regimen, I'm required to feel outside myself. My spirituality requires me to feel faith and hope and love. Faith in a God who has made and keeps His promises; hope for the world He has made and redeemed; love for Him and for those He has put into this world with me.

Most of those with whom I argue see Christianity as anything but simple, and I'm inclined to agree. Greater minds than mine have grappled with its truths and been left stuttering. St Thomas Aquinas, the capo Di tutti capo of Catholic thinkers, after a lifetime of thought and writing of Christianity admitted at the end that his writings were as but straw compared to the Truth. Take a read of Augustine, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, John Paul II and tell me then that you don't begin to see the marvelous and beautiful tapestry that is Christianity. If this is a drug, then I implore you to pump my veins full of it and more! Let me pop some Chesterton and snort some Faustina Kowlaska, pour me a long draft of CS Lewis and let me drink it to its dregs, then perhaps a blunt of Richard J Neuhaus spiked with JRR Tolkien for good measure. And still I'd not be sated.

Now I see, my friend. Dimly, though, as through a glass and darkly. I see that though I suffer, others suffer more. It is through that suffering I see that all this is real, for no man would wish suffering to be if he could will it not to be so. But I see a God who suffers with us to bring about the redemption of those whom He loves. In my suffering, in our suffering, we can unite ourselves to Him in pursuit of that goal. There is no deadening of the pain; in fact, it is felt more acutely. There is hope, though, and in the end "he who has hope lives differently."

Let me know what you think, my friend, and til next time, all the best. Joe

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan

2009-04-17T09:29:00.000-07:00

Anyone catch Archbishop Dolan's installation to the Archdiocese of New York the other day. The Big Apple's gotta winner there. You can plainly see that he is a man of the people..all the people. My favorite passage from his homily:

"[T]he Resurrection goes on, as His Church continues to embrace and protect the dignity of every human person, the sanctity of human life, from the tiny baby in the womb to the last moment of natural passing into eternal life. As the Servant of God Terrence Cardinal Cooke wrote, “Human life is no less sacred or worthy of respect because it is tiny, pre-born, poor, sick, fragile, or handicapped.” Yes, the Church is a loving mother who has a zest for life and serves life everywhere, but she can become a protective “mamma bear” when the life of her innocent, helpless cubs is threatened. Everyone in this mega-community is a somebody with an extraordinary destiny. Everyone is a somebody in whom God has invested an infinite love. That is why the Church reaches out to the unborn, the suffering, the poor, our elders, the physically and emotionally challenged, those caught in the web of addictions."

Follow this man, New York.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

The Day After

2009-04-11T09:30:00.000-07:00

While there must be a million or so reflections available on the Passion event of Good Friday, and probably even more on the glorious Resurrection event of Easter Sunday, I've never read many reflections on Holy Saturday. It's never really puzzled me before, but for some reason this year it's really kinda nagging at me.

During morning prayer this morning ( well, earlier this afternoon actually), my mind kinda kept going back to that Saturday in 30 AD when the world held its breath. My imagination replayed what that day may have been like.

For the followers of the itinerant upstart preacher, Jesus of Nazareth, fear and panic. Scattered and in hiding, stunned, expecting the tramp of boots onto their doorstep at any second accompanied by the shouts of soldiery they thought were probably on the way to round them up. Debating what was next for them, wondering exactly what their role in the culture might be now. They must have thought their decision to throw in with this Jesus character a big mistake. I would think that they decided that they would probably just live the easier teachings of their rabbi quietly, personally, and stay under the radar, They figured it'd be much safer not to engage the culture with the challenging things they'd heard from their Master.

Their leader, Simon Peter, had denied the Master. Perhaps he thought the Teacher was just that, a teacher and nothing more. Certainly he was not, as Peter had earlier thought, "the Holy One of God".

Even the youngest, John, the beloved one, must have had his doubts. Not only that, he now had responsibility for supporting a mother, he had to consider that. What a heavy responsibility for a young teen.

Only the Mother, Mary, although inconsolable over the death of her only Son, held onto hope. Her only words through her constant tears were in disagreement with the others. He would fulfill His promises.

Other Jews celebrated the Passover Sabbath. Certainly the dinner conversation turned around the events of the previous day. The consensus would have been that the high priest had upheld the Law. The Law had been vindicated, Judaism was safe from another heretical upstart. But what a row that had been. King of the Jews, indeed! How dare He!

Still, there were some who wondered if maybe He could have been the One. Joseph of Arimithea must have been one. Simon the Cyrene had looked into the eyes of the condemned as he helped to bear the awful burden of the Cross and must have seen something there. Veronica gazed at the image on her apron and wondered. It certainly wasn't a peaceful Passover. Little did they realize that the Passover had been fulfilled. The journey out of Egypt was over.

Among the Romans there was talk as well. I can imagine a Roman Richard Dawkins crowing over the silliness of the whole "God Delusion", saying that all religions, even the religions of Rome were merely superstitions, that their only purpose were to enslave and to hold Man in thrall to the State and that Man could accomplish his own salvation if only we all embraced the unity ofPax Romana. Pax Romana, that is the doctrine that saves. All that foolishness about a God was unneeded, everything could be explained away as coincidence and mass hysteria.

But, even among the Pagans of Rome a seed had been planted. Not far from Jerusalem a centurion heard the news of the events of the previous Friday, scratching his head in puzzlement as he watched a young servant, recently recovered from a life threatening illness carried out his duties about the house. And deep in the fortress of Antonia, in a barracks room in the heart of the Roman garrison, a grizzled veteran of the garrison sat with his commander and stared with wonder at the lance with with the soldier had pierced the Condemned and wondered.

Jerusalem, although a relative backwater of the empire, was still the commercial center of the Judean region, especially during the Passover season. Greek merchants and other Gentiles flocked to the city for trade, sensing a quick profit. Among them too word of the goings on of the previous day spread, and that had their opinions. The forerunners of Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens could be found among them. These men would say that there was no need for religion, it just poisons everything, and besides this Jesus character wasn't so good, he embraced riff raff, prostitutes and the like. We can be saved by the philosophies of men.

"There is nothing new under the sun." Two thousand years after the events of the Friday, we still have those Dawkins and Dennets, those Harris and Hitchens among us. They've always been there, they always will be, and their message is still the same, that Man is sufficient unto himself. But those of us who examine history with a critical eye can see otherwise. We can see that somehow, we aren't what we were intended to be. Whether it be a "selfish gene" or original sin, something, somewhere, sometime has gone amiss.

We all speak of progress. Progress implies a fixed destination. A destination implies a planner who sets the destination. Planning implies intelligence. No, it's not the selfish gene that's amiss, it's we ourselves. Science and philosophy are not the answers, the answer is tomorrow. The answer is Easter Sunday. The answer is the Resurrection.

Happy Easter! He is Risen!

Til next time, all the best. Joe

The Democracy of the Dead

2009-04-06T06:00:00.000-07:00

On 20 July 1997, the USS Constitution, the oldest warship in the US Navy, and the oldest warship still afloat made her first unassisted cruise in 116 years. One of the greatest challenges facing her commander was training a crew to sail her since no one alive had ever sailed a fighting frigate. With the help of a naval training manual published in 1819, it still took nearly ten years of planning and training before a crew was ready to man her for her forty minute cruise. The skills required to safely operate such an antiquated piece of equipment had languished and been forgotten.

On a more personal level, in the early 1990's, while assigned to National Guard unit in Cleveland, I participated in a project to restore portions of an old retaining wall in Wade Park. The wall had been constructed by the Works Project Administration (WPA) in the 1930's as part of Roosevelt's New Deal. The wall was a massive structure, several hundred feet long, terraced, and 20-25 feet high at its highest. The most impressive feature of the wall, though, was the method used in its construction. I can't recall the name of the construction method, but it consisted of lying limestone stones one on top of the other, fitting them together carefully without mortar. We were unable to do much restoration of that wall because the method hadn't been practiced in decades. No one knew how to do it. It was a skill which had been lost since it hadn't been used in decades.

Now you may ask, what exactly do these two incidents have to do with anything? Well, here's my point. The tradition had been broken. People had thought that we had progressed beyond the point of needing to know how to sail wooden fighting ships or build mortarless masonry walls. Nobody thought it necessary that sailing skills, nobody thought it necessary that such masonry skills be handed on to the next generations. Certainly, they thought, we have progressed beyond the need for that. Most likely it was those to whom these traditions were to be handed as opposed to those who were to hand them on who denied their relevance.

For we moderns (or more accurately, I suppose, for we post-moderns), the word "tradition" is laden with all kinds of baggage. It conjures up images of ancient rituals whose origins are lost in the mists of time; we think of rustic folk dances, or perhaps hidebound bureaucrats, maybe the reading room filled with cigar smoking elderly men at an old fashioned gentleman's club. But an examination for the origins of the word itself belies such notions. From the Latin tradere, meaning "to hand on" the word "tradition" shares a lineage with the word "trade". In that sense then, tradition is our legacy. Like heirlooms, traditions are possessions for which our forebears have paid dearly which generally had great meaning for them and which they believed would be of great values to their posterity.

Traditions have found their way into our culture at multiple points. They are to be found in our speech and in our laws, in our music and in our literature. Chesterton says of tradition that it is "...an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead....All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of their birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death."

But, like the sailor and the stonemason, we have decided that the skills and opinions of our forebears are of little account. We have decided that we have progressed beyond the point of needing the opinions of our fathers. We have discarded their hard earned wisdom and disregarded the foundations they established for our benefit. By doing so, we risk much. We will have to relearn that life is valuable, but not a commodity. We will have to rediscover that monogamy is unitive, not bondage. We will have to rediscover that sons are a blessing and daughters are a treasure, not burdens. That's just for starters.

Look around and see those areas where the disregard of the opinions of those who have gone before us have degraded our culture. That disregard is bringing us closer to a precipice that our ancestors saw clearly. The economic straits we currently find ourselves in is just the beginning. More hard lessons lie ahead.

To paraphrase the Bard of Avon, "Ah, the tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive..." ourselves.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

A Man of Honor?

2009-04-02T09:24:00.000-07:00

The Catholic blogosphere is all abuzz, and rightly so, over the invitation extended to President Obama to speak at the University of Notre Dame's commencement and to recieve from that University an honorary law degree. The president of the university, Father John Jenkins, has borne the brunt of the anger for the decision of the university to bestow these honors upon the President, and again rightly so. But few have taken the President to task for his acceptance of these invitations. A portion of the balme for this scandal rests with th President.

President Obama is an intelligent man. He knows full well that many of his views and some of the policies he has impemented, particularly those views and policies regarding the snactity of human life, fail to square with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Further, he knows that the University of Notre Dame is the flagship institution of Catholic higher learning in the United States. Honor requires that such knowledge would preclude acceptance of any awards from such an institution. His acceptance of the university's invitation is the equivalent of Francis Cardinal George agreeing to accept the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood.

Unfortunately, it seems that the concensus is that it would be impolite for the university to disinvite the President now that the invitation has been extended and accepted. I disgaree. It's never to late to acknowedge a mistake. There is, however, another honorable way out of this dilemna. The President could prove himself a man of honor, as opposed to a crass politician, and decline the invitation. If he wishes to avoid admitting having made a mistake he could beg off on the grounds of pressing issues of state, it's not like there aren't plenty of those around these days. We'd understand his hesitance to admit error.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Missing in Action

2009-03-30T10:56:00.000-07:00

Sorry I've been away so long, dear readers. I promise not to let that happen again. No excuses, just a promise that I won't let it happen again. A new post is in the works even as we speak.

In the mean time, I urge anyone reading this to let Notre Dame University know the mind of true Catholics on the matter of President Obama delivering the commencement address and recieving an honorary law degree from America's foremost institution of Catholic higher learning by signing the petition at http://www.notredamscandal/.com .

Til next time, all the best. Joe

An "Ah Hah" Moment

2009-02-12T09:50:00.000-08:00

I'm loathe to mention this since I just posted a piece on Dori, but I had Mass offered for her at St Mary's, since today is her birthday. The first reading was from Genesis 2:19-25 on the creation of woman. The Gospel was from Mark 7:24-30, the story of the Canaanite woman who grovelled at the feet of Jesus for the sake of her child. Two awesome readings about women. The first about her creation and the sanctity of the union between man and woman, the second about the things a mother will do for her child.

I know that when Dori stands before her God, a member of the "great cloud of witnesses",she will plead for the man she loves, and the children who were the center of her life.

Wow! Just wow!

Til next time. all the best. Joe

My Dark Nights

2009-02-09T10:38:00.000-08:00

She's been gone for over three years now, but as the occasion of Dori's forty eighth birthday draws near, I find myself lost in reveries of her. In the dark of the night those memories of our blissful moments together steal over me and I find myself lost in what was and what could have been.

I will not pretend to tell you that our time together was perfect bliss. We had our share of difficulties, and I am sure that, as all who have lost dear ones do, I have built a shrine to her in my memory, exaggerating the good times and minimizing the bad. Such is the nature of our memories, I'm sure. There are those who tried to tell me then, and still tell me today, that two so deeply troubled people had no business being together, and perhaps that was true, but I think not. We were both persons of deep passions, passions which often conlicted with one another. What is true, though, is that we fumbled through our relationship. We were two deeply flawed people looking for a way around the hurts we had suffered previously. The solutions we chose were not always the healthiest soultions, the places we sought solace were not the safest refuges. Unfortunately, our end came just as we started to find our way out of our flawed decisions.

Oddly enough, it was her illness that united us at last. There is something cathartic in suffering, something healing, not only for the one who suffers, but for those who love the sufferer, as I love Dori. There is something is witnessing the suffering of another, especially up close and personal, that calls upon the "better angels of our nature", I think. Suffering calls us to not only work for the benefit of the sufferer, for the alleviation of the suffering, but it calls us to share the pain, to unite ourselves to one another through that shared experience. The suffering itself becomes a bond between us. I witnessed the healing effects not only between Dori and I, but between her and others. I saw some the ties of some friendships strengthened; I saw family bonds strained by dysfunction restored.

Dying, it has been said, focusses the mind wonderfully. I think that's true. Living in the present takes sudden priority over the hurts of the past and the fears of the future that those of us who will go on living have difficulty grasping. Suddenly, one realizes that, as Richard John Neuhaus put it, that "the work of dying well is, in largest part, the act of living well." Dori knew she was dying well before I did; I don't think I ever quite grasped the fact until she did, in fact, die. She did what she could to prepare, still, I think the end surprised her.

This time of year the late winter sunshine streams through the windows in the late afternoon, much as it did in the little house we shared together. It illuminates the corner of the couch which was her favorite napping spot. I'd often walk into the living room to find her dozing there and when she stirred and opened her eyes to see me she'd burst into a radiant smile. It melted my heart every time I saw it. Even when I was angry or cross with her, I never could be for long when confronted by that smile. How I miss that. I'd trade everything I have to see it just once more. She always loved me better than I loved her.

I miss you, baby and I think of you every day.

Til we meet again, my darling, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Conclusion

2009-02-09T10:30:00.000-08:00

Just a short note to let you know that Shan seems to have lost interest in our conversation, and I can't blame him. He had elected to defend an indefensible position, and, while I admire him greatly for his dogged determination to do so, I can understand his frustration. I'll let you know if he responds again, but I'm not hopeful. On to other things.

As always... til next time, all the best. Joe

"What have you to do with us?"

2009-02-07T08:28:00.000-08:00

Things have been going slowly in my exchange with Shan and as a result I've decided I should interrupt those postings with some thoughts which have been rattling around in my head.

A Gospel reading at Mass recently was from the first Chapter of St Mark. It recounted the story of Jesus at the synagogue in Capernaum (not by coincidence St Peter's home town) where He is confronted by a demon possessed man. The demon shrieks at Christ, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?" This question echoes through the ages to this day; it is still heard from the world, addressed now to those who stand counter to the culture, particularly those who hold to the teachings of Christ as passed on by His Church.

"What have you to do with us?" The culture recognizes Christianity as a force counter to itself. It sees in Christianity a force capable of reforming itself, capable of seizing the reins and redirecting the progress of mankind towards its ultimate goal. This is why it rails against the Church. This is why the Church is under such vehement attack by proponents of the culture at large. Academia distorts her history and philosophy, the media misrepresents her opinions and exaggerates the flaws of her members.

"Have you come to destroy us?" Within the Christian call for discipline, for self-denial, self-restraint and self sacrifice, the culture sees its nemesis. It recognizes a force for change more powerful that its call for individual, for temporal happiness. In its drive for the common good over the good of individuals the Christian ideal is diametrically opposed to that which the society overall values most, the happiness of the individual at the expense of the whole of mankind. The disciplines which allow the Christian to see the suffering of others, to feel that pain, to act outside himself to alleviate that suffering where possible, and where the alleviation of that suffering is not possible, to share in it, are baffling to those involved wholly in the popular culture.

This, though baffling though it may be to many, is exactly what we are called to do. We are possessed of a philosophy and a way of life which has great power. Indeed, it is a way of life capable of reforming the culture. Secure in the knowledge that what we believe is firmly grounded in objective truth, and with a guarantee from He who established that truth that the victory belongs to us, we as His instruments must attempt, as best we can, to live within the confines of that discipline, to demonstrate that life within that discipline is not only possible, not only feasible, but that it is productive and fulfilling both physically and spiritually and is in the best interest of the whole of mankind.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 5

2009-02-04T06:36:00.000-08:00

My reply to Shan. He begins by quotin my previous post (in red). My new comments are in italics.

Not at all. Outlawing abortion will certainly not eliminate abortion, but will reduce the number of abortions performed. I believe that since both mother and child are human, the net savings in lives will be appreciable.
This is a valid point to say, however... What value do you place per person? I believe a net saving in mothers would far outweigh a net saving in "children".
A healthy adult with an established life out values a unborn fetus with no assumed presence in the world, in my book.

Why is the mother's life more valuable? Why are her rights more important than that of the child? You have already conceded that the fetus is indeed human. If that is the case, the law requires that we extend to that unborn human the same equality before the law as we extend to the mother.

Now...I'm going to try and not sound like I'm picking through semantics here, however I'm not sure how to respond without changing topic.
The crux of our disagreement would lie there if we were debating the morality of Abortion itself, which I would be glad to do. However, the point I had been trying to make was on abortion being a necessity in society, from YOUR moral standpoint.
Weather I personally condemn or condone abortion, if I play by your rules that a fetus is a child, and that abortion is in fact killing a person, will banning it create a more justified balance of human rights than allowing it?

Yes, banning abortion legally would create a more equitable balance of human rights. Just as you conceded that the fetus is a human life, I hav conceded that banning abortion would not mean that abortions would still not occur. However, the fetus would be extended protection under the law since, when the the life of the fetus was intentionally taken, it would be a criminal act. Not only do laws regulate society, they make a statement about those things which that particular society values. Do we value human life?

We currently have laws in place against armed robbery. Should we, in the interest of reducin the number of persons injured in the commisiion of robberies, decriminalize that act to make robbery a "safer" choice?

From a practical standpoint, let's compare situations. Under the current system, one hundred women "need" an abortion, one hundred abortions take place. If abortion was illegal, one hundred women "need" abortion but due to availability of practicioners willing to violate the law or the prohibitive cost of obtaining an illegal procedure only twenty take place representing a net savings of eighty lives. Hmmmm.....

For my take on that, refer to the top of this email, on a mother being more viable than a fetus.

But the mother is more viable than a newborn, or a six month old, or a three year old. You've conceded that the fetus is human, so you tell me, when do rights attach to that life? At birth? At six months? At three years? The only point in human development which is not arbitary is conception. If there is some other non-arbitrary point at which rights adhere in a human being, please let me know when that point is.

With these rules, deeming abortion an evil, and a dirty subject...I can relate it to this:
You're caught on the edge of a cliff, there are two people hanging from the cliff... The mountain is crumbling away and you only have time to save one of them. Who do you choose? It's a nasty subject that you'd never want to have to decide on, but if you're forced to, who is the more viable candidate to be saved?

First, you have made the admission that abortion is an evil. Is it ever ethical to condone evil, even if a greater good may come of it? I would contend that it is not.

While your analogy is delightful, it is seriously flawed. Both parties are over the cliff due to the irresponsibility of one party, the other is wholly innocent. My emphasis would be to clearly mark the precipice, maybe build a fence around it, make the cliff clearly off limits thereby preventing folks taking themselves and those whose care they have been charged with into the abyss.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 4

2009-02-04T06:20:00.000-08:00

Shan's latest reply in our exchange:

Not at all. Outlawing abortion will certainly not eliminate abortion, but will reduce the number of abortions performed. I believe that since both mother and child are human, the net savings in lives will be appreciable.

This is a valid point to say, however... What value do you place per person? I believe a net saving in mothers would far outweigh a net saving in "children".
A healthy adult with an established life out values a unborn fetus with no assumed presence in the world, in my book.

Now...I'm going to try and not sound like I'm picking through semantics here, however I'm not sure how to respond without changing topic.

The crux of our disagreement would lie there if we were debating the morality of Abortion itself, which I would be glad to do. However, the point I had been trying to make was on abortion being a necessity in society, from YOUR moral standpoint.

Weather I personally condemn or condone abortion, if I play by your rules that a fetus is a child, and that abortion is in fact killing a person, will banning it create a more justified balance of human rights than allowing it?

For my take on that, refer to the top of this email, on a mother being more viable than a fetus.
With these rules, deeming abortion an evil, and a dirty subject...I can relate it to this:
You're caught on the edge of a cliff, there are two people hanging from the cliff... The mountain is crumbling away and you only have time to save one of them. Who do you choose? It's a nasty subject that you'd never want to have to decide on, but if you're forced to, who is the more viable candidate to be saved?

Best,
-Shan

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 3

2009-01-30T11:45:00.000-08:00

Here I continue my discussion with Shan. His comments in normal text. Mine in italics. I also sent these remarks to Shan via email. Mine have been edited here for spelling, othe than that, they are unchanged from what he recieved.

Is Abortion a neccesary evil? I believe it is.No matter what your personal beliefs on the subjects are,in today's society, there's no arguing sex and violence are a prominent part. With this, comes casual promiscuity, rape, and the like. Unwanted pregnancies happen.

I agree with ypour contention that current societal trends play a prominent part in unwanted pregnancies. This is a reflection of the culture’s denial of the purpose of human sexuality. When one engages in the sex act, one does so in the full realization that the natural purpose of the act is procreation regardless of their intent. While there may be such a thing as an unwanted pregancy, there is no such thing as an accidental pregancy.

If someone with an unwanted pregnancy, with no way to support a child, knows it's physically possible to have an abortion, what's going to stop them?If you make something controversial illegal, you push it underground.

That’s true. I’ll grant you that laws against armed robbery haven’t eliminated armed robbery. Rape still exists in spite of leagl strictures against it. The same goes for a myriad of other crimes. The important thing is that laws against violations of persons or their property make it known that society values persons and property.

Just as the illegal drug trade thrives underground, through inner city and international violence, so can abortion. This may be slightly off topic, but the analogy fits right in line. With drugs, when you take away the legal market, an illegal market pops up. With dirtier, more dangerous supplies, and a more ruthless industry to spread it. The same can be said for abortion, as a necessary evil. If you take abortion out of the hands of trained medical professionals, you put it into the scenarios of coat hangers in back alleys. This may be an extreme scenario, but so is the topic we discussed earlier, abortion leading to eugenics.

I agree that abortions, when rendered illegal, will continue to be performed by criminals. I think the coat hanger bit is a trifle extreme.

If you take the pro-life stance, when picking the "lesser of two evils", wouldn't having abortions where the mother is far more likely to be in safe position, be preferable?

My preference is for a solution whereby the lives of both the mother and the child are respected.

Would you rather both sides, being the mother and the baby, be in a position to be sacrificed?

Not at all. Outlawing abortion will certainly not eliminate abortion, but will reduce the number of abortions performed. I believe that since both mother and child are human, the net savings in lives will be appreciable.

A foreseeable campaign against this would be promoting alternatives. Such as adoption, which is already promoted in the current legal status. Adoption is still a problematic option when the Abortion option is present. Carrying something for 9 months inside of you can be just as jeopardizing to a career, education, (and everything else that goes along with keeping a steady life of your own a float) as having and caring for a birthed child.

Perhaps the time to “choose” I prior to the moment of conception. Maybe, just maybe, deciding to abrogate our responsibility in the name of “freedom” isn’t the issue.

I don't personally believe in abortion being murder, but if a completely viable alternative to abortion was found, I would support it. But until then, abortion will continue to serve, or plague, society as a nessiscary evil, whether it be in the public eye, or in the back streets. Which legal status is more morally acceptable when regarding human life?

Here is where the crux of our disagreement lies, I think. By consenting to this discussion you admit that abortion is an evil, yet you deny it’s murder. You seem to admit, although in a roundabout way, that the fetus is a person, but that it’s right to life is trumped by the right of the mother to “choose”. As an individual I have no right to take the life of a person who thwarts my plans. I have no right to kill a thirty year old who is inconvenient to me, nor a ten year old, nor an infant. Yet at each of these ages, the human is distinctly different from what it is becoming; its chronological age is an artificial construct, a convenience imposed by us. What makes a child a different thing the day before its birth than it is the day after its birth? Certainly, a newborn is not wholly viable. A newborn requires much attention and support to survive. Should we consider legalizing infanticide on this account? Should the convenience of the mother trump the rights of a newborn? At what age do we draw the line? Two days? Two weeks? Two years? How is a child different at one year, 364 days, than at two years? Tell me the point at which rights inhere in the person and make a case for that point rather than any other.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 2

2009-01-29T09:52:00.000-08:00

Shan's first email has arrived. He sent some biographical information and then got down to his case. Here is his first installment unedited. Mine will follow shortly.

Hello Joe. So sorry for the late replies, life's been hectic.

As for introductory info, My name's Shan Cerrone, I live in Northern Virginia, planning to attend BU for photography. And things that might be relevant to this discussion, I was raised in the United Methodist church and was rather active until about 15 when my life's direction started to change. And, (with no disrespect to your beliefs intended) began to take a strong interest in philosophy, and started seeing the flaws of religion, and parted ways. Today I'm a rather optimistic Nihilist, if there is such a thing.

Civilities agreed,Onward!

Is Abortion a neccesary evil? I believe it is.

No matter what your personal beliefs on the subjects are,in today's society, there's no arguing sex and violence are a prominent part. With this, comes casual promiscuity, rape, and the like. Unwanted pregnancies happen. If someone with an unwanted pregnancy, with no way to support a child, knows it's physically possible to have an abortion, what's going to stop them?If you make something controversial illegal, you push it underground.

Just as the illegal drug trade thrives underground, through inner city and international violence, so can abortion. This may be slightly off topic, but the analogy fits right in line. With drugs, when you take away the legal market, an illegal market pops up. With dirtier, more dangerous supplies, and a more ruthless industry to spread it. The same can be said for abortion, as a necessary evil.

If you take abortion out of the hands of trained medical professionals, you put it into the scenarios of coat hangers in back alleys. This may be an extreme scenario, but so is the topic we discussed earlier, abortion leading to eugenics.

If you take the pro-life stance, when picking the "lesser of two evils", wouldn't having abortions where the mother is far more likely to be in safe position, be preferable?Would you rather both sides, being the mother and the baby, be in a position to be sacrificed?

A foreseeable campaign against this would be promoting alternatives. Such as adoption, which is already promoted in the current legal status. Adoption is still a problematic option when the Abortion option is present. Carrying something for 9 months inside of you can be just as jeopardizing to a career, education, (and everything else that goes along with keeping a steady life of your own a float) as having and caring for a birthed child.

I don't personally believe in abortion being murder, but if a completely viable alternative to abortion was found, I would support it. But until then, abortion will continue to serve, or plague, society as a nessiscary evil, whether it be in the public eye, or in the back streets. Which legal status is more morally acceptable when regarding human life?

Best, -Shan C.

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 1

2009-01-27T11:43:00.000-08:00

I was recently involved in a discussion of FaceBook with a young man who contends that abortion is a necessary evil. I, of course, don't believe this to be the case. The gentleman in question, Shan Cerrone, has graciously consented to engage in an email discussion of this issue, and has further consented to allow me to publish our exchange on Top Meadow.

The topic of our exchange will be "Is Abortion a Necessary Evil?". We have agreed to an exchange of three emails, limited to 1000 words. Each response should be answered within 48 hours. The comments option will be disabled until after the exchange is finished. I have asked Shan to furnish any biographical or pertinent information he would like to make known here.

Stay tuned for more information.

As always, until next time, all the best. Joe

The Tangled Web

2009-01-27T11:19:00.000-08:00

On Sunday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a self-described Catholic, touted the virtues of birth control as a means of reducing the liability for states and municipalites, since, if there are fewer persons born there will be fewer persons requiring government services. The contraception funding was included as part of the conimic stimulus package being considered by Congress. This actually makes sense for fans of eugenics. If we provide family planning service gratis to low income citizens, they will breed fewer low income children, children who will require silly things like education and health care. That's brilliant! Hooray for the eimination of the unfit. Margaret Sanger would be so proud. You can see the interview here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFU_jE9WasM .

Late Monday, President Obama leapt to the aid of the economic stimulus package encouraging Congressional Democrats to delete the family planning funding. What's that about? The most ardent anti-life President ever elected is ditching a program that that further undermines the idea of individual responsibility! A couple of possibilities exists:

1. Nancy Pelosi really is that radical and believes every word she said. The President holds her point of view as well, but realizes that the Democratic Party leadership's Freudian slip is showing, and in an attempt to pull the skirts back down over the slip, he spoke out.

2. Nancy Pelosi really is that radical and believes every word she said. The President holds her point of view as well. he two get on the phone and cook up a plot whereby the President can appear to be the voice of reason and moderation on a hot button issue like eugenics.

3. The President disagrees with Ms Pelosi and is horrified that she could even have said such a thing out loud.

There is no possibility that Ms Pelosi is not a eugenicist. There is little possibility that the President is not either. Call me a cynic, but I'm going with option #2. It's "good cop, bad cop" on a grand scale. Nancy Pelosi is not a stupid woman, she wouldn't put such views on display without good purpose. Watch for more of this type of political theater from the jesters of the art of governance.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

"A More Excellent Way"

2009-01-23T09:31:00.000-08:00

If there is anything about which the bulk of humanity can agree, it is the proposition that there is something intrinsically wrong with the nature of man. A survey of ancient literature shows a trend among the ancients to place the blame on the caprice and folly of the gods. They wanted to shift the responsibility onto beings who operated beyond their ken, into a realm beyond their control.

Likewise the moderns, that is the secularists, atheists and relativists, want to shift blame for our broken nature into an equally inaccessible and irreparable material realm. They wish to blame it on "the selfish gene" to borrow a phrase from the great materialist cheerleader Richard Dawkins. They contend that man's basic flaws are contained in the genetic code which drives the organism to act solely out of a desire to preserve its genes in the pool of the species. Although most of those of the materialist mindset deny the existence of our free will, there are some who adhere to this "selfish gene" idea, Dawkins included, who contend that we, as a species, have outgrown the need to follow this basic genetic drive, contending in the process that we should "be good for goodness sake". The methodology by which we are to attain this goodness is left undefined.

There is, however, a middle road. It is, in the words of St Paul, "a more excellent way". It is the way of Christianity. Like all roads to recovery, this route requires that we place the blame squarely where it belongs, not on the capriciousness of inaccessible and petty deities, not on the equally mystical and inaccessible gene, but squarely on the shoulders of man himself.

Further, this middle road proposes a solution to our tendency towards sin, our concupiscence. It is not a one shot solution, it is an ongoing solution, a continuous process, a way of life. As our brokenness came through the will of man, so does our salvation, the realization of what we were intended to be flow from the willing assent of man to conform to the will of our Creator who defined our original nature. Christianity holds us to a higher standard, we are held accountable to a higher authority, our God. We are told that after acknowledging that the fault for our broken nature is our own, we must confess our transgressions, we must make amends to those we have harmed, we must live in the service of that higher authority and our fellow men.

Why is this God necessary? This is the great question the secular humanist asks. Humans do not conform to rules without some method of enforcement and punishment. Just as secular laws require provisions for enforcement and retribution against transgressors, so must the natural law hold these threats.

As Chesterton once observed "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried." Man alone cannot reform himself. The reform of man can only come through the realization that the rift between him and his Maker has been healed, and that by adhering to the will of that Creator we will be able to "put away those childish things" and grow into the beings we are meant to be.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is There a Catholic in the Closet?

2009-01-22T12:46:00.000-08:00

Did President Obama really say:

"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

Let's hold him to his word. If these principles apply to our relations with other nations, then we must adhere to them on the domestic front as well. It is high time we "put away childish things" and accept respomsibility for our actions. Let's hope that the speechwriter who borrowed this language from the pro-life movement has the President's ear.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

God Bless the President of the United States

2009-01-20T08:16:00.000-08:00

I'm watching live coverage of the inauguration as I write. Say what you want about the what the next four years portend for our nation, the spectacle is truly amazing. For the forty fourth time in our history, a peaceful transition of power is occurring. The reins of government of the most prosperous and most powerful government is being transferred constitutionally, not by assassination, or at the point of a bayonet. It a spectacle which demands and deserves all the pageantry and pomp we can muster.

I can disagree with the new President, but I must celebrate the event of his Inauguration. So long as the peaceful transition of power occurs in the nation there is hope. Not the hope of political jingoism, but true hope of the spirit. Not the vague promise of change, but the very real promise of conversion.

Let's not mourn or bemoan the installation of the man as president, but rather let's celebrate the event which marks the continuity of our government. Celebrate the day. Celebrate our freedom. Celebrate our nation. We can fight tomorrow.

God bless the President of the United States. God bless the United States of America.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

In the Fooststeps of Lincoln...Really?

2009-01-17T09:03:00.000-08:00

And so it begins. Barack Obama, who fancies himself a modern day Abraham Lincoln, embarked this morning on the final leg of his journey to the nation's capital for his inauguration. He departed Philadelphia by train following the last leg of Abraham Lincoln's route to Washington for his inauguation.

The President-elect likes drawing upon Lincoln's legacy. He enjoys making comparisons between himself and the Great Emancipator and there are, indeed, some similarities. Like Lincoln, Obama was narrowly elected on the heels of an unpopular presidency held by the opposing party. Like Lincoln, Barack Obama faces a nation deeply divided over issues of momentous import to the future of the nation. One way or the other, the decisions Lincoln would make during his tenure would determine the course of the nation for generations. Likewise with Obama. Lincoln, presented with a nation whose Union was rapidly disintegrating called upon those in the South in vain to refrain from secession; Obama realizing that the hoopla over his election is not nearly so widespread as the media would have the public believe is also calling for unity.

Now for the differences.

Lincoln ascended to the White House at a time marked by States in open rebellion to the authority of the federal government. More were preparing to make similar moves. He took the reins of a government woefully prepared for a physical threat to its existence. In such a situation he had no option but to take unprecedented and perhaps unconstitutional steps to secure to the Executive powers which the Founding Fathers never intended the President to have. He arrested, and even exiled political opponents, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, ignored the opinions of the Supreme Court. He used extraordinary powers to meet the exigencies of an extraordinary situation. Lincoln faced the business of settling issues left unaddressed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

Obama seeks another goal. He seeks the recastin gof the Constitution in the light of personal liberty. He seeks the redefinition of Constitutional rights as license, not liberty. He places the attainment of personal wants above the common good. He seems possessed of a view that we need to be protected from our personal resposnibilities and that the federal government is the institution best equipped to shield us from ourselves. Already his supporters clamor to muzzle conservative voices, already he seeks to save us from the responsibility incurred through our misused sexuality.

Lincoln always cast his struggle as one to preserve the Union. The tragedy of the Civil War was not waged, in his estimation, over the issue of slavery, although it played a role in bringing the crisis to a head. The tragedy he was compelled to prevent was the dissolution of the Union. He saw slavery as an intrinsic evil, and if he could save the Union and at the same time eradicate slavery, so be it. Lincoln was, after all, a consummate opportunist.

Abortion is the slavery issue of our time. It marks the great difference between two philosophies of government. On the one hand is government s the enforcer of positive restrictions which reinforce the importance of individual responsibility, on the other the government as savior of those who choose to abrogate individual responsibility. Licoln would have had none of this silliness.

Til next time all the best. Joe

FOCA and Conscience

2009-01-13T06:00:00.000-08:00

Traditionally, the new year is greeted with enthusiasm. But for serious Christians, pro-life Christians, this new year, 2009, is being greeted with foreboding and trepidation. The political winds in the nation have shifted and the Culture of Death seems to be in the ascendant. The secularism that has run rampant across Europe spawning the ideals of social democracy seems to have leapt across the moat of the Atlantic and taken root in the United States. Someone has managed to hoodwink America and has convinced us that our hopes can be realized through "freedom of choice". Someone has managed to sell us the idea that real change can be achieved if those of us who act with an informed conscience can be muzzled and made to conform. We are being told that we can hold nothing as non-negotiable, and that if we persist in doing so coercion via the law will be employed.

This is the reasoning behind the "Freedom of Choice Act". Rest assured that it will not end there. After this will come the "Freedom to Die Act". Then perhaps the "Freedom to Choose Unless You Already Have a Child Act", followed by the "Duty to Die Act".

What are we to do? What should our response to this seeming resurgence of the culture of death be?

First, we must heed one of the great messages of the Gospel, we must heed the advice proclaimed by Pope John Paul the Great as the first words of his pontificate. We must "be not afraid". From the time of Abraham to the Ascension of Christ, God tells us seventy three times to banish our fears. We must remember that our God is the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. This is the God who led His people out of Egypt; this is the God who brought His people out of Babylon; this is the God who manifested Himself as Man, who died and rose for the salvation of those He loved. The newly named Archbishop of Detroit, Allen Vigneron, has a set of ten rules for disagreeing as a Christian, the last of which is "The victory is won; my job is to run out the clock with style". We have nothing to fear.

This doesn't mean we should shrink or withdraw from public engagement on the issues of dignity and life in which we believe. On the contrary, I think it's time to engage all the more vigorously. Perhaps it's time for the Church to reconsider her traditional reluctance to name names out of fear of the IRS. In the last election, we saw many priests and bishops courageously speak out on the subject of voting our Catholic conscience. We saw many clerics correcting the dubious interpretations cast upon Catholic teaching by so-called Catholic politicians. That was a good start, but not nearly enough. I think it's high time to speak out against outrageous evil and the IRS be damned. Evil sometimes walks and talks and has a name, let's use that name. Let us leave no doubt in the mind of the world as to what this evil is. Yes, this will entail sacrifice on the part of the Church and her members. But was this not what we were promised by her founder, Jesus Christ? Do we not have His guarantee that the "gates of Hell would not prevail" against her? Let's trust in His word and do what is right.

The federal state, the reins of which have been seized by those who have betrayed the liberal ideal of the equality of all men, is about to attempt to impose a gag upon us. The new majority party in the Congress is about to introduce again legislation under the guise of freedom to choose which will tell us that our conscience is not only irrelevant, but that acting on that conscience is illegal. We must fight that attempt and if we lose the battle to prevent the enactment of that legislation, we must refuse to submit and willingly accept the consequences of that refusal.

I believe that this administration poses the greatest threat to the fight for life and the dignity of life that we have faced thus far in the modern "kulturkampf". I believe that our cause faces serious challenges. But I also believe that the outcome is guaranteed. Running out the clock with style may call for greater sacrifices than we know. Do not be afraid.

Thanks for reading my rant.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

A Hierarchy of Injustice

2009-01-09T06:31:00.000-08:00

I make it no secret that I am not a big fan of President-elect Obama. Nor do I conceal the fact that my lack of enthusiasm for the incoming administration is based on the President elect's wholehearted support of the "right" of a woman to terminate her pregnancy at will. In fact, I'm rather outspoken in promoting my view that the right to life is the fundamental right upon which every other right is based.

A man I greatly admire, and whom, in my estimation, ought to know better, recently accused me and pro-lifers in general of being "one issue" voters. This man, my friend, is an ardent Catholic and a member of my parish, St Mary's, in downtown Indianapolis. His particular "hot button" issue is immigration, particularly, the rights of Hispanic immigrants.

A word about St Mary's and my membership there is in order here. St Mary's was founded in 1858 as a parish with a ministry to a particular ethnic group, the Germans. At various times she has hosted different ethnic groups, the Irish and Italians have at various times in her long history called her their own home parish. Currently, St Mary's is approximately 60% Hispanic. I belong to St Mary's by choice, not out of necessity. She is not the nearest parish to me. I am not a native of Indianapolis, so St Mary's is not the home parish of my family, nor does she hold any other emotional attachment for me. I love the pastor there. I love the devotion and enthusiasm of her Hispanic members. The thriving Hispanic culture is actually one of the reasons I selected St Mary's as my home parish.

Now, back to my conversation with my friend. I agree with my friend that there are serious flaws in the immigration system in the United States, particularly where that system is applied with our nearest neighbor to the south, Mexico. I know that the economic disparity between the two nations is remarkable; I know that many children sicken and die for lack of adequate medical attention and the unavailability of basic immunizations just because they live on the wrong side of an imaginary line dividing two nations. I, too, decry these occurrences great social injustices.

But there exists between the issue of immigration and the issue of abortion a gulf. There is a hierarchy of injustice here, with the abortion issue seated above the immigration issue. As such, the abortion issue "trumps" the immigration issue

Abortion is a conscious choice made by an individual to deliberately deprive another of their right to live. Further, the woman seeking an abortion seeks to abrogate her responsibility she incurred by engaging in an act, sex, the consequences of which, pregnancy, she was aware of when she undertook that activity.

My friend argued that a thousand children a day perished as a result of diseases which could easily be prevented via effective immunizations. I have not verified these numbers, but I'll accept them at face value. In the United States, four thousand children a day perish at the hands of the abortionist. You do the math.

The Obama administration proposes to ease or eradicate the restrictions currently imposed by the Mexico City Policy on funds provided to other nations for the purposes of birth control and abortion. More Mexican citizen will have the privilege of dying through abortion due to their efforts. I don't want my tax money to be used for this purpose. On the up side, immunizations may become less of an issue.

Certainly, the Democrats seem to have a better program regarding immigration issues, and when that program benefits the common good I will be rightly supportive of them. I'm an independent politically, affiliated with neither major party. I'd love to be able to be a Democrat, and as soon as I find a Democratic politician who is pro-life and pro-immigration, I will consider supporting that candidate. Until I find that candidate, however, life issues must be my primary consideration.

Until next time, all the best. Joe

Richard John Neuhaus, 1936-2009

2009-01-08T07:18:00.000-08:00

Convert, priest, writer. American Catholics have lost a great voice for religion in the public square. Our Babylonian exile has become a bit drearier. Details at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1280

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon him. Amen.

Blogging Lessons Learned

2009-01-05T08:32:00.000-08:00

This post marks my thirty second attempt at writing something meaningful. This means that over the period of approximately two months, I've managed a month's worth of writing, a milestone of sorts, I think. That's far better than I thought I'd be able to manage. That's my first "lesson learned", I suppose. Here are some more things I've learned.

I've learned not to title posts until I've finished writing. There's an interesting reason for this. What I intend to write, and what actually ends up on the page are never the same...never. I'm not sure how that happens. Truly amazing! "The best laid plans of mice and men..." I guess.

Right alongside that bizarre occurrence, I find that multiple ideas will often find expression on the same page. This is surely a function of my "attention deficit disorder". I find myself scratching the surface in one post of some subject which deserves its own consideration. Maintaining focus on the subject at hand gets difficult. There seems to be so much that needs to be said all at once. Often the distraction is overwhelming.

Sometimes, too, in the interest of timeliness, I find myself writing in haste and I fail to do justice to the subject on which I'm writing. It's difficult to reread a post and realize how much I've managed to leave unsaid on a particular topic because of my haste. On the other hand, I find myself, from time to time, truncating important thoughts in the interests of brevity.

Another problem I have is that I don't seem to be a very original thinker. Not that I plagiarize the work of others, but I do often find myself feeding off of the thoughts of others. Hopefully, I don't simply regurgitate what I've read or heard elsewhere. Ideally, I develop thoughts off the thinking of others.

Oh, and did I mention punctuation? I seem to have fallen in love with the idea of the comma. I'll stick a comma in a sentence at the drop of a hat. Is it possible to disable one's comma key? This is a technical issue which bears some looking into. Either that, or I could marry the comma. That may be a bit much though. But, if a man can marry another man, or a woman another woman; since "love is love", why should I not be allowed to consummate my love affair with the comma and bring it to its full fruition? This may cause problems with my relationship with the semicolon...but what the hell.

While I'm dwelling on technical issues, God bless the inventor of the spellcheck feature! Not that I can't spell, I can, and quite well. But I cannot type worth a tinker's damn. Without spellcheck, I'm quite certain you'd think me a moron (if you don't already). I also have a penchant for hitting the semicolon key instead of the apostrophe key when writing contractions. It must be a common error since my spellcheck seeems to pick up on it. Truly awesome!

Finally, I find it difficult to accept, and I'm sure that you, dear reader, are amazed to hear as well how little the world seems to care about what Henzler thinks. This realization has left me quite flabbergasted. Thirty one posts in approximately two months and only five comments, three of which are mine. Changing the world is going to be much more work, I see now, than I imagined it was going to be when I founded this little corner of the ether. I imagined so much more interaction. Truly, this has been my greatest disappointment. I really need some affirmation.

So, there it is, my friend. That is everything I've managed to learn is a month's worth of posts. If you, dear reader, have any further observations or comments, please feel free to address them here. I'd be delighted to respond.

And, as always, til next time, all the best. Joe

Determinism

2009-01-03T10:46:00.000-08:00

I recently took in the movie Valkyrie, the story of the July 1944 plot against Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. The movie was mediocre, the story itself riveting. I don't mean to make this post about the movie, but it did set me to thinking about the idea of free will versus determinism.

There are those who would have us believe that everything that we do, that very decision which we make, is determined beforehand by our past. They would have us believe that our will, our ability to make decisions, our choices are mere illusions. They contend that if we could build a computer with enough capacity and could enter into that computer the pertinent data, then that machine could predict our decisions. For the most part those who hold such views are to be found among the atheist or agnostic intelligentsia, the same intelligentsia who rail against the existence of an all-knowing God who refuses to, or elects to seldom, interfere in the affairs of men, and who, oddly enough, complain at the same time of a God who gives us no choice in our actions a la Adam and Eve, or the hardening of Pharaoh's heart against Moses and the Hebrews.

I contend that such thinking has found its way into atheist circles via Calvinism. I surmise that former adherents of Calvinistic Christian denominations who "deconverted" to atheism carried bits of the idea of predestination with them, and that from this seed the ridiculous concept of determinism has sprouted. Not that its origin really matters all that much. What really matters is that such thought makes possible a great moral dodge, and that is the idea that, since we cannot actually make choices freely, that since we are constrained in our present and future actions by our past, we cannot be held accountable for our present or future actions. The evil choice which we make are simply the product of what we or others have done in the past. Likewise, any positive actions or decisions we make are simply the foregone conclusion of what has transpired in our lives previously.

I do not mean to suggest that our past experiences play no role at all in our decision making. In fact, I believe that such experiences factor greatly into the decisions we make. Pondering the past is the process by which we learn. I do object, however, to the idea that we are inextricably bound to the past, that we are incapable of freeing ourselves from such bonds.

Thus would heroism become one and the same with villainy; the hero would be no more heroic for his courage than would the villain be culpable for his malevolence. Our admiration of the hero for acting out of the ordinary would be as misplaced as our outrage at the villain for his atrocities. The hero would be as unworthy of recognition as the villain would be of punishment. Even now, it seems that nearly every misdeed can be justified through a diagnosis of some sort of mental disorder.

I guess that the point I'm trying to make here is that our society is based entirely upon the idea that we do have a choice and that we are responsible for the choices we make. To deny that is to deny that we possess any shred of dignity; to deny that is to deny that we can be rewarded or punished for our actions. Crime and punishment, heroism and altruism become outmoded concepts to be relegated to the scrap heap of ideas whose usefulness we have outlived.

Til nest time, all the best. Joe

Happy New Year

2009-01-01T06:12:00.000-08:00

Just a brief note to wish my vast readership a very happy and blessed New Year!

Let's brace for the challenges ahead, remembering where our hope lies. God bless you all!

Til next time, all the best. Joe

A New Creation

2008-12-29T06:00:00.000-08:00

At the turn of the seventeenth century Caravaggio was the buzz of the Roman art world. Among his most famous paintings is The Calling of St Matthew which depicts the moment when Jesus chose Matthew (his Hebrew name was Levi) to join His Apostles. It's a painting that's always fascinated me.

Matthew, a tax collector, sits at a table in his counting house along with his foppish friends. Like a schoolboy who doesn't know the answer to the question posed by his teacher, Matthew's gaze is directed towards the coins stacked in front of him on the table, studiously avoiding eye contact with Jesus. Our Lord stands on the right side of the painting, a wedge of light from an open window passes over His shoulder, falling upon the reluctant Matthew. The most striking thing about Jesus though (and I must admit that I had to have this pointed out to me, it's not something I noticed on my own) is his right hand which He has extended towards Matthew. His index finger is pointed directly towards Matthew, his wrist slightly bent, the remaining three fingers and his thumb curled loosely towards His palm. It is the same positioning of the hand used by Michelangelo to depict God's reach towards man in the Creation of Adam painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Caravaggio must have copied this on purpose from Michelangelo's masterpiece to show that Matthew is not merely being called to the discipleship of an itinerant preacher, he's being called to be a new creation. He knows this and he fears that call. After all, Matthew is the one among those whom Jesus calls who stands to lose the most. Unlike Adam, Matthew doesn't reach back towards God, his hands remain on the table, fondling his coins.

As a tax collector, St Matthew made a pretty good living. Tax collectors were notorious for their corruption, "cooking the books", as it were, charging taxpayers too much, turning in too little to the government and pocketing the profits. He must have enjoyed the favor of some patron among the Roman administration since such appointments were not handed out to indigenous people without such influence. Further, Matthew's circle of friends would have been limited to other tax collectors since the Jews would not associate with employees of the hated Roman regime, and Romans would look down on natives of their colonized regions as second rate persons at best. But, Our Lord must have seen something in this tax collector. Somewhere within Matthew, Jesus recognized something worthy of extending this call. In the end, though, Matthew accepts the call.

We hear the same call that Matthew heard. Christ calls us to be new creations, but like Matthew, we balk. There's a lot of baggage we haul around with us, so many things we'll have to change. We'll find times when being created anew conflicts with our accumulation of material goods. We fear the effect becoming a new creation will have on our lifestyles, our jobs, our daily life. We are afraid of what our friends will say. We, too, hesitate to reach back towards God. We're content to quietly accept the call, to play lip service to it, but living the call is another issue.

We eagerly await a new heaven and a new earth. We long for a world which acknowledges the dignity of all men before God. We desire a world without evil, sickness, and death, but God doesn't seem to plan to do it in one fell swoop. He's calling us one at a time to become His agents in this world. He reaches towards us to effect the repair of the breach between us, and it's up to us to reach back by living our beliefs in this world, like Matthew did in becoming one of the Twelve, in becoming the first to record the words and deeds of Christ to communicate them to others.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

If You Think the Beginning Was Something...

2008-12-26T06:00:00.000-08:00

The homily at our Christmas Midnight Mass was delivered by a deacon, Peter Marshall (pardon any misspelling here) who will be ordained to the priesthood this spring. I don't know if it was Deacon Peter's first homily, but it was the first time I had ever heard him preach, and it was an awesome experience. His subject was "If you think the beginning was something...", and it really set me to thinking...

Deacon Peter used the examples we are familiar with from our own lives to illustrate that those exciting first moments pale in comparison to that which lies in store for us at the end of significant stages in our lives. That the first day of college pales in comparison to the promise of graduation; that the wedding belies the trials and tribulations that await the couple over the course of their marriage; that the arrival of a newborn shrinks as the responsibility and the promise of what is to come from that new life dawns on the parents.

So then does the Nativity of Christ, despite its touching tenderness, despite being pregnant with promise, despite the message of love it sends mean very little if we detach from it the glory of the Passion and the Resurrection of Christ. Now please, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the Nativity is not important. Certainly it is quite necessary to the plot of salvation history. If Jesus had not become Man, then his death and resurrection could not have occurred. And there are many other important lessons to be gleaned from this season.

I don't know why my mind does this, I suspect it's a touch of Attention Deficit Disorder, but suddenly the thought of Al Jolson popped into my head while I was turning Deacon Peter's words over in my head. In 1927, in the classic and history making movie The Jazz Singer, Al Jolson spoke the first words heard in a major motion picture, "Wait a minute! Wait a minute! You ain't hard nothing yet!" Audiences went wild. Look where cinema has gone today from that humble start.

I can easily imagine the Bambino, God become Man, or perhaps the young Jesus with the rabbis and scribes in the Temple as His parents found Him with these words upon His lips, "Wait a minute! Wait a minute! You ain't heard nothing yet!", then adding "If you think the beginning is something..."

Until next time, all the best. Joe

Follow Me!

2008-12-25T00:52:00.000-08:00

Hey, here's an idea. If you like Top Meadow so much that you really can't live without it, why not become a follower of my blog and be notified of updates. Just click on the words "Follow this blog" on the left margin and I'll be added to your reading list. As always, feel free to comment.

Until next time, all the best. Joe

Chesterton on the Nativity

2008-12-25T00:01:00.000-08:00

"A mass of legend and literature, which increases and will never end, has repeated and rung the changes on that single paradox; that the hands that had made the sun and stars were too small to reach the huge heads of the cattle. Upon this paradox, we might almost say upon this jest, all the literature of our faith is founded. It is at least like a jest in this, that it is something which the scientific critic cannot see. He laboriously explains the difficulty which we have always defiantly and almost derisively exaggerated; and mildly condemns as improbable something that we have almost madly exalted as incredible; as something that would be much too good to be true, except that it is true. When that contrast between the cosmic creation and the little local infancy has been repeated, reiterated, underlined, emphasised, exulted in, sung, shouted, roared, not to say howled, in a hundred thousand hymns, carols, rhymes, rituals, pictures, poems, and popular sermons, it may be suggested that we hardly need a higher critic to draw our attention to something a little odd about it...It is no more inevitable to connect God with an infant than to connect gravitation with a kitten."

This paragraph form the chapter "The God in the Cave" begins Chesterton's reflection of the Nativity of Christ in his Masterpiece The Everlasting Man. If you have never read it, you should. Then, you should read it again.

I had never really given it much thought before I read Chesterton, but the bit about the hands of God being too small to reach the cattle just floors me. That God entrusted Himself as man to the care of the created, that He deliberately became vulnerable to all those things which threaten and endanger a child is really a concept that I have a hard time getting my head around. Other religions had myths regarding the birth of gods; other mythologies even had the idea that a god could become a man, but none had a God-Child born of a human mother and dependent on her as all babes do. As Chesterton expounds further on "When a well-known critic says, for instance, that Christ being born in a rocky cavern is like Mithras having sprung alive out of a rock, it sounds like a parody upon comparative religion. There is such a thing as the point of a story, even if it is a story in the sense of a lie. And the notion of a hero appearing, like Pallas from the brain of Zeus, mature and without a mother, is obviously the very opposite of the idea of a god being born like an ordinary baby and entirely dependent on a mother. Whichever ideal we might prefer, we should surely see that they are contrary ideals."

Wow! Just wow!

Merry Christmas and God bless you all!

Until next time, all the best. Joe

The Roots of Christianity II

2008-12-23T09:18:00.000-08:00

In a narrow strip of the ancient Near East, bordered roughly by the hills of Judea on the west and the Jordan River on the east, there dwelt a xenophobic and odd people. They claimed descent from a single man named Abram, or Abraham, originally from the city of Ur in Mesopotamia, where his father was an idol maker. Apparently Abraham was a young man prone to thought for, according to the oral traditions of his descendants, one day while his father napped he conducted and experiment. He crept into his father's workshop and smashed all the idols except the biggest. He laid the hammer by the large idol. When his father returned to work after his rest, Abraham blamed the carnage on the surviving idol. His father admonished Abraham not be foolish, and punished him for the mayhem. This confirmed a suspicion which he had long harbored that no one, not even those who stood the most to profit from their purported powers, really believed in the power of these gods. Yet Abraham felt, as all men do at one point or another, that the world and its wonders called for a deity. Shortly after this, at the tender age of seventy-five, Abraham packed up his family and left Ur, and the rest, as they say, is history.

That history, the history of the nation eventually called Israel and its attendant religion, known as Judaism (the two can never really be separated) is a story of triumph and tragedy, it is a story of apostasy and repentance. I don't intend to recount the saga of Israel here. Most people are at least vaguely familiar with the tale, and accounts of it are readily available in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In my last essay, I surmised that monotheism had been the original theological state of mankind. Here I will put forth the premise that Abraham rediscovered that theology. How this idea entered into Abraham's mind, I have no idea. Perhaps there were tales surviving to his day recounting such a belief. Perhaps he had some sort of epiphany. In any event, it seems that the idea of one deity, of one God, was not a commonly held belief in his day. This God then deigns to establish a covenant, or relationship, with Abraham and his descendants.

His descendants would cling to this monotheistic ideal for the better part of two thousand years, imperfectly, sometimes straying into apostasy, but always the faithful remnant remained, always returning to their devotion to the "God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob". For two thousand years, they prepared the way for, and eagerly awaited that which all religions, at their base, hoped for, the reconciliation of man and God. The law of God, handed down to the people through Moses, set the Jews apart from their contemporaries. The Jews were not xenophobic. They were set apart by God to prevent their corruption. The plan of God was to present the world with its savior through the Jews. Their task was to maintain the purity of Man as best they could, to foster a culture capable of nurturing a Man become God. Their prophets foretold that event; their teachings foretold His; their sacrifices foreshadowed the sacrifice that God would make out His love for His Creation.

And so it happened that, in the fullness of time, God saved His people. Next time, I think, perhaps we'll examine Judaism realized. Until then, all the best. Joe

Why We Should Share the Gospel: An Atheist Perspective

2008-12-21T10:09:00.000-08:00

I know I promised something else in this post, but this floored me. Penn Jillette, the talkative half of the illusionist duo Penn and Teller, hits the nail on the head about why Christians should prostelytize.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM

"Preach the Gospel and when necessary, use words." St Francis of Assissi

Thanks to The Anchoress and New Advent for finding this one.

The Roots of Christianity

2008-12-19T09:59:00.000-08:00

One of the recent topics of discussion lately, and I must say a perennially popular one, on the forums at my favorite atheist website has been the "pagan" origins of Christianity. I thought it highly appropriate that this subject should emerge once more at this particular season of the year since Advent is our waiting for the arrival of the Messiah, the arrival which is, or course, one of the foundational events of our faith.

The poster at the website to which I refer wrote a long list of concepts which Christianity supposedly stole from paganism, many are repetitive, so I have taken liberties by condensing this list somewhat. Among the noticed similarities are these, the "god" concept itself; Satan; souls; heaven and hell; sin; redemption; an incarnated Divine Savior; miracles; Resurrection; ascension; baptism; Eucharist; the fulfillment of prophecy. I do not intend to address these issues case by case, but rather, in Chestertonian fashion, to address the idea of similarities springing from a common source.

I would, like my hero Chesterton, note that perhaps these similarities spring from the dim recesses of a collective human memory. I contend that monotheism is the original theological condition of man, that as societies coalesced to form larger groups, as families became clans, as clans became tribes, as tribes became nations pantheons were formed as the single gods of merging groups of people were adopted by the larger groups as a form of compromise.

But always, some element of a dimly recalled cataclysm remained, that which we know as the Fall of Man. Man has always realized that there is something inherently wrong with himself. That something about his nature is not as it should be. As Chesterton says, "...there is something in the whole tone of the time suggesting that men had accepted a lower level, and still were half conscious that it was a lower level...These men were conscious of the Fall if they were conscious of nothing else...Those who have fallen may remember the fall, even when they have forgotten the height."

Certainly, I have not proven my contention that monotheism was the original condition of man. But I submit that it is indeed a far simpler explanation than the spontaneous generation of numerous pantheons coming into existence. One is much simpler than many. A common, and dimly recalled experience would also explain the commonalities found among the religions of the world's far-flung cultures. The knowledge that man had once offended a deity led to the codification of laws. The knowledge that man was meant for immortality led to the burial traditions whereby a man's belonging were interred with him in the grave. The knowledge that man had initiated the rift between himself and his deity led to the tradition of a sacrificing priesthood. The knowledge that this rift existed cried out for the deliverance of man by a Redeemer. Upon such dim knowledge, upon these dim recollections of a promise did Man begin the construction of the great pantheons of old.

But on the fringe of the world, in the murky backwater of the flourishing civilizations hugging the rim of the Mediterranean Sea, one culture, one nation, one civilization clung tenaciously to the belief in one God. In my next post, we'll look at this odd monotheistic culture and the beliefs to which it held so fiercely.

Until then, all the best. Joe

The War Against the Church: Attacks on the Family

2008-12-14T07:37:00.000-08:00

It is difficult to deny, and I have encountered few who try to deny, that the family is the first school which we, as humans, attend. It is in the family that we recieve our first lessons in matters of human interaction. It is in the family that we learn those qualities most essential to forming social bonds. The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the family "the original cell of social life" and stresses that "Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society." Let's take a look at the attacks on the family under those headings outlined by the Catechism, that is Authority, Stability and Relationships.

Authority

We see from the above citation from the Catechism that the Church realizes that authority is not a impediment to freedom, but is, on the contrary, the cornerstone of freedom.

It is in the home that our children first encounter authority in the person of their parents. Now, like it or not, we will spend our entire lives in submission to authority of some form. We have bosses at work, government in our interaction with others. Submission to authority is part and parcel of living in community.

But the culture in which we live seeks to undermine that authority. It seeks to impose its values on our children; it strives to drown out our values in cultural "noise" that shouts down those lessons we struggle to inculcate our children with. We see it in the teaching of so-called "diversity" and "tolerance" in our schools. We see it in the messages of the glorification of violence as a means of achieving goals portrayed in popular entertainment. We see it in the blatant sexualization of our youth by music and fashion.

It is the role of parents and not the state to be the primary educators of children. It the responsibility of the family and not the culture to be the primary formers of the minds of our youth.

Stability

Stability means consistency. It means consistency in the values we live, consistency in the thoughts we express, consistency in the influences we allow to exert influence upon us. We sacrifice so much of this consistency in the name of progress. We tire under the endless assaults of the culture. We succumb to the overwhelming flood of ideas that, although they run counter to what we believe, we submit to because it's easier.

But with stability comes security, the knowledge that there is a place where we can know we are safe. Where the things we believe are safe, where our values have meaning, where what we accomplish, or fail to accomplish will be viewed consistently. The family should be a place of shelter, a place of consistency, a place where we can shelter and seek rest and safety among those we love.

A Life of Relationships

In the modern world, especially in the vaunted western culture, the large family is viewed as an anomaly. Sexuality has been uncoupled from procreation and the propagation of the species. The West has become a self centered society where humans are judged by their wealth and their belongings. Materialism, in the sense of the accumulation of "stuff", has become the enemy of the family, encouraging, as it does the vast dedication of resources to accumulate things. It is financially more and more difficult to "keep up with the Joneses". Smaller families have more resources per person to spend on accumulation.

Already, though, we see the results of this amongst European society, where reproduction rates have fallen below the rate of replacement. In Europe, fewer taxpayers support more elderly via tottering social entitlement programs. Parents without children, children without siblings, find themselves approaching old age without family members to care for them, not just in a physical and financial sense, but in the sense of having companionship.

Community loses its meaning when one finds oneself alone. Loneliness breeds despair. It's hard to find joy when one's alone.

Sorry it took so long to post this. I also apologize if my thoughts seem incomplete, I was in a bit of a hurry to get something posted here. I hope you understand that these attacks are not just attacks against the Church. These attacks ate against the fundamental dignity of the human person. They are attacks on joy and hope. It is aggression against the love we are compelled to share with one another. We have determined that our own happiness demands that we eat our young. It doesn't have to be so. But there is a voice that can be heard shouting encouragement to her warriors in the midst of the battle, a voice encouraging us to maintain the struggle not just for her, but for the sake of all men. It is the voice of the embattled Church and her words of those of her beloved spouse, words which have rung down the centuries on the field of every struggle in which she has engaged in His name, "Be not afraid."

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Catholic Politicians Recieving Money from Pro-abortion Groups

2008-12-11T09:52:00.001-08:00

Deal Hudson at Inside Catholic has initiated a petition to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to address the issue of Catholic pols recieving campaign contributions from pro-abortion groups. Read about it at http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5053&Itemid=48 .

A link is provided from the article to sign the petition.

The War Against the Church: Attacks on the Priesthood

2008-12-08T22:00:00.000-08:00

The Catholic Church teaches many precepts which run counter to the flow of current culture. So it should come as no surprise that she is the target of numerous attacks from that culture in attempts to silence her, or at the very least muzzle her, in those areas where her teachings conflict with the views of the culture. As we saw in my first post, attacks against the Church generally follow three traditional avenues of approach, those against the Truth, those against the priesthood, and those against the family. It is the second of the three, the priesthood, on which I wish to focus here.

The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ for the salvation of sinners through the use of the Seven Sacraments, of which five, Reconciliation (the forgiveness of sins), the Eucharist (the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass), Confirmation, Holy Orders (ordination to the priesthood), and the Sacrament of the Sick can only be confected or administered by those ordained members of the priesthood acting in persona Christi (that is, as the person of Christ). Furthermore, Our Lord established the Church as a hierarchy, with a chain of authority running from the laity, through the priests acting as pastors, through the bishops in union with the senior bishop, the Pope, who in turn is the successor of St Peter, whom Christ first appointed to head His Church.

It is no mere coincidence that the enemies of the Church have focused on the priesthood since it is the priest who acts, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "in the person of Christ the Head..."'...in the name of the whole Church". As a cleric himself, Luther knew it when he set Europe on the course for that shipwreck of Christendom known as the "Reformation". Calvin knew it, as did Cromwell when he goaded Henry VIII into open warfare against the Church. The Cecil's followed suit in the pressure they applied on Elizabeth I. There's a reason that priests figure so prominently among the martyrs of the Reformation in England. There's a reason that an entire block was reserved for priests by the German National Socialist regime at the concentration camp at Dachau.

Today's attack, though less bloody, is every bit as vicious. The first, I suppose, is the notion that women should be ordained to the priesthood. The doctrine that the priesthood is reserved to men is not an issue of fairness; it is an issue revolving around the will of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. It must be remembered that the priest, acting, as I've pointed out already, acts in persona Christi. For whatever reason, Our Lord chose to be incarnated as a male. If the priest fills the role of Christ sacramentally, then, like in a stage presentation, that role must match the gender of the one portrayed. Imagine (although it's probably been done) a staging of Hamlet or King Lear with a woman taking the lead role. Christ Himself, when instituting the priesthood, conferred Holy Orders only on the Apostles, all of whom were men. I'm very sorry, ladies, that it is not otherwise.

Much more dangerous to the notion of the priesthood is the overblown sex scandal. I do not deny that there have been priests who have abused their position by committing hideous acts against children. Nor do I deny that the cases of the abusers were, most of the time, grossly mishandled by the hierarchy. That said, I contend, first of all, that the sex scandal in which the priesthood is embroiled is a "homosex" scandal; it is not a result of of the vow of celibacy, it is the diabolical result of a perverted sexuality. Second, one should know that the number of priests accused, not convicted, just accused of such acts amounts to less than 2% of all men ordained since 1950. In fact, rates of sexual abuse by lay (pardon the pun) teachers in secular school system causes the Catholic sex scandal pale in comparison. Your child is statistically safer in the company of a Catholic priest than in the company of their high school coach.

We are often tempted to forget that our priests are, despite the extraordinary graces bestowed upon them through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, still men. That they are indeed mortal, they are as prone to temptation and to sin as we, the laity are.

We forget that 98% of the men who have taken upon themselves the burden of the priesthood have carried out their duties and fulfilled their vows faithfully, many going so far as to give their lives in the service of the Gospel. To judge a class of men by the acts of the few errants among them is an act of prejudice just as certainly as judging a man by his sexual orientation, or the color of his skin, or his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is prejudice. Perhaps the best course is to consider our priests as God made them and as we encounter them, that is, one at a time.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

The President-elect's Reply to My Concerns on FOCA

2008-12-08T09:16:00.000-08:00

Shortly after Mr Obama's Presidential election victory, I emailed him to forward my congratulations and express my concerns regarding the Freedom of Choice Act. I recently recieved this reply:

"Dear Joseph Henzler,

Thank you for contacting us with questions regarding the policy agenda of President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden. They have listened to the hopes, concerns and ideas of people across our country and developed innovative approaches to challenge the status quo in Washington and bring about the change America needs.

The incoming Obama-Biden administration has a comprehensive and detailed policy agenda. Among many important domestic and foreign policy objectives, the priorities of the new Administration include: reviving the economy; provide affordable, accessible health care to all; strengthening our public education and social security systems; defining a clear path to energy independence and tackling climate change; ending the war in Iraq responsibly and finishing our mission in Afghanistan; and working with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.To learn details about the Obama-Biden policy agenda and share your ideas, please click here:http://www.change.gov/agenda/

We appreciate the outpouring of interest in the new administration and hope you will stay involved.

Sincerely,The Obama-Biden Transition Project"

My reply:

"Dear Mr Obama and Team,

Thanks so much for your recent reply to my email outlining my opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), but I failed to see in your email where my concerrns about this legislation was addressed. Perhaps it was blanketed by the statement about "provide affordable, accessible health care to all". I'm not sure that it is, but would like clarification on this point.

If such is the case, I would like to point out that abortion has and extremely deleterious effect on the development of the unborn child, not to mention recent research indicating long term mental and physical health risks faced by women who undergo abortions.

Further, in keeping with your statement that the determination as to when life begins is above your pay grade, it would seem to me that the most prudent course of action for the man about to assume the office of the highest law enforcement officer of the land would be to err on the side of caution by assuming that life begins at conception.

Thank you for attention in this matter. I eagerly await your response.

Sincerely,
Joseph O Henzler"

I encourage others to drop Mr Obama's team a respectful note on this matter. He asked us to do so. I'm sure he'll be delighted.

I'll keep you posted on any replies I recieve. Til next time, all the best. Joe

The War against the Church: Attacks on the Truth

2008-12-06T07:46:00.000-08:00

Last night, before bed, I was watching Father George Rutler's series Christ in the City on EWTN (it's part of my weekly line up of shows and I highly recommend it for any thinking Catholic). Father mentioned that all attacks on the Church take three traditional forms; attacks against the truth, attacks against the priesthood, and attacks against the family. I thought I'd take time to look at each of these assaults as evidenced in the modern world. I'll begin with truth.

Truth, according to Thomas Aquinas, is that which conforms to reality. The philosophers of the Enlightenment had a hard time attacking that definition of truth, so they went for the secondary part of the definition and decided instead to attack reality, reasoning that if there was no objective reality, there was nothing with which to conform, ergo, there could be no objective truth. Rather than acknowledge that which our experience dictates, that is that "existence precedes essence", they stood existence on its head and postulated that we cannot know the thing itself, we can only know the thing by our idea of it. This is what Descartes had in mind when he famously stated "I think, therefore I am."

Today, such notions are still alive and well, regardless of how counterintuitive they seem to be. Carried on predominantly in the field of physics, primarily in quantum mechanics, the idea that nothing can be known with certainty is all the rage. Certainly, if such is true for the physical world, if there are no scientific truths, if there are no absoute truths in nature, how can there possibly be any metaphysical truths? Indeed how can there be such a thing as metaphysics at all?

The idea that gets left behind here is that quantum mechanics, the point at which these folks claim that reality gets fuzzy, is far removed from that which Aquinas identified as proper knowledge of things, that is direct knowledge by virtue of experience, sensorial knowledge. To attain knowledge of the subatomic world we must rely on instruments which are themselves another layer of theory between us and that which we wish to know. The data we acquire through such instruments is interpreted through the tool of mathematics. Now, mathematics is a wonderful predictive tool; it is an incredibly accurate method of modelling that which we cannot observe directly, but it must be remembered that it is exactly that, a model. It is not the thing itself, nor does it provide us with proper knowledge of the thing observed. As an example, consider a graph on which we establish the horizontal axis as time, and the vertical axis as distance. We then plot the progress of a persom walking at a set rate from a given point. We can use the graph to predict where that person will be at a future point in time. We can witness where they were at a given time in the past, but we have not witnessed motion, we have only modelled it. Mathematics can be used to accurately describe reality, but it is not reality itself.

In a similar vein, there are those who deny the existence of morla and ethical truths. Such persons claim that morals are a matter pf personal well being and that the best we can hope to do is associate with those who have similar world views. There are those who contend that we ought not impose our moral views on others. We "ought not say ought not." This is the contradiction upon which this case rests. Any rule is an imposition except the rule that we have no right to tell others what to do.

For a deeper appreciation of the subject of how science can lead one astray from an adequate understanding of reality, I highly recommend Dr Anthony Rizzi's book The Science Before Science: A Guide to Thinking in the 21st Century.

In my next post, we'll look at attacks on the priesthood. Until then, all the best. Joe

Cigars and Conversation

2008-12-02T06:56:00.000-08:00

My recent foray into the subject of silence set me to thinking about the dying pastime of conversation. It occurred to me that with the loss of silence, we are losing our time to think our own thoughts. We are forced to succumb the that spawn of the information age, the sound bite. We take in our information from the sound bite, we think in sound bites, hence we express ourselves in sound bites. Our ability to think whole thoughts, to follow matters through to their logical end, is impeded with the result that sharing our thoughts with others through thoughtful, reasoned and civil discourse is rapidly disappearing.

It's quite beyond me that I failed to mention in my introduction my affinity for tobacco products. I'm a craven nicotine addict. I know that it's quite an admission to make given the modern attitude towards tobacco, but I'm unrepentant, even proud of the fact, that I so enjoy smoking the leaf. Cigarettes are my main poison of choice, but my true love, my passion, my raison d'etre is cigars. Without discussing brand names, I'll tell you that my favorite cigars tend to be Honduran made. My preference runs towards the maduro cigars, those with a dark tobacco wrapper, rich and oily, with a leathery texture and a bit of spice and pepper to the smoke.

My daily cigar is the high point of my day, so much the better when I have a friend to share a smoke with. Now, there are certain rules that must be followed in the smoking of a cigar, rules that amount nearly to a ritual. Most of the rules support the notion that cigar time is, when alone, a time of thought and contemplation; when smoked in the company of others, it is a time of companionship and conversation. No interlopers are permitted. This includes electronic interlopers. No TV, no radio (perhaps instrumental music), no dishes.

During this timeout from the day I either take time to think without the distractions of the world, or to engage others in conversation sans those same distractions. The cigar is really just an excuse to do so. It's really more of a time to bond with friends, to exchange ideas, to develop thoughts.

I don't advocate cigars for everybody, but I do advocate some means of taking time out to think, to converse, to exchange ideas in a civil manner. The involvement of a common interest, in my case, cigars, simply facilitates this timeout.

Try it. Take some time out with a friend, undistracted by the world. I think you'll be glad you did.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Silence and Reflection

2008-11-30T06:00:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-28T06:00:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-26T23:00:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-26T20:57:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-25T07:19:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-23T09:33:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-22T10:37:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-11-20T11:48:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-20T06:37:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-16T08:36:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-14T23:30:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-13T07:08:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-12T15:46:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-12T06:57:00.000-08:00

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