Via the blog at Ignatius.com, found this link to an article by Reverend Michael P. Orsi reviewing the sin of calumny and noting the rise of the unfortunate practice in the blogosphere.
Father is right: our eternal felicity depends on our treatment of our fellows, no matter where we find them.
But I find myself feeling angry when I know that there are mature, normally intelligent young persons and adults in the pews who do not know what calumny is. They cannot even spell it - in any language. They have no clue.
Father's excellent list of recommendations begins with:
"Pastors should speak on the Eighth Commandment and its corollary injunctions against calumny and detraction."
OK, so we're done then.
Father is probably a good homilist. I note he is not in the diocese from which I write. I trust it is not a sin to note that there are lots of homilies delivered in this diocese which are worse than mere blather. And let's not even get into what passes for "catechesis."
It is a kind of abuse in its own way, and perpetrated with unflagging zeal. And the sheep are so ignorant that they don't even know they're being starved.
However, the Holy Father is a good shepherd. He is a good teacher, a wise man, a servant of God... he is our miracle in this generation. Some bishops will obviously need a lot of help just to implement a very simple directive. And remember, there are those who earnestly believe that people cannot understand words like "consubstantiation," or anything in Latin. It would not be surprising if those gentlemen also balked at using a word like "calumny" in a teaching context.
But, as Father Z. so wisely says, brick by brick.
Father Orsi is concerned for the souls of calumniators. May his article be read and understood by those who will benefit from it. Let us pray for all who are guilty or tempted by this terrible sin. But let us also pray for the souls of those who accepted the responsibility of being a shepherd to souls, then abdicated it for the sake of popularity, worldly acceptance, or tithes.
13 May 2008
11 May 2008
More on the subject
... of love and the not-love promulgated by The Liar's minions:
the Curmudgeon says it very well
Kay S. Hymowitz explains what happened in "Sex and Its Discontents"
Obi's Sister does a good wrap-up in "The Hook-up Generation"
the Curmudgeon says it very well
Kay S. Hymowitz explains what happened in "Sex and Its Discontents"
Obi's Sister does a good wrap-up in "The Hook-up Generation"
"Casual, careless, lighthearted and fun"
As a definition of what's up with young people today ... I'm not seeing it, myself. Young people are so confused. Now, there's no news in that: young people are young, inexperienced, impulsive and at the mercy of hormones. Of course they're confused!
The difference is, these days, young people in a certain demographic haven't got any guidance, beyond "use a condom." The very things they ought to be thinking about, really seriously, they are steered firmly away from.
The Anchoress has a thought-provoking post about the young these days and their issues with relationships. Via another blogger, Fausta, she finds this article, which ends,
Nevertheless: it's right.
The lie is that sex is all there is, that we're just biology, any feelings of affection we might have are accidental and could evaporate tomorrow. If you look at it that way, your life will indeed be lonely and longing, and there will be nothing progressive about it.
The truth is, humans have a distinctly spiritual aspect to their personalities, which is perceptible through being embraced, vehemently denied, via life wreckage if it's ignored, or joy-full life if it's honored and encouraged.
If one starts with love, learns love, commits to love, and finds one's vocation in family love, sex will happen, but it will be secondary, believe it or not. Furthermore, affection, without which sex is reduced to mere physicality, permeates life, and nourishes the soul and emotions even when sex is impossible.
That is what kids need to know: the goal is not sex. The goal is love and affection, a sense of knowing what one is about, and a right outlet for responsibility and protective impulses.
The college student who wrote this essay needs to use the critical thinking and reasoning skills one hopes to learn at the college level to figure out what might work better for her. She is clearly missing out on beauty and joy in love, if she only knew how to make herself available to it. Clue No. 1: it will not be found by watching Sex and the City...
The difference is, these days, young people in a certain demographic haven't got any guidance, beyond "use a condom." The very things they ought to be thinking about, really seriously, they are steered firmly away from.
The Anchoress has a thought-provoking post about the young these days and their issues with relationships. Via another blogger, Fausta, she finds this article, which ends,
I tried to remember that no one is my property and neither am I theirs, and so I should just enjoy the time we spend together, because in the end it’s our collected experiences that add up to a rich and fulfilling life. I tried to tell myself that I’m young, that this is the time to be casual, careless, lighthearted and fun; don’t ruin it.Contrast that with Sigmund, Carl and Alfred's stance:
Sexuality does indeed exist for the purpose of creating life, but that is not the only purpose of our sexual natures. In reality, it is with a spiritual context that the healthiest of sexual expressions and families are anchored. A family wherein spirituality and sexuality are found are families that are the most evolved and most progressive. Within those families are humans with higher ideals and higher aspirations. They are families in which the higher self is expressed.I wish that could be said a bit differently, however; I can just see the sneer, imagine the eyes rolling ... it's a bit pedantic, no?
Nevertheless: it's right.
The lie is that sex is all there is, that we're just biology, any feelings of affection we might have are accidental and could evaporate tomorrow. If you look at it that way, your life will indeed be lonely and longing, and there will be nothing progressive about it.
The truth is, humans have a distinctly spiritual aspect to their personalities, which is perceptible through being embraced, vehemently denied, via life wreckage if it's ignored, or joy-full life if it's honored and encouraged.
If one starts with love, learns love, commits to love, and finds one's vocation in family love, sex will happen, but it will be secondary, believe it or not. Furthermore, affection, without which sex is reduced to mere physicality, permeates life, and nourishes the soul and emotions even when sex is impossible.
That is what kids need to know: the goal is not sex. The goal is love and affection, a sense of knowing what one is about, and a right outlet for responsibility and protective impulses.
The college student who wrote this essay needs to use the critical thinking and reasoning skills one hopes to learn at the college level to figure out what might work better for her. She is clearly missing out on beauty and joy in love, if she only knew how to make herself available to it. Clue No. 1: it will not be found by watching Sex and the City...
05 May 2008
The beneficence of Benedict
His influence is remarkable. He is bridging the gap between the factions in the Church brought about over the last 40 years.
Fr. Z's wide-ranging blog highlights two examples.
First, the Transalpine Redemptorists are clearly mellowing in light of Summorum Pontificum. I recommend you follow the link to read the posting, which includes Fr. Z's comments and emphases. However, I find my self in strong agreement with a couple of passages:
Have you seen this bumper sticker?
But the miracle that is Benedict appears to be mellowing some of those folks, too. Fr. Z posted Archbishop Mahony's reflection, which closes with, "I return to Los Angeles a different disciple of Jesus than when I left a week ago. Thank you, Lord, for sending us not only the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Peter, but also a brother and friend who knows Jesus personally and gave us six extraordinary days of grace and hope!"
As for the wandering sheep... my story is perhaps typical. My conversion was to the pre-Vatican II church, but I was baptized in 1971, so my experience was disorienting and baffling from the first. By 1980 it was pretty clear I was simply out of luck. As the Church's discipline fell apart, so did that at home. It got so that going to Mass was an occasion of sin for me... and, on at least one occasion, when I tried to confess it, the priest showed open contempt for my need for some kind of structure in liturgy and a sense that the bishops and clergy had some level of respect for Rome ... even if they'd just pretended. I finally just packed it in. The bishops and priests didn't have a monopoly on viewing people's preferences with contempt; I could do the same, and I did. I trusted my soul to Christ and let Him lead me to other pastures, keeping me fed and alive and near to Himself while I traversed the valley of the shadow of death in my personal life.
During that time of great loneliness and confusion, I married. It would not be right to say I even attempted marriage, as the Catholic Church puts it. It was a superficially Christian act on my part, mere legal formality on my husband's. God protected me through the 20 some-odd miserable years that followed. I was maintained chiefly by pride. When I surrendered that, and was willing to relinquish my disordered concepts of myself and God, He was able to intervene.
Miraculously, as He restored my personal life, He restored the Church as well, providing for the election of Joseph Ratzinger and the declaration which, as the Transalpine Redemptorist letter puts it, "...makes possible the return of the entire mindset and life associated with the traditional Mass."
When I came into the Catholic faith, my guide was a Manual of Prayers from the 1920s. That book was beautifully printed and illustrated, and contained a wealth of information and inspiration. One needs to remember how vehemently such books were denounced in the years after Vatican II, and how any attraction one might have to the "mindset and life" so clearly set out was characterised as just this side of sinful, to understand the bewilderment and sorrow felt by those for whom the Church was The Guide to Life. It wasn't just liturgy, although that was certainly a major part of it... it was the laissez-faire attitude towards marriage and political belief; the relaxation of discipline in priestly life, and such seemingly laudable changes as that to the Friday abstinence. The message was clear: "we don't care, so long as you come to church and give us money."
In fact, it was exactly what the reformers accused the pre-Vatican II church of. And they were wrong. (The Monsignor at my church stayed outside after the beginning of Mass and greeted the latecomers, and those who expected to be praised for showing up at all were in for a disappointment! But there was nothing of contempt in his manner! He was obviously concerned for one's soul, and that due reverence be shown to God. I felt chastened when he did it to me - he was right to do so. When Bishop Tod Brown scolded the communicant who had the temerity to kneel to receive, and made her stand: that was contempt, and I felt the same towards his degrading actions, as well.)
My dear one is like me: could not reconcile what led him to the Church with what was taught and modeled "at the local level," so to speak. I think he might one day be open to reconsidering, as would I... but we would both need to submit our previous attempted marriages to the tribunal before we can be fully reconciled with the Church. It may be too late for us... but I trust Christ. It would be only a little miracle, compared to the big ones He's provided of late!
In the meantime, I watch from the sidelines and rejoice for those who can now experience the liturgy the way it was. They are fortunate to have the choice. Those who want feathers and guitars are welcome to them, if that floats their liturgical boat. But those innovations sink mine. I need to love God and worship only Him. If I know and love God, then I can properly respect and love my neighbour. Loving my neighbour will not lead me to love God. It just doesn't work that way! And Benedict knows that and, superb teacher and thinker that he is, he helps us all understand it, wherever we are in the journey. Saint or sinner, traditionalist or reformer, we all can perceive him as being God's servant first of all, and our leader as a natural consequence of his calling. People remark upon his humility; it is precisely because he gets out of God's way that so much can happen on his watch - and is, and has, and, if God graciously permits, will continue to do so, for many years to come.
Fr. Z's wide-ranging blog highlights two examples.
First, the Transalpine Redemptorists are clearly mellowing in light of Summorum Pontificum. I recommend you follow the link to read the posting, which includes Fr. Z's comments and emphases. However, I find my self in strong agreement with a couple of passages:
These forty years of crisis, the empty convents, the abandoned presbyteries, the empty churches and the sad state of Catholic education has finally awakened the realisation at the highest level of the Church that we are in a period of crisis. This realisation has produced a visible change in the will of Rome: no longer are the orientations of the 1960’s and 70’s to be imposed with the uncaring absolutism of "that period with all its hopes and its confusion." Rome is ready to admit that "omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of the blame…"I have said before on this blog that whatever requires harsh treatment of people who, with good will, want to engage in reverent, joyful worship is wrong.
Also, there is the visibility of the Church that urges us. During these long years of crisis our position – we feel – has not harmed the visibility of the Church because there were visible problems to account for the apparent visible break in unity. We in tradition were the object of visible injustice and of visible abuses of power. But now that the successor of Peter has diplomatically apologised and has extended his hands to us, welcoming us simply as we are, what further visible justification will we find to refuse communion with him?There are those who vehemently oppose traditionalists who maintained the traditional Mass and recognisably Catholic way of life in the face of the harshly imposed reforms, saying that they were schismatic and scandalous, etc.
Have you seen this bumper sticker?
If you can read this, thank a teacher.Well, if you can attend a Latin Mass - in either form - thank a traditionalist! Because there were those who were determined to eradicate everything that was pre-Vatican II - especially the use of Latin in the liturgy.
If you can read it in English, thank a vet.
But the miracle that is Benedict appears to be mellowing some of those folks, too. Fr. Z posted Archbishop Mahony's reflection, which closes with, "I return to Los Angeles a different disciple of Jesus than when I left a week ago. Thank you, Lord, for sending us not only the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Peter, but also a brother and friend who knows Jesus personally and gave us six extraordinary days of grace and hope!"
As for the wandering sheep... my story is perhaps typical. My conversion was to the pre-Vatican II church, but I was baptized in 1971, so my experience was disorienting and baffling from the first. By 1980 it was pretty clear I was simply out of luck. As the Church's discipline fell apart, so did that at home. It got so that going to Mass was an occasion of sin for me... and, on at least one occasion, when I tried to confess it, the priest showed open contempt for my need for some kind of structure in liturgy and a sense that the bishops and clergy had some level of respect for Rome ... even if they'd just pretended. I finally just packed it in. The bishops and priests didn't have a monopoly on viewing people's preferences with contempt; I could do the same, and I did. I trusted my soul to Christ and let Him lead me to other pastures, keeping me fed and alive and near to Himself while I traversed the valley of the shadow of death in my personal life.
During that time of great loneliness and confusion, I married. It would not be right to say I even attempted marriage, as the Catholic Church puts it. It was a superficially Christian act on my part, mere legal formality on my husband's. God protected me through the 20 some-odd miserable years that followed. I was maintained chiefly by pride. When I surrendered that, and was willing to relinquish my disordered concepts of myself and God, He was able to intervene.
Miraculously, as He restored my personal life, He restored the Church as well, providing for the election of Joseph Ratzinger and the declaration which, as the Transalpine Redemptorist letter puts it, "...makes possible the return of the entire mindset and life associated with the traditional Mass."
When I came into the Catholic faith, my guide was a Manual of Prayers from the 1920s. That book was beautifully printed and illustrated, and contained a wealth of information and inspiration. One needs to remember how vehemently such books were denounced in the years after Vatican II, and how any attraction one might have to the "mindset and life" so clearly set out was characterised as just this side of sinful, to understand the bewilderment and sorrow felt by those for whom the Church was The Guide to Life. It wasn't just liturgy, although that was certainly a major part of it... it was the laissez-faire attitude towards marriage and political belief; the relaxation of discipline in priestly life, and such seemingly laudable changes as that to the Friday abstinence. The message was clear: "we don't care, so long as you come to church and give us money."
In fact, it was exactly what the reformers accused the pre-Vatican II church of. And they were wrong. (The Monsignor at my church stayed outside after the beginning of Mass and greeted the latecomers, and those who expected to be praised for showing up at all were in for a disappointment! But there was nothing of contempt in his manner! He was obviously concerned for one's soul, and that due reverence be shown to God. I felt chastened when he did it to me - he was right to do so. When Bishop Tod Brown scolded the communicant who had the temerity to kneel to receive, and made her stand: that was contempt, and I felt the same towards his degrading actions, as well.)
My dear one is like me: could not reconcile what led him to the Church with what was taught and modeled "at the local level," so to speak. I think he might one day be open to reconsidering, as would I... but we would both need to submit our previous attempted marriages to the tribunal before we can be fully reconciled with the Church. It may be too late for us... but I trust Christ. It would be only a little miracle, compared to the big ones He's provided of late!
In the meantime, I watch from the sidelines and rejoice for those who can now experience the liturgy the way it was. They are fortunate to have the choice. Those who want feathers and guitars are welcome to them, if that floats their liturgical boat. But those innovations sink mine. I need to love God and worship only Him. If I know and love God, then I can properly respect and love my neighbour. Loving my neighbour will not lead me to love God. It just doesn't work that way! And Benedict knows that and, superb teacher and thinker that he is, he helps us all understand it, wherever we are in the journey. Saint or sinner, traditionalist or reformer, we all can perceive him as being God's servant first of all, and our leader as a natural consequence of his calling. People remark upon his humility; it is precisely because he gets out of God's way that so much can happen on his watch - and is, and has, and, if God graciously permits, will continue to do so, for many years to come.
It always happens
Just when I think I'm Done with a part of my life ... something happens to reawaken me to what I'm trying to ignore or move on from.
It happened last week, during the Sierra Madre wildfire. At work, nervously checking the Internet now and then for updates, I saw that the mandatory evacuations had been extended ... to within two blocks of my house!
I left work a bit early. As I drove home, trusting God to do His will in this, I found myself appealing in my heart to Mary, my mother. When I'm in trouble and need help, I always turn instinctively to Jesus' mother, as well as to God.
She needs to be part of the pasture I will call home.
It happened last week, during the Sierra Madre wildfire. At work, nervously checking the Internet now and then for updates, I saw that the mandatory evacuations had been extended ... to within two blocks of my house!
I left work a bit early. As I drove home, trusting God to do His will in this, I found myself appealing in my heart to Mary, my mother. When I'm in trouble and need help, I always turn instinctively to Jesus' mother, as well as to God.
She needs to be part of the pasture I will call home.
10 April 2008
Gone grazing
I've started a new blog to reflect the new world I'm entering. In it, over time, I hope to convey a sense of the wonderful blessings unfolding in my life right now.
For you who read this blog: thank you. Your attention has helped me more than you'll ever know (yes, yours)... unless I'm able to convey it adequately in my new place of pasture.
Blessings and best wishes. I hope your pasture is peaceful, full of tall, deep green grass, protected from all evil, and full of fun!
Love,
A. Noël
For you who read this blog: thank you. Your attention has helped me more than you'll ever know (yes, yours)... unless I'm able to convey it adequately in my new place of pasture.
Blessings and best wishes. I hope your pasture is peaceful, full of tall, deep green grass, protected from all evil, and full of fun!
Love,
A. Noël
25 March 2008
Newsweek interview about "the God particle"
I don't have the time to fisk this, and I know that others will do it far better, but, here's someone to lavish Easter prayers on.
Steven Weinberg, the scientist of the interview, was running along nicely until this one sticky spot, where he said:
Those episodes fall outside of the bland "live good lives, love each other, create beautiful things, explore the universe" type of thing, don't you think?
And yet many of us take up a cross every day in some way, and do it with courage not our own. Perhaps Dr. Weinberg hasn't had the kind of experience which would drive him into the arms of God. He might at least allow himself to postulate that God exists, so as to be ready ... just in case.
You can examine the brain with a microscope, and not find the mind. You can study the universe all your life, and not find God.*
On a separate note, I admire Ana Elena Azpurua's interview skills. She elicited a clear statement from the scientist, treated him fairly, and didn't pounce on his "I don't know."
Because which of us does know, really?
* I cannot locate the name of the author of this quote at the moment ... will update with it when I find it.
Steven Weinberg, the scientist of the interview, was running along nicely until this one sticky spot, where he said:
We don't see any purpose dictated to human beings in nature. Human life does have a purpose, but it is a purpose that we invent for ourselves. It takes a certain act of courage to look at nature, not see any plan for human beings in there and yet go on and live good lives, love each other, create beautiful things, explore the universe. All these take more courage without having some divine plan that we discover, but one that we rather create for ourselves.At which point, Ana Elena Azpurua of Newsweek asked:
Do you think most people have that kind of courage?And he answered:
I don't know. People have to have a lot of courage just to get on with their lives. And if there is no … Well, I don't know the answer to that question.Well, there you have it. At this point, I would ask the gentleman if he thought it took courage to do the things which are related in the Bible - Esther with Holofernes, for example, or the epic battles against incredible odds, or - as remembered last week - to willingly undergo crucifixion.
Those episodes fall outside of the bland "live good lives, love each other, create beautiful things, explore the universe" type of thing, don't you think?
And yet many of us take up a cross every day in some way, and do it with courage not our own. Perhaps Dr. Weinberg hasn't had the kind of experience which would drive him into the arms of God. He might at least allow himself to postulate that God exists, so as to be ready ... just in case.
You can examine the brain with a microscope, and not find the mind. You can study the universe all your life, and not find God.*
On a separate note, I admire Ana Elena Azpurua's interview skills. She elicited a clear statement from the scientist, treated him fairly, and didn't pounce on his "I don't know."
Because which of us does know, really?
* I cannot locate the name of the author of this quote at the moment ... will update with it when I find it.
Speaking of the Bettinelli family
...as I was in my last post - blessings and best wishes to them on the arrival of dear Sophia! I've linked to their Easter photo, below.
11 February 2008
The short years
On Melanie Bettinelli's blog, the Wine-Dark Sea, she mentioned a link to a short movie which Dom had sent her.
Definitely worth watching.
Definitely worth watching.
An unexpected source of self-discipline during Lent
Verizon's "customer service."
My phone line has always been problematic. It always goes out in rainy weather. The weather has cleared now, but no one can hear me when I speak on the phone, and there's the ever-present static.
So I can't report the problem using my own phone.
If you've ever tried to report an issue via the incredibly cluttered Verizon website, you know what I'm going through.
And I have time to work on this today, because I'm home sick.
Yeah.
Tell me again why deregulating the phone industry was a good thing ... ???
My phone line has always been problematic. It always goes out in rainy weather. The weather has cleared now, but no one can hear me when I speak on the phone, and there's the ever-present static.
So I can't report the problem using my own phone.
If you've ever tried to report an issue via the incredibly cluttered Verizon website, you know what I'm going through.
And I have time to work on this today, because I'm home sick.
Yeah.
Tell me again why deregulating the phone industry was a good thing ... ???
05 February 2008
Who's gonna win?
Karen Hall lays it out well, and I'm not going to try to improve on it, rushed as I am at the moment. She says that conservatives will be able to rally behind John McCain, because:
For me, it comes down to, what will the world think of whomever we elect? We can natter about family values and the sanctity of marriage all we want, but we need peace and prosperity at home to accomplish anything of worth, whether at home or abroad.
Those who decry the war might do well to remember that, after the Towers were bombed, it ended for us in our country. Some would say it was because of our exemplary TSA folks, etc. Perhaps. I'd like to think it was also because our media gleefully painted George W. Bush as a reckless, mindless, heartless cowboy - and there were those who - while perhaps not sure about that - were inclined not to test the theory, if you know what I mean.
(Instead, head on over to the Anchoress if you want to hear how it's really going ... the incredible gains the Iraqis are making towards independence, with our help.)
Barack Obama doesn't seem to have the, er, inner strength. It's one thing to get everybody yelling for "change", but can he lead this country if it is under attack? I don't know, and I don't want someone to learn on the job at a time like that. I think Hillary, on the other hand, could inadvertently start a war, by lecturing some intemperate world leader with that second-grade-teacher-ish voice of hers.
McCain isn't perfect. However, I believe he knows the true purpose of government, which is to defend the country so that we can live in peace and get on with our business, literally, which is what supports the world economy. The world leaders all know this. And anyone who stops to remember will know that, while he doesn't make a big deal about it, John McCain proved he has grit, determination, courage, and the kind of leadership ability that will see him through the worst of circumstances.
He also has the kind of resources and relationships needed to assemble a good working Cabinet, not just sycophantic hangers-on.
I'm glad he's still in the race. He has my vote.
(1) He's pro-life.Indeed. And not only against his contenders in the election.
(2) He's a war hero.
(3) He can win.
Many will narrow it down to #3.
For me, it comes down to, what will the world think of whomever we elect? We can natter about family values and the sanctity of marriage all we want, but we need peace and prosperity at home to accomplish anything of worth, whether at home or abroad.
Those who decry the war might do well to remember that, after the Towers were bombed, it ended for us in our country. Some would say it was because of our exemplary TSA folks, etc. Perhaps. I'd like to think it was also because our media gleefully painted George W. Bush as a reckless, mindless, heartless cowboy - and there were those who - while perhaps not sure about that - were inclined not to test the theory, if you know what I mean.
(Instead, head on over to the Anchoress if you want to hear how it's really going ... the incredible gains the Iraqis are making towards independence, with our help.)
Barack Obama doesn't seem to have the, er, inner strength. It's one thing to get everybody yelling for "change", but can he lead this country if it is under attack? I don't know, and I don't want someone to learn on the job at a time like that. I think Hillary, on the other hand, could inadvertently start a war, by lecturing some intemperate world leader with that second-grade-teacher-ish voice of hers.
McCain isn't perfect. However, I believe he knows the true purpose of government, which is to defend the country so that we can live in peace and get on with our business, literally, which is what supports the world economy. The world leaders all know this. And anyone who stops to remember will know that, while he doesn't make a big deal about it, John McCain proved he has grit, determination, courage, and the kind of leadership ability that will see him through the worst of circumstances.
He also has the kind of resources and relationships needed to assemble a good working Cabinet, not just sycophantic hangers-on.
I'm glad he's still in the race. He has my vote.
02 February 2008
This article makes me sad, too
"Even great sex can end in post-coital blues."
What if the emotions are real? Some (I suspect many) men are suffering from a couple of issues: 1.) their emotions are separate from their selves, and entirely ignored unless they cause a problem - in which case, the man just wants to fix it, like a broken alternator, and just move on; and/or 2.) men are persuaded at every turn that sex is good and necessary, and it has nothing to do with love, permanence, etc.
But inside, we know the difference.
Men talk a good game, but I suspect that most want a loving home, too. This man is engaging in behaviour which the wisdom of ages says is best reserved for husbands and wives in the context of home life. When he doesn't have that, his body may be satisfied, but his soul cries out in loneliness and grief.
In fairness, Brian alludes to this by writing, "We communicate other things with sex, too, like satisfaction, bonding and commitment. If we aren’t emotionally invested and ready to communicate those, however, repenting in the car might seem like a great idea."
He does, of course, stop short of the obvious: "If we aren't emotionally invested and ready to communicate those with someone to whom we've committed ourselves in marriage, then we shouldn't write checks with the body that the soul can't cash," or something like that.
And he does point up gently the questioner's apparent immaturity: "By the way, if you try explaining any of this to a lover who asks what’s the rush, you might want to avoid calling her a 'chick.' Just a thought."
Great sex isn't just what happens in bed. Great sex is talking and paying the bills together and reluctantly making time to visit the folks and walking the dog at oh-dark-thirty when the mate wants to sleep. It's getting up in the morning and resolutely going to work, whether that's to an office, a construction site, or the kitchen. It's looking into the eyes of your child in one of those moments when it hits you just who that child is, and how he or she came to be. Mere sex alone is nothing compared to that, and going through the motions just to have physical closeness and nothing more is sad.
Maybe the man will figure that out one day. Maybe it's the Spirit, working on his soul. Let us pray for him to know what's really best for him and for the women he is now merely using.
Q: I’m male, 33, and wonder why the majority of times after sex with a chick I feel depressed. It could be the greatest sex ever, but afterwards I'm depressed and can’t wait to get away from her. As soon as I’m back in my car and on the road I feel better. Any insights?Brian Alexander, the column's author, replies with some quotes from literature, then serves up the obligatory scientific reason:
There may actually be a scientific reason why this happens, though I like the poetry better. It involves the hormone prolactin...But ... but ...
What if the emotions are real? Some (I suspect many) men are suffering from a couple of issues: 1.) their emotions are separate from their selves, and entirely ignored unless they cause a problem - in which case, the man just wants to fix it, like a broken alternator, and just move on; and/or 2.) men are persuaded at every turn that sex is good and necessary, and it has nothing to do with love, permanence, etc.
But inside, we know the difference.
Men talk a good game, but I suspect that most want a loving home, too. This man is engaging in behaviour which the wisdom of ages says is best reserved for husbands and wives in the context of home life. When he doesn't have that, his body may be satisfied, but his soul cries out in loneliness and grief.
In fairness, Brian alludes to this by writing, "We communicate other things with sex, too, like satisfaction, bonding and commitment. If we aren’t emotionally invested and ready to communicate those, however, repenting in the car might seem like a great idea."
He does, of course, stop short of the obvious: "If we aren't emotionally invested and ready to communicate those with someone to whom we've committed ourselves in marriage, then we shouldn't write checks with the body that the soul can't cash," or something like that.
And he does point up gently the questioner's apparent immaturity: "By the way, if you try explaining any of this to a lover who asks what’s the rush, you might want to avoid calling her a 'chick.' Just a thought."
Great sex isn't just what happens in bed. Great sex is talking and paying the bills together and reluctantly making time to visit the folks and walking the dog at oh-dark-thirty when the mate wants to sleep. It's getting up in the morning and resolutely going to work, whether that's to an office, a construction site, or the kitchen. It's looking into the eyes of your child in one of those moments when it hits you just who that child is, and how he or she came to be. Mere sex alone is nothing compared to that, and going through the motions just to have physical closeness and nothing more is sad.
Maybe the man will figure that out one day. Maybe it's the Spirit, working on his soul. Let us pray for him to know what's really best for him and for the women he is now merely using.
20 January 2008
Attachment marriage
Just got done having a look at Danielle Bean's blog. I gather from it and from a quick drop-in at Heart, Mind & Strength (God, please support Pam Pilcher and her family) that there was a bit of a (courteous) dust-up about Attachment Parenting, or AP.
There is a corollary to that which I think is important: the willingness to be affectionate in marriage. We all know those married folks who show up together at a party or some gathering, and either split up immediately, only to reunite for the drive home, or who stay by each other the whole time, never touching each other.
I sometimes wonder if it's a sad side effect of the attitude that affection in marriage is simply about sex, and nothing else. (For a good discussion of this, see this article.)
To insist on interpreting physical closeness as a prelude to sex is a serious misunderstanding, and very dangerous to marriage. People need to be cuddled. It's such a strong need that they'll become very vulnerable to anyone who's willing to listen to them and touch them in a reassuring way. There is nothing quite so discouraging as to offer friendly, non-sexual touch and have one's hand removed ... however kindly it is done.
There is a corollary to that which I think is important: the willingness to be affectionate in marriage. We all know those married folks who show up together at a party or some gathering, and either split up immediately, only to reunite for the drive home, or who stay by each other the whole time, never touching each other.
I sometimes wonder if it's a sad side effect of the attitude that affection in marriage is simply about sex, and nothing else. (For a good discussion of this, see this article.)
To insist on interpreting physical closeness as a prelude to sex is a serious misunderstanding, and very dangerous to marriage. People need to be cuddled. It's such a strong need that they'll become very vulnerable to anyone who's willing to listen to them and touch them in a reassuring way. There is nothing quite so discouraging as to offer friendly, non-sexual touch and have one's hand removed ... however kindly it is done.
And now, a word from the grammar lady
When you have the frame of an idea - the skeleton, so to speak - and you want to fill in the blanks and make it whole - put meat on it, in other words - you want to flesh it out.
Not flush it out.
Thank you. You may go back to what you were doing.
Not flush it out.
Thank you. You may go back to what you were doing.
A priest to pray for
A post on The New Liturgical Movement today highlighted an article Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture wrote in which he discusses The Other Health Crisis: Why Priests are Coping Poorly by Fr. Paul Stanosz in Commonweal.
Dr. Mirus' article absorbed me. As he points out, "this article unintentionally demonstrates an extremely important spiritual point."
It is important to read both articles in their entirety. However, a flavor of Fr. Stanosz' conclusions may be seen in these sentences, which appear towards the end of his article:
Read Dr. Mirus' article to see what he thinks. For my part, I was struck by the solutions Fr. Stanosz recommends: "embracing" the reality of a foundering American church, and taking care of his health.
At only one point does Fr. Stanosz mention his boss (not the archbishop; Jesus). And it is in a remarkable paragraph.
I think, for me, that is the key.
While it could be argued that one might embody the compassion and virtue of Jesus, there is only one way that is going to happen ... and that way is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
Mother Teresa was renowned for an extraordinary, relentless, heroic charity. Her order is full of those who regularly rescue dying persons and tend to their loathsome physical conditions and, in truth, embody the compassion and virtue of Jesus.
However, they do not try to rev themselves up for this exclusively by sitting around and singing songs about how wonderful it is to be with Jesus.
They kneel on the floor, and they pray and meditate on Jesus. Then they go out with their hearts and minds and thoughts attuned to Him, so that they readily recognize Him in His most needy ones.
Fr. Stanosz refers to "... high stress, poor health, and low morale. More and more [priests] are battling burnout and depression as well as suffering heart attacks and dying prematurely..." Yet we know that health benefits, such as lower blood pressure, increased longevity, and reduced risk for depression, may occur in people who regularly practice their spiritual faith or who are part of a religious community. Fr. Stanosz rejects "disciplines and devotional practices that flourished in the middle of the last century," identifying them with unsuitable candidates to the priesthood. He does not mention the prayer habits and lifestyles of those priests who are suffering. However, Carlo Carretto wrote: "I do not believe in theologians who do not pray... When there is a crisis in the Church, it is always here: a crisis of contemplation."
While perhaps not to Fr. Stanosz' taste, there is a worldwide initiative to help priests through Eucharistic Adoration which has been launched by no less than the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome.
Dr. Mirus gave a balanced, clear analysis of Fr. Stanosz' article. I think there are some of us who can clearly see what Fr. Stanosz perhaps cannot, in his exhausted and dispirited state. Let us pray for him.
Dr. Mirus' article absorbed me. As he points out, "this article unintentionally demonstrates an extremely important spiritual point."
It is important to read both articles in their entirety. However, a flavor of Fr. Stanosz' conclusions may be seen in these sentences, which appear towards the end of his article:
For me personally, acknowledging that the church and priesthood are in decline will lower my expectations of my bishops, brother priests, and my parishioners ... I’ll learn to say “no” when diocesan officials ask me to take a third, fourth, or fifth parish. I’m not advocating apathy in the face of decline; I’m merely recognizing that the decline began before me and will continue after me. Even Pope John Paul II, with all his vision, courage, and tenacity, was unable to return the masses to the church. The new evangelization he called for remains to be undertaken.In his words, one can sense Fr. Stanosz' tired resignation. My heart grieves for this priest, and for all who feel as he does.
And so I anticipate ministering to a shrinking Catholic flock as I grow old. This does not mean that the work and mission of the presbyterate will be increasingly irrelevant. On the contrary, it will be all the more pressing and challenging. Embracing this reality decreases my anxiety, sharpens my vision, makes my expectations more realistic, and makes my spirit less likely to burn out; it leads me to care for my health, so that I will be able to care for those entrusted to me. To restore health to our pastoral function, we priests first need to admit our own pain and disorientation in a foundering church.
Read Dr. Mirus' article to see what he thinks. For my part, I was struck by the solutions Fr. Stanosz recommends: "embracing" the reality of a foundering American church, and taking care of his health.
At only one point does Fr. Stanosz mention his boss (not the archbishop; Jesus). And it is in a remarkable paragraph.
An aging presbyterate should not exhaust itself in implementing new programs that are at best only Band-Aids. Instead, we must acknowledge the magnitude and the complexity of the forces that lie behind American Catholicism’s loss of vigor, and stop blaming Vatican II or the bumbling bishops who shielded pedophiles and failed to protect children. We should avoid blithely scapegoating “the culture of death” and the evil of the secular world. After all, there are currents of sin and grace in both the church and the world. An eagerness to blame “the world” may keep us from seeing our own failure to embody the compassion and virtue of Jesus Christ.Dr. Mirus discusses the many problems and implications of the passage, and I (again) recommend reading his article. What struck me about it was Fr. Stanosz ends by saying, in essence, that we should embody the compassion and virtue of Jesus.
I think, for me, that is the key.
While it could be argued that one might embody the compassion and virtue of Jesus, there is only one way that is going to happen ... and that way is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
Mother Teresa was renowned for an extraordinary, relentless, heroic charity. Her order is full of those who regularly rescue dying persons and tend to their loathsome physical conditions and, in truth, embody the compassion and virtue of Jesus.
However, they do not try to rev themselves up for this exclusively by sitting around and singing songs about how wonderful it is to be with Jesus.
They kneel on the floor, and they pray and meditate on Jesus. Then they go out with their hearts and minds and thoughts attuned to Him, so that they readily recognize Him in His most needy ones.
Analyzing her deeds and achievements, John Paul II asked: "Where did Mother Teresa find the strength and perseverance to place herself completely at the service of others? She found it in prayer and in the silent contemplation of Jesus Christ, his Holy Face, his Sacred Heart."From Wikipedia
In his first encyclical Deus Caritas Est, Benedict XVI mentioned Teresa of Calcutta three times and he also used her life to clarify one of his main points of the encyclical. "In the example of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta we have a clear illustration of the fact that time devoted to God in prayer not only does not detract from effective and loving service to our neighbour but is in fact the inexhaustible source of that service." Mother Teresa specified that "It is only by mental prayer and spiritual reading that we can cultivate the gift of prayer."
Fr. Stanosz refers to "... high stress, poor health, and low morale. More and more [priests] are battling burnout and depression as well as suffering heart attacks and dying prematurely..." Yet we know that health benefits, such as lower blood pressure, increased longevity, and reduced risk for depression, may occur in people who regularly practice their spiritual faith or who are part of a religious community. Fr. Stanosz rejects "disciplines and devotional practices that flourished in the middle of the last century," identifying them with unsuitable candidates to the priesthood. He does not mention the prayer habits and lifestyles of those priests who are suffering. However, Carlo Carretto wrote: "I do not believe in theologians who do not pray... When there is a crisis in the Church, it is always here: a crisis of contemplation."
While perhaps not to Fr. Stanosz' taste, there is a worldwide initiative to help priests through Eucharistic Adoration which has been launched by no less than the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome.
Women were also mentioned as important members of this new initiative. “The vocation to be a spiritual mother to priests is not well known, poorly understood and therefore not commonly practiced, despite its vital importance. Regardless of age, all women can be spiritual mothers to a priest”, the congregation noted. Women are also encouraged to pray anonymously for a specific priest and to spiritual accompany him.My patron saint - one Fr. Stanosz likely does not "cotton to" - was committed to interceding for priests.
Dr. Mirus gave a balanced, clear analysis of Fr. Stanosz' article. I think there are some of us who can clearly see what Fr. Stanosz perhaps cannot, in his exhausted and dispirited state. Let us pray for him.
Is divorce ever a good thing?
Tim Harford, writing in The Undercover Economist on Slate, thinks so. The article is well-written and thought-out, and worth reading. The money quote for me:
H/T The Anchoress.
[Research shows that] the new laws had an unexpected—but rational—effect: by giving women an exit-option, they gave men stronger incentives to behave well inside a marriage. The result? Domestic violence fell by almost a third, and the number of women murdered by their partners fell by ten percent. Female suicide also fell.Having lived through the fallout from my mother's dogged commitment to her toxic marriage, followed by my own unintentional following in her footsteps, I cannot but agree with his conclusion to that paragraph:
It is a reminder that the binding commitment of marriage has costs as well as benefits.Harford writes,
While the divorce rate has been falling for three decades, it would be a shame if it fell too far. Justin Wolfers comments, "We know there exists something called an optimal divorce rate, and we're 100 percent sure it isn't zero."Read the whole thing.
H/T The Anchoress.
19 January 2008
A passionate rant
One of my regularly occasional stops when grazing blogs is Video meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor. He recently mentioned the Jane Austen presentations on Masterpiece Theatre, and seguéd into a review of Karl Keating's recent newsletter in which he opines about "soul mates":
BALDERDASH.
One needs to approach marriage like any other vocation: with prayer, soul-searching, and thoughtful observation and learning.
I suppose a reasonable analogy would be when one called to religious life thinks about whether they want to join an order or, in the case of priests, become a diocesan priest. At one point I was discerning a vocation, myself. (And it was one of those where I often prayed, "would you please let me alone, Lord? Go pick on somebody else!" Heh.) But, in the course of my discernment, I learned that, were I to enter religious life, I would be happiest as a Discalced Carmelite - didn't figure out if the active life would suit me more than the contemplative, because at that point my family needed me and I had to abandon the project - whereas the Benedictine or Franciscan charism are not attractive to me.
One can't just "be a nun" any more than one can just "be a wife." Your vocation involves aspects which you must choose ultimately based on your heart and what you learn through prayer, meditation, and fact-finding.
In the same way, one needs to be very discriminating when it comes to one's spouse. To add to the difficulty, there is no time of one's life when it is more difficult to think clearly. But the one you marry will not only be your life's companion; you are engaging the co-creator of your children and the one to whom you will entrust the raising of those precious lives.
I believe Mr. Keating's intentions are the best, but I believe he is mistaken. I think his message to young people is erroneous, and risks hurting lives. His message discourages faith - the kind of warm, confiding faith which gets one through so many difficult years as a youngster.
It gave me such comfort to know that God had in mind the right vocation for me, and, in due time, if I was open to experience and listening to Him, I would find out what it would be. To say that there is no one He has picked out for us belittles His reach and His power and, most of all, His love. Either He is God, or He's not. If He is, let us trust Him.
Let's hear from a Doctor of the Church:
That, my friends, is passion.
Is Pope Benedict XVI a passionate man? Let's see: he's 80 years old, but he works like a horse and does everything he can to be the kind of leader a Pope should be. He loves God, his brother, Mozart and cats. But, brothers and sisters, he is passionately in love with God, and passionate about serving God's people.
Do you want a priest who isn't passionate about God and his vocation?
Do you want a spouse who isn't passionately in love with you???
How can Mr. Keating counsel those with the vocation to marry to give up the idea that there is one person they are meant to love, and instead resolve to be content with only "...sufficiently happy"?
If God does not, or will not, or cannot give us what we need day by day, then it's God's intimate, caring, miraculous, all-powerful love which is the fairy tale.
This from an apologist.
God help us.
Liking is something that "just happens." Loving is something we have control over. Liking is a spontaneous emotional reaction. Loving is an act of the will. You never will like everyone, but you can love anyone.OK, I'm with him so far as that goes... but English is poverty-stricken when it comes to the word "love." There are lots of kinds of love - and some of them are not willed.
What seems incongruous is that "you can love anyone." I am not saying that you will, because in all probability you won't. But it is theoretically possible in a way that liking everyone is not.Of course. But already Mr. Keating's words betray a potential for deeper understanding. Saints generally give up pretty quickly on forcing themselves to do anything like love the unlovable. They love God and the souls He created, however not-Godlike their material selves are in that moment. If you force yourself to do anything without being conscious of God's love, you will soon exhaust yourself. Just sayin', is all.
Many years ago, when I first practiced law, I one day was appointed to represent a rapist at a hearing. He was perhaps the only person I ever have met who seemed to have an entirely dormant conscience. I found not the least thing likeable in him, and I knew that, unless he changed dramatically and unexpectedly, I never could like him. But I also knew that I could love him, because love is an act of the will.
Loving is not an act we carry out very successfully. I don't remember feeling any love toward that rapist--pity, perhaps, but not love. Yet I must have realized that I could have loved him, had I willed it. A saint would have willed it, but not even a saint could have willed himself into liking him, absent the rapist reforming and becoming likeable.
In summary, then, when it comes to basically good people whom we meet, it is possible for us to love any of them. This even applies to prospective spouses, and here I come to the real point I wish to make.That was an abrupt transition ... from the spiritually evolved ability to love the unlovable, to considering a prospective spouse, with only a "when it comes to basically good people whom we meet..." - but that's a stylistic nitpick, so let's soldier on:
As you know, Catholic Answers hosts chastity talks by various speakers. Such talks are aimed at young audiences--high school and college students, chiefly--and, by necessity, the speakers themselves are young. At least they are still years away from middle age.Yes, it is shocking - because it's not true. (What is 'easy driving distance,' anyway?) He backpedals with, "Of course, there also are a hundred or a thousand with whom they might be miserable" - but, as they say, the damage has been done. But wait - there's more:
Some speakers who have spoken for us, when first starting out, told their young audiences that somewhere out there was a Prince or Princess Charming, someone fated from all eternity to be a young person's perfect match. Listeners were told something like this: "Save yourself for that one person that God has set aside just for you."
When I learned that this is what was being said, I told our speakers to cut it out--because it wasn't true. It sounded romantic, and it sounded pious, but it wasn't true. It left each young listener thinking that there was one and only one person whom he could love and have a happy marriage with and that, if he waited long enough, God would arrange for the couple to meet.
That's not how real life works. When I have a chance to speak to young people, I shock them by saying, "Within easy driving distance, there are a hundred people whom you could marry and have an equally happy life with."
My point was that a marriage is what you make of it, under grace. In the old, old days, marriages often were arranged--and often turned out very well, no worse than the average marriage entered into by people who imagined they were marrying a Prince or Princess Charming.When you're talking about something as important as marriage, I think there's a bit more substantiation needed than a careless statement like that. How does he know? And what does "turned out very well" mean?
This does not, of course, mean that every match is a good one or that every match is wisely entered into. (I am reminded of Dr. Johnson's remark, when told that a man who had been very unhappy in marriage had remarried immediately after his wife had died: "It was the triumph of hope over experience.") But it does mean that fairy tales should be left to children.There's only one word for nonsense like this.
It does no harm for a ten-year-old girl to dream of a Prince Charming, but half her life will be wasted if she still thinks, at thirty-five, that she should wait for the appearance of a Prince Charming whom God has reserved for her and that she should let pass other prospects with whom, in fact, she could be sufficiently happy.
BALDERDASH.
One needs to approach marriage like any other vocation: with prayer, soul-searching, and thoughtful observation and learning.
I suppose a reasonable analogy would be when one called to religious life thinks about whether they want to join an order or, in the case of priests, become a diocesan priest. At one point I was discerning a vocation, myself. (And it was one of those where I often prayed, "would you please let me alone, Lord? Go pick on somebody else!" Heh.) But, in the course of my discernment, I learned that, were I to enter religious life, I would be happiest as a Discalced Carmelite - didn't figure out if the active life would suit me more than the contemplative, because at that point my family needed me and I had to abandon the project - whereas the Benedictine or Franciscan charism are not attractive to me.
One can't just "be a nun" any more than one can just "be a wife." Your vocation involves aspects which you must choose ultimately based on your heart and what you learn through prayer, meditation, and fact-finding.
In the same way, one needs to be very discriminating when it comes to one's spouse. To add to the difficulty, there is no time of one's life when it is more difficult to think clearly. But the one you marry will not only be your life's companion; you are engaging the co-creator of your children and the one to whom you will entrust the raising of those precious lives.
I believe Mr. Keating's intentions are the best, but I believe he is mistaken. I think his message to young people is erroneous, and risks hurting lives. His message discourages faith - the kind of warm, confiding faith which gets one through so many difficult years as a youngster.
It gave me such comfort to know that God had in mind the right vocation for me, and, in due time, if I was open to experience and listening to Him, I would find out what it would be. To say that there is no one He has picked out for us belittles His reach and His power and, most of all, His love. Either He is God, or He's not. If He is, let us trust Him.
It does no harm for a ten-year-old girl to dream of a Prince Charming, but half her life will be wasted if she still thinks, at thirty-five, that she should wait for the appearance of a Prince Charming whom God has reserved for her and that she should let pass other prospects with whom, in fact, she could be sufficiently happy.Some of us are destined for the single life. The only way to find out is by the absence of a suitable spouse. Some of us are destined for religious life, and to marry without conviction of vocation will keep us from that. Life has those disappointments which, if patiently and prayerfully endured, can be turned around into joy beyond description. Mr. Keating may not mean his "shocking" words this way, but I hear, and those kids hear, "Just because God has been inside your soul, that doesn't mean He knows what you want and need. Even if He did, He wouldn't care, and He wouldn't (or couldn't) do anything about it. You're on your own. Just go find someone and quit dreaming."
Let's hear from a Doctor of the Church:
Thérèse, the little Spouse of Jesus, loves Him for Himself; she only looks on the Face of her Beloved to catch a glimpse of the Tears which delight her with their secret charm. She longs to wipe away those Tears, or to gather them up like priceless diamonds with which to adorn her bridal dress. Jesus! . . . Oh! I would so love Him! Love Him as He has never yet been loved! . . .(from her autobiography)That was her vocation: to love Jesus. And she did, as fiercely as anyone ever has. She fought to be with Him and did so at a very young age. She knew what she wanted and would settle for nothing less.
That, my friends, is passion.
Is Pope Benedict XVI a passionate man? Let's see: he's 80 years old, but he works like a horse and does everything he can to be the kind of leader a Pope should be. He loves God, his brother, Mozart and cats. But, brothers and sisters, he is passionately in love with God, and passionate about serving God's people.
Do you want a priest who isn't passionate about God and his vocation?
Do you want a spouse who isn't passionately in love with you???
How can Mr. Keating counsel those with the vocation to marry to give up the idea that there is one person they are meant to love, and instead resolve to be content with only "...sufficiently happy"?
If God does not, or will not, or cannot give us what we need day by day, then it's God's intimate, caring, miraculous, all-powerful love which is the fairy tale.
This from an apologist.
God help us.
13 January 2008
"His back to the people" - here we go again
Fr. Z. goes over an AP article on the Mass which Benedict XVI offered in the Sistine Chapel, in which the temporary little altar was not used, but the original altar, the design of which fits in with breathtaking beauty.
The breathless "it's a break with tradition!" thing is just too funny. It's got some of us laughing our apses off.
The breathless "it's a break with tradition!" thing is just too funny. It's got some of us laughing our apses off.
11 January 2008
St. Thérèse has done it again
You have to see this to believe it.
The parish of St. Thérèse of Lisieux in Alhambra has established the Extraordinary Form as a regular Sunday mass at 1:00pm. This is not surprising. The parish is under the care of the Discalced Carmelites (there are three establishments in the immediate area), and has had perpetual adoration for a long time.
They are the first to be listed on the archdiocesan website, below the list of those Masses established under the previous "free and generous" policy. {polite cough}
I cannot begin to imagine with what chagrin the Archdiocese resigned itself to posting that Mass.
(One notes that the page is still called "indult" - http://www.archdiocese.la/ directories/ parishes/ indult.html. And, of course, the link is to "Tridentine (sic) Masses".)
The parish was actually named for St. Thérèse before her canonization in May, 1925. From their parish history:
When her relics were brought to Alhambra, I had the great joy and blessing of making a visit. I made a special prayer that day for courage and perseverance, two virtues which seem entirely lacking in my character when it comes to my Faith. I could not persevere when things went so far wrong after Vatican II; I hadn't the courage to stand up for what I knew was right. I was spending so much time protecting myself against spiritual corruption that I finally fled. During her visit in 1997 it seemed like there would be no end to the nonsense; the Catholic Church was unrecognizable; where was Jesus? So I was led by God at that time to ask St. Thérèse as a special favor for courage and perseverance.
I would like to say that I was given those virtues, but that's not what happened at all. I'm just as weak as ever ... weaker, even. My courage is in Jesus. I rely on Jesus alone. If there's anything courageous to be done in my life, I do it entirely in His strength and guidance. My perseverance is a kind of stubborn resolve to love Him no matter what. Archbishop Mahony and certain Jesuits and all that crowd can do what they will; I shall not quit loving Jesus. Nor will I quit seeing Jesus as the Christ, the King. I kneel in His presence.
Archbishop Mahony finds that disobedient, and therefore scandalous. So I don't give scandal. I don't kneel at Mass. I can't, because I'm not there.
But I do kneel at the Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
Jesus would be within His rights to annihilate me for my cowardice. Instead, He has graciously condescended to give us Pope Benedict XVI and has supported and blessed him in his arduous work. I was astonished at Summorum Pontificum - and deeply humbled. And now ... this. At a parish near enough to me to remove all excuses from attending. The parish named for my patroness, St. Thérèse.
I asked for courage and perseverance. Instead, the more acutely aware I am of my weakness and my need every moment for God's love and forbearance, the more I am given.
The parish of St. Thérèse of Lisieux in Alhambra has established the Extraordinary Form as a regular Sunday mass at 1:00pm. This is not surprising. The parish is under the care of the Discalced Carmelites (there are three establishments in the immediate area), and has had perpetual adoration for a long time.
They are the first to be listed on the archdiocesan website, below the list of those Masses established under the previous "free and generous" policy. {polite cough}
I cannot begin to imagine with what chagrin the Archdiocese resigned itself to posting that Mass.
(One notes that the page is still called "indult" - http://www.archdiocese.la/ directories/ parishes/ indult.html. And, of course, the link is to "Tridentine (sic) Masses".)
The parish was actually named for St. Thérèse before her canonization in May, 1925. From their parish history:
On January 26, 1925, the [Discalced Carmelite] Fathers were able to take up permanent residence in a newly acquired home at 515 Vega Street, purchased for $37,000. (the house had been built in 1899 by Seth Champion). The Carmelites blessed their new home on January 27, dedicating it to Blessed Therese, thus becoming the first Irish mission of the Discalced Carmelites.St. Thérèse is my patron saint. Her intercession is often like her life and her Little Way: hidden, easy to discount, full of deep meaning, and powerful for those who are aware of it. What she asks, she gets. I have no doubt whatever that she asked our good God for her parish to be the first listed on the Archdiocesan as offering the Extraordinary Form of Mass on a regular basis, and I have no doubt He was glad to comply, that those who love that form of Mass may find her parish and have solace there.
When her relics were brought to Alhambra, I had the great joy and blessing of making a visit. I made a special prayer that day for courage and perseverance, two virtues which seem entirely lacking in my character when it comes to my Faith. I could not persevere when things went so far wrong after Vatican II; I hadn't the courage to stand up for what I knew was right. I was spending so much time protecting myself against spiritual corruption that I finally fled. During her visit in 1997 it seemed like there would be no end to the nonsense; the Catholic Church was unrecognizable; where was Jesus? So I was led by God at that time to ask St. Thérèse as a special favor for courage and perseverance.
I would like to say that I was given those virtues, but that's not what happened at all. I'm just as weak as ever ... weaker, even. My courage is in Jesus. I rely on Jesus alone. If there's anything courageous to be done in my life, I do it entirely in His strength and guidance. My perseverance is a kind of stubborn resolve to love Him no matter what. Archbishop Mahony and certain Jesuits and all that crowd can do what they will; I shall not quit loving Jesus. Nor will I quit seeing Jesus as the Christ, the King. I kneel in His presence.
Archbishop Mahony finds that disobedient, and therefore scandalous. So I don't give scandal. I don't kneel at Mass. I can't, because I'm not there.
But I do kneel at the Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
Jesus would be within His rights to annihilate me for my cowardice. Instead, He has graciously condescended to give us Pope Benedict XVI and has supported and blessed him in his arduous work. I was astonished at Summorum Pontificum - and deeply humbled. And now ... this. At a parish near enough to me to remove all excuses from attending. The parish named for my patroness, St. Thérèse.
I asked for courage and perseverance. Instead, the more acutely aware I am of my weakness and my need every moment for God's love and forbearance, the more I am given.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)