The proof of love

Continuing, from Divine Intimacy:

After the Incarnation, the Cross of Jesus is the greatest proof of His love for man. Similarly, mortification, which is suffering eagerly accepted for the love of God, is one of the greatest proofs of love that we can give Him. It means freely giving up a satisfaction or a pleasure in order to impose on ourselves, for love of God, something which is contrary to our own natural inclinations; we thus prove that we prefer to satisfy God rather than ourselves. every act of voluntary mortification, whether physical or moral, says to God, "Lord, I love You more than myself!" And since a soul in love has an ardent desire to give proof of its love, it is very vigilant not to miss a single opportunity for renunciation.

Do you not see, that renouncing for Lent can be the opposition to the suffering which God's permissive will has allowed us to be subjected to?

What are we really giving up?

Are we not really giving up the consumation of desire, rather than the desire?

From Divine Intimacy, Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen O.C.D., comes this insight for Lent:

If, after renouncing the superflous, we still remain attached to them by affection, our material renunciation will amount to very little. "For it is not the things of this world that either occupy the soul or cause it harm, since they enter it not, but rather the will and desire for them, for it is these that dwell within it" (St. John of the Cross, Ascent I, 3,4).

This should help make it clear to us, that it is not the giving up of a good we are attached to that is our goal, but to sever the attachment, for it is the attachments in the soul that obstruct our attachment to God. Do we not give up a pleasure during Lent, and even struggle to be faithful to that decision, but desire it the whole time, and return to it at the end of Lent? Do we not over the Lents of life, learn how very hard it is to hold ourselves back, the struggle within being waged? Do we ever manage to give up something and break the attachment to a good in itself, then never returning to it again? Yes, it is hard.

I go into this because of the relationship to Purgatory; it is the proper job of Purgatory to break, to purge our attachments, so that we can enter total union with God. Lent teaches us how hard it is to do it here; that's no cake-walk coming. We all know this already, but Lent gives us something we know, a level of effort, to tell us something about what we don't know, the level of effort we haven't yet expended, but will (the usual assumptions being in place).

The thought of death places before our eyes the vanity of earthly things, the brevity of life - "all things are passing; God alone remains" - and therefore it urges us to detach ourselves from everything, to scorn every earthly satisfaction, and to seek God alone. The thought of death makes us understand that "all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone" (Imit. I,4) "Remember that you have only one soul; that you have only one death to die...then there will be many things about which you care nothing (T.J.), that is you, will give up everything that has no eternal value.

Homedale project

As those of our chapter know, grapes and other fruit for winemaking has been a scavenger hunt/gleaning exercise for some years, with our dear Gayle Boyer the chief steward of the process. We've long talked of planting some of our own...

So today the call came from Rich Pavelek of Terra Natura in Boise; his pruners had been working for two days, and although they were driven off the vineyard by blowing snow and rain this morning; it was calm enough to glean cuttings!



I went home with Merlot, Malbec (for Bordeaux), Petite Sirah, Cabernet Franc & Sauvignon. enough to start a little fun!

The wait is over

The new crucifix at the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist in Boise, Idaho, was blessed by Bishop Michael Driscoll at the 7PM Ash Wednesday mass!



May your Lent be blessed indeed.

Fasting from ... self.

The following is from Divine Intimacy.

If you act for your own satisfaction, even in small matters, you will never be able to live totally for God. If, for example, you are unwilling to combat or overcome your pride which has been offended, and you are impatient or cross with someone, it is evident that you prefer to act for the satisfaction of self rather than to please God, for God lives virtue and not defects. you must always substitute for the tendency to seek your own satisfaction the desire to seek God's satisfaction and pleasure. This is what St. John of the Cross means when he suggests detachment, not as an end in itself, but as a means of becoming more closely united with God, not to leave you in a vacuum, but to direct you quickly to God. The same line of conduct was proposed by Jesus; "Renounce yourself," He says to you. And to what purpose? to walk in His path, to follow Him until you have attained perfect union with Him. The end is union, the road is abnegation or total detachment; we must not forget that it was of this road that Jesus said, "How narrow is the gate and straight the way the leads to life" (Mt. 7:14)

Simply giving something up is not even what is being asked for; Peter understood this when the rich young man went away sad at the prospect. Peter, and the disciples, who had already given up every thing, said "then who can be saved?" (Mt. 19:27). Jesus says "with God all things are possible," (Mt. 19:26) and St. Paul says how, "Let those who have wives be as if they had none . . .those who buy, as though they possessed not, and those who use the world, as if they used it not" (1 Cor 7:29ff). And this is the paradox, that our freedom, perfected, consists in renouncing our very self, for the soul united to God is completely free, the soul attached to things, even itself, is deficient in freedom. The hardest lenten sacrifice, undoubtedly, is to give up serving our self. Let us give up little things indeed, good in themselves, to train us to give up the rest as well.

As close to the Oscars as I got

This is from Mel Gibson, enjoy.

Blast from the past

It's always interesting looking through archived files to try and find a particular item long put away. In this case, I was looking for the file of Dominican chapter flyer; I found it and updated it. Before I put away the archive disk, another interesting file name caught my attention. Written in 2005, this file was titled "Farewell to Idealism." I don't remember writing it, but I think it's my work.

Farewell to Idealism

I can remember a few years ago how my interest was captured in a way that I could not explain by Father Corapi's remark: "The truth is not something; it's somebody."

Today, I was paging through a book of my son's -- "Where the Right went Wrong," by Patrick Buchanan. I ran into a quote from the 19th century anarchist Sergei Nechaev. "The revolutionary...has no interests, affairs, feelings, attachments, property, not even a name that he can call his own. Everything in him is absorbed by one exclusive interest, one thought, one passion -- the revolution..."

There was a time when I would have thought that the difference between the Christian and the revolutionary (as described by Nechaev) is that the Christian is wholly dedicated to an ideal that is valid, while the revolutionary is dedicated to an invalid ideal.

But today I understood that the difference is much more basic. The Christian is not fundamentally an idealist. The object of our faith is not a set of principles. The object of our faith is the Triune God. And the work of the Christian is to save souls. Put another way, our work is to make friends for God.

This is both reassuring and sobering. Reassuring because you don't have to have special training or a spiffy IQ to make friends, just a good heart. Sobering because some of us aren't terribly good at making friends, even though it has been our proper work since early childhood. (Sobering also because of our helplessness in communicating God even among ourselves, let alone to unbelievers. I am a blind man describing what God looks like; a deaf man describing the sound of his voice.)

St. Paul doesn't preach that "X is true." Rather, he says, "I preach Jesus Christ." Not an idea, but a person.

Yes, there are times when Christians must do battle in the field of ideas. When Dominic engaged in discourse with the Cathari, he needed to refute mistaken ideas and convince his listeners of the validity of sound doctrines. But the motivation for this activity is the saving of souls. Ideas need to be confronted when they impede the development of a soul's friendship with God.

Since this was dated before this blog was started, it's not appeared before here.

Why fox hunting should be banned

I'm still alive and well, just still overwhelmed by events and not able to get around to posting. When that changes, I'll be back at it as I can.

Mike Lee update

There is an update from Mike Lee in Austria:

Dear Friends of Mike and family,

This month's newsletter link:
http://friendsofmikelee.org/lee/Newsletters/February2009.pdf

You'll read that beautiful things have been happening this past month! Read in Cody's own words about his trip to "shadow" the Benedictine monks in an Italian monastery for a week.
Our most sincere thanks for the lovely tea fundraiser is included on page two along with other tidbits. You can hear the entire tea-talk presented by Deb and Felicity at www.friendsofmikelee.org

God bless you for being a friend and a supporter of Mike's family!
The Friends of the Mike Lee Family

Time for truth in labeling?

Some forms of so-called 'contraception' take a human life
By Bishop Robert Vasa


BEND — It is impossible for the Church to treat the subject of the dignity of a human person without reiterating its consistent teaching about the sinfulness of artificial contraception. Dignitas Personae, a 2008 instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, does not make any direct comment about whether contraceptive pharmaceuticals (i.e. the pill) are abortifacient but this does not mean that the question is completely ignored. The document does distinguish between those mechanisms which are contraceptive, which has its own clear meaning, and those which are “interceptive” and “contragestative.” These words, too, have their own clear meaning. These latter two are designed and intended to “act after fertilization.” As such, they directly touch the human being about whom this document is concerned.

A fuller citation is in order: “Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.

“In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods, [IUD (intrauterine device) and the so-called “morning-after pills] it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.” (D.P.,23)

This last sentence is most significant: “anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.” While the document very narrowly defines those mechanisms, which are primarily and intentionally designed to work in this fashion, it also acknowledges that “there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate.” The document does not directly state, but it certainly must be inferred, that where “scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present,” abortion is generally intended. This is where the meaning of words is very important. When a “contraceptive” is solely “contraceptive,” in keeping with the clear meaning of that word, then there is no direct offense to the dignity of a newly created human being. The dignity of the spouses is a whole other question. Unfortunately, the clear meaning of the word “contraceptive” (i.e. that which prevents conception or fertilization) has been altered to mean that which prevents pregnancy. That which prevents pregnancy includes not only contraception but also interception and contragestation. Scientific studies indicate that inhibiting implantation is one of the effects of the so-called contraceptive pill. Thus the contraceptive pill is not solely contraceptive, as this document defines “contraceptive.” It would perhaps be more accurate to begin to refer to such pharmaceuticals as contra/interceptive pills. It would seem to stand to reason that what is said about interceptives in this document needs to be applied also to those pharmaceutical contraceptives, which also have an interceptive function.

This is not an easy concept to grasp and it is not any easier to explain than it is to grasp. This document concerns itself with the dignity of a human person, which needs to be extended to every human being. Since the human embryo, even hours after the establishment of a unique genetic signature consisting of 23 pairs of chromosomes, is already a human being, any action on the part of anyone who wantonly disregards that humanity violates the dignity owed to a human person. Such a violation diminishes us all.

Another area, closely aligned with abortion, is embryonic stem cell research. It must be said that the Church does not in any way disdain legitimate and ethical research, even stem cell research. The document notes: “Therapeutic protocols in force today provide for the use of adult stem cells and many lines of research have been launched, opening new and promising possibilities.” (D.P.,31) This research, following proper ethical standards, is legitimate.

The major difficulty with embryonic stem cell research, and the reason why such research becomes a part of a Church document on the dignity of a human person is that: “The obtaining of stem cells from a living human embryo, on the other hand, invariably causes the death of the embryo and is consequently gravely illicit: research, in such cases, irrespective of efficacious therapeutic results, is not truly at the service of humanity. In fact, this research advances through the suppression of human lives that are equal in dignity to the lives of other human individuals and to the lives of the researchers themselves.” (D.P.,32) Endorsing embryonic stem cell research, in the simplest of terms, is to embrace the direct and intentional killing of human beings for the sake of scientific advancement. This is grotesque. Recognizing that such a violation of human dignity is commonplace, and still worse recognizing that our government sometimes provides the money needed for this desecration, ought to be offensive to us all.

“By treating the human embryo as mere ‘laboratory material,’ the concept of human dignity itself is also subjected to alteration and discrimination. Dignity belongs equally to every single human being, irrespective of his parents’ desires, his social condition, educational formation or level of physical development.” (D.P.,22)
This includes the human embryo, a real human being.

© 2009, Catholic Sentinel online edition

From the moment of conception

From the moment of conception
By Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — Last week I covered the introduction to the document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith known as Dignitatis Personae or Dignity of a Person. In light of recent indications that there may be an expansion of permission to experiment with human embryonic cells the section of Dignitatis Personae, which deals with this topic, is particularly timely.

Once again, Dignitatis Personae reminds us: It is appropriate to recall the fundamental ethical criterion expressed in the instruction Donum Vitae in order to evaluate all moral questions, which relate to procedures involving the human embryo: “Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say, from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life” (D.P.,4 - Citing Donum Vitae).

The teaching that every human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception has consequences for both how that human being is conceived and how he or she is treated immediately after conception. Thus the teaching directly touches infertility treatments. “With regard to the treatment of infertility, new medical techniques must respect three fundamental goods: a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse; c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require ‘that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses.’ Techniques which assist procreation ‘are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.’ In light of this principle, all techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization, as well as those techniques of homologous artificial fertilization which substitute for the conjugal act, are to be excluded.” (D.P., 12)

The teaching of the church is clear. All forms of artificial fertilization, and the subsequent insemination which normally follows, whether the gametes are from a suitably married couple or not, are a violation of the dignity of the person. In our society pragmatism and utility are principles that rule the day. Thus the general perception is that anyone who wants to have a child is deemed free to do whatever needs to be done in order to achieve the fulfillment of this desire. No one of us is free from pangs of heart as we hear of the heartfelt longing of a couple for a child. Yet that longing does not justify a violation of the fundamental principle that every human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception, indeed, in the very act of being conceived. The document makes a distinction between those methods which “substitute for” and those interventions that “assist” procreation. I do not intend to give any kind of in-depth scientific exposition other than to note that anytime human embryos are created in a setting other than the woman’s body (conception usually occurs within the fallopian tube) there has been a “substitution for” the conjugal act.

A very sad corollary to much of the present day reproductive technology is the destruction of unwanted or unused embryos or their cryogenic preservation. Neither is acceptable. As the document notes: “These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing that research in this area aims principally at obtaining better results in terms of the percentage of babies born to women who begin the process, but does not manifest a concrete interest in the right to life of each individual embryo.” (D.P., 14) The document continues: “The blithe acceptance of the enormous number of abortions involved in the process of in vitro fertilization vividly illustrates how the replacement of the conjugal act by a technical procedure — in addition to being in contradiction with the respect that is due to procreation as something that cannot be reduced to mere reproduction — leads to a weakening of the respect owed to every human being.” (D.P., 16) The document links the utilitarian desire for a child with the same utilitarianism, which fosters direct abortion: “The desire for a child cannot justify the ‘production’ of offspring, just as the desire not to have a child cannot justify the abandonment or destruction of a child once he or she has been conceived.” (D.P., 16)

While it is not possible for us to see these tiny microscopic embryos as God sees them, the document very beautifully includes, in this same paragraph 16, a citation from Pope Benedict, which should touch us deeply: “God’s love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother’s womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Gen 1:26) in each one. Therefore, the Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life from its conception until its natural end. Benedict XVI, Address to the General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life and International Congress on ‘The Human Embryo in the Pre-implantation Phase.’” (February 27, 2006) (D.P., 16)

I did not yet get to embryonic stem cell research, but in light of what we have already seen, we would conclude, in advance, that the dignity of a person precludes such experimentation. It is not right to treat that in which God “sees an impression of his own image and likeness” like a common laboratory rat. To do so does immeasurable harm to us all.

© 2009, Catholic Sentinel online edition

Condoms & HIV = death sentence

A question I rec'd via email:

I heard from a student in bible study class that the Holy Father had commission a study, and that the imposition condoms may be necessary for Africa to curb the spread of Aids. Have you heard of such an inquiry? I have not and don't think that this is actually factual. Could you pleas help me if you can find such a statement. I can't find such a statement. I am assuming that a statement such as this might be from a secular press if at all.

The burden is not upon you to prove the non-existence of something, but the burden is upon your student to prove the existence of what has been asserted. Granted, Individual bishops have crossed the line and advocated condoms for married spouses, but that is another matter.

A good summary document (from 2004) is:
Family Values Versus Safe Sex
A Reflection by His Eminence, Alfonso Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, President, Pontifical Council for the Family


Also this is interesting:-------------------

Condom Risk
Besides the risks inherent in every “protected action” in which the condom is used, there is a cumulative risk factor. Even if the risks were constant (and we know that they are not because there are variants that change increasing or decreasing these risks) the repetition of the conduct increases the probability of infection. What has to be considered therefore is not only the risk of infection from one act of “protected” intercourse , but also the cumulative risk from continuing “protected” acts of intercourse. The risk of infection and death dramatically increases in the medium or long term. One author, very reasonably claims that from an “epidemiological” perspective, an HIV/AIDS infected person having “protected” sex seven times, negates any protection a condom might offer. This means that safe sex becomes even more serious with repeated condom use. A person that persists in playing Russian Roulette will eventually kill himself, in the same way that a person that persists in having sexual relations protected by a condom with someone infected with HIV/AIDS.
Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula, Director HLI-Rome

Promoters of condoms do not understand (or lie with) statistics; probabilities are multiplicative, not additive. Please consider that the effectiveness of a condom in preventing pregnancy is about 85% according to the CDC. That is the equivalent of putting 100 men on a plane with 85 good parachutes and 15 that won't open. Now you would have an 85% chance of jumping with a good parachute and surviving, but the point to remember is that if and when you survive, and you get on the next flight with the same number of good parachutes... your chance of getting a good chute is again 85%, but your cumulative chance is 0.85x0.85, or .72%. By the 3rd jump it is 61%, 4th it is 52%, 5th is 44%... etc. You have a 19% chance of surviving your 10th jump! Would I not be morally culpable if I encouraged this by hiding the cumulative probability and touting the 85% number, which is valid for each jump?

This can also be demonstrated in a very simple way with dice; give everyone in the group a die and have them roll. Count the number who roll less than a 6 compared to the total number who roll. do this a few times, and you will see, not unexpectedly that consistently each group roll validates that the probability of rolling less than 6 is 5/6, (83%), or about the same as the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy. To drive the point home, now ask each one to roll their die 10 times and see how many roll a 6 even once. Even though the probability is 83% not to roll a six, you will roll one.

When you consider that pregnancy can occur only a few days out of the month, whereas HIV infection is a risk every day, this Russian Roulette approach really is a death sentence; what are the stats on the effectiveness of preventing HIV with condoms? who would submit to a test as a control? it would be unethical; rather, there is a blind faith that this is a "good thing".

Those who refuse to think about it, constantly reply "Yes, but I'd rather take the chance to get a good chute than jump off the plane with none!" If one were to respond to this completely idiotic answer by supplying the questionable product, one would be guilty of complicity aned negligence; the only way to avoid the bad chute is to not jump out of the plane, a dumb thing to do for pleasure anyway.

If you think this is not so, consider for a moment when AIDS first appeared, the UN predictions on its spread in Thailand and the Philippines. Thailand had imposed a 100% condom use goal (ever sex act would be condomized), and the Philippines refused to permit promoting condoms. So, the UN predicted that by 2000 Thailand would have 50,000 cases and the Philippines would have 500,000 cases, or a 10 to 1 margin (I may not be precise on these numbers, but I have read the UN document and the point is valid). However the situation is quite the opposite; with 350,000 (or 700,000, depending on the source) cases of HIV in Thailand as of 2004, and 1200 in the Philippines. Unfortunately, the Philippines number has doubled recently, as there is now the presence of NGOs promoting condoms in the Philippines.

March for Life

---A little late---
All are invited to attend the March for Life, Saturday, 23 January, 2009. Mass is at 11:00 a.m. at St. John’s, gathering at Julia Davis bandshell at 1:00 p.m., gather in front of City Hall at 1:15 p.m.., with speech by David Ripley of Idaho Chooses Life [he once headed the legislative arm of Idaho Education Assn and was ardent pro-abortion until his wife had an abortion—very interesting fellow]. After all that, we will gather at St. John’s for hot coffee and hot chocolate.

Update on Catholic Radio for Idaho

Click the link for the latest news!

Newsletter posted

I've finished the second issue of "Truth be Told," the newsletter of the Laity of the Province of the Holy Name of Jesus.

This issue is devoted to the issues surrounding the politics which is "in our face" everywhere, but particularly in California as it deals with Proposition 8.


The newsletter can be found here:

http://dominicanidaho.org/TBT/TBT_Jan_09.pdf

Those who profess to love God, but back abortion, are liars

Those who profess to love God, but back abortion, are liars
By Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — The Mass readings for the week between Epiphany and the Baptism of the Lord are taken from the First Letter of St. John. These readings are not always used for it often happens, depending upon the day on which Christmas falls, that the season of ordinary time begins immediately after the celebration of Epiphany. This year, however, the occurrence of Christmas allowed for a full week between these two post-Christmas celebrations and thus the readings from St. John’s first letter. As often happens, the daily Mass readings are both appealing and challenging. The reading of Thursday from I John 4:19ff is particularly appropriate in this year when the life issues are very much on the minds of pro-life persons.

The reason for the increased awareness and even concern on the part of the pro-life community is the specter of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which is highly rumored to be in the works at the federal level. It is this act which has stimulated the bishops of the United States to launch a massive postcard campaign calling upon the House and Senate to abandon FOCA. While further details about the dramatic impact of FOCA on our American culture can be found in many places, I will simply say that it would establish abortion as a federally protected right and, as I understand it, preclude state limitation or regulation of abortion. Further, since abortion would be a federally protected right, it is very possible that even Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Physicians would be mandated to provide this heinous service.

Thus I strongly urge all who have a glimmer of concern for the lives of pre-born children to engage themselves in this postcard campaign. This is not an action which would limit or alter present permissive abortion laws, which some so-called Catholic pro-choice persons might object to, it would simply preclude a dramatic expansion of that permissiveness. Thus it would be very difficult for any Catholic, no matter how much in favor of abortion itself, to find a reason to refuse to participate in this campaign. At the same time, I do not see how any Catholic senator or representative could vote for the passage of FOCA without recognizing that such a vote would constitute a direct and intentional declaration of their disdain for Catholic teaching. Such a vote would be tantamount to a public declaration of their intention to abandon the Catholic faith. It would be imperative that the faith consequences of such a declaration be allowed to fall fully on the heads of those who would make it.
The writing from St. John applies: “Beloved, we love God because He first loved us. If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from Him: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.”
We of the Catholic faith certainly know that love of God is central to our tenets, this is the appealing part. It is hard to imagine a Catholic saying, “I am a Catholic in good standing but I do not love God.” But the inspired scriptures tell us that whoever does not love his brother or neighbor does not and, indeed, cannot love God. This is the challenging part. The people of Jesus’ day understood this and it was this understanding that prompted them to ask, “And who is my neighbor?” For all of us, and especially for Catholic legislators in every strata of government, it is necessary to declare, in conformity with the Natural Law and the teaching of the Catholic Church that, the pre-born child is our brother, our sister, our neighbor!

It may sound a little strong to state that legislators “hate” the pre-born child but hate is an absence of love and love means to wish another well. There is nothing about abortion that wishes the pre-born child well. The preservation of abortion “rights” is already an absence of love for the pre-born child but the passage of FOCA could be construed as nothing less than active and positive disregard, even hatred, for these our brothers and sisters. To paraphrase St. John, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but votes for FOCA, thus showing a disregard for his pre-born brother or sister, he is a liar.” Lots of things can be rationalized in government but I do not see any way in which any Catholic could rationalize or justify an affirmative vote for FOCA.

It is not necessary for your postcards to be as outspoken as this bishop but you do have an obligation to participate in this concerted effort to show love for the tiniest and most defenseless of our brothers and sisters. President-elect Obama made it very clear, prior to the election, that he would happily sign FOCA and the millions of Catholics who voted for him hopefully did so for reasons other than this promise and certainly not because of it. It seems to me that it is particularly incumbent upon these same voters to make it clearly known to their representatives that their vote may not in any way be taken as a sign of support for FOCA.

Another way in which we show our affirmative love for our pre-born brothers and sisters is by way of our annual memorial on Jan. 22. This year the Diocesan Office of Pro-life Activities has scheduled a rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville on Thursday evening, Jan. 22. The rosary will commence at 6:30 p.m. with Mass beginning at 7 p.m. While I recognize that many parishes host similar memorial Masses to pray for the two-fold victims of abortion, the child and the mother, I invite any who can to join me at the rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville.

Regardless of how many years have passed since the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision and regardless of how prevalent and routine abortion has become in this country, the simple truth remains, it is an act of extreme violence to the pre-born child and to the distressed mother. Thus, if anyone says, “I love God” and still favors abortion, he is, to quote St. John, a liar. May we all live out faithfully what it means to love God.

From the Catholic Sentinal Online edition

During recent travels...

I learned how to "blow down" the boiler in dad's basement, a job he has done weekly during heating season for over 30 years.



then there was this in Farmington, New Mexico:



fascinating!
Notice the subtext "Roman Catholic Churches of San Juan County"
Makes you proud!

Family emergencies have kept me from Blogger for a while now, perhaps things will ease up a bit.

Da Mihi Animas: A Dangerous World: 33 Minutes

Da Mihi Animas: A Dangerous World: 33 Minutes

On the nature of love

Today's Office of Readings has the following:

From a sermon by Saint Peter Chrysologus, bishop

Love desires to see God

When God saw the world falling to ruin because of fear, he immediately acted to call it back to himself with love. He invited it by his grace, preserved it by his love, and embraced it with compassion. When the earth had become hardened in evil, God sent the flood both to punish and to release it. He called Noah to be the father of a new era, urged him with kind words, and showed that he trusted him; he gave him fatherly instruction about the present calamity, and through his grace consoled him with hope for the future. But God did not merely issue commands; rather with Noah sharing the work, he filled the ark with the future seed of the whole world. The sense of loving fellowship thus engendered removed servile fear, and a mutual love could continue to preserve what shared labor had effected.

God called Abraham out of the heathen world, symbolically lengthened his name; and made him the father of all believers. God walked with him on his journeys, protected him in foreign lands, enriched him with earthly possessions, and honored him with victories. He made a covenant with him, saved him from harm, accepted his hospitality, and astonished him by giving him the offspring he had despaired of. Favored with so many graces and drawn by such great sweetness of divine love, Abraham was to learn to love God rather than fear him, and love rather than fear was to inspire his worship.

God comforted Jacob by a dream during his flight, roused him to combat upon his return, and encircled him with a wrestler's embrace to teach him not to be afraid of the author of the conflict, but to love him. God called Moses as father would, and with fatherly affection invited him to become the liberator of his people.

In all the events we have recalled, the flame of divine love enkindled human hearts and its intoxication overflowed into men's senses. Wounded by love, they longed to look upon God with their bodily eyes. Yet how could our narrow human vision apprehend God, whom the whole world cannot contain? But the law of love is not concerned with what will be, what ought to be, what can be. Love does not reflect; it is unreasonable and knows no moderation. Love refuses to be consoled when its goal proves impossible, despises all hindrances to the attainment of its object. Love destroys the lover if he cannot obtain what he loves; love follows its own promptings, and does not think of right and wrong. Love inflames desire which impels it toward things that are forbidden. But why Continue?

It is intolerable for love not to see the object of its longing. That is why whatever reward they merited was nothing to the saints if they could not see the Lord. A love that desires to see God may not have reasonableness on its side, but it is the evidence of filial love. It gave Moses the temerity to say: If I have found favor in your eyes, show me your face. It inspired the psalmist to make the same prayer: Show me your face. Even the pagans made their images for this purpose: they wanted actually to see what they mistakenly revered.

The point I'd like to make in posting this, is that, as Thomas said, we act under the motive of love, even if we are sinning; we place a lesser love above a greater love;

For example, the Catholic who leaves the Church for a nice warm and fuzzy protestant congregation, who says "I'm not being fed" - is seeking something much less than God, with whom he is being fed. St Paul said their god is their belly and their glory their shame, but in light of Chrysologus' item above, it is a little love, placed above the greatest love, Deus Caritas Est.

Chrysologus also gives us insight into the violence and hatred of the so-called gay movement. Their love is real, although a lesser love, but it drives to irrationality, knowing no bounds. This is why the word "disorder" is so wonderful, even while it is being maligned with such vigor. For it is rational to love pleasure, and it is rational to love God, but it is out of order to reverse them, just as:

1,2,3,4,5... is in order, but
4,1,5,2,3... is not in order.

The parts are there, the order is, will, "dissed"

BTW, it was St. Augustine who said that we can know what we love, for we name ourselves with what we love.

Magnificat!

Pergolesi's Magnificat




Robert Parson's Magnificat,
Latin
English


Dyson - Magnificat in D



Brewer - Magnificat in D


Studio del Magnificat in canto gregoriano, Schola Gregoriana Mediolanensis, Giovanni Vianini


Robert Parson's Ave Maria


Arcadelt Ave Maria



Dyson- Nunc Dimittis in D

I put up the Christmas lights

Listen up!

A new blog by Fr. Hulk

I wan't talking to you

Straight talk; I like it. Hat tip to Adoro te Devote for the link.

Idaho Chooses Life!

To David Ripley, Executive Director of Idaho Chooses Life, a hearty "THANK YOU" for once again producing a fine evening. And to Judy Brown, for coming and speaking to those assembled, a big "THANK YOU" as well.

A couple thoughts from Judy Brown stuck fast; an admission that being tied to one political party was a serious mistake; a huge admission from one of the architects of that marriage of convienence. Judy stressed many times, and I will do so and I ask you to do so;

"Abortion is not a political issue, it is a procedure that kills a baby."

Whenever you hear abortion argued as politics, get it back on track with this line.

most intriguing, a quote from a Pastor Childers:

"African-American genocide now has a face; Obama."
Time to call the liars out, no more hiding behind obfuscation.

Judy pointed out that NO ONE in this recent election called any candidate to the carpet for the specious claim of not being pro-abortion, but pro-choice. Try it; the next time someone says that sort of moronic thing, then say "Then I can expect you to vote against abortion when you get the choice."


Update!

David Ripley's article at ICL:
Idaho Is Blessed by Judie Brown

!!Well, what do you know... I can count 7 Dominicans in the picture above...

Idaho Chooses Life

Christmas Dinner and Auction

Friday, December 5, 2008 6-9:30PM
Community Christian Center
202 E 42nd St. Garden City

This is a fundraising event to support the 2009 Legislative Program.
Auction items gratefully accepted. Tables of 8 can be reserved for $75.00
Families are welcome at $35.00, and child care will be provided.

Reservations can be made by calling 344-8709

Hold fast!

The Samurai with the Cross. From the Acts of the Martyrs of Japan
by Sandro Magister

On December 9, 1603, Agnes Takeda watched as her husband was beheaded, and then reverently picked up his head and held it to her chest. The chronicler tells us that, at the sight, not only the crowd but even the executioners were moved to tears. The separation of the devoted couple was brief, because Agnes was martyred later the same day.

Ultrasound at 11 weeks

Just in from a lovely friend:

Lesson on the False Dichotomy Fallacy

Here's a look at the flawed logic so often encountered in attacks on the faith.



hat tip to Dutch blogger Turgonian Transitus Tiberis via Steve Ray's Defenders of the Catholic Faith forums.

Eucharist - giving thanks

One of the meanings of the word "Eucharist" is "thanksgiving"

Scholars Urge More Research on Holy Grail
Congress Discusses Authenticity of Chalice



VALENCIA, Spain, NOV. 24, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Though no one knows if Valencia's grail is the true Last Supper chalice, a group of experts says it has tremendous cultural value due to its impact on history and literature.

This was affirmed by members of the international congress "Valencia, City of the Holy Grail," focusing on the chalice traditionally associated with the institution of the Eucharist.

The congress was held Nov. 7-9 at the Catholic University of Valencia and was organized by the Archdiocese of Valencia, the cathedral’s metropolitan chapter, the Catholic University of Valencia, the Spanish Center for Sindonology, the Royal Brotherhood, and the Holy Chalice Confraternity.

Experts from several countries attended the congress. They gave presentations on the ways in which this relic has marked history and literature since its move from Rome to Spain by Lawrence the Martyr in the year 258, as held by tradition.

The body of existing data points to the Valencia grail as the most probable authentic chalice of Christ.

Unique

Antonio Beltrán, professor of archaeology at the University of Zaragoza, noted that the cup is formed by a deep red agate, called "Oriental carnelian," with streaks in the form of flames. By its material he asserts that it must come from a workshop in Palestine, Syria or Egypt between the fourth century B.C. and the first century A.D. The subsequent additions, such as the precious stones and the frame, date from the 13th or 14th century.

Jorge Manuel Rodríguez, president of the Spanish Center for Sindonology, explained that although films have always shown "a wooden Holy Grail, […] that material did not comply with the norms of purification of the Jews."

Another element discussed by the scholars was the journey of the chalice from Rome to Valencia.

The experts affirmed that if the chalice arrived in Rome from Jerusalem, it was most likely taken by the Apostle Peter himself.

Jaime Sancho, president of the liturgy commission of the Archdiocese of Valencia, presented a datum that supports the theory that the first popes celebrated the Eucharist with the same chalice that Jesus used.

Sancho explained that in the Roman Canon, which dates back to the second century, it says literally at the moment of consecration "and, taking this glorious chalice in his holy and venerable hands," instead of "the chalice."

This and other proofs contributed by Sancho demonstrate the existence in Rome of a unique chalice.

This was affirmed by José Vicente Martínez, professor of ancient history at the University of Valencia, and American researcher Janice Bennet, doctor in Spanish literature. They both spoke about Pope Sixtus II, martyred in Rome during Valerian’s persecution, entrusting the Holy Grail to Deacon Lawrence to protect it from the emperor.

A manuscript by St. Donatus told of this event, said Bennet, as well as the fact that Lawrence was a native of Valencia, not Huesca, as traditionally believed.

Several presenters gave historical proofs of the presence of the chalice in Spain over many centuries, from the study of various annals and paintings.

German anthropologist Michael Hesemann stated that "as opposed to what many think, the grail legends did not begin with the Anglo-Saxon accounts of King Arthur, but in the rooted tradition that says that the chalice of the Last Supper was already in Spain in the Middle Ages."

Faith and science

The researchers were practically unanimous in supporting research on the chalice with modern scientific techniques to determine its origin, though they emphasized that its religious value does not depend on the resulting discoveries.

Miguel Navarro, doctor in church history from Rome’s Gregorian University, stated that the chalice "is not a magical object, but consecrated by Jesus' use of it and by the faith that perceives it as such, which has great religious value, regardless of the fact that it cannot be proved with absolute scientific certainty that it is the Lord’s chalice."

Relics, he added, are not "simple keepsakes, but something more valuable: palpable evidence of the reality of the human or historical event on which our faith is based, as salvation takes place in history, in the flesh."

Moreover, Father Manuel Carreira, doctor of physical sciences, added that science and faith "are not opposed." However, he specified that "although science can give an explanation of all this, it cannot demonstrate anything literally about what happens in the Eucharist."

Navarro added that the chalice "insofar as relic, is beyond and above science, because its primordial significance belongs to the realm of faith, which does not mean that we approach it in an anti-scientific or fundamentalist way." Rather, "we have the obligation to study it scientifically in its materiality."

Benedict XVI used the chalice during the Mass with which he concluded the World Meeting of Families in Valencia in July, 2006. Pope John Paul II also used it in his visit to the city.

that's it, folks!

sheet music needed

Looking for sheet music in modern notation for "Rorate Caeli Desuper"

if anyone knows of such on the internet that I can download, I'd appreciate it.

here's a nice rendering of the first two verses




I know, I know.... we've been practicing with square notation, but the modern notation is for the organist!

Cartoon is missing one caption

Catholic Cartoon Blog pointing out a painfull reality?



but, it's missing one piece.



Obama administration reveals plans to advance gay agenda