tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-343421782024-03-13T23:05:01.211-05:00Arrival : The Parousian WeblogSacramental Vision. Dynamic Orthodoxy. Cultural Apologetics.Philip de Mahyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04836433393701957200noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-31948828190274593142010-11-30T08:57:00.001-06:002010-11-30T08:58:51.159-06:00Spirituality of Advent: What are you waiting for?<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Throughout scripture we can discern a theology of waiting. In the Old Testament God waits on his people to return to him. In every age He endures our unfaithfulness. Yet our falleness makes waiting on God unbearable at times. Frequent prayer, mass, and adoration easily become inconveniences to daily living. And, though very often we convince ourselves otherwise, what we are communicating through our actions to our God is that He is not worth our time. We'd rather spend our time otherwise. After all we are important people and we have many important things to accomplish that takes precedence over spending time with God. And when we do spend time with God, sometimes its motivated by selfish reasons. How often do we expect God to answer us immediately when we do call out for him? How quickly do we expect him to solve our problems? How frustrated do we become when he seems silent to our sufferings? "Why do we complain about God, Who has more reason to complain about all of us?" (Salvian). </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Advent is indicative of the spirituality of the Old Testament. The entire Old Testament is an anticipation and foreshadowing of Christ. We are called to reflect on the experience of waiting on God's faithfulness to redeem our falleness. We must always be prepared for the coming of God. Truly Christ has already come (incarnation), and as he continues to come (Eucharist) he will come again (Final Judgment). As our spiritual ancestors waited for God to fulfill the Old Testament covenental promises, we are called to spiritually reflect on their experience that we may be able to recognize, receive, and respond to God's grace when it is manifested. </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Sadly, sometimes we do not really want a God of infinite wisdom, but a divine vending machine whose buttons we can manipulate with our petitions</span><span style="font-size: small;"> to satisfy our demands. True patience, and thus true hope flows from love. When we love and trust God we realize that His will shall prevail, and that this will be a glorious thing that we should welcome wholeheartedly. We pray, "Lord, not as I will, but as you will." We become much more concerned as to whether our will is conforming to God's. We say, "Holy Spirit, teach me how to pray and guide the desires of my heart." In this way we avoid a relationship of manipulation. By waiting on God we should learn to treat his responses to our prayers (even the silences) as a gift and not with a disposition of entitlement. </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Look towards the children who immediately receive everything they want whenever they want from others. They become very selfish and it becomes very difficult for them to receive anything with a spirit of gratitude. Appeasement is a bad parenting practice for it doesn't teach responsibility. Quite literally such spoiled individuals lack the ability to respond properly to gifts which screws up their ability to love. They are never able to properly receive a gift of love and thus they cannot properly give a gift of love. Bottom line is that God is wiser than us and we should conform to his will rather than trying to get him to conform to ours. </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">At pivotal points throughout scripture and all of history, God’s people are met with silence. A prominent example of this is when Israel, after many centuries of being displaced during the Diaspora and subjected to a series of different rulers yearn for God’s answer to their plea for restoration and the fulfillment of his promises. “Israel is living once more in the darkness of divine absence; God is silent, seemingly forgetful of the promises of Abraham and David, the old lament is heard once more: We no longer have any prophets, God seems to have abandoned his people” (Benedict XVI). During this time God’s people were experiencing the spirituality of advent where their waiting constitutes a prayer of great longing and anticipation. In the silence they wait for God. </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We must learn how to put ourselves in God’s time frame rather than expecting him to work on our own. Very often we are not ready for what God wants to accomplish for us and in us. We must wait and prepare our hearts. To use an analogy of St. Augustine that I've heard via Fr. Robert Barron (the video is below), sometimes God delays the answering of prayer in order that the heart of the person may expand and receive what God wants to give. We ask and God makes us promises but often the heart isn’t big enough to receive, but as we faithfully wait the heart grows larger and more receptive so that when God is ready, we might also be ready. </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The silence of God in the Old Testament foreshadows his plan of salvation when he enters into the silence of the human condition through the Incarnation.The peaceful silence of the nativity contrasts greatly with the violent silence of Calvary. This silence of Christ culminates on the cross when he silently allows himself to be slaughtered and enters into the silence of the grave, into the silence of death so that he may destroy silence through the Resurrection. May all our spiritual advents be a preparation inviting Christ to enter into the silence of our own lives that we may receive what God wants to give us. </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><br />
<object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MAWnDA5cWD8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MAWnDA5cWD8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>Ryan Hallfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06252722993351860885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-83791685073709951172010-11-29T20:50:00.001-06:002010-11-29T20:51:24.503-06:00Dorothy Day: Bridging the GapToday is the 30th anniversary of the death of (Servant of God) Dorothy Day. There are few figures in American Catholicism who manage simultaneously to balance radicality with orthodoxy, activity with contemplation, or liberality with poverty -- Dorothy Day was such a figure.That Dorothy spent her life -- even before she was a Catholic -- defending the poor, the worker, the homeless, the disenfranchised is well-known; addressing injustice was her life's work. And yet, haven't these activities, in a certain detached sense, become somewhat trite to us? To say she defended the poor, to say she fought for justice, to say she lived voluntary poverty -- how much of these phrases has become, for most of us, a snazzy phrase we use to gild the grit of the saint's life? To apotheosize a life spent in the real world, full of grime and sin? Not to say her works lose their beauty, but that they begin to mean so little to us being 30-years removed. Certainly Dorothy Day has had many wonderful eulogies -- her work is not, as far as I know, a mystery. But how is she relevant <em>today</em>? In Advent 2010? How can her example bear fruit in <em>our lives</em>, not as a nod to make ourselves feel better, but as a call to conversion? <br />
<br />
Perhaps such questions are a bit daunting for this little meditation. With that in mind, I'd like to offer the role Dorothy Day has played in my own conversion. As you, reader, may or may not know, I was confirmed Easter 2007. Upon entering the Church, I was a confused liberal: a vegetarian, pacifist, socialistic, tramping, poor little college student with a new idea every five minutes. I had been confirmed in the Holy Spirit and received our Lord in the Eucharist, and yet the "world was too much" with me -- I could not brook the seething Republican Catholicism with which I was confronted; could not understand why more people hadn't embraced the poverty espoused in Matthew 19:21; couldn't assuage my conscience which told me war was a horrid, heinous defeat for humanity, or that capitalism was a "dirty, rotten system." I was in a difficult spot: I had been entranced by the Beauty, Reason, and Order of the Church, and yet I found much of her <em>milieu </em>to be disheartening. I was as faithful a Catholic as I knew how to be, and still found myself on the fringe. And yet, that is where Dorothy met me: on the fringe. <br />
<br />
Dorothy, for me, was an anomalous figure -- a Catholic pacifist and anarchist, who derided capitalism, but was not a communist; an outspoken woman who faithfully adhered to all the creed while vociferously rampaging against the cruelties of her time. When I began to read about her and Peter Maurin (who, I must sheepishly admit, remains more of a hero in my heart than even Dorothy), I was inspired, I was filled with hope, I was vivified. Her Personalist Ethic, Pacifism, Voluntary Poverty and Love of the Poor -- all spoke to my heart that I need not despair; that there was, despite many voices to the contrary, a place for guys like me in the Church. Dorothy and Peter thus became not only my inspiration but my guiding light -- in them, I saw the "bleeding heart" of a liberal, not destroyed by grace, <em>but perfected</em>. Because the heart full of compassion for the lost and indignation for the abused is not to be smothered out -- but the fire needs the fireplace, the wild vine needs tending. The Church thus molded Dorothy, and Dorothy thus molded me. <br />
<br />
This perfection of the liberal's heart is what I think Dorothy has most to contribute today. Not as though her contribution to American Pacifism isn't enormous, or that her example of true love and solidarity with the poor isn't astounding; but rather, that Dorothy's gift, as I see it, is to be the saint that stands in the gap between the Church and the liberal. The world is positively brimming with well-intentioned people, crunchy-cons and bleeding heart liberals alike, who have a desire for justice and equality, not merely as it relates to performing works of mercy, but as it relates to the <em>structures of society itself</em>. But they, like their estranged conservative cousins (without whose stability we would be lost, I'd wager), need the guiding hand of the Church, to shape them, prune them, and teach them true justice, true equality free from the errors of modernism. And so for me, and for many other liberals who have found their way into the Holy Catholic Church, Dorothy is a bridge and a friend. She is an image of the machinations of grace upon the liberal heart, showing us that there is indeed, as Peter Maurin said, more "dynamite" within the Church than without.<br />
<br />
By her life, Dorothy reflects, in a particular way, for a particular time, the work of Christ throughout history: to bring the outskirts of mankind into the work of his Incarnation; to embody "grace and truth" in a period which needs certain graces and certain truths; an "antidote," as Chesterton phrases it. And thus was Dorothy Day for the 20th century and its liberals: a word of grace and truth to those who, in perhaps the world's darkest hour, desired the light of economic justice, freedom from the brutal obliteration of war, and liberation from the oppression of the State. <br />
<br />
May Servant of God Dorothy Day pray for us, liberals and conservatives alike! And may her canonization come quickly!Mr. Carruthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09871661192919968504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-27078414558747113632010-11-04T10:13:00.007-05:002010-11-04T10:30:57.054-05:00"Far and Away" and Here Today<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Since we have just had political elections here in the United States, I thought it might be a suitable time to make a post regarding some political topics; however, just to make it interesting I'm putting this discussion within the framework of a work of artistic criticism. Specifically, I'm going to attempt to draw out the themes of Distributism which I see reflected in the 1992 film </span></span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Far and Away</span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. (That being said, this article contains spoilers for the movie, so if you want to see it, you should probably avoid reading on until you do.) I think this approach is useful because it expresses both the fact that artistic expression can passively give birth to a bubbling forth of truths of the human condition in a wide variety of areas and can also, actively, demonstrate how artistic media can be useful as a vehicle for the propagation of the Catholic faith and teachings if you in an appropriate manner.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span></o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The film itself opens, finding us in Ireland in the late 19th century with a title card which reads: "The tenant farmers, after generations of oppression and poverty, have begun to rebel against the unfair rents and cruel evictions imposed upon them by their wealthy landlords." And it is this concept the brings us specifically to Joseph Donnelly (Cruise), a young man working on the farm which he shares with his father (who is fatally wounded in the opening scene) and brothers, rented from a landlord who lives far off. Joseph is immediately characterised by the opening action in which he struggles to work his rented fields while his brothers taunt him and, speaking of his "grand ambitions" his brother says to him: “Ambition is it? To break your back on land that isn’t your own?”</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">With such a thought in mind we can turn our attention to the words of Pope Leo XII in his encyclical </span></span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Rerum Novarum</span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> (1891):</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;line-height:normal"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black; "></span></span></span></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;line-height:normal"><span style="color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer to one another. A further consequence will result in the great abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them. That such a spirit of willing labor would add to the produce of the earth and to the wealth of the community is self evident. And a third advantage would spring from this: men would cling to the country in which they were born, for no one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of living a decent and happy life.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In this particular instance, of course, the focus is placed on the second aspect described here, namely that men will work diligently and joyfully on their own property to a greater extent than the land of another. This concept is shown quite clearly in the case of Joseph's brothers, who would rather drink and fight than bother working the land, with specific reference to their lack of ownership.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As the film progresses, the agents of the landlord arrive and burn down the Donnellys' farm due to a failure to pay their rent. As a result, Joseph sets out to exact revenge by murdering the landlord. To make a long story short, it doesn't go according to plan and Joseph ends up a prisoner in the landlord's house awaiting a duel the next morning against the man who burned down his farm. However, in the night, the daughter of the landlord, Shannon (Kidman), enters the room and offers him the prospect of coming with her to America where, she informs him, they give away land for free. Incredulous, Joseph informs her: "I'm of Ireland and I'll stay in Ireland til I die!" This brings us to the third of the statement of Leo XIII, that a man would not abandon his own country if it could give him sufficient support. However, it seems that Joseph violates this principle, desiring to stay in is country despite the fact that he has no property of means of his own. However, the next morning shows the reality of Pope Leo's words, as Joseph ultimately relents and heads to America with Shannon, realising he has nothing left for him in Ireland save for fear of death.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Ultimately, the pair end up in Boston and become affiliated with dangerous criminals who provide them with a place to live and jobs. Ultimately, Joseph begins to engage in boxing matches for them and comes into a number of material luxuries as a result of his success. However, when he loses an important fight (notably as a result of being distracted by inappropriate advances of one of his employers against Shannon, whom he seeks to defend), all this material prosperity is proven to have been an illusion--immediately they are ejected from their boarding house, driven away from employment and shunned by their former patrons.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This is ultimately the untenable situation of the vast majority of wage labourers under the system of capitalism who live their lives at the whim of those wealthy patrons who provide their salaries. This should be regarded as especially relevant to people in the United States, a country in which in 2001 a mere 1% of the population owned 38% of the wealth (if we look at the top 20% we find that they control over 80% of the wealth) and the bottom 40% owned less than 1%--a situation which has only grown more extreme in the intervening years. Furthermore, we have to bear in mind that a significant number of the people in that bottom 40% own literally nothing--their net worth is below zero, in that they owe more than they possess. The situation of individuals in this position is literally no different from that of Joseph and Shannon in the movie. How is this equitable? How is this just? What is the solution?</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Well, </span></span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Far and Away </span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">has a solution. And that solution is a wider distribution of productive property. This is envisioned in the idea of the free land grab in the Oklahoma territory--where everyone, the rich and the poor alike, theoretically have an equal chance to attain possession of land. This is particularly emphasised by the fact that we see Shannon's family--the wealthy landlords from Ireland--come to the United States to participate in the same land grab race with Joseph after revolting peasants destroy their manor in Ireland. And what does that bring us to but Pope Leo XIII's last remaining point: if the poor have a chance to gain possession of land, a bridge will be built between the social classes who will grown nearer to each other. </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This is exemplified in two ways in the film: first, the relative equality of Shannon's wealthy family and the poor Joseph in their attempt to claim land in the Oklahoma territory where they will be, essentially, neighbors in possession of an equal amount of productive property. And finally, in Shannon's decision to be with Joseph rather than the more wealthy man to whom she was originally paired. The union of these individuals exemplifies the union of classes brought together by the appropriate distribution of land, as emphasised in their jointly driving in the stake which declares their ownership of the land they have chosen together.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Now, I have a couple of other points to make which I think really drive this movie over the top in this respect. The first is when Joseph attempts to defend Shannon against the advances of his corrupt employer during his great boxing match, which ultimately results in the lose of his material prosperity. I greatly enjoyed this scene because it emphasises a point which I think is largely lost in politics and economics today--that is, that they are not </span></span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">natural</span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> sciences. Rather, politics and economics are branches of </span></span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">moral</span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> science and they should, at their foundation, be regarded as dealing with</span></span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> people</span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> and not with </span></span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">objects</span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. Is great material wealth worth the manipulation and exploitation of even a single individual? I think that if we are morally honest with ourselves, we must say no. So, even though winning the boxing match would be enough to secure for Joseph the wealth with which he could attain his dream of property ownership, if the price of attaining that economic vision were to sacrifice of Shannon, a human person, then the price is regarded as simply too steep. Humans are not means to an end, we are ends in ourselves!</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color: black; "><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span></o:p></span><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The second scene which gave me great delight is the final scene. In a struggle with the other man seeking Shannon's romantic affections, Joseph is thrown to the ground and injures his head on a rock. As Shannon hovers over his body, begging him to live, the camera gives the impression that Joseph's soul is leaving his body and he is dead. However, at a few simple words, Joseph's soul rushes back and he is instantly revived and their dream is ultimately realised as they claim their land together as one. And what are those words which call him back? "I loved you." And this is the essence of the entire political, social and economic vision of the film, in my opinion: without love, not only is the entire process of social reform completely worthless, it is also fruitless. In fact, I limit too much, I think by saying social </span></span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">reform</span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. No form of politics or economics--existing or reformed--is worthy of preservation if it is not founded on this simply fact. </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So let us take this message away from this little movie of Ron Howard: let us love one another, not in a vague and sentimental way, but in way which finds its expression in sacrifice and self-gift to one another; where instead of trying to cheat one another and outdo one another, we embrace life of charity for our fellow men; and ultimately let us follow that path of love to the social, economic and political structures that are most congruent with that fundamental truth, like the natural fruit of a great and giving tree. Let us live lives based </span></span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">entirely </span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">in love.</span></span></span></p>Geoffrey Bainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17859217325024071902noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-47311727287014143112010-10-28T22:17:00.012-05:002010-10-28T23:21:12.479-05:00The Catholic Creation of Hollywood's Golden Age, or How the Church Saved the Movies, Part Three<div style="text-align: center;">Part One is available <a href="http://parousians.blogspot.com/2010/10/catholic-creation-of-hollywoods-golden.html">here</a>.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">Part Two is available <a href="http://parousians.blogspot.com/2010/10/catholic-creation-of-hollywoods-golden_19.html">here</a>.</div><br /><div style="text-align: left;">The beginning of the American Catholic church's interest in cinema dates back to the beginning of the art form itself. However, the Catholic Church's leadership in America was fractured, divided between different dioceses. There was no national body to speak with a unified voice for the American Church until 1917, with the founding of the National War Council, the first national Catholic body in America. American bishops formed it to respond to the nation's request for chaplains needed for the Great War (World War I) and to preserve the faith and morality of Catholics in the military and those women living near bases. Pretty soon this organization became involved in the movies. This group's first exposure to film involved issues with hygiene films produced by the government for service personnel. After organizing opposition from within the Church, the National War Council was successful in pulling certain films it found objectionable from distribution. Following the war, the group changed its name to the National Catholic Welfare Council in 1919 and then the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC) in 1922.</div> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"> <span><span><span> Following its success during World War I in preventing troops and the general public from viewing objectionable content, in 1919, the NCWC formed a specific committee to deal with the growing film industry: the Motion Picture Committee. While still focusing on hygiene films, it worked with film producers behind the scenes to fund pro-Catholic movies like the unsuccessful effort, “American Catholics in War and Reconstruction.” By 1923, led by Charles McMahon, it began issuing monthly lists of positive films in the NCWC Bulletin, believing that the best way to promote quality films was to educate the public about what were the quality films. At the same time emerged a similar program under the leadership of the Motion Picture Bureau of the International Federation of Catholic Alumnae, directed by Rita McGoldrick, a graduate of Rosary College in Illinois. While the NCWC could only evaluate 400 films a year, the International Federation of Catholic Alumnae (IFCA), which was staffed by volunteers who graduated from Catholic high schools and colleges), could review up to 11,000. The volunteers would rate the films either “good,” “very good,” or “excellent.” </span></span></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"> <span><span><span> While there were attempts by some dioceses to create “black lists” for immoral films, the NCWC and the IFCA, which supported the efforts of William Hays, stated it was not necessary, especially following the establishment of the Catholic-written Motion Picture Code in 1930 (as discussed in the last part of this series). However, while the Motion Picture Code was in effect, it was ineffective, with some commentators stating that the films produced during this period were less moral than the ones produced even prior to the institution of the code. As Father Daniel Lord wrote, “Crime, lust, the triangle situation, seductions, remained the normal plot of films. I could see not the slightest improvement.” Even Protestants felt betrayed by Hays and the moral code for motion pictures. Pete Harrison, editor of <i>Harrison's Reports</i>, wrote, “Hays made promises to the church people that he would allow no dirt in pictures and failed to keep his promises—and failed miserably.” </span></span></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"> <span><span><span> This era, extending from 1930 to 1934, is commonly referred to as the “pre-code era.” This is a misnomer. The Motion Picture Code was in effect. However, it just was not enforced. </span></span></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; "> <span><span><span> Two film genres were prevalent during this period: the “gangster” and the “vamp” pictures. Films like <i>Little Caesar</i>, <i>Scarface: the Shame of a Nation</i>, and <i>Public Enemy</i> represent the gangster films of this time. Movies like <i>Blonde Woman</i>, <i>My Sin</i>, <i>Tarnished Lady</i>, <i>Hot Stuff</i>, <i>Baby Face</i>, <i>Hot Stuff</i>, <i>She Done Him Wrong</i>, and <i>I'm No Angel</i> fell into the category of “vamp” or “fallen women” films. (the last two starring the always provocative Mae West). Even noted crime expert, Al Capone, lamented the immorality of films during this period, saying “[T]hey are making a lot of kids want to be tough guys, and they don't serve any useful purpose.” </span></span></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; "> <span><span><span><br /><object width="480" height="385" style="font-weight: normal; "><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y6tmkW_ykt0?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y6tmkW_ykt0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Trailer for the "Pre-Code" picture "Baby Face" starring </span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Barbara Stanwyck</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"><span><span><span>Social scientists also looked into the effects of motion pictures upon children. A group called the “Payne Fund” conducted an investigation into the influence of film upon children, publishing a twelve volume work stating, scientifically (with graphs and such), how the movies were impacting the nation's youth. A summary of the study, called “Our Movie Made Children,” by Henry James Forman, published in 1933, stated that if the industry continued to be unregulated it “is extremely likely to create a haphazard, promiscuous, and undesirable national conscience.”</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"> <span><span><span> By 1932, individuals in the Catholic Church such as Father Lord and Martin Quigley were fed up with the non-enforcement of the Code. Father Lord began looking into films produced since the code went into effect and wrote a pamphlet called “The Motion Pictures Betray America.” In it, he wrote, “It is no longer a matter of single scenes being bad, of occasional 'hells' and 'damns,' or girls in scantly costumes,” but “a whole philosophy of evil... depicted with an explicitness that [has] excited the curriosity of children and the emulation of morons and criminals.” After this pamphlet's publication, Hays threatened Lord with a defamation suit, but it came to naught. Lord continued speaking up against the growing sinfulness of film, with this issue coming to a head when Father Lord spoke in front of five thousand young people in Buffalo. As he states in his autobiography:</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; "> <span><span><span><i> “...I threw the outline for my speech away.... I reminded them what they were seeing when they went to the theater, and what effect it was bound to have upon adolescents like themselves.</i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; "> <span><span><span><i> Then I think my tone rose slightly for I was, without preparation, on the verge of a challenge:</i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; "> <span><span><span><i> 'Nobody else seems to be willing to tackle this job,” I said. “How would you like to clean up the movies?'</i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; "> <span><span><span><i> There was a moment of surprised silence, then somebody cried out, 'Yes!' then the place thundered with applause, and then we worked out our plan.”</i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"> <span><span><span> The plan was to create a black list of films to be published in Lord's own “The Queen's Work,” a paper that went out to nearly all the Catholic high schools and colleges in the nation in addition to thousands of other Catholic groups. The list would be published every month, with two or three of the worst offenders, demanding protests and boycotts.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"> <span><span><span> “Stay away from the ones we list,' said Lord. “Write indigent letters of protest to the companies responsible. Make it so hot for the offenders that they'll stop in sheer self-defense.”</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"> <span><span><span> Martin Quigley did not approve of these new, more aggressive actions by Father Lord. He felt that the Catholics would have more success maintaining a close working relationship with Hollywood, continuing the white lists of approved motion pictures produced by the NCWC and the IFCA. However, some individuals, like Cardinal Mundelein and Bishop Bernard J. Sheil, saw that Lord's work was proving effective. They saw how successful Father Lord was with the nation's youth and decided a national group of Catholics from all age groups (and Protestants and Jews) organized to protect film morality would be even more effective. Thus, the Catholic (soon to be National) Legion of Decency was formed in Fall 1933. As spoken by Archbishop Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, “Catholics are called by God, the Pope, the bishops, and the priests to a united front and vigorous campaign for the purification of the cinema, which has become a deadly menace to morals.”</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; "> <span><span><span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkScF-H0KzIjJTazYTPNODynfmwTVpEy3ugOaj2ujuqN7wsg7p0N_UR-RzlcDUpN82BnDt_1osJ41qetm9_pAARQa0c1oE5c0ORUGujAC9zlF1V5SqPdS4SQFnuT2GhncHq5uy/s1600/Legion.jpg" style="font-style: normal; "><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 249px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkScF-H0KzIjJTazYTPNODynfmwTVpEy3ugOaj2ujuqN7wsg7p0N_UR-RzlcDUpN82BnDt_1osJ41qetm9_pAARQa0c1oE5c0ORUGujAC9zlF1V5SqPdS4SQFnuT2GhncHq5uy/s320/Legion.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5533305333280655602" /></a><br />The Legion, with the power of the Catholic press and network of organizations, soon became the most feared institution for film producers in America. <i>Variety</i> claimed that fully half of the nation's 20,000,000 Catholics enlisted in the Legion within a few months. Vowing to not attend immoral films (or even the movie houses in general) Hollywood lost a tremendous amount of revenue. As stated in Chicago's “New World,” “Worn out by promises, tricked by pledges, deceived by codes, and dismayed by filth, the Church has finally decided to take action in the one way left for it-- boycott.”</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">The Legion of Decency raises its sword against the tentacles of the Hollywood octopus in an editorial cartoon from the Chicago's <i>New World</i>, September 28, 1934.</span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"> Scientific studies and the Legion of Decency were not the only pressures upon the motion picture industry in 1933. There was also a new presidential administration in Washington, and one without ties to the former Republican cabinet member, William Hays. President </span></span></span></span></span><em><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Franklin Delano Roosevelt</span></span></span></span></em><span><span style="font-weight: normal"> </span></span><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">was establishing an alphabet soup of new regulatory agencies to deal with the Great Depression. The administration proposed that the entertainment industry should be regulated by the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). Film industry representatives began negotiating with the Roosevelt administration, but there seemed to be little hope to avoid the federal regulation the industry had feared for over a decade. The President apparently felt that the motion picture industry needed the “eagle eye” of federal regulation. There was talk of codifying into statute the Motion Picture Code, thus having the force of law behind what was formally an agreement between the studios. Hays and the motion picture industry, surrounded by the government, social scientists, and the Church, needed a solution. He decided to work with the Church, hoping that the other sides would be placated if the Catholics settled down. </span></span></span></span></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"> <span><span><span> Hays turned to one man, Joseph Ignatius Breen, to help him make amends with American Catholics. Joseph I. Breen was not only a Catholic, but he was also from Chicago with close ties to the diocese, In 1925, he was the publicity director for the 28<sup>th</sup> International Eucharistic Congress. There he worked closely with Quigley and Cardinal Mundelein (as his personal public relations man). In 1929, he attended the meeting with Quigley and Father Dinnen where the Motion Picture Code was first proposed. By 1931, he was working for the MPPDA as Mr. Hays's assistant and Hollywood's ambassador to the Catholic Church. Trusted by both the Catholic Church and by William Hays, he worked at placating both.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"> <span><span><span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0SYIQ5ZtjA2seAnhFWgl4RfgGWjLCRdpUC3fvDd50ccBP1eHAlmGzmjq0GZ5Ut34DSkHSUZIUEzds2kgWvYcoAAaGMtL8oBbiZZT-L5jN-7U_GKcmYUSrxtNBcKQRiNl6ypWX/s1600/Joseph+I.+Breen.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 236px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0SYIQ5ZtjA2seAnhFWgl4RfgGWjLCRdpUC3fvDd50ccBP1eHAlmGzmjq0GZ5Ut34DSkHSUZIUEzds2kgWvYcoAAaGMtL8oBbiZZT-L5jN-7U_GKcmYUSrxtNBcKQRiNl6ypWX/s320/Joseph+I.+Breen.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5533305794782231874" /></a><br />On the fifth of February, 1934, Hays appointed Breen to head the Studio Relations Committee, the committee which had the duty to make sure motion pictures conformed with the Code. Still Breen encountered the ineffectiveness of the existing enforcement program when two motion pictures he denied approval of were successful when appealed to an appeals board made up of Hollywood producers. However, as federal pressure kept up and boycotts led by the National Legion of Decency continued, the MPAA finally decided to take action. </span></span></span> </p><p style="text-align: right;margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; "><span><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Joseph I. Breen</span> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"> On June 13, 1934, the Board of Directors of the MPAA met in New York and approved the creation of the Production Code Administration. All films would have to approved by this new administration, under the direction of Breen. All films would be required to obtain a “Certificate of Approval,” a kind of i</span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">mprimatur</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">for motion pictures. Any production company that did not go through the PCA would be fined $25,000.00 which was soon reorganized as the Production Code Administration. The new PCA would have no appeal board made up of fellow producers. A decision made by the PCA could only be appealed to the MPPDA Board of Directors (located in New York, not in Hollywood). In addition, instead of only reviewing films after production had wrapped, there would be review prior to commencement of production, with the PCA flagging anything in proposed scripts violating the code. </span></span></span></span></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"> <span><span><span> Hays gave Breen and Quigley direction to gain the approval of the Catholic bishops (who were to meet on the 21<sup>st</sup> of June) of this new system. Hays told them that “the Catholic authorities can have anything they want.” After reviewing the framework for this new administration and making sure Breen would be in charge of enforcement, the bishops issued a letter stating, in part, that they were victorious as “the producer's jury in Hollywood, a part of the original machinery for enforcement of the Production Code... has been abandoned and that additional local authority (Breen) has been assigned to the Code administration.” On July 11, 1934, the PCA and its authority over motion pictures were formally approved by the major production companies.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_ReIbdu38FAkYm8em_HK_XGX081n4xnQeH-p7b5RBeoD_AIV93rzCzPXZIW1duqBtGTWuFGXMW9pc6GONtXgDzy7dLidbuFSRpqBqvq-7mkdSdWMiEV55jFbOR5SKMn2nruGp/s1600/Seal.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 246px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_ReIbdu38FAkYm8em_HK_XGX081n4xnQeH-p7b5RBeoD_AIV93rzCzPXZIW1duqBtGTWuFGXMW9pc6GONtXgDzy7dLidbuFSRpqBqvq-7mkdSdWMiEV55jFbOR5SKMn2nruGp/s320/Seal.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5533306746954528242" /></a></span></span></span></span></span></p><div style="text-align: center;"><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Production Code Seal</span></span></span></span></span></span></div><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">And so, a two-tiered system to regulate the content of the movies was established. A production company would submit a film to the PCA (the Breen Office) and it would be reviewed for compliance with the Code. The film would be reviewed once more by the Breen office after it was completed, where it would receive a Seal of Approval. At the same time, the production companies would submit a copy of the film to the Legion of Decency where it would receive a rating of A(Morally unobjectionable), B (Morally objectionable in part), or C (Condemned by the Legion of Decency)</span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">. If approved by the Breen Office, a film would normally receive at most a “B.”</span></span></span></span></span><p></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YfZibmYIcKo?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YfZibmYIcKo?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /></span></span></span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">The Marx Brothers, in the Pre-Code "Horse Feathers" ask "Where's the seal?"</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Pope Pius XI even came out in favor of this system in the </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Encyclical</span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">, </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span style="font-weight: normal; "><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura_en.html"><i>Vigilanti Cura</i></a> </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span style="font-weight: normal; "><i>.</i> As he wrote:</span></span></span></span></span><p></p> <p><a name="IMPETO"></a><span><span><span><span><span style="font-weight: normal; "><i> Although in certain quarters it was predicted that the artistic values of the motion picture would be seriously impaired by the reform insisted upon by the "</i></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">Legion of Decency</span></i></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span style="font-weight: normal"><i>," it appears that quite the contrary has happened and that the "</i></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">Legion of Decency</span></i></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span style="font-weight: normal; "><i>" has given no little impetus to the efforts to advance the cinema on the road to noble artistic significance by directing it towards the production of classic masterpieces as well as of original creations of uncommon worth.</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"> <span><span><span> The establishment of this system in 1934 ushered in the “Golden Age” of Hollywood. In the next segment of this series, I will look at specific case studies showing how this Catholic system in regulating the content of motion pictures helped create America's movie classics.</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"><span><span><span>~TNT</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"><span><span><span></span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; "><span><span><span> <span><i>“<span><span>The stage is set for a magnificent piece of worthwhile Catholic action and achievement.”</span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p><span><span><span> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; "> <span><span><span><b>Joseph I. Breen</b></span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"><span><span><span><br /></span></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal"><span><span><span></span></span></span></p><div><span><span><span><br /><iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fparousians.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fcatholic-creation-of-hollywoods-golden_28.html&layout=standard&show_faces=true&width=450&action=like&colorscheme=light&height=80" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:450px; height:80px;" allowtransparency="true"></iframe><br /><br /><a name="fb_share" type="button_count" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" count="none">Tweet</a></span></span></span></div><span><span><span><br />Black, Gregory D., <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521565928?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0521565928">Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies</a>, (Cambridge University Press 1994).<br /><br />Doherty, Thomas, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231143591?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0231143591">Hollywood's Censor: Joseph I. Breen and the Production Code Administration</a>, (Columbia University Press 2007).<br /><br />Lord, Daniel A., <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0010ALHJ2?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0010ALHJ2">Played By Ear: The Autobiography of Daniel A. Lord, S.J.</a>, (Loyola University 1956).<br /><br />Skinner, James, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0275941930?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0275941930">The Cross and the Cinema: The Legion of Decency and the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures, 1933-1970</a>, (Praeger Publishers 1993).<br /><br />Walsh, Frank, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300063733?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0300063733">Sin and Censorship: The Catholic Church and the Motion Picture Industry</a>, (Yale University Press 1996).</span></span></span><p></p></span></span></span><p></p>Rockyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01112640918394929296noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-64539325561634688882010-10-26T15:01:00.001-05:002010-10-26T15:03:01.134-05:00Listen - lively colors best proclaim her!Listen - lively colors best proclaim her!<br />The deathly darkening of grays and black<br />do not defy light but exist as lack.<br />All shadows recede. They cannot tame her!<br />So sweetly she calls all creation back<br />that the blind hear visions of radiance<br />as she paints deaf ears with yellows and blues,<br />deep greens and purples and countless kind hues,<br />passionate reds in bright blazing cadence!<br />In love we exclaim how good her good news:<br />clement and loving, the source of sweet bliss!<br />Singing, shining, souls stir still at calm call<br />to come find her here where truth and love kiss,<br />to dance and to play where love conquers all!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-68526486443973763682010-10-19T21:54:00.029-05:002010-10-28T23:03:45.824-05:00The Catholic Creation of Hollywood's Golden Age, or How the Church Saved the Movies, Part Two<div style="text-align: center;">Part One is available <a href="http://parousians.blogspot.com/2010/10/catholic-creation-of-hollywoods-golden.html">here</a>.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">Part Three is available <a href="http://parousians.blogspot.com/2010/10/catholic-creation-of-hollywoods-golden_28.html">here</a>.</div><br />There is no doubt that identities grow and are strengthened by oppression, and that is what occurred in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in American Catholic communities. Out of these communities came men and women knowledgeable and proud in their faith, especially in the city of Chicago, home of 1,086,209 Catholics by 1936 (the largest diocese in America). Chicago, with the settlement of large numbers of Catholic immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, became known as the City of Catholics. This seat of Catholic strength in America made it an obvious choice to hold the 28th International Eucharistic Congress, from June 20 to 24, 1926, the first Eucharistic Congress in the United States. Fox Film Corporation (run at the time by Winifred “Winnie” Sheehan, an Irish Catholic) filmed this noteworthy event, producing an eight reel, ninety-six minute production entitled, “His Eminence George Cardinal Mundelein Archbishop of Chicago Presents the Pictorial Record of the XXVII International Eucharistic Congress Produced for him by Fox Film Corporation.” All copyright and profits of the production went to the Church. This connection of the Chicago Archdiocese with Hollywood, which began in 1926, to Catholics from the city becoming more familiar with the film industry. Catholic Chicagoans, including Martin J. Quigley, began to leave their mark upon cinema.<br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1ikZDvq1vjo?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1ikZDvq1vjo?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><small><div style="text-align: center;">(Film of 28th International Eucharistic Congress, courtesy of Chicago History Museum)</div></small><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div> Martin Quigley (1890-1964), a graduate of Niagara and Catholic Universities, was the publisher of "Moving Picture World" and "Exhibitor's Harold" (later combined as the the "Motion Picture Harold" in 1931). He was a man of two worlds: the film industry and the Catholic Church, especially the Archdiocese of Chicago. He believed that film and filmmakers should only provide “decent wholesome material.” Such entertainment should be family-friendly and reflect the virtues and values taught by the Catholic Church. These beliefs were recognized in his publications, some of the largest trade rags in the nation. He became familiar with William Hays and others in the industry through his publications and his work producing the film of the 28th International Eucharistic Congress. While Quigley supported morality being reflected in the film industry, he was also an opponent of state censorship to further this goal. By 1929, however, he clearly saw that the local censorship boards were too entrenched to be disbanded. There needed to be another system, not one relying on state censorship, to insure moral cinema.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5AfI0tIbaxNghVM0dUg6ifDmCw6I30YEjZi7BEtWJEC9xzLIcjpXLHSGp99YoChzYzGIR4oe4TKAg08xQ2e3yqXrWa_g_rjdG4_qix5uST2CjHeeFoKAFJpzioue4BI-VEaY1/s1600/quigley-demille-balabana.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 235px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5AfI0tIbaxNghVM0dUg6ifDmCw6I30YEjZi7BEtWJEC9xzLIcjpXLHSGp99YoChzYzGIR4oe4TKAg08xQ2e3yqXrWa_g_rjdG4_qix5uST2CjHeeFoKAFJpzioue4BI-VEaY1/s320/quigley-demille-balabana.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5529957447238692818" /></a><div>At the same time, the film industry was having its own troubles. William Hays's "Don'ts and Be Carefuls" system was not working.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;">(Martin Quigley, Cecil B. DeMille, and Paramount president Barney Balaban, Courtesy of Georgetown University Library)</span></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_W._Brookhart">Senator Smith W. Brookhart</a> of Iowa introduced a bill into Congress in March of 1928 to have the FTC regulate the motion picture industry. There was also a fear that the federal government would ban the practice of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_booking">“block booking”</a> by which production companies sold a slate of their upcoming attractions, sight unseen, to theaters.</div><div><br /></div><div>Being involved with the motion picture industry, Martin Quigley knew of the fears of the industry in addition to business woes created by declining profits and film attendance resulting from the Great Depression. The time was ripe, Quigley felt, for him introduce a morals code for the motion picture industry, specifically a Catholic code. Quigley consulted with Father FitzGeorge Dineen, adviser to the Chicago censorship board, who recommended Father Daniel A. Lord, S.J. to help compose this proposed code.</div><div><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNHCQgmh8fXm2EcYBs9leHyYIHM4ox50rvk6ro9ssYaFdb5am_1VRHxupRyRDXJc2qx7RBPqO7a8EWXyI-SUg-gd43tF3A-qKrfPNzCRExOjAIFWY6Ggaz-8FF5q2xAQMwcUPi/s1600/fatherdaniellord.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 236px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNHCQgmh8fXm2EcYBs9leHyYIHM4ox50rvk6ro9ssYaFdb5am_1VRHxupRyRDXJc2qx7RBPqO7a8EWXyI-SUg-gd43tF3A-qKrfPNzCRExOjAIFWY6Ggaz-8FF5q2xAQMwcUPi/s320/fatherdaniellord.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5529958802037933682" /></a>Father Lord grew up with entertainment, and, from an early age, was impressed with movie houses. Throughout his time in the seminary, he followed the new medium, accompanying silent films by playing the piano in the theater with his fellow seminarians. One film left a profound impact upon him. In 1915, he viewed what one can consider the first blockbuster, <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.archive.org/details/dw_griffith_birth_of_a_nation">"The Birth of a Nation"</a> </span>This vile and hate-filled film, based on the novel, <span style="font-style:italic;">The Clansman</span> by Thomas Dixon and directed by D.W. Griffith, is the story of the rise of the first version of the Ku Klux Klan and left such an impact upon its viewers that a second version of the Ku Klux Klan became extremely active in the 1920s. </div><div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;">(Father Daniel A. Lord, S.J., 1944, Courtesy of Georgetown University Library)</span></div><div><br /></div><div>As Father Lord states in his autobiography, <span style="font-style: italic; ">Played By Ear</span>:</div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">"The deep hatred that Dixon had written into 'The Clansman' had been blown high and hot in the film. Griffith, whether he meant to or not, made many persons hate Negros and dread any emancipation given them. And I knew I was in the presence of a medium so powerful that it might change our whole attitude towards life, civilization, and established customs.... No doubt about it, the horrible bigotry of the KKK which sprang at the throat of the Catholic Church and American liberties not a decade later rode to its brief and ugly triumphs largely on a road down which had dashed Griffith's clansman."</span></div><br />In the years that followed, Father Lord got involved in different activities, focusing upon the theater. He became a theologian and playwright, in addition to being a Professor of English and Drama at St. Louis University, However, that changed when he was called upon to be the Catholic adviser on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_B._DeMille"><span>Cecil B. DeMille's</span></a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005JNGA?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00005JNGA">"The King of Kings"</a> in 1926. Joined by Jewish and Protestant advisers (both of whom left a few days into filming), Father Lord gave DeMille suggestions to make this movie about the life of the Christ theologically sound. For example, DeMille originally felt that a love story needed to be added into the film to attract a larger audience, namely a love story between Mary Magdalene and Judas. This romantic relationship between the two would culminate in the betrayal of Christ by Judas. </div><div><br /></div><div>Father Lord suggested that this was not an appropriate manner to relate the life of Christ, and one evening, while watching the dailies with Father Lord, DeMille stated “He is great, isn't He?” DeMille was not speaking of the actor portraying Christ, but of Christ Himself. DeMille cut over 1,500 feet of film from the Mary Magdalene scenes, and the love story aspect of the plot was dropped from the finished film save for a bit in the opening minutes, posted below. Father Lord's Hollywood adventure being over, he returned to teaching at St. Louis University, until he was contacted by Martin Quigley about the creation of a Catholic morals code for cinema.<br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pFhcdF_td10?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pFhcdF_td10?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><small><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;">(Trailer for King of Kings, 1927)</span></small> </div><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oMwZEsJagj0?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oMwZEsJagj0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;">(First Part of King of Kings, 1927 in early color)</span></div></div><br />Together Quigley and Fathers Dinnen and Lord discussed the drafting of such a code. It was decided to not make it explicitly Catholic, but in a way “that the follower of any religion, or any man of decent feeling and conviction, would read it and instantly agree. It must make morally attractive, and the sense of responsibility of the movies to its public and unmistakable.” Hays, to whom Quigley proposed the idea, was receptive to this solution.<br /><br />Hays and Quigley carried the idea to the member companies of the MPPDA which received the idea of a more effective morals code by which the industry could self-regulate the movies, and, thus, avoid state censorship with enthusiasm. However, this was not Quigley's only selling point. There was also a desire for the producers to appeal to the Catholic audience. While those who owned the production companies were mainly of Jewish decent and the majority of moviegoers were Protestant, there was a desire by the film industry to specifically appeal to Catholics for several reasons:<br /><ol><li>They were the single largest single religious group in the United States;</li><li>There was a clear hierarchy and institutional structure to the Church; and</li><li>The strong loyalty the lay people had to the Church and its teachings.</li></ol> Quigley and Lord began work on this code, with Lord making sure <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_maiorem_Dei_gloriam"><span style="font-style:italic;">A.M.D.G.</span></a> and <a href="http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BVMH"><span style="font-style:italic;">B.V.M.H.</span></a> were the first letters placed at the top of the page. As Lord later wrote:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">"Here was a chance to tie the Ten Commandments in with the newest and most widespread form of entertainment. Here was an opportunity to read morality into mass recreation. Here was an industry that might be persuaded to avoid the police by a sane and honorable policy."</span></div><br /><a href="http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html"><span>The Motion Picture Production Code</span></a> drafted by Quigley and Father Lord began with three general principles:</div><div><ol><li>No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.</li><li>Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.</li><li>Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.</li></ol></div><div> “Particular Applications,” which was composed of an update of the “Don'ts and Be Carefuls” more carefully arranged by subject, followed this first section. Father Lord added a section entitled “Reasons Supporting the Preamble of the Code,” based upon Scholasticism and Catholic thought, justifying the purpose of upholding the morality of art in general and film in particular. The differences between the limited appeal and reach of other arts compared to film were emphasized. General principles of morality followed with their bearing upon entertainment.<br /><br />As stated by Joseph I. Breen, future head of the Production Code Administration:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><i>"The more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me to be an inspired document that fitted into the then current situation, having to do with motion picture entertainment, like a sharply cut picture puzzle. The code was essentially a moral treatise whose rules and regulations stemmed from the ancient moral law which has been accepted by mankind almost since the dawn of creation. These principles do not arise from timely or geographic considerations. Such principles do not become outmoded."</i></div><br />An additional issue must be addressed about the code. If one explores it, one sees some distinctly un-Catholic parts to it, namely the clause (Particular Applications, II, 6) against miscegenation (sexual relations between the races). This was inserted in the third draft of the code by William Hays himself. Lord and Quigley were very much against this addition. One person familiar with the situation described Quigley as “absolutely infuriated all the time that I knew him with the original Code where it said we could not treat a picture dealing with miscegenation. He thought it was outrageous and un-Christian.” However, Hays included it as a matter of economics. The racial reality of the American South in this period made it necessary to ban this subject matter, at least according to William Hays. Later, in 1942, Hays reconsidered this decision, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Adler"><span>Mortimer Adler</span></a>, Aristotelian and neo-Thomist philosopher, author, and one of the founders of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books">"Great Books"</a> program (and subsequent Catholic convert), looked into the issue for him. Adler suggested that it be moved from a list of banned subjects to subjects that needed to be carefully dealt with by producers. This was done.<br /><br />The code was approved by the industry on 31 March 1930, with Hays's name attached, making sure the public, which still looked upon the Catholic Church with distrust, did not know a Catholic priest and layman were the primary authors of this moral code for motion pictures. The Production Code, or what was commonly referred to as the Hays Code, went into effect. Lord and Quigley's role in its creation was not known until 1934.<br /><br />The problem with this code was that there still was no enforcement mechanism. There was no system to approve scripts prior to filming. This led to the possibility of violations only being discovered after filming was completed, requiring costly reshoots. Second, if a decision regarding the immorality of a film was appealed from the Hays Office, it was appealed to a court made up of fellow producers, which would cost more for their fellow producers. The producers could say they would follow its regulations, but since it was unprofitable for them to do so, they would not. This time period, 1930 to 1934, is what is known by the misnomer, the “Pre-Code era of Hollywood. So-called “gangster” and “vamp” (or “fallen woman”) pictures were extremely popular, glorifying evil and sexual vice. They were also very profitable.<br /><br />As the age of Republican dominance of the White House came to a close in 1933, the era of the New Deal began. It was not unexpected for a national film regulation board to be included among the alphabet soup of new federal agencies, especially since the industry was not doing the self-regulation it promised in 1930. Father Lord, Martin Quigley, who still had enormous influence through his “Motion Picture Harold,” and the greater Catholic community were also fed up with this lackadaisical enforcement system. Father Lord wrote, “Crime, lust, the triangle situation, seductions, remained the normal plot of the films.... The signatures solemnly affixed by the heads of the companies to the code seemed to bind no one.” Out of these circumstances emerged the Catholic Legion of Decency and the Production Code Administration, the subjects of the next installment of this series.<br /><br />~TNT<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">"In my long and pleasant life the films and Hollywood have been just an incident.... But you asked about it, and here is the record. Some time you may want to check it all in my complete files."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Father Daniel A. Lord, S.J.</span>, from <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-style:italic;">Played By Ear</span></span>.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fparousians.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fcatholic-creation-of-hollywoods-golden_19.html&layout=standard&show_faces=true&width=450&action=like&colorscheme=light&height=80" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:450px; height:80px;" allowtransparency="true"></iframe><br /><a name="fb_share" type="button_count" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" count="none">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></div><br />Black, Gregory D., <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521565928?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0521565928">Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies</a>, (Cambridge University Press 1994).<br /><br />Doherty, Thomas, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231143591?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0231143591">Hollywood's Censor: Joseph I. Breen and the Production Code Administration</a>, (Columbia University Press 2007).<br /><br />Lord, Daniel A., <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0010ALHJ2?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0010ALHJ2">Played By Ear: The Autobiography of Daniel A. Lord, S.J.</a>, (Loyola University 1956).<br /><br />Skinner, James, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0275941930?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0275941930">The Cross and the Cinema: The Legion of Decency and the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures, 1933-1970</a>, (Praeger Publishers 1993).<br /><br />Walsh, Frank, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300063733?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0300063733">Sin and Censorship: The Catholic Church and the Motion Picture Industry</a>, (Yale University Press 1996).Rockyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01112640918394929296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-81316829504230983202010-10-14T07:12:00.010-05:002010-10-19T22:59:42.759-05:00The Catholic Creation of Hollywood's Golden Age, or How the Church Saved the Movies, Part OneThose with a general understanding of the motion picture industry and its history will already know that Catholics have been extremely influential as directors and actors. A variety of directors like Alfred Hitchcock (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0783226055?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0783226055">Vertigo</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0017HMF6W?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0017HMF6W">North by Northwest</a>), John Ford (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00393SFWU?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00393SFWU">Stagecoach</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000JLSM00?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000JLSM00">The Searchers</a>), Frank Capra (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001UHOWXI?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B001UHOWXI">It's a Wonderful Life</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0043GAT5I?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0043GAT5I">Meet John Doe</a>), Leo McCarey (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002MHDYW?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0002MHDYW">Duck Soup</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000EMYML?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0000EMYML">The Bells of St. Mary's</a>), Martin Scorsese (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001JQTSG6?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B001JQTSG6">Raging Bull</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002VWOMLI?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B002VWOMLI">The Departed</a>), and Francis Ford Coppola (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002TOL8RY?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B002TOL8RY">The Godfather</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003O7I6SE?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B003O7I6SE">The Conversation</a>) represent the broad range of the Catholic experience in America, representing those Catholics of Irish, Italian, and English ancestry. Their films cover all the great genres of cinema, from horror and Western to romantic comedy and melodrama. Many commentators have explored the Catholic themes in these men's films, with Catholic understandings of family and community, struggle and redemption, and moral liberty and free will painted on celluloid.<br /><br />Yet Catholic thought reached the American public beyond these men and their movies, especially during the time period known today as the “Golden Age of Hollywood," a period from roughly 1935 to 1960. The Catholic Church nurtured cinema as an art when it was only considered an industry by the American Government. The Catholic Church helped guide the creation of some of the greatest movies ever made, using subtlety instead of directness; symbols rather than graphic imagery. Lastly, the Catholic Church used the motion picture industry to help integrate Catholics into mainstream American society, going from the Papist "other" to the next-door neighbor. Sadly, apart from several (largely negative) works written over the past two decades, the Church's role nurturing the creation of motion picture industry has been largely forgotten. Over the next few weeks, I will make a series of posts exploring these points and related topics so one can gather a greater understanding and appreciation of the Catholic heritage of American film, why the Church's role should be viewed as a positive influence in the creation of this art form, and the power cinema had and continues to have on our society as a whole.<br /><br />The Catholic Church has always known the power of art. As Pope Pius XI wrote, <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura_en.html">"The essential purpose of art... is to assist in the perfection of the moral personality, which is man, and for this reason it must itself be moral."</a> Additionally, nos. 2500 and 2501 of the Catechism state, <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm#VI">"The practice of goodness is accompanied by spontaneous joy and moral beauty... To the extent that it is inspired by truth and love of beings, art bears a certain likeness to God's activity in which he has created. Like any other human activity, art is not an absolute end in itself, but is ordered to and ennobled by the ultimate end of man."</a> <br /><br />Typically though, art has become almost an archaic term, especially in talking about movies. The term "art" instantly conjures up thoughts of museums, classrooms, and, in absence of a more appropriate term, Rastafarian relics of the 1960s. Instead, many people today consider film "entertainment," immediately creating a picture of escape and abandonment. This distinction in modern society leads to a lesser understanding of the power of film as an art form, a truth the Church has known since the advent of moving pictures. Even though the Catholic Church considers film as a form of art, the American government has not always been so enlightened. <br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWKXkSLF7YngrFVnadSRe6yLpQbfJButAqfJur66kzPhGLETjgFkM-flaOpMVjP8_8ZZ3COE26XtdNWjCE86kWHJBsSEXImzk4gKn-y_x-eBYyXrI7QGb7SruIq-ZMLhIoRzs2/s1600/Directors.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 285px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWKXkSLF7YngrFVnadSRe6yLpQbfJButAqfJur66kzPhGLETjgFkM-flaOpMVjP8_8ZZ3COE26XtdNWjCE86kWHJBsSEXImzk4gKn-y_x-eBYyXrI7QGb7SruIq-ZMLhIoRzs2/s320/Directors.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5527734481809110546" /></a><br /><small>(Directors, from top left clockwise, Alfred Hitchcock, Leo McCarey, Frank Capra, Francis Ford Coppola, John Ford, and Martin Scorsese)</small><br /><br />Beginning in the first decade of the twentieth century, local censorship boards sprouted up across America, especially in the mid-west, cutting and splicing scenes from the new "moving pictures" in order to protect public morals and decency on the assumption cinema was not covered by the free speech guarantees of the American Bill of Rights. These boards were typically branches of the local police department, made up of individuals with little to no training in art. There was no philosophical underpinning to the methods of these local boards, leading to differing standards in different communities. Moviegoers in New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago could see three different versions of the same film, all of different lengths, depending upon how much the local censorship board objected to in the film. It was a very slow, ineffective, and confusing system. <br /><br />The film industry fought back. Going all the way to the United States Supreme Court, motion picture producers stated their product was protected as a form of free speech. In this case, <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/236/230/case.html"><span style="font-style:italic;">Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio</span>, 236 U.S. 230 (1915)</a>, the Supreme Court disagreed. As the Court stated in its unanimous decision, "…the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit… not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution [and, thus, the United States Constitution], we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion."<br /><br />This decision led to more state censorship boards being established and the threat of the Federal government censoring movies for public consumption. The film industry tried to deal with this new reality in creating the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), made up of the nation's largest studios. William Hays, a Presbyterian and Postmaster General under President Warren G. Harding, was placed in charge, with the hope that his contacts in the federal government would help relieve its threats of censorship. To help achieve this goal, several codes of self-regulation, the most famous of which was the <a href="http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/w/weisenfeld/rel160/donts.html">"don'ts and be carefuls,"</a> a random list of what things were and what things were not allowed in the motion pictures, were agreed to by the major studios. <br /><br />However, while they were agreed to, there was no enforcement mechanism in the studio system to make sure they were following these regulations. The situation only got more pressing with the advent of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005JKSC?ie=UTF8&tag=arrtheparweb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00005JKSC">talking pictures</a> in the late 1920s. At this point, federal regulatory agencies were proposed to deal with immorality in film, similar to how the FDA regulates the quality of meat. The film industry had to do something, and that is when the Catholics were called in, leading to the salvation of the film industry. <br /><br />In my next post, I will write of three influential Catholics who shaped the film industry in America for two decades: Father Daniel A. Lord, S.J., Joseph I. Breen, and Martin J. Quigley and the creation of the Motion Picture Production Code.<br /><br />~TNT<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Film is one of the three universal languages, the other two: mathematics and music.</span><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Frank Capra</span><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">Part two is available <a href="http://parousians.blogspot.com/2010/10/catholic-creation-of-hollywoods-golden_19.html">here</a>.</span><br /></b><br /><iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fparousians.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fcatholic-creation-of-hollywoods-golden.html&layout=standard&show_faces=true&width=450&action=like&colorscheme=light&height=80" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:450px; height:80px;" allowtransparency="true"></iframe> <a name="fb_share" type="button_count" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script> <br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" count="none">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></div>Rockyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01112640918394929296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-76804131238067978222010-10-13T18:13:00.002-05:002010-10-14T08:51:48.112-05:00The Two Paths of Time in T.S. Eliot's "Burnt Norton"<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Eliot's "Burnt Norton" is a work which masterfully handles the problem of time. Many are the avenues through which Eliot leads this query: memory, poetry, art, liturgy, Eucharist. And yet the fundamental question concerns our own response: what are we to do about time? What happens if we do nothing? Does Christianity have anything to offer this problem, and if so, what is it? Eliot, in effect, presents us with two paths, in the style of Matthew 7:13-14: there is a narrow way which leads to life and happiness, and a broad way which leads to destruction and despair. In this article, I would like to address the response of those on the narrow way and those on the broad to the problem of time, the final destination of each, and the means to arrive at that destination.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Before examining each path in particular, we need to understand the problem as Eliot has framed it. The human person finds himself a halfling of sorts, being conscious of time (the cosmic flow of events outside of man, and his own interior sense of it), and so in some way outside it: "to be conscious is not to be in time."** And yet man is bound by the limitations of time, expressed through the memory of the past, the endless flow of the present, and the uncertainty of the future, none of which can be escaped. Time, it seems, is a "ridiculous sad waste," stretching ever forward and back, and yet a queer necessity for us as humans. The quest then for Eliot is not so much to define time as to pinpoint its existential meaning. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And this is the problem those in the world (on the broad path) cannot address. Those in the world find themselves "in a dim light...[in] neither plenitude nor vacancy," which is to say they neither feel the brilliance of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">eternal (</i>timeless<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">) </i>beauty, nor the joyful fire of hopeful darkness. Time, for those in the world, has no meaning, no end. Rather, it is is the endless stretch, a consuming horizon sprawling ever before them and ever behind them. This endless flow robs the past of meaning, making memory a mere mausoleum, a "bowl of rose leaves" covered in dust. There is neither meaning in the future, the present, or the past, in the same way that a sailor sees little meaning in each wave that bobbles his skiff. The problem of time is solved by decrying the problem absurd. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In what state does this leave the world, then? As "men and bits of paper, whirled about by the cold wind that blows before and after time" with "strained, time-ridden faces/distracted from distraction by distraction." In other words, Time chews men up and spits them out. Without meaning, time causes men to live lives of "quiet despair" in sensual pleasure ("appetency") and distraction, "filled with fancies and empty of meaning," because the truth of nihilism is itself too gruesome to view head-on. While for the Christian, time itself <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">points to the meaning</i>, for those "in the dim light" of the world, time points to nothing but the grave: "time and the bell have buried the day." And the only logical response to this is to give oneself over to appetites and sense pleasure, seeing no hope for the future and no significance in the past. Indeed, St. Paul's words ring true: "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" (1 Cor. 15:32).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Christian imbues time with hope and significance in Christ and His New Creation, and Eliot being a devout Anglican is quite aware of this. For the Christian, time is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">teleological</i>: "the end precedes the beginning, and the end and the beginning were always there, before the beginning and after the end." According to Eliot, the Christian sees time, not as a Euclidean line extending infinitely in both directions, but more as an arrow, shot with an intended purpose contained within it from the moment the bow was taut. Time is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">moving somewhere</i>, it is flowering, it is unfolding: "time past and time present are both perhaps present in time future, and time future contained in time past.". The echoes of St. Augustine's <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">City of God </i>are unmistakable here: time has an end, and as we shall see, that end is firmly stamped with the mark of the cross.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">To what end are we drawn, then, according to Eliot? Simply put, it is "the still point": "At the still point of the turning world...there the dance is, and there is only the dance." In this point, all creation (both new and old), including <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">time</i>, is "made explicit, understood." At this still point, we are freed from the "practical desire," from "action and suffering," from the "enchainment" of the fleshly distractions experienced by those "filled with fancies." And yet, what is this point? And how is it a dance? It is my contention that this point is nothing else -- could be nothing else -- other than the Holy Trinity itself. What other "dance" can we imagine at the center of "the turning world," if not the "formal pattern" of exchange between the Son and the Father, whose infinite self-gift is the meaning and end of it all. Eliot himself points to this at the end of "Burnt Norton," citing Love as the "the cause and end of movement" and end of all desire. The "still point," is the entrance of the soul into love, into eternity. That is our end, much in contrast to that of the world: not death, but "into the silence" of Love. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But we are not there yet. It's well and good that we will arrive in the heart of the Blessed Trinity, the Inner Life of God, but what are we to do now? If the world responds to their philosophy of meaningless time through sensual pleasure, then Christians respond by asceticism: "Descend lower, descend only/Into the world of perpetual solitude...Internal darkness, deprivation/And destitution of all property, dessication of the world of sense,/Evacuation of the world of fancy,/Inoperancy of the world of spirit" (179). Asceticism is often relegated to either the romantic or geriatric categories -- something for pious St. Francis's and old women. And yet, in Eliot's work, the only solution to the problem of time for the Christian is to purify himself of all earthly desires, to act as if time, "woven in the weakness of the changing body," <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">really were </i>leading him into the greatest of all joys, and not merely to decay. Man must be a credible theist, as Fr. Dubay wrote in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Fire Within, </i>preferring nothing to God<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">.</i> The "darkness" of human life, the apparent victory of death, is not cause for despair. Rather, the "darkness [purifies] the soul,/emptying the sensual with deprivation,/<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cleansing affection from the temporal</i>." We can only conquer time by, in a sense, being liberated from the desires and fancies it engenders, while still in time in the body.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And so, our asceticism, our waiting in darkness, does not free us from time in any gnostic sense. We do not hope for a disembodied existence in a non-spatial realm. Rather Christ, who has brought time into heaven in his ascension, will create a new heavens and a new earth, a new body for each of us and a new perfected time to dwell in. In this sense, it is "only through time [that] time is conquered," by living, in a sense, as a sacrament of perfect time to come. Only by the narrow path of asceticism and darkness can we arrive in time perfected, at the "still point" in the Heart of the Trinity in the New Creation. That is our hope and our liberation: not to be conquered by time and death, but to answer the question of time with the hope of the cross. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">R. Carruth</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">**All quotes, unless otherwise specified, are from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Collected Poems</i> by T.S. Eliot.</span></div>Mr. Carruthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09871661192919968504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-60916925512590659792010-10-07T17:03:00.008-05:002010-10-07T21:51:26.705-05:00I is for IncompletenessOne of the most important results in mathematics and logic in the past century came from Kurt Gödel, an Austrian logician and mathematician. His two incompleteness theorems force a sort of white-knuckled humility upon mathematicians everywhere. However, for the most part, outside of mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers, Gödel’s results remain largely unknown and seem largely irrelevant but the theorems actually have far-reaching impacts for almost any discipline. The two theorems are as follows:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Theorem 1:</span> No consistent algorithm/axiomatization of formal arithmetic is complete.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Theorem 2:</span> For all systems of arithmetic (A), if A is consistent, then there is no proof in A of the consistency of A.<br /><br />These might seem highly technical and irrelevant, but let’s look at what the theorems actually mean and what some of their consequences are.<br /><br />To understand either theorem requires some knowledge of terminology:<br /><br />Arithmetic is one of the mathematical sciences (actually, the mathematical science of the integers)<br /><br />An algorithm is a system of steps or procedure for solving a problem<br /><br />An axiomatization is a set of axioms (or self-evident truths) which forms the starting-point for a mathematician desiring to arrive at new conclusions in mathematics<br /><br />A set of axioms is consistent if and only if none of the axioms are mutually exclusive. That might seem somewhat abstract, but it makes sense. For instance, let’s say one of my axioms was “a certain number exists” and then another of my axioms was “that same number does not exist.” This is an absurdity and this set of axioms would be considered inconsistent.<br /><br />A set of axioms is complete if and only if that set of axioms can be used to arrive at every truth in its particular science. For instance, a set of arithmetic axioms (or an axiomatization for arithmetic) is complete if it can be used to show every arithmetical truth.<br /><br />It is desirable that an axiomatization be consistent, because if it is inconsistent, then it will arrive at contradictory conclusions. In other words, an inconsistent axiomatization leads to false conclusions, which is obviously undesirable. It is desirable that an axiomatization be complete so that we can arrive at every true conclusion regarding our particular science (for instance, arithmetic).<br /><br />Again, this may seem abstract, but I am reaching a point, so please bear with me. Noting all of this information, then, informally we may state Gödel’s incompleteness theorems as follows:<br /><br />No set of axioms can be proven to be consistent using that set of axioms. Furthermore, even if you could prove that it was consistent, it couldn’t be complete. That is to say, there is no way to show that a set of axioms will never lead to falsehood. However, say you knew you had a consistent set of axioms. That set of axioms cannot possibly arrive at all mathematical truth.<br /><br />Okay, now to the fun part. Why is all this crazy stuff about mathematical systems of axioms important? The implications of these theorems are huge. Since those theorems are true, it appears to be true that, at least through mathematical methods, not every mathematical truth can be shown to be true. In other words, there are true things that we cannot prove. And if that’s true in mathematics, it’s certainly true in other disciplines as well. This is a strong argument for the existence of objective truth, because it shows that there are truths that are true even though it is impossible for us to prove them – that are true independent of our own minds.<br /><br />It is also an important conclusion for refuting people who deny the existence of immaterial reality. Why? People who deny immaterial reality deny it on the basis that it can’t be proven using the empirical sciences (with the exception of certain sophists who choose to deny the existence of any reality at all - material or immaterial). But we know there are truths that can’t be proven via deductive reasoning. It is a mathematical fact (which, ironically enough, has been proven). Obviously this, of itself, is not sufficient for showing the existence of immaterial reality, but it is enough to silence those who argue against its existence which might open them up to our own arguments for the existence of immaterial reality.<br /><br />To conclude, then, Gödel proved his two incompleteness theorems which (together) show that a complete knowledge of mathematical truths is outside the capability of any mathematical system (that is to say there are mathematical propositions that are true that are also unprovable). This has repercussions for our debates with people who believe in the supremacy of mathematics or physics rather than theology and her handmaiden philosophy. As such, even though the theorems themselves might be a little too technical to bring into a discussion, its consequences are (if not essential) highly useful for the Catholic participating in the New Evangelization.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Mariae et Jesu Semper Servus Sum,</span><br /><br />Joe<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Source: Philosophy of Mathematics: A Contemporary Introduction to the World of Proofs and Pictures, 2nd Edition, written by James Robert Brown</span>Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10701690711012400006noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-88176520482558162372010-10-04T14:24:00.022-05:002010-10-07T22:56:11.844-05:00Not So Mysterious Ways: God's Definitive Revelation in Jesus ChristRecently, I was having a discussion with a group of atheists regarding the existence of God--not on the more general level of the God of the philosophers, but rather the God of Christianity in particular. “Why,” they asked, “if the Christian God exists, are there so many non-believers? Surely, if he wished to make it so, he could make his identity as obvious as the existence of the moon, say by a worldwide public revelation of himself, not in a way that coerced the will, but in a way that made his presence clear to everyone?” Essentially: if God wants everyone to be saved and, in his omnipotence, is able to reveal the truth about salvation to everyone, why doesn’t he simply make the truth so obvious that we have a firm ground on which to accept or reject him?<br /><br />There are several ways to go about responding to an issue like this. The most simple and obvious is, of course, to say “Why, God did make his existence as obvious as the moon—in fact, the moon itself is positive evidence for the existence of God: all the world is a testimony to his reality!” Which is, of course, true, as St. Paul told us (Romans 1:20ff). But this is rather ineffective to the atheist. Furthermore, while true, it doesn’t really strike to the core of the question of Christianity, in particular, nor does it explain the inconsistency in the beliefs (specifically about salvation) amongst those who already believe in God. So, where are we as Christians to turn?<br /><br />I’ve always maintained that all of Christian theology can be summed up in two words: Trinity and Incarnation. Interestingly, enough, it is on these exact two points that the atheists most fail to comprehend the nature of Christian revelation. So, let us ask, why doesn’t God give a universal revelation of himself and make it obvious to everyone? The answer: Incarnation. St. John of the Cross in his Ascent of Mount Carmel said:<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;"> Wherefore he that would now enquire of God, or seek any vision or revelation, would not only be acting foolishly, but would be committing an offence against God, by not setting his eyes altogether upon Christ, and seeking no new thing or aught beside. <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwx52zQGAquQh1KQH41_sJ11qwC_x6BwPTq6tfNwy3t_0-oufWKV3DJnb9JWxGpE7VkObcE3DyHy6y5lkJs77kIimGGcKYg3HAed3ERv6DVZmVuL6MFTlj014zuz2XZDeYig8/s1600/JohnCross.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 271px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwx52zQGAquQh1KQH41_sJ11qwC_x6BwPTq6tfNwy3t_0-oufWKV3DJnb9JWxGpE7VkObcE3DyHy6y5lkJs77kIimGGcKYg3HAed3ERv6DVZmVuL6MFTlj014zuz2XZDeYig8/s320/JohnCross.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5525479180845526930" /></a>And God might answer him after this manner, saying: If I have spoken all things to thee in My Word, Which is My Son, and I have no other word, what answer can I now make to thee, or what can I reveal to thee which is greater than this? Set thine eyes on Him alone, for in Him I have spoken and revealed to thee all things, and in Him thou shalt find yet more than that which thou askest and desirest. For thou askest locutions and revelations, which are the part; but if thou set thine eyes upon Him, thou shalt find the whole; for He is My complete locution and answer, and He is all My vision and all My revelation; so that I have spoken to thee, answered thee, declared to thee and revealed to thee, in giving Him to thee as thy brother, companion and master, as ransom and prize.</span></blockquote><br /><br />So, as Christians, we declare that Christ is the definitive revelation of God and all things are contained in him. There is no need or desire for further revelation because everything rests in the sacred heart of Jesus, the Christ. After all, what more could God possibly reveal about himself than the person of himself, in the flesh, walking amongst us, no longer communicating with mere words, riddles or dreams, but speaking to us face to face, as with friends?<br /><br />But the atheist is still unsatisfied with the response. They don’t think that Christ is the best possible revelation because the Incarnation does not—in their minds—meet the criteria of being the most direct means of conveying the knowledge of God and salvation to the broadest number of people. That God has come among us in the flesh, they argue, is not as obvious as the existence of the moon. But since God is omnipotent, he could reveal himself to more people with more uniformity and therefore lead more people to salvation. Since God is supposed to desire the salvation of all men, must it not be the case that God does not exist? The answer: the Trinity.<br /><br />The interior life of God can always tell us something about God’s relationship with the world. Particularly since this specific question raised by the atheists addresses the salvation of mankind, we must touch upon what salvation is from this perspective. In the interior life of the Trinity love is most perfectly manifest, for God is Love. The Father gives himself completely and freely to the Son, the Son returns himself completely to the Father and the bond of giving and receiving one another is the Holy Spirit—one God composed of three persons in an eternal dance of absolutely self-giving, interpenetrating Love. What does this tell us about salvation and the fittingness of the Incarnation as its definitive expression? The saints have always affirmed that the meaning and purpose of the Incarnation was that men might partake of <span style="font-style:italic;">divinization</span> or, as it is called in the East, <span style="font-style:italic;">theosis</span>. As St. Athanasius said, “God became man so that man might become god.” That is, God wishes to bestow on mankind his divine nature and welcome mankind into the interior life of the Trinity.<br /><br />With that in mind, we see how fundamentally fitting it is that God should reveal himself definitively through the Incarnation. God wants mankind to partake of the divine nature; that is the definition of salvation. Then God himself likewise takes on human nature. God wants to reveal himself to mankind? Well then, God should invite mankind to be co-workers in that with him as in all things. And that is the reality. <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8R67ZkXL78WiVL5bd9gt19C4iotN5HItmeCcsZg-VopKQt_2lCG_dL8Tsmiq6kLXWgqft5mHeOaWQQtJ1ZmS3OiduC2C37-cpE_z6vhD4g8ZJr1yx6LW5W4ZqZ5n1lxCweQI/s1600/in+persona+christi.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 190px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8R67ZkXL78WiVL5bd9gt19C4iotN5HItmeCcsZg-VopKQt_2lCG_dL8Tsmiq6kLXWgqft5mHeOaWQQtJ1ZmS3OiduC2C37-cpE_z6vhD4g8ZJr1yx6LW5W4ZqZ5n1lxCweQI/s320/in+persona+christi.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5525480558053034530" /></a>Why does God reveal himself in the Incarnation and then Ascend to Heaven, leaving the propagation of the saving message of the divine life in the hands of the Church (a sacramental body of both divine and human elements)? Because, given the nature and meaning of salvation, it simply would not be fitting for it to happen in any other fashion. God <span style="font-style:italic;">wants</span> man as active co-participants in all his works—from the creation of new life in the conception of children, to the redemption from sin by way of the sacraments through his priestly ministers, and the proclamation of the Gospel and the world-wide realization of his saving message is part of that cooperation, a duty and a responsibility incumbent upon all Christians.<br /><br />So, in short, why doesn’t God simply make a great, world-wide revelation of himself directly to every individual that makes his presence as obvious as the moon? He simply loves you too much to leave you out of the work.Geoffrey Bainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17859217325024071902noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-61374415804004320812010-10-01T08:13:00.000-05:002010-10-01T08:14:37.821-05:00The Little Way and the Mercy of God<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS61aRMRqNne5Djedz1zU-NePYnkiURBIrP8YvpE58ARj6yoYNYCgt-FUcVWbhwjA8S2RVXDlPloh0rKhK4vnhnim0Tk42MbTOZvx9ZAR_zZ5-mxhnZfjuOWKhvM2eH36ipU8Muw/s1600/Therese+as+a+little+girl.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 216px; height: 281px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS61aRMRqNne5Djedz1zU-NePYnkiURBIrP8YvpE58ARj6yoYNYCgt-FUcVWbhwjA8S2RVXDlPloh0rKhK4vnhnim0Tk42MbTOZvx9ZAR_zZ5-mxhnZfjuOWKhvM2eH36ipU8Muw/s320/Therese+as+a+little+girl.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5522922895928685970" /></a>You have probably been told before that all the saints are really speaking the same Truth – that is, Jesus Christ – only in different voices. This is the beauty of the Communion of Saints! Every saint speaks only of Christ but chooses to highlight a different aspect of His Truth. For example, I would venture to say that Thérèse points to the mystery of God’s love for us and our reciprocal love for Him, which allows us to become like little children and so enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.<div><br /><div><div><span><span><div style="text-align: left;"><span><span>That is not to say, however, that the message of Thérèse does not "overlap" with the message of other saints. In fact, the more I read the writings of the saints, the more I wonder at how often this sort of "meeting" occurs. Recently, I was impressed deeply by the <i>Diary</i> of St. Faustina, particularly by how much it reminded me of <i>Story of a Soul</i>. Curious to see how much these two saints really echoed one another, I began re-reading Thérèse... and it seems that she was just as fascinated by the Mercy of God as Faustina. Consider the following passages side-by-side:</span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b></b><blockquote><b>Faustina: </b><i>"He Himself descends to me and makes me capable of communing with Him... O inexhaustible spring of Divine Mercy, pour yourself out upon us! Your goodness knows no limits. Confirm, O Lord, the power of Your mercy over the abyss of my misery..."</i></blockquote><i></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><span></span><blockquote><b>Thérèse:</b><span> </span><i>"... Jesus showered His graces so lavishly on His little flower. He, who cried out in His mortal life: 'I thank thee, Father, that thou has hidden these things from the wise and the prudent and revealed them to babes,' willed to have His mercy shine out in me. Because I was little and weak He lowered Himself to me...</i><span>"</span></blockquote><span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><b></b></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><span><b>Faustina:</b><span> </span><i>"I count on nothing in my life but only on Your infinite mercy. It is the guiding thread of my life, O Lord. My soul is filled with God's mercy."</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><b>Thérèse:</b><span> </span><i>"How merciful is the way God has guided me. Never has He given me the desire for anything which He has not given me, and even His bitter chalice seemed delightful to me."</i></span></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div><b></b></div><blockquote><div><b>Faustina: </b><i>"O Jesus, my heart stops beating when I think of all You are doing for me! I am amazed at You, Lord, that You would stoop so low to my wretched soul! ... God usually chooses the weakest and simplest souls as tools for His greatest works."</i></div><div><br /></div><div><span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; "><b>Thérèse: </b></span>"I feel that if You found a soul weaker and littler than mine, which is impossible, You would be pleased to grant it still greater favors, provided it abandoned itself with total confidence to Your Infinite Mercy."</i></span></div></blockquote><div><span><i></i></span></div><div><span><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span><span>Reading passages like these, I realized that </span><b>the "Little Way" was deeper and broader than I ever imagined. It wasn't just about doing little acts of love for Jesus -- it was also about the way I viewed my own sinfulness and my trust (or lack thereof) in the Mercy of God.</b></span></div></span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>Thérèse reminds us that in our spiritual growth, the emphasis must not be placed on our good deeds (nor on our sinfulness) but rather on our confidence in God's Love and Mercy. Our works are a necessary expression of our love for God, but when we fail at them, our immediate reaction must not be one of fear or discouragement but rather one of confidence, which leads us to depend on His Mercy and to simply begin again with our good resolutions.</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span><i><blockquote>"What a comfort it is, this way of love! You may stumble on it, you may fail to correspond with grace given, but always love knows how to make the best of everything; whatever offends our Lord is burnt up in the fire of Love, and nothing is left but a humble, absorbing peace deep down in the heart."</blockquote></i></span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>Think of how a small child acts when he realizes he has done some wrong -- a child who does not fear his father. At the very moment the child begins to feel guilty for what he's done, he rushes tearfully into the arms of his father to bury his face in his father's chest, confident that the only necessary thing on his part is this utter abandonment, this blind trust in his father's merciful love.</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>Along the same lines, when we are tempted to dwell on our faults and shortcomings, we ought to toss them immediately into the fire of Love which consumes the Heart of Our Lord.</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span> <i><blockquote>"When we cast our faults into the devouring fire of Love with total childlike trust, how would they not be consumed, so that nothing is left of them?"</blockquote></i></span></span></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>She's right, of course. The Little Way leads us to the Mercy of God, on a path of <i>total childlike trust</i>. Little Flower of Jesus, pray for us!</div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-31236880809662093132010-10-01T07:40:00.011-05:002010-10-01T21:38:09.142-05:00St. Thérèse of Lisieux and the Proper Disposition of the Intellect<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHVXA5XAozLmX73TZN6OGTCjT5o6Px4Q2xul1bHo9sm-5Ff1L1e6Ipy0zTEvxKApojp_46yvOYfA1GNr39cOgVHud9kYZc_aj0aRnHN-LxHhjRzKGg1_RKVyWOO1EE64kI2D4/s1600/sttherese.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 230px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHVXA5XAozLmX73TZN6OGTCjT5o6Px4Q2xul1bHo9sm-5Ff1L1e6Ipy0zTEvxKApojp_46yvOYfA1GNr39cOgVHud9kYZc_aj0aRnHN-LxHhjRzKGg1_RKVyWOO1EE64kI2D4/s320/sttherese.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5523156245361668114" /></a><br />The world is full of false dichotomies, and some people might assume the Parousians played into one of them when we chose St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Thérèse of Lisieux as our patron saints, the Dumb Ox being the height of Catholic intellectual life and the Little Flower being cute and small and flowery, stereotyping two doctors of the Church in ways that do no justice to their common sanctity and mental dexterity. St. Thomas Aquinas was renowned for his humility and tender devotion to our Lord. And just as St. Thomas Aquinas had a keen command of small details that led him to the universals, St. Thérèse had an alertness born of humility to see reality as it really is, drawing her to the revelation that all is grace, a revelation that contradicts the nihilism of her age and our own.<br /><br />Saints are canonized in the Catholic Church according to their saintliness, and from that number a select few are chosen because of their contributions to the doctrine of the Church. Doctors help the Church come to a greater clarity on how we understand the Revelation of Christ. <a href='http://www.littleflower.org/learn/doctor/homily.asp'>Pope John Paul II declared St. Thérèse a doctor recognizing her insight:</a><br /><blockquote><br />Thérèse of Lisieux did not only grasp and describe the profound truth of Love as the center and heart of the Church, but in her short life she lived it intensely. It is precisely this convergence of doctrine and concrete experience, of truth and life, of teaching and practice, which shines with particular brightness in this saint, and which makes her an attractive model especially for young people and for those who are seeking true meaning for their life. Before the emptiness of so many words, Thérèse offers another solution, the one Word of salvation which, understood and lived in silence, becomes a source of renewed life. She counters a rational culture, so often overcome by practical materialism, with the disarming simplicity of the "little way" which, by returning to the essentials, leads to the secret of all life: the divine Love that surrounds and penetrates every human venture. In a time like ours, so frequently marked by an ephemeral and hedonistic culture, this new Doctor of the Church proves to be remarkably effective in enlightening the mind and heart of those who hunger and thirst for truth and love. An eminent model and guide for Christians today.<br /></blockquote><br />St. Thérèse bucks the trend of reducing everything to their molecular composition and sees the love of God, his grace teeming in all human affairs, in all creation, even in the smallest acts. She was tuned into reality as it really is, and this darkness in our understanding is not overcome by faculties unfortunately sectioned off as being the whole intellect.<br /><br />St. Thérèse lived in the light of truth undetectable by the proud, be they new atheists in their irrationality or ill formed apologists who reduce the mystery of transcendental truth to easily apprehended talking points void of the reality of Christ.<br /><br />The Little Flower herself said, "It seems to me that humility is truth. I don't know if I'm humble, but I do know that I see the truth in all things."<br /><br />St. Thérèse's willed humility opened her eyes to the grandeur of God displayed in all things. Humility is a necessary disposition to be receptive to reality as it really is, lest we get caught up in out own irrationality and have the arrogance to insist that our skewered vision of the world is accurate.<br /><br />In my twenties, even with a degree of catechesis and an intellectual formation rooted in the great books, I became obsessed with the problem of evil. I would try to couch my own personal hurt in "intellectual" arguments against a Christian understanding of theodicy. In truth these "intellectual" arguments were rationalizations that did not even match up to my own experience. I moved far from agnostic doubt into nihilistic despair. Somewhere along the way, my doubts had gotten the best of me, and I had forgotten the reality of the love of God I had known both in previous times of prayer and in a world where I had witnessed love and beauty and goodness in spite of the evil I was dwelling on. After a few years of fighting with God out of my hurt, I realized my reasoning was off, and pride had driven me to cut myself off from graces that kept revealing the love of God if I only had eyes to see them, if only I had eyes like St. Thérèse. <br /><br />St. Thérèse was hurt, but she did not make herself and her hurts bigger than the God who loved her. She made herself small, remained childlike, and did not lose the sense of wonder long-forgotten by so many who think they have figured the world out. This smallness enabled her to see the love woven into all truth so that she might express the truth of that love in each of her own small acts.<br /><br />She said, "I prefer the monotony of obscure sacrifice to all ecstasies. To pick up a pin for love can convert a soul."<br /><br />And in recognizing her as a Doctor of the Church, John Paul II knew this line of thinking was not the naivete of an innocent nun, but the sacramental vision necessary to understand the world as it is, a place where the love of God is constantly being revealed. This openness to see grace in all things could only be found in someone small enough to find grace in the smallest things.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-67980072303657782882008-06-05T19:47:00.003-05:002008-06-05T19:53:00.317-05:00Zélie-Marie GuérinToday, if a mother were to say, “Four of my children are already well settled in life,” we would imagine them married, possibly with children, living in a nice home with well paying careers. They are set and settled, and their mother is proud for having raised such successful offspring. However, these are not the words of a contemporary mother. Nay, these are the words of the mother of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, Zélie-Marie Guérin. She was speaking of the four children God had already called to himself. The quote in full reads, “Four of my children are already well settled in life, and the others will go likewise to that Heavenly Kingdom—enriched with greater merit because the combat will have been more prolonged." This further points to the meaning of the beginning of this quote, that she is speaking of heaven, and her concern for her children is completely directed towards the “Heavenly Kingdom.” <p class="MsoNoSpacing">Father T. N. Taylor, the editor of Saint Thérèse’s autobiography, “The Story of a Soul,” included this quote in the prologue and added of Zélie, “Her whole ambition as a mother was directed to Heaven.” This is very accurate and very special. Many good parents yearn for their children to be with God forever, but their desire is often clouded over by worldly distractions. They want – and rightly so – for their children to thrive in this world, but which desire is greater – for the child to make excellent grades, attend college and get a worthy career, or to go to the “Heavenly Kingdom”? Zélie’s “whole ambition,” a complete commitment for her children to come into God’s Kingdom was something profoundly different than our preconception that being “settled in life” is a formula achieved on this earth.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">Zélie and her husband, Louis Joseph Stanislaus Martin, were dedicated parents both to their children and to God’s will. Father Taylor writes,</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><o:p></o:p>“Nay, they themselves were destined to shine as apostles, and we read on one of the first pages of the Portuguese edition of the Autobiography, these significant words of an eminent Jesuit:</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 1in;">"To the Sacred Memory of Louis Joseph Stanislaus Martin and of Zélie Guérin, the blessed parents of Sister Teresa of the Child Jesus, for an example to all Christian parents."</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">They little dreamed of this future apostolate, nevertheless they made ready their souls day by day to be God's own instruments in God's good time. With most loving resignation they greeted the many crosses which the Lord laid upon them--the Lord whose tender name of Father is truest in the dark hour of trial.”</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">May we imitate the parents of Soeur Thérèse as we choose to do the will of God for ourselves and for our children and not be diverted by our own muddled will for their worldly “success.” It seems so simple and so obvious, but Zélie struck me with great clarity when she plainly made the truest statement about her four deceased little flowers, "Four of my children are already well settled in life.”</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-89013605663185247512008-05-12T13:42:00.006-05:002008-05-12T13:57:21.696-05:00Beauty in the Conversion of Dorothy Day<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day">Dorothy Day</a> often said “it is by little and by little that we are saved.” Her own conversion to the Catholic faith involved many small realizations that brought her closer and closer to the Church. One of the unique features of Dorothy Day’s writing is her descriptive and concrete approach to things, including her conversion. She starts out with events and experiences. She tells the story of the common working person and the struggle to provide for the family. Her social consciousness of class struggle impelled her to become involved in Marxist and communistic causes. Young Dorothy was a social rebel and formally non-religious except that she saw a beauty in everyday things which drew her to the possibility of Christ and his Church. She would always continue to be a social rebel but came to embrace the Catholic Church and then later, once she was aware of them, the social justice principles of the Church. Her conditioned aversion to religion was embodied in the comment of Marx that called religion the opiate of the masses. The beauty and sacredness of the everyday broke her from this perspective. For the rest of her life she would proclaim indwelling of God in the world as the “sacrament of the present moment.” </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Dorothy Day writes of her long conversion in <span style="font-style: italic;">From Union Square to Rome</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">The Long Loneliness</span>. Her intention was to disclose an honest account of her journey to God and His Church, how God continually blessed her despite her sins and shortcomings. One of the interesting things I find in her conversion is the constant role of beauty opening her up to the prospect of the Gospel. She attributes her love of the poor as one of the redeeming qualities that kept her open to heed the Lord’s voice. “Because I sincerely loved His poor, He taught me to know Him.” She sees her own narrative journey infused with grace. She recognizes her desire for God and how that desire was sometimes wasted on selfish endeavors. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">What I cannot do in this bit of writing is describe the role of beauty in Dorothy Day’s conversion any better than she did herself. Her reflection richly describes the movements of her soul corresponding to pivotal points of her life. Where applicable I include her own descriptions of her journey. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Those who are sincere and humble can come to God not merely through positive experiences of beauty, truth, and goodness but also through negative experiences of sin, suffering, and a series of disgust that indicates our limitations while affirming our affinity for God. Dorothy Day is one of those souls who traveled the depths of the suffering before willfully giving her life to God. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""></span></p><blockquote>While it is often true that horror for one’s sins turns one to God, what I want to bring out in this book is a succession of events that led me to His feet, glimpses of Him that I received through the many years which made me feel the vital need of Him. I will try to trace for you the steps by which I came to accept the faith that I believe was always in my heart...Though I felt the strong, irresistible attraction to good, yet there was also, at times, a deliberate choosing of evil. How far I was led to choose it, it is hard to say. How far professors, companions, and reading influenced my way of life does not matter now. The fact remains that there was much of deliberate choice in it. Most of the time it was “following the devices and desires of my own heart.” Sometimes it was perhaps the Baudelariean idea of choosing “the downward path which leads to salvation.” Sometimes it was of choice, of free will, though perhaps at time I would have denied free will. And so, since it was deliberate, with recognition of its seriousness, it was grievous mortal sin and may the Lord forgive me. It was the arrogance and suffering of youth. It was pathetic, little, and mean in its very excuse for itself. – <span style="font-style: italic;">From Union Square to Rome</span></blockquote> <p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Dorothy grew up without a religious affiliation. She wrote, “In the family, the name of God was never mentioned. Mother and Father never went to church, none of us children had been baptized, and to speak of the soul was to speak immodestly, uncovering what might better remain hidden.” But she did have joyful experiences of community in times of disaster and uncertainty. Dorothy recalls a generally happy childhood. Mindful of the varieties of her experiences, Dorothy spent a great deal of time torn between the hopelessness of the human condition and intimations of something infinitely greater that can lift the human spirit. She had genuine compassion for others and felt called to serve others. This desire found momentary fulfillment in the political radicals of her day who sought to better the condition of workers.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>When what I read made me particularly class-conscious, I used to turn from the park with all its beauty and peacefulness and walk down to North Avenue and over west through the slum districts, and watch the slatternly women and the unkempt children and ponder over the poverty of the homes as contrasted with the wealth along the shore drive. I wanted even then to play my part. I wanted to write such books that thousands upon thousands of readers would be convinced of the injustice of things as they were. – <span style="font-style: italic;">From Union Square to Rome</span></blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In college Dorothy felt utterly alone when separated from the comfort of her family. Reading Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, she felt compelled to believe in God but also felt alienated from the Christians around her. Reflecting on the conditions of others less fortunate than herself, she learned about Marxism and class struggle. For the most part she was open to religion until she came to see religion as a crutch for the feeble minded. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>It seems to me that I was already shedding that faith when a professor whom I much admired made a statement in class—I shall always remember it—that religion was something which had brought great comfort to people throughout the ages, so that we ought not to criticize it. I don’t remember his exact words, but from the way he spoke of religion the class could infer that the strong were the ones who did not need such props. In my youthful arrogance, in my feeling that I was one of the strong, I felt then for the first time that religion was something that I must ruthlessly cut out of my life. I felt it indeed to be an opiate of the people, so I hardened my heart.<br />– <span style="font-style: italic;">From Union Square to Rome</span></blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">By twenty-five years of age, Dorothy had a list of political activist’s credentials as she worked with left-wing journals, joined the International Workers of the World that attempted to unite workers to overthrow the employing class, participated in pickets that resulted in jail time, and dabbled with communism. The first time she was imprisoned, Dorothy recalls meditating on Psalm 130 while in solitary confinement which created in her an experience of profound solidarity with those who were oppressed and suffering from their own sin and the sins of others. Her second arrest came during a raid where police were looking for communist radicals as a part of Palmer’s red scare. Dorothy was in the building to help nurse a friend back to health when police barged in, arrested her, and wrongfully accused of her of being a prostitute. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>It was as ugly an experience as I ever wish to pass through, and a useful one. I do not think that ever again, no matter of what I am accused, can I suffer more than I did then from shame and regret, and self-contempt. Not only because I had been caught, found out, branded, publicly humiliated, but because of my own consciousness that I deserved it. – <span style="font-style: italic;">The Long Loneliness</span></blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Shortly after the incident, she reflected: </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>I could get away, but what of the others? I could get away, paying no penalty, because of my friends, my background, my education, my privilege. I suffered but was not part of it. I put it from me. It was too much for me. I think that for a long time one is stunned by such experiences. They seem to be quickly forgotten, but they leave a scar that is never healed.<span style=""> </span>– <span style="font-style: italic;">The Long Loneliness</span></blockquote> <p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Such experiences of solidarity fueled Dorothy Day’s passion for the poor. The dramatic experience of shame for Dorothy allowed her to realize her own capacity to become lost, even if only temporarily, in despair with resigned acceptance of injustice. However, she was able to leave the circumstances while many others had no clear way out. Dorothy had long since been committed to justice and speaking for the rights for others who cannot speak for themselves. In her college years and shortly thereafter, her idea of injustice reflected a worldview that directly conflicted with the Catholic Church. By way of practice and belief, much separated Dorothy from the Church. She lived a Bohemian lifestyle, wrote passionately about free love, had had two common law marriages and procured an abortion. Of course none of these kept her from continually seeking the truth and her spiritual awakening was just the beginning. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">In 1925 the twenty-eight year old Dorothy day found out she was pregnant again. During this time Dorothy enjoyed a certain “dull contentment” in her common law marriage with Foster and her joyful anticipation for a new born child. Her time spent walking up and down the beaches in New York filled her with gratefulness for the beauty of nature. Dorothy began to pray more consciously at this time in a spirit of thanksgiving for her blessings. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">I am surprised that I am beginning to pray daily. I began because I had to. I just found myself praying. I can’t get down on my knees, but I can pray while I am walking. If I get down on my knees I think, “Do I really believe? Whom am I praying to?” And a terrible doubt comes over me, and a sense of shame, and I wonder if I am praying because I am lonely, because I am unhappy. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Then I think suddenly, scornfully, “Here you are in a stupor of content. You are biological. Like a cow. Prayer with you is like the opiate of the people.” And over and over again in my mind that phrase is repeated jeeringly, “Religion is the opiate of the people.” </p> <p class="MsoNormal">“But,” I reason with myself, “I am praying because I am happy, not because I am unhappy. I did not turn to God in unhappiness, in grief, in despair—to get consolation, to get something from Him.” </p> <p class="MsoNormal">And encouraged that I am praying because I want to thank Him, I go on praying. No matter how dull the day, how long the walk seems, if I feel low at the beginning of the walk, the words I have been saying have insinuated themselves into my heart before I have done, so that on the trip back I neither pray nor think but am filled with exultation. – <span style="font-style: italic;">From Union Square to Rome</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Her words speak to the reality that the heart has reasons unknown to the mind as Blaise Pascal mentions. Dorothy became discouraged whenever God became merely a thought of her intellect, yet her heart longed for communion. During this time, Dorothy began attending Mass regularly on Sundays, and this put a tension in her relationship with her husband. Foster was greatly skeptical of all religious institutions and notions of the supernatural. As a biologist he loved nature passionately, but as a absolute anarchist, he rebelled against institutional notions of family, government, and religion. Foster opposed economic inequality and escaped through his love of the outdoors. Dorothy believed her love for Foster opened her up to recognize God. The very things that satisfied Foster made Dorothy hungrier for truth. Foster opened Dorothy’s eyes to the mystical quality of creation and this beauty drew Dorothy out of herself and into contact with something greater. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">His [Foster’s] ardent love of creation brought me to the Creator of all things. But when I cried out to him, “How can there be no God, when there are all these beautiful things?” he turned from me uneasily and complained that I was never satisfied. We loved each other so strongly that he wanted to remain in the love of the moment; he wanted me to rest in that love. He cried out against my attitude that there would be nothing left of that love without faith…</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I could not see that love between man and woman was incompatible with love of God. God is the Creator, and the very fact that we were begetting a child made me have a sense that we were made in the image and likeness of God, co-creators with him. I could not protest with Sasha about “that initial agony of having to live.” Because I was grateful for love, I was grateful for life, and living with Foster made me appreciate it and even reverence it still more. He had introduced me to so much that was beautiful and good that I felt I owed to him too this renewed interest in the spirit of things. —<span style="font-style: italic;">The Long Loneliness</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Dorothy struggled with her spiritual identity, but she could not speak to Foster about it. She became more and more convinced of God’s presence. They interpreted the same everyday beauty very differently. Once Tamar Teresa was born, Dorothy Day resolved to have her baptized in the Catholic Church. However, real fear surrounded her relationship with Foster: </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>A woman does not want to be alone at such a time. Even the most hardened, the most irreverent, is awed by the stupendous fact of creation. Becoming a Catholic would mean facing life alone, and I clung to family life. It was hard to contemplate giving up a mate in order that my child and I could become members of the Church. Foster would have nothing to do with religion or me if I embraced it. – <span style="font-style: italic;">From Union Square to Rome</span></blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Dorothy Day traveled to the local residence of the Sisters of Charity to seek baptism for her child. Sister Aloysia assisted Dorothy with the process and encouraged Dorothy to become Catholic as well. Sister Aloysia brought reading materials and instructed her Catechism lessons. Belief in Catholic Doctrine did not come easy to Dorothy. Even after her daughter was received in the Church she still fought with the decision to become Catholic herself. Even more so, she struggled to reconcile the Church with the class of workers. During this time Dorothy was completely oblivious to the Social Doctrine of the Church annunciated in papal encyclicals. Yet one day she became too troubled in her delay to wait any longer that she sought out a priest and joined the mystical body of Christ. Following her conversion Dorothy had quit her job with the Anti-Imperialist League because of its communist affiliation. Her common law marriage was ended with Foster and she embarked in a life long struggle to serve the poor and speak for the everyday worker. Dorothy was troubled that although the Catholic Church did a fair amount of charity work She did not seem to challenge society to change in the way that would reduce social injustices from happening in the first place. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">I wanted to be poor, chaste, and obedient. I wanted to die in order to live, to put off the old man and put on Christ. I loved, in other words, and like all women in love, I wanted to be united in my love. Why should not Foster be jealous? Any man who did not participate in this love would, of course, realize my infidelity, my adultery, and so it is termed over and over again in Scripture. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">I loved the Church for Christ made visible. Not for itself, because it was so often a scandal to me. Romano Guardini said that the Church is the cross on which Christ was crucified; one could not separate Christ from His Cross, and one must live in a state of permanent dissatisfaction with the Church…</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Not long afterward a priest wanted me to write a story of my conversion, telling how the social teaching of the Church had led me to embrace Catholicism. But I knew nothing of the social teaching of the Church at that time. I have never heard of the encyclicals. I felt that the Church was the Church of the poor, that St. Patrick’s had been built from the pennies of servant girls, that it cared for the emigrant, it established hospitals, orphanages, day nurseries, houses of the Good Shepherd, homes for the ages, but at the same time, I felt that it did not set its face against the social order which made so much charity in the present sense of the word necessary. --<span style="font-style: italic;">The Long Loneliness </span><br /></p></blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">Dorothy Day’s life testifies to the grace of God. Soon she became very familiar with the social justice principles of the Church with the help of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Maurin">Peter Maurin</a> and sought to put them into concrete practice in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Worker_Movement">Catholic Worker movement</a>. Dorothy Day became an active contemplative. Her work for the poor was as constant and rigorous as her religious devotions. She believed in the power of prayer and lived with a simplicity that relied on the providence of God.<span style=""> </span>She taught that to be humble we must be hospitable and open our hearts to the needs of others by being dependent upon God. Her life constitutes a beautiful whole that challenges the social conscience of our time. Reading Dorothy Day will open your eyes to the poor. She invites us to love Christ and perform the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10198d.htm">Spiritual and Corporeal Works of Mercy</a>. Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day had a sacramental vision that sought to create<span style=""> </span>a “society where it is easier for people to be good.” </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>It is no use saying that we were born two thousand years too late to give room for Christ. Nor will those who live at the end of the world have been born too late. Christ is always with us, always asking for room in our hearts. –<span style="font-style: italic;">Room for Christ; December 1945</span></blockquote><p></p>Ryan Hallfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06252722993351860885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-10472700469903730662008-05-03T07:45:00.002-05:002008-05-03T07:59:23.112-05:00United Nations and Natural Law<p class="MsoNormal">On April 18, 2008 <a href="http://www.zenit.org/article-22334?l=english">Benedict XVI addressed the United Nations</a>. In the course of this address, Benedict XVI emphasized the importance of the United Nations, issued a challenge to be open to the discernment of the Church, warned against reductive scientific approaches that ignore the dignity of the person, and called the organizations to continually discern proper ways to safeguard human dignity without succumbing to culturally relativistic standards that ignore universal objective goods of human existence. One of the greatest ways the Catholic faith challenges culture is in her Social Doctrine and we have a religious leader, the Pope, addressing a secular institution on social matters. I think we should listen. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Benedict XVI cited the social reflection of the Church that has been occurring throughout history as an invaluable part of discerning the common good of society. This discernment is needed more than ever in a world of constant technological advancements and social situations that require a continual reflection on natural goods and the dignity of human persons. The theological perspective of Christianity has a privileged position of discernment because of the sacramental perspective of the Church that instructs the people of God about the sacredness of creation, the gift of life, and the will of the Creator. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The United Nations remains a privileged setting in which the Church is committed to contributing her experience "of humanity", developed over the centuries among peoples of every race and culture, and placing it at the disposal of all members of the international community. This experience and activity, directed towards attaining freedom for every believer, seeks also to increase the protection given to the rights of the person. Those rights are grounded and shaped by the transcendent nature of the person, which permits men and women to pursue their journey of faith and their search for God in this world.</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Seeking true justice and freedom is always a matter of discernment and distinguishing good from evil through careful consideration of human nature and corresponding human actions. Traditionally this has been called natural law, reflecting on intrinsic goods of human existence and the means of achieving these goods without contradicting the intrinsic dignity of the person. Morality is based around the sacredness of the person and all of creation. This sacredness must be respected and upheld through our actions and it is the responsibility of the Church and society to protect this sacredness. In political language, this honor or respect due to the sacredness of existence has been translated as dignity. This dignity is the starting point of social justice. Because every person has an irreducible transcendental aspect of their being, we can speak of equality, freedom, and the common good. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Catholic Church and other religion traditions have a responsibility to challenge society to recognize the transcendental nature of the person. Benedict XVI sees the religious dimension as aiding true discernment by creating inter-religious dialogue and preventing individual states from using subjective and culturally relative arguments to rationalize unjust treatment of people. This challenge is two-fold: the United Nations must be open to the fruit of religious dialogue and religions must be able to articulate a vision of faith that seeks a proper view of the human person in accordance with natural reason. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Discernment, then, shows that entrusting exclusively to individual States, with their laws and institutions, the final responsibility to meet the aspirations of persons, communities and entire peoples, can sometimes have consequences that exclude the possibility of a social order respectful of the dignity and rights of the person. On the other hand, a vision of life firmly anchored in the religious dimension can help to achieve this, since recognition of the transcendent value of every man and woman favors conversion of heart, which then leads to a commitment to resist violence, terrorism and war, and to promote justice and peace. This also provides the proper context for the inter-religious dialogue that the United Nations is called to support, just as it supports dialogue in other areas of human activity. Dialogue should be recognized as the means by which the various components of society can articulate their point of view and build consensus around the truth concerning particular values or goals. It pertains to the nature of religions, freely practiced, that they can autonomously conduct a dialogue of thought and life. If at this level, too, the religious sphere is kept separate from political action, then great benefits ensue for individuals and communities. On the other hand, the United Nations can count on the results of dialogue between religions, and can draw fruit from the willingness of believers to place their experiences at the service of the common good. Their task is to propose a vision of faith not in terms of intolerance, discrimination and conflict, but in terms of complete respect for truth, coexistence, rights, and reconciliation.</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Secular societies and institutions should not ignore the contributions made by religious people and religious insights. Religious freedom is one of the natural goods of humanity that ought to be safe-guarded. Many pivot faith and reason against each other and argue that faith has no place in the public sphere. To the contrary, believers must not suppress this important part of themselves in order to be active citizens that contribute to the common good. As Catholics we are called to have a sacramental vision that enables us to see reality as sacred and to act in charity and humility towards God and others. Science by itself does not bring us to the mystery of the person, rather it is a method of collecting data and discovering the physical nature of the universe. Science can make us aware that many realties cannot <span style=""> </span>be empirically observe. The limits of the scientific method can open us up to transcendental mystery that accompanies the physical universe. To deny the place of religion in the public sphere is to exclude an important perspective of reality and reduce the vision of humanity. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Many faith based initiatives embodied academic institutions, health care agencies, and charitable organizations have positively influenced the public policy and contributed to building up society. As Christians we have a responsibility to contribute to the just ordering of society. Christ makes clear that one cannot love God and hate our neighbors because love is not divided. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Pope Benedict XVI spoke about how religious insight stood at the founding of the United Nations. He recalled that the Dominican Friar Francisco de Vitoria, a precursor to the United Nations, formulated the organizations task of protecting freedom and human dignity while the concept of the sovereign state was still developing. Francisco de Vitoria “described this responsibility as an aspect of natural reason shared by all nations, and the result of an international order whose task it was to regulate relations between peoples.” The reality is that if injustice did not exist the United Nations would not be needed. Because injustices do exist, we have a responsibility to protect the dignity of the human persons. <span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The founding of the United Nations, as we know, coincided with the profound upheavals that humanity experienced when reference to the meaning of transcendence and natural reason was abandoned, and in consequence, freedom and human dignity were grossly violated. When this happens, it threatens the objective foundations of the values inspiring and governing the international order and it undermines the cogent and inviolable principles formulated and consolidated by the United Nations.</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Ideally universal objective goods should coincide with the total common good, however if an organization works for a limited set of these goods this work should be encouraged. A part of evangelization is recognizing what is good in society and encouraging this goodness to continue.<span style=""> </span>On the flip side, an equally important task is to recognize what is evil and unjust while calling for change. Both must be done in a spirit of humility and charity. Pope Benedict commented on the limited set of goods for which the United Nations labor: </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p style="font-style: italic;" class="MsoNormal">Through the United Nations, States have established universal objectives which, even if they do not coincide with the total common good of the human family, undoubtedly represent a fundamental part of that good. The founding principles of the Organization -- the desire for peace, the quest for justice, respect for the dignity of the person, humanitarian cooperation and assistance -- express the just aspirations of the human spirit, and constitute the ideals which should underpin international relations.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-style: italic;">Indeed, questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet. I am thinking especially of those countries in Africa and other parts of the world which remain on the margins of authentic integral development, and are therefore at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of globalization. In the context of international relations, it is necessary to recognize the higher role played by rules and structures that are intrinsically ordered to promote the common good, and therefore to safeguard human freedom.</span> <!--[endif]--></p></blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">After affirming the mission of the United Nations, the Holy Father issued forth many challenges to the continual discernment of the organization. Although technological advancements have improved the quality of physical life, science must be in service to the common good. Many scientific methods and techniques act against the natural order of creation and contradict the sacredness of life, the environment, and attack the identity of the human person and family. Benedict XVI says that the choice should not be between science and ethics but one of adopting a scientific method that works within an ethical framework that upholds the sacredness of creation. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The United Nations must recognize the importance of subsidiarity, but also be willing to take action when a humanitarian crisis arises whether man-made or natural, especially when not taking action would cause real damage. This call to action should be characterized by humility- openness to dialogue. The United Nations should seek ways to harmonize relationships between states and try to prevent any kind of outcome that would result in war or conflict that threatens human life. “What is needed is a deeper search for ways of pre-empting and managing conflicts by exploring every possible diplomatic avenue, and giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Like John Paul II, Benedict XVI stressed that what we consider human rights must be rooted in natural law, namely the objective goods intrinsic to human existence. Otherwise, the argument for certain “human rights” over other “human rights” merely becomes <span style=""> </span>the competing whims of the powerful. This will to power becomes characterized by people trying <span style=""> </span>to rationalize certain actions motivated by selfish ends. We must be aware of those trying to manipulate certain rights to satisfy trends and selective groups because this runs “the risks of contradicting unity of the human person and thus the indivisibility of rights.” Rather the legality of rights must always be consistent with the ethical and rational dimension upon which the rights are rooted. We must always make a rational consideration of the social interactions between humans and ways to act according to natural goods of human existence. Our understanding of rights must always include the Common Good, which upholds the collective dignity of every person while refraining from directly acting against the good of any individual. </p>Ryan Hallfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06252722993351860885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-4215693256583895362008-04-30T22:15:00.004-05:002008-05-02T17:22:23.658-05:00Catholic Underground Podcast Featuring the Parousians!We were blessed to have Fr. Chris Decker along with the Catholic Underground crew visited the LSU Parousians for our last meeting of the semester! Please go check it out!<br /><a href="http://www.catholicunderground.com/podcast/podcasts/cu-special-5-for-the-parousians-about-to-rock-we-salute-you/"><br />Catholic Underground Special #5</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-33276400603367373772008-04-22T10:44:00.009-05:002010-09-28T14:28:05.768-05:00The Offensive Nature of the Gospel of Life for American CatholicsIn his homily at Washington Nationals Stadium, Pope Benedict XVI briefly touched on the inconsistency often displayed by the Church in the United States. While praising signs of renewal, the Holy Father noted, <br /><blockquote>"At the same time she senses, often painfully, the presence of division and polarization in her midst, as well as the troubling realization that many of the baptized, rather than acting as a spiritual leaven in the world, are inclined to embrace attitudes contrary to the truth of the Gospel."</blockquote><br />The Pope's solution to this problem of Catholics who fail to act as a saving sign of contradiction to the world and wind up contradicting their own mission echoes the work of the Parousians.<br /><blockquote><br />The challenges confronting us require a comprehensive and sound instruction in the truths of the faith. But they also call for cultivating a mindset, an intellectual “culture”, which is genuinely Catholic, confident in the profound harmony of faith and reason, and prepared to bring the richness of faith’s vision to bear on the urgent issues which affect the future of American society.<br /></blockquote><br />In order to be the spiritual leaven we are meant to be in the world, we must move past the polarization and division of secular and materialist ideologies that have infiltrated our ways of thinking by creating a genuinely Catholic intellectual culture.<br /><br />There are still some dissenters in the Catholic Church who are hard pressed to agree with the Magisterium on anything. Why they have remained Catholic is anybody's guess. Most American dissenters are characterized as cafeteria Catholics, those who generally accept the tenets of the faith, but reject others because they do not line up with some outside divisive ideology, and competing divisive ideologies that do not conform to the fullness of faith are at the root of the disunion and distrust among American Catholics. The Holy Father has always been insistent that Catholicism minus a few troubling teachings plus a few incompatible trendy ideas is not Catholicism. As more than a few commentators noted on the elevation of Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy, the cafeteria is closed.<br /><br />The need to create a genuinely Catholic intellectual culture has been realized before this papacy. The novelist Walker Percy defended a consistent life ethic in his 1981 essay, "A View of Abortion, With Something to Offend Everybody." <br /><br />Percy begins his essay noting the late twentieth century desensitized response to dying masses before offering his nagging diagnosis to the culture:<br /><blockquote>True legalized abortion - a million and a half fetuses flushed down the Disposall every year in this country - is yet another banal atrocity in a century where atrocities have become commonplace.</blockquote><br />Percy realized this line of argument has already been made and immediately distances himself from the hypocrisy attributed to the pro-life movement.<br /><blockquote>The statement will probably offend one side in this already superheated debate, so I hasten in the interest of fairness and truth to offend the other side. What else can you do when some of your allies give you as big a pain as your opponents? I notice this about many so-called pro-lifers. They seem pro-life only on this one perfervid and politicized issue. The Reagan administration, for example, professes to be anti-abortion but has just recently decided in the interests of business that it is proper for infant-formula manufacturers to continue their hard sell in the Third World despite thousands of deaths from bottle feeding. And Senator Jesse Helms and the Moral Majority, who profess a reverence for unborn life, don't seem to care much about born life: poor women who don't get abortions have babies and can't feed them.</blockquote><br /><br />Percy then goes on with uncommon boldness in speaking the truth about abortion.<br /><blockquote>What I am writing this for is the egregious doublespeak that the abortionists - "pro-choicers," that is - seem to have hit on in the current rhetorical war.</blockquote><br />Percy dismisses the disingenuous argument that opposition to abortion is a religious issue.<br /><blockquote><br />But I do submit that religion, philosophy, and private opinion have nothing to do with this issue. I further submit that it is commonplace of modern biology, known to every high-school student and no doubt to you the reader as well, that the life of every individual organism, human or not, begins with the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with the chromosomes of the ovum to form a new DNA complex that henceforth directs the ontogenesis of the organism.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Percy imagines the whole debate as a "Galileo trial in reverse," with the Supreme Court telling a high-school biology teacher that his position on scientific fact is only private belief which he must refrain from teaching, and the teacher submits while murmuring, <i>"But it's still alive!"</i><br /><br />Percy closes the essay with a prophetic warning, one that the pro-life movement has not quite fulfilled.<br /><blockquote>To pro-abortionists: According to opinion polls, it looks as if you may get your way. But you're not going to have it both ways. You're going to be told what you're doing.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-22164431366336622192008-04-20T19:05:00.010-05:002010-10-01T22:47:16.666-05:00We Are the Living Stones<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaumF60iEYzeCNsXpnj4mtgJU1TqSc4fqrc38drt0KxKbmTKeJrhWtlabDOow2vy-I8xlDzbYAmpF474kVKVSi3ZjjrYmNsh66m_J32eJITBXSpaL2QCrw1aWDSHcysT4vOvQT9Q/s1600-h/cathedraltop.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaumF60iEYzeCNsXpnj4mtgJU1TqSc4fqrc38drt0KxKbmTKeJrhWtlabDOow2vy-I8xlDzbYAmpF474kVKVSi3ZjjrYmNsh66m_J32eJITBXSpaL2QCrw1aWDSHcysT4vOvQT9Q/s320/cathedraltop.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5191486585651661938" border="0" /></a>On April 19, 2008 Pope Benedict XVI celebrated a votive mass for the universal Church at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. In his <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080419_st-patrick-ny_en.html">homily</a> Benedict eloquently weaved together the theological reflection on the mass readings, the congregation, the surrounding art, the architecture and history of St. Patrick’s Cathedral to speak of “the pursuit of holiness, the spread of the Gospel and the building up of the Church in faith, hope and love.” The physical building and spiritual worship of the local community participating in the eternal Divine Liturgy became an analogy of the people of God, the universal Church. <p class="MsoNormal">Benedict XVI reminds us that our faith is a continuity of the community that precedes us. We owe a debt of appreciation to those men and women from whose labor we have reaped the fruit. In turn, we have the task to continue the work of faith that has been entrusted to us. At liturgy and in life we are always invited to participate in a reality that transcends time and yet requires our participation as a unique and necessary expression in this time and this space. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>"Gathered as we are in this historic cathedral, how can we not think of the countless men and women who have gone before us, who labored for the growth of the Church in the United States, and left us a lasting legacy of faith and good works? In today’s first reading we saw how, in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles went forth from the Upper Room to proclaim God’s mighty works to people of every nation and tongue. In this country, the Church’s mission has always involved drawing people “from every nation under heaven” (cf. <i>Acts </i>2:5) into spiritual unity, and enriching the Body of Christ by the variety of their gifts."</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The work of God is always the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit makes us one in faith and love. We must remember that the strength of the Church lies in our bearing the image of God. The unity and diversity embodied in the very inner-life of the Trinity manifests in the diversity and unity of the faith community. Our individuality and solitude opens us up to God and calls us to make an authentic gift of self to others. The summit of this union occurs during the Divine Liturgy and more particularly during Communion when we eat the very flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. God calls us to break out of the dark prison of the self and into the light of Love. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>"This is the message of hope we are called to proclaim and embody in a world where self-centeredness, greed, violence, and cynicism so often seem to choke the fragile growth of grace in people’s hearts. Saint Irenaeus, with great insight, understood that the command which Moses enjoined upon the people of Israel: “Choose life!” (<i>Dt</i> 30:19) was the ultimate reason for our obedience to all God’s commandments (cf. <i>Adv. Haer.</i> IV, 16, 2-5). Perhaps we have lost sight of this: in a society where the Church seems legalistic and “institutional” to many people, our most urgent challenge is to communicate the joy born of faith and the experience of God’s love."</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Too often people look at God’s commands as a foreign power that comes to negate our freedom and stunt our personal growth. To the contrary, God’s will is life, for God is the source of life, and all life finds its meaning in God. The reason for God’s commands is to set us free from the snares of sin so that we may fully bear the image of God through choosing life and become fully alive. Sin does not represent life but death, not growth but decay. All saints will the same thing: <span style=""> </span>“God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” As long as we see God’s will as some imposing immutable far-off force trying to control us, we will neglect the truth that God only wants to set us free so we may respond freely to the call to love inscribed in the nature of our being. This love is not passive but combats all that separates us from God, and God’s truth is like a sword that prunes us so that we may flourish.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic9kEe9rHDNb1IhyphenhyphengO8FJj8RbnX9SvnFAzgygEvYFopnwIW3gkCy5j8lpetg25UyVYAdnmEzztr3wSh7xgXVG68IR-QNVOOH1kw3KyzRZmCzqSssL4zYcOjcNPSqHbtWzEEVrCqA/s1600-h/cathedralinside.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic9kEe9rHDNb1IhyphenhyphengO8FJj8RbnX9SvnFAzgygEvYFopnwIW3gkCy5j8lpetg25UyVYAdnmEzztr3wSh7xgXVG68IR-QNVOOH1kw3KyzRZmCzqSssL4zYcOjcNPSqHbtWzEEVrCqA/s320/cathedralinside.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5191485288571538514" border="0" /></a></p> <p class="MsoNormal">All physical reality has a spiritual dimension. In his homily Benedict XVI turns to the concrete example of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral to reflect on the theological meaning of this house of prayer. This cathedral is a symbol of hope in as much as it symbolizes the Church and God’s presence in the world. Furthermore, the elaborate Gothic style architecture represents a spiritual tradition more ancient than the land of America where this Cathedral resides. The purpose of Church architecture and art is to portray mystical realities and theological truths that occur all around us. Church art at its finest always expresses a sacramental vision that lifts the soul to the contemplation of truth. Because Benedict XVI provides succinct and beautiful reflection, I have included all the text pertaining to St. Patrick’s Cathedral. </p> <p></p><blockquote><p>"I am particularly happy that we have gathered in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral. Perhaps more than any other church in the United States, this place is known and loved as “a house of prayer for all peoples” (cf. <i>Is</i> 56:7; <i>Mk</i> 11:17). Each day thousands of men, women and children enter its doors and find peace within its walls. Archbishop John Hughes, who – as Cardinal Egan has reminded us – was responsible for building this venerable edifice, wished it to rise in pure Gothic style. He wanted this cathedral to remind the young Church in America of the great spiritual tradition to which it was heir, and to inspire it to bring the best of that heritage to the building up of Christ’s body in this land. I would like to draw your attention to a few aspects of this beautiful structure which I think can serve as a starting point for a reflection on our particular vocations within the unity of the Mystical Body.</p> <p>The first has to do with the stained glass windows, which flood the interior with mystic light. From the outside, those windows are dark, heavy, even dreary. But once one enters the church, they suddenly come alive; reflecting the light passing through them, they reveal all their splendor. Many writers – here in America we can think of Nathaniel Hawthorne – have used the image of stained glass to illustrate the mystery of the Church herself. It is only from the inside, from the experience of faith and ecclesial life, that we see the Church as she truly is: flooded with grace, resplendent in beauty, adorned by the manifold gifts of the Spirit. It follows that we, who live the life of grace within the Church’s communion, are called to draw all people into this mystery of light.</p> <p>This is no easy task in a world which can tend to look at the Church, like those stained glass windows, “from the outside”: a world which deeply senses a need for spirituality, yet finds it difficult to “enter into” the mystery of the Church. Even for those of us within, the light of faith can be dimmed by routine, and the splendor of the Church obscured by the sins and weaknesses of her members. It can be dimmed too, by the obstacles encountered in a society which sometimes seems to have forgotten God and to resent even the most elementary demands of Christian morality. You, who have devoted your lives to bearing witness to the love of Christ and the building up of his Body, know from your daily contact with the world around us how tempting it is at times to give way to frustration, disappointment and even pessimism about the future. In a word, it is not always easy to see the light of the Spirit all about us, the splendor of the Risen Lord illuminating our lives and instilling renewed hope in his victory over the world (cf. <i>Jn</i> 16:33).</p> <p>Yet the word of God reminds us that, in faith, we see the heavens opened, and the grace of the Holy Spirit lighting up the Church and bringing sure hope to our world. “O Lord, my God,” the Psalmist sings, “when you send forth your spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth” (<i>Ps</i> 104:30). These words evoke the first creation, when the Spirit of God hovered over the deep (cf. <i>Gen</i> 1:2). And they look forward to the new creation, at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles and established the Church as the first fruits of a redeemed humanity (cf. <i>Jn</i> 20:22-23). These words summon us to ever deeper faith in God’s infinite power to transform every human situation, to create life from death, and to light up even the darkest night. And they make us think of another magnificent phrase of Saint Irenaeus: “where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (<i>Adv. Haer</i>. III, 24, 1).</p> <p>This leads me to a further reflection about the architecture of this church. Like all Gothic cathedrals, it is a highly complex structure, whose exact and harmonious proportions symbolize the unity of God’s creation. Medieval artists often portrayed Christ, the creative Word of God, as a heavenly “geometer”, compass in hand, who orders the cosmos with infinite wisdom and purpose. <i style="">Does this not bring to mind our need to see all things with the eyes of faith, and thus to grasp them in their truest perspective, in the unity of God’s eternal plan?</i> This requires, as we know, constant conversion, and a commitment to acquiring “a fresh, spiritual way of thinking” (cf. <i>Eph</i> 4:23). It also calls for the cultivation of those virtues which enable each of us to grow in holiness and to bear spiritual fruit within our particular state of life. <i style="">Is not this ongoing “intellectual” conversion as necessary as “moral” conversion for our own growth in faith, our discernment of the signs of the times, and our personal contribution to the Church’s life and mission?"</i></p></blockquote><p><i style=""></i></p> <p>This last paragraph speaks of the importance of faith and reason working together. Great cathedrals represent works of art that unite the content of faith to the novelty of human intelligence and ingenuity from the complex processes of designing to constructing. The questions above (italics mine) remind us of the need to integrate reason into the faith perspective because God has ordered the cosmos according to a Divine plan has given us the capacity to know. Rather than being opposed to each other, faith and reason represent mutual perspectives that help form a cohesive and holistic worldview. The combination of faith and reason in the Cathedral and in the Church represents the upward movement of the soul to discover truth and seek God’s will.</p><p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaK9ra2dRzJ6UqxNsWzEiPzhWDJ2SHsKrytEQLdY0hMWBqerGc2ScF98sUeJPzbRmEPH3OhpJKCUjGIAQidrhp_nuOjqDS5hCUJ9QPK-Zz-WXoJ_EbxazCytTeR4eki3h0tvbqQg/s1600-h/cathedralup.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaK9ra2dRzJ6UqxNsWzEiPzhWDJ2SHsKrytEQLdY0hMWBqerGc2ScF98sUeJPzbRmEPH3OhpJKCUjGIAQidrhp_nuOjqDS5hCUJ9QPK-Zz-WXoJ_EbxazCytTeR4eki3h0tvbqQg/s320/cathedralup.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5191486173334801506" border="0" /></a></p> <p></p><blockquote>"Dear friends, these considerations lead me to a final observation about this great cathedral in which we find ourselves. The unity of a Gothic cathedral, we know, is not the static unity of a classical temple, but a unity born of the dynamic tension of diverse forces which impel the architecture upward, pointing it to heaven. Here too, we can see a symbol of the Church’s unity, which is the unity – as Saint Paul has told us – of a living body composed of many different members, each with its own role and purpose. Here too we see our need to acknowledge and reverence the gifts of each and every member of the body as “manifestations of the Spirit given for the good of all” (<i>1 Cor</i> 12:7). Certainly within the Church’s divinely-willed structure there is a distinction to be made between hierarchical and charismatic gifts (cf. <i><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html">Lumen Gentium</a></i>, 4). Yet the very variety and richness of the graces bestowed by the Spirit invite us constantly to discern how these gifts are to be rightly ordered in the service of the Church’s mission. You, dear priests, by sacramental ordination have been configured to Christ, the Head of the Body. You, dear deacons, have been ordained for the service of that Body. You, dear men and women religious, both contemplative and apostolic, have devoted your lives to following the divine Master in generous love and complete devotion to his Gospel. All of you, who fill this cathedral today, as well as your retired, elderly and infirm brothers and sisters, who unite their prayers and sacrifices to your labors, are called to be forces of unity within Christ’s Body. By your personal witness, and your fidelity to the ministry or apostolate entrusted to you, you prepare a path for the Spirit. For the Spirit never ceases to pour out his abundant gifts, to awaken new vocations and missions, and to guide the Church, as our Lord promised in this morning’s Gospel, into the fullness of truth (cf. <i>Jn</i> 16:13)."</blockquote><p></p> <p>We must prepare the way of the Lord! As the Cathedral provides a sacred space for God to dwell in the world, we must likewise allow God to work through us. Benedict XVI encourages us to gaze upwards with humility and confidence for we are the living stones of the temple that God is raising up in the world. </p> <p>At the conclusion of Mass, the Holy Father added the following: </p> <p></p><blockquote><p>"At this moment I can only thank you for your love of the Church and Our Lord, and for the love which you show to the poor Successor of Saint Peter. I will try to do all that is possible to be a worthy successor of the great Apostle, who also was a man with faults and sins, but remained in the end the rock for the Church. And so I too, with all my spiritual poverty, can be for this time, in virtue of the Lord’s grace, the Successor of Peter. </p> <p>It is also your prayers and your love which give me the certainty that the Lord will help me in this my ministry. I am therefore deeply grateful for your love and for your prayers. My response now for all that you have given to me during this visit is my blessing, which I impart to you at the conclusion of this beautiful Celebration."</p></blockquote><p></p>Ryan Hallfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06252722993351860885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-53420886334096190082008-04-10T12:53:00.010-05:002008-12-09T07:30:32.924-06:00Pope Benedict XVI on the Power of Prayer<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguQ8E-1gdelYPBftxYQUqsowjeZ3nh9ZRzuUt_EH1MASYrHwNEedLv9zPHvSTUK3KQRIhbRyPvttoaX7cCZJTWwN7K4Res-xo7l0lniASey4eh28phXYGC6AHX1A2DJjY36WkLsA/s1600-h/Crest.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5187695063822964946" style="margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; float: left;" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguQ8E-1gdelYPBftxYQUqsowjeZ3nh9ZRzuUt_EH1MASYrHwNEedLv9zPHvSTUK3KQRIhbRyPvttoaX7cCZJTWwN7K4Res-xo7l0lniASey4eh28phXYGC6AHX1A2DJjY36WkLsA/s200/Crest.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div>Pope Benedict XVI's first papal visit to the United States is only five days away, and while most of us will not get the chance to see him in person, the Holy Father has asked that we remain close to him in prayer during his visit. If you haven't yet read his <a href="http://www.catholic.org/popeinamerica/story.php?id=27509">address to United States Catholics</a>, I encourage you to do so. (Or you can watch the video <a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/04/benedict-xvis-video-to-the-usa-before-his-visit/">here</a>!) I found the following excerpt to be a particularly appropriate reminder to us as students as we press on toward the end of this semester:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><em><em><em><em>"I am especially grateful to all who have been praying for the success of the visit, since prayer is the most important element of all. Dear friends, I say this because <strong>I am convinced that without the power of prayer, without that intimate union with the Lord, our human endeavors would achieve very little.</strong> Indeed this is what our faith teaches us. <strong>It is God who saves us, he saves the world, and all of history.</strong> He is the shepherd of his people. I am coming, sent by Jesus Christ, to bring you his word of life."</em></em></em></em></blockquote><br />Too often we forget that our good works are only as effective as the prayer that supports them. With prayer, even the simplest acts of love plant seeds that in time bear great fruit. Without prayer, even the most extravagant good deeds "achieve very little."<br /><br />God doesn't ask us to save the world - He is the Savior of the world, and we are only His instruments. If we wish to participate in His saving work, then we must remain intimately united to Him in prayer.<br /><br />Let us especially pray for our Holy Father as he travels next week, and for one another as we continue to study, to seek the Truth, and to bring the "word of life" to our teachers and classmates.</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-10578157255051764932008-03-28T08:19:00.000-05:002008-03-28T08:27:40.959-05:00Order through PrayerIn teaching my students about what it means to be an image of God, a much clearer view of human nature has emerged within my own spiritual vision. <br /><br />What is natural to man? Is indulgence in worldly affairs natural? Is revelry in sexual adventure that which completes man? Are we naturally bound to the desire for the accumulation of material goods? To know what is natural to man, one must first know man’s nature. <br /><br />To say that something is natural, one is claiming that that which is deemed natural is in accordance with the nature of the thing being observed. For example, is it natural for a fish to swim? Of course it is. By observing the nature of the fish, the conclusion is easily reached that swimming is natural to the fish, for that is in accordance with its nature. A fish that doesn’t swim quickly dies. A bird that doesn’t fly falls to its death. A man that doesn’t pray is crushed under the weight of the world, for he is not made for the world in both his and its present state. <br /><br />What, then, is man’s nature? The answer is both simple and profound -- man is an image of God. The image must tell us something of that which it reflects, and if the image is a reflection of the eternal, then to reflect eternity for all eternity is what is natural to it. This is confirmed by St. Gregory of Nyssa in his <em>Catechetical Orations</em> in which he writes: <br /><br /><em>If humanity is called to life in order to share in the divine nature, it must have been suitably constituted for the purpose…That is why humanity was given life, intelligence, wisdom, and all the qualities worthy of the godhead, so that each one of them should cause it to desire the godhead, so that each one of them should cause it to desire what is akin to it. And since eternity is inherent in the godhead, it was absolutely imperative that our nature should not lack it but should have in itself the principle of immortality. By virtue of this inborn faculty it could always be drawn towards what is superior to it and retain the desire for eternity.</em><br /><br />God is all good, and order is good. Therefore, God is Order itself. We see a reflection of the face of God in His creation. The Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement in his book <em>The Roots of Christian Mysticism</em> writes: <br /><br /><em>Each being manifests the creative word which gives it its identity and attracts it. Each being manifests a dynamic idea, something willed by God. Ultimately each thing is a created name of him who cannot be named.</em><br /><br />There is order in creation, for its Creator is Order itself, and Order begets order. Man is an image of God; therefore, he is made in the image of Order. Order is part of man’s nature as an image of God; therefore, disorder is unnatural to man. <br /><br />In God, all of His attributes are one. Because he is eternal and infinite, He cannot be made of parts, nor does He possess parts. He is one is His essence. This has infinite implications, a few being that His order <em>is</em> His love, His love <em>is</em> His justice, His justice <em>is</em> His love, His love <em>is</em> His order, etc. God is all these good things, and man being an image of God finds in them his natural habitat. It is natural for man to have order both in the world and in his mind, will, and body. It is natural for man to love, to seek justice, etc. It is unnatural for man to do anything else. In saying that it is unnatural to man, although man seems tends towards these, I mean to say that it goes against his nature as an image of God. Yet more often than not, we do that which is unnatural to us and claim that it is simply human nature. This couldn’t be farther from the truth! To do anything but love, seek justice, obey God, etc. is to introduce disorder into our minds, wills, and bodies. Disorder in the human soul is manifested in many and various ways, all of which are hideous to the ordered soul. <br /><br />Who is the man that embraces disorder? He is the one that is confused, addicted, angry, materialistic, yet all the while convincing himself that he has found happiness and contentment. Of course, the conclusions of a disordered mind will almost always be disordered.<br /><br />How must a disordered system be overcome? By introducing order into the system. When it comes to the human soul made in the image and likeness of Order, Order must be brought into the disordered soul. By an opening up of the soul to the influence of Order through the indwelling of Order can the human soul begin to banish from it the darkness of disorder. This opening up of the soul is called prayer, which is as natural to man as barking is to a dog, as flying is to a bird, as swimming is to a fish. Yet we are like dogs that do not know how to bark and fish that cannot swim. We are dominated by the world which was created to be dominated by us. How absolutely unnatural! <br /><br />Prayer is our best bet for happiness as happiness can only be found in order. In fact, order is happiness. The purpose of prayer is to turn outside of ourselves, to empty the image in order to be filled with the reality. It is our nature to empty ourselves to both God and neighbor, that in emptying ourselves we may be filled. Fulfillment in emptiness! Yet another of those wonderful Christian paradoxes. <br /><br />How can we know that our calling is to turn and open to others? If we were created to turn in on ourselves, then our eyes would be facing the opposite direction. We would be created to look inward. But according to nature that is not so. We look outward. It is in looking outward that we can empty ourselves just as the greatest Man, the God-man, did: “Who though He was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped; Rather, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave…” <br /><br />Through prayer, we look outward to the Source of all order and happiness. Through prayer, we empty ourselves of our worldly accretions, placing ourselves under the direct influence of a Perfect Order. As Order begins to reign in our souls, so, too, does love, truth, joy, peace, and all other attributes of God. <br /><br />We pray in order that the unnatural might be overcome by the natural, that darkness might become light, and that disorder be crushed under the liberating weight of Order.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-6427911605769497382008-03-25T09:53:00.002-05:002008-03-25T09:59:54.029-05:00The Dignity of Women: A look at Mulieris Dignitatem (post 3)<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">After <a href="http://parousians.blogspot.com/2008/03/dignity-of-women-look-at-mulieris_13.html">examining the original solitude and original unity</a> of man and woman as created in the image of God, both as individuals and collectively, John Paul II describes the nature and consequences of original sin. In order to properly understand the dignity of women, we must first understand how this dignity has been affronted through the fall of humanity. The introduction of sin ruptured the original unity between man and woman. This fall from grace has irrevocable effects on all relationships. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">The mystery of sin can only enter the world through humanity because man and woman reveal the image of God. Although destined and called to freely share in the inner life of God, man and woman must still choose God and willfully make a sincere gift of self. God endowed man and woman with the natural goods of reason, free will, and a partner to help them understand their call to communion and the sincere gift of self, yet man still rebelled. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><i><span style="">By committing sin man rejects this gift </span></i><span style="">and at the same time wills to become "as God, knowing good and evil" <i>(Gen </i>3:5), that is to say, deciding what is good and what is evil independently of God, his Creator. The sin of the first parents has its own human "measure": an interior standard of its own in man's free will, and it also has within itself a certain "diabolic" characteristic, which is clearly shown in the Book of Genesis (3:15). Sin brings about a break in the original unity which man enjoyed in the state of original justice: union with God as the source of the unity within his own "I", in the mutual relationship between man and woman <i>("communio personarum") </i>as well as in regard to the external world, to nature. (MD: 9) <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="">John Paul II makes it clear that independent of the ‘distinction of roles’ that Adam and Eve performed in the narrative recounting original sin; both man and woman are equally responsible for the transgression against God. Man rejects likeness to God by refusing to make a sincere gift of self, and this destroys the communion of persons. This willful disobedience puts a tragic strain on the relationship between God and man that God cannot ignore. God is offended, man and woman are deeply affected, and man’s eternal destination for supernatural happiness has been rejected. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="">The mystery of sin brings about the experience of suffering. The great offense done to the creator affects all of creation and more particularly this rupture resounds in the physical and spiritual condition of man. The newfound knowledge discovered by man was toil, pain, and death imbedded in the human experience for all generations. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="">Original Sin also creates a fundamental division between man and woman that threatens their ability to enter into an authentic relationship of love. Scripture describes one of the consequences of sin to the woman: “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). John Paul II states that this dominion over women by men denotes a “loss of the stability of that fundamental equality” that man and woman mutually possessed in unity with one another. This dis-unity diminishes both the dignity of man and woman because the authentic communion of persons depends upon the equality rooted in their dignity (MD: 10). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="">In a way, this division connotes a type of primordial divorce between the sexes that threatens the sacramental meaning of marriage and this danger exists in every generation. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="">The matrimonial union requires respect for and a perfecting of the true personal subjectivity of both of them. <i>The woman cannot become the "object" of "domination" and male "possession".</i><span style=""> </span>But the words of the biblical text directly concern original sin and its lasting consequences in man and woman. Burdened by hereditary sinfulness, they bear within themselves the constant "<i>inclination to sin", </i>the tendency to go against the moral order which corresponds to the rational nature and dignity of man and woman as persons<span style=""> (MD: 10) <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="">The consequence for men is a tendency to objectify women as objects of lust rather than subjects recipient to love. The “inclination to sin” will continuously burden the mutual relationship between man and woman. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="">It is very important to understand that the dominion of men over women occurred as a consequence of sin, and that John Paul II claims that this dominion over women and tendency to objectify must be overcome through God’s grace. Still, given modern debate of “women’s rights,” another danger arises. In trying to liberate women from the sin of male domination this should not attempt to “liberate” women of their femininity. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="">Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words "He shall rule over you" <i>(Gen </i>3:16) must not under any condition lead to the "masculinization" of women. In the name of liberation from male "domination", women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine "originality". There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not "reach fulfilment", but instead will <i>deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. </i>It is indeed an enormous richness. (MD: 10)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="">Women must act in an authentically feminine way as embodied in the openness and humility of Mary, the mother of God. The richness of being woman is intimately connected to her femininity. Modern feminism that tries to trivialize the sexual differences of man and woman attack the natural goodness of sexuality and sexual differentiation. Love does not seek to irradiate sexual difference but to conquer sin. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="">The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity: they are merely different. Hence a woman, as well as a man, must understand her "fulfilment" as a person, her dignity and vocation, on the basis of these resources, according to the richness of the femininity which she received on the day of creation and which she inherits as an expression of the "image and likeness of God" that is specifically hers. <i>The inheritance of sin </i>suggested by the words of the Bible - "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" - <i>can be conquered </i>only by following this path. The overcoming of this evil inheritance is, generation after generation, the task of every human being, whether woman or man. For whenever man is responsible for offending a woman's personal dignity and vocation, he acts contrary to his own personal dignity and his own vocation. (MD: 10)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="">Every woman has the task of exploring the meaning of her femininity and her special dignity as a woman. Every woman reflects the image of God in a unique way, and she plays a particular role in the family of God. The meaning of being man and woman cannot be understood apart from the other and apart from the reality of being made in the “image and likeness of God.” Because of the inter-connectedness between the sexes, the dignity of woman must be protected by man and male dominance must be resisted for the sake of both man and woman. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="">Original sin leaves humanity in a dire predicament. Next week I will discuss the mercy of God on humanity and what has been named the “proto-evangelium” which foretells the prominent role of woman in the redemption of humanity. <o:p></o:p></span></p>Ryan Hallfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06252722993351860885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-83337121952811156642008-03-22T13:45:00.000-05:002008-03-22T13:45:10.561-05:00The Song of Songs and the TriduumLast night, I read the <a href="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm#songs">Song of Songs</a> as a meditation the Easter Triduum, and I couldn't believe I'd never placed it in that context before. The beauty and depth of its poetry had never seemed so profound. As the Bride of Christ, the Church, we are asked to enter into the mysteries of Holy Week with a deep and holy intimacy. We receive the gift of Christ's flesh and blood with renewed gratitude on Holy Thursday; we celebrate His passion with broken hearts, "faint with love" on Good Friday; we wait in silence on Holy Saturday for the resurrection that our Bridegroom promised; and then on Easter, we rejoice at the sound of His voice, knowing that He has risen and asked us to rise with Him.<br /><br />The Song of Songs begins as the Bride asks to be brought to the chambers of her lover, who is both shepherd and king. In a particularly striking image that prefigures the Passion and Resurrection, the Bridegroom calls His Bride "a lily among thorns" (Song 2:2). They share an intimate meal - as we do when we celebrate the Eucharist - which the Bride describes in this way:<br /><blockquote>I delight to rest in his shadow,<br />and his fruit is sweet to my mouth.<br />He brings me into the banquet hall,<br />and his emblem over me is love.<br />... His left hand is under my head<br />and his right arm embraces me. (2:3-4, 6)</blockquote>Then the Bride has a dream that makes it seem as though her lover has left her:<br /><blockquote>On my bed at night, I sought him<br />whom my heart loves -<br />I sought him but I did not find him.<br />... Have you seen him whom my heart loves? (3:2-3)</blockquote>But just after she says this, she finds him and says that she "took hold of him and would not let him go" (3:4). Her desire to hold fast to the Bridegroom recalls the disciples' desire to cling to Christ and their refusal to believe that He was going where they could not follow.<br /><br />Then the daughters of Jerusalem - the faithful - are urged to gaze upon the King as he comes in a royal procession, surrounded by the "valiant men of Israel" and<br /><blockquote>In the crown with which his mother has crowned him<br />on the day of his marriage,<br />on the day of the joy of his heart. (3:11)</blockquote>This is Good Friday, the day of Christ's marriage to His Church, when He receives His crown of thorns, the crown shared by His sorrowful mother, and His love for us is consummated on the cross. The day is "good" because it pleased God to redeem us, it was indeed "the day of the joy of his heart."<br /><br />The Bridegroom praises His Bride and tells her that "until the day breathes cool and the shadows lengthen," he will "go to the mountain of myrrh, / to the hill of incense," presumably to offer a sacrifice for her (4:6), just as Christ went to the hill of Calvary to sacrifice Himself for us.<br /><br />Then the Bride has another dream, more heartbreaking than the first, because in this dream, she is not reunited with her lover. "I was sleeping," she says, "but my heart <span style="font-style: italic;">kept vigil</span>" (5:2). She hears her lover knocking at the door, but she does not rise immediately to open it. She is afraid. She has taken off her garment - the veil of the temple has been torn - and her feet have been washed - as the Lord washed the feet of his disciples at the Last Supper - and she hesitates, but the sound of her lover's voice makes her heart tremble (5:4), so she rises. With fingers "dripping choice myrrh" (5:5) - an image which recalls the anointing at Bethany in Matthew 26, as well as the spices used to anoint Christ's body for burial - she goes to open the door, but she opens it to darkness and silence:<br /><blockquote>My lover had departed, gone.<br />I sought him but I did not find him;<br />I called to him but he did not answer me. (5:6)</blockquote>When the Bride goes looking for the Bridegroom, she is "struck" and "wounded" by the watchmen of the city (5:7), but she praises her lover, even in his absence. She knows he will return. Then her joy is restored when she meets him in the garden and sees the lilies and the vines in bloom, and they retire together to their marriage bed (7:12-13). Again she is able to say, "His left hand is under my head, and his right arm embraces me" (8:3).<br /><br />So too, we share in Christ's suffering as we celebrate His Passion, but we praise Him even in His seeming absence. We know what he has promised: "you are now in anguish. But I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you" (John 16:22).<br /><dl compact="compact"><dt><a name="v16"> </a></dt></dl>We know He will return to us, and so on this Holy Saturday, as the Bride of Our Lord, "we wait in joyful hope," keeping vigil in our hearts and listening for His voice. We wait in silence, knowing that in the morning we will hear Him say:<br /><blockquote>"Arise, my beloved, my beautiful one,<br />and come!<br />For see, the winter is past,<br />the rains are over and gone." (Song 2:10-11)<br /></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-83696994553744568562008-03-21T08:03:00.002-05:002008-12-09T07:30:33.142-06:00An Acceptable Sacrifice<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij8brQn1EYiIxYOygyqThN-5EsIitCnuapAhtgiUw-qMoQmYDIZGHXCzTIW6whXjbE0NQ4sr3nhvbcnLsPEnhlUgHkUdO5Dj8DvWJIyfmLAgnnBrbPX3n-AatsZUOyhBhJBYFwHg/s1600-h/crucifixion_john.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij8brQn1EYiIxYOygyqThN-5EsIitCnuapAhtgiUw-qMoQmYDIZGHXCzTIW6whXjbE0NQ4sr3nhvbcnLsPEnhlUgHkUdO5Dj8DvWJIyfmLAgnnBrbPX3n-AatsZUOyhBhJBYFwHg/s320/crucifixion_john.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5180182508727810802" /></a><br />We celebrate today the greatest sacrifice ever made, a sacrifice that dwarfs our feeble attempts at imitation. With this in mind, we must come to an understanding of what it means to offer an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord. In other words, are our sacrifices offered in union with and in the same spirit with which the Christ offered His, or are they offered in the same spirit as Cain’s?<br /><br />Genesis 4:1-16 recounts a story that reveals the destructive nature of the darkness hid within our hearts. Two brothers offer sacrifices to God. One is accepted while the other is not. But why? A close reading reveals a possible reason for the denial of Cain’s sacrifice: <br /><br /><em>“The Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted?’”</em> (Genesis 4:6-7)<br /><br />Cain’s immediate response to God’s rejection of his sacrifice was not one of humility as one might expect of a person in such a position. It was anger. Rather than seeking out the proper way to please God, Cain digs his heels deeper into pride and presumably rationalization of his unacceptable sacrifice. God’s questioning is meant not only to provide an invitation for self-examination, but also for Cain to understand what it is God is actually seeking from him. God is not so much concerned with the sacrifice <em>per se </em>evidenced by the fact that sacrifice is not once mentioned when God speaks to Cain. He is concerned with the very <em>heart</em> of Cain, for the heart is what determines the acceptability of one’s sacrifice, not the other way around. The words, “If you do well, will <em>you</em> not be accepted?” indicate something deeper than the mere rejection of a sacrifice, for God is speaking not of the acceptance of sacrifice, but about the acceptance of Cain himself. In other words, the sacrifice serves its purpose when the heart is pure. A heart polluted by envy and anger is a heart that pollutes. Cain’s sacrifice was polluted by his self-love and vanity, thus making it unacceptable in God’s eyes. Mother Teresa taught us that God calls us to do small things with great love as it is the great love that determines the greatness of the act. Cain, unfortunately, allows his vanity and self-love to devolve further into unjustified anger.<br /><br />The instruction from God to Cain to do well went unappreciated and unheeded. Though God called out to Cain, pointing him in the direction of perfection, Cain sought his own way and offered an even more abominable sacrifice, the life of his own brother. <br /> <br />We’ve all got a bit of Cain in us. Some more than others, but we’ve all got it. I’m not speaking of fratricide. I’m speaking of the profound lack of insight that characterizes our relationships with the Almighty. We lack insight as to what God truly wants of us, and we tend towards a false belief in the sufficiency of offering Him our own works apart from our very selves, when in reality, all He really wants from us is a pure and humble heart in submission to His will expressed through physical sacrifices.<br /><br />The Psalmist makes the above thought clear when he writes: “Sacrifice and offering you do not desire; but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, ‘Behold, I come; in the roll of the book it is written of me; <em>I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart</em>.’”<br /><br />The Psalmist reveals to us that God’s desire is man himself, not his bull, ram, or cereal offering. The offering is to be an expression of the man, taking on value by virtue of the purity of his heart and delight in God’s will. <br /><br />In stark contrast to Cain’s offering is the offering of Christ Who offered His purity and His entire being which He made completely and absolutely in union with God’s will. <br /><br /><em>“In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.”</em> (Hebrews 5:7-9)<br /><br />St. Paul teaches us that the suffering of Christ was characterized by godly fear, supplication, and obedience. Because of this, he was made perfect, and thus, He Himself was made an acceptable sacrifice to the Father. As a sort of correction of Cain’s abominable sacrifice that led to his brother’s death, Christ offers His own life to save the lives of His bothers.<br /><br />During this Triduum and throughout the Easter season, let us continue to examine the acceptability of our own sacrifices, discerning if we have offered ourselves to Him or a pathetic substitute.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-26237929075687732202008-03-16T20:59:00.003-05:002008-12-09T07:30:33.335-06:00Overcoming the Obscurity of Saint Patrick<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN8tVqLZtqh9aPwYFjATcKBVbEXLpqoS_dNSR2_2nkXCs1k2VZWVWEyZzOeg5DfEUxYsewfwpB-hYrT_2ZnsELDmfAb9bTZe0gvSAVpNfCJ04Y1L_dJtn3vHN2ugQn4EEXEgaeUQ/s1600-h/St._Patrick+blog+pic.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN8tVqLZtqh9aPwYFjATcKBVbEXLpqoS_dNSR2_2nkXCs1k2VZWVWEyZzOeg5DfEUxYsewfwpB-hYrT_2ZnsELDmfAb9bTZe0gvSAVpNfCJ04Y1L_dJtn3vHN2ugQn4EEXEgaeUQ/s320/St._Patrick+blog+pic.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5178525383429677026" border="0" /></a><br /><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">People obsess over the color green on Saint Patrick’s day, while Saint Patrick spent a great deal of time obsessing over God. I wonder how I can keep from making another obscure holiday out of another obscure saint.<span style=""> </span>This year, I decided to start by making the saint less obscure. While this may not be possible for someone like Saint Valentine, this certainly is possible for Saint Patrick. Beyond the legend and folk lore that surrounds Saint Patrick, I have access to his writings, and his words speak volumes about his relationship to God and his view of divine grace. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);" class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">There exists only a small collection of Saint Patrick’s writing. The smallness of his works may be appropriate to the simplicity and humility of the man. Yet great strength shines through his reliance on God. <span style=""> </span>Patrick confessed himself as a simple countryman, unlearned, and least among the faithful. Both his <a href="http://www.cin.org/patrick.html"><i style="">Confessio</i></a> and his <a href="http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1166.htm"><i style="">Letter to Coroticus</i></a> begin with “I, Patrick, a sinner” emphasizing his unworthiness and God’s constant grace and faithfulness. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);" class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Patrick acknowledges his faults of the past, but does not think his imperfections are enough to prevent him from doing God’s work. Rather he finds them as reason to rely on grace and exalt God’s name. In his writings, Patrick ardently celebrates his salvation, the Gospel message, and his mission. For these reasons, he journeyed as a missionary to Ireland; to serve God and the Irish people in the land he was once enslaved. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);" class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Speculation surrounds Patrick’s exact place of origin but many people speculate Britain. His <i style="">Confessio </i>reveals that during a raid, the sixteen-year-old Patrick was captured and sent as a slave to Ireland. Patrick viewed his capture as a symbolic exile representing his spiritual isolation from God at that time. Before his capture, Patrick admits to not living a very religious or good life. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);" class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">In exile, Patrick accredits God with protecting him and consoling him as a father does his son. God made Patrick knowledgeable of his unbelief during his captivity, and gave Patrick the grace to respond in prayer. His conversion occurred during this time.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.5in; color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"><span style="">But after I reached Ireland I used to pasture the flock each day and I used to pray many times a day. More and more did the love of God, and my fear of him and faith increase, and my spirit was moved so that in a day [I said] from one up to a hundred prayers, and in the night a like number; besides I used to stay out in the forests and on the mountain and I would wake up before daylight to pray in the snow, in icy coldness, in rain, and I used to feel neither ill nor any slothfulness, because, as I now see, the Spirit was burning in me at that time. (<i style="">Confessio</i>: 16)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"><span style="">Working as a shepherd, Patrick gained a steadfast faith that would provide him with the courage and patience to know that God will provide. After six years in enslavement and prompted by the Lord, Patrick endured a dangerous escape completely trusting in God’s providence. He traveled two-hundred miles to discover a boat leaving port the day of his arrival. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"><span style="">During his six years in Ireland, Patrick learned the language, culture, and people. Patrick desired the conversion of the Irish people. Once free, Patrick sought out training to become a missionary. He was convinced that God wanted him return to Ireland after a vision in which Patrick heard the voices of the Irish calling for him. However, it would be a great number of years before he could return as a missionary with the support of the Church. During this time, Patrick never gave up hope. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"><span style="">And many gifts were offered to me with weeping and tears, and I offended them [the donors], and also went against the wishes of a good number of my elders; but guided by God, I neither agreed with them nor deferred to them, not by my own grace but by God who is victorious in me and withstands them all, so that I might come to the Irish people to preach the Gospel and endure insults from unbelievers; that I might hear scandal of my travels, and endure many persecutions to the extent of prison; and <span style="font-style: italic;">so that I might give up my free birthright for the advantage of others, and if I should be worthy, I am ready [to give] even my life without hesitation; and most willingly for His name. And I choose to devote it to him even unto death, if God grant it to me</span>. (<i style="">Confessio</i>: 37)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"><span style="">After thirty-nine years of pilgrimage and formation, Patrick eventually returned to Ireland as a bishop. He challenged the religion of the druids and engaged them in spiritual discussion trying to proclaim the Gospel. On such an occasion of challenge, Patrick is reported to have been describing the mysteries of the divine Trinity and using a shamrock as a natural example of three in one when the queen converted. Whether or not this happened, Christian Ireland was born in his lifetime. Other issues Patrick had to combat were human sacrifice and enslavement, both of which became obsolete by the time of his death. Patrick, who preached that nothing is impossible for the Lord, demonstrates this reality in his mission. Ireland became a Christian nation without physical force. <span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 10pt 0.5in; color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"><span style="">So, how is it that in Ireland, where they never had any knowledge of God but, always, until now, cherished idols and unclean things, they are lately become a people of the Lord, and are called children of God; the sons of the Irish [Scotti] and the daughters of the chieftains are to be seen as monks and virgins of Christ. (<i style="">Confessio</i>, 41). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"><span style="">With the absolute dedication of Patrick to God, much of Ireland became converted. He never rushed or forced the will if God but patiently waited as he actively sought ways to fulfill his destiny. Providence is present in the life, works, and writings of Patrick. He always heeded that divine grace is always present and guiding him at every moment. He lived in the constant presence of God. He showed the mercy God granted to him to the people he served. He appealed to the Irish’s desire for truth through humility and love. Furthermore, the fruits of his labor continued long after his death. The disciples of Patrick helped re-evangelize a ravished Europe torn apart spiritually through Arianism and physically through countless invasions that lead to the fall of the Roman Empire. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"><span style="">In honor of Saint Patrick, we should remember the missionary zeal we must have in proclaiming the Gospel. Though humble, Saint Patrick never sacrificed truth or love. </span>Rather, he courageously sacrificed himself in service to God and to the Irish, his adopted family. <span style="">He came to love the land of his captivity, and its inhabitants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"><span style="">The following is a prayer from the Lorica of Saint Patrick: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style=""><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">I bind to myself today</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The strong virtue of the Invocation of the Trinity:</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">I believe in the Trinity in Unity</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The Creator of the Universe.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">I bind to myself today</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The virtue of the Incarnation of Christ with His Baptism,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The virtue of His crucifixion with His burial,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The virtue of His Resurrection with His Ascension,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The virtue of His coming on the Judgment Day.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">I bind to myself today</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The virtue of the love of seraphim,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">In the obedience of angels,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">In the hope of resurrection unto reward,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">In prayers of Patriarchs,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">In predictions of Prophets,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">In preaching of Apostles,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">In faith of Confessors,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">In purity of holy Virgins,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">In deeds of righteous men.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">I bind to myself today</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The power of Heaven,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The light of the sun,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The brightness of the moon,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The splendor of fire,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The flashing of lightning,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The swiftness of wind,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The depth of sea,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The stability of earth,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The compactness of rocks.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">I bind to myself today</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">God's Power to guide me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">God's Might to uphold me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">God's Wisdom to teach me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">God's Eye to watch over me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">God's Ear to hear me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">God's Word to give me speech,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">God's Hand to guide me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">God's Way to lie before me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">God's Shield to shelter me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">God's Host to secure me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against the snares of demons,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against the seductions of vices,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against the lusts of nature,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against everyone who meditates injury to me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Whether far or near,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Whether few or with many.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">I invoke today all these virtues</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against every hostile merciless power</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Which may assail my body and my soul,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against the incantations of false prophets,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against the black laws of heathenism,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against the false laws of heresy,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against the deceits of idolatry,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against the spells of women, and smiths, and druids,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against every knowledge that binds the soul of man.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ, protect me today</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against poison, against burning,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Against drowning, against death-wound,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">That I may receive abundant reward.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ with me, Christ before me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ behind me, Christ within me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ beneath me, Christ above me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ at my right, Christ at my left,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ in the fort,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ in the chariot seat,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ when I sit down,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks to me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ in every eye that sees me,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">Christ in every ear that hears me.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">I bind to myself today</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The strong virtue of the Invocation of the Trinity,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">I believe in the Trinity in Unity</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">The Creator of the Universe.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>Ryan Hallfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06252722993351860885noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34342178.post-41933154593401613962008-03-14T14:37:00.006-05:002008-12-09T07:30:33.391-06:00He Has Finished the Race<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixAz0Wnld-iLsay11kW24UAfo8-3dUE6zfpJ8crcAKG1Xlwpyj7Jq0DE77Nam1X94-6tDVFkIX1bDngpaj7sYh_zc0SzPnT8br9eoF5Js3Pbd0H9E4Su8PatnwLMDR3YpMi0Y/s1600-h/_44490361_archbishnew_afp203b.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixAz0Wnld-iLsay11kW24UAfo8-3dUE6zfpJ8crcAKG1Xlwpyj7Jq0DE77Nam1X94-6tDVFkIX1bDngpaj7sYh_zc0SzPnT8br9eoF5Js3Pbd0H9E4Su8PatnwLMDR3YpMi0Y/s320/_44490361_archbishnew_afp203b.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5177690753261497090" /></a><br />In our catholicity, when one part of the Body of Christ suffers, the whole body suffers. We mourn with those who mourn.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.zenit.org/article-22049?l=english">Zenit</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/world/middleeast/14iraq.html?ex=1363233600&en=67e50a4584838ad8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">The New York Times</a> and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7295672.stm">the BBC</a> are covering the death of Paulos Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul in Iraq. His body was recovered two weeks after he was abduction by Muslim extremists. Three of his aides were killed in the kidnapping. It is unclear whether or not the 65-year-old archbishop was murdered or died of natural causes.<br /><br />We stand with the Holy Father and the Archbishop's flock in mourning his death and praying for peace in Iraq and the safety of Iraq's Christian community.<br /><br />During the Holy Week in front of us, as we contemplate the passion of our Lord, may we remember that the crosses we may be expected to bear in our Christian witnesses can go far beyond the things we give up for Lent and the moderate trials of affluent Western living. Those crosses could include maintaining our testimony in the face of those who violently oppose our faith and are willing to kill for our silence. While opposing secularist efforts to remove any reference to faith from the public square (e.g., the war on Christmas) can be good, and internal acts of offering our little sufferings up to the Lord is even better in our pursuit of holiness, our lives belong to Christ, and He may ask everything of us.<br /><br />May we give God gratitude for the relative ease in which we live. May we be provoked to find ways to offer ourselves more fully to Christ and our brothers and sisters, that we may suffer with them as Christ suffered for us. May we be instruments of peace.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1