Why are you becoming a priest?

This is a question I am often asked. More often am asked this by children, but I think adults wander about this. Perhaps they think it is not polite to ask. I wish they would ask. This is how I would answer:

One name:

Christ

We must not project our own needs on to the young. I am demographically part of the "youth" of America. Looking at the United States through the lenses of history the the time before 1968, the great cultural "tipping point," I could see how there was a real hunger for freedom and liberation. The outlet to allow for expression.

This is forty years later, and the time that separates the moment of the moment from then grows with (well) each moment. The needs of the young, of whom I am one, are different. We do not hunger for freedom. This is something we should be grateful to our parents for.

We have our ways of expressing ourselves. If anything we are "hyper-expressed." We have tried everything. We have found everything wanting. We look to the past, and it is something more than nostalgia. We have grown up, and in the process we have been told that mean and purpose and significance have been de-constructed. We do not seek to return to a period of person repression, enforced by unjust laws and outdated cultural mores, but rather we seek to return to the world that has meaning, purpose and significance. We ask the question:

If the world has no meaning, purpose or significance; does it not necessarily follow that I do not have any meaning, purpose or significance?

In some of this hunger has taken explicit form, and we start on our pilgrimage toward the horizon of meaning. All of us, if even only in implicit and unexamined form, share in this hunger. We know in the depth of our very beings, we are not mistakes of chemistry and biology, but that we do have purpose (to use the Greek word: telos, we seek an ultimate end).

In a world that has (thus far) told us that an autonomous will to power, ultimate freedom and a shallows stagnant form of false-tolerance are the ultimate values, we have experienced a type of existential vertigo. We search for the stability, for the lines, from which to stabilize ourselves in a dizzy culture. Our need for stability is not neurotic, but legitimate.

So from this general milieu I emerge. I ask:

Where should I go?

No direction was offered. Upon discovering Christ, or more accurately, upon knowing that he had discovered me, I ask:

Where should I go Lord? You have the words of eternal life.

The current Pope and the previous Pope have both drawn us in over and over with this simple phrase: Come to know the face of Christ, and he will change everything.

This is true. So I say to you: Come to know the face of Christ, and he will change everything.

To stand for Peace, Unity, Freedom, Rights and Hope

Without the natural law to inform our eloquent phrases, they don’t mean anything:

• “Peace” isn’t built on violence against the weak, whether they be poor, Christian, or not-yet-born.
• “Unity” isn’t achieved without objective truth (if it is unity that is based on anything but objective truth, then it is based and opinions. There are always many opinions).
• “Freedom” can’t survive the slavery of sin. Is a person that is addicted sex, drugs, pornography, shopping, or any of the other many addictions out there free? Common sense would say, "no." A truly free society helps people make choices that allow them to live freely, it does not stimulate people into making choices that will further entrap the.
• “Rights” aren’t coherent if they cancel each other out. Right to exercise a free conscience in moral decisions? A right to exercise religious beliefs?
• And true “hope” doesn’t exist in a country unless a person can be born into it without an attempt on his life.

(I parapharse this from the following article: A cultural earthquake)

What type of failure?

When we look at the economic "collapse" of the previous year, and its continuing effects into this year, we need to ask: Was it only an economic failure?

A perspective that does not seem to be taken by anyone (not even those pesky conservative Catholic bloggers) is the moral failure that preceded the economic failure.

As one commenter on a recent Facebook (c) has indicated, this collapse was caused by greed. Greed is a vice. As such the economic failure can be rooted as a failure of virtue.

In this sense if we want to provide a long term resolution to this economic collapse, it will not be throwing good tax-payers money after a partisan "wish-list" of an economic "stimulus," but rather a return to teaching the virtues necessary for people to participate in a democracy and a free-market economy.

The Church is committed to these political and economic forms, as made clear by the teaching of John Paul II in Centesimus Annus. This saintly Pope also recognized the inherent danger of these systems when they are divorced from the truth of man and society. When either a democracy or a free-market economy no longer serve the common good, but individual special interest they respectively become the dictators of an arbitrary relativism and spend themselves into destruction.

John Paul II teaches in the same letter that the participants in democracy and free-market economies must develop certain virtues. The virtues he lists are not religious in nature, but have clear rational connections to a properly functioning democracy and free-market economy. These virtues can be taught in a religiously pluralistic society like the United States. History testifies to this, since these virtues have been taught in the United States up until 1968 (what was the point of all those high school civics classes, but this?). Why we have chosen not to teach them after that is a complicated issue.

As such the Pope and our founding fathers of this great nation (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson especially) are of great agreement. What was true back in 1776 when we threw off the yoke of the monarch, is true today: The democractic form of government -- "government for the people, of the people and by the people" and free-market economics depend upong a "virtuous citizenary."

May God bless for being attentive to these words.

Do we want to be more like Europe?

With a proposed stimulus package of nearly $816 billion package (which is no small chunk of change, even for the United States), I thought Jim Manzi, a reputable economist had an interesting point:

The net effect of this bill is to shift the distribution of U.S. government spending as a whole away from defense and public safety and toward social programs: for good or ill, to make the U.S. into more of a European-style social welfare state. Because the amount of spending is so huge, this will be a material, not notional, shift. Eventually, we will emerge from this recession/depression/whatever it’s going to be. When that happens, is this really the kind of government we’re going to want?

Now he does not say that social spending is a good or bad thing, but does indicate that this would most like be a permanent shift in the role of how government acts in our daily life. In other words he is asking do we want to see a larger government that has her fingers in even more pies?

Whether this will be a long recession or a short recession, there are few economist that are willing to declare either way. But either way, it is a basic axiom of economics that it goes through cycles of recession and growth. We will come out of this recession. So the question really is not what do we want the government to do now? but what do we want to government to look like in 5 years, 10 years, and for our children?

Link to the article: European Social Welfare State Bill

Thoughts on the Conversion of Paul:

Conversion of Saint Paul by Michaelangelo

In celebration of the year of Saint Paul, yesterday we celebrated the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, instead of the Third Sunday of Ordinary Time. We know the story from the Acts of the Apostles: Paul was hostil to the Church, he persecuted Her. On the road to Damascus he was surronded by a great light (Christ says: I am the way, the truth and the light), and in that light he met Christ. Later in his life, after spreading Christianity throughout the then known world, from Syria to Spain (quite a journey in those days!), he reflected on how at that moment he was called to be an apostle by Christ.

Let us reflect on our own calling by Christ. I am often asked, "When did you know you wanted to be a priest?" I always want to ask, "When did you know you wanted to be a husband, a father, a wife, a mother, a teacher, etc.?" Each of us is called by Christ. When our ancestors came to these shores of Lake Michigan, they were called by Christ to establish the Church here. We can read how they cleared plots of land, and working with priest and religious sisters, established and built with their own hands our parishes, schools, hospitals, etc. (lay involvment is not something new from the last fifty years!). We are also called to continue building up the Church in our own time as a great treasure. We must always remember that that we do not own this treasure, since the Church is not our body, but the body of Christ, but we are caretakers of it.

In view of this, we have to ask: "How is Christ asking us to take care of His Body here on earth?" He has called me to be married to the Church and to be the father of a parish. He is also calling you. What have we been doing to build up the Body of Christ?

We do not face the same challenges that our ancestors faced. We do not need to literally carve out space for the Church from the forest-wilderness, but we need to carve a space for the Church in the public-sphere. The Church is by and far one of the greatest advocates of human dignity. For the past two thousand years She has been building hospitals and schools, raising up religious orders to take of the poor, and advocating for the down trodden. To continue to be this great advocate, to literally "call it out" when human dignity is trampled, is the greatest challenge that the Church faces today.

In the center of Paul's conversion and what he held as the center of his life was the encounter with Christ. This has been the center of my calling, I cannot be a priest, in fact I cannot even call myself Christian, if Christ is not in the center of my life. Christ is the point on which all calling pivot. As members of His Body, we are called to encounter him, and from that encounter to be called by Him.

God bless you, and may the name of Jesus Christ be Praised!

Saint Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles...

...Pray for Us!

Thought of the day by Thomas Jefferson:

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

--Thomas Jefferson

In my previous post of the letter from Francis Cardinal George to then Citizen Obama (now President Obama), it is interesting to note that the good and holy Cardinal did not ask for prohibitions to embryonic stem-cell research, but that the sizalbe portion of the American population that firmly believes that this research is unethical, not be coerced to subsidize this practice through taxes. This thinking is consisted with the thought of the founding fathers.

To take pleasure in the living...

From midafternoon prayer for this day:

Death was not God’s doing, he takes no pleasure in the extinction of the living.

-- Book of Wisdom 1:13

All life is a miracle, and God takes pleasure in all life. When He had finished creating the heavens and the earth, all the animals and plants, and above all this man and woman in His own image and likeness, He pronounced it GOOD. The early Christian mediated on this, and write that we are the only creatures that he takes delight in. His love for us is very strong, and the disciple who Jesus loved tells us the simple, yet profound truth: God is Love. So we too have been created to love, and to take pleasure in the living. Paul tells us that we are to come to be like Him, and this is through loving. The "secret" of the saints is that they more we love, the more we resemble God.

Let us pray that all people, especially our leaders can grow in their capacity to love. To love and take pleasure in all the living.

God bless.

Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago and President of the Bishop's Conference: Letter to Mr. Obama

I will add some comments in read later, but I bolded what I found particularly worthy.
USCCB President Cardinal Francis George of Chicago sent a letter to President Elect Barack Obama last Friday urging him not to use executive orders to overturn the Mexico City Policy, conscience rights of abortion opponents or restrictions on funding embryo destruction.The letter was made public today and is posted below (h/t LifeSite):

Dear Mr. President-elect:

I recently wrote to assure you of the prayers of the Catholic bishops of the United States for your service to our nation, and to outline issues of special concern to us as we seek to work with your Administration and the new Congress to serve the common good.

I am writing today on a matter that could introduce significant negative and divisive factors into our national life, at a time when we need to come together to address the serious challenges facing our people. I expect that some want you to take executive action soon to reverse current policies against government-sponsored destruction of unborn human life. I urge you to consider that this could be a terrible mistake -- morally, politically, and in terms of advancing the solidarity and well-being of our nation's people.

During the campaign, you promised as President to represent all the people and respect everyone's moral and religious viewpoints. You also made several statements about abortion. On one occasion, when asked at what point a baby has human rights, you answered in effect that you do not have a definite answer. And you spoke often about a need to reduce abortions.

The Catholic Church teaches that each human being, at every moment of biological development from conception to natural death, has an inherent and fundamental right to life. We are committed not only to reducing abortion, but to making it unthinkable as an answer to unintended pregnancy. At the same time, I think your remarks provide a basis for common ground. Uncertainty as to when human rights begin provides no basis for compelling others to violate their conviction that these rights exist from the beginning. After all, those people may be right. And if the goal is to reduce abortions, that will not be achieved by involving the government in expanding and promoting abortions.

The regulation to protect conscience rights in health care issued last month by the Bush administration is the subject of false and misleading criticisms. It does not reach out to expand the rights of pro-life health professionals, but is a long-overdue measure for implementing three statutes enacted by Congress over the last 35 years. Many criticizing the new rule have done so without being aware of this legal foundation - but widespread ignorance of a longstanding federal law protecting basic civil rights is among the good reasons for more visibly implementing it. An Administration committed to faithfully implementing and enforcing the laws of the United States will want to retain this common-sense regulation, which explicitly protects the right of health professionals who favor or oppose abortion to serve the basic health needs of their communities. Suggestions that government involvement in health care will be aimed at denying conscience, or excluding Catholic and other health care providers from participation in serving the public good, could threaten much-needed health care reform at the outset.

The Mexico City Policy, first established in 1984, has wrongly been attacked as a restriction on foreign aid for family planning. In fact, it has not reduced such aid at all, but has ensured that family planning funds are not diverted to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions instead of reducing them. Once the clear line between family planning and abortion is erased, the idea of using family planning to reduce abortions becomes meaningless, and abortion tends to replace contraception as the means for reducing family size. A shift toward promoting abortion in developing nations would also increase distrust of the United States in these nations, whose values and culture often reject abortion, at a time when we need their trust and respect.

The embryonic stem cell policy initiated by President Bush has at times been criticized from both ends of the pro-life debate, but some criticisms are based on false premises. The policy did not ban embryonic stem cell research, or funding of such research. By restricting federally funded research to cell lines in existence at the time he issued his policy, he was trying to ensure that Americans are not forced to use their tax dollars to encourage expanded destruction of embryonic human beings for their stem cells. Such destruction is especially pointless at the present time, for several reasons. First, basic research in the capabilities of embryonic stem cells can be and is being pursued using the currently eligible cell lines as well as the hundreds of lines produced with nonfederal funds since 2001. Second, recent startling advances in reprogramming adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells - hailed by the journal Science as the scientific breakthrough of the year - are said by many scientists to be making embryonic stem cells irrelevant to medical progress. Third, adult and cord blood stem cells are now known to have great versatility, and are increasingly being used to reverse serious illnesses and even help rebuild damaged organs. To divert scarce funds away from these promising avenues for research and treatment toward the avenue that is most morally controversial as well as most medically speculative would be a sad victory of politics over science.

I hope you will consider these comments in the spirit in which they are intended, as an invitation to set aside political pressures and ideologies and focus on the priorities and challenges that will unite us as a nation. Again I want to express our hopes for your Administration, and our offer to cooperate in advancing the common good and protecting the poor and vulnerable in these challenging times.

As we approach the first days of your new responsibilities as President of the United States, I will offer my prayers for you and for your family.

May God bless your efforts in fostering justice and peace for all,

Mr. President, as you begin your term.

Cardinal Francis George

Where'd the Catholics go?

The child's father and Mother were amazed at what was said of him [Jesus], and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his Mother, "Behold this child is destined for the rise and fall of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted, and you, yourself, a sword will pierce, so the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed.

Gospel kata Luke, 2:33-5

Contrary to long standing custom there are no Catholic clerics, priest or bishops invited to participate in the ceremonies or festivities surronding the inauguration of our new president. Should not Catholics be represented in some capacity if Mr. Obama is going to unit the country as he promised? We are after all the single largest religion in the country.

Considering the long standing custom, such an omission is not an accident. This omission is meant to exclude Catholics from having an official voice at the inauguration (Mr. Kmiec is not the official voice of the Church), in short at this important and historic event of our nations history, Catholics are being discriminated against.

What has the new president to fear? It is almost certain that any bishop invited to speak would almost certainly discuss the dignity of every human being. This would be too much of a sign of contradiction for the Obama-era.