December 2003 Archives

Today is the feast of the Holy Family. On the liturgical calendar, this feast is relatively new, being established as a "feast" day in the year 1921 by Pope Benedict XV. Yet we find the meditation and tradition of the Holy Family throughout the history of the Church.

For this article, I will draw from the Liturgy of the Hours. For today's feast, in the Office of Readings, we find a beautiful address given by Pope Paul VI, in Nazareth, on January 5, 1964. I will focus on three highlights of this speech which is entitled Nazareth, a model:

Nazareth is a kind of school where we may begin to discover what Christ's life was like and even to understand the Gospel...Here everything speaks to us, everything has meaning. Here we can learn the importance of spiritual discipline for all who wish to follow Christ and to live by the teachings of His Gospel.

How I would like to return to my childhood and attend the simple yet profound school that is Nazareth...But I cannot leave without recalling, briefly and in passing, some thoughts I take with me from Nazareth.

First, we learn from its silence. If only we could once again appreciate its great value. We need this wonderful state of mind, beset as we are by the cacophony of strident protests and conflicting claims so characteristic of these turbulent times. The silence of Nazareth should teach us how to meditate in peace and quiet, to reflect on the deeply spiritual, and to be open to the voice of God's inner wisdom and the counsel of his true teachers. Nazareth can teach us the value of study and preparation, of meditation, of a well-ordered personal spiritual life, and of silent prayer that is known only to God.

Second, we learn about family life. May Nazareth serve as a model of what the family should be. May it show us the family's holy and enduring character and exemplifying its basic function in society: a community of love and sharing, beautiful for the problems it poses and the rewards it brings; in sum, the perfect setting for rearing children - and for this there is no substitute.

Finally, in Nazareth, the home of a craftsman's son, we learn about work and the discipline it entails. I especially like to recognize its value - demanding yet redeeming - and to give it proper respect. I would remind everyone that work has its own dignity. On the other hand, it is not an end in itself. Its value and free character, however, derive not only from its place in the economic system, as they say, but rather from the purpose it serves.

Merry Christmas everyone! I hope this day is full of peace, joy, and happiness for each and every one of you.

I likewise hope that each of you take time today to reflect on the event that is the very heart of Christmas, the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Even in His birth our Lord teaches us. So what is the lesson of Bethlehem?

It is the lesson of perfect love. A love that was so perfect that it was willing to suffer poverty and rejection, thus coming to the world in a stable or cave, in the dead of winter. A love that was self-giving and foreshadowing the giving of His flesh to us in the Eucharist, for they laid Him in a manger, a place where animals gathered to eat when their master would feed them. A love that is obedient, for with His parents He submitted to the census of Caesar Augustus, thus, through obedience, fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament. Most importantly, His love was then and is now a love of humility, for the Son of God, the King of heaven and earth, was willing to come to us mere men in their very nature to "dwell among us" and to save us. How great His love is for us! Thanks be to God.

Again, I wish each and every one of you a Merry Christmas. May the love of the Christ Child fill our hearts and make us whole. May the peace experienced that great night so long ago by St. Joseph, the Virgin Mary, and the shepherds visit our hearts and homes today and all the days of the coming year. Let us gather around the manger and silently ponder in our hearts, with Mary, this little Child who loves us so much.

Merry Christmas,
Joe

Angels celebrate the birth of Christ in heaven tomorrow, I hope you celebrate with them.

From all of the DeoOmnisGloria contributors, we wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas!

God bless - and don't forget that it's Jesus' birthday!

I think it’s easy for us to conceptualize the birth of Jesus as if it were metaphor. But we must keep in mind that this was a literal event in history. The second person of the Trinity actually became man in a very real way. He was born just as you and I were born. He cried after birth, just as we did. This was not a metaphysical experience, it was real: the textures, smells, pain, all existed as they would in any other birth.

Who do you say that Jesus was? We must realize that He was not simply a great man. He was not simply more aware of God or God’s will than us. He was God. God created in the flesh to do what no man could: redeem us and give us the means to get to heaven. Jesus was God and knew He was God from the beginning. The birth of Christ is intensely personal; it was God reaching out not to humanity, but to you. It was God willing to suffer greatly that you may live. Never forget that God came specifically to save you, not simply to give people in general a chance at salvation.

Make sure that you don’t waste the greatest Christmas gift you will ever receive: the chance to become a Saint.

God bless,
Jay

This is a classic passage in the book Life of Christ by Fulton Sheen. It’s an excellent look at Jesus’ life, as you will see from this passage. Here, Sheen is writing about the infant Jesus:

No worldly mind would ever have suspected that He Who could make the sun warm the earth would one day have need of an ox and an ass to warm Him with their breath; that He Who, in the language of Scriptures, could stop the turning about of Arcturus would have His birthplace dictated by an imperial census; the He, Who clothed the fields with grass, would Himself be naked; that He, from Whose hands come planets and worlds, would one day have tiny arms that were not long enough to touch the huge heads of the cattle; that the feed which trod the everlasting hills would one day be too weak to walk; that the Eternal Word would be dumb; that Omnipotence would be wrapped in swaddling clothes; that Salvation would lie in a manager; that the bird which built the nest would be hatched therein – no one would have ever suspected that God coming to this earth would ever be so helpless. And that is precisely why so many miss Him. Divinity is always where one least expects to find it.

Remember the baby Jesus as we think of those in our society who need our help as Christ did and does. Let’s also pray for all of those who miss Him that the weakness with which Christ entered the world would not be a deterrent.

God bless,
Jay

PS: Life of Christ by Sheen is another highly recommended book, in case I didn’t mention it before!

Romano Guardini is fond of noting the “stillness” and “quiet” the surrounds the incarnation of God into the womb of Mary (the new Ark of the Covenant). Part of this quiet lies in the silent assent of Mary to the will of God.

Consider this: Mary was waiting to be wed to Joseph, the man she loved. God appears and lets Mary know she will conceive of Him – which is the second person of the trinity. At this point Mary gives her quiet assent to God’s will all the while realizing the possible ramifications.

So, when Joseph discovers that his future wife is pregnant, he begins making plans to “send her away quietly” (Matt 1:19) in order that she not be shamed. As Joseph is making plans, what does Mary do? Nothing. She quietly accepts God’s will and trusts in Him that all should happen correctly. She does not go to Joseph and protest her innocence or proclaim that this is a divine act. She does not complain to God that this is unjust. No, Mary quietly accepts God’s will trusting completely in Him to make everything correct despite the fact that her entire life is crumbling around her. Now that is faith.

Remember as you prepare for Christmas, the quiet faith of Mary, the stillness of her pregnancy, and her faith and trust in God. May we all have the faith of Mary.

God bless,
Jay

Click here to register your hours of Eucharistic Adoration for Vocations.

By the way, if you don't participate in Eucharistic Adoration, I highly recommend it. You won't believe how your spiritual life can grow by just spending an hour a week or even an hour a month with our Lord in the Eucharist.

God bless,
Jay

What are gold, frankincense and myrrh and why did the Wise men give these gifts? There are many interesting tidbits behind the gifts of the magi. First and foremost, did you notice that the number of Magi (wise men) is never noted in the Bible. Over the years, we have assumed that there were three because of the number of gifts they gave Christ – one gift per wise man.

The wise men can typically be associated with magic, astrology, or interpreting dreams. They were also obviously wealthy, which can be deduced by the three gifts given. As the shepherds who come to see Our Lord are considered Jewish, the wise men are seen as portraying the gentile world visiting the newborn Christ.

Now to the three gifts. First, why three? Perhaps they represent Christ’s ministry (as some have suggested): prophetic, royal, and priestly. There isn’t a set answer to this, but they could also represent the trinity or various other aspects of God and man. And yet there were three: Gold, frankincense and myrrh.

The gold was given to represent the kingship of Jesus. It is a strictly material gift that focuses on his eventual role of King.

The frankincense is a form of incense, which is burned to represent our prayers going up to God. It represents the divinity of Christ and is a purely spiritual gift. This focuses on Jesus’ role as Priest.

The myrrh, the final gift given, is a burial spice and also a medicine for wounds. This is the most complex of the three gifts. It is very a bitter spice that represents sorrow and suffering. It was the burial spice that Mary would have used to embalm Jesus’ body and represents the sacrifice of Christ. This gift is both material and spiritual; it signifies that Jesus will one day die for us.

We can discern from these gifts that Jesus is our King, our Priest, and our Sacrifice. He is the door through which we get to heaven. In our lives, we can offer material and spiritual gifts to God: our tithes as well as our prayers and our works. It is important that we offer all of these gifts, rather than just one. What can you offer Christ during this Christmas season? Give to the poor, feed the hungry, help the homeless. We can all make a difference.

God bless,
Jay

We live in a world where scientific principles seem to rule all. Scientific fact is treated as if it were unarguable and unchangeable. Science has become deified to virtually the entire population.

So what’s wrong with this? It doesn’t recognize the limitations of scientific knowledge. Science does not take into consideration all aspects of the problem. Much like mathematical thought (which it is based on), science ignores the immaterial aspects of the world and immaterial knowledge. Morality, emotions, and the spiritual realm do not figure into scientific calculations. And science is as prone to error as any other form of thought. Scientific “fact” is often based on assumptions – some of which are so buried in the data that they are missed or assumed despite their relevance to the eventual outcome. Every year scientists change their opinions on a multitude of subjects. Science is not as infallible as we seem to think.

Ultimately those who depend on science have a form of faith as well. Faith in the material world to guide our actions and decisions. Often this faith ignores morality as a judge and goes simply on the science. One example is the stem cell research currently being done. Since scientists feel this research can help people, they push on in spite of the fact they are committing atrocities with babies. This is where faith in science eventually leads everyone.

I think it’s high time we realized that science has limits. Science is not religion and cannot explain those things that are important: where we came from, what we are here to do. Like a tool that attempts to fix everything, it seems science is running amok in modern America.

Jay

Lord of the Rings is the perfect book trilogy. It captures the essence of Catholicism without ever mentioning God and while keeping the action flowing. Now we finally have all three movies on film, so what's the consensus? Here's an interesting critique of the movies that I tend to agree with. It's a well written review by someone who has actually read the books. Note: I have yet to see the third film, but Mr. Last is dead on in terms of the first two.

On a personal note, I understand that the books must be changed somewhat as they are transferred to film. I think I give a significant amount of leeway in this respect. But it ticks me off when the director corrupts pure characters for no obvious reason. And I think it says something about the director. I'll post a review once I've seen the third film, but now I'm worried . . .

I wonder what Quenta Narwenion (another Tolkien nut) thinks.

God bless,
Jay

PS - If you haven't read the books, use one of your Christmas gift certificates to get them. You won't be disappointed.

Throughout the next week, I’ll post a few mediations on how the Scriptures treat the Birth of our Savior. Today’s is straight from St. Jerome:

Luke 2:6-7. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manager, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Both the swaddling cloths and the manager are as important for their symbolic value as they are for the truth they express. First, why specifically ‘swaddling cloths’? Because we know from Wisdom 7:4 that this is how David came into the world. Jesus is the new king on the Davidic throne and Luke specifically uses the swaddling cloths to make this clear from His birth.

But the manger is even more key. Why not lay Jesus simply on some hay in the barn, or hold him? The manger has symbolic value: it is the trough where animals are fed. Jesus, as the new manna, is sustenance for the world. Luke mentions the manger three times (also in 2:12,2:16) to underline this point in our minds. As Jerome points out, Luke has an “overriding interest in the theme food” as a symbolic development of the Eucharist. Clearly, from the time of His birth, Jesus was intended to be our food.

Remember this Christmas, the Davidic King Jesus came to sustain us through His sacrifice.

God bless,
Jay

About a week before Christmas, Mom bought a new nativity scene. When she
unpacked it, she found two figures of the Baby Jesus.

"Someone must have packed this wrong," Mother said, counting out the
figures. "We have one Joseph, one Mary, three wise men, three shepherds,
two lambs, a donkey, a cow, an angel, and two babies. Oh, dear! I suppose
some set down at the store is missing a Baby Jesus because we have two.

"You two run back down to the store and tell the manager that we have an
extra Jesus. Tell him to put a sign on the remaining boxes saying that if a
set is missing a Baby Jesus, call 7126. Put on your warm coats, it's
freezing cold out there." The manager of the store copied down Mother's
message, and the next time we were in the store, we saw the cardboard sign
that read, "If you're missing Baby Jesus, call 7126." All week long we
waited for someone to call. Surely, we thought, someone was missing that
important figurine.

Each time the phone rang, Mother would say, "I'll bet that's about Jesus."
But it never was. Father tried to explain there are thousands of these
scattered over the country, and the figurine could be missing from a set in
Florida or Texas or California. Those packing mistakes happen all the time.
He suggested that she just put the extra Jesus back in the box and forget
about it.

I thought this was an excellent look at the French situation over at Extreme Catholic.

For those who don't know, the French are moving to ban public, visible evidence of faith in schools from any of the major religions. This is the opposite of separation of Church and State (which by the way is badly misunderstood here in the U.S.). Chirac stated (and I quote), "Secularism is one of the great conquests of the Republic. It is an element crucial to our social peace and national cohesion. We cannot let it weaken. We must work to reinforce it." To say he has a deep misunderstanding of the value of religion and the value of secularism would be an understatement.

Is this the future? France is so concerned about Islamic faith that they are willing to ban all religious sensibilities from schools (which isn't far from what we're doing in some parts of the U.S.). How does this solve anything? I think of the three monkeys, one covering his eyes, one his ears, and one his mouth. Does this solve the underlying problem? No. But at least Chirac won't have to see it. This is the perfect example of why French civilization is in decline.

I'd love to hear your comments.

Jay

Some of the contributors to this blog have a brother studying for the priesthood at the North American College in Rome. He wrote this to us the other day:

Hey family! So yesterday seemed to be another ordinary day going slowly by when at about 5pm I was informed by some of the guys that at lunch that day (I had classes during lunch time on Fridays) there was an announcement that there would be a real showing of the movie the Passion that night (Last Night). So it turns out that the rector experienced it the night before with the producer of the film who happened to be in Rome with his wife. After viewing it, he asked if it would at all be feasible to play the film for all the seminarians at the NAC. Seeing that we had the equipment for such a showing he agreed and so last night I experienced the "PASSION". Of course it was not in its final version, needing some effects and its own music, but all in all it was incredible. Awesome!!!!! A must see!!!! I have never been moved by a film as I was last night. It truly is a great depiction of the passion of Christ with the theological emphasis on Mary's role in the Church, the wickedness of Satan, and the Eucharist in connection with the crucifixion itself. I know that it will not be released in the States until Ash Wesnesday 2004 but I really suggest talking this up to all you meet and be prepared to see the world change by the beauty of this horrible death of our Lord experience in a real manner in this film. Well, off to the rosary and lunch! Talk to ya'll later! May my charity be with you always in Christ!

Through Mary to Jesus,
Justin

We're going to email him back for a more indepth review, but needless to say he can be trusted. I'm glad to hear from someone whom I can trust that the movie was that good - - Mel Gibson has a few odd beliefs. Anyway, I'm really looking forward to seeing The Passion next year and I hope you'll take the time to view it as well.

This is an excellent quote explaining the nature of obedience to God's Will:

"We are not baptized into the hierarchy; do not receive the Cardinals sacramentally; will not spend an eternity in the beatific vision of the pope. Christ is the point. I, myself, admire the present pope, but even if I criticised him as harshly as some do, even if his successor proved to be as bad as some of those who have gone before, even if I find the Church, as I have to live with it, a pain in the neck, I should still say that nothing that a pope (or a priest) could do or say would make me wish to leave the church, although I might well wish that they would leave."

I had not heard this one before. Thanks to Mark Shea for pointing it out.

Click here for an excellent article on two books: The DaVinci Code and the Left Behind series. The Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Chicago exposes the two books for what they really are: garbage. It starts off very insightfully:

There is the old story about people who would prefer to watch an eclipse of the moon on television rather than step outside the house and see what the eclipse really looks like. Pictures and theories about reality are more acceptable than reality itself, because pictures and theories are our creation and reality is God’s. It’s no wonder, then, that religions we make up are more comfortable for us than what God has revealed to us about himself.

And I love this tidbit:

The feast of Christmas is a powerful antidote to the gnostic fabrications of Dan Brown and the dispensationalist delusions of the “Left Behind” books. The child born at Bethlehem is the divine Son of the all-holy God. Born of the Virgin Mary, Jesus comes to us truly and fully in a human nature like ours in all things but sin. As the Gospels and St. Paul and the Fathers of the Church have taught, the real flesh of Jesus Christ, not some esoteric secret wisdom, is the means of our salvation. Gnostics were antagonistic to the flesh; and dispensationalists believe that Christians are a “heavenly” people of God, as opposed to Jews who are only God’s “earthly” people. Interestingly, much of the antagonism toward the Church today stems from opposition to her teachings about sexuality, marriage and celibacy and the nature of ordained priesthood, all beliefs that take flesh seriously.

Click through and read the whole thing. It's worth it.

Thanks to Amy Welborn for pointing this out.

Jay

Allow me to begin by apologizing to several of you for the delay in writing this article. I promised this article over a week ago to some of our fellow bloggers but other obligations have kept me from having the time to prepare this adequately. So with that said let us look at the sacrament of Baptism.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” John 3:5

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

Jesus Christ is the one who specifically taught the need for Baptism. So what is Baptism? Let us look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: ‘Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and the word.’” (CCC, para. 1213, pg. 312)

Thus Baptism becomes for Catholics the “gateway to life”. Yet it is important to understand that Baptism is what incorporates all Christians into the mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. That is why Catholics consider other Christians to be “separated brethren”, because in reality that is exactly what they are.

I’ve been reading some of the Early Church Fathers and I periodically post a section one of them has written. This is from St. Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, and was written around 250 A.D., before the Bible had been compiled as a single book. Of course, Cyprian quotes heavily from Scripture since most Catholics at the time understood most of the books in the Bible to be inspired by God. Anyway, thought this was interesting:

The spouse of Christ [Ed. note: the Church] cannot be defiled, she is inviolate and chaste; she knows one home alone, in all modesty she keeps faithfully to only one couch. It is she who rescues us for God, she who seals for the kingdom the sons whom she has borne. Whoever breaks with the Church and enters on an adulterous union, cuts himself off from the promises made to the Church; and he who has turned his back on the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ: he is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother. If there was escape for anyone who was outside the ark of Noe [Noah], there is escape too for one who is found to be outside the Church. Our Lord warns us when he says: He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. Whoever breaks the peace and harmony of Christ acts against Christ; whoever gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. Our Lord says: I and the Father are One; and again, of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit it is written: And the three are One. Does anyone think then that this oneness, which derives from the stability of God and is welded together after the celestial pattern, can be sundered in the Church and divided by the clash of discordant wills?

Just so everyone knows, the Catholic Church does not teach that at this point, but it’s interesting to see how a prominent member of the early Church viewed those breaking away. This is from The Unity of the Catholic Church, chap 6.

God bless,
Jay

Sola Fides or the doctrine of “faith alone” is a detailed subject that requires careful study. Because of this, I’m breaking it down into a series of articles that take one aspect of Sola Fides and examine it in light of Scripture. This is the first article, so I’ll start with the most basic of questions: Does Romans teach Sola Fides?

First, we all agree (or most of us) that Scripture is divinely inspired by God and that Scripture is very accurate. We can see in numerous passages where Scripture analyzes itself in very detailed form (ex. Galations 3:16). Scripture isn’t just accurate, it is perfect in teaching faith and morals. So, we must assume that Scripture would be just as accurate on the most important question, namely “How can I be saved?”

From there let’s look at Paul, the writer of Romans. Paul was by far the most educated of the apostles and keenly aware of the Old Testament and the Truth that Jesus taught. Interestingly enough, Paul used the Greek word for “alone” more than any other New Testament writer. He used it repeatedly throughout his writings. So we can agree that he understood the word “alone” well – he was no scholarly slouch. In addition, Paul used the various versions of the word “faith” over 200 times in his epistles. Again, he knew the word well, as did the Holy Spirit who was directing Paul’s epistles.

So, if Paul was teaching that we are saved by faith alone, how come he never used the two words in conjunction? It’s a simple question, Paul is usually straightforward, so why didn’t he just say, “We are saved by faith alone?” In fact, the only time in the New Testament that the words faith and alone are used together is in James:

James 2:24. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Again, Scripture is divinely inspired, so why did God only inspire the words faith and alone to be used together once and condemned in the Bible? I can only think of one reason: we are not saved by faith alone.

God bless,
Jay

I’ll continue this topic as regularly as my schedule allows. I highly recommend everyone read Not by Faith Alone by Sungenis. It is an exhaustive analysis of the topic and the analysis here is directly from it.

Lord God, author of all wisdom,
Teach me how to do my work as
a father according to Your will.
Enlighten my mind that I may understand
what to tell my children
when it is necessary to give them
direction or advice.
Give me good judgement to understand
true spiritual values and
to guide my family in Your ways.
The world makes little of Your
wisdom and is not instructed
in Your ways, and close contact
with the world makes it easy to become
dulled to things of solid spiritual worth.
Be my guide at all times, that
I may be a true father and husband,
sensitive always to the divine wisdom
that only You can impart.
God, by the light of the Holy Spirit
You instruct the hearts of Your faithful.
Grant that I may be truly wise and
ever enjoy His consolation,
through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

This is from a prayer card I've had for years. Not sure where the prayer comes from, but I thought it was very good.

Confession is one of those practices that protestants take issue with. I often hear, “Why can’t I simply confess my sins to God?” People are uncomfortable openly discussing their faults – this of course plays into God’s hands, since it makes you less likely to repeat the offense. First, what is confession?

Confession is when we admit our sins to a priest and he forgives them (you see the verses below). It is the only place where we can know our sins are forgiven (note that other Churches do not claim this ability). As the Catechism states it:

Only God forgives sins. Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mark 2:10) and exercises this divine power: “Your sins are forgiven.” Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.

So the priests are acting in persona Christi (in place of Christ) and fulfilling the obligation and the power that Jesus himself gave to them. Where? In the Bible. Let’s look at what the Bible says about confession.

Some would be surprised to find confession in the Old Testament and yet it shows up in Leviticus:

Leviticus 5:5-6. When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord. [my emphasis]

Dear Lady of Guadalupe may you continue to be our guide in defending life at all stages and thank you for ever leading us to your divine Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Even though I greatly appreciate most of the work Dr. Dobson has done over the years, I think his books on parenting especially those dealing with boys and teenagers should be avoided because he condones masturbation. As a former sex education teacher, who even used the Focus on the Family video regarding safe sex as being a lie for those engaging in premarital sex, I think his attitude on masturbation is troubling and to say the least gravely immoral. Below is an article I found posted on his website dealing with the issue.

Question:
My thirteen-year-old son is in the full bloom of adolescence. I'm suspicious that he may be masturbating when he's alone, but I don't quite know how to approach him about it. Should I be concerned, and if so, what should I say to him?

Dr. Dobson Responds:
I don't think you should invade that private world at all unless there are unique circumstances that lead you to do so. I offer that advice while acknowledging that masturbation is a highly controversial subject and Christian leaders differ widely in their perspectives on it. I will answer your question but hope you understand that some Bible scholars will disagree emphatically with what I will say.

First, let's consider masturbation from a medical perspective. We can say without fear of contradiction that there is no scientific evidence to indicate that this act is harmful to the body. Despite terrifying warnings given to young people historically, it does not cause blindness, weakness, mental retardation, or any other physical problem. If it did, the entire male population and about half of females would be blind, weak, simpleminded, and sick. Between 95 and 98 percent of all boys engage in this practice — and the rest have been known to lie. It is as close to being a universal behavior as is likely to occur. A lesser but still significant percentage of girls also engage in what was once called "self-gratification."

As for the emotional consequences of masturbation, only four circumstances should give us cause for concern. The first is when it is associated with oppressive guilt from which the individual can't escape. That guilt has the potential to do considerable psychological and spiritual damage. Boys and girls who labor under divine condemnation can gradually become convinced that even God couldn't love them. They promise a thousand times with great sincerity never again to commit this despicable act. Then a week or two passes, or perhaps several months. Eventually, the hormonal pressure accumulates until nearly every waking moment reverberates with sexual desire. Finally, in a moment (and I do mean a moment) of weakness, it happens again. What then, dear friend? Tell me what a young person says to God after he or she has just broken the one thousand first solemn promise to Him? I am convinced that some teenagers have thrown over their faith because of their inability to please God at this point of masturbation.

The second circumstance in which masturbation might have harmful implications is when it becomes extremely obsessive. That is more likely to occur when it has been understood by the individual to be "forbidden fruit." I believe the best way to prevent that kind of obsessive response is for adults not to emphasize or condemn it. Regardless of what you do, you will not stop the practice of masturbation in your teenagers. That is a certainty. You'll just drive it underground — or under covers. Nothing works as a "cure." Cold showers, lots of exercise, many activities, and awesome threats are ineffective. Attempting to suppress this act is one campaign that is destined to fail--so why wage it?

The third situation around which we should be concerned is when the young person becomes addicted to pornographic material. The kind of obscenity available to teenagers today has the capacity to grab and hold a boy for the rest of his life. Parents will want to intervene if there is evidence that their son or daughter is heading down that well-worn path.

The fourth concern about masturbation refers not to adolescents but to us as adults. This habit has the capacity to follow us into marriage and become a substitution for healthy sexual relations between a husband and wife. This, I believe, is what the apostle Paul meant when he instructed us not to "deprive" one another as marital partners: "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:5).

As for the spiritual implications of masturbation, I will have to defer to the theologians for a more definitive response. It is interesting to me, however, that Scripture does not address this subject except for a single reference in the Old Testament to a man named Onan. He interrupted sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law and allowed his semen to fall on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother, which was his "duty" (Genesis 38:8). Though that verse is often cited as evidence of God's disapproval of masturbation, the context doesn't seem to fit.

So, what should parents say to their kids about this subject? My advice is to say nothing after puberty has occurred. You will only cause embarrassment and discomfort. For those who are younger, it would be wise to include the subject of masturbation in the "Preparing for Adolescence" conversation I have recommended on other occasions. I would suggest that parents talk to their twelve- or thirteen-year-old boys, especially, in the same general way my mother and father discussed this subject with me. We were riding in the car, and my dad said, "Jim, when I was a boy, I worried so much about masturbation. It really became a scary thing for me because I thought God was condemning me for what I couldn't help. So I'm telling you now that I hope you don't feel the need to engage in this act when you reach the teen years, but if you do, you shouldn't be too concerned about it. I don't believe it has much to do with your relationship with God."

What a kind thing my father did for me that night in the car. He was a very conservative minister who never compromised his standards of morality to the day of his death. He stood like a rock for biblical principles and commandments. Yet he cared enough about me to lift from my shoulders the burden of guilt that nearly destroyed some of my friends in the church. This kind of "reasonable" faith taught to me by my parents is one of the primary reasons I never felt it necessary to rebel against parental authority or defy God. Well, those are my views, for what they are worth. I know my recommendations will be inflammatory to some people. If you are one of them, please forgive me. I can only offer the best advice of which I'm capable. I pray that in this instance, I am right.

His response has several problems.

1. He begins his response by stating that masturbation is a highly controversial issue with several different biblical scholars but fails to list their names and positions. He admits and rightly so that many will emphatically disagree with him on this subject. I think this is a good example how the doctrine of Sola Scripture causes division and leads to moral relativism, because according to Dobson the Bible doesn't mention masturbation specifically and therefore he has the right to believe masturbation to be alright, an action having little to do with your relationship with God. The Catholic Church has always taught that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. CC pg.564 #2352 Masturbation, when done with full knowledge and consent of the will, is a sin. Now, please explain to me how a sin doesn't affect one's relationship with God.

2. He argues his case from a medical perspective stating a statistic with no reference as to who performed this survey and how it was conducted. His statistics prove that every man has masturbated. Jesus was a man, does this mean Jesus masturbated? Then he states that a significant number of girls engage in what was once called "self-gratification". I didn't realize this view had changed.

3. He then goes on to state that there are only four circumstances which cause only emotional consequences which parents should be concerned with. Notice he doesn't believe there are any moral or spiritual consequences when one practices masturbation. His first circumstance is oppressive guilt. Basically, his line of thinking here is that every teen is going to masturbate and their guilt can lead them into losing their relationship with God so don't make them feel guilty for their actions. Just because masturbation might be a universal problem doesn't dismiss the fact that it is wrong. I think universally man deals with the same types of several different sins - selfishness, pride, lust, lying, etc. and we feel guilt for these actions. Guilt should be felt and should lead us back to Christ no matter how many times we fail even if it is a 1,000 times if we ask, Christ said he would forgive us over and over again. There is no end to his mercy, love, and forgiveness.

4. His next circumstance is when masturbation becomes extremely obsessive. Again he offers a parent no guide to determine when masturbation reaches this point and in fact states they are going to do it anyway so why wage a war against it, there is no cure. What about prayer? Do you mean Christ can not give one the grace to conquer this sin? Apparently not, according to Dobson there is no cure so don't condemn the action to your teens. I find this attitude extremely disturbing because this is same attitude I was fed as a teenager regarding premarital sex. Everybody is going to do it so why wait? Teenagers have no control over their hormones so hand them condoms, they're going to have sex anyway. I know Dobson doesn't feel this way about premarital sex which baffles me why he views masturbation to be different.

5. His third circumstance for concern is when masturbation leads to pornography addiction. Again his advice is weak for parents. The crazy advice I find is that when masturbation leads to this action then it is O.K. for parents to condemn the action and to intervene. Wouldn't it be wiser to intervene before this becomes an issue? If I had a child who struggled with a weight problem, would I wait until he/she is 300 lbs. overweight to deal with the issue or would I teach them from a young age about proper nutrition and exercise? The same should be applied with our sexuality. If I know most or all male teens (according to Dobson) are going to masturbate, would I not teach my child from toddlerhood on about sexual morality? Would I not show them God's design for our bodies in regards to marriage and the sexual act and how other actions distort this act and hurt our relationship with God and others? Why would I wait until the issue was out of control as he suggests?

6. His fourth circumstance I find to be ironic considering his other advice, because would it not follow that if you condone masturbation to your teens, as he suggests, that this behavior would become habit as an adult and interfere with your marital relationship? In fact, masturbation began affecting your marital relationship from the moment you started practicing it, because it distorts God's design for sex. God designed sex to be an act of mutual self-giving, ever unitive and open to procreation. Masturbation distorts this act by being self indulgent and completely closed to life.

7. He then gives reference to spiritual implications by referring to the story of Onan in the OT (Genesis 38:8) however, he dismisses this reference as not applicable to the context of masturbation. However, he is wrong. The sin Onan committed was wasting "his seed", ejaculating outside of a woman essentially. What is masturbation for a male, but ejaculating outside of a woman and wasting "one's seed". It is considered wasting one's seed because semen is a life-giving substance with the ability of creating new life within a woman. Thus God created the sexual act to be open to life at all times. Hence, when Onan freely chose to indulge in sexual pleasure yet refused to be open to life, God disapproved. In fact if you read the story of Onan God disapproved so much that He killed Onan. So according to the Bible wasting "one's seed" is a serious offense against God with eternal ramifications. Something not to be dismissed, is it no wonder people deal with such guilt over the act of masturbation? Perhaps masturbation was never directly mentioned in the Bible because not that many people struggled with it at the time due to the fact that many married while in their teens unlike today.

In conclusion, I strongly disagree with Dobson as does the Church and believe parents should read his material with caution. Masturbation is a sin and wounds one relationship with Christ however, there is a cure and his name is Jesus. He can help you overcome any sin.

An excellent book on this subject is My Beautiful Feeling by Walter and Ingrid Trobisch.

Peace in Christ,
Maria

I’m reading through some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers and I came across this passage by Saint Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage from 246 to 258 A.D. when he was martyred. I thought it was an excellent explanation:

It is not persecution alone that we ought to fear, nor those forces that in open warfare range abroad to overthrow and defeat the servants of God. It is easy enough to be on one’s guard when the danger is obvious; one can stir up one’s courage for the fight when the Enemy shows himself in his true colours [sic]. There is more need to fear and beware of the Enemy when he creeps up secretly, when he beguiles us by a show of peace and steals forward by those hidden approaches which have earned him the name of ‘Serpent.’ Such is ever his craft: lurking in the dark, he ensnares men by trickery. That was how at the very beginning of the world he deceived and by lying words of flattery beguiled the unguarded credulity of a simple soul; that was how he tried to tempt Our Lord Himself, approaching Him in disguise, as though the could once more creep upon his victim and deceive Him. But he was recognized and beaten back, and he was defeated precisely through being detected and unmasked.

May we all be able to recognize and unmask the devil when he tries to beguile us.

God bless,
Jay

Occasionally I write short stories examining some aspect of how God functions in our lives. They are written by a mere man, so they are simply reflections of how God might take care of us. I thought I'd post one and get your comments. Here's the story:

---

Eileen smiled. Her wonderful day shopping had finally ended in style. She probably wouldn’t have bought the last necklace of pearls if the salesman hadn’t smiled so big, but it was only a few hundred dollars and Eileen had the money to spare. Those pearls would come in handy when she dressed up for dinner at the country club. She always went once a month and she always made sure to look her best. Several friends met her there for their one night of very good food a month – everything else was a strict diet.

As she walked along Eileen considered that a simple smile made her day. God bless that boy, she thought. With or without the pearls she felt better simply because of the attention. After all, we’re all human and enjoy knowing someone realizes we exist. This need probably grows as you get older, Eileen thought, and at eighty-two I apparently have a large need for it. Oh well, that’s the way it goes.

Out of the corner of her eye, Eileen noticed a gruff man simply throw his newspaper into the street. Littering was a pet peeve of hers and she started to say something, but there was an odd look in the man’s face that scared Eileen a little. The man walked a little further down the street and entered a pawn shop.

“That figures,” Eileen thought, “those pawn shops never did anyone any good.”

Eileen never noticed the package she carried slip into the street or the beads roll to the side. In fact, Eileen’s memory wasn’t as good as it used to be and she wouldn’t remember the pearls after getting home, but the man’s smile would keep her day feeling a little brighter than before.

---

Richard was desperate. He had never made much money, so this was nothing entirely new. But it was different. Richard had been out of work for three weeks last month. His new job started when rent was due, so he had gone to a pawn shop and borrowed the money for rent. Now the situation had worsened. The pawn shop wanted their money back – plus interest, of course – and Richard only had enough for the latest rent payment. His wife had just delivered their first child and she was still out of work, which meant things were tight. But the new job had real promise – Richard had already been given some additional responsibility that might lead to a better income. If he could find a way to keep his apartment near work and get the pawn shop to loosen up.

One thing we can all agree on (hopefully) is that Jesus came from the line of David. The Lord promised David that a king in his line would one day rule all nations, and he would reign forever (2 Sam 7:12-14). So Jesus, the king of kings, is a Davidic King. Matthew also proves the genealogy of Jesus from David, and calls Him the “son of David” (Matt 1:1).

Now, let us turn our attention to Israel’s monarchy and the Davidic dynasty. The people of Israel begged the prophet Samuel for a king so they could “be like all the nations” (1 Sam 8:7). So the people looked around for models of governance. Following the models of neighboring lands, they established a dynasty, a legal system, a royal court, and a queen mother. God allowed the people to have their way, but only for His glory. Israel’s monarchy would providentially foreshadow the kingship of God’s own Son. Now the logic behind honoring the king’s mother as queen is simple and reasonable. In most cultures in the Near East at time, most kings practiced polygamy. Whom should the people honor as queen if she was one of the wives? If there was more than one queen, whose son should receive the right of succession to the throne? These problems were solved with the mother being queen.

In an excellent book, “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism,” Dave Armstrong sets out fifty proofs of the pre-eminence of St. Peter, the first pope of the Catholic Church. I was so impressed, I have to list them here. I do recommend you take the time to go through the Biblical citations, they are very effective.

1. Peter alone is the Rock upon which Jesus builds His Church (Matt 16:18). Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8, cf. Matt 21:42). Without a solid foundation, a house falls. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).
   
2. Peter alone is given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19).
   
3. Peter is individually given the power to bind and loose (Matt 16:19).
   
4. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of Apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (Matt 10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)
   
5. Peter is almost always named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9 where he (Cephas) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly pre-eminent in the entire context (e.g. 1:18-19, 2:7-8).
   
6. Peter alone among the Apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (John 1:42; Matt 16:18).
   
7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after himself (John 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

Reincarnation goes in and out as the belief du jour among ‘cutting-edge’ intellectuals. This always surprised me since the belief is so unreasonable. I always wondered how reincarnation believers explained the sheer increase in humans over the years. Where did all these people come from? If you look at the statistics, clearly there are many, many more people than ever before. The common answer is from animals or bugs. Bugs is tough to argue, since there are no good statistics, but some stats suggest that animals have also increased over time, largely due to house pets and farms.

I think reincarnation always goes back to the feeling that we are special, better than everyone else. By claiming we were someone famous or formerly intellectual, we feel special. Unfortunately many people get sucked into this vortex, particularly if they are having trouble justifying their current state of life with that which they want. I once had a woman try and convince me that the Bible taught reincarnation! No lie, she had a couple of verses that seemed to support it (don’t remember which). Of course you had to ignore every other verse of the Bible, but this didn’t bother her. Odd.

As Christians, we must remember than emotions or feelings can be manipulated by other people or by the devil. God gave us reason and a conscious (if properly formed) to lead our decision-making. This is not to say emotions aren’t important, but they should not be used to make decisions in important matters – especially religion. God gave us so many ways to understand Him: His works (nature), His Word (Scripture), and His Church. He continually calls us to him. Don’t fall into the reincarnation trap, the simple fact that God loves You, specifically, is enough for you to realize you are special. You have a specific reason for your existence. God has a plan for You.

God bless,
Jay

I would like to begin this article by getting the definition of Apostolic Tradition "straight from the horse's mouth" so to speak. Other bloggers have referred to the dictionary to explain that meaning of "tradition", but an American, English dictionary is not going to provide a proper interpretation of the meaning the word "Tradition" taken on within the context of the Bible nor in the Church. Let's look at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on this:

The Apostolic Tradition

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.

In the apostolic preaching...

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit,
- in writing "by the apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed to the message of salvation to writing."

...continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left behind bishops as their successors. They gave them "their position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes." "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."

Mary’s role in God’s plan of salvation is absolutely crucial. In a way, Mary is the new Eve. Eve’s disobedience immersed all humans in the bondage of sin. On the contrary, Mary’s obedience to God opened the way for the saving work of Jesus. One thing I ask Christians who have a problem with the Church’s teachings on Mary to think about is: why did Jesus choose to come into the world the way he did? Why didn’t He choose to suddenly appear as a 30-year-old man and start His ministry right away? It’s a good question to ask, because God doesn’t do things without a reason. It’s important for us to ponder the fact that Jesus chose to be conceived in a woman, and then we need to prayerfully reflect on the logical consequences of His perfect decision.

First of all, the Bible shows us that we must honor Mary. It says we need to call her “blessed” (Lk 1:48) and she immediately directs all this praise back to God (Lk 1:49). Mary is also the first recipient of the Holy Spirit. Mary is highly favored, full of grace, with the Lord, Blessed among women (Lk 1:28). Mary is called the mother of the Lord (Lk 1:43). Finally, Mary is our mother (Jn 19:26-27).

Another important consequence of Jesus’ decision is that Mary is the ark of the new covenant (Rev 11:19-12:2). First of all, logic will bring you to this conclusion. She carried, bore, and nurtured God in the flesh. As if that weren’t enough, scripture is packed with parallels. Luke parallels the whole story of Mary's visitation to Elizabeth to when David brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. For example, the story begins as David "arose and went" (2 Sam 6:2) and Mary "arose and went" (Lk 1:39). Also, (Lk 1:35) “Power of the Most High will overshadow you” parallels the power of the Lord overshadowing the Ark in Exodus 40:34-35 or the temple in 1 Kgs 8:10. The story contiues with “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9) = “But who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43). David danced for joy in the presence of the ark (2 Sam 6:14,16) as the child in Elizabeth’s womb did when Mary approached her (Lk 1:44). The ark remained in the hill country for 3 months (2 Sam 6:11) = the amount of time Mary spent with Elizabeth (Lk 1:56). The number and precision of the parallels are strong evidence that they were well thought out and calculated, not mere coincidences. But most important of all, they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Now we must prayerfully reflect on the fact that the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament was extremely holy and highly honored. Outsiders looking in at the Jews might have mistakenly assumed that they worshipped this ark. (Sound familiar?). Inside it were the 10 commandments written by God, the Manna sent by God to feed his people in the wilderness, and the priestly rod of Aaron. So let’s pray and think about it. If the old ark was extremely holy, then how much holier and deserving of honor is Mary, who carried all these things in the flesh!? The gospel writers don't flat out call Mary the Ark of the Covenant because she was probably still alive when they wrote the gospels. This idea is supported by the fact that the only book that calls her the Ark of the Covenant is the book of Revelation, which we know for a fact was written after her death. This concludes part I of Biblical Mary. In part II, I will focus on Mary being the queen mother and the defense of Marian dogma.

Greetings dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ. May His peace and love be with all of you.

I just wanted to bring to all of our readers attention that we have had a lot of our Protestant brothers and sisters visiting our site. Many of them have posted multiple comments and questions about the Catholic Faith. We welcome their involvement and created this site to help promote and spread the truths of our Faith. An important part of that ministry is prayer.

In John's Gospel, Jesus says "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:20-21).

I am calling on all of you Catholics to pray for their conversion to the Catholic Faith, that Jesus Christ might open their minds and hearts to the fullness of truth, that can only be found in the Catholic Church.

We beseech the Holy Spirit to come to each of them, to speak to their heart, and to fill them with His wisdom.

Come Holy Spirit fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in them the fire of Your Love, send forth Your Spirit and they shall be created and You shall renew the face of the earth. Amen.

In the Love and Peace of the Most Blessed Trinity,
Joe

I have a question for protestants. How can you say the birth control pill is fine, but abortion is not? Here's why I'm asking:

The birth control pill can act as an abortifacient. This means that the birth control pill can and does induce abortion after conception in some cases. The birth control pill manufacturers agree with this statement and it's typically printed with literature on the pill and how it works. The only discrepancy is how often this happens: some pro-life groups suggest it happens often while the pill manufacturers say it is infrequent.

Still, if you condemn abortion, don't you have to condemn the pill? For those of you who don't know, every Christian church condemned any form of birth control before the 1930's. In the 1930's one protestant denomination after another began approving contraception for use by parishioners (this is very similar to the way homosexuality is being accepted by some churches now - in fact, the Anglican church was the first to allow contraception).

But I still don't understand how the pill can be approved. Let me know if you have any insights.

God bless,
Jay