January 2004 Archives

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
- - Matthew 28:19-20

This is the great commission of Christ to his apostles, who are now the bishops of the Catholic Church. The question is: what is the responsibility of a normal Christian (a lay person) in this respect? Our charity and concern for others leads us to want to help save the souls of others and correct them from error, which is basically the point of this site.

There are three possible ways to work towards another person’s salvation:

• Prayer. Clearly this is the most important way to help another. Only by the gift of the Holy Spirit can anyone be lead to truth (it is a moral issue, not an intellectual one).
  
• Example. We must be the example of Christ to others. In essence, we become salt so that others may be thirsty (Matt 5:13).
  
• Action. If someone says something incorrect, we can correct them. We can even reach out to those who do not realize they are doing something contrary to Christ’s teachings.
  

The debate has always centered on the last issue: do we have an obligation to help those who are in error in a direct way? I think we do. If we truly love others, then we will want to reach out to them. As we do to the least of God’s creatures, we do to Him. God has sent us into the world and occasionally He sends someone into our path. To pray for that person is noble and right, but to openly offer them the truth is more courageous. It involves standing up for your beliefs and being able to defend them.

From a personal standpoint, this is an important issue to me. I was a protestant actively seeking Truth. I wanted to know and do what was right. If others had not shown me the truth, I may have never known (Acts 8:30-31). If those around me had simply prayed for me (this is faith without works), I may never have found out. Can we honestly say to God, “I prayed that you would help that person, but I said nothing – my prayer was enough?” God may reply, “I did help them, I sent you to tell them the Truth.”

Just something to consider in our daily lives as we come into contact with so many who need our help. The Navarre Bible reading on today’s Gospel brought this post out, and I think the notes have an excellent point:

Life in union with Christ and apostolic zeal must be very closely linked together; in other words, effectiveness in apostolate always depends on union with our Lord, on continuous prayer and on sacramental life: "Apostolic zeal is a divine craziness I want you to have. Its symptoms are: hunger to know the Master; constant concern for souls; perseverance that nothing can shake" ([St] J. Escriva, "The Way", 934).

May we all have hunger to know the Master, constant concern for souls, and perseverance that nothing can shake.

God bless,
Jay

Just wanted to point out that we’ve added an email list to the site. Basically, the list will be used to notify you of new postings to the site and allow you to respond to them. We won’t ever allow anyone else to use the names – and we won’t be promoting anything (except maybe the site) on the list.

Sometimes it’s just easier to read an email than to go online!

God bless,
Jay

I’ve made a decent attempt to keep up with the current presidential race and I must say I am very, very disappointed. Is there anyone who actually deserves our vote? I’m not sure there is.

First we have a legion of democrats who all uphold the sacred right to kill our children as long as they have not escaped the womb. In a party that preaches diversity and freedom, why can’t they allow just one pro-life candidate to run? I think they would be shocked by the number of votes that candidate received. What are the democrats so afraid of?

Then on the Republican side we have George Bush, who has been somewhat of a disappointment. He allowed some use of stem cell research and has waivered on the gay rights issue, but he did help get a partial birth abortion bill passed – although as Amy Welborn pointed out, he didn’t even mention it in the State of the Union address. Why? Is he embarrassed? Afraid of losing some votes?

In other issues Bush is okay, but he certainly isn’t rushing to help the poor much or work against the death penalty. Since he is running unopposed, there’s not likely to be another pro-life person on the ballot. What a disgrace that is!

At some point there has to be a third political party with a true pro-life position that cares for the poor, the elderly, etc. If you were to design the perfect candidate, what positions would he adhere to? I would suggest a few:

• Pro-life. Work to stop abortion and the death penalty.
  
• For the poor. Improve social systems that protect the poor and help train them for appropriate work.
  
• Health Insurance. This is a sticky one, but in the next ten years health insurance must be offered to the poor. One point: put limits on medical liability suits.
  
• Not for a closed border. This was always Pat Buchanan’s big problem. I’m for free trade agreements, not against them.
  
• School Choice. Allow vouchers for parents to send kids to religious schools.
  
• Balanced Budget. It doesn’t have to be perfect, but close. Get the budget within some modicum of reason.
  
• Fix Social Security/Medicare. This is the elephant in the closet. These programs are hopelessly broken and politicians are scared to face them.
  

What do you think? Any additions/subtractions from this list? Perhaps we can come up with the perfect platform on which a third part could be built. I’m very interested in your opinion.

God bless,
Jay

Suffering has intrinsic value that helps our salvation. Ultimately, only the Catholic Church can answer the question, “Why do people suffer?” since she is the only one adhering to this philosophy. I’m planning to write a longer post on suffering, but I though this verse was especially good:

Col 1:24-25. Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known.

A couple of points on the passage. First, notice that his general sufferings help make up what is “lacking in Christ’s afflictions.” Our suffering has value to the world and ourselves – it can actually help us. Notice also that he has a “divine office” in the Church, which sounds more like a well-defined institution rather than an unorganized gathering (what some would have you believe).

As you suffer today, remember to pray that your suffering helps make up for that which is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. Suffering is ultimately redemptive.

God bless,
Jay

One of our regular posters, Savrx just pointed me to a site and group I’d never seen: L.E.A.R.N: Life Education and Resource Network.

They have an incredible site that you should visit, particularly today (MLK day). They protest that the abortion industry is racist and have some surprising stats to back it up:

• Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) was an avowed racist
  
• 78% of Planned Parenthood’s clinics are in minority communities. That’s horribly immoral.
  
• Abortion kills more African-Americans than any other single issue
  

For abortion supporters, they also have some photos that will make you reconsider. I didn’t link here because of the abject horror of the images, so take caution. One great page on the site compares abortion to other historical forms of genecide. It’s a fascinating look.

I’m always glad to see groups fighting for the unborn; this group seems to be doing an excellent job. There’s much more information on the site – I recommend you check them out. Thanks again Savrx.

God bless,
Jay

Today is Martin Luther King day and I think the day requires some introspection. We live in a world dominated by violence and war and I think King’s legacy is a story that should be told to our children and our world.

The key difference between Martin Luther King and others, such as Malcolm X, is King’s dedication to peaceful resistance and his sincere belief that without violence he could achieve the impossible. Yes, King was a great orator and a brilliant speechwriter. But more than that, he was a man who trusted in God to change the world through his peaceful protests. I don’t think modern America understands the strength that King wielded through this quiet refusal to back down. Thank God for giving us such a man.

Personally, I still think we have far to go in order to discover King’s dream, but the strides he made in the too few years he was here are an unbelievable testament to his faith. Here is a key part of his famous dream speech given at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.


I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

In today’s world, we need a Martin Luther King, Jr. who can speak so eloquently and fight so fiercely for the unborn. May God send us one soon.

God bless,
Jay

Our color change wasn't exactly in tune with the liturgical year this time, but we finally got it done: we are a nice "Ordinary Time Green" at this point.

I'm planning on moving to Lent on the actual day Lent starts. Wouldn't that be amazing!
;-)

God bless,
Jay

Contraception has been a divisive issue between Catholics or Protestants in the last forty years or so. The question is: who is correct? What does the Bible say about contraception? Ultimately, what does God intend for our marriages?

To understand the issue, we should understand the history of contraception. Until the 1930’s, every Christian denomination condemned contraception. It was in the 1930’s that the Anglican church first approved of contraception in some cases. Since then, every Christian church has approved of contraception within the context of marriage with the exception of the Catholic Church. This approval includes the use of abortifacients, such as the pill, which may work in the way an abortion does – by killing the fetus after conception but before implantation in the uterus. We have discussed the birth control pill and abortion in this post.

But ultimately history doesn’t decide this: the Bible does. So let’s look at what the Bible says about contraception. I want to first point out that the family resembles the trinity in a very specific way. In the Trinity, the Holy Spirit “comes from the Father and the Son” – the love between the Father and the Son is so real that it forms another person (Eph 3:15). In the same way, the love between a husband and wife is so real that it forms another person: a child. As Fulton Sheen said, “All love tends to an incarnation, even God’s.” Marital love clearly tends toward an incarnation.

But perhaps one child is enough? Perhaps God intends for us to only have a few? There are two commands (with blessings) in the Bible for married people on this topic, the first is in the Garden of Eden:

Genesis 1:28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it . . . “

The usual answer I get from this verse is, “But that was in the Garden of Eden, when things were perfect.” However, God reiterates this later:

Genesis 9:1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.”

Note that there is no end date, no specific time when we can stop being fruitful and multiplying. You can point to “fill the earth,” but we remain far from filling the earth – every person on earth in a family of four with one acre each would fit just in the U.S.! There’s more room for your children, don’t worry.

It always fascinates me to see the media feel free to offer their suggestions for the next pope. First, most of the media aren’t Catholic and only see the pope in terms of his secular power – typically they view the Church as an organization that must be sustained by the pope and is in real danger of becoming non-existent if the wrong pope is chosen (I suggest they read some history). Second, their suggestions tend to focus not on the pope’s role as a spiritual leader, but his role in either “making the Church relevant” or “bringing about change” both of which are euphemisms for ignoring God and allowing such things as contraception, homosexuality, or the atrocity of abortion.

The latest contribution comes from a liberal think tank’s publication Foreign Policy (by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). The January/February 2004 magazine features an article by Mr. R. Scott Appleby URGENT: Job Description for the Next Pope and breaks out what the next pope needs to accomplish. I could not let this article go by without comment. I won’t bore you with all of the details, but the essence of the article is that Mr. Appleby knows the roles and responsibilities of the new pope as well as the qualities he must have. Let’s examine the evidence.

First he states (rather boldly):

Advocacy of human rights, including the crucial right of religious freedom, must remain the central message of Roman Catholicism to the world.

Pardon me, Mr. Appleby, but Christ Crucified is the central message of the Catholic Church to the world. Human rights are important, and Pope John Paul II has done an extraordinary job working for them, but they are nothing compared to the mission of proclaiming the Gospel. This section is titled “The Challenge of Secularism” and makes some decent points on how the world currently views religion, but Mr. Appleby seems to view the pope as a purely political figure whose biggest reason for existence is human rights. The pope’s reason for existence, however, is to lead the faithful to Christ.

The next accomplishment involves the “Challenge of Islam.” It is in this section that I am most greatly offended:

Certainly, the next pope must preserve and extend the Catholic realignment inaugurated by the Second Vatican Council and advocated by John Paul II – the realignment from state to civil society, from theocracy to democracy, from religious exclusivism to religious freedom.

I’ll refrain from four-letter words, but the Church is not a democracy and won’t ever be. This is a classic misunderstanding by liberally-oriented journalists (is that PC enough?). They consistently argue that the Church should be run by the masses. Wrong. We can simply look at the confusion and constant division that plagues protestant churches to see the eventual effects of this type of church government. Our Church is run by Christ, The High Priest, and it is a theocracy of sorts (though mystically, rather than worldly). This second section is quite odd. This quote perhaps best explains Mr. Appleby’s views (it is highlighted in the magazine):

To allay such fears [of “a global culture war pitting” Catholicism and Islam “against the enlightened forces of the democratic and liberalized rich nations"], the next pope must be the architect of a Christian-Muslim dialogue that fosters alternatives to policies and programs that violate the principles of Catholic social teaching. These principles include the preferential option of the poor, the sanctity of human life, and the need to formulate policies serving the common good rather than narrow interests.

This blows me away. Mr. Appleby seems to be suggesting that Catholics change their views on everything from the poor to human life in order to “allay” the fears of “democratic and liberalized rich nations.” What? This is another secular mistake: the notion that the pope can simply change his mind on abortion or contraception. The pope cannot. God decided certain things long ago that cannot be negotiated or altered in order to make mere men happy. It’s important for the secular world to understand that abortion will always be wrong. Contraception will always be a grave sin. The poor will never be seen as less than they are. And sin will always be sin, no matter how much you try to make it “okay”. This is the nature of reality. We often ignore reality for an edited version, for example ‘scientific reality’ that ignores the spiritual realities of life. The Catholic Church does not do this. Sorry again, Mr. Appleby.

There is an excellent post at Dappled Things about why priests pour water in the wine during mass. I had never heard the answer before and it is fascinating. The mystical/symbolic reason is wonderful:

In the Lord's Incarnation, the two natures were joined in the Person of Jesus Christ, and humanity was lifted up and given a share in divinity. The humanity was still there, just as the water is still present even after the priest pours the drop of water into the chalice of wine, but it is caught up in divinity and ennobled. As we are united with Christ, we come to share in His divinity, just as He chose to share in our humanity. The meaning of this action is revealed in the quiet prayer the priest says while mingling the water and wine.

I recommend you read the whole post (it isn't long). By the way, Dappled Things is an excellent blog by Father Jim Tucker in Virgina. If you haven't, check it out.

God bless,
Jay

Mark 2:1-5. And when He (Jesus) returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that He was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and He was preaching the word to them. And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." [my emphasis]

This passage of the Bible has always fascinated me because of one thing: this man’s sins were forgiven because of the faith of his friends, not by his faith. St. Jerome equated this paralytic to one who is unable to come to God because of “spiritual paralysis.” This suggests that through our faith others may be saved. Wow!

Ultimately this goes back to prayer and its ability to change the world. These men had faith that Jesus could heal their paralytic friend, so they took him and did whatever necessary to bring about his healing (physical and spiritual). I think it’s important for us to remember that we can bring about spiritual healing in others through our faith that Jesus can do anything and wants to heal those in most need of His mercy.

Pray for your lost friends and family today. I’m asking God that my faith may be strong enough to help them. One final note: the friends didn’t just have faith, they acted on it. This suggests we must do as well as pray.

God bless,
Jay

Since we have a significant number of non-Catholics visit the site, I thought I would post the Nicene Creed, which sums up what Catholics believe very effectively. This creed is known by virtually all Catholics (and repeated at Mass).

The Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

AMEN.

This is a great summary of what the Catholic Church teaches.

God bless,
Jay

CRISIS magazine has an interesting article looking at Voice of the Faithful, a Catholic lay group. I think most know who VOTF is through their press coverage, which has been completely out of proportion to their true value in the Church. I think it’s interesting to see how this group pretends to represent not just Catholics, but faithful Catholics has ended up being just another group of liberal dissidents. One section I found particularly revealing:

And this observation is hardly confined to “conservatives.” Dr. Paul Ginnety from St. Joseph’s College on Long Island, complimented VOTF as being a “fairly liberal” group of older Catholics who “cut their teeth” during the protest era of the 1960s in a Newsday op-ed published in July 2002. In the article, Ginnety went on to ridicule younger Catholics who agree with what the Catholic Church teaches, calling them nostalgic. Ginnety, an occasional contributor to Newsday’s editorial pages, also spoke during LI-VOTF’s September Faith Convention’s “working lunch.”

It’s troubling that a group attempting to wield so much power would call the faithful “nostalgic” – insulting them rather than understanding that they are the ones actually following God’s lead. I also found it interesting that the group seemed to focus on the vision of its founders, the human leadership, rather than purporting to be lead by the Holy Spirit.

There is obviously a place for lay groups within the Catholic Church. Some do amazing work that would be difficult for priests to accomplish. But Voice of the Faithful is an example of a group that, rather than desiring to follow God, simply seeks to make changes to the Church that they like. Ultimately, selfish motives push this group to desire women priests and contraception. They are not seeking to purify the Church or to help priests, they are seeking to control the Church. What a tragedy.

Like the author of this article, I think the last paragraph says it all:

In a fitting end note, the Michigan chapter of Call to Action reported in its Summer 2003 newsletter that it’s now sharing meetings with the VOTF chapter in that region.

I do recommend reading the article on VOTF. Thanks to Patrick Sweeney at Extreme Catholic for pointing out the article.

God bless,
Jay

I'll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.
- - Yann Martel Life of Pi

I started reading the bestseller Life of Pi by Yann Martel recently and picked up this interesting quote. The book is less than satisfying at this point. I’m about half way through and I’m not sure I’ll be able to finish. Why? Bad theology.

Essentially the book starts with a young Hindu kid whose father is the caretaker of the local zoo. The zoo information is very interesting and entertaining. However, the boy begins trying to be a good Hindu, a good Muslim, and a good Catholic all at the same time. At this point in the book, people are telling him why this cannot be so, but their answers basically amount to, “You can’t do that!” Even the Catholic priest is depicted as being at a loss for words in the situation. On a side note, the kid does disparage those who say he is wrong as non-believers, who are simply interested in religion as a crutch. Very disappointing (apparently not uncommon, as we have people on this site who suggest you aren’t a true Christian if you attempt to correct their reckless beliefs).

What I’m waiting for is one person to show some sound theology and tell the kid that he can’t really believe in Christianity if he really believes in Hinduism and vice versa. The kid seems to be taking the approach of not putting all of his eggs in one basket, but unfortunately this doesn’t work for religion. True belief means that you complete subscribe to the teachings of a religion. Salvation is not available to those who do not. These three faiths all teach contradictory messages, which means you either end up believing in one of them or in none of them (the case with this kid, I’m afraid).

To be honest, I’m not sure what Mr. Martel is trying to do with the book. Is he attempting to promote a universal religion? Or is he trying to suggest that religions are like clothing, we can change ours at any time? Either way his theology is gravely lacking. If I manage to finish the book, I’ll write a final review. You never know, Mr. Martel might turn it around in the end. Let me know if you’ve read it.

God bless,
Jay

[ rant ]

A confession: I’m sick of politicians who see religion as strictly a tool that helps them get votes. It churns my stomach to think that they would give something as important as their faith in order to get elected.

To be more specific, I find it difficult to have any pity for a politician claiming to be Catholic who does things such as support abortion. Wesley Clark is the prime example at this point: a Catholic who attends a Presbyterian Church and is pro-abortion, but still claims to be a Catholic. Sickening.

I understand that the struggle for power will always be a lure for some. But the lengths we go to get power, essentially selling our souls, is heartbreaking. These presidential hopefuls are grown men, who should have more sense. OpenBook just linked to this Beliefnet article detailing the Presidential candidates and their positions. I am disappointed that Beliefnet didn’t include some information about how they vote – particularly on pro-Life issues, but overall it gives you some decent information. I think you can make out the newest trend in presidential politics: see how many religions you can claim to be a part of. It reduces faith to the role of a mere tool to trick voters that want to believe a candidate has some moral backbone. Clark can claim 3 (or 4), Dean 2 (or 3), and Kerry is now trying to claim 2.

It’s scary how many were raised Catholic or claim Catholicism, since the entire caucus is dedicated to killing unborn babies (and violating Catholic teachings). For those who haven’t heard about the Bishop Raymond Burke of Wisconsin, he banned pro-abortion politicians from accepting communion in his diocese (he is soon to be the Archbishop of St. Louis). In my opinion (humbly), we need more of this. As a Catholic, I’m tired of seeing these politicians claim my faith and simply ignore its teachings. Some have suggested that other U.S. bishops are watching to decide whether to emulate the move – let’s hope they do. This should serve as a wakeup call to politicians who speak from both sides of their mouth.

By the way, Christians shouldn’t vote for pro-abortion politicians. Period. Catholics especially so if the politicians claim to be Catholic!

[ rant over ]

God bless,
Jay

Father Groeschel was apparently struck by a car this weekend and critically hurt. More news on Fr. Groeschel here. Please pray for him.

God bless,
Jay

UPDATE: The latest news on Father Groeschel is here. He is currently undergoing several medical procedures, so our prayers are still needed. I'll continue to update as appropriate.

The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” - - Catechism (1324)

What is the Eucharist? It is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is consumed by the faithful in mass. The Eucharist contains the second person of the Trinity and was instituted by Him at the Last Supper. There is significant confusion over the Eucharist, so I’ll take a look at what the Bible says about the “sum and summary of our faith” (Catechism 1327). But for starters, I’ll clear up the biggest misconception about the Eucharist: We do not re-sacrifice Christ at every mass. The Eucharist is a participation in the singular sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. It is as difficult to explain as the Trinity or Jesus becoming man, but it is no less true. The bread and wine actually and really become the body and blood of Jesus during the mass – and here’s the Scripture to prove it:

THE OLD TESTAMENT
First, we must understand that from the beginning, God began giving His people hints of the future (prefiguring the Eucharist, just as other events such as Calvary are prefigured). For example:

Genesis 14:18. And Melchizedek, king of Salem [ed. note: this became Jerusalem] brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.

Remember Melchizedek was the greatest High Priest of the Old Testament. And, Jesus was tied to Melchizedek by God:

Psalm 110:1,4. The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.” The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

But these don’t define specifically the reason for the Eucharist. The Eucharist is, like many other sacraments, a building upon an Old Testament event; a replacement that actually has power to change us and give us grace. For example, the Old Testament ritual of circumcision (as the route to entering the church) was replaced by the powerful rite of Baptism that really washes away sin (circumcision did not have this power). In the Old Testament, God instituted the Passover as a clear prefiguring of the Eucharist. The Passover was a one-time event (only once did the firstborn males die), but it was repeated annually as a way to partake in the one-time actual Passover. The details are important:

Exodus 12:5-11. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats; and you shall keep it until the fourteen day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening. Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled with water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. And you shall let none of it remain until the morning, anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover.

And the King will answer them, “Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” - - Matthew 25:40

I’m always glad to help out a good charity organization and Food for the Poor is a great one. If you’re looking for a way to help those in need, this group does a good job of using local resources to get the money directly to the needy in various countries. Today a guy from the organization spoke during mass. He helped them in Haiti and described the needy there. Clearly, as Americans, we don’t have a clue what real poverty is; one stat: almost half of children younger than 5 die of malnutrition. They need your help!

So, take some time and give at Food for the Poor. Jesus will appreciate it.

Jay

UPDATE: Judy was kind enough to point out below that this was not written by Paul Harvey, but by Keith Fournier at Christianity.com. Here is the actual article. I've edited the article below and removed Paul Harvey's name, but I still believe the review is worth reading.

The majority of the media are complaining about this movie.

Keith Fournier's words:

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.

I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.

On our blog there’s been much discussion about whether the Church Christ founded should be visible or is simply a metaphysical reality. Both Catholics and protestants agree that there is a “mystical” Church or body of Christ that encompasses all believers. However, protestants diverge from Catholics when discussing whether Jesus intended to found a visible, hierarchal Church or not. So, I thought I would write an entry discussing whether the Church should be visible and hierarchal or not.

To start, we must understand that Catholics see a mystical body of Christ that encompasses all Christians. This is in one sense a “church” of believers. But Catholics also argue that Jesus intended to found a visible, authoritative Church with a clear hierarchy that would last forever. This Church, we believe, is the Catholic Church and can be traced all the way back to the original apostles (the Bishops of the early Church). Catholics believe this Church is formed to protect Truth and Tradition (with a capital “T”, not the “traditions of men”) including the Bible. Protestants, because they do not have the same notion of Church, elevate the Bible to encompass both positions as the sole arbiter of Truth. Since this is directed to protestants, I’l