February 2004 Archives

I thought this was such an exceptional post on the violence in The Passion of the Christ that I would make it a post on the site. It is written by Josh, whom we at DeoOmnisGloria.com know very well:

I completely agree with what the above comments have said and wish to defend another aspect of the Passion that is being criticized, namely, its violence. This evening I was watching a movie critic on Hannity and Colmes as he criticized violence in the Passion as being gruesome and extreme, yet when asked about his review of Kill Bill: Volume I, in which he praised the movie as a brilliant achievement, he made the excuse that Kill Bill’s violence is cartoony and, as such, is above criticism and not gruesome or extreme in anyway. What a hypocrite! Caught in the act and still won’t admit it. For those of you who haven’t seen Kill Bill here’s an excerpt from Yahoo’s Movie Mom Review:
“Parents should exercise the strongest caution before allowing their kids to see this film. They should know that the movie has the most intense, graphic, brutal, and destructive violence imaginable (at least until Tarantino thinks up something new). Body parts are sliced off and blood gushes and spurts like a geyser. Many characters are maimed and many more are killed. A mother is murdered in front of her young child. A man's head is sliced off and tossed around.”
I think everyone gets the picture. Now to make the point, which I was dying for the guy filling in for Hannity to make. There is a fundamental difference between the violence in The Passion and the violence in Kill Bill; namely, the violence in The Passion is purposeful violence (I’ll explain below), whereas the violence in Kill Bill is purposeless glorified violence. By purposeless glorified violence in Kill Bill, I mean that it makes violence look cool, stylish, and entertaining, as the heroine of the movie, out of revenge, brutally kills people without blinking an eye. Of course, this violence is so cool that the audience has to see it in slow motion, while listening to a kickass soundtrack. I think I make my point. Now to explain what I mean by purposeful violence in The Passion. The violence in The Passion not once glorifies itself, but, shown in such a gruesome and realistic (a very key word here) way, it attempts and succeeds to show the audience the consequence and result of sin in this world and the abundant and inexhaustible love of a God that is willing to sacrifice his only Son, Jesus Christ, for mankind’s redemption and salvation. Throughout and continually, the movie hauntingly whispers into the viewer’s ear: “see in My suffering your sin and see in My acceptance the sacrificial love and forgiveness I have toward you.” Summed up, the violence in The Passion will not only discourage violence, but will cultivate forgiveness and mercy in the hearts of its viewers (purposeful violence), whereas the violence in Kill Bill will, if anything, encourage violence with its eye for an eye philosophy (purposeless glorified violence). To wrap things up, I would like to make an interesting comparison. In Kill Bill, which is so brilliant, the heroine is shown returning violence for violence, having no mercy or forgiveness whatsoever for those who attack her, whereas in The Passion, Jesus is brutally tortured and afflicted on all sides, yet as they lift him on the cross he cries out “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” I encourage everyone to go and see this profound and realistic movie. Don’t allow the hypocritical criticisms of its extreme and unnecessary violence to deter you, since the violence in The Passion “is as it was”-- purposeful violence.

God bless,
Josh

Excellent insight into this issue - thanks, Josh.

God bless,
Jay

Walking out of The Passion of the Christ one thought struck me. I continually read in the papers about the violence of the movie. But that wasn’t how I saw it. Rather, the theme of the movie for me was sorrow. Sorrow that I am so weak when my God had given so much. Sorrow that I had as much to do with the horrible scourging and crucifixion of my God as anyone else. Sorrow that I could not be the perfect son of my fallen Savior.

The violence didn’t get me; the reality of God being killed by those He created in order save them did. I think what’s missing from most of the reviews I read is faith. Without faith Christianity seems silly. Why would an omnipotent God come to earth and die? Why would He allow himself to be beaten and killed by mere creatures that He could easily destroy? Faith is not only the key to understanding God, it is the essential requirement needed to comprehend this movie. Mel Gibson has created a masterpiece. I’m one of those that believes that God works through whomever He has available to do the job, so I don’t believe Mel’s personal oddities can necessarily corrupt the film – and I don’t believe they did.

The Passion of the Christ is a phenomenal achievement. The movie manages to convey our personal responsibility remarkably well. I wept through parts of the movie – particularly the scene where Christ says, “You see, Mother, I make all things new.” I was very impressed with the treatment of Mary and the Eucharist. The script does a great job of tying the Crucifixion together with the Last Supper and mentions several times that we must eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood.

In the end, I left the theater acutely aware of my personal sinfulness. I left more determined than ever to avoid sin and follow Christ. And that may be the best thing a movie can possibly achieve.

God bless,
Jay

Lately, we’ve had some atheists hit the site and generally they’ve attempted to mock Christians as suckers. Particularly, they seem to suggest that all religions are similar and therefore none are true (talk about misunderstanding logic!). So, I thought I would take some time to point out a few things that atheists apparently don’t know. We have discussed addressing the proofs of God’s existence more frequently on this blog, but this article is geared toward pointing out the difference between Christianity and any other religion.

First, we must understand mythological religions and how they were different. Most agree that some ancient societies tended to invent gods in order to explain what was current inexplicable. Gods of weather controlled rain and gods of disaster controlled earthquakes, floods, etc. However, when humans create gods, they tend to be very humanistic: they have faults and weaknesses and can even be defeated by some humans. These are not to be believed.

In our current day, there are several “major” religions. Three of them, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all worship the same God, though in distinctly different ways and with different understandings of His reality. The eastern religions are faulty because they tend to ignore a higher being outside of ourselves. So how is Christianity different than these? I’ll start explaining by relating a great story told by Scott Hahn. In one class, Hahn had a student proclaim, “If there were no God, humans would invent one and that’s what they did.” Hahn replied, “If there were a God, humans would invent atheism and that’s what they did.” This is the truer statement – I’ll explain now.

The Christian God, we know from the Bible, is all-holy. This means we must likewise be holy to be in His presence. The Christian God is omnipotent, all-powerful. This means He can easily punish, condemn, or even bless us. The Christian God is omniscient, all-knowing. This means He knows everything we do. But not only that, He knows everything we think! We can’t even contemplate sin silently in our minds without damaging our holiness. This is not the God humans would create. The created gods are either fallible or impotent or both. Humans can often trick or tease them and typically can always fool them into believing the human is ‘good’ as they define it. Christians have none of this: we have a demanding, tough God that must be obeyed. We often take the Christian God and castrate Him into something we can put into our pocket; we call out to Him for assistance on material objects and ignore His demands for our holiness. However, we know that our God is not fooled by this.

So some people have a problem: they like sin. They don’t like having to abide by a strict code of ethics. So rather than state, “I’m a sinful person that’s too weak to turn away,” they invent atheism. They pretend there is no God and try to convince others as well in order to make them feel as if they are not being intellectually dishonest. Atheism is the perfect excuse to adhere to a sinful lifestyle.

Ultimately there are many proofs that a God exists. As Christians we believe we also have significant proofs that the Christian God exists, but clearly there is a God. No one has countered the proofs developed by Aquinas – they remain philosophically valid. In fact, it takes willful blindness to argue that God does not exist . . .

God bless,
Jay

Luke 9:23-25. And He said to all, "If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for My sake, he will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?"

This first verse is one we’ve all heard and considered. However, I think most put the emphasis on carrying the cross (which is important) and lose the word “daily” in this message. We aren’t called to “carry the cross” at tough times in our lives or just 10% of the time; we are called to carry the cross daily. We often think of taking a day off or going on vacation as an escape from the world, which is fine. However, we are not to take a day off from carrying our cross for Christ. The Navarre Bible points to St. Jerome:

Not only in time of persecution or when we have the chance of martyrdom, but in all circumstances, in everything we do and think, in everything we say, let us deny what we used to be and let us confess what we now are, reborn as we have been in Christ ("Epistola" 121, 3).

We are truly a new creation in Christ. And we are not of this world. This means that we as Christians suffer greatly and Jesus is calling us to suffer on a daily basis. The next verse underlines the importance of this: “whoever loses his life for My sake, he will save it.” We do not need to suffer martyrdom to lose our lives. Rather, we must simply give up the materialistic enjoyments of our age to suffer with Christ. Each day we can pummel our bodies and refuse our desires in order to conform our desires to Christ. We can also conform through the three ‘pillars’ of Lent: fasting, prayer, and almsgiving.

This is a hard lesson indeed.

God bless,
Jay

I have posted this article so that we would have a centralized location on this site for any of you either wishing to post a review or those searching for reviews of the movie.

I went to see The Passion today and found this movie to be one of the most profound experiences in my life. This is by far the best movie I have ever seen. Allow me to explain, the goal of filmmaking is to produce a desired affect on the viewer and to convey some message in an artistic way. Mel Gibson has achieved both. From start to finish this movie touches your heart, mind, and soul. At the end of the movie most of the audience just sat there, there was moving silence. I could tell that many lives had been touch, yet this was just a side thought for what I found my mind pondering the most was my own need for Jesus Christ, for my own need for daily conversion.

It was critical that this movie be produced by a Catholic for only a Catholic could tie in all the necessary aspects of this perfect Sacrifice. Gibson masterfully depicts the direct connection between the Passion of our Lord Jesus and the Eucharist. Even when before the high priest, Caiaphas, Jesus is accused of telling that the people that they must "eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, in order to have eternal life." The reality of this great mystery of our Catholic Faith was driven home with beauty, with Scripture, and with truth.

This film also beautifully portrayed the relationship between Jesus and Mary, the love that they had for one another and the role Mary played in His Salvific Mission. I was very impressed with Gibson's depiction of this.

Last but not least, I do want to comment on what is currently considered to be the most controversial aspect of the film - the alleged anti-Semetism. This is absolutely false. Now that I have seen the movie, I am floored that anyone would make such an accusation. There is even one point in the film where Gibson focuses in on the Jewish chief priests and Pharisees, then immediately flashes back to Jesus say:

No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father - John 10:18

It was powerful and directly showed that while the Jews and Romans were the physical agents that carried out the physical execution of Jesus, it was God Himself who desired this Sacrifice and allowed it. I can't understand why any Jew or other person for that matter would be offended by this. It is a historical fact.

Go see this movie. It will change your life.

In Christ,
Joe

Is allowing gay marriage an issue of fairness? Or is it an issue of giving preferential treatment to a class of citizens?

In the Wall Street Journal today there is an interesting opinion piece tackling this topic. First my opinion: Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They are allowed to marry just as you and I are; heterosexuals do not have the option of marrying someone of the same sex either, which removes discrimination from the equation.

Mary Ann Glendon takes this a step further and points out that Massachusetts (among other states) is cutting benefits to the elderly and poor while extending benefits to homosexual couples. She argues that heterosexual marriage has an inherent benefit to society (production of children) and should, therefore, receive extra benefits.

But I’m even happier about her next issue: Children. She argues that the purpose of marriage is children (the ones who benefit the most) and same-sex marriages are inherently harmful to kids. Thank you, Ms. Glendon.

This will be the debate in America over the next few months or years, probably. As Catholics we need to stand firm with the Church and support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one woman and one man. I’m glad to see the President has announced his intentions to push this.

The OpinionJournal article requires registration, but the article is worth it.

God bless,
Jay

During Lent I’m going to make an attempt to provide some reflections as often as possible that illuminate the purpose of and need for the season. This is the first in that series.

When we think back to the Passion, we typically focus our thoughts and meditations on Jesus and rightly so. But it’s also interesting to see the surrounding characters in the narrative and attempt to understand their actions. Pilate was always fascinating to me. How much arrogance must one have to ask, “What is Truth” to He who is Truth? And yet Pilate didn’t know. Pilate was just a few feet from Christ Himself, but his lack of holiness blinded him to the truth. We often see images of Jesus with a halo or seeming to radiate light, however this required faith in order to see. Faithless Pilate saw only Jesus’ humanity and missed the deeper reality of Jesus’ divinity.

We look back now and laugh a little – how could Pilate have missed it? The Messiah was right in front of him! And yet every week we sit in Mass and sometimes miss that Christ Himself is present in reality. If only we have the faith to see, God Himself is sitting just a few feet from us calling us to Him. Through the Eucharist God sanctifies His people and calls us to deeper communion with Him. How many times have we missed Mass without understanding that we are ignoring an appointment with the Jesus who died on the Cross for us?

Lent is the perfect time to make reparation to God, to straighten our priorities, and to realize the reality of life: we will die and face God. Now is the time to take a holy hour, to go to Mass more than once during the week, and to remember that God Himself is present in the Eucharist.

God bless,
Jay

Lent is a special time of preparation for Easter and the risen Savior. In order to prepare, I'm always seeking suggestions; particularly for family devotions.

Amy Welborn just pointed out this website containing detailed information on Lent and appropriate practices. The website was created by Women for Faith and Family and is a very detaile resource for Ash Wednesday, Lent, and Holy Week. Take some time and read through the articles - I'm sure you'll come away with some great ideas to make this Lent special.

One thing I learned: pretzels were designed to symbolize prayer and fasting during Lent: they are designed in the form of folded arms in prayer and made of only flour, water and salt.

God bless,
Jay

A reminder: Mel Gibson will be discussing The Passion of the Christ tonight on FoxNews at 8 PM and 11 PM. Bill O'Reilly is a Catholic, although he has expressed some misunderstandings about Catholic teaching, but I'm looking forward to the discussion.

O'Reilly is also pretty hard-hitting, so perhaps he'll be the first to ask Gibson if he follows Pope John Paul II . . . I'm still waiting for that answer.

God bless,
Jay

How much power does the devil really have over our lives? Often times, we hear someone suggest that the devil “made” me do it, but is this possible?

First, it’s important to understand that there is a devil. The Devil is not a myth or a dark ages phenomenon. The Bible repeatedly refers to the devil. Perhaps the most interesting narrative is Matthew 4:1-11 (see also Luke 4:1-13) where the devil tempts Jesus during his forty days of fasting. The text clearly offsets the figure of Jesus and devil in very real and physical terms. We can be assured that the devil, demons, and hell are very real.

But how much power does the devil really hold over us? We know that all humans are still under the sway of concupiscence, which is left over after original sin is removed through baptism. Concupiscence essentially leaves us weak against temptation and requires that we depend on God for our strength. The devil understands our weaknesses and uses them to attack us in a more efficient way.

But, the devil has no real power. If you go back to the verses quoted in Matthew, you can see that the devil can only tempt; he cannot force Jesus to commit sin or do anything ungodly. This is Jesus, of course, and we are mere mortals, but the Bible is clear for us as well. In the Old Testament, Job is the figure being tormented by the devil and tempted: the devil tempts Job to break from God or at least exhibit anger toward God. But again, the devil cannot actually force Job to commit sin and he even must ask God’s permission before tormenting him (and Job doesn’t have the power of the Holy Spirit on his side).

Perhaps the most straightforward answer is in James:

James 4:7. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

Resist the devil and he will flee from you. The righteous have nothing to fear from the devil; God’s word is their shield as Ephesians 6:11 notes. If we resist, the devil has no power to force us to commit sin, so the devil can’t “make me do it” as the old saying goes. The preceding text in James points out that if we don’t fight temptation as we should, it makes us more likely to fight with others. The corollary would be that if we fight temptation as we should, we are more likely to get along with our neighbor (as we should according to the Great Commandment.

The Navarre Bible also refers to another early Christian writer:

When someone resists the devil's temptations, the devil leaves him alone: he cannot force a man to commit sin. The "Shepherd of Hermas" (a work by an anonymous Christian writer, around the middle of the Second Century) elaborates on the same idea: "Be converted, you who walk in the commandments of the devil, commandments that are hard, bitter, cruel and foul. And do not fear the devil either, because he has no power against you [...]. The devil cannot lord it over those who are servants of God with their whole heart and who place their hope in Him. The devil can wrestle with, but not overcome them. So, if you resist him, he will flee from you in defeat and confusion" ("Eleventh Commandment", 4, 6 and 5,2).

So be not afraid, for the devil has no power compared to God and the Holy Spirit (God) is within you. Fight temptation and worry only about pleasing God.

God bless,
Jay

In a very odd 20/20 piece, Andy Rooney said a few things of note:

1. God is speaking to Mr. Rooney, despite our doubts
   
2. Bush will win in a landslide this year, despite all evidence to the contrary (NOTE: this came directly to Andy from God, so Kerry should just drop out, right?)
   
3. Mel Gibson and Pat Robertson are "wackos" (again, from God)
   

I'm thinking that most of us feel Rooney is the wacko at this point! I have some sympathy for his criticism of Pat Robertson, who has some very odd ways of interpreting Scripture, but to suggest that God told you someone is a "wacko" is off the charts nuts.

Is this simply a ploy for media attention? Is Rooney just not a fan of The Passion of the Christ? I don't know, but it's odd either way.

God bless,
Jay

I will begin this article with a question. What is the purpose of music at Mass?

I think this would be a good question for any director of liturgical music at every parish. Today at Mass I witnessed an incredible performance from our choir. The music was of an African-American tradition and quite beautiful. It was what some call "gospel music". I do thoroughly enjoy this kind of music so I do not mean to offend anyone reading this. It is just that this is not the type of music that is appropriate at Mass.

At the end of the Mass the priest made the comment that if the choir got any better they would have to move the altar over to the side and move the choir to the center of the church. Internally I cringed. Of course, he was joking, but his comment brought to my mind one of the greatest problems with modern Catholics view of the liturgy.

At a family get-together yesterday, my father posed the above question to me. I had to pause and think about it for a moment. I knew that sin had entered the world due to man's chosing not to obey God, through the use of free will. By definition, the existence of sin in the world is a direct result of man's failure to chose the good. We began discussing the "natural ramifications" of sin. Let me give an example: If an individual partakes in an active promiscuous lifestyle and then finds out that they have AIDS, it is accurate to say that the temporal reality of AIDS can be viewed as a natural consequence of the individual's life style. Yet to say that this was "strictly" a punishment from God would not be 100% accurate for the reality of "cause and effect" must be taken into consideration. But AIDS itself is a completely different issue. The origins of this disease is still not completely known. Why does such a disease exist in the world? What were the events or actions surrounding its initial appearance on the "human" scene? These were the questions we wrestled with. But then we decided to leave this arena of thought for it involved too many factors and this disease is now too widespread to fault all individuals who have contracted it with some sin.

Therefore, we decided to examine the question from a biblical prespective. Does God punish?

I’m always surprised when someone suggests that Guardian Angels are simply a myth; it’s very logical to assume that if God loves us He would constantly watch over us spiritually and physically. Moreover, the belief in Guardian Angels comes directly from the mouth of Christ Himself:

Matthew 18:10. [Jesus speaking] “See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Jesus clearly indicates that we each have an angel in heaven with access to God on our behalf (He’s warning those who would tempt or hurt children, specifically). We understand that God could do without Guardian Angels – in His omniscience, He does not need them. Yet, God Himself informed us that He chooses to use them.

This is important in other ways. When we attempt to understand God we will always fall short – we’re mere humans. So it is folly for us to suggest that something is unnecessary since God is omniscient. Why? Because God, in his omniscience, can choose to do and use whatever He feels necessary. We cannot possibly understand His motives. This is a problem with the thought that says, “God does not need the Church, so it can’t be necessary.” On the contrary, God has chosen to work through the Church for His own reasons . . . don’t discount them!

God bless,
Jay

Remember, man, that you are dust and to dust you shall return. - - Ash Wednesday mass, see Genesis 3:19

Lent is one of the Catholic practices I recommend for everyone – it’s hard to understand how much you can affect your life by focusing on your death. Lent, for those who don’t know, begins on Ash Wednesday and lasts until Easter. It is “a season of penance” when we imitate Christ who went into the desert for forty days (the length of Lent) before his earthly ministry began.

In the Bible, we see Moses (Ex 34:28), Elijah (1 Kings 19:5-8), and then Jesus (Matt 4:2) spend forty days fasting in preparation for a great event. Lent is our fast in preparation for the Resurrection of Christ on Easter Sunday. But, how should we “fast” during Lent? Catholics are encouraged to make sacrifices and commitments to God the help us to focus on Him as we approach the Crucifixion and Resurrection. One simple and common example is giving up meat on Fridays. Does this directly impact your spiritual life? In one way it does: it is a constant reminder that we are in Lent and preparing for the Crucifixion of God. Sacrifice focuses you in a way that other things cannot.

In a more profound way, we also make commitments to prayer, almsgiving, and/or reading spiritual books. We push ourselves to resist temptation and remind ourselves that at any time we may die and face God. We give up the material things we enjoy for a season in an attempt to help form our will to God’s Will.

As Wednesday approaches, Catholics everywhere are considering what God would have them do; how can I personally sacrifice in a way that deepens my relationship with my Savior? I encourage everyone to do the same.

God bless,
Jay

We all know that John Kerry is unapologetically pro-abortion. But as a Catholic, he is required to be personally opposed to the murder of unborn children – and this is his current claim. But is he? I just received this insightful analysis from Deal Hudson at CRISIS magazine. By the way, I recommend CRISIS highly. Deal’s e-letter is also excellent and is free – sign up here.

Dear Friend,

While the Democratic primary has gotten more interesting with Senator John Edwards' strong showing Tuesday in Wisconsin, it still looks like Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts will be going head-to-head with President Bush in this fall's election.

This makes things interesting for voting Catholics -- after all, Kerry likes to tout his Catholic faith to prospective voters. Of course, this isn't always an easy thing to do, given the senator's strong support of abortion.

His strategy for getting away with this, though, is the same one used by so many "Catholic" politicians: He claims that while he's personally opposed to abortion, he can't let his religious belief get in the way of his policy-making.

In fact, he told a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that, "What I believe personally as a Catholic as an article of faith is an article of faith. And if it's not shared by a Jew or an Episcopalian or a Muslim or an agnostic or an atheist or someone else, it's not appropriate in the United States for a legislator to legislate your personal religious belief for the rest of the country."

Furthermore, Kerry's Deputy Communications Director, Dag Vega, confirmed with us that the senator is "personally opposed" to abortion while still remaining pro-choice publicly and politically.

Now, the "personally opposed" nonsense is easy enough to answer, and many have done it before. Obviously, abortion isn't a matter of faith but a matter of the right to life that is promised every American in the Constitution. You certainly don't have to be Catholic -- or even religious -- to believe that.

But let's put all that aside for the moment...

What if I told you that John Kerry might not be telling the truth about being "personally opposed"?

No, I'm not presuming to read Kerry's mind. In this case, I don't have to... his statements on the matter speak for themselves. Not only are they not the words of someone who considers abortion a tragic necessity, but Kerry proves himself an ardent supporter of the growth of the abortion industry, both here and around the world.

But don't take my word for it. Have a look at what Kerry said at last year's NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner:

"I think that tonight we have to make it clear that we are not going to turn back the clock. There is no overturning of Roe v. Wade... There is no outlawing of a procedure necessary to save a woman's life or health and there are no more cutbacks on population control efforts around the world. We need to take on this President and all of the forces of intolerance on this issue. We need to honestly and confidently and candidly take this issue out to the country and we need to speak up and be proud of what we stand for."

Did you catch that? Not only should abortion be available to all American women, all the time, but it should be used as a population control valve around the world. And this is something we should "be proud of." Not what you'd expect from someone who's "personally opposed" to abortion.

And this isn't an isolated comment...

From the Boston Herald on January 23, 2001: "I will not back away from my conviction that international family planning programs are in America's best interests. We should resist pressures in this country for heavy-handed Washington mandates that ignore basic choices that should belong to free people around the globe."

Kerry's support for "international family planning programs" -- a standard euphemism for "abortion" -- is an issue he's advocated for some time. If Kerry is telling the truth about being "personally opposed" to abortion, why is he trying to spread it worldwide? That would be like me saying, "I personally oppose watching television, and it's about time we get a television in every home."

And then there's this gem from the 1994 Congressional record: "The right thing to do is to treat abortions as exactly what they are -- a medical procedure that any doctor is free to provide and any pregnant woman free to obtain. Consequently, abortions should not have to be performed in tightly guarded clinics on the edge of town; they should be performed and obtained in the same locations as any other medical procedure... [A]bortions need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice. And by the same token, if our children are to be safe from the danger of fanaticism, tolerance needs to spread out of the mainstream churches, mosques, and synagogues, and into the religious fringes."

Abortion is simply "a medical procedure"? If that were true, then on what grounds could he possibly be personally opposed to it? He certainly doesn't seem to be struggling with the issue here. And how exactly does he propose to "spread tolerance" to the "religious fringes"? Presumably, he's referring to the people who, as an article of faith, believe abortion to be immoral. But doesn't he claim to be one of those very people?

It just doesn't look like John Kerry is telling the truth on this. When he talks to Catholic and Hispanic groups, he plays up his personal struggle with abortion and his respect for Church teaching. But when his audience is less religious, he suddenly turns into a pro-abortion crusader.

In the end, his "personally opposed" rhetoric doesn't fly... Kerry clearly isn't personally opposed to abortion. It's just a dodge he's using to pander to religious voters.

I wonder how many Catholics will fall for it.

I'll talk to you early next week,

Deal

Remember this as you plan to cast your vote this November.

God bless,
Jay

For those who aren’t aware, Norma McCorvey was the “Jane Roe” in the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade court decision that legalized abortion. Since then, McCorvey has had a conversion experience and begun fighting to overturn the ruling she received from the courts.

Now in a suprising move, a Federal appeals court judge has agreed to hear testimony on whether to reconsider the Roe decision. Could this be the break pro-lifers have been waiting for? I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that much prayer is needed. Pray also for the District Attorney assigned to represent the other side of this case; it appears now that he will not file in opposition to this request, which is a wonderful testament to his views.

Please commit to praying that God works in miraculous ways as Norma McCorvey continues in this battle. This is something our country and especially our unborn children need desperately.

God bless,
Jay

The question of what constitutes a “church” is a key theme of the Gospel of Matthew. I think it is very enlightening to examine how Matthew delves into the idea of “church” and what we can learn from him.

St. Matthew was the first to write down his gospel and we can be assured that it was done before 80 A.D., so it was very early on in terms of Biblical composition. It was written primarily to the Jews – or to Jewish converts to Christianity. St. Matthew’s Gospel is sometimes referred to as the “Gospel of the Church,” since it has much to say on the Church Christ was founding. I felt it would be a good idea to analyze the various church themes within Matthew, since it is key to understanding Christ’s intentions.

As I noted above, a key theme through Matthew is his understanding of the Church. In one specific instance (Matt 8:23-27), Matthew uses a boat to symbolize the physical Church. The storm arrives and seems ready to sink the boat (Church) and the men lose faith. Jesus’ sleeping is a metaphor for those times when it seems God is not coming to the aid of His struggling Church. However, the church is not sunk and Christ chastises us for not faithfully trusting in His providence. This is a great lesson for our times. Early Christian art and writing often depicts the Church as a boat in accordance with Matthew’s metaphor. This is just one example of how Matthew integrates the Church into every aspect of his Gospel.

However, the key passage in regards to the Church is Matthew 16:15-19:

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

There is a lot of information packed into these few verses. First, we must understand that God only renamed two people in the entire Bible. He renamed Abram as Abraham, which translates to “father of many” the function that Abraham received from God (to birth the 12 families). Here Jesus does something similar. He renames Peter “Cephas,” which is Aramaic for “Rock” (we know Jesus was speaking Aramaic). Peter’s function is to be the Rock of Jesus’ church. So the direct quote is “you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church . . . “ Note that Christ clearly says He [Jesus] will build “my church” on Peter. “My church” is singular indicating a sole church, rather than a group of individual churches or a body of denominations. The word “Ekklesia” is used for church and the Gospels only use it twice: here and in Matthew 18:18. Next, Jesus goes a step further and makes His Church permanent by clearly noting that the “powers of death” or “gates of hell” (both translations are valid) will not prevail against it. This is a powerful verse since it clearly puts Peter at the head of a Church that is eternal.

The next sentence conveys the power Peter is to have. First, he is given the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” which is a reference to Isaiah 22:15-23 where David gives the keys of his kingdom to another so that “he shall open and none shall shut; he shall shut and none shall open.” This man becomes the steward of David’s kingdom, just as Jesus is making Peter the earthly steward of his heavenly kingdom (the “kingdom of heaven”). Note the similarity with John 21:15-19, where Jesus, the true Shepherd, asks Peter to “feed his sheep” before he ascends into heaven. Both of these paint the same picture: Peter is in charge of the Church on earth while Christ is in heaven (note that we believe God is actually running the Church, but the Pope is God’s representative and mouthpiece on earth). Jesus goes on to explain the power of the “keys of the kingdom” by telling Peter that he has the power to bind on earth and in heaven! Peter alone is told this at this point, but in the next passage this is passed along to the other apostles.

I received via email a response from Sen. Chambliss' office in reference to a recent petition I filled out opposing same-sex marriages. Below I have copied that email and then my response. I sincerely believe that in these morally dark times that we live in it has become absolutely necessary for us to stand up for the truth. I can assure all of our readers of one thing....I will not be voting for Sen. Chambliss when his term is over. We need morally upright leaders and any politican who can be for such a thing does not need to be in a public office. The following is the email I received:

Thank you for contacting my office to share your views on same-sex marriages and S. J. Res. 26, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to marriage (the Federal Marriage Amendment). It is good to hear from you.

In 1996, I co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which provided that each state could determine whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages, and that states were not bound by the decisions made by other states on this issue. The DOMA overwhelmingly passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and was signed into law by President Clinton.

Recent court rulings have given me concern that activist courts will not honor the DOMA. For example, last June the United States Supreme Court ruled that private, homosexual consent by adults is constitutionally protected. In addition, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently decided that under the equal protection clause of the Massachusetts constitution, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot bar an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of a civil marriage solely because that person married a person of the same sex.

On November 25, 2003, S. J. Res. 26 was introduced in the Senate and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member. S. J. Res. 26 would add the following language to the U.S. Constitution as the Federal Marriage Amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

I recognize that this is a very sensitive issue, which is why, as a co-sponsor of the original DOMA, I believe it should be left up to the elected representatives of each state. However, I will keep your comments in mind when the Judiciary Committee considers the merits of S. J. Res. 26 and the Federal Marriage Amendment it proposes.

I appreciate hearing from you. If I may ever be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate

Michael O'Brien delivers again. This is a truly moving story teaching one poverty of spirit through the trusting footsteps of Rose Wabos, a Native Indian artist. Through her humble life and example, I realized how entrenched I am in the ways of this world and how hard it is to be in this world and not of it. The author does a superb job as well educating the reader into the workings of modern day art and culture, how far they have become corrupted and illustrates how many have been affected by the lies they teach. However dark things may seem hope is always present and good is accomplished through the most unusual individuals and circumstances. More than anything O'Brien has a talent, a gift for conveying to the reader that God's ways are often not man's ways. A must read.

Just wanted to point out that Dave Armstrong has seen The Passion of the Christ and posted a thoughful review of it here. It's worth taking the time to read.

Also - if you're planning on going I would suggest you buy tickets now (try Fandango.com). Monday I bought mine for Saturday the 28th and had trouble finding a showing that wasn't sold out.

God bless,
Jay

The Roman Road is a common protestant technique to lead others to God. It involves a series of verses from Romans that seem to exemplify the protestant belief system (I disagree with some of the interpretations). I’m not sure if its tied to specific denominations or not – I’ve heard at from at least two. So, I decided to develop the “real” Roman Road that gives a clear direction for others to come to God through the channel He intended – the Catholic Church. Note that I felt no inclination to limit myself to Romans; there are many other important books in the Bible and I already have a reason to call mine “Roman.” Here goes:

1) Romans 1:19-21. We must realize that God created everything including us and we must recognize God’s existence and position. (I actually kept this from the protestant Roman Road – it is an excellent beginning)
2) 1 Timothy 2:3-4. God desires all men to come to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth.
3) John 3:16. To achieve these ends and despite our sinfulness, God in his love sent Christ to die for our sins.
4) 2 Peter 1:3-4. Through Christ we can escape sin and become partakers of the divine nature – we may become part of the family of God (1 John 3:1; Ephesians 1:5).
5) Matthew 16:18. To achieve His ends, Christ established a Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against. Note also that this Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
6) Acts 1:15-20. The Church is continued through the ages by Apostolic succession and offers to us the Sacraments: Baptism (John 3:5), Eucharist (John 6:53-54, Luke 22:19-20), Confirmation (Acts 8:15-17, Acts 19:6), Confession (John 20:21-23, 2 Cor 5:18), Anointing of the Sick (Matt 10:8, James 5:14-15), Holy Orders(Hebrews 8:1-7, 1 Tim 3:1), and Marriage(Ephesians 5:31-32, Matt 19:5-6).
7) Hebrews 3:12-14. We must be faithful until the end to be saved (see also Philippians 2:12 and 3:12-14).

I contend that this is a more accurate portrayal of the path to God. This is obviously a simplification, but it provides a road map to Truth that we all can follow.

God bless,
Jay

We often seem to forget that God is made up of three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is a lot of talk about Jesus Christ, and, of course, this is natural considering that Jesus is the member of the Blessed Trinity that took on our humanity. Yet it was the Holy Spirit whom was sent to "breathe" life into the Church. The Holy Spirit, in truth, was an intrinsic part of Jesus' coming into this world:

And the angel said to her,
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God" - Luke 1:35

Yet the Holy Spirit is also the promise of the Son. In Acts 1:8, Jesus explained to the Apostles just what the Holy Spirit would enable them to do:

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth. - Acts 1:8

After this, Jesus ascended into heaven, His mission completed now it was the "era" (so to speak) of the Holy Spirit.

When the day of Pentacost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. - Acts 2:1-4

So now we find the "primary mover" in the Church to be the Holy Spirit. Yes, it was the Gospel of Jesus that the Apostles would go forth to proclaim but it was the power and grace that they had received from the Holy Spirit that enabled them to do so. Interestingly enough, St. Peter is the first to testify (as the head of the Church on earth) to this truth:

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this which you see and hear....Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - Acts 2:33, 38

I started a series of articles on the protestant doctrine of sola fides, which states that we are saved by faith alone apart from any works. My first article analyzed the Biblical evidence for salvation by faith alone and found it lacking (I recommend you read it first). I also found that some misunderstand the Catholic position, so this article explains Catholic thought using Biblical passages.

Catholics have always taught that we are saved by “faith working in love.” We believe that faith is a gift from God, just as protestants do. Where we differ is on the need for works. Catholics view faith and works as the two cutting edges of the scissors – both are required and neither is functional without the other. This is the only way to reconcile the various Biblical passages on faith and works (Romans and James seem to contradict each other from the protestant perspective, but Catholic though reconciles them perfectly). For example, James plainly states:

James 2:14. What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can his faith save him?

The remainder of James 2 makes plain the case that “faith without works is dead.” Yet some still claim that works are unnecessary to salvation. I read a blog entry at Dei Gratia today that asked, “Can you fulfill ‘the greatest commandment’ without works?” That is a good question and I don’t believe it is possible to really love your neighbor as yourself without helping to feed the poor, tend to the sick, and comfort the suffering. Do you?

This is an important issue in our lives. As the Bible tells us:

Matthew 7:26. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be like a man who built his house upon the sand. [my emphasis] See also Ezekiel 33:10-11, Matthew 12:50, and Romans 2:13.

When I was protestant, my pastor often suggested that if you were “really” saved, you would do good works, but that they were not necessary to salvation. In order to adhere to that argument, you must throw the book of James out the window. James is not unclear on the point – there is no getting around his basic argument that “faith without works is dead.” Protestants often point to Romans 3:28 as proof that we are “saved by faith alone,” but the word alone is not actually in the Bible – it was added by Luther to clarify what he wanted the Bible to read. In reality, Romans 3:28 supports the Catholic position, “You are saved by faith apart from works of law.” As we know:

James 1:22-25. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing.

We must do rather than just hear. As James notes, “Even the demons believe.” This is the first step in faith: doing what God asks of us. This is what the Church teaches – what do you believe?

I’ll continue this discussion soon with another analysis of Sola Fides.

God bless,
Jay

Just wanted to let you know that you can now get $2 off any purchase of our coffee mug or beer stein that features classic DeoOmnisGloria.com charm. Any money goes to support our work (after our tithe of course). Just enter PREZDAY16 in the Coupon Box as you checkout.

Click on either to see the full scripture verse and/or to buy.
My favorite is the "Beer does not defile Beer stein":

Don't miss the "Neither hot nor cold coffee cup" either:

There are other things available at the store as well. As always, your prayer and support are appreciated.

God bless,
Jay

Are we becoming more androgynous in modern times? Why?

I just read an interesting article, Making Men Dispensable that suggests men are becoming unnecessary to women for any reason. The article covers several interesting topics on sex and gender roles, so take a second and read it. The question is why are the roles changing? The author points to biotechnology, feminism and the media, but I think she’s missing the bigger picture. For example:

Hugh Hefner has succeeded in his mission: with the assistance of biotechnology, a generation or two of males has been transformed into a gigolo cult. Free from responsibility, the male is able to revel in his ‘sexuality’ and find love wherever he pleases. Unfortunately, all this ‘free’ indulgence comes with a price: the twenty-first century male finds himself good for nothing else than to render his services as a stud.

Combine that quote with this:

The logical consequences of the contraceptive mentality (the Pill, IVF, cloning, parthenogenesis) seem to indicate that there is no biological urge for monogamy and parenthood. Instead, we have been convinced that everyone has a right to sexual experimentation, and to force gender roles upon men and women is a heinous imposition. Tiger believes that “One major result of newly heightened paternity seems clear: Men are less willing than ever in history to marry single women who become pregnant”(49). Biotechnology opened the floodgates of sexual license, and with this, a move towards making men expendable. The Pill has provided unfathomed possibilities for men in search of sexual experience.

I think the author is missing the point that all of these changes can be driven back to the contraceptive mentality. Sexual pleasure without consequences invites disaster on a culture. She does point out the contraceptive issues, but still places the blame more on feminism and biotechnology (I would say biotechnology is the natural result of the sexual revolution).

The only answer is the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality and the Pope’s Theology of the Body. Let me know what you think if you read the article. It’s actually pretty interesting. Thanks to Quenta Narwenion for pointing it out.

God bless,
Jay

First, Diane Sawyer’s understanding of Christianity needs some help. It would have helped for her to have some knowledge of Christian history and Catholicism, in particular, when she started the interview. My favorite point was when she contrasted “believers” who believe in the literal translation of the Bible and “scholars” who believe it is metaphorical (she also suggested that the Bible was wrong in its view of Pilate, since “historians” see it differently). My second favorite point: “Hitler went to a Passion play . . .” Diane’s obvious annoyance with Christianity bothered me a great deal.

Now to Gibson. He says he’s a “traditionalist” Catholic and funds a private “Church of the Holy Family” in Malibu, California rather than going to his local parish. Does this make him schismatic? I would like to know this; I’m thinking it might take a Canon Lawyer to answer the question (let me know if you have the answer). I think it’s clearly questionable. I still haven’t seen anyone ask him if he follows the current Pope. Of course this in itself would not condemn the movie. Gibson came across pretty well in the interview. It was interesting to see him try and explain deep theological issues quickly and clearly to Diane Sawyer. The scenes from the movie were compelling.

Clearly Diane wanted to make the movie seem as controversial as possible, but why not one legitimate Catholic scholar? I’m always amazed by the media’s insistence on using those that have some bone to pick with the church on most issues. “What if I were an alien?” What would you be doing at the movies? Give me a break, Diane, and let someone else do interviews with believers!

In the end, I can’t wait to see it . . .

God bless,
Jay

Jon Meacham, an editor with Newsweek magazine, recently wrote a lengthy review of "The Passion", which was published in the most recent edition of Newsweek. Naturally I read the article as soon as it came out. As one of our readers just reprinted the entire article to this blog on a related post comment (singing the article's praises), I felt it would be a particularly appropriate topic. Thus, I will give a review of the review, as it were.

To summarize, Mr. Meacham's article is fit for the National Enquirer. I suppose that is a bit unfair, as Mr. Meacham's tale is much more intricately spun than what one would find in the "poop sheets" as my grandmother calls them, but the effect is nonetheless the same. While Newsweek is an unabashedly liberal publication, a sort of counterspin to U.S. News & World Report you might say, the Meacham article just does not represent the class of writing, liberal or otherwise, that Newsweek should be proud to publish.

Meacham suggests that Gibson takes liberties with Scripture. On close examination, however, his allegations are subtle, largely giving the reader the impression that Gibson has taken liberties with Scripture, but without giving any concrete examples. Where he does offer specific examples, it is Meacham that turns out to be the deceiver. For instance, Meacham states:

In an ensuing scene, Mary Magdalene calls for help from Roman soldiers as Jesus is taken indoors to be interrogated by the priests. "They've arrested him," she cries. A Temple policeman intervenes, tells the Romans "she's crazy" and assures them that Jesus "broke the Temple laws, that's all." . . . It is true that the Temple leaders had no use for Jesus, but these lines of dialogue--which, taken together, suggest Jewish control over the situation--are not found in the Gospels.

Seems pretty clear that Gibson is way out of touch, right?. But hold on to your underpants... what's this?!! The Bible (you know, that book that the story comes from) states that "a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests ... stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him." Matthew 26:47-50. In verses 57-67, Jesus is taken before the high priest, interrogated fiercely, spit on, and beaten. So, Meacham was right that the specific lines of dialogue never took place. But his insinuation that there was no "Jewish control over the situation" is, Biblically speaking, false. A deception. A lie!

We're always interested in posting topics on subjects of interest to our readers, but it's sometimes difficult to guess what you guys are interested in learning more about. So we're adding the DeoOmnisGloria suggestion box (or email).

Something you want to see on the site? Either post your suggestion below or email us: suggestions [ at ] DeoOmnisGloria.com. Just replace the "[ at ]" with the "@" sign and remove the spaces (we have to do this to prevent spambots from harvesting the address).

Let us know and we'll write it up - this is as much for non-Catholic visitors as for Catholics. You ask, we'll deliver.

God bless,
Jay

I’ve been asked this more than once, so I thought it would be an interesting post. Catholics choose godparents for their children when the children are baptized. The role of godparents stems from the reality that it is a big responsibility to raise children properly in their faith. Especially today, when we are bombarded by materialism, it is important to have some assistance, a community of sorts, to help you keep your children on the straight and narrow. In addition, parents must constantly try to see the forest as well as the trees, so to speak, and godparents are further from the realities of everyday life – this gives them to ability to focus more on the forest, if you will. (Note: this does not mean parents aren’t directly responsible for this formation, it simply means that godparents can provide assistance).

The role of godparents is a serious role and not to be taken lightly. The Pope has noted that godparents should be examples “of solid faith, of deep prayer, and of active involvement in the Church’s life” in order to be selected as godmother and/or godfather. Godparents are expected to positively affect the child’s life in areas of faith and morals. In itself, this means praying for godchildren, sending religious gifts at appropriate celebrations, and making constant attempts to discuss and influence the godchild on religious reality. It is a tough role that requires commitment on the part of the godparent in order to succeed.

Logically speaking, assigning a godparent for your child is obviously good. Basically, you get another faithful adult involved in the formation of your child’s spiritual life – are two better than one? In this case, yes! Personally, I know some protestants who have adopted this tradition because of its obvious value to the child’s future. The role of godparent is taken too lightly by most parents; if you choose a disinterested person, all of the work in forming your child lies on you alone! Be sure to pick a faithful, trustworthy individual to fill this important role in your child’s life. Traditionally, the godparent takes over the parent’s role in the event that both parents die, although this isn’t necessarily the case today.

Personally, as a convert the selection of godparent is tough for me. My wife and I have only protestants in our family (we’re working on their conversions) and, since we live in the south, there are not many Catholics around! We do have good Catholic friends, which are likely to become the godparents for several of our children (rather than just one). So for us, choosing a godparent is a serious task that we pray and meditate on throughout the pregnancy. Usually we don’t actually choose until the date is reasonably near (my fourth is due in August). So pray for me in my selection, and I’ll pray for you.

From one of Pope John Paul II’s Baptismal Homilies:

I ask you, dear parents, who are participating with intense feeling this important moment, to renew the promises of your baptismal vocation. In this way you will be better prepared to fulfil your task as the first teachers of faith for your children. These little ones must find in you, and in their godparents, support and guidance on the path of fidelity to Christ and the Gospel. Be examples for them of solid faith, of deep prayer and of active involvement in the Church's life.

If you have any suggestions for being a good godparent or selecting a good godparent, please post below. As a father, I understand the value in this decision.

God bless,
Jay

There have been a few requests to contact us by email. This is actually pretty easy: just use our first name followed by the @ sign and deoomnisgloria.com. Each of us has a valid email at this address.

God bless,
Jay

For years I have thoroughly enjoyed many of the books published by Ignatius Press. I first became familiar with them when Jay and I were running a Catholic catalog company about 8 years ago. I always felt confident that whatever book, video, or audio that Ignatius Press offered would be worth consideration for our catalog.

They have brought back some of the great Catholic classics from the past two centuries including the works of Adrienne von Speyr, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Ronald Knox, John Henry Newman, Walter J. Ciszek, SJ and my particular favorite, G.K. Chesterton. They also currently publish numerous books by Peter Kreeft, Stephen Ray, Scott and Kimberly Hahn, Joseph Pearce, Michael O'Brien, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and many others. They also have an outstanding Study Bible series that is a work in progress (current