May 2004 Archives

Yesterday during mass we received the news that our parish priest at Christ the King, the Reverend Monsignor Frost, had experienced heart difficulties on Thursday. He was immediately taken to the heart hospital and underwent surgery on two of his main arteries. He is currently back at home, but is not strong enough to perform any of his duties or receive well-wishers. Once his strength is back up, he will have to endure more surgery on another artery.

Msgr. Frost is one of those rare people who have a gift to not only represent Christ in form through holy orders, but who has so fully immersed himself in that role that he is an astoundingly accurate picture of our Lord. Humble, compassionate, joyful, pious, orthodox, reverent, and most of all consumed with love, he is truly a father to his parish. He knows every parishioner by name and has the ability to make you feel as if you were the only person in the parish that he cares for. The parish has grown way beyond the capacity of our humble chapel (and from 2 masses to 6 masses between Saturday vigil and Sunday morning), and all during the seven years that he has been the pastor. This is a testament to Msgr. Frost's willingness to let Christ live through him. Sadly, it may also be what has taken his human heart to task.

Please pray for Msgr. Frost during this time. Pray also for Christ the King parish, as we all are deeply concerned for our Monsignor. The children especially, for whom he has a particular gift, are undoubtedly worried and confused. We seek consolation for ourselves, guidance for the attending physicians, and comfort and healing for Monsignor. Thank you all and God bless.

In Christ,
Dave

Just an FYI for those in or near Atlanta, the 2004 Eucharistic Congress for the Archdiocese of Atlanta is coming up on June 12th.

They have a great lineup of folks (Alan Keyes, Raymond Arroyo, Jeff Cavins, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Deal Hudson, and Christopher West) and four tracks including a hispanic track, a teen track, a kid track and the general track. The congress lasts from 8 am until closing mass at 5:30 pm on a Saturday, so you could drive in if interested. I believe a couple of our contributors will be going, so we'll post updates and information.

God bless,
Jay

Family prayer is one of the best ways to insure your kids understand and grow in their faith. But it's not always that simple - sometimes families have trouble instituting a new prayer regimine (especially when older kids are used to not praying). So one of the easiest ways to begin family prayer is at meals (praying for God's blessing before eating). You can also add a family prayer at the end of any meal when the family is still gathered together.

So, along that vein I recently was given this prayer in church and thought it was very good for exactly this purpose:

Our forgiving Lord, We praise you for your unconvential love, compassion, and understanding.

It is through your sacrifice that we come together and praise you in song and prayer for all eternity.

Jesus, it is through our selfishness that we ignore others in need. Lord we are sorry for our sins and ask forgiveness.

Lord Jesus, please replace our sins of pride, anger and arrogance with love for others, compassion and serenity.

Remove our fear and doubts and help us do your will.

Good Shepherd, guide and protect us through the week.

We give you thanks, our Redeemer, for the gifts of friends, animals, food, family, and faith.

Father, with the Holy Spirit, watch over us and guide our actions.

Holy One, we adore you for all your love. Lamb of God give us strength to spread your peace.

Amen.

God bless,
Jay

Conceived Without Sin

Written by Bud MacFarlane Jr. this novel deals with ordinary people working out the kinks of everyday living. The characters are realistic and will probably remind you of someone you know if not yourself. A great read for married couples or those considering the married life. Very insightful on how to have a lasting marriage and a great tale about geniune friendships. Truly a story anyone could stand to learn from.

A Father Who Keeps His Promises

Written by Scott Hahn one of the greatest theologians of our time, this easy, at times comical, book is a must read for any Catholic or christian for that matter. Hahn explores the "covenant love" God reveals to us through the Scriptures, and explains how God patiently reaches out to us - despite our faults and shortcomings - to restore us into relationship with His divine Family. If you are looking for a better way to understand Scripture, to grasp the big picture, this is the book for you. Scott does a superb job of explaining Salvation History, and you'll discover how the patient love of the Father revealed in the Bible is the same persistent love God has for you today. Don't wait, read it today!

Blessed Gianna Beretta Molla: A Woman's Life

Last but not least, this short read written by Giuliana Pelucchi is a beautiful story of an amazing woman who is now no longer just blessed but officially declared a saint by the Church on May 16th, 2004. Born in 1922 she died at the young age of 39 in the year 1962. Unlike most other saintly women I know of, Gianna was not a nun. She was a mother of four who loved life to its fullest. She was passionate for her husband, a working mother (she was a physician), an attractive woman, loved the outdoors and the arts, and liked to dress stylishly and have nice furniture etc. Truly a saint for the modern woman who still values the sacredness of life and its eternal beauty and loves the gift of motherhood. I don't want to give away her whole story, but in 1962 she made a quiet, heroic choice - a choice all mothers should read about. I was so touched by her story that I hope to name my next daughter after her, if God chooses to bless me with another girl one day.

Please pray for the soul of Bob Bottrell, my neighbor who passed away on this past Friday morning. He died of lung cancer sooner than was expected. His funeral will be on this Tuesday so please keep his wife Mary and his extended family in your prayers during this most difficult time.

One of the requests in our Suggestion Box was an article explaining the relationship between Grace and Free Will in our lives. As I’ve argued before, we have free will which allows us to reject God However, we also require grace from God in order to believe (much less obey), so how is this possible? The mystery of these two seems to suggest that you either receive grace from God and are justified or you are never given the grace from God, which condemns you, but this is incorrect. So here I’m attempting to explain the relationship between grace and free will as clearly as possible.

First, what is grace? The Catechism says it best:

(1996) Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

I must be clear that grace from God is absolutely required in order for us to believe.

John 1:12-13. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

By saying this, it seems to require predestination, but this is not so. For we have free will and because of this we can reject the Grace God offers us:

Acts 7:51. “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

The Holy Spirit confers grace upon us that allows us to accept God, but we can reject that grace upfront and refuse to believe. So basically when the Holy Spirit offers us the initial grace required to believe in God, we can reject it. Our other option is to either not reject it or to succumb to the powerful grace of God. This is the first step towards salvation.

However, grace is required virtually continually to keep us on the path; in short, we can do nothing without the grace of God. But we can, at virtually any time, choose to reject that grace and fall away from God:

Hebrews 6:4-6. For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

This Scripture is dealing with the unforgivable sin, but clearly articulates that some will reject the grace of God (the Holy Spirit) after initially accepting this grace. Our free will allows us to fall away, or essentially to not finish the “race” by rejecting God’s grace at some point in the future.

There are additional complexities in the relationship between grace and free will, but I’m attempting to create a concise explanation here - I can expand upon pieces of this to answer specific questions. To sum it up: we have free will to accept or reject God. However, without the grace God freely offers us no one would be able to choose to accept God - it is too difficult. Grace is a required pre-condition, a gift from God that gives us the ability to choose to believe. Grace is also required to keep us on the path toward God and to grow us in holiness. But at any time we can reject God’s grace by using a free will to do so.

God desires that all men be saved, so He works to prepare us for the offer of grace. In other words, God prepares us to accept His grace, although He never forces us to make this decision. Each person chooses to accept or deny this grace at some point in their lives:

(CCC 679) By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one’s works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.

God bless,
Jay

For those who don't know, Bush's Partial-birth Abortion Ban is being challenged in three different courtrooms across the U.S. The trials are on the legality of the law, but a significant part of the trial is in examining the partial-birth abortion procedures to see how regulated they should be. You can read the full transcripts here, but I thought this was something pro-choicer's should know:

TRANSCRIPT HIGHLIGHTS
National Abortion Federation, et. al. v. Ashcroft
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
The Honorable Richard Conway Casey, Judge
DAY THREE: Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Excerpts from NAF's direct examination of Dr. Timothy Johnson:
Q. Do you have an opinion, Dr. Johnson, as to which of the two D&E variations, the intact or the dismemberment variation, may best facilitate the extraction of the fetal skull during an abortion procedure?
A. I think that the intact procedure is actually developed in part to deal with the problem of the fetal skull. When one does a D&E, technically one of the challenges is to remove the fetal skull, partly because it is relatively large, partly because it is relatively calcified, and it is difficult to grasp on occasion. So one of the common technical challenges of a dismemberment D&E is what is called a free-floating head or a head that has become disattached and needs to be removed. This can lead to more passages of instruments through the cervix. And technically it is difficult to grasp the head; it is round, it slips out of the instruments that we generally use. Either those instruments or the head can be extruded outside the uterus and cause perforation.
~
Q. Did you make any observation of the way the physician performing that intact D&E effected the incision into the skull?
A. In the situations that I have observed, they either -- actually, the procedures that I have
observed, they all used a crushing instrument to deliver the head, and they did it under direct vision.
Q. Thank you, Doctor.
THE COURT: Can you explain to me what that means.
THE WITNESS: What they did was they delivered the fetus intact until the head was still
trapped behind the cervix, and then they reached up and crushed the head in order to deliver it through the cervix.
THE COURT: What did they utilize to crush the head?
THE WITNESS: An instrument, a large pair of forceps that have a round, serrated edge at the end of it, so that they were able to bring them together and crush the head between the ends of the instrument.
THE COURT: Like the cracker they use to crack a lobster shell, serrated edge?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Describe it for me.
THE WITNESS: It would be like the end of tongs that are combined that you use to pick up salad. So they would be articulated in the center and you could move one end, and there would be a branch at the center. The instruments are thick enough and heavy enough that you can actually grasp and crush with those instruments as if you were picking up salad or picking up anything with --
THE COURT: Except here you are crushing the head of a baby.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
~
THE COURT: Was the body outside the woman's body to an extent?
THE WITNESS: Some of it. It can be or not. Some of it can be or -- it depends on where the cervix is. It depends on where the uterus is. It depends how long the baby is. It depends how long the mother's vagina is.
THE COURT: At some times that you observed it was?
THE WITNESS: Right. And sometimes during the procedure the cervix can actually be brought down so that -- the cervix and the uterus can be moved up and down relative to the opening of the vagina.
THE COURT: An affidavit I saw earlier said sometimes, I take it, the fetus is alive until they crush the skull?
THE WITNESS: That's correct, yes, sir.
THE COURT: In one affidavit I saw attached earlier in this proceeding, were the fingers of the baby opening and closing?
THE WITNESS: It would depend where the hands were and whether or not you could see them.
THE COURT: Were they in some instances?
THE WITNESS: Not that I remember. I don't think I have ever looked at the hands.
THE COURT: Were the feet moving?
THE WITNESS: Feet could be moving, yes.
~
THE COURT: If you are all finished let me just ask you a couple questions, Dr. Johnson. I heard you talk a lot today about dismemberment D&E procedure, second trimester; does the fetus feel pain?
THE WITNESS: I guess I --
THE COURT: There are studies, I'm told, that says they do. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know of any -- I can't answer your question. I don't
know of any scientific evidence one way or the other.
THE COURT: Have you heard that there are studies saying so?
THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any.
THE COURT: You never heard of any?
THE WITNESS: I'm aware of fetal behavioral studies that have looked at fetal responses to noxious stimuli.
THE COURT: Does it ever cross your mind when you are doing a dismemberment?
THE WITNESS: I guess whenever I --
THE COURT: Simple question, Doctor. Does it cross your mind?
THE WITNESS: Does the fetus having pain cross your mind?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Never crossed your mind.
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: When you have done D&Es or when you have done abortions, do you tell the woman various options that are available to her?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And do you explain what is involved like in D&E, the dismemberment variation? Do you tell her that?
THE WITNESS: We would describe the procedure, yes.
THE COURT: So you tell her the arms and legs are pulled off. I mean, that's what I want to know, do you tell her?
THE WITNESS: We tell her the baby, the fetus is dismembered as part of the procedure, yes.
THE COURT: You are going to remove parts of her baby.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: Are you ever asked, Does it hurt?
THE WITNESS: Are we ever asked by the patient?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: I don't ever remember being asked.
THE COURT: And although you have never done an intact D&E, do you know whether or not the incision of the scissors in the base of the skull of the baby, whether that hurts?
THE WITNESS: Well, I guess my response would be I think that the baby feels it but I'm not sure how pain registers on the brain at that gestational age. I'm not sure how a fetus at 20 weeks or 22 weeks processes and understands pain.
THE COURT: You have never done one of these procedures but did you ever ask what – you say you know about it clinically, did you ever ask one of those who perform them whether it hurts the fetus?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: When you describe the possibilities available to a woman do you describe in detail what the intact D&E or the partial birth abortion involves?
THE WITNESS: Since I don't do that procedure I wouldn't have described it.
THE COURT: Did you ever participate with another doctor describing it to a woman
considering such an abortion?
THE WITNESS: Yes. And the description would be, I would think, descriptive of what was going to be, what was going to happen; the description.
THE COURT: Including sucking the brain out of the skull?
THE WITNESS: I don't think we would use those terms. I think we would probably use a term like decompression of the skull or reducing the contents of the skull.
THE COURT: Make it nice and palatable so that they wouldn't understand what it's all about?
THE WITNESS: No. I think we want them to understand what it's all about but it's -- I think it's -- I guess I would say that whenever we describe medical procedures we try to do it in a way that's not offensive or gruesome or overly graphic for patients.
THE COURT: Can they fully comprehend unless you do? Not all of these mothers are Rhodes scholars or highly educated, are they?
THE WITNESS: No, that's true. But I'm also not exactly sure what using terminology like sucking the brains out would --
THE COURT: That's what happens, doesn't it?
THE WITNESS: Well, in some situations that might happen. There are different ways that an after-coming head could be dealt with but that is one way of describing it.
THE COURT: Isn't that what actually happens? You do use a suction device, right?
THE WITNESS: Well, there are physicians who do that procedure who use a suction device to evacuate the intercranial contents; yes.

What a sickening disaster this is.

Ultimately, if you believe that partial-birth abortion isn't horrific, then take time to read some of these transcripts. Our Sunday Visitor had a quote that noted their similarities to the Nuremburg Trials - let's hope that the horror makes it to the American public (I know I haven't heard any details on the news).

God bless,
Jay

As many of you know, abortion is something I have a real problem with. It's always been condemned by the Church and always viewed as a terrible, horrific act. So it's nice to see a priest clearly lay out the facts for everyone. Father Thomas J. Euteneuer, the president of Human Life International, decided to clearly point out that if it quacks like a heretic, it probably is:

"The Lord Jesus had a term for those who professed to believe in sacred principles and then contradicted those principles by their public positions and actions: hypocrites. Every wretched sinner, public or private, who turned away from sin, always received the fullness of His mercy, but He could not and would not countenance the pharisaical posturing of those legalists who knew the meaning of the law and flouted it anyway. If terms like 'whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones' and 'brood of vipers' say anything, they express the Lord's perfect contempt for such hypocrisy and those who think they know more than God.

"The recent statement by 48 hypocrites of the U.S. Congress criticizing the U.S. Catholic bishops for actually being Catholic deserves our withering contempt. In fact, they merit an all-out prophetic rebuke. Are the lost sheep to lecture the shepherds on how to pasture a flock? Are we to presume that they speak with infallible authority on this issue? Worse yet, in their statement, the pharisaical 48 have stepped over the line of public decency and insinuated that the bishops are casting out demons with the help of Beelzebub. Hypocrisy is no doubt alive and well in modern America, but those who persevere in it do so to the peril of their immortal souls.

"I have one very simple suggestion for all 'Catholic' Pharisees who want to be in the Church but not of the Church: spare us all your scandal mongering and get the hell out."

I just spoke with Joseph (my co-blogger) recently and he pointed out that "niceness" is what we tend to ask for and get in the Church these days. But if you look back at Saints like St. Jerome, you see the need for honesty as well. It's nice to see honesty triumph our need to be kind.

Thanks to Dei Gratia for pointing out this press release.

God bless,
Jay

John Giles, the president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, and his wife just converted to Catholicism this Easter. I found this tidbit interesting:

Giles says he knew the questions would come because as a Protestant he, too, had mistaken notions about Catholics. And the most frequent question he gets from his friends is "why?"

With that in mind he wrote an eight-page letter explaining his reasoning. In it, he explains that he had attended a variety of Protestant churches in Montgomery, including Christian Life Church and River of Life Church.

But once he visited the Roman Catholic church, he found himself in awe of its history and ritual, particularly its use of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch in each service.

Trips to Israel and Rome spurred his curiosity. And the deeper he looked into the faith — which is the largest in the United States but lags behind Southern Baptists and other Protestant denominations in the South — the more he says he realized that many of his beliefs about Catholicism had been wrong.

I was a Southern Baptist who converted, so I understand the position of being a lone Catholic surrounded by protestants - although it didn't affect my work, which is a real testament to his beliefs.

Thanks to Amy Welborn for the link.

God bless,
Jay

There is a protestant denomination that claims that Jesus was not actually God, but merely a “Son of God” just as we are “sons of God.” The claim is based on the simple truth that Christ never states, “I am God” - at least according to their interpretations. Does this stand up to the evidence of Scripture? Let’s take a look.

I believe that Jesus clearly pointed out his divinity while on Earth - and that it is depicted in the Bible. I’ll start with the weaker claims and move towards the stronger arguments.

First, let’s start with the renaming of Simon Peter in Matthew 16:18. First century Jews believed that only God could change the name of a man - notice that it occurs just after Peter acknowledges that Jesus is the Christ. If you look back in the Old Testament, only God changes the name of people (this is true in the New Testament as well). This isn’t clearly spelled out in other Scripture, so I label it as the weakest argument, although it is a valid proof.

Next, it’s important to note that Jesus did not deny His divinity when called “God”:

John 20:26-29. Eight days later, his [Jesus’] disciples were again the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

If Jesus were merely a “Son of God” and not divine, surely He would have corrected Thomas? Otherwise this bit of Scripture would cast doubt on the honesty and integrity of Christ. I think we’ll all agree that it is more believable to suggest that Jesus accepted Thomas’ statement of faith as truth.

Now we’ll move into the direct words of Christ. Let’s start with a few of the points Jesus made about Himself and His relationship with God. In John 14:9, for instance, Jesus says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” This clearly implies that Jesus and God are “one” (which Jesus points out in John 10:30). In addition, Jesus gave us His flesh to eat in John 6:53 and stated that it was necessary to do so if you are to have life in you (who else but God could do this?). And He pointed out that He “is the resurrection and the life” in John 11:25 and goes on to say that he who “believes in me shall never die.” All of these combine to show a clear direction in favor of Christ being God.

But the key passage is the one where Jesus clearly identifies Himself as God:

John 8:58. Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

If you look back to Exodus 3:14, you’ll see that this name (“I am”) is how God identifies Himself to the people of Israel through Moses. The Jews of Jesus’ day immediately moved to stone Jesus for this outrage - they clearly understood Jesus was calling Himself God.

When you add these verses together, you can only reach one of three conclusions: Jesus was God, Jesus was a liar, or Jesus was a lunatic. You cannot say Jesus was a “Son of God” and a good man, but not God - Jesus is either God or a liar. Period. He made this abundantly clear.

God bless,
Jay