This Is Progress? School 1957 vs. 2007

Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2007 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2007 - BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

Found in the Blogsphere

Keep the Faith

Having grown up in a pretty diverse environment with a heavily Jewish segment I do not consider myself to be anti-semetic. Actually, having experienced it myself, I find any kind of discrimination to be intolerable. While I may not, and most often do not, agree with other religious views, I strongly believe in religious freedom: that every person has the right to choose and practice their faith. That being said, I must say I find the Jewish position on Pope Benedict's liberalization of the use of the Traditional Latin Mass highly insulting and anti-Catholic.

At issue is the fact that in the older form of the rites celebrated on Good Friday there is a prayer for the conversion of the Jews. It reads: "Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ..." This prayer itself is a revised from that which was used before the changes in the Holy Week liturgies made by Pius XII which referred to the Jews as "perfidious." The Church, on her own initiative changed the terminology. Once again, with the publication of the new Missal of Paul VI in 1970 the language was changed agan, but, as they have for centuries, Catholics have continued to pray for the conversion of the Jews. Indeed, Catholics pray for the conversion of all people.

Some sectors and leaders of the current Jewish world have demanded that this prayer be changed as they find it offensive. However, no one has raised the issue that the Talmud speaks of Jesus in highly offensive ways, calling him "bastard," "sorcerer," "blasphemer." The Talmud also says it was right to kill Jesus, that he deserved it and that he was the son of a whore. This language more offensive than the prayer in the Catholic Holy Week rites yet no Catholic or Christian is demanding a change. No one from the Antidefamation League or the Jewish Defense League is offering to make changes in the Talmud or apologize for it's contents, yet that is what they demand of the Catholic Church. This is highly offensive and one sided. It is blatent anti-Catholicism. Yet the issue is never raised.

The way to improve relations between peoples of different faiths is not conciliation or watering down. It is not by apologizing for beliefs as if they were wrong (if they were they wouldn't be believed). It is not by changing our religious beliefs or asking others to change their religious beliefs resulting in some homogenized humanistic pseudo religion. The way to improve relations between peoples of different faiths is to understand why they believe what they believe and respect their freedom and rights to do so. And, perhaps most importantly, for each of us to take seriously what we believe and live it in our daily lives.

Tolerance to a Fault

Standing outside the Catholic Cathedral in Dallas Texas is a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Guadalupe, patroness of this great church. At least there was until it was pried off its base and smashed for the second time since it was brought there by the people of Dallas' "Little Mexico." This statue is more than a sacred icon. It has deep cultural and religious significance for all Catholics, both Mexican and non-Mexican alike. While the event itself is shocking to anyone who is sensitive to and respectful of the many cultures and peoples that make up the nation that is the United States, what is more shocking is the response of Dallas' law enforcement who claim it is not a hate crime.

One need only look at the evidence to see that this was not a random act of violence. Our Lady of Guadalupe is and has been a rallying point for the poor and marginalized since the sixteenth century, and more recently for the Hispanic immigrants to the United States. The Dallas Cathedral was the headquarters for a massive demonstration for the rights of immigrants last year.

Other statues, much more accessable were located next to the statue of the Virgin had random vandalism been the intent. Clearly this was a hate crime. Clearly this wasn't random. This was a premeditated act. The vandals had to bring tools with them that would allow them to chip away at the base of the statue and separate it from its pedistal, free it from its rebar support, and then smash it. Someone was sending a message, and it wasn't "we love you."

Had this vandalism taken place at a synagogue or mosque it would immediately have been labeled a hate crime. There would have been an outcry from religious and civil leaders against the heinousness and evil of the desecration of a religious symbol. Some of the loudest voices would have been Catholic. Instead the only response was, "this isn't a hate crime." Where are the voices of our Jewish brothers and sisters? Where are the voices of our Moslem brothers and sisters? Where are the voices of good and decent people who decry all forms of hatred and bigotry?

The statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe will be repaired. Once again she will stand on her pedistal in front of the Cathedral that bears her name. As the Mother of the Americas she will watch over the people of Dallas, indeed over her children, whatever their faith, whatever their nationality. And she will love them all with a mother's love. Even those who vandalized her statue. Especially those who vandalized her statue.

There but for the grace of God

A friend of mine emailed me today asking for prayers. One of her friends and co-workers was killed by her husband on Friday last who then killed himself leaving two children behind. My immediate thoughts on reading the email were, of the children... Who would care for them? Did they witness their father kill their mother and them himself? What would become of them? My thoughts then turned to the woman who was shot and finally to her husband.

It's easy to feel compassion for the victims of this horrible incident, namely the mother and her two children. But we cannot forget there was a fourth victim, the father.

I think we often forget that the killer in these situations is also a victim. This in no way an attempt to excuse what this husband and father (or others like him) did, nor to diminish the evil of his action. Rather it is an attempt to remember that he must have been suffering greatly in some way to do such a thing. Even the cold-blooded psychopath didn't start out that way.

I do not suggest that this husband and father did not choose to do what he did. He chose to take the life of the mother of his children and then his own life. He chose to leave his children orphans. But he did not get to that choice "out of the blue."

We have no way of knowing what doors our own choices open and close to us. We have no means of answering all the "what ifs." We can only trust that we have made the best choice at a given time and that hopefully we will never be in a place where the only choice we feel we can make is death.

So, when reading the paper or listening to the news reports, remember that sometimes the perpetrator is also a victim-- maybe of circumstances, maybe of external force, maybe of his or her choices-- and try to have some compassion. Because we are all human and are capable of doing horrible things. And each of us can say, "there, but for the grace of God, go I."

Forward to the Past

Fr. John Szada, pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Church in Hanover, PA wrote to his parishioners in the August 19, 2007 parish bulletin:

"[T]he issue of which direction the priest faces is important, historically. In Judaism, the direction of prayer is always to face Jerusalem. For Muslims, the direction of prayer is always to face Mecca. For Christians, especially for Catholics, the direction of prayer has always been to face the East. I wonder how many of our people even realize that. And why might that be important?

"It was to the East that Jesus ascended into heaven. And the angels present that day told the apostles that He would return in the same way that they saw Him going up. Therefore, Catholics always prayed facing the East as a way of waiting for the return of the Lord in glory. And the priest stood with his back to the people, not turned away from them, but leading the entire congregation in prayer. He stood at their head, so to speak, leading the assembly in worship of God.

"Contrary to popular opinion, Mass facing the people is a totally modern invention. It was not the way Mass was celebrated in the early church. And the disadvantage of Mass celebrated this way is that we can too easily forget that the entire Mass is a prayer to God, led by the priest. The danger is that the community can too easily turn inward on itself, rather than facing and anticipating the coming of the Lord.

I find this especially noteworthy since in one of my former parishes they have just installed a marble "altar of sacrifice" that had previously been the high altar in the lower church. Rather than the forward movement they think they are making, they are actually moving backwards. It is clear to me as a priest that celebrating Mass facing the people is not at all desirable. Neither is sitting in a "presidential chair" like some pretender potentate. It isn't about me or any other priest. The Mass is about the worship of God and nothing else. It is the sacrifice of Calvary renewed in un unbloody manner by the fulfillment of the Lord's command to "do this in memory of me."

Over the past forty years or so "liturgists" et alii have been promoting a form of Mass that centers not on divine worship but on man. It is often questionable as to whether the Lord's command is being fulfilled. As a result of this Mass attendance has dropped off drastically. There really is no point to it if these humanistic ideas are to be the focus. One could get their humanist jollies by going to a protestant church or a hoedown.

I was recently at a Mass that exemplified all that is wrong with the modern take on liturgy. The "presider" made himself the center of attention by idiosyncrasies too numerous to mention. Among those that stood out were his theatrical preaching style and his adding/deleting words to prayers common to the congregation. When he tried to be spontaneous he was clearly a failure as shown by his constant repetition of the same phrases and words over and over again. I really wondered what was in his mind and heart. It certainly seemed not to be at rest or peace.

Facing the same direction as the people leading them in prayer, following the rubrics, and reading the texts as they are written give one a tremendous sense of freedom and peace. In many ways it's like riding a bicycle. You do it without thinking about what you are doing. It allows you to give your whole heart and mind and soul to God.

Preaching simply, relying on the Gospel instead of gimmicks, allows the faithful access to the message the Church has to impart on a particular day without the distraction of a preacher who makes himself the center of attention.

The way forward is not to repeat the status quo or what has been done in the past, but rather to learn from it and change things for the better.

Ego Te Absolvo

I have been thinking about confession lately. I know for many people this is one of those topics they would rather avoid and I think that's because there has always been such a great lack of understanding of the sacrament. For one thing, it's been viewed as a way to keep from going to hell or purgatory. This very fact is itself enough to make us want to avoid the subject. It's also seen as a sort of divine being "called on the carpet." It's like getting in trouble. It stirs up all kinds of memories and feelings, mostly unpleasant, of being punished or getting yelled at. But it's worse. Confession involves God. And if we want to do it right we have to admit we aren't perfect, and none of us want to do that. Not really.

One of the sad things about confession is that the people who are supposed to help us with it, priests, nuns, teachers, and parents, were the ones that made us fear it and want to avoid it at all costs. It was always connected with hell. "Go to confession or you'll go to hell." "If you don't wipe those sins away in confession you'll go straight to hell when you die." In all fairness, they meant well. They were only passing on what they were taught. But time has proven that there are better ways to go about it. I don't say this because nobody goes to confession any more. That's more about an erroneous understanding of sin and our relationship with God, self and others. I say it because with a better understanding of confession we would see that it's not about hell and fear and death, but about healing, forgiveness, and life.

I place most of the responsibility on priests, especially in the last forty years. There has been a loss of a true sense of priesthood, that the priest is alter Christus (another Christ), that he is more than a nice guy who wants to help people. We usually think of the priest as alter Christus or acting in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist. But it is no less true with the Sacrament of Penance.

Part of celebrating the Sacrament of Penance requires that we confess our sins to the priest. But the priest must remember that he is acting in Christ's place. Therefore, he must act as Christ. He must be kind, gentle, compassionate, understanding and imbued with charity. He must be careful to treat the person who comes to him with the utmost respect and dignity, regardless of what they confess. It is not for him to judge the person, only the actions. He must never be abusive or unkind. He must be always aware of the great honor and privilege it is to hear confessions, to act in and for Christ in the healing of souls. If he ever acts contrary to this he is unworthy to hear even the least confession.

As Christ, the priest hears the confession. With great delicacy he asks only those questions which are absolutely necessary to understanding the integrity of the confession. While he must never shame or berate the penitent, neither should he downplay or minimize any part of the confession. If necessary, he may instruct where there is a question or doubt from the penitent about the matter confessed. He should never lecture or debate. It's neither the time nor place. He may briefly offer a few helps to counter the more serious or troublesome sins, such as guidance in practicing the opposing virtue. He gives a penance that is practical and doable. It is best that this be prayers or something similar that can be completed in church lest the penitent forget or put off doing the penance. If the penitent hasn't already said the act of contrition, he or she does so, then the priest, with great joy, absolves the penitent and dismisses them with words of hope and encouragement as Christ did the woman who had committed adultery.

Hearing confessions, while it can be difficult, is a source of great joy to the priest who truly understands his role. He is raising up the fallen, healing the sick of soul, restoring life to the dead. It is one of the priest's greatest privileges, but one that can be easily abused. He must be always vigilant that he never abuses this gift, but uses it to the honor and glory of God. Pray for priests that they may be true ministers of grace.

True or False?

I love the way "experts" in the Church are always using Vatican II as a scapegoat for giving authority to their claims of liturgical correctness. The reality is, most of the crap they spew comes from their own illogical and unscholarly opinions of what they want which they then impose on the faithful with most often disastrous results. Let's take a look at some of the issues that are in the fore-front due to Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

1. Mass must be said in the language of the people. FALSE! What it did say in Sacrosanctum Concilium [Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy] is "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites (36.1). It did, however, say that "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," (Prayer of the Faithful) but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people" (Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Gradual and Alleluia or Tract, Creed, Offertory Antiphon, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Communion Antiphon) (SC 54). But, in the same paragraph it goes on to say: "Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

2. Mass must be said facing the people. FALSE! Vatican II said nothing about this at all. In fact, the rubrics, or directions for the priest, in the Missal of Paul VI (Ordinary Form) specify that at certain points he turns to the people and says. . . Why would the rubrics tell the priest to do this if he were already facing them? The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments cleared up the question in a response to a European cardinal when he said that it is not necessary for the priest to face the congregation. This is especially true in older churches. (See CDW Prot. No 2036/00/L)

3. The old mass was outlawed. FALSE! In fact it has been continuously celebrated by priests in good standing with the permission of either the pope, their bishop, or the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Pope Benedict also made this clear in Summorum Pontificum.

4. Vatican II established Communion in the hand. FALSE! It never even thought of it as it was unthinkable. Communion in the hand is by indult, that is by special permission. It is not the norm it has been made out to be. (CDW Notitiae April 1999) In fact, history bears out that in the USA, the bishops established Communion in the hand against the wishes of and without the indult of Paul VI. They only asked for the indult once it was firmly established, putting the pope in a very difficult place.

One of my biggest pet peeves is people who "quote" sources that they haven't checked only because they heard someone else say it or they think you either don't know or won't check them on it. I have learned since my days in the seminary that one must very carefully go back and check out the sources if you want to know the truth. You won't get it from most of the professors. Not that they are deliberately teaching falsehood, but they themselves are relying on the authority of others. Even the USCCB doesn't check the sources but often relies on "experts" who push their own agendas and are quick to label.... and libel.

Count me in with Sgt. Joe Friday. "Just the facts."

Grace Is Everywhere

I'm currently reading a book, and no, it isn't the latest (and last) Harry Potter. It's called A Map of the Harbor Islands by J. G. Hayes. One of the things I've learned, or rather re-learned, is to appreciate the things we usually don't notice in life, especially after we've "grown up." Even if it's bugs.

Sometimes what we miss is painfully obvious to a child or to the child-like. Our minds are so full of insignificant crap which we're so preoccupied with that we can't notice what's going on around us. And we miss the lessons that God or, if you would rather, life, is trying to teach us about living.

A few weeks ago I was watching a dad with his little boy walking along the sidewalk. What caught my attention was the father's patience with his young son. The boy was only about 2 years old and was noticing everything. At one point he stopped and squatted down, looking intently at something on the ground. He stayed that way for two or three minutes just watching intently while his father stood patiently keeping an eye on his enraptured son. I thought to myself, "That's one patient man. If it were my kid I'd probably be pulling him along telling him to get a move on."

Finally the little boy stood up.

"What were you looking at," the father asked?

"Bugs," came the reply.

"What are the bugs doing?"

"Helping make a house so they can all live together out of the rain and not get wet."

There are numerous lessons to be found in this snippet of life. Different for each of us, depending on our own needs. I was luckey that the little boy and his father caught my attention and so I witnessed the work of the bugs through his eyes. Left to my own devices I would never have even notieced. I would never have learned that there are really very few things we can do on our own, especially important things. But when we all work together and help we can usually accomplish what needs to be done.

I needed to be reminded of that on that day. My mind was filled with worrying about getting something done by myself.