What does it profit a man?

A well known lawyer was asked to give his support to a national ruler.  He would not give his support. He did not criticize the leader; he spoke no ill words about said leader or the actions that leader had taken; he withdrew from his position and went home to live a quiet life. But his silence was not acceptable to the leader.  The lack of support was so troubling to this leader, that he demanded, through penalty of jail time, an oath affirming what the leader was doing.  For refusing to take the oath, this lawyer was vilified, even by former friends, and eventually thrown into jail, where a council of investigators repeatedly interrogated him on why he would not sign the oath, take the pledge, offer his public endorsement.  Eventually, through the lies of another former friend, this lawyer was found guilty of denying the oath, and his head was cut off.  His final words?  “I die the king’s good servant; but God’s first.”

You know the lawyer as Saint Thomas More.  The leader was King Henry VIII. 

While I would not draw any kind of equivalency between those events and the recent kerfuffle regarding Ted Cruz’s lack of endorsement for Donald Trump, I would like to point out some similarities, because, as they say, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. 

First of all, to get it out of the way, if Cruz had endorsed Trump during his speech, that does not mean I would have changed my own mind and supported the charlatan. I would have liked to hear his reasons, of course, since I respect Cruz as a man and as a thinker, but it would be impossible to give my vote to a man of no principle like Trump. That being said, I thought Cruz knocked it out of the park, and stood by his own convictions and his own conscience with his lack of endorsement.  Surely, the vicious attacks on Cruz’s family by Trump were the more glaring reasons for the lack of an endorsement. What normal human being, what principled man would give support to someone who did the things, and said the things Trump did and said about Cruz’s wife and family?  And continued to say when the whole thing was over. . .  So many political prognosticators and opinion writers and politicians attacked Cruz viciously, along the lines of their chosen leader’s vein, following the non-endorsement. One wonders how they would react in a similar circumstance. I will not call into question their fidelity to their spouses and families.  I will call into question their awareness of the basics of morality and hierarchy of values.  Being faithful to one’s family is second only to fidelity to God.  Political parties fall far below those two obligations.  

And isn’t it interesting that Cruz let the repeated personal attacks of Trump (Lyin’ Ted) brush off him like the proverbial water off a duck’s back.  Trump gets outraged at far milder perceived sleights. It is my humble opinion that another reason Cruz would not endorse Trump is that he truly believes Trump to be an unacceptable candidate for the office of the presidency.  I happen to believe that, so I won’t be voting for him.

Let’s go back to Thomas More.  

In one part of the series of events that led to his arrest and eventual execution, Henry had made himself head of the Church of England, gave himself a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and prepared to wed Anne Boleyn.  Many of Thomas’ former friends,  including nobles and clergy, exhorted him to attend the wedding to show his friendliness to the king.  Thomas told a story of ancient Rome, and I paraphrase:

There was a law that a virgin could not receive the death sentence. Yet a young virgin woman was found guilty of a capital crime. The emperor wanted to have her executed, but felt constrained by the law. His advisors told him, “Your excellency, all you have to do is deflower her, and then the beasts can devour her.”  Thomas went on, “Gentlemen, the beasts may devour me, but you will never deflower me.”  

Thomas saw attendance at the invalid marriage as a public repudiation of the very principles for which in his conscience he resigned his office as chancellor to the king, returned to private life and stood fast against accepting what Henry had done.  

It is interesting to note, as I learned from Wikipedia’s entry on Robert Bolt, that he himself had been imprisoned for four weeks, because of his stance against nuclear proliferation. He refused to sign a declaration that he would not engage in such activities any more.  A movie director visited him in prison after two weeks, and urged him to sign, so that they could get on with finishing a film based on one of his plays, “Lawrence of Arabia.”  Bolt later regretted his actions and never spoke to the director again.  Bolt had an awareness of the duties of conscience, something that comes out in his play about Thomas More.

Cruz received boos from the Trump hungry crowd for simply telling people to vote their conscience. Much has been written about this, but it is at the core of what matters.  Those who deride and vilify Cruz for his non-endorsement have no idea what it means to follow one’s conscience. Like More, he has been called a traitor and many other vile things.  It is absolutely amazing. 

The most outrageous charge is that he is a narcissist.  “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”  The irony is that those who charge Cruz with this moniker are supporting the third narcissist in recent history to run for president. And they gladly do so!  If Cruz were the narcissist they claim him to be, he would have given his endorsement at the convention, and used that “leverage” for his own personal gain.  Instead, since Cruz understands politics better than most people, he went against the tide of angry Trump humpers and the establishment and stood by his conscience, knowing that he would be attacked.  

The term “political suicide” has been used to describe his non-endorsement.  No one can say for sure how this will play out for Cruz moving forward. Much depends on the outcome of the election, of course.  There will be those who blame him if Hillary wins, astonishingly from those who cannot see the disaster that is a Trump campaign.  If Trump pulls it off and wins, my prognostication, for what it’s worth, is that people will see the horror of a Trump presidency for what it can only be, and perhaps look to Cruz or someone like him to primary Trump in 2020.  

Let’s look at some of those attacking Cruz.  

Chris Christie, a failed governor, has been quite vicious.  This is the same failed governor whose head is so far up Trump’s what’s-it that he can taste the toupee. Did you ever see the video of Trump scooting Christie away to go back to New Jersey? Or mocking his obesity? Does Christie have any shred of self-respect?

Ann Coulter, whose brain has been turned to utter mush, has been quite nasty towards Cruz.  This is the same lame-brain who said only Romney could win; who loved Chris Christie; who thinks Mitch McConnell is an honorable man. 

Sarah Palin, whose folksy charm has become its own caricature, is one who declared Cruz’s political life over. I mean, come on. Loser vice presidential candidate and failed governor?  Her obeisance to Trump has gotten her far, hasn’t it? So far that she wasn’t able to get on one of those flying things called an airplane to come to Cleveland from Alaska. That was Trump’s excuse for her non-participance at the convention. A lie, I am sure.  He just didn’t want her there.

And so we could go on, but these are the ones who stick in my mind at the moment.  

The oddest thing about the whole thing is that the anti-establishment Trump and his followers are so in bed with the establishment that the word “outsider” cannot describe any of this nightmare. It was the establishment that engineered the booing of Cruz, along with the Trump humpers. They knew he would not endorse, and they wanted to use the occasion to attack Cruz.  I think of another Henry, angry at another Thomas (history rhymes), who said, “Will no one ride me of this troublesome priest?”  That was Henry II who wanted to be rid of Thomas Beckett. Trump and his allies in the establishment wanted to get rid of Cruz politically. They all hate Cruz because he doesn’t tow their line.  And now the establishment is wedded to Trump like Anne Boleyn to Henry VIII. For not endorsing the marriage, Cruz is the very image of an outsider.

But what about Hillary? The Supreme Court? Trade? Freedom?  To quote Andrew McCarthy from his recent National Review article, “I will never be able to say I want him to win -- only that I’m certain I want Hillary Clinton to lose.” That being said, I cannot support a charlatan who is as dangerous as Hillary should he get the office.  I truly believe that. Or let me borrow again from Thomas More: “It’s not that I BELIEVE it, but that “I” believe it.”  Any candidate for any office needs to set out reasons for my support, and then show that he or she means it.  Trump has been very clear he does not support what I am looking for in a candidate, and has even said he doesn’t want the vote of conservatives. Okay, then.

Thomas More lost his head because he wouldn’t lose his mind or soul for the privilege of the king’s good graces.  Cruz may lose his political life, but he has kept his soul and his conscience clear. 

Who created Trump?

Who created Donald Trump?

God. God created Donald Trump.  This is something no one should ever forget. God brought him in to being; God allowed the Donald to be so influential in this current political environment.  This is catechism 101.  

Yet, God works through human means and free decisions, so how do we explain this Trump phenomenon? 

One could go insane trying to navigate through the mind and life history of the man, but some things are so apparent that they are missed by the casual observer. One might add that the casual observer is more than likely a Trump supporter.  He sounds strong and bold and nation-changing, but is that true?  Yes.  It is true.  If he’s nominated, the nation would be changed, for we would see a top-tier celebrity candidate be within reach of the presidency.  We have already had a second-rate celebrity take that office; having a top-tier celebrity obtain that position would be. . . well, let’s not delve into apocalyptic talk.

But one thing is certainly true, apart from the providence of the Almighty, and that is the fact that the Republican Party is responsible for Donald Trump. As much as the “establishment” decries Trump’s rantings at their lack of vision, and apart from the appeals that establishment spokesmen have made to the Donald (in fear of a Ted Cruz candidacy) in these latter days before the Iowa caucuses, we cannot fail to note that back in 2012, every single presidential candidate (was there one who did not?  Maybe Ron Paul?) kissed the ring of the Donald at Trump Tower.  Why wouldn’t he think he was God’s gift to the GOP?

I’ve been involved and interested in presidential politics since I was 5 1/2 years old and heard that George McGovern wanted children to go to government school 12 months every year.  I remember clearly decrying this assault on liberty and freedom when I had only been in school for a little over a month (1972!).  I have followed these elections ever since, and so I think I have some experience in the matter.

Trump was the kingmaker back in 2012.  They all felt obliged to ascend to the throne and ask for a blessing from the Pontiff of Endorsements. I found that very strange then, and see its fruit now. 

You see, I remember despising Trump back in 1999, when he had his interview with Tim Russert, and declared himself “very pro-choice”.  Despise him? Of course!  How does one not despise a man (or woman) who thinks it is “okay” or “legal” to cut the brains out of an unborn baby? Such a man deserves no support from even the lamest conservative, despite what position he takes on immigration or trade.  As one of my professors used to say, about those who claim to be “pro-choice”, and thus for abortion:  “If you don’t know that, what else don’t you know?”

But the blame for the rise of Trump lies squarely on the heads of the GOP who were too insecure in their (lack of) convictions to think that this man’s blessing was necessary to ascend to prominence in the polls.  The monster who is Trump was built from the wreckage of the GOP’s advancement of such dinosaurs as Dole and McCain, and the shiny new “severe” conservatives like Romney.  It was fed by the weakened “Abby Normal” brainlessness of Sarah Palin (whose endorsement sounded better on SNL than in its actual happening). And what the heck happened to Ann Coulter? She stood for something once; now she. . . well.  I don’t pay attention anymore.

Nevertheless, Trump’s rise is directly connected to a GOP party that thought it could go head-to-head against the Democrats at their same game of personality over politics.  Whatever whining or praising that arises from the GOP about this shameless man’s so-called popularity, the impact he has had is directly related to the wimpyness of the so-called leaders of the GOP.  They made this man. They rejected him at first; now they run to his shadow.  It’s shameless, but I bet they will not be so amused when he eats them alive at a banquet hosted by Mr. Trump’s best friends, Mrs Pelosi, Mr. Reid and Chucky Schumer. 

And the Church teaches what about sex?

Two recent news events converged in such a way that this is a necessary explication of something rarely understood in Catholic teaching.  The two stories are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and so they miss the nuanced middle that often encompasses the “both/and” of good theology.

The first story is about a popular Catholic layman who makes and distributes videos commenting on the latest scandal or earth-shattering news item that affects the Catholic faith and society.  This fellow has apparently either endorsed directly or allowed to be endorsed on his site the idea that the use of Natural Family Planning (NFP) by Catholic couples is sinful, unless the reasons for its use are very grave. This school of thought looks upon any couple using NFP as violating the spirit of the Church’s teaching because they are selfish.  If a couple does not have a large number of children, then they must be using NFP as contraception, and therefore are guilty of sin.

While one could suppose in a given situation that a certain couple is selfish in their intentions of using this Church approved method of spacing children or avoiding conception, that determination is not for anyone else to make except the couple.  While a couple may seek counsel from a wise pastor or spiritual director about their inner motivations, if they are open to life when they engage in the marital act, there is no sexual sin involved. God may tell them at the last day that they should have had more children, but that judgment is literally up to God.

The other story is about a popular governor who proclaimed quite loudly (as most of the things he says are quite loudly declaimed) that he used contraception, and then went on to ask, “Does that make me a bad Catholic?”  I am not sure what his motivation for stating such a thing was, and his wife should be embarrassed by the public admission. The simple answer is that, yes, using contraception in a marriage is a sinful act, one that requires one to repent, and would prima facie prevent one from receiving Holy Communion.  Thus, such a person would be a bad Catholic, that is, not a practicing Catholic.  While it is possible for a married couple to use contraception in a moment of weakness, and thus need to seek forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance, the idea that one would brag about it as a lifestyle choice and, apparently, a regular part of his marital life?  That not only would prevent such a person from participating in the Sacraments because of the use of contraception until true penitence is shown, but also involves the sin of scandal.  This person has publicly admitted to a sinful lifestyle, without regrets. His attitude about it may lead others to think that they, too, can use it and be good Catholics, and thus he has contributed to the sin of another, or even many others.  “Look, honey, the governor used it!  Why can’t we?”

What the Church teaches about the marital act is that it has two aspects that are inseparable:  unity and openness to life. The spouses engage in the marital love embrace as a sign of their mutual commitment.  Hence, the act must be one of love and never one of force.  It is the consummation of a bond that has the added element of a graced encounter with the Lord, Who binds the two together for their mutual benefit and growth in life and holiness. God created sex for this reason, for the mutual benefit of husband and wife.  Even the pleasure is part of His plan and is so intimate between spouses that they should joyfully engage in this complete renewal of their vows, now made flesh between them.  

As a physical act, it has certain dimensions that require (we must say today) a man and a woman. The very orientation of the physical act is towards “something”, or rather, some one.  There is a reason that, apart from a little blue pill, some things stop happening once the act reaches a certain conclusion.  The man shares with and within his wife something of his very self.  While the Biblical understanding of the science behind conception is incomplete, the substance of Biblical teaching is that the seed of the man is not something extraneous to him, but of his very self.  Genetics only confirms this even further, as does the understanding of how the actual act of conception takes place, whereby what is “of the man” meets what is “of the woman” to form from the two one new, unrepeatable new person with his or her own genetic make up, his or her own body capable of growth as an individual.  

So serious is the possibility of this new creation that the act whereby a new human being comes into existence requires protection (from harm!) and a sense of sacred awe.  For one to turn the act into a mere physical act of satisfaction is itself contra naturam (against nature).  As important as the pleasurable feelings and emotions are as the act is taking place, they are a part of something above and beyond the individual or even the couple.  As with creation in general, the human person is a steward of creation, not its overlord. 

In contracepting, the couple is adding an additional act into the marital act that by its intention is to render it sterile, even if temporarily.  This is why it has been called “artificial contraception”.  An “artifice” is used, be it a pill, a device or some other action, to take away, on purpose, the life-giving aspect of the marital act. While the couple may be in love, choose to engage in the act as is their right, and enjoy each other in unity, they have, unfortunately, introduced something additional that takes away a crucial element of what they are doing, and, to use St. John Paul II’s terminology, they speak a different word by contracepting that contradicts the word they are saying with their bodies, “I am yours; you are mine.”  They deliberately insert a barrier of non-acceptance in what should be an act, by each spouse, of total acceptance and complete giving.

But what do we make of the Church “allowing” the use of NFP?  Why and how is it different than taking a pill or putting on a device? Isn’t the intention the same and have the same effect? Again, while the generosity of a given couple is something they really do need to pray about and discuss, a couple that learns and properly uses NFP is not violating the marital act in any way.  Perhaps they are guilty of selfishness in some way; that is not for another to say. What can be said is that when they decide to engage in the marital act itself, they remain open to the possibility of life, and do not add a separate act into their embrace that of its very nature is against one of the two goods of marriage.  

The respect that is demanded of the husband for the nature of his wife’s body is part and parcel of his responsibility as a husband and a man, just as she must respect his body and what he is capable of doing along with her in the procreation of new life. The conversation and communication that must take place between husband and wife, on a whole multitude of subjects, including their openness and preparedness for a new life, is what makes a marriage strong and healthy in the first place. Should they reasonably decide that at a certain time or season or situation having a baby is not best for them and their other children, they abstain during known fertile times while respecting the dignity of what their marital love means beyond themselves. NFP simply enables them to know, with some degree of certitude, that a woman most likely will not conceive during a particular time during her cycle. Engaging in relations during those times is their right as husband and wife, shows their love for each other, yet still remains open to the possibility of life without violating the inner structure, we might say, of how procreation happens. 

The Church offers this clear teaching, and has done so since the beginning, as she offers all of her moral guidance: to help people find and discover what is God’s will for them and enable them to have a fully formed and correct conscience. The two hazards of today, as evidenced by the stories to which I alluded above, attack the Church’s teaching from two different angles.  The governor’s broadcast of his ignorance of the Church’s teaching is an assault on conscience since it seeks to justify bad behavior on his part and thus contributes to the weakening of consciences that has proliferated in the Church and society for decades. The popular preacher man’s attitude, unfortunately held by many among the more “traditionally minded” set of Catholics, is an angry assault on the consciences of others who have their own set of legitimate needs and desires, and certainly do not need yet another harsh word spoken to them by this new generation of Pharisees. 

God made man for love and for life.  He created marriage as a sign of His own covenantal love for humanity, and more specifically, His Church. Respecting marriage in all of its complexity and in its possibilities is a central obligation of the Church and society.  Marriage is a difficult path for most couples. The last thing married couples need today is conscience warping self-aggrandizement from any angle. The future of humanity and the good of souls is at stake.

Saint Thomas More on Marriage and Weddings

One of the largest and most tragic fractures in the history of Christendom was the loss of England to the Catholic Church during the reign of Henry VIII.  When Martin Luther, and others,  had convinced much of what is now Germany and many other nations to separate from the authority of the Pope, Henry VIII stood firm and earned the title “Defender of the Faith” from the Pope.  The King outlined in very clear language how the seven sacraments were indeed of the Gospel and part and parcel of Christian belief.  

Henry became king when his brother died.  The pope granted a dispensation to Henry so that he could marry his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon.  Unfortunately for them, Queen Catherine was unable to bear a male heir (we now know by genetic biology that this was not her “fault” since the sex of a baby depends on the chromosome coming from the male sperm, but that’s beside the point.).  Henry saw the hand of God in his and was troubled in conscience, something his defenders even with the Catholic Church claim.  He felt that it may have been a sin to marry his brother’s widow, and God was punishing him for this.  This is not to delve into his extra-marital affairs of whatever scope, but he was certainly smitten with Anne Boleyn and saw in her the chance to have a male heir. 

Thus he began his efforts to receive a writ of divorce from the Pope so that he could marry Anne and produce the male heir he so long desired.  The pope said “no”, and thus began efforts on Henry’s part to accomplish his designs, even if that should mean his separation from the authority of the papacy.  What was at stake was not only the sanctity of marriage but the  nature of authority in the Church and in society.  Could a monarch claim dominion of the Church in his country, and was that authority valid for matters within the Church?  Caesaro-papism has long been a troubling issue within Christianity, going back to Constantine himself, who felt it his right and duty to order things about in the Church.  

A thorn in the side of King Henry was his chancellor, Thomas More.  More was on the forefront of humanism in the West.  While remaining completely faithful to the Church, he also saw that some of the advances in philosophy and culture taking place late in the 15th century were something a thinking and believing Catholic should embrace.  For all of that “progressive” thinking, he stood firm in his adherence to the Catholic Church. When Henry ordered Parliament to enact the Act of Supremacy, making the British King head of the Church in England, More quietly resigned his position, and returned to private life. . . or so he thought.  

The act contained within it an oath, required of all subjects of the King, in which one would pledge fealty to the Act and to the King as head of the Church.  More refused, without saying why, since making known his mind would mean treason according to the Act.

For a time, More was allowed to keep on as he wanted, but his silence and non-participation made the king look bad, and so more serious means were used to force his adherence and acceptance of the Act of Supremacy, up to and including his unlawful imprisonment.

During the back and forth, and before Henry gave himself a divorce and “married” Anne, some of More’s friends approached him and empathized with his position.  Some of these friends were bishops who had submitted to the Act, thus abandoning their allegiance to the papacy.  They suggested that he at least attend the wedding, for this might placate the Henry, and thus More would be allowed to live in peace.  

In response to this, More told the story of ancient Rome, wherein there was a law that a virgin, no matter her crime, was not to be executed for a capital crime.  The emperor wanted to execute a young woman, but could not because she was a virgin. His counselors offered their advice, “First, your highness, first deflower her, and then the beasts can devour her.”  More told these advisors and former friends that “they may devour me, but they will never deflower me.”

Today, More would be called a bigot, a hater, a closed-minded fiend who deserved to be imprisoned and even to have his “house” burned down for refusing to participate in what was a ceremony of love.  Today, we call him Saint Thomas More, all because he remained faithful to his conscience and would not “bend to the marriage.”  He lost his head, but gained eternity.  

When a wedding isn't just a wedding

One of the largest and most tragic fractures in the history of Christendom was the loss of England to the Catholic Church during the reign of Henry VIII.  When Martin Luther, and others,  had convinced much of what is now Germany and many other nations to separate from the authority of the Pope, Henry VIII stood firm and earned the title “Defender of the Faith” from the Pope.  The King outlined in very clear language how the seven sacraments were indeed of the Gospel and part and parcel of Christian belief.  

Henry, of course, became king when his brother died.  The pope granted a dispensation to Henry so that he could marry his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon.  Unfortunately for them, Queen Catherine was unable to bear a male heir (we now know by genetic biology that this was not her “fault” since the sex of a baby depends on the chromosome coming from the male sperm, but that’s beside the point.).  Henry saw the hand of God in his and was troubled in conscience, something his defenders even with the Catholic Church claim.  He felt that it may have been a sin to marry his brother’s widow, and God was punishing him for this.  This is not to delve into his extra-marital affairs of whatever scope, but he was certainly smitten with Anne Boleyn and saw in her the chance to have a male heir. 

Thus he began his efforts to receive a writ of divorce from the Pope so that he could marry Anne and produce the male heir he so long desired.  The pope said “no”, and thus began efforts on Henry’s part to accomplish his designs, even if that should mean his separation from the authority of the papacy.  What was at stake was not only the sanctity of marriage but the  nature of authority in the Church and in society.  Could a monarch claim dominion of the Church in his country, and was that authority valid for matters within the Church?  Caesaro-papism has long been a troubling issue within Christianity, going back to Constantine himself, who felt it his right and duty to order things about in the Church.  

A thorn in the side of King Henry was his chancellor, Thomas More.  More was on the forefront of humanism in the West.  While remaining completely faithful to the Church, he also saw that some of the advances in philosophy and culture taking place late in the 15th century were something a thinking and believing Catholic should embrace.  For all of that “progressive” thinking, he stood firm in his adherence to the Catholic Church. When Henry ordered Parliament to enact the Act of Supremacy, making the British King head of the Church in England, More quietly resigned his position, and returned to private life. . . or so he thought.  

The act contained within it an oath, required of all subjects of the King, in which one would pledge fealty to the Act and to the King as head of the Church.  More refused, without saying why, since making known his mind would mean treason according to the Act.

For a time, More was allowed to keep on as he wanted, but his silence and non-participation made the king look bad, and so more serious means were used to force his adherence and acceptance of the Act of Supremacy, up to and including his unlawful imprisonment.

During the back and forth, and before Henry gave himself a divorce and “married” Anne, some of More’s friends approached him and empathized with his position.  Some of these friends were bishops who had submitted to the Act, thus abandoning their allegiance to the papacy.  They suggested that he at least attend the wedding, for this might placate Henry, and thus More would be allowed to live in peace.  

In response to this, More told the story of ancient Rome, wherein there was a law that a virgin, no matter her crime, was not to be executed for a capital crime.  The emperor wanted to execute a young woman, but could not because she was a virgin. His counselors offered their advice, “First, your highness, first deflower her, and then the beasts can devour her.”  More told these advisors and former friends that “they may devour me, but they will never deflower me.”

Today, More would be called a bigot, a hater, a closed-minded fiend who deserved to be imprisoned and even to have his “house” burned down for refusing to participate in what was a ceremony of love.  Today, we call him Saint Thomas More, all because he remained faithful to his conscience and would not “bend to the marriage.”  He lost his head, but gained eternity.  

I kill myself! but hopefully not...

Lots of posts about depression lately. It was called "meloncholia" by the scholastic (and previous) philosophers. It's a touchy subject especially when someone prominent makes the last act of self-life-taking. Many seek to find a physiological explanation of it: it's because he/she was sick in the head/body. Some see it as an existential experience: life became overwhelming, and this was their "out". Others take the moralistic stance: you can choose to be happy or sad. Others take the "spiritual" stance: He/she is in a better place, free from pain.

In the end, it's about dealing with all of the circumstances surrounding those and other factors. Of course, the claim may be made that unless someone has been through or in or around depression, then one has no right to talk or comment about it. What a quandry! Are we all bound to wring our hands and wonder "how" "why" or "what could be done?" Is it incumbent upon the commentator to ask him/herself, "Have I actually experienced depression, and thus am I competent to comment on it?"

A strange thing happens when one takes a stance on depression...one may have to demonstrate one's "street creds" in this area in order to garner a "right" to comment on it. See how I've filled this post with "quotation marks" to venture into this arena of discussion?

The fact of the matter is we are all living on a knife's edge between sanity and insanity. We all have issues that can drive us over the edge, or into a life of abundance. In any given moment, I may find myself leaning one way or the other. Much has to do with our formation from birth. Much has to do with the choices we've made in the meantime. A lot has to do with our genetic make-up. It seems undeniable that depression can be a genetic factor in families. yet that cannot explain many who have risen from depressive factors and family history to life success.

I would note that a person who at some point makes the decision to say, "This is it. I 'must' take my own life as an act of..... (fill in the blank)" has made a multiple of decisions before that moment, or may have been forced into various decisions by others, thus depriving such person of the liberty necessary to make a free decision.

In the end, none of us knows the whys, wherefores or whatifs that any other person makes. This is part of the counsel of Christ that we not judge. St. Therese notes that God is just, and this was a great consolation for her, since she knew that God would be mercifully just, and take into account her weaknesses when He judged her.

That being said, in every moment, we are self-judges of our own thoughts, and have sovereignty over how we look at others, and ourselves. Is it a merciful look? a kind look? a just look? have we left someone or some class of persons out of our so-called adult gaze of maturity? I think of the little babies who never get a kind look...who are considered disposable. Decisions we make have consequences. They reverberate, and turn our character in one way or another. Not all paths are just. Not all paths lead to peace. Some lead to severe judgment, and rejection. That's not a judgment on any one person. It's a statement of psychological and emotional fact. If free choice in these matters were not a factor, if choices are not part of the equation, if the consequences of our actions were not a substantive element of later dire choices, then there is no hope for the one who is at the beginning of suffering such experiences.

And let us not forget that the number one factor in leading us to a life of grace and peace is a surrender to the One Who alone can give real peace. This is why the 10th commandment is as important as the 1st.....in that violating it can lead to a violation of the latter.

in the end, of course, we all should give thanks to God that He is, as St. Therese noted so often, a God of Mercy, Who looks upon each of us as His child, for Whom He lived, and died, and rose. And loves us always....despite the choices we make....and perhaps, to spite the choices we have made.

The promise He made to Abraham and to his children forever. . .

                As I have begun again to go through the Bible from start to finish, I find new insights along the way, even as I’ve read it all several times before.  What is striking is the nature of faith in the people of Israel, going back to the Patriarch Abraham.  What set Israel apart is their acceptance and belief in only One God.  Early on, this was what is called “henotheism”, or, they only had one God, as opposed to the surrounding cultures which had multiple gods.  It took awhile for the Hebrews to develop the understanding that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was the only true God.  The God who made everything had chosen Abram, and his descendants, as His special people.

                Oddly, this choice of them as peculiarly His own came at a time in their history when the other part of God’s promise seemed to be broken, that they would inherit the land of Canaan in perpetuity.  After the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel, and then the consequent exile of Judah, the Hebrews needed to come to a deeper understanding of their relationship to God, and what it meant to be His people.  Surprisingly, along with the realization that their God was the only true God also opened up the prophets to speak of Israel as a sign for all the nations, and indeed the vehicle by which He would reveal Himself more broadly.  In the later prophets we have universal themes develop which bear this out, even if at the time it was not understood; indeed, it would not fully dawn upon them in fullness until Christ came, and sent the apostles out to all the nations.

                But what is consistent throughout the history of the Hebrews, from Abraham on to the last of the prophets, is the nature of the faith.  God remains unseen by human eyes, but still makes Himself present in various ways, as the letter to the Hebrews points out. How Abraham heard or knew God was speaking to him is really irrelevant.  He had an awareness of God that led him to wander based upon a promise he heard, and to remain faithful even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, such as the length of time it took for him to finally have the child of the promise.

                This is what makes Abraham so great, that he remained faithful in the face of his trials. Somehow God would fulfill the promise, and that was enough for Abraham.  The great heroes of the Old Testament are those who imitated Abraham in this consistency, not turning to other gods to solve their problems, be they hand-made idols, or nature gods, or whatever.  The pure faith that gave strength was in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 

                Consider David.  Though he sinned mightily by committing adultery and murder, and then sinned by numbering the people, he never sought help from other gods.  He was simply a real man who sinned, and repented.  His son Solomon, however, was not so faithful, and by worshipping other gods, to whom his many wives introduced him, he was a cause of the splitting of the kingdom in twain, and the subsequent evils that afflicted the Israelites for centuries.

                This brings us to the one who exhibited the greatest faith the world has ever known, or will ever know: that of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Steeped in the faith tradition of her people, she knew the prophecies, and was certainly attuned to God’s directions her whole life. Though possibly (from tradition with a small “t”) she was a member of the priestly tribe, or certainly related to it (hence, Elizabeth, her kinswoman, being married to Zechariah, a priest), her faith was not centered on the Temple once she was older, for she lived, after all, in Nazareth by the time the Annunciation took place. Yet she had that awareness of God’s care for her, and knew her obligation to be faithful to Him.

                It was this faith that enabled her to be open to the message of the angel, and to believe what she heard.  It’s important to note that her question to the angel Gabriel was not “how can this be”, implying a bit of doubt, but “how will this be. . . since I do not know man.”  This indicates that she knew God could enable her to conceive, but since she was dedicated to virginity, she needed more information.  I propose that she was, in a way, testing the spirit of the angel to make sure that her divinely inspired vow of virginity was not going to be at stake.  Somewhere Saint Ambrose makes this point in other verbiage.

                Once apprised of the protection of her virginity, she opens herself, and her womb, to the working of the Holy Spirit, and the rest, as they say is history, so to speak.

                And on that note, since the proof is in the pudding, isn’t it interesting that a shepherd from the Podunk area of Mesopotamia who claimed to have been called by God, and that God had promised him descendants as numerous as the sand on the seashore, indeed became the Patriarch of billions who trace their religious life back to him?  One surely cannot claim that this faith took off through force of arms, since conversions were not sought by the Israelites (not really anyway), and so much of the history of the Hebrews was very much under persecution and exile.  Even the Church sought conversions through witness, and not force (even if at certain times there have been forced conversions, but always contrary to Church teaching).  Nevertheless, what Abraham believed, in a loving God Who would fulfill His promises and provide protection to that end, is still the center of the Judeo-Christian religious system. 

                It’s funny when talking with atheists who like to note that there are “thousands of gods” and “which one do you choose”, since the obvious answer is: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Who became a man in Jesus Christ to save us.

                Which brings us back to the Blessed Mother. . .  Abraham had his faith tested when God asked him to offer up Isaac, and act that was designed not for God’s knowledge, but for Abraham’s sake, to bring his faith to perfection.  (As an aside, this story was also kept alive in the mind of the Hebrews to tell them that human sacrifice was not on God’s wish list.).  Mary received word that she would conceive and bear a son, without knowledge of man.  It happened, and Jesus was born.  She was also told that her Son would have an eternal kingdom, yet on the cross, that seemed to be a lie.  She, like Abraham her father in faith, was tested, and even moreso.  The beauty of the faith of the Virgin Mary is that she continued to believe as she held the corpse of her Son in her arms at the foot of the cross.  The Annunciation is bound to the mystery of the cross as much as any other event in her life.  As Abraham continued to believe that “God Himself will provide a lamb”, so the Virgin Mary believed that the cross was not the end, but the new beginning of her Son’s eternal kingdom.

Thoughts on Our Lady of Lourdes

                While a priest may choose special readings for certain memorials and feasts, the readings that fall on today’s Feast are so Marian as to provide substance for reflection upon the meaning of this day.

                The first reading relates Solomon’s prayer after building the Temple.  Once they had completed the dedication, the Lord filled the Temple with the Cloud of His Presence, the “Shekinah”, the sign of God amidst His people.  Solomon cries out, ““Can it indeed be that God dwells on earth?
If the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain you, how much less this temple which I have built!”  Solomon knew God was greater and beyond the confines of the heavens and the earth, and knew his efforts at providing a house for God was merely symbolic.  And yet he is struck with awe that God still makes His presence known here on earth. 

What Solomon could not even begin to grasp was the idea that God would indeed build His own house on earth, and that that house, that Temple, would be the body of the Virgin Mary.  Catholic Marian spirituality and theology has often used the Hebrew writings about the glory and stature of the Temple as references to the Virgin Mary.  What man could not establish or build in any permanent or fitting way as a place for God to live among us, even with God’s instruction and command, He Himself would do when He fashioned the body and soul of the Virgin Mary, Immaculate from the first moment of her conception.  This is the title that she gave herself when she finally told Saint Bernadette who she was.  Until this revelation, she only let Bernadette surmise who she was. 

Mysteriously, she did not say, “I was conceived Immaculate”; she said, “I am the Immaculate Conception”.  St. Maximillian Kolbe wrote extensively on this title found in the apparition. He notes that she calls herself this as a proper name.  Conception is usually considered a moment in time, the exact moment when a human being comes to be through the instrumentality of father and mother.  But Our Lady refers to herself as The Immaculate Conception, a continuing existence as it were of stainlessness and being.  Her being is derived, of course, from God the source of Being, yet she is a living being of holiness not just in one moment, but ongoing.  

And the psalm response today at Mass was also most fitting: “How lovely is your dwelling place, Lord Mighty God.” (Ps. 84:2)  As appropriate this is for the Temple of Solomon, how much more does it apply to the Virgin Mother of God.  The psalmist yearns to dwell in the House of the Lord; how much more should we hope to dwell in the love and protection of Virgin Mother of God.  Being with her for one day, one moment is worth more than all time spent in the tents of the wicked. 

Finally, in today’s Gospel reading, when Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for their legalism, He notes that they keep mere human traditions instead of fulfilling the Law of God. The one precept He notes is the fourth commandment, “Honor your father and mother.”  The Pharisees would allow someone who had dedicated their goods to God not to have to care for their parents.  Here it is noteworthy to state that the fourth commandment is not primarily for little kids, but for adults, and the respect and honor they should have for their parents who were older.  Does one think for a moment that Jesus would violate the one commandment that He uses to show true obedience to God? He prepared a place for His mother before all others. He honored her in the best way possible by granting her the greatest status in His Kingdom.

And this brings us to the Church, for what can be said about the Blessed Mother individually is also true of the Church universally.  The Virgin Mary is certainly the Mother of the Church, since she gave birth to the Church’s Head; but she is also, as Vatican 2 notes, a member of the Church, a pre-eminent member, but still a member.  It is a mysterious relationship that defies ordinary human categories, yet still expresses profound truths accessible to our minds by faith. 

The Church was conceived immaculately for she came to be via the perfect and holy sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.  She maintains that status, which is renewed constantly especially in the sacraments and the Mass most of all.  And where does the Mass take place? Within the church buildings constructed to symbolize the Universal Church, the Body of Christ.

As a final note, it is well known that Lourdes is a place of healing, with millions going there over the past 150 plus years seeking health both physical and spiritual.  Most think that the waters of the spring are where most cures take place.  In fact, most cures happen when the daily Eucharistic procession occurs.  Mary is the Immaculate Conception for sure; she, as always, points the way to her Son, Who is the source of all that is Holy and the Fount of Mercy for the afflicted. 

The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple

A few late thoughts on The Presentation...

Many years ago (over 20?), I had issues with the 4th Joyful mystery.  I couldn't quite figure out what there was to garner from this encounter of the baby Jesus in the Temple. It was one of the mysteries that didn't resonate with me.  So, I decided the best course of action would be to ask God to show me what was so special about this mystery, and why I should meditate on it. Among all the prayers that one sends up to God, those that ask for a deeper understanding of His life and truth are the most readily answered.  It's ironic that a few years before I made this prayer, I had made my consecration to the Blessed Virgin following the format of St. Louis Marie de Montfort? 

So, what have I learned from this mystery?  Much. . .

First of all, there is the obedience of Mary and Joseph to the law of Moses.  Forty days after the birth of a male child, the parents were to bring the child before the Lord and offer a lamb as a sacrifice of purification. This was a reminder of the deliverance of Israel from the Egyptians, as every first born male child was a reminder of the seminal event in the life of Israel as a nation: the Passover.  But Joseph and Mary did not offer a lamb; they offered "a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons". What?  Well, this was the concession granted to the poor, who probably could not afford a lamb, so they were allowed to purchase and offer the less costly birds as their offering.  This means that Joseph and Mary were poor. 

But what about the "purification" that was required of a new mother after the birth of her child? Blood, you see, was considered sacred and purifying, yet a person also needed some kind of purification if he or she touched blood. This is the language of sacrifice, not hygiene.  It was not because blood was "gross", but because it was "holy", and thus touching it was considered to bring one into the Holy realm.  There was need of some substitution so that one could return to the "profane" realm.  "Profane", though not a Hebrew term (Greek) means "before/outside the temple" or, not sacred.  Not that there's anything wrong with that. . .  Thus, the sacrifice of the lamb (or two turtle doves) was an offering of the blood of the animal as a substitution on behalf of the mother who had bled in giving birth to her first child.  Yet, the Virgin Mary was not stained by this ritual uncleanliness, since she remained a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus.  So, she brought obedience to a new level, much as her Son was obedient to the law of Moses though its Author.  She submitted to the ritual purification even though she was morally and spiritually pure in a way not grasped by the former Law.

Now, as to Simeon. . .   Here we have a faithful son of Israel who sums up in himself the justice and fidelity of Israel, and its longing for the Redeemer. I think of him, schooled in the law and prophets, as always hopeful of a definitive answer to that longing of Israel for God's ultimate entrance into the world to fulfill His promises.  His life was most likely one of tension, for he continued to await the fulfillment of God's promises, yet most likely experienced a level of persecution from those who did not share in his hope.  There are always those who live in the present, without thought of the meaning of the past, or the hope of the future.

And here we must not forget the working of the Holy Spirit in this event.  St. Luke mentions the Holy Spirit more than the other evangelists.  He does not disappoint in this event.  Simeon had an openness to the Holy Spirit that enabled him to see the coming of the Messiah.  Are we as open to the Holy Spirit?  Are we willing to wait for the moment when the Holy Spirit will indeed show Himself? 

And what about that prophecy Simeon made?  Such a beautiful prayer:  "Now, lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to thy people Israel."  Simeon encapsulates the hope of Israel, and the promise of God that He will not only fulfill the desires of Israel, but will extend that promise to the nations.  This was a promise that came into Israel's consciousness during and after their exile in Babylon.  After the Temple had been destroyed, and the people of Judah exiled to Babylon, Israel learned that their place in the world was not just for a particular nation or tribe, but was destined to be extended to all nations.  Though this is clear in the writings of the prophets, it had been lost in memory as Israel suffered under the several persecutions following their return from exile, and the occupation by Roman legions. Yet Simeon kept this faith alive, and saw in that tiny baby a concrete sign of God's fidelity.

And what shall we make of the terrifying words of Simeon to Mary? The Cross is announced, or rather, per-announced. How strange to speak of rejection and contradiction while looking at an innocent, 40 day old baby. Or is it so strange, given the reaction of modern culture to the birth, or potential birth, of a baby? Yet, this tiny baby is said to be a sign of contradiction, a sign to be rejected.  Not much "joy" in that statement. 

And how crude of Simeon to speak a prophecy of Mary's sufferings.  I doubt a priest of today would be well received if he were to speak about a newly baptized baby as one destined to suffer and be rejected.  But what do we learn from this prophecy? We know that Mary was to share in the sufferings of her son.  Her heart would be pierced by sorrow and suffering in union with her Son.  I do not agree with modern translations that put parentheses around these words to Mary. They make it seem as if this is a parenthetical comment, whereas I think that the piercing of her heart is part and parcel of this "revelation of hearts". Mary suffers along with Jesus.  I see in these words the reality of baptized people who reject Mary (piercing her heart by ignorance and sin) and thus reveal themselves as witting or even unwitting enemies of Jesus.  To reject Mary is to reject the full reality of Jesus. 

And let us not forget Anna. I've met dozens of women like "Anna" in my life. They are either real widows, or like them. Holy women who have endured the sufferings of life, and yet have maintained their faith.  They see more than the learned of the schools and universities.  They are everywhere, and they maintain the faith of the people of God. They pass on by word, witness and penance the fundamental nature of Biblical faith: God is in charge, and will fulfill His pledge of love and salvation. 

Finally, Mary and Joseph return to a normal life in Nazareth, while Mary holds all these things in her heart. We probably know of these infancy events because Mary remembered them, and kept them in her heart.  She reflected upon these events often, and passed them on to Luke, or whoever passed them on to Luke.  This means she made these events an integral part of her own prayer life.  If she found them so fruitful, shouldn't we do the same?

Memory and Hope

                Scripture is replete with admonitions to remember what God has done. Indeed, the whole of the Bible can be called “memoirs”, in a sense, as Saint Justin Martyr referred to the Gospels.  Saint John of the Cross teaches that the theological virtue of hope perfects the memory (which he considered a separate faculty), just as faith perfects the intellect and love perfects the will. 

                The trouble is that we may have painful memories that pop into our heads, and can remain with us thus actually taking away our hope. Memory of a failed relationship can hinder us from entering into a new one.  Remembering a past difficulty that turned out badly can restrain us from trying the same kind of activity again. Pondering over an act of abuse from our past can return us to a place of weakness and rob today of its strength.  This may be one reason why the Lord inspired the Scriptures, so that we could, by reflecting upon them, store up memories of what He has done for those in trouble, so that we can draw strength from Him today.

                It is in this light that I reflect upon the 5^th Joyful mystery, the finding in the Temple. How odd that of all the things that must have happened in the hidden life of Jesus, Mary and Joseph that this event was recorded for our reflection. It is obvious that Saint Luke makes a parallel between the loss, and finding, of Jesus to the three days leading up to the resurrection. It is significant that Jesus remained in Jerusalem at the time of the Passover. I am sure that each time they went to the Holy City He was thinking of His coming mission of preaching, dying and rising again. (And, yes, I am convinced that He knew what was to take place in His future earthly life.) 

                And maybe the rest of His earthly life in the home of Joseph and Mary was simply quite ordinary, and nothing spectacular happened.  That in itself is “revelation”, for everyone has a more or less ordinary life, day to day things that were as common for the Holy Family as they are for us. They worked and prayed, had friends and family around, celebrated their faith and interacted with their community.  All of this in an atmosphere of grace.

                Yet for some reason, Mary told Luke this story of the loss and finding in the Temple, and he chose to include it in his Gospel.  It stuck in her mind all those years.  This means that she really did “keep it in her heart”, and reflected upon it.  It is one of those moments that she found, not odd, but mysterious, in the Biblical sense of the word.  There is no indication that Jesus ever took her aside and said, “Hey, mom, remember when you thought I was lost, and you found me in the Temple?  Well, this is the reason why.”  He spoke a word to her that day when He was twelve, and never explained what it meant. 

                Until Calvary.  The Virgin Mary, as with us, had to live a life of faith.  Her faith was greater than that of the rest of us combined.  Yet it was not vision until she was taken to heaven. God did not explain everything to her, as He does not explain everything to us, at least not as we might like or grasp at the time.  As she watched Him die on the cross, and then be buried, she would have certainly been considering her life with Him: the circumstances of His conception; His birth; their early trials, and the words of Simeon especially.  She also knew His teaching, that He would rise on the third day after being crucified. It is my considered opinion, dare I say, that her mind went back to that event 21 or so years before. 

                There is no evidence that she went to the tomb on Easter morning.  Why should she? As her Son told her, “Why were you looking for Me? Did you not know I had to be about my Father’s business?”  That gentle, shall we say, rebuke, so mysterious, so seemingly out of character, was preparation for her so that she could face those days of darkness until the dawn of Easter.  She remembered her panic, sorrow and concern for her pre-teen child, and the calm way He replied to that worry and sorrow.  “I must be about my Father’s business.”  She found Him back then, and she would see Him again.

                Now that is all well and good for her, but what does it do for us, aside from perhaps gaining a new insight into that fifth joyful mystery, and its connection to the fifth sorrowful one?  God can do new things, and often does. Yet there is a way in which He is predictable, or rather, He follows the patterns that match His own Being and Nature.  He also made us a certain way, and still responds to the people of today as He guided and responded to the people of the Scriptures, including Our Lady. If this were not the case, then reading the Bible would only be a quaint exercise of perusing an ancient text, and not an encounter with the living and effective Word of God.

                When faced with a troubling event of today, it is entirely possible that the Lord spoke a word to us in the past that contains an answer for us now.  Something that was troubling in our past life that led to some sort of God-inspired resolution can contain the seed of the answer we need in this moment. Even events that still carry with them a twinge of remorse, regret, or even deep pain, may in fact hold a word of comfort that at the time made no sense, but answers a question we have about today’s current difficulty.

                It isn’t that we should bring up painful memories for the sake of bringing them up.  But in the face of a painful situation today, it may be of use to us think back and consider if we’ve experienced something even years ago that was similar, but worked its way through, even if incompletely in our minds. God was faithful in the past; He is faithful today.  He will be faithful tomorrow.  For Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever.

Saint Paul's Prescription for Peace in Politics

            It is no secret to anyone who knows me how strong my political positions are.  I am not sure if it is being half Irish, or some other inherited trait. Of course, my French father could get quite animated in political discussions.  I remember in kindergarten having a strong opinion about why Richard Nixon should have been elected, since McGovern wanted us to go to school all year around, and we couldn’t have that.  It’s funny because, well, I was only 5; had only been in school for two months when that 1972 election took place (must have been a rough two months if I hated it enough not to want to go all year around); and I had an opinion one way or another on a campaign issue.  Oddly, my older brother is the one who told me about all of this, and he is now quite on the liberal side of the aisle.

This is all to say that passions are as deep within me as with anyone about the state of the nation, and what direction society at large should go.  And, yes, at times I let my passions get heated, and often allow negative feelings to disturb my peace. Many times, it is because there are disturbing things in society and the government; downright troubling things that have real adverse effects on people’s lives, especially innocent people. 

So it is with this introduction that I describe a moment of peace granted me by the Lord just this morning, and I have Saint Paul to thank, as well, since it was his words to Saint Timothy that were the immediate cause of this peace.   As is my custom, after waking up and thanking God for the night that passed, and the day beginning, and invoking the Blessed Virgin and Saint Joseph, with my guardian angel and Saint Therese for their assistance, I get out my Bible app and read a short passage that is to be a theme for the day.  I’ve been going through the letters of Saint Paul lately, and this passage was next in line: 

1 Timothy 2:1-2   "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."

                Okay, I’ve read that before; and shortly after this is the oft-quoted line from Saint Paul about Jesus being the One Mediator between God and man.  But I decided to stay with these first two lines from the 2^nd chapter.  “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, and for kings and all who are in high positions. . .”  The Apostle urges his protégé and son in the Lord to get this work of prayer going.  He obviously sees it as a duty, on the one hand, and much more than that: “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”  There is a genuine self-interest involved here. 

                Christian theology is very clear on human freedom, that individuals can and do disobey God’s will, and that they can change by grace and begin to cooperate with God’s will. In the mix of all of this is the effectiveness of genuine prayer before the Lord, that He does indeed hear and listen, and act. He can change the hearts of others because of our prayer and supplication. 

                But whence the sense of peace that descended upon me, or rather, welled up within me?  Let’s face it: I am not fan of career politicians. It’s frustrating to see the extent to which the nation has fallen short of its Constitutional moorings and that there is even a potential Constitutional crisis in the works over the next couple of days should the president violate the 14^th amendment. The degree to which frustration grows is proportionate to the lack of ability to make any changes on one’s own.

                But that’s not my role. 

Years ago, I went through a particularly dark period during which the Church seemed set on a wrong course, with scandals and buffoonery, lack of discipline and widespread inanity that was left unchecked by those in authority. At a critical moment, someone told me about yet another stupid thing going on somewhere in the Church. I had had enough, and, moved by a bonk-on-the-head grace, I almost yelled in exasperation, “That’s on the pope’s conscience; not mine!”  The immediate effect of saying these words, and hearing myself say them, was delightfully overwhelming, much like the morning sun that greeted me yesterday after 4 days of rain and clouds. I was free, for I had my job to do, and the pope had his; why try to do his without his permission? Mine was tough enough.

                Likewise, most of us who watch the national side-show of Washington two-stepping can do very little about it from a power or authority side.  Sure, make calls, send emails, write letters and tweet stuff, but much of what will happen over the next few days, months and years is not really in our power to change.  Perhaps the prescription of Saint Paul is what is necessary, and actually quite powerful.  Lighting and re-lighting internal fires only raises blood pressure and serves to self-defeat a person.  But making “supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings” for those in authority, that’s something I, and anyone, can do.  It may not bring about sudden, transformational change for the good, but it might. And let’s not forget that after the Pope called for a day of prayer and fasting to stop an imminent bombing of Syria, no bombs were dropped. 

                The long and short of it is that we should be earnestly praying for the president, congress and others “in high positions”, for their conversion where necessary, and “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.

A reflection on the current discussion in congress

How I would like to see the debate go in Washington. . .

                Republicans: We were elected as a majority of the House of Representatives.  As the “people’s house”, we are closer to the people, since we are answerable to them more often than the President or the Senate.  It is the responsibility of the House to initiate tax and spending bills, as well as authorize new debt.  With our nearness to the people, as a majority, we have decided that the affordable care act should not be funded.  It is the prerogative of the House to act in this way, as it has numerous times throughout history. We have seen the polls showing a majority of people do not want this law to go into effect and so we are trying the only thing that we have under the Constitution to accomplish this.  While we would prefer, in addition to this, to cut spending by reining in a deficit laden continuing resolution, we will go along with current spending levels as a compromise to the wishes of the Senate majority and the President.  Since the affordable care act has already been changed by the president on numerous occasions, especially in granting waivers by extra-legislative  executive action, we believe that since the Senate will not accept a defunding, the law should be, by statute (not  executive authority), delayed for a year on behalf of the small businesses of America and the many people who do not have health insurance at their place of employment, that is, the rest of America outside of big business and federal employees, including Congress, the Supreme Court and the Executive branch.  While this disagreement continues, we will pass smaller funding bills that will enable the federal government to return to normal operations.

                Democrats: We are committed to the affordable care act. It is the law of the land, and our commitment to it is the basis of our stance.  While we recognize the authority of the House to initiate and pass funding bills, we believe that there should be no changes to this law.  We disagree with the GOP on their view of the affordable care act, and intend to do what we think is necessary to continue its implementation as it now stands.  We will not allow any changes, and therefore, we wait for the House to compromise further so that we can continue to fund and run the government as we have been doing.  It is our opinion that the President has the authority to make changes to the law at his discretion.  Presidential prerogative is higher than the past practice of budgeting and debt laws originating in the House; therefore, he can change laws that he finds to be deficient or in need of alteration.  He has no responsibility to seek congressional authorization for these actions. In addition, since the debt limit will be reached in ten days, we want the House to raise the debt ceiling, so that the president can continue to fund the programs that he feels are necessary for the good of the nation. Though the debt is now near 17 trillion dollars, we do not consider this to be an issue, since more spending will eventually lead to economic growth.

 How the conversation goes:

                Republicans:  See above

                Democrats:  The GOP and their extremists are terrorists, anarchists, and unpatriotic malcontents who only want to harm the nation. They do not deserve our attention, and must submit and do as we say or we will continue to let them shut down the government.  Meanwhile, we will make it as painful as possible, so that the GOP gets blamed for the mess that we are now in.  We follow the lead of the President, who has said on numerous occasions, “I will not negotiate.”

A Reflection on Zechariah

              Every morning the Church reads and prays the Canticle of Zechariah at Matins. “Blessed be the Lord the God of Israel!”  It is the hymn that Zechariah sang when his son was circumcised at 8 days old.  Zack was slow to believe the angel Gabriel, that he and his wife were to have a son, and responded not unlike his forefathers, like Gideon and Manoah.  Because he would not believe that it was possible, God struck him mute until the words would come true.

                It is easy to fall into criticism of Zechariah.  Shortly after his lapse and punishment, we meet the Virgin Mary whose response to the angel is quite different and opens her womb by faith to the Word made Flesh.  It is to be noted that Zechariah asked, “How will I know this, for I am an old man?”  whereas the Virgin Mary asked, “How will this be, since I do  not know man?”  An old man having a child with his elderly wife at least had Biblical precedents, especially in the case of Abraham and Sarah. A virgin conceiving was beyond beyond, but Mary believed it was possible, inquiring only as to the “how” of it all. 

                But what came of Zechariah’s stumbling response?  Well, for one, the home of him and his wife became like a silent monastery, since he couldn’t talk, and she hid herself for five months, and presumably engaged in an awful lot of prayer.  John’s growth within his mother’s womb was a spiritual experience for all of them for that.  Zechariah had time to compose that beautiful hymn sung every morning throughout the world, a testimony to his renewed faith, and his encapsulation of the Hebrew people’s yearning for a Messiah. Zack’s suffering bore fruit that lasts even through today and into eternity.

                We all should strive to respond to God as the Blessed Mother did: believing that what He says is true and will happen, even if we are no surer of the manner as she was, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”  More often than not, I’m afraid, we respond like Zechariah: hesitant, questioning, offering all sorts of excuses of why it is impossible.  At some point, I suppose, there is the danger of God withdrawing His promises, if we were to remain without faith and confidence.  Usually we maintain a level of it to leave us open to His wonderful gifts.  Many times we suffer because of our hesitancy; things do not work out as we hoped, however weakly.  It is tempting to look back and be harsh with ourselves for not trusting more, believing more deeply, giving a response of greater love to Love Himself.

                Yet, remember Zechariah: a good man, troubled with personal weakness, feeling the sense of being abandoned by God since he had no children (quite the social stigma of those days), perhaps castigating himself for not doing better when tested. Then, He was graced with the opportunity to turn even his own weakness into something beautiful for God, and we will be singing his song of praise until the end of time.  Not a bad ending, I dare say.