Catholic Teaching, Homosexuality, and American Life

Many facets of American secular culture is contrary to basic Christian ethics, which as a consequence, requires a response on the part of the faithful. One of these issues is "tolerance" and homosexuality. The Christian committment to protecting marital dignity and the family is absolute. The profound temptation in politics, given the "us" versus "them" mentality, is to lose a sense charity that is due to our neighbor, even those with whom we disagree. It happens all the time. Just this week, one of my roommates -- who is entirely oblivious to my sexual orientation -- made a discourteous statement about "fags." It was hurtful. Given our friendship, if he knew I am homosexual, perhaps he wouldn't have said that. But that's not sufficient. I would rather he -- because of interior conviction -- would refrain from such comments, not simply because of his audience. This should be true of all Catholics.

There is no disagreement here on the sanctity of marriage and on the disharmony of homosexual acts with the complementarity of the sexes and the sexual design itself. The point of interest here is the approach one ought to take to the debate about marriage, family, and the rights of homosexual people. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to speak about homosexuality without stirring up preconceptions or emotional reactions. Nearly everyone comes to the subject of homosexuality with some agenda -- often enough, their position is non-negotiable. Perhaps, it shouldn't be. After all, what does the other side possibly have to say that is relevant? Nevermind the sarcasm. This is often how we think. The problem with agendas is that they can take on an importance and value that closes us off from empathy, compassion, and understanding.

The fundamental question I'm concerned about is this: how can Catholics be faithful to the constant and clear teaching of the Church on the issue of human sexuality and still be inclusive and sensitive to the plight of homosexuals, both in the Church and American life? Let's move past the basics. No, homosexuals cannot marry. No, homosexuals should not adopt children. No, same-sex sexual activity is not equal or comparable to marital love. Despite these moral truths, most Americans have a profoundly different view of human sexuality than the Catholic Church. There must be dialogue with those who disagree with us and we have to educate our Catholic brothers and sisters, as well as everyone else with the authentic Catholic view.

There is yet another question. How did this "hot-button" issue become the problem that it is? This is a question that often goes unnoticed and unanswered.

Many gays and lesbians drift away from their faith. Often enough, a sense of alienation or hurt isn't traced to a particular event or person, but it's there nonetheless. Personally, I am friends with many homosexuals, both male and female. I'd say less than half of them believe in God; I've discussed sexuality with many of them and have listened to stories of their quiet drift away from faith into skepticism and their sense of liberation away from religion and religious people. The others who believe in God, particularly those who are in some sense religious, do not share my view on living the Christian life as a homosexual person. But is this really surprising? What my friendship with them has offered me -- which I hope to share with everyone I can -- is profound insights that have formed my views and approach to homosexuality, marriage, and family life.

In my discussions with other homosexual men and women, there is a single reality that we all unfailingly describe. It has effected all of us -- regardless of our experiences or views -- and that reality is silence. People often talk about what is important to them. Given this, silence can have many meanings. It can be perceived as a form of denial of another's presence or existence in the community. This silence to many homosexuals means "you don't matter." In a debate about whether the Church loves gays enough to support those who live chastely, a homosexual Catholic said to me, "Eric, never once is a prayer uttered for homosexuals -- for their souls, for their struggles, or for their concerns -- in prayers of intercession during Mass." I haven't forgotten it and I think about it daily at Mass during the prayers of the faithful; it's always the prayer I hold in my heart that the priest commends to God with all others. But truly, such an omission is especially noticeable because we usually pray for literally everything else under the sun.

Back to the theme of silence -- what does a homosexual person do in this silence? He or she typically internalizes the negative messages they hear. I've always found that the so-called "gay lifestyle" people talk about, which encompasses a subculture of anonymous sexual encounters, sex clubs, pornography, drugs, and an overidentification with one's sexual orientation, to be grossly applied to all homosexual people in an unfortunate generalization--especially by fundamentalist, conservative Christians. This is not the experience or way of life for many gays. There's not a moment of my own life when I wasn't aware of "being different" and in my adolescence, this view deeply upset me. I've never been promiscous. Many homosexuals aren't, but admittedly, the danger to be promiscuous is there. Never once in my life have I attended a gay pride parade. I thought the entire idea was stupid. To say "I'm a human being with equal dignity, deserving of rights and respect" seemed dubious if one is willing to stand on floats cross-dressed, often enough half-naked, behaving in a flamboyantly sexual manner with people of the same-sex. It was ridiculous. I never once wanted to flood the education system with programs to teach children that homosexuality is a normal, acceptable alternative lifestyle and violate others' rights to have their view on homosexuality. Surely, more gays and lesbians than we imagine simply want to be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital and make decisions for them when they're dying without being prevented from seeing them or making health care decisions solely because they aren't married and as well enjoy other benefits -- that don't necessarily require the status of 'marriage' or undermine marriage -- while living quietly and peacefully without disturbing anyone.

Much of the talk about homosexuality and generalizations made about us often don't take into account or reflect our actual lived experience. Even within the Catholic Church, the talk about homosexuality hardly ever has anything to do about homosexuals themselves. There is hardly a word uttered about our pain, our journeys in faith, the hard questions we face, and so much more. I'm saying we're more of an abstract subject than people. We're also spoken to (don't act out on your sexual impulses) or about (homosexuals in general). But no one hardly ever speaks with us. Listening is not always about agreeing with all that one hears.

I mentioned that there isn't a moment in my memory of consciousness when I wasn't aware of a "difference" and it didn't take me long to realize what it was. This isn't the case for all gays as individual testimonies will affirm; some realize it later. But for some reason unbeknownst to me is that I never dared to mention it to anyone. It was a secret. In fact, the complete absence of any note of the subject in my family, in school, in television, in newspapers, or in books I could get a hold of, made the reality much more interesting and more difficult to deal with. I wondered if this curious reality -- this unmentionable fact -- had any physical manifestation. This in many ways deeply shaped my views later when I was certain there were others like me and how negatively society seemed to view us and treat us.

I remember reading a letter written by a homosexual Catholic quoting Will Rogers who once said, "An Indian always looks back after he passes something so he can get a view of it from both sides. A white man doesn't do that. He just figures that all sides of a thing are automatically the same. That is why you should never judge a man while you are facing him. You should go around behind him like an Indian and look at what he is looking at, then go back and face him and you will have a totally different idea of who he is." The Catholic in question practices his faith, loves God, and is deeply religious. He also dissents on the issue of homosexuality. From his perspective, most Catholics don't take the time -- and aren't interested -- in learning about the lives of their homosexual brothers and sisters, or imagining what it is like to walk in their shoes. "Look and listen before you judge and speak," he said.

What is the experience of gays?

The "gay experience" is the experience of being different. Long before I was conscious of sexuality, I was different.

The "gay experience" is one of being bad. The topic is often avoided all together. It's discussed in hushed tones or it's discussed angrily. Often enough, the whole experience is reduced to genital acts. Regardless of sexual orientation, sexuality is an important element of human personality, an integral party of one's overall consciousness. It is both a central aspect of one's self-understanding and a crucial factor in one's relationships with others and influences how one relates to others. The common expression "homosexuality is a sin" can be very misleading and easily misinterpreted by a homosexual person, particularly an adolescent struggling already in the period of their life where the focus is self-identity and that is even more difficult with a powerful sense of difference that in our society they feel they cannot talk about. In listing homosexuality -- "the sin of homosexuality" -- in a list of sins, without explanation or clarification that is found in Church teaching can be simplistic and again, misleading. This is not just for homosexuals, but for everyone. All Catholics can misrepresent the Church's teaching without proper clarifications being made. But all of this is especially harmful for homosexuals who recognize their sexual orientation as a discovery of an already existent condition.

The "gay experience" is the experience of secrecy. Don't ask. Don't tell. Nevermind the interior destruction it may cause you. All that matters really is that others are uncomfortable with it -- the homosexual condition is inconvenient and disturbing to them, so keep it to yourself. In essence, keep it quiet and in the closet. Become two people. Live in two worlds. Why reveal it? Who wants to be called a "fag" or "dyke" anyways? This may not be the intention of others, but it is often enough how it's experienced and in many respects what it translates into in practice. Demanding hiddeness and secrecy is truly a type of rejection. Additionally, this isolation inflicts further damage and hurt on homosexual people who already by their condition have lost capacity to fulfill the desire for marital love and intimacy that is wired into human nature, which includes all that comes with it: family life with a spouse, children, grandchildren, and so many other blessings that most people simply take for granted. Some people choose to become priests and religious, others choose to stay single; for homosexuals, there doesn't seem to be much of a choice on the road to Heaven and alienation only makes it more difficult.

The "gay experience" is the experience of loneliness. Years can be spent carrying a secret that cannot be shared. This reality creates a rift in even the most profound and closest of friendships. Everyone knows the "façade-me," but not the real me. The problem goes beyond sex because sexuality is not only about sex. All humans are sexual beings and the real challenge for homosexuals, practicing and non-practicing, is intimacy, self-disclosure, acceptance, and love. This sense of loneliness is the breeding ground for dysfunctional lifestyles, compulsive sexual behavior, depression, and even suicide.

What is often the result of this experience?

The "gay experience" is the experience of freedom -- transcendence, may be a better term. Homosexuals can make a clear analysis of what others often take for granted because they, at times, look from the outside. But this is not all that "freedom" means. In modernity, this "freedom" is a movement away from the rigid definitions of manliness and womanliness because to abolish this, seemingly, is the only way for homosexuals to gain recognition and acceptance. What do they want this for? Peace. A chance at not living a fragmented, broken life -- showing one face to the world and living with another. This is the heart of the "gay movement." Years of loneliness and isolation -- that should and could have been avoided -- brings gays together in a sometimes nihilistic movement for self-affirmation.

The "gay experience" is the experience of compassion. How can anyone who experiences so much exclusion not become experts in inclusion? Since it is traditionally conservatives who oppose homosexuality (in the broad sense), this movement often manifests itself as opposition to anything conservatives support. The gay rights movement links itself to the "pro-choice" movement because allegedly all pro-life conservatives care about is unborn babies -- what about everyone else?

The "gay experience" is one that is paradoxically and ironically open to God. Homosexuals can be deeply religious. Jesus of Nazareth is a misunderstood, alienated figure. He is the "suffering servant" that the prophet Isaiah talks about. Suffering is an experience that homosexuals easily identify with. But homosexual religiosity is often done in a free form way, away from organized religion, away from structure because homosexuals don't feel that these communities are very welcoming. If it is done in a religious community, it usually occurs in one that is politically liberal and affirmative of gay rights.

We all know that gays "come out." But what we all don't realize is that "coming out" is not a once in a lifetime thing. It's a daily task. Gays live out their lives in a predominantly heterosexual world. It's always presumed that everyone is heterosexual. Often enough, gays are faced with the question of whether or not this or that occassion calls for revealing one's sexual orientation and it always involves risk -- risk of alienation, rejection, misunderstanding, violence, loss of a job, or a rift in a relationship. When a gay person "comes out," often enough, the most difficult person to tell is their own self. Homosexuals condition themselves to not accept and recognize who they are. The false identity, in a way, becomes their identity because no one can simply "act" for so long without the false realities imprinting on them. It's the worse kind of sin, the worse kind of oppression. Self-deception. It opens millions of doors to other vices, particularly moral compromise. In such dire circumstances, one might do anything to gain the approval of others.

This is fundamentally the story of homosexuality in the lives of many men and women. It begins as considerable time and effort doing everything possible to rid themselves of any outward sign of one's own homosexual desires, that is, by crafting an elaborate system of hiding true feelings and acting "straight." Some even attempt marriage and even parenting, which only ends in heart break or a life of self-deception and internal destruction. The energy it takes to hide and pretend is too costly: ruined marriages, disrupted relationships, double lives of secrecy, loneliness, internal conflicts and isolation.

It makes sense then that after experiencing such isolation, homosexuals often have an overidentification with their sexual orientation. They finally can "be themselves" and that "self" that they never were, is a homosexual and it maintains a lot of their attention.

Gay subcultures don't exist to ensnare people into a certain way of living. To be sure, there are destructive elements to such environments. But most certainly, it is more liberating and comparatively a more safe environment from the perspective of a homosexual who has lived in silence, in a heterosexual world. I can easily see why one would choose such a path. The reason homosexuals seek out each other is not because of in-built pervesion, but from misunderstanding and an often a lifetime of loneliness and a universal need for intimacy, and for that embrace they feel they never had. The sense that no one in the world cares nor understands, can lead to in the long run compulsive tendencies (after you've revealed yourself), to rebellion, and to the pull of homosexual company where one is at home with people who care and people who understand -- away from a lifetime of gay jokes and haunting words like "fag" and "dyke."

The public debate on homosexuality leads to a more fundamental question. What is the origin of homosexuality?

It's the age-old question: is homosexuality the result of nature or nuture? Truthfully, little is known or understood about the origin of homosexuality with any kind of certainty. The fact that certain theories are politicized makes answering this question all the more difficult.

Again, when you think about it, what do we know about the origins of heterosexuality? Sure, it is evident that is apart of the creative order, but children generally show a "repulsion" ('eww girls!') or uneasiness about the opposite sex at a young age. Why the shift for the majority? And how do we accomodate this or that theory when even with modern knowledge, we don't know what over half of the human genome actually does, that is, what 'this' or 'that' gene is for. It seems that what is normative is taken for granted. And while this question doesn't bear the same urgency that homosexuality does, I think it's a humbling question. There is much to learn about human sexuality.

I certainly have my views on the origin of homosexuality and I have no interest in trying to make a case for them. Several studies, including one by The Kinsey Institute, reported that no one knows what causes homosexuality. In fact, they argued, scientists are more clear on what does not cause homosexuality. Parenting in itself doesn't cause homosexuality. Children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to grow up homosexual than children raised by heterosexual parents. This isn't to deny other ill-effects of having same-sex couples parenting, but to show that homosexuality is not solely caused by "bad" parenting.

Homosexuality possibly has a genetic foundation. Many Christians don't like this idea because it seems that God causes homosexuality. But it doesn't mean that God actively intends it rather than passively allows it. The same is true for a person who may be genetically inclined toward alcoholism or aggression. These things wouldn't be termed "good," but they certainly have a biological foundation. In a fallen world, Dawkins' idea of "selfish genes" is not entirely impractical. Moreover some things don't make sense in solely genetic terms. It doesn't make sense in terms of pure biology for a person to use contraception, since their genes lose out due to this decision. In certain circumstances, it doesn't make sense for organisms to act altruistically -- e.g. humans sacrificing their lives for others -- in terms of reproduction. Even then, a biological foundation doesn't make alcoholism moral -- no matter how strong the inclination. In the same way, a biological foundation of homosexuality wouldn't change the morality of homosexual sexual behavior. Why? Free will doesn't change. Metaphysics doesn't change. Men and women would remain complementary to one another based on their ontological, metaphysical differences and their union would reflect the inner unity of the Creator. This would occur still in their striking way of cooperating with God in the transmission of life and still remains that choosing a partner of the same-sex would be to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the built-in goals of the sexual design. That is to say, ultimately, human nature does not evolve. It is objective and shared in common by everyone. It's not based only on genes because genes vary person to person.

A genetic inclination toward homosexuality is an example of what may be a fundamental, universal cause of homosexuality. If homosexuality doesn't have a biological foundation, it is more difficult to account for. Why? If homosexuality is entirely, say, psychological, then one of the challenges any theory would have to meet lies in the fact that there is no one way that all homosexual men and women feel and act. All homosexuals have entirely different life experiences, which leads to different psychological experiences. Arguably the rift in parent-child relationships between homosexuals and their parents may not be the cause of homosexuality, but a result of homosexuality--the "rift" is due to the secret that you can't share, that disables you from in some sense from identifying with things masculine and feminine, etc and maybe not the other way around. It could very well be the former. Nevertheless, to accomodate this position, I've seen many make the case (which I'm not arguing for or against--here, at least) that there are probably a number of "homosexualities" -- since human beings are multidimensional (more than just biology), situational (unique in their own life experience and interpretation of it), and contextual (in a particular culture at a specific time). Homosexuality then is compromised of a variety of experiences and expressions. This view, potentially would even include a possibly genetic inclination toward homosexuality as well as other types of conditions that result in same-sex attraction. Given this complexity, it seems that speaking about a "homosexual lifestyle" can really be unfair at times because what one is trying to conceptualize in such a phrase may be grossly inaccurate.

Given that the genesis of homosexuality is obscure, it is increasingly more difficult to define it. So then what is a homosexual person? "A homosexual person is a person who sustains a predominant, persistent and exclusive psychosexual attraction toward members of the same sex. A homosexual person is one who feels sexual desire and a sexual responsiveness to persons of the same sex and who seeks or would like to seek actual sexual fulfillment of this desire by sexual acts with a person of the same sex." That's the best definition I've ever encountered and it includes pretty much all we know about homosexuality and homosexual people -- very little.

How are Catholics to respond to homosexuality?

When gays rebel, or "act out" -- particularly when they do something religiously offensive, e.g. dress up like nuns -- there is an immediate temptation to respond to such outrageous behavior with divisive comments that are just as outrageous that accomplish nothing and fuel the fires of hatred against the Catholic Church. When rage meets rage, the Devil has met his goal. How can we be proactive and not reactive?

The scriptures give a clear and consistent condemnation of same-sex sexual activity. However, the research of the natural and social sciences and the lived experience of ordinary Catholics should all play a part in how we approach the issue of homosexuality -- particularly in subjective culpability and how the truth is to be preached. I find that a rigid and coldly objective application of the Church's teaching can be most discouraging. The least effective way is to be stridently objective, not taking into account the spiritual journey of the person you are advising. When we focus on the homosexual orientation, we're ignoring the whole of the person. Each human person is a story in his or her self. A person that is thrown into the mystery of life, trying to uncover its meaning, living in a world with all its unanswered questions of history, of competing philosophies and religions with even more stark differences in how they view the human person, as well as with different life experiences that influence how we respond to the question of what it means to be human. Sexual orientation does not encompass the entirety of humanity, but it does play a vital role and this needs to be taken into account, not just in the Church but in American life, particularly in our public policies.

In dealing with the complex issues surrounding homosexuality, it is very easy to give simple and at times caustic answers. It is more difficult and more rewarding to travel the road less traveled and to listen with an open heart and apply objective moral norms sensitively to basic human needs, concerns, and aspirations. Conversion is normally not something that happens in an instant or overnight, it is an ongoing process; we grow only gradually.

A simple insight into the general Catholic response to the "problem of homosexuality" lies in parish life. When one thinks of ministry that involves "family life" how quickly do we think of homosexuality? Not very quickly, I'd imagine. Why isn't homosexuality considered a part of family life ministry? Homosexuals have families, are apart of families, and parents often have a hard time dealing with the revelation that their son or daughter is homosexual. It's a family issue. So why do we hardly talk about it? In fact, how frequently does one see a ministry in support for homosexual Catholics trying to live in accord with the Church's teaching in parishes? In the U.S., the sole ministry to homosexual Catholics, Courage, has about 100 chapters. This is good news and bad news. It is good that there are so many chapters. It is bad that there are so few. Only about half of the dioceses in the country have a chapter. In most dioceses, only one parish has one. What does that say about the Catholic Church in America? In my view, Courage does not get remotely the support it should from bishops and clergy.

It seems that homosexual Catholics hardly get the support they need from their Catholic brothers and sisters. It is absolutely true that Catholics have an obligation to build a moral and just society. However, there seems to be a hypocrisy in the way Catholics and other Christians make extraordinary demands on homosexuals in American life on the basis of "loving them", yet the amount of effort spent in offering support and educational awareness of the plight of homosexuals and how to accomodate them sensitively within a Catholic moral framework is very disheartening. How many chastity resources for homosexuals can one think of that is secular, that may appeal to homosexuals who have struggles with approaching anything religous? What are non-religious homosexuals to do? Moreover, just how much do we actually think of the concerns and journey of homosexual people when considering public policy?

Much more can be said. But I think one thing is clear: before we, as Catholics, critique the moral inadequacy of society, perhaps we should reflect just on how much we contribute to and perpetuate that inadequacy. By reflecting on the common experience of homosexuals, we can take it into account as we develop our views of public policies about family life, particularly in terms of marriage and homosexuals in America.

Feast of St. Michael the Archangel

St. Michael the Archangel (my baptismal saint).
(Hebrew for "Who is like God?").

St. Michael is one of the principal angels; his name was the war-cry of the good angels in the battle fought in heaven against the enemy and his followers. Four times his name is recorded in Scripture:

(1) Daniel 10:13 sqq., Gabriel says to Daniel, when he asks God to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem: "The Angel [D.V. prince] of the kingdom of the Persians resisted me . . . and, behold Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me . . . and none is my helper in all these things, but Michael your prince."

(2) Daniel 12, the Angel speaking of the end of the world and the Antichrist says: "At that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people."

(3) In the Catholic Epistle of St. Jude: "When Michael the Archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses", etc. St. Jude alludes to an ancient Jewish tradition of a dispute between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses, an account of which is also found in the apocryphal book on the assumption of Moses (Origen, De Principiis III.2.2). St. Michael concealed the tomb of Moses; Satan, however, by disclosing it, tried to seduce the Jewish people to the sin of hero-worship. St. Michael also guards the body of Eve, according to the "Revelation of Moses" (Apocryphal Gospels, etc., ed. A. Walker, Edinburgh, p. 647).

(4) Revelation 12:7, "And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon." St. John speaks of the great conflict at the end of time, which reflects also the battle in heaven at the beginning of time. According to the Fathers there is often question of St. Michael in Scripture where his name is not mentioned. They say he was the cherub who stood at the gate of paradise, "to keep the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24), the angel through whom God published the Decalogue to his chosen people, the angel who stood in the way against Balaam (Numbers 22:22 sqq.), the angel who routed the army of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:35).

Following these Scriptural passages, Christian tradition gives to St. Michael four offices:

1. To fight against Satan.

2. To rescue the souls of the faithful from the power of the enemy, especially at the hour of death.

3. To be the champion of God's people, the Jews in the Old Law, the Christians in the New Testament; therefore he was the patron of the Church, and of the orders of knights during the Middle Ages.

4. To call away from earth and bring men's souls to judgment (signifer S. Michael repraesentet eas in lucam sanctam, Offert. Miss Defunct. Constituit eum principem super animas suscipiendas, Antiph. off. Cf. The Shepherd of Hermas, Book III, Similitude 8, Chapter 3).

Regarding his rank in the celestial hierarchy opinions vary; St. Basil (Hom. de angelis) and other Greek Fathers, also Salmeron, Bellarmine, etc., place St. Michael over all the angels; they say he is called "archangel" because he is the prince of the other angels; others (cf. P. Bonaventura, op. cit.) believe that he is the prince of the seraphim, the first of the nine angelic orders. But, according to St. Thomas (Summa Ia.113.3) he is the prince of the last and lowest choir, the angels. The Roman Liturgy seems to follow the Greek Fathers; it calls him "Princeps militiae coelestis quem honorificant angelorum cives". The hymn of the Mozarabic Breviary places St. Michael even above the Twenty-four Elders. The Greek Liturgy styles him Archistrategos, "highest general" (cf. Menaea, 8 Nov. and 6 Sept.).

*****************************
"May prayer strengthen us for the spiritual battle we are told about in the Letter to the Ephesians: 'Draw strength from the Lord and from His mighty power' (Ephesians 6:10). The Book of Revelation refers to this same battle, recalling before our eyes the image of St. Michael the Archangel (Revelation 12:7). Pope Leo XIII certainly had a very vivid recollection of this scene when, at the end of the last century, he introduced a special prayer to St. Michael throughout the Church. Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world." - Pope John Paul II

The Original Prayer to St. Michael

O Glorious Prince of the heavenly host, St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the battle and in the terrible warfare that we are waging against the principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against the evil spirits. Come to the aid of man, whom Almighty God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of Satan.

Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in Heaven. That cruel, ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be.

Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious power of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly find mercy in the sight of the Lord; and vanquishing the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen.

V. Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.
R. The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered the root of David.
V. Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.
R. As we have hoped in Thee.
V. O Lord, hear my prayer.
R. And let my cry come unto Thee.

Let us pray.
O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as supplicants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin Immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious St. Michael the Archangel, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all the other unclean spirits who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of souls. Amen.

St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross

Today is the feast day of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, also known as Edith Stein—a Jewish woman, Catholic convert, feminist, philosopher, consecrated religious, and a martyr who died in the holocaust. She is amongst my favorite saints and her writings are incredible, in depth and in insight. Though a progressive feminist for her time, she was dedicated to Catholic orthodoxy.

Much of her writings, particularly in regard to what John Paul II coined as the "feminine genius," is present in John Paul II's Theology of the Body. One of my favorite aspects of her legacy is that she expounded on the idea that men and women are inherently different. She asserted that the human soul is not unisex and manhood and womanhood is reflected not only in our bodies, but in our souls. Therefore, men and women are different, but equal. This is explicit Catholic doctine that she explained beautifully in the framework of the philosophical movement known as phenomenology.

Her faith was incorporated into her worldview, particularly her feminism. She advocated women's place in society—in universities, in the workplace, in public office, etc., but she encouraged women to live out their vocation in these secular professions without compromising the dignity of their womanhood. Stein believed that women could enrich the secular world with their feminine gifts. This is reflective of my own "progressive" views and I really admire the wisdom and boldness of this wonderful saint because it is apparent to me that none of these ideas were her own, but a humble reflection of the already revealed truth of the Catholic faith articulated for the modern world.

St. Edith Stein, pray for us.

A brilliant philosopher who stopped believing in God when she was 14, Edith Stein was so captivated by reading the autobiography of Teresa of Avila that she began a spiritual journey that led to her Baptism in 1922. Twelve years later she imitated Teresa by becoming a Carmelite, taking the name Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.

Born into a prominent Jewish family in Breslau (now Wroclaw, Poland), Edith abandoned Judaism in her teens. As a student at the University of Göttingen, she became fascinated by phenomenology, an approach to philosophy. Excelling as a protégé of Edmund Husserl, one of the leading phenomenologists, Edith earned a doctorate in philosophy in 1916. She continued as a university teacher until 1922 when she moved to a Dominican school in Speyer; her appointment as lecturer at the Educational Institute of Munich ended under pressure from the Nazis.

After living in the Cologne Carmel (1934-38), she moved to the Carmelite monastery in Echt, Netherlands. The Nazis occupied that country in 1940. In retaliation for being denounced by the Dutch bishops, the Nazis arrested all Dutch Jews who had become Christians. Teresa Benedicta and her sister Rosa, also a Catholic, died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz on August 9, 1942.

Pope John Paul II beatified Teresa Benedicta in 1987 and canonized her in 1998.

In his homily at the canonization Mass, Pope John Paul II said: “Because she was Jewish, Edith Stein was taken with her sister Rosa and many other Catholics and Jews from the Netherlands to the concentration camp in Auschwitz, where she died with them in the gas chambers. Today we remember them all with deep respect. A few days before her deportation, the woman religious had dismissed the question about a possible rescue: ‘Do not do it! Why should I be spared? Is it not right that I should gain no advantage from my Baptism? If I cannot share the lot of my brothers and sisters, my life, in a certain sense, is destroyed.’”

Addressing himself to the young people gathered for the canonization, the pope said: “Your life is not an endless series of open doors! Listen to your heart! Do not stay on the surface but go to the heart of things! And when the time is right, have the courage to decide! The Lord is waiting for you to put your freedom in his good hands.”

Secular Messianism, On the Left and Right

This article entitled Secular Messianism, On the Left and Right by Mark P. Shea is a really good read and I commend it to all faithful Catholics. It warns us against love affairs with partisan politics whether on the Left or on the Right. In particular, it is reaffirmed that neither of the two political parties in America conform to the fullness of the Gospel truth and Christians on both sides of the aisle should be working with one another, not contradicting each other, and more importantly not at war with one another. All I can say is "Amen."

Farewell Fr. Callam, God Bless You

Fr. Daniel Callam was my RCIA instructor, theology professor, and somewhere near four or five occassions, my confessor. He baptized me on the Easter Vigil of 2007, anointed me with the holy chrism, and was the first to give me the consecrated Lord in the Eucharist. He is an amazing homilist and he will be dearly missed by everyone at the University of St. Thomas. May God continually bless his faithful servant. He has always been in my eyes, in persona Christi.

"The Parting of Friends"
My Last Sermon at UST: 22 June 2008
Daniel Callam, C.S.B.

"No longer do I call you servants, . . .
but I have called you friends."[1]

The nineteenth century was an age of high rhetoric. In America Abraham Lincoln and Ralph Waldo Emerson, to name only two, are virtually synonymous with eloquence in speech and in print. In England Prime Minister William Gladstone, e.g., could hold the attention of Parliament for hours with a power that few could equal but which many could approach. Among these great rhetoricians none was more gifted than the Reverend John Henry Newman, and among his sermons none is more touching than “The Parting of Friends,” which he delivered in Littlemore on 25 September 1843. The chapel had been built by Newman seven years before to accommodate the people of the village that, lying about three miles from Oxford, was part of Newman’s charge as vicar of the University Church of Saint Mary the Virgin. On that autumn evening it was packed to the doors and beyond with parishioners who had assembled to listen to what was to be the last sermon preached by Newman as an Anglican minister. He was shortly to resign from his position and then, after a period of intense study and prayer, be received into the Catholic Church two years later, on 9 October 1845.

Newman resorted to Scripture to examine the various situations where friends separate, beginning and ending his remarks with Jesus’s tender farewell to his disciples at the Last Supper, but including also Jacob fleeing the wrath of his brother, Esau, David separating from Jonathan, Ishmael from the house of Abraham, Naomi from her other daughter-in-law, not Ruth but Orpah, Paul from his disciples, and later from Timothy. Newman’s message is thus a profound exploration of a certain theme of the sacred text: “Scripture,” he said, “is a refuge in any trouble.” He concluded with a melancholy description of himself leaving the congregation at Littlemore, which was by then universally in tears. He kept his distance from the emotion of the moment by describing himself in the third person. The sentence is long and highly rhetorical, but if the simple people of Littlemore could understand it 160 years ago, surely you can today. Here it is: And, O my brethren, O kind and affectionate hearts, O loving friends, should you know any one whose lot it has been, by writing or by word of mouth, in some degree to help you . . . ; if he has ever told you what you knew about yourselves, or what you did not know; has read to you your wants or feelings, and comforted you by the very reading; has made you feel that there was a higher life than this daily one, and a brighter world than that you see; or encouraged you, or sobered you, or opened a way to the inquiring, or soothed the perplexed; if what he has said or done has ever made you take interest in him, and feel well inclined towards him; remember such a one in time to come, though you hear him not, and pray for him, that in all things he may know God's will, and at all times he may be ready to fulfil it.[2]

What is striking about this passage is Newman’s extensive use of the imagery of death, although the final sentence indicates the Newman is not dead but removed from them—as good as dead, in any case. I would ask you to recognize an implication of this feature of the sermon, viz., that every parting is a sort of dying. I cast my mind back over my own life and the various “partings of friends” that I have experienced. I left home to go to the seminary in 1954. How many people “died” to me then, in that I never saw them again or they me! I call to mind fellow students from my days at the University of Toronto or some of my high-school students that I have not seen since 1973, when I left Canada for graduate school in England. They may be dead, they may think that I am dead, they are as good as dead to me, so absolute has been our separation. Alas, is it not the case that many of you here, who have become dear to me, will never see me again?

What are we as Christians to make of this sobering fact? It is this: we must regard these separations—which have something of the nature of dying—as a sort of foretaste of that radical rupture that will take place at the end of our lives. Our attitude towards them should therefore partake of our attitude towards death itself. And what should that be? Listen to Saint Paul: O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.[3]

Each of us will die, but for us Christians death is viewed as the portal to eternal life, and therefore not as making an end to friendship or to any of those good things that have given us joy and pleasure. Something similar must be true of these miniature deaths that occur in the course of every life. I think Shakespeare’s Juliet knew that when she call parting a “sweet sorrow.” Romeo’s departure is a sorrow, but it is only a sorrow because his company has been sweet, and she knows that it will be sweet again. In the drama, that promise of renewed sweetness is ultimately lost in death. But in Christ Jesus, nothing good will be permanently lost. Juliet’s “sweet sorrow” may be complemented by Saint Thomas More’s words to his executioner on the scaffold: Pray for me, as I will for thee, that we may meet merrily in heaven.

In the light of these remarks, Our Lord’s words taken on additional meaning: whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.[4] Do you see what I’m getting at? Life requires us to move on; nothing is static. Only by embracing the changes, including the separations demanded by circumstances, can we maintain the relationships that sustain us. Let me give you an ordinary example, one that everyone here knows at first hand: a child grows up and leaves home, as he must. No sensible parent resents the maturing of his child; to keep him in the home is really to lose him. Let us therefore give ourselves totally to the experiences that continually confront us, with the assurance that in Christ nothing worthwhile will ever be lost. And, like Newman, let us turn for comfort to the sublime words Jesus addressed to his disciples at the Last Supper as recorded in chapters 14-17 of Saint John’s Gospel.

The first thing that we learn is that he cares for us: When Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.[5] The disciples, like us, grieved at the threat of separation: the hour had come to depart. But Jesus speaks to us today as he spoke to them: Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me.[6] Then he informed of them of the coming Comforter, the Holy Spirit: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the [Comforter] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.[7] The role of the Comforter is to unveil the mystery of God’s action in Jesus Christ, and as a consequence the mystery of our own lives, which insofar as they are Christian mirror the life of Jesus. Specifically, we note that the life of Jesus remained mysterious until it was complete, until he had died and risen from the dead. It may be compared to the beauty of a melody that cannot be fully grasped until every note has been played. Similarly, the statement we are making by our lives will not be complete until we die. In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, “it’s not over till it’s over.” What I wish to suggest here is the same holds true for episodes in our life. We cannot understand our adolescence until we are adults, or even the full significance of a friendship until the parting has taken place. And here I recall Our Lord’s promise about the work of the Holy Spirit: When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.[8] “All truth” includes the truth about ourselves as well as the truth about Jesus, in detail as well as overall. Thus, in the light of these solemn statements of our Redeemer we can begin to appreciate the consoling words that come in the closing pages of the Bible, in the Apocalypse, “And he who sat upon the throne said, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’”[9] Let me paraphrase this sentence to convey something of the range of its meaning: Behold, I shall restore to their full and vivid reality all the goodness and joy of every experience that the redeemed bring with them into eternal life.

Newman concluded his sermon by referring to himself in the third person. In doing so he echoed Saint Paul who used the same device in describing his mystical experiences: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven.[10] I too know a man, who came to Houston eleven years ago from a distant land. In the course of his stay he discovered new meaning in Jesus’s words, “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”[11] It was for him as if the Bible had come to life. He virtually lived the parable of the Good Samaritan, but as if told from the point of view of the victim. At the end of the parable, Our Lord asked his interlocutor, “Who proved to be a neighbour to the man who fell among thieves?”[12] The answer to the question in this case is not merely one good Samaritan, but many who in a steady stream came to the inn where the stranger had been placed. And they gave him, not physical sustenance but spiritual nourishment in the witness of a vital faith, of genuine charity, of intelligent discourse, and of an inextinguishable hope for the eternal vision of God. To him, one God in three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, be all might and majesty, all worship and adoration, now and for evermore. Amen.

[1] Jn 15.15
[2] J.H. Newman, “The Parting of Friends,” Sermons on Subjects of the Day. Preached at Littlemore on 25 September 1843.
[3] 1 Cor 15.55-57.
[4] Matt 16.25.
[5] Jn 13.1.
[6] Jn 14.1.
[7] Jn 16.7.
[8] Jn 16.13.
[9] Rev. 21.5
[10] 2 Cor 12.2.
[11] Matt 25.35.
[12] Lk 10.36-37.

Black and Catholic in America: Hope Despite The Difficulties

Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers, MTS is a deacon in the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, and the founder of Aurem Cordis, an apostolate dedicated "to promote the truth and beauty of the gospel by encouraging others to submit themselves freely to the life-giving love of the Trinity and to become living witnesses to that love in the world." Deacon Burke-Sivers gives talks around the country on spirituality, family life, lay vocations, and other topics, and has appeared on "Catholic Answers Live", Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), and many local television and radio programs. He is the host of the 13-part EWTN series, Behold The Man!, about Catholic spirituality for men. Deacon Burke-Sivers has a BA in economics from Notre Dame and an MTS from the University of Dallas. He, his wife Colleen, and their four children live in Portland, Oregon.

He is also the author of the new foreword to From Slave to Priest, Sister Caroline Hemesath's 1973 biography of Father Augustine Tolton (1854-1897), the first black priest in America. Carl E. Olson, editor of IgnatiusInsight.com, recently interviewed his former classmate and spoke with him about Father Tolton, the history of black Catholics in America, and the unique challenges faced by black Catholics today.

A Lifelong Muslim Enters The Catholic Church

The 2008 Easter Vigil marked my first full year as a Roman Catholic. The Vigil Mass is special to all of us. It is the celebration of the Passover of the Lord Jesus. A story that caught a lot of attention was the Christian initiation of a Muslim journalist, Magdi Allam, who was baptized and confirmed by the Holy Father on Holy Saturday and welcomed to the Eucharistic feast of the Lord. I found the article to be a fascinating read, inspiring, and a call to be more conscientious and loving in our religiously pluralistic world.

Magdi Allam Recounts His Path to Conversion

Can Eastern Orthodoxy Really Make A Case?

The Orthodox Way is one of the most referenced books in Orthodox Christianity. Despite Bishop Kallistos Ware's best case, I remain strongly Roman Catholic. In the book, Ware describes the theological doctrines, worship, and life of Orthodox Christians. In the Introduction, Ware emphatically states that Christianity is more than a theory explaining the mystery of the universe, but recalling an ancient name for Christianity, he labels it as "the way" to Truth. On that issue, I don't disagree with him. But, I do think a close examination of his argument shows that though he is a renowned scholar, he fails to make a case for The Orthodox Church and its doctrines. In comparison to figures such as St. Thomas Aquinas, known infamously for taking on counter-arguments head on, Ware lacks such boldness. He quotes—to an inordinate degree—the Greek Fathers of the Church and theologians of the Orthodox tradition. Rarely is there any mention of early Christians devoted to the traditions and theology of Western Christianity. I think the fact that he doesn't, at first glance, isn't surprising at all. Supposedly, the West is in heresy. But then again, the fact that he doesn't, is very surprising.

Ware cites from seventy-five sources that he refers to as “Orthodox.” Of the group, only three sources—St. Augustine, St. Anthony of Egypt, and St. Leo the Great—are of the Western Christian tradition. He also cites from thirteen additional sources that he refers to as “Non-Orthodox,” implying that the writers are not Orthodox Christians or any of the early Church Fathers. The typical use of sources of this sort is to validate his own convictions or to condemn a specific view, e.g. Augustine’s view of the fall of man.

In the pages devoted to the Latin doctrine of the Filioque, or “and the Son,” which has found its place in the Western version of the Nicene Creed, Ware asserts that this “unauthorized addition” committed without the consent of the Christian East is not only theologically unsound, but it is “spiritually harmful.” He notes that the Orthodox Church following the Greek Fathers of the fourth century—presumably the Cappadocians—affirm that the Father is the sole source of the Trinity. Ware misinterprets the Trinitarian theology of the West. St. Augustine in fact argued that God the Father was the source of the Trinity using the analogy of love. If God is love, then the Father is the lover and the object of his love is the Son, the beloved. The Son returns the love of the Father and the love existing between them is the Spirit.

Ware reflecting over an Orthodox hymn for the Feast of Pentecost states that one of the “chief reasons” that the Orthodox reject the filioque is that it “might lead men to depersonalize and subordinate the Holy Spirit.” The same is true of not having the filoque in the West when men were inclined to “depersonalize” and “subordinate” the Son. In response to the pressing question then about the interrelationship of the Son and Spirit to the Father, that is, what is the difference between “generation” and “procession,” Ware cites St. John of Damascus who claimed, “…we do not understand at all.” He supports this with St. Basil the Great who remarked, “it is easier to measure the entire sea…than to grasp God’s ineffable greatness with the human mind.” Ware, then, turns to St. Irenaeus who speaks of the “two hands” of God, in which we see manifested in the work of God itself, e.g. creation, the Incarnation, the Transfiguration, etc. This very theological mystery is discussed by St. Augustine, a Church Father that Ware does not turn to once except to speak ill of some idea that he posited. Augustine did concede that human language could not properly describe the Divine Reality, but since it is the only tool we have in discussing God, it is necessary that man try the best he can, understanding the improper proportions of analogies to God.

St. Augustine effectively employed human psychology and the idea of love, to illuminate the persons of the Son and the Spirit and paint a clearer distinction between the two, e.g. the Son as the beloved of the Father and the Spirit as the "act of love" pouring back and forth between the Father and Son, hence, the “double procession.” Ware does not choose to explore this idea in the context of the Western Christian tradition, which he seems—from cover to cover—not to care for at all. Perhaps this is due to the West’s philosophic nature in contrast to the East and its attentiveness toward spirituality and mysticism; hence, Ware willingness to refer to the idea of God as both Father and “Mother” put forward by the Blessed Julian of Norwich, a Roman Catholic mystic who’s notion supports Aphrahat, an early Syriac Father who speaks of the believer’s love for “God his Father and the Holy Spirit his Mother.”

In his discussion of the Blessed Virgin Mary, often referred to in Orthodoxy as the Theotokos—the God-bearer or Mother of God—he spells out the Orthodox position on the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception: "Although not accepting the Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Orthodoxy in its liturgical worship addresses the Mother of God as a spotless” (achrantos), “all-holy” (panagia), “altogether without stain” ( panamomos)…She is for us “the joy of all creation” (The Liturgy of St. Basil), “flower of the human race and gate of heaven” (Dogmatikon in Tone One)… "

Ware then quotes St. Ephrem the Syrian, also of the Eastern Christian tradition, “Thou alone, O Jesus, with thy Mother art beautiful in every way: For there is no blemish in thee, my Lord, and no stain in thy Mother.” Ware, quoting heavily from Eastern Christian sources, comes to a consensus with the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception, though he denies it. Nothing that he states goes against it nor makes it theologically inept. The idea that the Immaculate Conception as simply “superfluous” as Ware puts it comes from a difference in opinion between the East and the West on the fall of man.

The Latin West holds a very Augustinian view of the Fall, where there is an inheritance of Original Sin, in such a way that there is an innate disordered tendency toward self in reflection of the pride of Adam and Eve. The Orthodox according to Ware hold a radically different view that doesn’t explain original sin in “quasi-biological” terms. Ware describes the Orthodox view of original sin this way: "The doctrine of original sin means rather that we are born into an environment where it is easy to do evil and hard to do good; easy to hurt others and hard to heal their wounds…and to this accumulation of wrong we have ourselves added by our own deliberate acts of sin."

This idea, however, doesn’t necessarily disagree with the view held by Latin Christianity. The West certainly would say more about the nature of sin itself—that it is not just an external reality, but an internal one where humans struggle with a sort of moral paralysis. In effect, humans are wounded creatures that need God’s grace; often enough, the intention to do good is sometimes disordered in our pursuit to protect and gratify ourselves rather than do what is holy. However, the West would agree that this internal struggle that we all face does create an environment where it is “easy to do evil and hard to good.” The two ideas of Original Sin are not in opposition to one another, though Ware holds that position and it might seem so at first glance.

Kallistos Ware undoubtedly gives an impressive, synoptic vision of Orthodox Christian theology and spirituality. In the Introduction, Ware proclaims the Orthodox Church’s message to the West: “We are your past.” In spelling out the details of Orthodox theology, Ware does not give credit to or any recognition to Western Christianity; though, the Orthodox Church considers the West to be heresy, none of the Church Fathers or traditions of the West prior to the “heretical” turn of the West are praised and seen as what the West should return to. Ware’s bias is apparently evid€ent—particularly in his excessive citing of Eastern Orthodox sources—and shows that he does not fully expound on why the Orthodox view is necessarily correct. Certainly, Ware could have made a profoundly critical argument had he used early Church Fathers and saints of Western Christian tradition to demonstrate how Roman Catholicism has deviated from its past. Rather, he quotes faithfully from Greek Fathers and Orthodox Christians who already affirmed a view he is committed to. The fact that he went about it this way and not the other may reveal a much greater reality—perhaps there is no valid argument of heresy against Western Christianity.

Catholicism and Islam: Needed Dialogue for Peace

This statement was released at the conclusion of the colloquium between the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Center for Interreligious Dialogue of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organization. The group discussed the theme of faith and reason in Christianity and Islam. The participants agreed upon the following:

1. Faith and reason are both gifts of God to mankind.

2. Faith and reason do not contradict each other, but faith might in some cases be above reason, but never against it.

3. Faith and reason are intrinsically non-violent. Neither reason nor faith should be used for violence; unfortunately, both of them have been sometimes misused to perpetrate violence. In any case, these events cannot question either reason or faith.

4. Both sides agreed to further co-operate in order to promote genuine religiosity, in particular spirituality, to encourage respect for symbols considered to be sacred and to promote moral values.

5. Christians and Muslims should go beyond tolerance, accepting differences, while remaining aware of commonalities and thanking God for them. They are called to mutual respect, thereby condemning derision of religious beliefs.

6. Generalization should be avoided when speaking of religions. Differences of confessions within Christianity and Islam, diversity of historical contexts are important factors to be considered.

7. Religious traditions cannot be judged on the basis of a single verse or a passage present in their respective holy Books. A holistic vision as well as an adequate hermeneutical method is necessary for a fair understanding of them.

My Thoughts: As someone with a very diverse group of friends, I think this is a vitally important engagement. The controversy that arose from Pope Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture certainly brought about tension. This certainly wasn't the intention of the Holy Father who fundamentally asserted that faith and reason cannot contradict one another as both are endowed by God whom is the end of the search for truth and truth cannot self-contradict. Therefore, it possible for us to know that violence to spread religion goes against the nature of God.

The assertion that something "goes against the nature of God" is not a theological claim binding only on Catholics, but it is a philosophical claim and is binding on all humanity. Therefore, the Holy Father thinks that we can know something about God by unaided reason and such a reality is crucial. In an age of terrorism and violence, if we cannot know anything about God, if we cannot raise a moral flag and say something is objectively immoral because it violates some universal standard that we can all know then there is no hope for achieving peace. What right to life, to liberty, and to happiness do we have if there is no objective moral truths that dictates that we do?

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

The Filioque Controversy Still Lives

I went to an Anglican Use Roman Catholic Church and to my surprise—I'm not sure why—the Filioque was not recited in the Creed. It isn’t invalid. I am certain of this. But I later discovered why and I think it is an interesting maneuver that is certainly political.

The words “and the Son” (Filioque) have been removed from the Nicene Creed in accordance with the Lambeth 1978 statement: "The Conference…requests that all member churches of the Anglican Communion should reconsider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene Creed…"

The General Synod [of the Anglican Church of Canada] meeting at Peterborough, in 1980 stated that the omission of the Filioque does not imply change of doctrine or belief on the part of the Anglican Church. The inclusion of the Filioque has driven Western and Eastern Christianity apart for centuries.

If the Filioque is removed, there may be a rich opportunity for dialogue amongst Christians. It, perhaps, was the motive of the General Synod in Canada. The request seems rather plain at first glance, but a closer examination leads to a more important question: if the Filioque is doctrinally sound, why remove it at all? The statement clearly reinforces the fact that the omission of the Filioque does not change the doctrine of the Anglican Church. Nevertheless, there seems to be a need to omit a phrase—and the Son—that is doctrinally legitimate.

The obvious reality is concern for Eastern Christianity. Christians of the East—the Eastern Orthodox—consider the Filioque to be a heretical insertion in the Nicene Creed. Even in reciting the old Creed (without “and the Son”) there still remains a tension in what is believed by the East and the West. The concern should be on whether or not the Filioque is theologically sound. For Western Christians it is certainly the case and the exact opposite is true of the East, except for those in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, e.g. Byzantine Catholics.

The inclusion of “and the Son” in the Nicene Creed rose in Western Christianity because of the Arian heresy that came from the East. The inserted phrase reaffirmed the full divinity of Christ, in an indisputable way, against the Arians. The East condemned the West for the inclusion of the Filioque. Scripture clearly states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Orthodox interpret this to mean the Father alone, whereas Christians of the Latin tradition—who handed on the tradition of the Filioque to the Anglicans—believed that the omission doesn’t necessarily exclude the Son.

Scripture repeatedly refers to the “Spirit of Jesus” and Christ says that He will “send” the Spirit, as in, it would proceed from Him. The East believes that this procession of the Spirit from Christ is only a temporal procession, but it is not an eternal procession, that is, it isn’t the reality in the inner life of God. However, if the economic activity of God, that is, the economy of salvation reveals nothing about the Divine Reality, then nothing can be known about God. We only know God through His Revelation in human history, particularly in the Resurrection of Christ.

In Eastern Trinitarian theology, it is common to begin examining the Trinity from the fact that the Father is the source. St. Augustine picks up on this idea and uses the analogy of love. God is love according to Scripture. However, to love—Augustine argues—one must have an object to love. The Father, the lover, then generates His Son—the beloved—into being. The Son returns the love of the Father and the love between them is the Spirit.

The key to understanding Western Trinitarian theology is that the Father initiated the love, which implies the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but it is in the returned love of the Son that the Spirit proceed from the Son as well in the back and forth exchange of love. This is precisely the understanding of Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome reconciling their Eastern tradition of theology with the Latin West.

The Anglican Church having received most of its traditions from the Roman Catholic Church does not necessarily need to remove the Filioque. It is an understanding of the West that both versions of the Nicene Creed are valid. The Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed used today is significantly difficult than the one composed at Nicea I in A.D. 325. Moreover, the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 was merely a general synod of bishops that was not universally accepted until almost a century later. Therefore the inclusion of the Filioque in the West to defend orthodox is valid considering that the Creed itself was not written at a planned ecumenical council.

The necessity of the Filioque is debatable, for it has its place in one tradition and not the other. The Anglicans correctly point out the validity of the Creed either way. Therefore, the theological validity of the Filioque is and should be the primary concern.

The Catholic Faith and Sacred Scripture

There is a growing mindset among many Christians that the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church contradicts Sacred Scripture. This is unquestionably the effect of the "sola scriptura" mindset that is very common among non-Catholic Christians. The entirety of this dilemma cannot be exhausted here, but a great deal can be said about this concern.

The canon for the Christian scriptures as we have them today was formally declared centuries after the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When St. Paul, the earliest Christian writer spoke of "the gospel that I preach," (Romans 16:25), he was not speaking about one of the four canonical Gospels; in the primitive Church, the term "gospel" did not refer to any book as they had yet to be written, but the good news of salvation won for us in Christ Jesus. Similarly, St. Paul often mentions the "Scriptures" in his letters, but he is referring only to the Old Testament. The early Christians were Jews who believed that God fulfilled His promise to Israel and "dwelt among us" as Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, the term "Christian" was applied from the outside by pagans.

The earliest believers considered themselves Jews whose God had fulfilled the messianic promise of the Old Testament. They gathered together for "the breaking of the bread," which is the earliest form of the Christian liturgy. An early Christian liturgical manual called the Didache, or 'Teaching of the Twelve,' written in the first century A.D. gives instructions regarding baptism and celebration of the Eucharist.

The sacraments were already 'the source and summit' of the Christian life. The sacrifice of the Mass was explicitly of the utmost importance. "On the Lord's Day...gather together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest our sacrifice be defiled. For this is that which was proclaimed by the Lord: 'In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice. For I am a great king,' says the Lord, 'and my name is wonderful among the gentiles' [cf. Mal. 1:11]" (Didache 14:1–3).

The same text shows us that the Sacrament of Reconciliation had begun to take shape. In Scripture, Christ told His Apostles, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you...Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained," (Jn 20:21-23). This is reflected in the Didache where the Apostles teach Christians to confess their sins: "Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience." (Didache 4:14 [A.D. 70]). This same reality continues as we find St. Basil preaching the same thing three centuries later: "It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles" (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).

There is a specific belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ is the bread of life and the Apostles and all the believers gathered together in communion to "eat his flesh and drink his blood," so that they may have eternal life. It is because of the belief in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, St. Paul wrote "[w]hoever...eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). Thus, Scripture affirms that those who consume the Eucharist unworthily (in a state of mortal sin) eats and drinks "condemnation" (1 Cor 11:29) onto themselves.

To further the point of the Catholicity of the early Church, consider the Gospel of Mark for a moment. He repeatedly defines and explains things about the Jewish way of life. Why? Historically, we know that Mark was writing to a non-Jewish community—Gentiles—who knew nothing of Jewish customs. He was evangelizing a specific community of people. In the Gospel of Matthew, which was directed to a predominantly Jewish audience has Jesus give the Beatitudes on the Mount. It obviously highlights that Christ is the new Moses as Moses gave the Commandments on Mount Sinai; the focus on Old Testament fulfillment would be key in evangelizing Jews. In the Gospel of Luke, however, the sermon is given on a plain. Luke is writing to Gentiles not Jews, so the allusion to the prophet Moses is useless because it would not resonate with their religious experience.

Not only were the Apostles recording the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but they were evangelizing. Another case is found in John, where he defines: Rabbi (Teacher), Messiah (Christ), and Cephas (Rock) within three verses (John 1:38-42). This suggests that he had a non-Jewish audience or an audience that extended beyond Jews. Moreover, he is the last to write his Gospel, which explains why he doesn't re-write much of the same material that is in the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) which had already circulated around in Christian communities. And because it is so much later (he makes reference to Christians being banned from the synagogues in A.D. 87), it makes sense that he has a radically different purpose in writing his Gospel, namely to make a case against the Jews who reject Christ. It is held definitively by the Church that the Gospels are inspired by God, but the historical circumstances in which they were written are revelatory. There is a particular purpose and audience that the writer is considering. Moreover, the fact that they are writing implies that the Christian population had grown to such a degree that the oral tradition was no longer sufficient.

In addition, we know of the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, and James. But there are also other non-canonical epistles that were not included in the canon of Scriptures. Pope Clement I, the fourth Pope of the Church, wrote a letter (perhaps two) to the Corinthians that scholars date to 94-97 A.D. St. Ignatius wrote a letter to the Ephesians, to the Romans, and even one to St. Polycarp. St. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and Bishop of what is today is Izmir in Turkey; he wrote a letter to the Philippians. It becomes clear the more you study the Scriptures and how they came to be, in the light of the tradition that the Apostles spread throughout the known world, proclaiming the Gospel, founding individual churches as part of one Church. The Christian community grew to such an extent that they even began to delegate men to share in their power. The Apostles ordained "bishops," who were their direct equals, sharing in their apostolic mission.

In Acts 14:23, St. Paul the Apostle ordains elders in the churches he founded. Early Christian writings from the Didache to Pope Clement I’s Letter to the Corinthians show that the Church recognized two local church offices—elders (interchangeable term with overseer) and deacons. The beginnings of a single ruling bishop can perhaps be traced to the offices occupied by Timothy and Titus in the New Testament. We are told that Paul had left Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete to oversee the local church (1 Tim 1:3 and Titus 1:5). Paul commands them to ordain bishops/presbyters (priests) and to exercise general oversight, telling Titus to "rebuke with all authority" (Titus 2:15).

It is certain that the office of "bishop" and "presbyter" were clearly distinguished by the second century, as the Church was facing the dual pressures of persecution and internal schism, resulting in three distinct local offices: bishop, elder (presbyter) and deacon. The tradition of reserving ordination for men, too, was already in place: "If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God...But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good" (Against Heresies 79:3 [A.D. 377]).

There were certainly women deaconesses in the past who assisted with ministering to women specifically with baptism; but these women were often the wives of deacons and the status of deaconess was not an ordained office. A shade of this can be seen in the East by "presbyteras"—the wives of ordained priests who, without being ordained or demanding to be made a priestess, faithfully assist their husbands in their ministerial tasks.

All of this is simply the result of a developing tradition of the Church that comes from the Apostles. It is the lived experience of Christianity and of the Church in its mission to teach the world the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible as we know it was not in its current form. The first list of "canonical" books that names the same twenty-seven writings found in our New Testament appears in the Easter letter of St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in 367 A.D. By the time of Athanasius, the Church had reached an informal consensus about most of the writings to be included in the "New Testament."

There is evidence that Paul's letters had been collected by churches in several geographical locations by the end of the first century A.D. In a letter sent from Rome, written by Pope Clement I, to the church in Corinth, he writers (1 Clement 47:1): "Examine the letter of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What did he write to you at first, when he was just beginning to proclaim the gospel?" This is a reference to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. It indicates that the Christians in Rome owned a copy of it and that the church in Corinth still had a copy in its possession, half a century after Paul wrote it. The author of the second letter of Peter also knows about a collection of Paul's letters (3:15–16) and assumes that his readers do as well. Also in the early second century, St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, wrote letters to seven churches while he was en route to Rome, where he was martyred. In his letters he uses language that clearly shows his familiarity with the letters of Paul. He refers to Paul frequently by name. Such evidence is clear: by the turn of the first century a number of churches had already acquired copies of Paul's letters for their use. The formative stage of a canonical collection of Paul's writings had already taken place.

The point is this: it was a long time before Christian writers used the books of the New Testament books as Holy Scripture, equal in authority with the Old Testament. Some books were even questioned because of its heavy use by heretics (including the Gospel of John). Other books were considered (some of which don't espouse heresy) but did not make the canon: the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement, for example. The Apostles were all Jewish and they used the Old Testament to show how Christ fulfilled all the prophecies and that was sufficient enough. They did not deny as Jews the revelation of the one God, but they had to incorporate into their prayers and preaching the figure of Jesus.

This is where the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity came from—where we learn that God is Three Persons in One Being, for we see distinctly the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is not explicitly written in Scripture, but the understanding is there. St. Paul writes in Gal 4:4-7, "When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir."

"It is then in the fullness of time, that is, at the moment of the fulfillment of all the prophecies and expectations of ancient times, as the climax of God's revelation to man of his saving purposes" (cf. The Evidence of the Mystery of the Trinity in the New Testament) that God sends his Son and the Spirit that proceeds from Him (the Father) through His Son—so revealing to us his trinitarian inner life. John the Baptist declared to the Jews that "I baptize with water," but he prophesized that one will come after him who will "baptize with the Holy Spirit." And it is thus: the Son is sent to redeem us and to give us "Son status," to be sons in the Son, so that we can pray the prayer of the Son, "Abba, Father" because we were baptized in "spirit and in truth," thus, receiving the Spirit of the Son, which came to the Son from the Father (this is how Catholics came to the notion of the filioque). The Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not scripturally explicit, but it is implicit; Scripture flows from the teaching-tradition of the Church. The Church simply definitively states this so that it is more clear and concise. Moreover, the "definitive" nature of doctrine came from combating heresies that declared such fallacies as Christ being only divine and not at all human.

Even the Catholic liturgy itself is actually very Jewish because the Jewish faith is God's original dispensation for His salvific acts and the Apostles themselves were Jewish. In the synagogue the Jews read from the Scriptures, sang psalms and hymns of praise. There is a continuously lit lamp, we still have them today in every Catholic Church usually near the tabernacle symbolizing God's eternal presence. There is an Ark that holds the Ark of the Covenant, which contains the tablets with Ten Commandments. It is the holiest spot in the synagogue. For us it is the tabernacle, which holds for the Body of Christ, which is the sign of the new and everlasting covenant. He is the Lamb of God, put to death on the day that lambs were being slain in Jerusalem for Passover. It is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy and this mystery has made its way into the Christian tradition, not explicitly said in Scripture, but it is implied (and common knowledge) if one is following the Tradition.

The Eucharist is our Passover and we celebrate it daily. St. Paul wrote reflecting on the Jewish faith wrote "Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival...with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth," (1 Cor 5:7-8). For by becoming one mystical Body of Christ, we pass over with him from death into eternal life. This is the fulfillment of God's promise of salvation that he made to our Father in faith, Abraham. And that is the heart of the Gospel protected and proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church for 2,000 years. It is the in the Church that the Revelation of God to the Jewish people, fulfilled by Christ, preached by the Apostles and passed on, lives and is still preached to this day. The Bible came out of the Church and since the writers were of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, committed to unity, to the apostolic tradition, and proclaiming the Good News of Christ, one can see that The Bible testifies to "the Church of the living God, the foundation and pillar of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15).

The Journey Home to Roma Eterna

This is a well written, well thought-out reflection of a Catholic convert on why, as an evangelical Christian unconvinced of the Protestant faith, he believes the Catholic Church bears the "fullness" of the Gospel truth rather than the Orthodox Church.

"Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox" by Jimmy Akin

"Struggling Alone" with Homosexuality

Some time ago, in fact, I think this might have been before I accepted the Church's teachings on homosexuality and struggled to let go of the one person I love most in this life, my spiritual director Fr. Anthony Giampietro shared this article with me.

Looking back in retrospect, I can identify with the person described in it. I think the writer profoundly illuminates a growing problem within the Church. The sexual chaos that has passed down to this generation is contrary to human dignity and not at all virtuous, to say the least. The Church faces many challenges from modernity on human sexuality. I think this insight is quite meaningful, particularly for me as a homosexual Catholic. It highlights the tendency of the faithful to forget homosexual Catholics living in accord with the Church's teaching, bearing their Cross alone. The current pastoral care and Christian outreach to chaste homosexuals is absolutely unacceptable in it's almost virtual nonexistence.

In my life, homosexuality was always the barrier between God and myself. I would love to have the issue discussed more in Catholic circles with an open-mind, understanding, and compassion without compromising our commitment to orthodoxy. Instead of our unspoken commitment to silence on vital issues, we fail those who need us most. We have entered an age of silence to maintain peace; it is also another age of dissent.

Read the article here.