April 2010 Archives

Some may object to what I said yesterday as regards human beings. It would appear that human beings often desire things far removed from God. In fact, human beings, given a free will by God, are uniquely able to pursue that which offends God. This we call sin.

A genocidal madman or a serial killer or abuser can hardly be said to desire to return to God.

Neither can those who outrightly reject God, or who believe intellectually in Him but profess to hate Him.

And even those who believe in God and profess to desire a life that pleases Him will be often annoyed by His intrusion into their lives -- as when we desire a particular thing for ourselves, like gossip or excesive drinking, but our consciences, informed by the Holy Spirit, forbid us.

So persons at every level of virtue and wickedness can be said to at least very often desire something far removed from God, some may argue.

While there may be some truth to the above, I maintain that all people, either by nature or by instinct or by will, do desire to return to God. Even if consciously we do not with our wills desire to return to Him, even so by our nature we desire to do so. The definition of original sin is that our wills desire one thing and nature desires another.

In other words, even when we profess to hate God, we love Him in spite of ourselves, in the sense that we are drawn to Him. Whatever we seek in the short term, we do so in hopes of obtaining some larger and further good, and beyond that another, and another, until we reach the ultimate good. That ultimate good is God, whether we like it or not.

Those who believe in an desire to please Him will often understand that what they desire in any given moment is not the thing in itself, like gossip or excessive drinking, but the good that lies beyond it, like notoriety or appreciation, or relaxation and comfort from one's troubles. Those things are all good things, pleasing to God, and it pleases Him that we should experience them either at His direct giving or by way of other persons, but not by way of that which offends Him.

And in fact those goods are more truly achieved in a way that pleases God rather than offends Him. The drunk will not still have comfort from his burdens tomorrow morning, nor the gossiper his appreciation. What one desires when he is tempted to gossip or excess is, in reality, God, whose love overflows.

The same goes for the unbelievers -- those who denounce God with their words abd those extreme evildoers who grievously offend Him with genocide or abuse. The evils that they and believers perpetrate are always ultimately because they seek happiness and fulfillment for themselves, or sometimes others, which means naturally they will be, in spite of themselves and albeit in a very confused way, drawn to God.

Indeed, for some who are determined not to desire to God, that want that they have in their natures can repulse them. But that natural desire is part of who they are, which means they hate a part -- the truest part -- of themselves. They wish it gone. But there it is. Always. Wherever they go. Which is why I am convinced part of the experience of Hell is eternal self-loathing.

St. Paul writes: "For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want." Why would one do the evil that one does not want? Because that evil will not achieve the good that one desires by nature. In other words, it will not bring one closer to God, which means it will not make the sinner happy. But every sinner desires that happiness, which can only be provided by God. So every sinner in spite of Himself desires to return to God.

Every man and woman seeks God, for every man and woman, from the most honorable to the most wicked, is created in His image and likeness. At every moment the human heart seeks Him out. The question is whether the human heart is getting warmer, or colder. The key to really drawing closer to the warmth of God is to consciously and actively desire with our wills that to which we are drawn by nature, which is God Himself.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. -- The words of Christ, the Book of Revelation, Chapter 22 verse 13

God is the beginning and the end of everything. Everyone and everything. All of creation proceeded from Him, and all of creation, each individual creature, longs, either by its nature or by its instinct or by its will, to return to Him.

I have heard physicists and geoscientists theorize that the universe as we know it started with the Big Bang and that at some point the universe will begin to colapse in on itself -- and, perhaps, at that point the process will repeat itself.

Some may think this theory challenges belief in a Higher Power, since it would appear to go against the idea of one creation moving towards one ultimate conclusion.

On the contrary, I would posit that such a theory, if true, would only provide a further and ultimate reflection in the material universe of God's relationship with His creation.

Those reflections in the material universe are everywhere. We humans, and al creation, cannot for example leave the ground without at some point returning to it -- sometimes peacefully and sometimes violently, but we return. Water evaporates, travels up, and eventually returns -- sometimes peacefully and sometimes violently, but it returns. The sun rises and sets. We persons leave in the morning and return in the evening.

Everything that God created awakens or springs into motion at one point in space and comes to rest at that same point. This we call a thing's or a person's "home." We leave from there, but always with the desire to return there.

God is the ultimate first point at which we awaken, at which all creation comes to life and is set in motion. And He is the point at which all Creation, and, above all, mankind, comes to finally rest. As Augustine said; "You have created us for yourself, Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee."

***

And while we're on the subject of cosmic reflections of God's relationship with HIs creation.

I saw this article a few days ago about "Why Catholics like Einstein," not that we're the only Christians who do, obviously. He makes the point:

If the universe were roughly 6,000 years old, as a literal reading of Genesis would suggest, then we would not be able to see the Milky Way. The light would not have reached the earth yet.

I know he was meaning to refute Creationists who take Genesis to be in no way figurative and in every way literal, and that I think he does rather effectively. But in doing that he sort of blew my mind with the vastness of creation itself. When you look up into the night sky, you are staring thousands, maybe even millions of years into the past. Because it takes that much time for the light from those stars across the galaxy to reach that spot where you are.

Think about that for a minute. God sets a star blazing on one end of the galaxy. The light from the star travels outward for millions of years until finally it makes contact with the eyes of a child of God. You, sitting on the roof. Psalm 19:2 -- "The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims its builder's craft."

The pope had a few words for, well, me, a couple days ago. He asked bloggers to basically make the internet less machine and more human being. Less Matrix, more Neo.

From Vatican Radio:

The need to give the Internet a soul and humanize the dynamics of the digital world was at the heart of Pope Benedict XVI's message Saturday to participants in a conference on modern means of mass communication.

Promoted by the Italian Bishops Conference, "Digital Witness" draws together experts in information technology, social networking, web journalism and blogging to focus on the language we use and the way we communicate as Christians in the online society.

Pope Benedict told participants that the task of every believer who works in media, is to ensure the "quality of human contact, guaranteeing attention to people and their spiritual needs". "This is increasingly urgent in today's world", he said, at a time when Internet appears to have a "basically egalitarian" vocation, but at the same time, "marks a new divide", the "digital divide" that "separates the included from the excluded"

And this is my favorite:

"The dangers of homologation and control, of intellectual and moral relativism are also increasing, as already recognizable in the decline of critical spirit, in truth reduced to a game of opinions, in the many forms of degradation and humiliation of the intimacy of the person"

This continues his theme of actual truth, not just cleverer opinions. He also addresses the viral nature of the internet. Which reminds me of this movie I watched the other day with my fiance called "Untraceable." It's about a psychopath who creates an elaborate system whereby his victims are killed live via the internet -- and more quickly the faster the hit count rises (in other words, more quickly the more people log in to watch).

The film comes to a pretty cynical conclusion: that tens of millions of people would log on to watch a live homicide, driving the victim that much more quickly closer to death, if given the chance.

I don't know if that's true, but it speaks to the voyeuristic nature of some of the stuff you can find on the internet. Not just porn, but hardcore wipeout stuff. And I don't mean stuff like Fail Blog, which sometimes is pretty funny and to my knowledge has never shown anyone getting fatally wounded. There is, aside from the sex trash, some pretty violent stuff out there that can just further desensitize the population. The pope is wise to address this.

But basically, he's inviting bloggers to bring a little more God into the blogosphere. Hope I can help a bit.

Just in case you missed it: Newsweek reports:

The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It's no wonder that, back in 2002--when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines--a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.

Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

The upshot: no empirical evidence to show that sexual abuse happens more often in the Catholic priesthood than in other situations, in fact it's possible that it happens less often.

This is not a cause for celebration, obviously. But the problem, again, is not a uniquely Catholic one.

How refreshing:

Nashville, Tennessee (CNN) -- Almost every weekend, there is a tradition called raging at Vanderbilt University.

It's a recurring, drunken activity that isn't the proudest moment for student Frannie Boyle. After consuming large quantities of alcohol before a party, her night would sometimes end in making out with a stranger or acquaintance.

Casual hook ups fueled by alcohol may be the norm across college campuses, but Boyle, now a 21-year-old junior at the school, chose to stop. Her reasons to quit hooking up echo the emotional devastation of many college students, particularly girls whose hearts are broken by the hook-up scene.

"I saw it [hooking up] as a way to be recognized and get satisfaction," said Boyle, shaking her blond ponytail. "I felt so empty then."

The hook-up culture on campuses may seem more pervasive than ever, especially as media outlets, books and documentaries rush to dissect the subject, but some college women and men are saying no.

Now don't get me wrong, this is great news. But the news of it is that the news is finally acknowledging that people like this exist. People who choose not to hook up. Not because they couldn't if they wanted to. Not because they're weird or obnoxious or incompetent. Just because they don't want to disrespect themselves and they know it won't make them happy. I've always known people like this exist because I've always known people like this. They're not that difficult to find.

I mean the headline itself says it all: "No hooking up, no sex for some coeds." Do the folks at CNN really believe that in the past leading up to now all coeds hooked up and had sex? That may not be what they mean to say, but that's how it reads.

Either CNN believes this is a surprising development, or CNN believes it will be a surprising development to some if not most of its readers, which is equally tragic. But hey, kudos to them for breaking the cycle of ignorance.

One particularly interesting fact from the story: I definitely did not know before reading it that Lady Gaga came out celibate recently. If you haven't heard this either, not kidding. MTV reported April 12:

"I can't believe I'm saying this -- don't have sex. I'm single right now and I've chosen to be single because I don't have the time to get to know anybody," she said while visiting England to help promote MAC's Viva Glam campaign, which supports global HIV and AIDS projects. "So it's OK not to have sex, it's OK to get to know people. I'm celibate, celibacy's fine."

So weird, in a good way.

On last excerpt from the CNN story:

Some, like Boyle, experimented with hooking up and quit. Though she is Catholic, she says her reason for disengaging herself from the hook-up culture had more to do with the unhappiness she experienced afterward. Others influenced by religion have abstained from casual physical activity from the moment they set foot on campus.

Not to psycho-analyze Ms. Boyle, as I've never met her before, but her description of the unhappiness she experienced afterward makes perfect sense from a Catholic standpoint. When we pursue emotional satisfaction in a way God would not want us to, like hooking up, it may well make us unhappy even if we never consciously consider whether our behavior jives with our religious affiliation. Things are not either "permitted by" or "against" "my religion." Things are simply right or wrong. They will either make us happy or they won't. Hooking up with strangers, however far one goes, isn't really going to make anyone happy, whether they're a devout Catholic or a flaming atheist.

So when the story says that other people have abstained since they arrived on campus because they are "influenced by religion," I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I appreciate CNN giving religion that much credit.

On the other, I would venture to say that it is not arbitrary religious rules that these young people just follow blindly and gullibly. They're not waiting because they lack critical thinking skills. It is reason and truth that influences them. But again, I can't fault CNN for the way they describe it -- it is probably the least disputable way to do so. And how about that. The best way to avoid years of regret and heartbreak from the moment you set foot on a college campus is to get religion.

Every now and then modern current events provide good fodder for a modern day parable. Consider the following, from FoxNews:

A computer game retailer revealed that it legally owns the souls of thousands of online shoppers, thanks to a clause in the terms and conditions agreed to by online shoppers.

The retailer, British firm GameStation, added the "immortal soul clause" to the contract signed before making any online purchases earlier this month. It states that customers grant the company the right to claim their soul.

"By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions."

GameStation's form also points out that "we reserve the right to serve such notice in 6 (six) foot high letters of fire, however we can accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by such an act. If you a) do not believe you have an immortal soul, b) have already given it to another party, or c) do not wish to grant Us such a license, please click the link below to nullify this sub-clause and proceed with your transaction."

The terms of service were updated on April Fool's Day as a gag, but the retailer did so to make a very real point: No one reads the online terms and conditions of shopping, and companies are free to insert whatever language they want into the documents.

While all shoppers during the test were given a simple tick box option to opt out, very few did this, which would have also rewarded them with a £5 voucher, according to news:lite. Due to the number of people who ticked the box, GameStation claims believes as many as 88 percent of people do not read the terms and conditions of a Web site before they make a purchase.

What a great metaphor for life! How often do we stop to examine the "fine print" of our individual moral choices? To take a closer look at where they would lead if we "agreed to the terms," as it were?

In a modern culture of instant gratification, many of us would rather not take the added time and effort needed to examine our choices and think about what lies ahead. We only care about what immediately awaits us on the other side of the "agree" button. Games or applications or whatever. Most of the time, it may be perfectly fine, but always?

Likewise, it is possible to unknowingly release ownership of our souls to someone or something else, if we do not stop to read the fine print of our decisions -- if all we think about is the immediate good that awaits us on the other side of the "agree" button, be it material wealth or sex or notoriety or whatever.

Wisdom requires us to read the proverbial fine print. The act of actually reading the fine print is called "discernment." Modern popular culture is short on both wisdom and discernment. Yet these are the keys to a happy life. We may see some of our friends enjoying all kinds of things, and we may envy them. But we may not see a few years later when they finally read the fine print. When they say, "Oh, I didn't realize material wealth costs money." And think about the number of people you know who carry tremendous regrets that have something to do with sex. Now there's a wonderful gift from God that carries all kinds of fine print.

Again, these good things -- material wealth, sex, popularity -- are good things. But there's not a good thing in this world that doesn't have terms and conditions. That's as it should be. It's God's design.

So it may take a little bit longer, but it's worth it to read the fine print, to pray and discern, even -- and especially -- for the good things in life that we want very badly. Not that God will refuse it to us if we give it serious thought. But it's best to know into what we are getting, and for what we are asking.

And in case you were wondering:

The company noted that it would not be enforcing the ownership rights, and planned to e-mail customers nullifying any claim on their soul.

Usually the world is not so forgiving. But that's why it is nice to have a God who can forgive without needing to know your credit card number. (He does, but He won't use it against you, is my point.) But the key after that is to let Him give us the grace to always read before we "agree."

I recently visited my good friend and priest Father J. I don't recall how the subject of washing the dishes came up, but Fr. J made a wise suggestion:

Do them by hand.

Right after one has finished eating.

Soap. Rinse. Dry off. Put away.

Leave everything the way it was when you first showed up. Always.

Only use the machine for parties.

I have begun to do this in my own life. And you know what? It's awesome! I actually enjoy washing the dishes by hand. I finish washing the dishes and I say, "There must be more dirty dishes somewhere!"

I've been doing my fiance's dishes every night. I even did my roommate's dishes just now. He wasn't even home! (Yeah dude, if you're reading this, that was me.)

I just feel a greater sense of accomplishment when I wash the dishes by hand. Screw machines! I'm about to get married and start my own family. I ought to get used to working with my hands.

Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh actually wrote about the importance of washing the dishes:

While washing the dishes one should only be washing the dishes, which means that while washing the dishes one should be completely aware of the fact that one is washing the dishes. At first glance this might seem a little silly: why put so much stress on a simple thing? But that's precisely the point. The fact that I am standing there and washing these bowls is a wondrous reality. I'm being completely myself, following my breath, conscious of my presence, and conscious of my thoughts and actions. There's no way I can be tossed around mindlessly like a bottle slapped here and there on the waves.

There are two ways to wash the dishes. The first way is to wash the dishes in order to have clean dishes and the second way is to wash the dishes in order to wash the dishes.

If while we are washing dishes, we think only of the cup of tea that awaits us, thus hurrying to get the dishes out of the way as they were a nuisance, then we are not 'washing the dishes to wash to wash the dishes.' What's more we are not alive during the time we are washing the dishes....If we can't washes the dishes, chances are we won't be able to drink our tea either.

In other words, enjoy every moment, no matter how mundane it might seem. Washing the dishes by hand is great practice for this.

Apparently there are some naybobs out there who say washing the dishes by hand wastes water. Pish posh, I say! There are ways to save water when washing dishes by hand, and even among the enviros, the question is not completely settled. Eco-friendly ways of handwashing dishes would consist basically of running the water only when you are rinsing the dish. Simple enough.

At any rate, I have thoroughly enjoyed the new practice and highly recommend it to anyone who hates loading and unloading the machine. Wash, rinse, put away, done!

This past weekend, my fiance and I went to see the recent DreamWorks animated feature, "How to Train Your Dragon," which I think should have been called "The Dragon Whisperer." Perhaps that would make a good title for a sequel?

But my qualm with the title is pretty much the only thing wrong with the film, which has scored a phenomenal 98 percent at Rotten Tomatoes.

Everything about the movie is done well. It kicks right off with a fiery bang, like a U2 concert. The art and animation are excellent. The score is awesome. The character and relationships development is deep and feels real. And, it's funny.

Most of the film feels real, even though it's about dragons, and depicts a community of Vikings some of whom have heavy Scottish accents. (review continued below)

The movie seized the top spot at the box office again this weekend, after being released March 26 and falling off the top spot. My suspicion is that word will spread, and more people will recommend seeing the movie in 3D. If Avatar is any indication, movies shown in and made for 3D will start have a lot more longevity. This movie is a perfect 3D experience. The flying and battle sequences are pitch perfect.

But the characters who occupy the 3D world, both the Vikes and the dragons, are moving and relatable.

When the main character, Hiccup, first encounters the dragon up close, we react exactly as he does. The relatioship that develops between the two is almost on the level of E.T. or the Iron Giant. Indeed, certain moments may move some viewers close to tears.

I don't want to give away too many details. Suffice to say, you will not be disappointed. It is funny, exhilirating, and warm-hearted. Go see it.

... Oh and in case anyone's wondering, my fiance liked it too.

Villains beware.

Pope Benedict XVI preached a homily at Mass with the Pontifical Biblical Academy yesterday, in which he addressed, in off-the-cuff, non-scripted remarks, not just the ongoing sexual abuse scandals plaguing the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, but the errors of modern thought that made such crimes possible, and the fresh opportunity for the Church to open herself to God's transforming power.

So far there is not a complete transcript, just notes taken by Vatican Radio and others. But if the notes are any indication, it was a brilliant teaching moment from Benedict.

Because so much of this is so great, I'm going to quote it a bit at a time and intersperse my comments. If you, dear reader, wish not to be interrupted by my inferior thoughts, please skip over them. You won't offend me. He's the freakin' pope.

Vatican Radio reports:

Speaking without a prepared text, the Holy Father said that in modern times we have seen theorized an idea of man according to which human being would be, "free, autonomous, and nothing else."

This supposed freedom from everything, including freedom from the duty of obedience to God, "Is a lie," said Pope Benedict, a falsehood regarding the basic structure of human being - about the way women and men are made to be, "because," he continued, "human being does not exist on its own, nor does it exist for itself."

I'm not sure there's a man alive on the planet today who better understands the errors of modern thought than Pope Benedict. He understands that the error is based on something that appears on the surface to be a good, which is freedom. When he says that this particular idea of freedom is a "lie," he is not saying that there is no freedom. He is saying that what many in the modern world mean when they say the word "freedom" is not freedom at all. For God is the source of freedom.

In the modern mind, to be free means to be unencumbered by, often by means of separation. For example, being free from homework by being separated from school, or confinement by being separated from prison. Or morality by being separated from God. But to be separated from God is to be separated from the only source of freedom available to man. Therefore, "freedom" from God in the modern sense is actually the opposite of freedom.

He continues:

The Pope said it is a political and practical falsehood, as well, because cooperation and sharing of freedoms is a necessary part of social life - and if God does not exist - if He is not a point of reference really accessible to human being, then only prevailing opinion remains and it becomes the final arbiter of all things.

Citing the Nazi and Communist regimes of the 20th century as examples, Pope Benedict said such dictatorships can never accept the notion of a God who is above ideological power - and he also stressed that in the present, there are subtle forms of dictatorship like that of a radical conformism, which can lead to subtle and not-so subtle aggression toward the Church.

In the modern world quite often people think there are no facts that cannot be disputed -- only opinions that can be rhetorically cleverer than others, and thus more highly valued as "right." Particularly in the area of morality and politics it is the one who can be funnier or more charismatic who wins. That is not to say that such qualities are bad. They can be very good, but only if they are used to advance truth rather than falsehoods. Those who possess good humor and charisma may be right, or wrong. But in the modern world they are admired regardless as being worthy of our agreement. And on the flipside, those who come off as angry or humorless are dismissed as unworthy of our attention, regardless of whether what they're saying may be true.

The Holy Father also stressed that for Christians, true obedience to God depends on our truly knowing Him, and he warned against the danger of using "obedience to God" as a pretext for following our own desires.

If we don't know a person, we can't know what he wants. We may think that perhaps we know what he wants. But if the thing that we think he perhaps wants coincides with what we certainly know we want, how likely are we to make sure we understand him rightly?

That is the awkward position in which many Catholics finds themselves. We have a Church that professes concrete teachings on the principles of Jesus, many of which impose on us what at times appear to be profound inconveniences -- unreasonable prohibitions. Often, it is not simply that we do not know, but that we would rather not know.

But again, only by summoning up the courage to know the truth -- about ourselves and about God and what he wants -- can we be truly confident in God, and only then can we be truly free.

"We have," he said, "a certain fear of speaking about eternal life."

"We talk of things that are useful to the world," continued Pope Benedict, "we show that Christianity can help make the world a better place, but we do not dare say that the end of the world and the goal of Christianity is eternal life - and that the criteria of life in this world come from the goal - this we dare not say."

How true is this! We hear this a lot these days, and not necessarily always in a bad way. But it's very popular to talk about "What Christ's sacrifice means for me," and "How does this impact my life here and now," etc. But there's a certain self-centeredness there when we think of Christianity only in terms of this present world, and my present life. It's important to do that, of course. But have we perhaps lost sight of our ultimate and final end? The complete happiness that we cannot have in this life, no matter how much money we earn, how many friends we make, and how holy we are? Christianity -- Christ -- is much bigger than this world, and will remain long after this world is gone.

We must rather have the courage, the joy, the great hope that there is eternal life, that eternal life is real life and that from this real life comes the light that illuminates this world as well.

And here we have the flipside of that coin. Part of the problem is, I argue, a certain self-centeredness on the part of man. But the other side of it is simply fear. What, really, is going to happen to me after my heart stops beating? When I lose consciousness for the last time? It is simply the scariest question that human beings can ask themselves. And we are the only species on the planet that fears death on more than just an instinctual level, more than just when death seems uncomfortably near. We worry about it in the comfort of our own homes. Am I ultimately going anywhere besides in the ground?

As with virtually every question that weighs on the human heart, the answer is Jesus. We have in Him a demonstration that death is not the end, that we are heading for something greater. Don't just cling to that when you're afraid. Own it always. Believe and know that eternal life is waiting.

The Catholic News Service quotes him near the end of his remarks.

Recognizing the sins of priests who have sexually abused children, performing penance and asking for forgiveness, the Catholic Church trusts that God will purify and transform the church, Pope Benedict XVI said.

"I must say that we Christians, even in recent times, have often avoided the word 'penance,' which seemed too harsh to us. Now, under the attacks of the world that speaks to us of our sins, we see that being able to do penance is a grace."

Like death, we fear penance. Penance is a kind of death because we put to death our perverse desires. And Benedict is pointing to the recent terrible offenses of abusive priests, but also takes this as an opportunity not just for those perpetrators, but for all the members of the Church to really examine ourselves. If we truly possess the truth of the Jesus Christ, if we receive Him fully, then we should be the least afraid of the change it would make in ourselves.

That's the amazing thing about what Pope Benedict is doing here. He's taking the recent egregious crimes of the priests as an opportunity for the whole Church to be an example to the world of the change that Christ can make if we open ourselves to Him. There are many calling for change in how the Church operates as an institution. Such suggestions are worth considering. But Benedict understands that even more urgently needed is the transformation of hearts -- those of the Church's shepherds and their followers.

* * *

When I think of people going off the cuff the way Benedict has, I often picture them launching into rants against this person or that person, angrily speaking and wishing ill. None of that here. He attacks no individual person or group of persons. He simply invites people to examine the prevailing ideas of the modern world. And he does it with love, motivated by the love of Christ and the fire of the Holy Spirit. As his five-year anniversary approaches, I am thankful for this pope.

* * *

Reuters reported on the pope's words here, and the New York Times here.

Hat tip to the First Things blog and Rocco Palmo's Whispers in the Loggia.

Pat Archbold at the National Catholic Register writes about about how the media is "very confused" about how to react to the appointment of Archbishop Jose Gomez to the Los Angeles Archdiocese. It's actually pretty funny.

The media is alternately ecstatic and apoplectic over Pope Benedict's choice for the city of Angels. Several news outlets, notably the LA Times, have already written several articles about what to expect from Archbishop Gomez and have even tried to send thinly-veiled warnings. But in most of the coverage, the media makes the same mistake that it always makes when it tries to cover religion like politics. They attempt to view all matters through the lens of politics and feel compelled to attempt to classify everything in terms of the modern political definitions of 'progressive' or 'conservative.'

Trying to do this with Archbishop Gomez has left their collective heads spinning.

Archbishop Gomez is a Mexican-born hispanic. Hooray!

Archbishop Gomez is a full member of Opus Dei. Gasp!?!

Archbishop Gomez is a staunch defender of immigrants. Hooray, he is a progressive!

Archbishop Gomez is a staunch defender of life. (He even denounced a Catholic university when it invited Hillary Clinton.) Horror, he is a conservative!

Archbishop Gomez has a history of dedication to the poor. Progressive!

Archbishop Gomez is vocally opposed to homosexual marriage. Conservative!

I could go on. They are perplexed. How can a Bishop be 'orthodox'--which in the mind of the media means 'conservative' and uncaring--and still dedicated to the poor and the defenseless?

A one word answer: Catholic. What the media consistently does not get is that 'orthodoxy' in a truly Catholic sense entails love for all the teachings of Jesus, as handed down through the Church including the command to love.

Archbishop Gomez loves the Church, the poor, the homosexual, the immigrant, and the unborn all at the same time. He is Catholic.

So when the media reports on the Church, they should take off the politically-colored glasses of red and blue and remember one thing. It's the love, stupid.

The Associated Press says the Catholic Church in America is moving faster on abuse cases now, but not everybody is happy about it.

The action against the priest was swift and public.

Within five days of receiving a decades-old child sex abuse allegation against the Rev. Melvin Thompson, Denver's Roman Catholic Archdiocese investigated, alerted law enforcement and announced his suspension to parishioners and the public.

The archdiocese says Thompson, 74, maintains his innocence. Some parishioners have complained the process was unfair and too fast. However Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput called prompt action "painful but necessary."

The episode highlights the challenges American Catholic Church leaders face as they follow through on a promise to be more transparent in dealing with priests accused of abuse, while respecting the rights of both victims and the accused.

Whaaat? Since when has the maintsream press been concerned about the rights of accused Catholic priests? I guess it's never too late to start seeing the other possible side of the story. Some in te archdiocese are actually a little alarmed that the process is happening so quickly. What if the guy didn't do it? And it's being made public that he's accused of sexual misconduct with minors?

"You're damned if you do and damned if you don't," said [Thomas] Plante, vice chairman of the National Review Board. "That's part of the challenge now. People have demands and want to know, but we do have laws and due process for a reason."

This makes me smile:

The parents of 11-year-old Nadia Bloom, who was rescued after wandering for four days in and near a Florida swamp, said their daughter is doing "great."

"She's doing great, she really is," said Tanya Bloom, Nadia's mother, at a press conference today. "It's a story you don't usually get. It's a story of hope."

Tanya thanked her daughter's rescuer, James King, but said the words were not enough.

"'Thank you' is not appropriate for what James King did," she said. "We are so fortunate God used him to bring her back to us."

"You know that part at the end of the third 'Star Wars' when all the ewoks are going crazy? That's how it was," Nadia's father, Jeff Bloom, said of the moment they were told Nadia was found alive.

Other than a lot of bug bites, several scratches and some bacteria that's been identified in Nadia's blood, her doctor, Mary Farrell, said Nadia could go home by the end of the week.

Apparently the girl has mild Asperger's, which is a form of autism. And King, the guy who found her, goes to the same church as the Blooms. He said God "directed his path" to find her.

He wasn't the only one listening to the Almighty.

But while they were worrying at home, Tanya Bloom said Nadia claimed to be praying in the swamps, saying, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding."

That's Proverbs 3:5. When I read that the thing that struck me is, you know, that's probably not the first time this young lady has ever prayed those words. Praying consistently can help a person to face difficult and dangerous situations more prayerfully and peacefully.

Favorite "awwwww" moment from the story:

Tanya Bloom said Nadia's first words to her were, "I'll obey you more, mommy, now."

King said:

God told him to "follow the sunrise" into the heart of a treacherous swamp where the girl awaited rescue on a log.

"He [God] directed my path," volunteer searcher James King told "Good Morning America" today. "When you're in a swamp, there's no good-looking way. He led me directly to her. ... I would be praying and calling out Scriptures and at one point I called out, 'Nadia,' and I heard, 'What?'

"That's a huge swamp," he said. "It was strictly the Lord. There was no mathematical calculations. It was the Holy Spirit directing me to where he knew she was the whole time."

Although she had been wandering lost in the swamp for four days, Nadia was calm and matter-of-fact about her situation, King said, only a little disappointed he didn't have any M&Ms on him.

"I don't know what we talked about. I told her she was very brave," King said. "She did say she only slept about two hours a night ... [and] she'd seen a black snake at some point.

"But God kept her safe," he said.

Rescuers covered in mud and brandishing machetes emerged from a Florida swamp Tuesday, carrying Nadia on a stretcher through dense alligator-infested wilderness.

King, a member of Nadia's church, said the swamp was so dense it took officials about an hour and a half to get to the pair after his 911 call.

Nadia politely jumped in on that emergency phone call.

"Hi, this is Nadia," she said. "I'm the girl that got lost."

Awesome. More on the story here and here.

Phil Lawler, director of the website Catholic Culture, on April 10 wrote a columna slamming the mainstream press for abandoning accuracy standards in their reporting on Benedict XVI and the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church. He focuses on a story from the Associated Press claiming the future Pope Benedict "stalled pedophile case".

Lawler argues that the press has failed to conduct themselves and report fairly, to consult with people in the Church who actually understand the documents on which they are reporting. He further shows a blatant inconsistency on the part of the press -- that when the scandals in the United States first broke at the turn of the millennium, it was all the U.S. bishops' fault. Now, for what mainly are turning out to be cases that took place during the same time period, the blame falls on the Vatican.

Lawler's is the most concise, and I would argue most effective, defense of Benedict that I have yet seen. He asks all the questions that the mainstream press -- the AP and the New York Times -- should have asked before going to press.

First to repeat the bare-bones version of the story: in November 1985, then-Cardinal Ratzinger signed a letter deferring a decision on the laicization of Father Stephen Kiesle, a California priest who had been accused of molesting boys.

Now the key questions:

• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.

• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.

• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.

• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.

• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.

• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.

• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.

So to review: This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you're looking for evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant.

We Americans know what a sex-abuse crisis looks like. The scandal erupts when evidence emerges that bishops have protected abusive priests, kept them active in parish assignments, covered up evidence of the charges against them, and lied to their people. There is no such evidence in this or any other case involving Pope Benedict XVI.

Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church. If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective.

He also goes after the New York Times.

The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:

...the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.

Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!

Exactly. Because back then the man in the Vatican was not an easy target. Now, he is.

An op-ed columnist named Ross Douthat at the New York Times of all publications is wondering whether Benedict XVI is actually a better pope than John Paul II. I don't agree with the whole thing, but it is interesting:

The world didn't always agree with Pope John Paul II, but it always seemed to love him. Handsome and charismatic, with an actor's flair and a statesman's confidence, he transformed the papacy from an Italian anachronism into a globe-trotting phenomenon. His authority stabilized a reeling church; his personal holiness inspired a generation of young Catholics. "Santo subito!" the Roman crowds chanted as he lay dying. Sainthood now!

They will not chant for Benedict XVI. The former Joseph Ratzinger was always going to be a harder pontiff for the world to love: more introverted than his predecessor, less political and peripatetic, with the crags and wrinkles of a sinister great-uncle. While the last pope held court with presidents and rock stars, Cardinal Ratzinger was minding the store in Rome, jousting with liberal theologians and being caricatured as "God's Rottweiler." His reward was supposed to be retirement, and a return to scholarly pursuits. Instead, he was summoned to Peter's chair -- and, it seems, to disaster.

Douthat touches on one of the reasons I have not been quick to criticize Pope Benedict. It just seems so easy to target the man. Who out there with any cool points is actually backing him? What pop culture icons has he befriended? Not Stephen Colbert, as much as I love that guy. Bono was friends with John Paul II, but not Benedict. Benedict has always been considered in the conventional unwisdom of popular culture to be a creepy crumudgeon.

That is what popular culture typically thinks of people who are defined first and foremost by their commitment to moral goodness. I say "first and foremost" because in the popular cultural context, John Paul II was not defined "first and foremost" by his commitment to moral goodness. Oh, he wrote several books on sexual morality that ran completely against the popular stream. But mainstream popular media just sort of glossed over that.

It is impossible to gloss over anything with Pope Benedict XVI. He stands for principle as strongly as John Paul II did, in a far less assuming and less charismatic way, yet more intimidating to the secular media. When the scandals in America first broke in 2002, it was the bishops that took the brunt of the criticism. John Paul II was largely unscathed. Perhaps that was in part because the man was dying. But the scandals that were uncovered then, and continuing to be discovered today, took place before he began to really lose health. Yet it was understood that it was the bishops, not JPII, who really screwed up. I don't mean to say that that was incorrect. But if it was a fair assessment back then, with JPII, why is it not equally fair this time, for Benedict? Because Benedict is, quite simply, an easier target.

But as far as I can tell and from what I've read of his writings and the writings of others about him, he does not appear very different from other humble servants of the Lord and His Church who are today known as saints. He may never be canonized himself. But he appears to be a man with a good heart, who didn't strong-arm anyone to become pope in the first place. Basically, to me, he just seems like a good man who doesn't deserve all the flak he's getting.

So the high-flying John Paul let scandals spread beneath his feet, and the uncharismatic Ratzinger was left to clean them up. This pattern extends to other fraught issues that the last pope tended to avoid -- the debasement of the Catholic liturgy, or the rise of Islam in once-Christian Europe. And it extends to the caliber of the church's bishops, where Benedict's appointments are widely viewed as an improvement over the choices John Paul made. It isn't a coincidence that some of the most forthright ecclesiastical responses to the abuse scandal have come from friends and protégés of the current pope.

Speaking of, the Vatican Monday made it clear that bishops are supposed to follow the law and report allegations of sex abuse to local civil authorities. Why that needed to be spelled out for men many of whom have doctorates, I don't know. But that is part of the life of the Church over millennia: common understanding of teachings and procedures is assumed to be understood until it needs to be spelled out.

The Vatican rules for handling sex abuse charges against priests can be found here.

Texas Stadium in Irving, Texas, former home of the Dallas Cowboys, was imploded on Sunday. I enjoy watching things collapse in a controlled, non-lethal fashion. So, enjoy!

This one's from above. Aweosme.

Ground view.

And it was pretty loud, too.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported yesterday on the "I am Second" movement, a national media campaign that showcases a series of personalities, including University of Texas quarterback Colt McCoy and vampire novelist turned "Christ the Lord" author Anne Rice, who declare themselves to be second behind Jesus.

The about section on the campaign's website reads:

I am Second is a movement meant to inspire people of all kinds to live for God and for others. Actors. Athletes. Musicians. Business leaders. Drug addicts. Your next-door neighbor. People like you. The authentic stories on iamsecond.com provide insight into dealing with typical struggles of everyday living. These are stories that give hope to the lonely and the hurting, help from destructive lifestyles, and inspiration to the unfulfilled. You'll discover people who've tried to go it alone and have failed. Find the hope, peace, and fulfillment they found. Be Second.

I used to have a problem with use of media campaigns to, as it were, advertise Jesus. Churches, and the Church, should not need to advertise on billboards and in movie theaters in order to get their message out there.

But many people are probably benefitting from this campaign in some way, or at least starting to think more about whether they want to start talking to God more as a result of it. What's wrong with that?

An important part of spreading the message of Jesus is giving people a reason to be interested in it, awakening the desire that is dormant in the hearts of so many to discover the kind of happiness that only Christ can give. In other words, we have to make people want to get to know Jesus. "I am Second" is a great example of this, and I hope it's just the tip of the iceberg.

A bit from the report:

Author Anne Rice starts her testimony while sitting, hands folded, in a white chair.

Rice talks directly into the camera. She is a former atheist and well-known novelist who wrote Interview With the Vampire and other vampire-themed books. She explains how the vampire fantasy explores loss of faith and the struggle between good and evil and how people cope when cut off from God -- all once aspects of her life.

Rice has reconnected with Jesus Christ and recently began sharing her story through the increasingly popular I Am Second campaign.

"I was a Christ-haunted person," she said. "I was a Christ-haunted atheist."

The Christianity-based campaign marries old-school media -- billboards, radio commercials and bus stop kiosks -- with the Internet. A Web site gives users access to short video testimonials from everyday people struggling with problems but also features athletes and celebrities such as Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton and actor Stephen Baldwin. Online maps show people where to connect with others. Downloadable materials are available that people can use to spread the need to put Jesus first.

"We live in this world where we are all trying to be first," said Nathan Sheets, vice president of partnership development for the Plano-based e3 Partners Ministry, which is behind the 17-month-old campaign. "Everything is about me being No. 1."

Sheets and Norm Miller, CEO of Interstate Batteries, wanted people to ask themselves whether God comes first in their lives and to say, "I am second because Christ is first in my life."

I sure didn't.

From the Catholic News Agency:

While resting up at Castel Gandolfo, the Holy Father will be taking the time to catch a film on Friday. The Pontiff will watch "Under the Roman Sky," a movie about Hitler's treatment of the Jews in Rome and his attempt to kidnap Pope Pius XII.

Whoa. Seriously?

At least some people seem to think so. In 2007 a book was published on the subject by Washington reporter Dan Kurzman. The broader aim of the book, "A Special Mission," was to refute the myth of Pius XII as "Hitler's Pope."

The kidnapping story is not without its skeptics. Wikipedia actually has a page on Hitler's "alleged" plot to kidnap Pius XII. Some say it did happen, and some say it was just a rumor that was spread by allied propagandists.

As for the movie, Pius XII is played by actor James Cromwell, who played a chauffeur with superhuman strength in Murder By Death (1976), a kindly sheep farmer who befriends a pig in Babe (1995), and Jack Bauer's evil dad in season 6 of 24.

The mini-series is set in the streets of Rome during the Nazi occupation. According to Italy's AGI News, the plot develops along the course of nine months, and features Jews being taken from the ghetto and a failed attempt by the Nazis to abduct the Pope.

The film, made by the Italian production company Lux Vide, also illustrates the Church's efforts to protect and save Jews during the war, the very subject that raised a considerable amount controversy after Pope Benedict declared Pius XII "Venerable" on Dec. 19, 2009

I can't help imagining what Quentin Tarantino's version of this whole scenario might look like. The SS surrounds St. Peter's square, and hiding in the chapel is the Holy Father with his Swiss guards, who morph into a band of super-assassins. ... I'll just stop right there.

One thing I have always found fascinating about Catholic bishops is that they defy and at times force us to consider what we mean when we use political terms like "conservative," "liberal," and "moderate."

An example: This week Archbishop Jose Gomez of the San Antonio Archdiocese was introduced to his new archdiocese, Los Angeles, California. It is the largest Catholic diocese in the country, heavily populated by Latinos and Mexican natives.

From the L.A. Times blog:

He invited everyone to "thank God for our diversity and to commit ourselves to things that unite us," which he explained were "our service to Jesus, the poor, the defense of the unborn child, the immigrant and the disabled."

Here we have all in one breath the enthusiastic mention of three interest groups typically (but not necessarily accurately) advocated for by the political left, the poor, the immigrant, and the disabled, and a mention of one interest group typically advocated for by the political right. Gomez's top issues do not at least at first glance easily fit into a particular political template, but I am not sure that he is necessarily a "moderate."

A "moderate," as I understand the term, means someone who straddles the fence on each issue. Gomez, and other bishops I have known and followed over the years, do not straddle the fence on much of anything. Rather, he and other Most Reverends hold strong decisive positions often associated with* Republicans on some issues, and on other issues hold strong decisive positions often associated with* Democrats.

I say "often associated with" because the religious positions do not always translate neatly into a governing policy. For example, belief in the importance of serving the poor is not the same at least conceptually as support for confiscatory tax rates and redistribution of wealth in order to do so.

Archbishop Gomez has a reputation of being "conservative" at least in a religious context because of his membership in Opus Dei, a fictional bizarro version of which was written about in the DaVinci Code. Also:

Gomez built a reputation in San Antonio as a staunch traditionalist who reversed some of the more liberal-leaning initiatives of his predecessor. According to local news reports, he disbanded a Justice and Peace Commission whose members disagreed with his support for a state constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, and he once denounced a local Catholic college for hosting then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, an advocate of abortion rights.

Since taking over the San Antonio archdiocese in 2005, Gomez has pleased some members of the community with his strong anti-abortion stance and his insistence on traditional church doctrine, while alienating others who favor a more progressive approach, according to the San Antonio Express-News.

Someday someone is going to have to explain to me how clear and effective communication of a religious teaching and tradition constitutes "alienating" somebody. His Excellency is charged with teaching and safeguarding the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as received via the Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church. Even if someone doesn't believe that, surely they can understand that Archbishop Gomez believes it, and so considers himself bound. What else is His Excllency supposed to do?

At any rate, I'll be excited to see how Archbishop Gomez adjusts to his new surroundings, and more importantly, how his new surroundings adjust to him.

Quick note: I am playing a bit of catch-up since I recently completed the Lenten daily reflections. So while a lot of the stuff I'm posting may have happened a week or more ago, I believe they are worth noting.

Daniel Cardinal DiNardo of Houston-Galveston issued a statement on April 1 in anticipation of the Easter Triduum:

Since 2002, the Church in the United States has had a policy of zero tolerance: Any member of the clergy who has admitted to or has been found guilty of sexually abusing a minor can no longer engage in public ministry.

No one has been more forceful in implementing this policy than Pope Benedict XVI.

In 2001, Pope John Paul II assigned the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith full responsibility for cases of priests accused of sexual abuse. (Before 2001, the Congregation only became involved in rare instances when admission of abuse occurred in the context of the confessional.) Pope Benedict, then a cardinal, was head of that Vatican office. He has been the primary force for advocating a tough response to the crisis. He led our Church's efforts to reform how sex abuse cases are handled, making it easier to remove priests who have committed crimes from ministry. As pope, he has
made handling abuse cases a priority.

Pope Benedict is the first pontiff to meet with victims of sexual abuse by clergy. He is the first pope to devote an entire document to the sexual abuse crisis in his recent letter to the Church in Ireland. He spoke openly about the crisis several times in his visit to the United States in 2008.

There has been no one more effective and clearer on this issue than Pope Benedict XVI.

Given all that His Holiness has done to push reform forward, recent headlines insinuating inaction or culpability by Pope Benedict XVI regarding the crisis are unfair and inaccurate. Any innuendo that he has not tried to tackle cases of sexual abuse by clergy is misleading and harmful to the Church. (Cardinal William J. Levada, an American bishop who now leads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a statement regarding recent media coverage; a summary of his comments is also available on our Web site.)

Cardinal William Levada, an American bishop who now leads the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (as did Pope Benedict back when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), also defended the Holy Father back on March 26. He said the New York Times failed to treat Pope Benedict fairly, and came up short of the American journalistic tradition of fairness, accusing the paper of "anachronistic conflation" and "rushing to a guilty verdict."

As a full-time member of the Roman Curia, the governing structure that carries out the Holy See's tasks, I do not have time to deal with the Times's subsequent almost daily articles by Rachel Donadio and others, much less with Maureen Dowd's silly parroting of Goodstein's "disturbing report." But about a man with and for whom I have the privilege of working, as his "successor" Prefect, a pope whose encyclicals on love and hope and economic virtue have both surprised us and made us think, whose weekly catecheses and Holy Week homilies inspire us, and yes, whose pro-active work to help the Church deal effectively with the sexual abuse of minors continues to enable us today, I ask the Times to reconsider its attack mode about Pope Benedict XVI and give the world a more balanced view of a leader it can and should count on.

There is no way of knowing this, but one would hope that the point of publishing such daily reports on sex abuse in the Church is not merely to make it impossible for Church leaders to respond in a satisfactory way to the scandals, thereby demoralizing the faithful.

In response to the seemingly constant torrent of news reports about sexual abuse allegations in the Catholic Church around the world, papal biographer George Weigel wrote a great defense of the celibate priesthood in Newsweek a few days ago. Puts things quite in perspective:

Sexual abuse is indeed horrible, but there is no empirical evidence that it is a uniquely, predominantly, or even strikingly Catholic problem. The sexual abuse of the young is a global plague. In the United States, some 40 to 60 percent of such abuse takes place within families--often at the hands of live-in boyfriends or the second (or third, or fourth) husband of a child's mother; those cases have nothing to do with celibacy. The case of a married Wilmington, Dela., pediatrician charged with 471 counts of sexual abuse in February has nothing to do with celibacy. Neither did the 290,000 cases of sexual abuse in American public schools between 1991 and 2000, estimated by Charol Shakeshaft of Virginia Commonwealth University. And given the significant level of abuse problems in Christian denominations with married clergy, it's hard to accept the notion that marriage is somehow a barrier against sexually abusive clergy. (Indeed, the idea of reducing marriage to an abuse-prevention program ought to be repulsive.) Sexual abusers throughout the world are overwhelmingly noncelibates.

He continues:

yes, aspects of clerical culture in the U.S. and elsewhere contributed to the problem, but that same deplorable circle-the-wagons instinct has warped the response to this plague in other sectors of society. The difference is that the Catholic Church in America has taken more rigorous action since 2002 to protect the young people in its care than any other similarly situated institution, to the point where the church is likely America's safest environment for young people.

And (sorry, I thought it was really good):

Since 2002, with strong support from then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (and from him still as Benedict XVI), the Catholic Church in America has developed and enforced policies and procedures to ensure the safety of the young that offer an important model for the world church. There were only six credible reports of sexual abuse of the young in the U.S. church last year. And while that is six too many in a church that ought to hold itself to the highest standards, it is nonetheless remarkable in a community of 68 million people.

What is essential throughout the world, however, is that the church become more Catholic, not less. John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" proposed an understanding of faithful and fruitful human love as an icon of God's inner life. That vision is far nobler, far more compelling, and far more humane than the sex-as-contact-sport teaching of the sexual revolution, the principal victims of which seem to be vulnerable young people. Those who are genuinely committed to the protection of the young might ponder whether Catholicism really needs to become Catholic Lite--or whether the Augean stables of present-day culture need a radical cleansing.

* * *

Meanwhile, a priest who was the judicial vicar in Milwaukee from 1995-2003 is defending Benedict's record as a Cardinal in addressing and reducing sexual abuse cases in the Church:

With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying 'odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people. " Also quoted is this: "Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation."

The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct.

Ouch.

Let's ask ourselves: How many times in a day do I say the words "thank you," either to another person or to God? How far into the day do I get before that happens?

Do I react to the morning alarm with thankfulness that I am alive and in sufficient good health to get out of bed? If not, perhaps that sets the tone for and colors the way I approach everything else in my day -- traffic, the job, the news, other people, etc.

Being thankful is a challenge because it is sometimes too obvious. There's stuff to be thankful for everywhere. The breath in our lungs, the people we love, the trees breaming green beneath a cloudless sky on a good day, or the rain that cools us off. But our cynical side may encourage us to simply roll our eyes and dismiss it. What's so great about being in sufficient good health to get out of bed? If you're consciously thanking God for that, all that means is you don't have anything particularly great to thank Him for.

On the contrary, if we do not thank God for the smallest of gifts (I would argue that sufficient good health is quite a marvelous gift, but anyway), we will never recognize the great gifts when they are given.

Thankfulness has to begin from the moment of consciousness in the morning. For consciousness is itself a gift. When I experience it, I should thank God for it. When you wake up, say "Thank you, Lord, for ..." You may not even know what for immediately. You may be half awake as it is. That's okay. It will come to you.

Think about the number of people in this world who respond to their alarm clocks by uttering some profanity. "Son of a b--, shut up clock," etc. How would you prefer to wake up in the morning? The sad thing is many people aren't even aware that they have a choice. That's right. A choice.

Anger and cynicism are not involuntary muscle spasms. They are decisions we make at every moment that we grumble and criticize and dismiss. Real happiness and thankfulness are not the products of brainwashing. They are decisions we make every time we allow some little thing, or some great God, to make us smile inwardly, and outwardly.

It's a choice. Between waking up and spouting swear words and waking up immediately saying "Thank you," immediately setting the tone for our whole day.

If you haven't done it before, or if it's been a while, try it, and see what happens.

Thank you for reading. *high five*

It's been a lot of fun writing the Lenten reflections. It was very gratifying to hear back from people who had read and took something meaningful from them.

I think looking back I was inspired to write them by something that Thomas Merton wrote in his Seeds of Contemplation:

If you write for God you will reach many men and bring them joy. If you write for men--you may make some money and you may give someone a little joy and you may make a noise in the world, for a little while. If you write for yourself, you can read what you yourself have written and after ten minutes you will be so disgusted that you will wish that you were dead.

Happy Easter!

From the Gospel of John, Chapter 19, verse 30:

After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I thirst." There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

We may be inclined to think that because Christ said "It is finished," there is nothing more that we can add to Christ's redemptive action. In one sense, there isn't. But if we do not carry on with Christ's sacrifice, if we do not "pay it forward," so to speak, then we are ignoring the very reason Christ died to begin with. He died so that we could live with Him. So we could live like Him.

Christ accomplished everything we need to be able to be with Him. But it is not the end of the story. A young man who graduates from college may say "It is finished," or a mother who gives birth may say "It is finished." What they both mean is, it's just beginning.

Easter Sunday, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, from the dead, is not the end of the story. It is the beginning. It is your new beginning. My new beginning. Where will He lead you now? Where will He lead me? Will we follow Him?






I've posted Lent Day Forty because I won't have a chance to do so this weekend. Here's the Good Friday post. Happy Easter to all!

First a quick note. I have no guarantee of internet access this weekend as I will be traveling. Therefore, I am writing both of the final two Lent day reflections today. I have about five minutes to do pretty much both of them. So please forgive the shortness. It's the Easter Triduum, the holiest time of the year. Better to be with family than reading some dude's blog anyway.

As Jesus is dying on the cross, His mind is on the wellbeing of His mother and His beloved disciple, who have followed Him as He carried the cross to the hill.

"Woman, behold your son." And to his disciple he said, "Behold your mother."

From that moment, John takes Mary into His home, recognizing Mary to be his own mother, according to the will of Christ. This is one reason why Catholics consider Mary to be our adopted Mother. Because we, like John, desire to have sufficient fidelity to Jesus to follow Him all the way to His death, and to die with Him, as John must have felt like he himself was dying with Christ. Because of that intense commitment of John, Jesus considered him a brother. Brothers share mothers.

Slight change of plans. I will focus for the final three Lent day reflections on the words of Christ in Good Friday's Gospel reading, from John Chapters 18 and 19.

Pilate questions Jesus as to whether He is a king. Jesus replies:

My kingdom does not belong to this world.

I have often noticed how in talking with other people of faith, such as in church or retreat settings, we talk about the "real world" -- i.e., the world outside of our faith community, the professional world in which all too often the dollar is king and if you tell someone "I'm sorry," you are liable to get chewed out afresh, or sued, or worse. We think of a crowded metropolitan hustle and bustle, a barren place ruled by a cynical anthropology, where no one cares about anyone else but themselves.I believe it is that world to which Jesus referred, where we will not find His Kingdom.

Why anyone ever would call that place the "real world" is sometimes beyond me. It may seem large next to our by comparison small communities of believers who try to follow Christ. But we should be careful. But bigger, louder, and colder does not constitute more real.

This "real world" is so barren and cold and unloving precisely because it is farther removed from God, and the farther removed we are from God, the farther removed we are from Truth, for God is the Truth. The world is, in that sense, actually less "real" than the world in which the follower of Christ lives, in which we fall asleep in Him, and awake in Him.

God is more real than any giant, metropolitan, comsopolitan cauldron of apathy, greed, and sodomy, His Kingdom of passionate love, generous self-giving, and constant adoration will remain long after the "real" world has passed away. His is the real, real world. We just have to look for it.