The Holy Innocents in America today

Back in Jesus’ time, when Herod heard from the Magi that a ‘king’ had been born in Bethlehem, he asked the Magi to come back and tell him where this child was so that he could worship him as well.  This coming from a man who killed his wife and children, and anyone around him who might want a slice of his power.  The Magi were warned, and went home by another route.  The same angel that warned them warned Joseph in a dream to flee to Egypt to protect the child.  After their escape, Herod had every child in Bethlehem under 2 years old  killed.

Today’s version of the holy innocents is similar.  Those in power seem to be afraid. Of innocent babies.  These babies did not ask to be created.  They had no choice in the matter.  In many, many cases, ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ were just having recreational sex.  In some cases, they forgot to use contraception, in some cases they remembered, but the technology failed them.  This wass inconvenient, so they get rid of the inconvenience.  In other cases, a baby was expected from the loving act of a couple, but they found out that the baby was *gasp* not perfect…’it’ had Down’s Syndrome.  Or Autism, or a deformed heart. Again, this was inconvenient, so they got rid of the inconvenience.  In a few cases, the baby was conceived by some evil act-rape, incest, etc.  Again, an inconvenience to all involved (except the child).

In every case, the aborted child is an inconvenience. In the first instance, mom and dad aren’t married/don’t earn a good living/made a mistake/whatever their excuse.  In the second case, it’s tough to take care of a handicapped person.  In the third case, it’s also tough-the mother would have memories of the incident for the rest of their life.

In the first case, which is the vast majority of abortions today, while it is true that a baby is a life-changing event, shouldn’t the parents consider that the life-changing event began with a little fun on a date?  The event that changed their lives was having sex in the first place, not the conception. In the second case, again, we can say that any conception is a life-changing event, and the added fact that the child will not have a ‘normal’ life doesn’t change that.  Also, in the third case, a life-changing event.

The birth of one child 2000 years ago changed the world.

Let’s take the three simple examples backwards, and see how the birth of one child might change the lives of those that caused that life to come into being.  In case #3, how does aborting the child help a rape or incest victim ‘forget’ or get over the event that caused the birth?  It doesn’t. That event will be with the victim regardless. How could the existence of the child help change the life of the perpetrator and victim?  In vast ways.   Couldn’t one child’s birth help someone understand what a violent act such as rape does, and possibly change that person’s heart?  Or someone elses?  Seeing the reality might put a stop to much of the crime.

In the second example, isn’t there good possibility that the child could grow to be someone important? Steven Hawking was/is a brilliant man.  Tom Sullivan, blind from birth is an excellent musician. Chris Diedo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/kent/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_8295000/8295570.stm) is a Down’s Syndrome adult and an avid photographer.  I am sure that the parents of these, and all handicapped children have extraordinary challenges raising their children. Aside from the fact that we all have some defect, (whether it manifests at birth or later in life, all children have challenges, and all children will teach those around them something about how to live life.  Aborting children because we can technically know that the child is handicapped might just be killing the next Mozart or Einstein. 

In the first case, while I think that we should always be aware that any heterosexual sex is possibly procreative (think of Abraham and Sarah, or Elizabeth in the Bible), aborting a product of  recreational sex is wrong.  First of all, there’s adoption, if you really, really don’t want the child.  There’s those that do, and some will gladly help pay your maternity costs.  But if we had some law to make it tougher to just flush it down the garbage disposal, wouldn’t people have sex less willingly, and take the power out of the act of sex?

Again, the life of every child has the potential to be earth-changing.  St. Catherine of Siena was the last of more than 20 children.  That child in your womb right now may be the only opportunity you have to bear children.  Please, consider these things in your heart before you decide to abort your baby.  God has a plan for each and every one of them.

The Star of Bethlehem

It’s been a year since I viewed in amazement an hour long presentation called “The Star of Bethlehem“.  I watched again today. 

The presentation explains a possible scenario that the Star of the East could have really happened.  The presenter takes the evidence in the bible, and extracts all the characteristics that Matthew says the star had-if any of the 9 are missing, then this cannot be called the star.  From Matthew 2, we can discern that:

1. It signified birth.
2. It signified kingship.
3. It had a connection with the Jewish nation.
4. It rose in the east, like other stars.
5. It appeared at a precise time.
6. Herod didn’t know when it appeared.
7. It endured over time.
8. It was ahead of the Magi as they went south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.
9. It stopped over Bethlehem.

We can disqualify meteors, because the star appeared for a time, we can disqualify comets,  because, while they can rise in the east and appear over time, we can backtrack to the time of Herod, and there were no comets at that time, because if there were, Herod would have noticed them.  What about a nova?  None during this timeframe.   So what’s left?

The presenter then goes to show us, using astronomy software, exactly what took place in the heavens during the timeframe spoken of in Matthew.  You can buy the software, set up the scenario, and see it for yourself. 

There’s lots of other detail you can read about on the website-why we’re just recently discovering this, and lots of other background.  You can buy the DVD on the website, or from EWTN.  This isn’t presented as absolute truth, but as a possible explanation for the Star of Bethlehem.  It does not discount the hand of God in any way, in fact, it shows how God’s hand is in it all the way. 

Please see-this is a must see presentation.

Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown!

It seems appropriate to quote St. Luke’s version of the Nativity:

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town. And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was the house and family of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. While they were there, time came for her to have her child, and she gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and keeping the night watch over their flock. The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear. The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying:  “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” When the angels went away from them to heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go, then, to Bethlehem to see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us.” So they went in haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. When they saw this, they made known the message that had been told them about this child. All who heard it were amazed by what had been told them by the shepherds. And Mary kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.

The Bronx Declaration-a Manhattan Alternative

http://5ptsalt.com/2009/12/23/the-bronx-declaration-a-manhattan-alternative/.

The Magnificat

Today’s gospel reading was her song of praise, the Magnificat.

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
for he has looked upon his lowly servant.
From this day all generations will call me blessed:
the Almighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his Name.
He has mercy on those who fear him
in every generation.
He has shown the strength of his arm,
and has scattered the proud in their conceit.
He has cast down the mighty from their thrones
and has lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has come to the help of his servant Israel
for he remembered his promise of mercy,
the promise he made to our fathers,
to Abraham and his children for ever.”

Speeches come and speeches go. The Oscars have come and gone for 50+ years, anyone remember a good acceptance speech? There are very few, I’ll wager, which will be remembered 2000 years after they were spoken.
Here’s a little back woods country girl, 14 years old, who echoes Samuel’s mother, Hannah, who prayed for a son even though she was well past child-bearing age. Mary, approached by an angel, Gabriel, and told that God had a special plan for her. Mary, with a leap of faith, accepts, Gabriel’s message, and is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, God. What a life changing experience! Even though Mary doesn’t understand what will happen to her, she accepts God’s plan, and becomes the Ark of the Covenant, for she contains the Word made flesh, the Bread of Life, the High Priest, within her womb. Mary didn’t ask for the honor. But her life was meant to glorify the Lord, for she was a consecrated virgin (as Samuel was promised to God), her spirit rejoiced in doing God’s will. Mary contained within her what the whole universe could not contain-God in the flesh.

The myth of misogyny in the Catholic Church

Many people, especially outside the Catholic Church, but even some inside the church, think that the Catholic Church is misogynistic.  Misogyny is defined as “hatred of women”.  Sadly, mankind is 100% made up of sinners.  We are all imperfect.  And we all sometimes step on toes.  John Paul II himself confessed that many members of the church, including some in the hierarchy, have acted in ways that fail to express the equality of men and women. 

And if objective blame [for offenses against the dignity of women], especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the gospel contains an ever relevant message that goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance, and tenderness. In this way he honored the dignity that women have always possessed according to God’s plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this second millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: How much of his message has been heard and acted upon? (Letter to Women 3).

But is it really fair or even true to claim that the institution, the Catholic Church, hates women?  After all, we proclaim that the greatest human being of human history is a woman.  It was a woman that gave birth to the Messiah.  We place Mary on a pedestal.  In fact, some Christians think we honor her “too much” (whatever that means).  Some of our greatest Catholics were women.  Some scolded Popes and told them what they should be doing.  Others founded schools, and religious orders.  In our teaching we are told to respect the whole woman, while much of society would expect us to revere her physical beauty, or possibly her primary and secondary sex organs.

It’s true that the Church does not allow women to become priests, bishops, cardinals or popes, but this is because Jesus did not have female apostles, and before him, the Hebrews only allowed a male priestly hierarchy.  We believe our bishops are direct descendents of the apostles, so therefore our priesthood can only be all male.  Women may fulfill other roles.  They can preach and teach, just not in the confines of mass.  In fact, most of our parishes could not exist without the support of women.  This article explains the Church’s stand.

It’s true that individuals within the Church, from the time of her birth at that first Pentecost, have demeaned, degraded, and marginalized women, but much of this was due to societal attitudes of the time.  Much of the progress that has been made in women’s rights and equality are due to efforts of the Catholic Church.

Then there are those who think that, because the Church thinks that women are better suited for running a home (cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, ironing, scrubbing floors, doing laundry, etc., etc., etc.), that we marginalize or demean women.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The fact is that the Church believes that the home is the most important entity on earth.  There is nothing more important on earth than the family, and all that ‘family’ entails.  The fact is that secular society has marginalized the role of the family in society.  Men have, throughout history, in most cases been the go-getter.  Hunter, provider, gatherer, and later, wage-earner, bread winner.  Women, throughout history, have in most cases been the protector of the home and family.  Farmer, child-bearer, cook, and so on.  These roles do have exceptions, and there have been female warriors, and males that are better suited as nurturers.  It’s just that things tend to work better when we do the things God hard-wired us for.  Modern society also thinks the Church is misogynistic because of her stance on birth control and abortion, but again, the Church believes that sex is only for inside the marriage bond, that birth control is an interruption of God’s plan, and that all human life is sacred.  It is not, and never has been, an attempt to control women.

When all is said and done, the Church does not hate women, in fact, does not hate anyone.  The Church tries to teach us how to live a life that will prepare us for heaven.

The geneology of Jesus

In Matthew, we trace the geneology of Jesus forward from Abraham.  It is worthy to note that, in the geneology, there are four women.  In ancient Jewish times, most geneologies would not include a woman at all.  So let’s look at the four women in Jesus’ geneology:

Tamar-Tamar was the daughter in law of Judah, the fourth son of Jacob.  She was a Caananite, so an outsider. She was married to Er, and when he died, promised to Onan.  Because of the violation of marrying outside of the tribe, Onan spilled his seed on the ground rather than having a child with Tamar, and Onan was killed by God for spilling his seed.

Rahab-When the Hebrews were encamped at Shittim in th eJordan valley opposite Jericho, Joshua sent two spies into Jericho who sheltered in Rahab the prostitutes home.  In return, they promised to protect Rahab when the city fell.  Later she became the wife of Salmon, a prince of the tribe of Judah.

Ruth-Ruth, a Moabite,  was married to Elimelech and after he died, she married his brother Mahlon. When he died, she elected to stay and help her mother-in-law Naomi, instead settling in Bethlehem, where Naomi was from.  Ruth married Naomi’s relative Boaz.  She became the mother of Obed, the grandfather of David.

Bathsheba (wife of Uriah).  Bathsheba was the beauty David noticed from his balcony, and resolved to have for himself.  After he found out she was pregnant, he tried to get Uriah to sleep with her to cover his own infidelity.  Uriah was a warrior who thought it was a sin to make himself unpure while in battle, so he refused to sleep with his wife.  David had him killed.  The progeny of this affair became wise Solomon.

So, why are these four women (asside from Mary) included in this geneology of Jesus?  It shows the continuity of God’s providential plan, with discontinuity also present.  It shows how God draws straight with crooked lines. The four women bore their sons through unions that were in varying degrees strange and unexpected, and culminate in the ultimate strange and unexpected, supremely irregular  birth of the Messiah.

Back from Las Vegas

There is a really beautiful Catholic Church on the Strip in Las Vegas.  Beautiful bronze statuary, modern, very nice.  There used to be a monastery nearby whose abbot was named Alvin.  The monks would attend Sunday Mass at this Church, the Shrine of the Most Holy Redeemer http://www.lasvegas-diocese.org/parishes_shrine_holy.html and collect alms after mass.  Many people would  give the monks part of their winnings, sometimes a $1 chip, or a $5 chip, sometimes, even a $100 chip.  After a time the monastery became known as Alvin and the Chip Monks.

A Charlie Brown Christmas

Charles Schultz’ award winning Christmas special aired this date in 1965.  It still refreshes today.  With all the crud on TV this Christmas, we still can hear Linus recite the Nativity narrative from the Gospel of Luke. The story touches on the over-commercialization and secularism of Christmas, and serves to remind viewers of the true meaning of Christmas: the birth of Jesus Christ.

Network executives were not at all keen on several aspects of the show, forcing Schulz and Melendez to wage some serious battles to preserve their vision. The executives did not want to have Linus reciting the story of the birth of Christ from the Gospel of Luke; the network orthodoxy of the time assumed that viewers would not want to sit through passages of the King James Bible.  Charles Schulz was adamant about keeping this scene in, remarking that “If we don’t tell the true meaning of Christmas, who will?”

Shulz was also adamant about not including a laugh track,  maintaining that the audience should be able to enjoy the show at their own pace, without being cued when to laugh. (CBS did create a version of the show with the laugh track added, just in case Schulz changed his mind. The executives also thought that the jazz soundtrack by Vince Guaraldi would not work well for a children’s program. When executives saw the final product, they were horrified and believed the special would be a complete flop.  The show went on, however, to win an Emmy and a Peabody (this meant something in 1965…) and continues to be a favorite, despite numerous ‘errors’ which I won’t name.  Charles Shulz went on to make 30 more Peanuts specials before his death in February, 2000. Shulz and Vince Gaualdi were both Catholics.  Guaraldi died in 1975 and is buried in Holy Cross Cemetary, San Mateo, CA.

The half-hour special first aired on Thursday, December 9, 1965, preempting The Munsters and following the Gilligan’s Island episode “Don’t Bug the Mosquitos”. To the surprise of the executives, it was both a critical and commercial hit. None of the special’s technical problems detracted from the show’s appeal; to the contrary, it is thought that these so-called quirks, along with several other choices, are what lent the show such an innovative, authentic and sincere feeling. For instance, Linus’ recitation was hailed by critics such as Harriet Van Horne of the New York World-Telegram who said, “Linus’ reading of the story of the Nativity was, quite simply, the dramatic highlight of the season.”

A full 50% of the televisions in the United States were tuned to the first broadcast.^[2] A Charlie Brown Christmas won an Emmy and a Peabody award, and is considered by many to be a timeless Christmas holiday classic. Watching it is an annual tradition for countless viewers. The success of the animated special, A Charlie Brown Christmas has given rise to numerous other specials (including ten others that are also holiday-themed), a miniseries devoted to America, Saturday morning cartoon, and four full-length feature films.

In January 2000, one month before Schulz’s death, the broadcast rights were acquired by ABC (as part of a deal between the network and Schulz), which is where the special currently airs (and has aired there since CBS’s final airing of the special on December 25, 2000). On September 12, 2000, the special was released to DVD [it had previously been released on VHS through Shell Oil for sale at their gas stations]. The show enjoyed its 40th anniversary with its broadcast of Tuesday, December 6, 2005. This broadcast had the highest ratings in its time slot.

Marian Dogma

I recently had an on-line battle with a Protestant (he never told me what flavor he was).  He tried to tell me that Marian dogma is not apostolic, and tried to take away all the mention of where we get our Marian dogma.

Today, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, I recall this debate and want to assert the origins.  While it was formally declared dogma in 1854 by Pius IX, it was always held, from apostolic times.  The early church knew that nothing tainted by sin could be in God’s presence.  Since Mary contained God in her womb, Mary must be sinless from her own conception.  We know that Mary was the type of the ark of the covenant, which God commissioned men to build to contain the word of God, the staff of Aaron’s priesthood, and manna from heaven.  The gospels tell us that Jesus is the Word made flesh, that he is the high priest, and that he is the bread of life.  He was contained in Mary’s womb.  Therefore, Mary is, was, and always will be, sinless.

The gospel of Luke also speaks to this.  When the angel Gabriel spoke to Mary, he greeted her Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.  The gramatical construction used here is a perfect passive participle, which tells us that she always was, and always would be, full of God’s saving grace.  If you’re full, you can contain no more.  Some translations say “Hail, highly favored daughter..” but this is a modern translation of an ancient Greek word kecharitomene.  The Greek entails much more than “highly favored daughter”.  The grace given to Mary was permanent and unique.  

Another point of the ‘biblical-ness’ of the Immaculate conception-Eve’s name before she sinned before God was…woman.  It was only after she sinned that she was named Eve.  Jesus calls his mother ‘woman’ several times in the scriptures, which denotes her sinless nature.  He does this at the wedding feast at Cana, also at Calvary, and a couple of other places.

Then we have the writings of the Early Church, such as the Protoevangelium of St. James.  While not declared scriptural, it has always been held in high esteem, and it’s main focus is the life of our Mother.

At any rate, many people do not understand that the Church does not define things unless the particular question comes up.  The doctrine of the Trinity is a good example.  Another is the question of whether Jesus was truly God, truly man, 50/50 or 100/100.  The Church defines its belief by examining the early church and discernment.