Swingin' Rosaries

Sad News

2008-03-01T21:00:00.001-05:00

I know of no good way to say this but I want to let our readers know, Tony was hit by a car that jumped a curb, he unfortunately died as a result of his injuries. He and I were very good friends and though I trust he is in the caring arms of our savior, I wish I had him here with me.

The Center of our lives

2008-01-30T18:59:00.000-05:00

Christ should be the center of our lives. Is there anything better to place as the center and focus of our very being? Too many times we put people, things, money or jobs before Christ or in the place of Christ. I know that I do. I place many many things in the place of Christ as the center of my life, I wish I could stand here and say that I wont do that anymore but I can’t because I am a fallen human being and all I can do is each time I place something before Christ is to work on removing it from my focus and put my focus back on Christ.

How do we tell if our focus is on Christ or on ’stuff’? I can only speak and advise from personal experience, when ever I worry greatly about something, money or desires for things, or worry about people or what they think of me some times I am very blind to it and some times it takes a while for it to hit me. I am in a better place when I can get my focus back on Christ, and most of all pray.

I use to think that things that were “rote prayers” like the rosary, Divine Mercy Chaplet etc were old fashioned and out of touch and that talking to God/Christ as a friend was better but something my Spiritual Director said yesterday that we need both. The rote prayer and prayer that is just talking to God as our best friend. At times talking to God is hard, we don’t think we should or that we can, sometimes we think that we are unworthy to even approach God it is then that we really need to approach God asking forgiveness for our sins, talking about our day’s and the things we are struggling with and asking for help for them, and then praising him, thanking him for all of the gifts we have been given .

I am not an expert on prayer by any means, I fail more then I try, but I try. Sometimes all I can do is the Divine Mercy Chaplet or the Rosary and sometimes I can only talk to God as my friend. Most of all, I try not to treat God like a vending machine, sometimes I fail and sometimes I avoid praying for things that I really need like patience and anger management… because he has a tendency to give me plenty of practice.

When Christ is the center of our lives, that is when we find peace; or at least I do.

Catholics and War

2008-01-27T20:57:00.000-05:00

I have been reading this article on War theory and Catholicism. The idea behind any type of War theory from the point of religion is to decipher when, if ever, war can be a justified action. The article I am reading is from the perspective of a Benedictine priest who lived from 1890-1938 , Fr. Virgil Michel. Fr. Michel is known for his renewed thinking in the area of liturgy, but as Tobias Winright points out in his article, Virgil Michel on Worship and War, Michel also has a line of thought on just war.
Like many other facets in his life, Michel, uses the spirit of the liturgy to explain his thoughts on war. He states that in the liturgy we find Catholics offering each other the kiss of peace as well as participating in the Eucharist which calls each person to participate in the peace of Christ, the perfection of love. Bearing that in mind, any action of war is inherently evil because it does not adhere to the principles set forth by the liturgy that are grounded in the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Michel states that modern warfare is particularly unjust because 1) The weapons of science and technology do not allow for less non-combatants to be killed, and 2) the wars of today are steeped in history that has long passed. To Michel war naturally begets violence and evil. For this purpose I am going to adhere to the intelligent simple definition of evil as that which is devoid of God.

Later on in this article, Michel is quoted as saying, "[war] must be rightly conducted: retrained within the limits of justice and love." (Michel The Christian World 182.) Michel, however, also states that he believes war is really only a choice between two evils.

Although the article does go into much more detail, I think I have given enough of Fr. Michel's principles to discuss my own points.

Here are my issues,

Fr. Michel's idea on just war theory developed along with a post-Vatican II ideology. Pre-Vatican II, just war theory was based on the traditional principles that St. Thomas Aquinas had set forth, including but not limited to proportionality and restraint. Michel likens WWII to the Gulf War in terms of Catholic war theory.

First off, supposing that war is evil (completely devoid of God) are any of the goods that come from war also intrinsically evil? Along this line of thinking that war is never a good it only follows that those things which come from war also can never be a good (see Aquinas). Where does that leave liberated countries and freed peoples?

Ok, so war = evil. Got it.

Next problem. He states that choosing war is also a choice between two evils. Michel states that even participation in war by means of self-defense is evil, although maybe not a mortal sin. Still...how is it possible that in a given situation there is no choice aimed toward the good? Being that Jesus did die for the sins of mankind, I find it utterly unreasonable that we ever have a choice only between evil and a lesser evil. There is always a way to choose the good. Which means, logically following, that one of the choices must be good. Misdiagnosis.

Ideally Michel states that whenever possible a country should only defend itself and never take aggressive action in war. Thinking back to WWII, most of Europe, by way of using that theory, would be subject to socialist Nazi rule right now. Not to mention that in trying to support themselves by means of only defense they European countries would have stretched their natural resources beyond their means thus pushing Europe further into decay. And what of the killing of millions of Jews? It took military action, not only pacifism, to stop the Nazi's from decimating the Jewish people.

I appreciate Fr. Michel's sincerity in trying to keep with the teachings of Christ, and to be true to our liturgy, however I do not think it is as simple as all that. There is no doubt that there is atrocity in way, most of the time committed on both sides, but i have a hard time saying that freeing Jews from a gas chamber or stopping the stoning of women is intrinsically evil because of the means of achievement. I don't have an answer, but I do believe that God always provides us with a choice toward the good, knowing the good is the difficult part.

Incidentally, Fr. Michel's idea on liturgy and the Mystical Body of the Church are most definitely worth reading, a possible post on those ideals later.

Article - Tobias L. Winright "Virgil Michel on Worship and War", in Worship.

News of Intrest

2007-12-14T10:13:00.000-05:00

Vatican defends duty to evangelize and accept converts - Sweet... Go Benny!!!!

Ireland steps away from Catholic schools - Sad

Catholic board evaluates dioceses - Good, they need to be evaluated on how they are doing with abusive priests.

Metro Fare Increase - Don't get me started...

New Jersey abolishing death penalty. --- WHOOT! I spent a year volunteering with the moratorium campaign in New Orleans (Sr. Helen Prejean's group)

St. Francis Xavier

2007-12-03T16:31:00.001-05:00

*Click on the lyrics to find a translation.

Quote of the day...

2007-10-17T10:27:00.000-04:00

In a real dark night of the soul it is always three o'clock in the morning, day after day.
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

Back from Chicago

2007-10-17T09:56:00.000-04:00

Actually, I've been back a couple of days. But there was a lot to catch up on and sort out. I mean, it was rough enough that the site was hacked as soon as I left, but then that person went and attacted the roommate-- and I learned when I got home that she'd (Roomie) been dead for a day. No, really, you can read about the adventure here.

*sigh* Life is never boring in our apartment.

I'll post some pictures when I get home-- there was some nice stained glass and flowers at Maggie's work that I thought I'd put up.

Other than the drama of having my dear roommate attacked by a psycho (props to Sam for bodyslamming the crazy-lady) and the blogs being hacked and recovered, my vacation was very restful. I had a great time hanging out with Maggie and Al at various places in the city, and catching up with Naruto while they were at school or work. And, as a side note, Maggie and her husband have a very comfy sofa.

Anyway, more soon!

^_^

FYI

2007-10-06T13:55:00.000-04:00

Yes, we were hacked. Some looser with nothing better to do with their lives went and hacked all of Kat's accounts, thus some of the oddness this morning. Due to this, until other measures can be implemented (because both Kat and I are not exactly full of free time at the moment), I have removed Kat's account from this blog. She is still a member, but at this moment, she has no control over her own email or blogs.

SO, if you know Kat and have gotten any odd emails, or if you've stopped by her blog. . . no, that's not her. Moreover, she's (for the moment) locked out of her accounts so she can'f fix things at the moment-- if she even had access to a computer, which she doesn't.

And, to the lame-o who's responsible for all this: It's really sad that you have nothing better to do with a Friday night or Saturday morning than to pull things like this. I'm sure we'll all be praying for you. And your social life.

PS: Comments are now under moderation as well.

Coyote chews more music . . .

2007-10-01T09:07:00.000-04:00

I've been holding off on writing thise post because I wanted to make sure I had an accurate understanding of the situation before I publically went off the hook and started tearing into all manner of musical ranting. You know, there's nothing quite like going on a full-fledged rant only to find out you misread the announcement and boy, don't you feel like a schmuck?

But, sadly, this time, I had the right of it from the beginning. . .

Where to start? Well, I guess I should say that I'm a cantor at my church sometimes. I'm usually up singing with the choir but, when they need someone to fill in as cantor, I go down and cantor for that Mass. Since our usual cantor has been having various health problems these past few months, he asked me to fill on on the 9th and 23rd of September. At the time I was asked, I said "Yeah, sure, no problem."

The very next rehearsal, the conductor (reluctantly, I should add-- the man has taste, and this is not his fault) passed out little pieces of paper that looked like this:

And we were informed that we had to learn it, as pretty soon we'd be singing it before Mass, every Mass-- information which immediately made me want to start lighting little fires with little pieces of paper. In the bulletin, with the music is included this little bit: "All classes and groups in the parish are encouraged to use the refrain as an opening or closing prayer."

I'm gonna skip over how craptacular that melody is (I've sung campfire songs that had more moving, or uplifting, or . . . musical melodies) and go straight to my main problem, which is the lyrics. In case the picture is too small, the lyrics are:

We are the Church, the Body of Christ
We are the Church, a people Redeemed
We are the Church, anointed to serve
God's holy people, the people of God.

Now, I will grant, that in a different context, I would have less problem with these words. In an inspirational book, or (written more eloquently) in an encyclical of some sort, or something about the Cathecism. Basically, they'd be okay as part of a writing addressed to the Church at large. Well, mostly okay. I do have a problem with this verse however, even in such a context, and it is this: Who, exactly, is "God's holy people, the people of God"? In the context of the verse, we must assume that "people of God" would be the "people redeemed", which would be . . . As, yes, We. Us.

Talk about "self-serving." This verse is, basically, about how darned good we are, how frickin' fantabulous We, the Church, are. We're soooo great, we sing songs to ourselves about our amazing, fabulous greatness!

And moreover, we're singing this in church, where we should be completely focused on Him--not us. And when, exactly, are we singing this? Before the processional. To wit, in the cantor book this past Sunday, there was a sheet which I was supposed to follow (I did not, as I shall explain in a bit), in which I, the cantor was to welcome the people to the church (uh, okay, no biggie), then say something along the lines of "Let us greet one another with song--" (Erk?!) and then I was supposed to lead everyone in singing that thing, and then read reflection on the readings, and then a moment of silence for meditation or something, and only then invite people to stand and join in our processional . . .

They're trying to turn mass into friggin Sesame Street, and I won't stand for it. Now look, I love Big Bird, Oscar and Snuffleuphagus, this is not a knock on Sesame Street. But Sesame Street has it's place (public TV), and is not appropriate for a mass. But you know what, it's even worse than that, because the Sesame Street comparison comes from the idea of greeting each other with a song, but this particular song?

How did that email exchange with the conductor go? Oh yes, Dad mentioned something to the conductor like:

Also, you should know that C, who is scheduled to cantor Sunday, absolutely will NOT lead the congregation in "We are the Church." . . . C would love to cantor the rest, but that piece just triggers an aesthetic and spiritual gag reflex. If that is going to cause a problem, you may want to switch cantors.

I had nothing to do with her decision, but I definitely have the same reaction. This should be retitled "Hymn to Self-Absorbed Baby Boomers." I do not come to church to celebrate myself.

I, thinking I ought to say something for myself, then wrote to the conductor, saying:

Dad has it right. I'm perfectly okay and willing to do everything else (including the annoying little speech before the beginning of Mass), but my tolerance for self-worship runs out right here. If asked about my refusal, you can tell whoever that I say "There's something obscene about communal musical masturbation, and I refuse to have any part of it anywhere, much less in a church where we're supposed to be worshipping God, not ourselves."

Yes, I feel pretty strongly about this. I don't really consider myself very conservative when it comes to religious matters, but that doesn't mean I don't take my faith seriously. This . . . drivel is insulting enough as a "song", without the lyrics. Kum-ba-yah is literally more sacred, since it's at least supposed to be a sorta-prayer.

Hell, I know Linkin Park and Korn lyrics that are more reverent.

And that's saying something. [Especially when it's a soprano complaining about something being too self-centered. I mean, really. . . ]

I think that sums up my feelings on the matter pretty well. The pastor also knows my issues with the song since at one point I said to Kat, quite loudly in his hearing, that I would rather shove knitting needles through my eyes than lead the congregation in this . . . thing. This is not a prayer, nor a hymn. Prayers are addressed to God, hymns are either addressed to God or are primarily about God. This little ditty is about Us, We, and how marvelous we are.

Look, I know Pride. I'm a trained soprano (and a one-time fencer)-- pride is my middle name. I know narcissism when I see it, and this thing reeks of it. This is about as far from Humility as it gets, and to be honest, everytime I look at the music for this I hear chuckling from deep beneath my feet. Yes, Somebody Else knows these lyrics very well . . .

I was lucky this past Sunday that certain minders were not around and the organist, well aware of my intense dislike for the song, let me skip it. But if it is decided that this will be enforced, they'll have one less cantor on the roster.

Gah! Let's cleanse our mental palate with something truly Good and Sacred. Mmmm, Mozart!

PS: Here's Kat's take on the whole mess.

PPS: An article on Church Music for those interested.

Michaelmas!!!

2007-09-29T11:58:00.000-04:00

Today is officially the Feast of St. Michael and the Archangels, only one of my favorite days of the year. To say something that will make people think I'm far more conservative than I really am. . . I'm pretty old school about this. Once upon a time, this was simply Michaelmas, the Feast of St. Michael the archangel, while Sts. Gabriel and Raphael had their own days (March 24 and October 24 respectively). They've all been lumped together on this day, now but . . . I really do prefer a separate day for each for two reasons: 1) I think that we should get to know each of these angels as individuals and poor Raphael sometimes gets overshadowed by his more well known siblings and 2) I have a mad, long-term crush on Michael.

Yes, I know, I'm a fan-girl for a lot of things: anime, Jesuits, Firefly, nuns in habits, Jesus, etc. . . but, if you asked me who my number one was, it would be (naturally) God. Number two, though, would definitely be Michael.

I'm sure most of you reading this know the legend of how back at the beginning of time, Michael was instrumental in kicking the rebellious Satan out of heaven. This is, as you know, where he got his name, when he cried out (in the midst of kicking Satan's butt) "Who is like God?!", which, in Hebrew, comes out M'chael.

A lot of other traditions and legends have arisen since then about Michael, and I think today would be a good day to share some of these. . .

Jewish legend (referenced in Jude 1:8) holds that Michael and Satan met up again at the death of Moses, and quarreled over the patriarch's body (Satan contended that Moses was a murderer and not worthy of burial). Jude says of this "Not even the archangel Michael, when he was engaged in argument with the devil about the corpse of Moses, dared to denounce him with the language of abuse; all he said was, 'May the Lord rebuke you.'" *Sigh* A warrior and a gentleman. Goodness knows that if I had been in Michael's position, I would have fallen prey to my sometimes over active tongue, staring out with "Ah, go to hell ya blankety blank blank blankety blank!"

One of my favorites is one I actually heard in New Orleans, that says that blackberries are special to Michael because, when Satan fell, he fell through Earth, and over the hole left by his passage, a blackberry bush grew up to ensure that he didn't try to return the way he came (if you've ever picked blackberries, you understand why this might be considered a deterrent). This seems to be a variant of an old Irish tale that says that Satan landed on a blackberry bramble when he fell, and returns every year to spit upon the plant that caused him so much pain. For this reason, all the blackberries had to be harvested by Michaelmas, or else they'd be inedible after. So, eating a nice dessert involving blackberries would be a good way to celebrate the day.

Various sites are recognized for a connection with the angel, such as Mont St. Michel off the coast of Normandy, the Michaelion in Constantinople, Monte Gargano in Italy, St. Michael's Mount in Cornwall, Eusebios in Constantinople, and Chonae in Phrygia. These latter two are notable for showincasing Michael's healing abilities, Chonae especially for it's springs which legend says Michael had a hand in bringing forth.

Michael is considered the defender of the Church and of Christians, and protector against all evil. This is why when Pope Leo XIII had his vision regarding the (at the time, yet to happen) 20th century, he wrote the now popular prayer:

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle;
be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God,
cast into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits,
who wander throughout the world,
seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Another, more involved prayer is the Chaplet of St. Michael, found here with some other Michaeline devotions.

Here's the prayer set to music (well, kinds), as found on YouTube:

Also, appropriate for today, an old fashioned book-burning over at Kat's place. She's cleaning out her library of things she doesn't want around anymore, but does not feel right about letting others be exposed to, so go ever, and see what you'd like to help rid the world of.

Could you be convicted?

2007-09-21T07:16:00.000-04:00

If you were hauled into court on the charge of being Catholic, would there be enough evidence to convict you?

Now I know some of you are looking around your offices, homes, and digging in your pockets for all the little 'Catholic widgets' and you are saying, "Kat, here is my rosary and over there is my statue/picture of Mary, and I know somewhere there is a crucifix in the house, and I think I may even have a Bible." Those things are good to have and are fine outward examples of Catholicism, that isn't the evidence I am talking about.

Could the prosecution bring in three or four good, solid witnesses to testify against you? Someone to be able to say, 'man he/she goes to mass every day, he/she prays all the time, they treat everyone with respect, I even heard him/her saying that they needed to go to confession once."

Do you live your faith on a daily basis? That is what this idea is about, do you?

If someone were to walk in to Christine's and my apartment, they would have a darn good time with all the things that are Catholic that litter the walls, bookshelves, pockets, purses & bags. As for myself, I leave a lot to be desired in living out my faith, my daily life is not always the best witness against me in proving I am a Catholic beyond a reasonable doubt, in fact I am pretty sure the Jury would let me off or at least be hung in regards to my 'guilt'. And I can point to one or two readers, people who know me, sitting at their computer screen's going "Kat you are full of it." Umm no, actually I'm not. I don't successfully live out my faith on a daily basis. I don't pray daily, I don't speak up and "own" my faith, I don't always defend it, I don't go to Mass every day and truthfully I could make the time, I don't go to adoration when I can, and most of all I hold grudges and refuse to forgive as readily as I should and sometimes I do what I accuse others of, I use my pride and being "right" as a shield against the world and against people.

So in the end, I too haven't let there be enough evidence out there of my guilt. I hope I can work on changing that.

Never Forget

2007-09-11T07:24:00.001-04:00

I know I will never forget where I was and what I was doing when the tragedies of September 11th happened. It is hard to believe that it was 6 years ago already.

I was in college at Loyola University New Orleans, as was Christine, Erica and Seth. I remember watching the second plane fly into the towers, I remember seeing them fall, I remember hearing that the Army wing of the pentagon was hit and I remember running my fat butt up three flights of stairs to see if Christine was ok, and had her dad been at the Pentagon that day. He hadn't thank God. You may wonder why me running up 3 flights of stairs is such a big deal... see, Christine and I had had a blow out the previous year and we weren't on the best of terms at the time. . . So it was a big deal that I ran up 3 flights of stairs and pounded on her dorm room door.

Grace can come in moments of horror, like 9/11. 9/11 brought so many people to terms with reality and life, it made stupid fights with friends inconsequential especially when waiting to hear if your friend's dad had had a meeting that day at the pentagon. It mad us as a nation realize that we were not immune from terrorism, that we too could be subject to it. We as a nation always thought of terrorist attacks as happening in other countries be it the IRA bombing something in England or Northern Ireland, or the Palestinians bombing Tel Aviv. Terrorism was always "out there" or "over there" it was never here, it was never Home mainly because Americans have short attention spans and even shorter memories. We didn't remember Tim McVey, or the first bombing of the trade towers or the plots for the tunnels in NY, or the Kole, or Ruby Ridge... heck what about Wounded Knee when "we" were the terrorists.

So today, 9/11, let us remember the worst terrorist attack on the United States, but let us remember all the rest.

Let us raise our glasses of champaign, bottles of beer and diet coke, let us remember all the men, women and children who lost their lives on 9/11/01. We pray for them and their families.

Mother Theresa

2007-09-07T10:34:00.000-04:00

I have been remiss in not posting anything in recognition of the tenth anniversary of Bl. Mother Theresa's passing. I suppose there are numerous "reasons" I could give, but those aside, here I am.

I was privileged to sing in a church choir that sang for her and her sisters three times before she died. It was in the mid-to late '90's, and I'll never forget a single time. . .

You see, it all started because William Lori was ordained a bishop. At one time, he had been a priest at my church, and he requested that our choir sing at his ordination. During that occasion, one of the local sisters heard us, and approached our conductor about singing for a final profession of vows that was coming up.

So, several months later, we were back in the Shrine, singing for Mother Theresa. Which would have been awesome enough. . .

A year or two later, another final profession, this time at St. Aloysius (or rather, St. Al's to us Washingtonians), which is attached to Gonzaga High School (yes, if you're asking, a Jesuit school). Another fine moment.

The last time we sang for her, she came to our parish, St. John the Baptist, and as with the previous occasions, it was such a big to-do, but a joyous one. And I remember that when she would speak, it was with such spirit, unafraid of who she was speaking to, never fearing to be, as they say, "Politically incorrect."

No, I did not join the crowds that gathered around her. I'm a natural born introvert, a bit of a coward, and besides, I felt that it would be rather rude to just present myself with nothing to say for myself. "Hi, I'm CC, wanna bless me?" just seemed so. . .crass, in a way. On the other hand, even then I would tell myself "How often does this happen? How many chances are you gonna get to meet a walking saint?" But then I'd say to myself (the introvert coming out) "The last thing that over-worked woman needs is one more person crowding in her face demanding her attention. It is enough to be part of giving her a song."

So I would stay up in the choir loft, kinda wishing I was down with the crowds, and relieved that I was not.

I did, however, have a friend who got some Miraculous Medals blessed by her, and one of those now hangs around my neck.

There's really nothing that I can say about her that hasn't been said a thousand times already by people far more eloquent and erudite than I. She was a good, saintly, and ultimately human woman, a rock tossed by God into the pool of the world, whose ripples haven't stopped yet, and don't look to be stopping anytime soon. Her life was, to use a cliche, a gift that keeps on giving. I think we are only beginning to realize the depths of this strong, dedicated servant of Christ.

I suppose the best way to end this post is to point you to this video on Deacon Kandra's site. Mother Theresa, set to one of my favorite U2 songs-- "Grace".

Praying for the Dead

2007-09-05T07:27:00.000-04:00

Yeah, it’s been quiet around here recently. Between the beginning of a new semester for two writers, the end of the fiscal year for another, and the loss of a grandmother for a fourth . . . naturally, prayers for all, especially the last, are appreciated.

Which brings up a question I’ve run across a time or two, so I might as well address now:

Why do you Catholics pray for the dead? I mean, they’re already dead. . .
their fate is already sealed. What’s the point?

Yes, praying for the dearly departed is a grand old tradition for us Catholics. For many Christians, the belief is that upon death, one is immediately judged and sent straight to Heaven, or Hell. Prayers for these people are certainly part of the funerals, but aside from that, it’s not really considered a special duty to pray for those who have passed, certainly if you never knew them or they weren’t family. Many Catholics, on the other hand, consider it very important to pray not just for one’s loved ones, but for all those who have passed on, no matter who they are. Why are we, as Catholics, supposed to pray for the dead?

The first is that with the exception of a few extraordinarily holy people, we assume Pugatory. Now, this in itself is a huge sticking point for many people, especially for sola scriptura protestants. I’ll let the scripture fiends fight over that one (or, devote an entire other post to purgatory later), but the essential point is this: While the Canon of Saints is the list of people we’re pretty darn sure are in Heaven (Mary, Michael, the apostles, etc. . .), aside from that, we don’t know anyone’s fate, because there’s always the chance for last minute repentance. We certainly don’t believe that any specific people are in Hell, which leaves Purgatory.

For illustrative purposes, let’s take the now classic example of Hitler. Hitler, as we all know, was about as rotten as they come, personally responsible for the death and torture of millions of people. Now, that said, let’s consider the possibility that, at the last possible moment in that bunker, Hitler literally saw the light and repented for all the horrible, terrible, downright abominations he was responsible for. I’m not saying he did, or that he didn’t. Let’s just, for the purposes of illustration, assume he did. Now, God being infinitely merciful, would not consign a repented soul to Hell but, such a soul, though repented, would likewise be unfit for heaven. God is also infinitely just and besides, that’s a lot of repenting to do. Purgatory is where God’s Infinite Mercy and Infinite Justice meet, and also functions as the sanitizer of our souls, making them ready for Heaven.

Naturally, a soul like Hitler’s would have quite a bit more rehabilitation and scrubbing needed than someone like the sainty rosary-grannies you see at the back of so many churches. So, Granny gets some touch-up work and gets to go on, but someone like Hilter has to be scrubbed, rinsed, sanded, scrubbed, rinsed, shampooed, dipped in various chemicals, scrubbed, rinsed. . .you get the idea.

So, when a person dies, we assume Purgatory. We don’t know exactly what Purgatory is like (it’s the afterlife, after all), but the reports various saints and apparitions have given us are rather intimidating. It is not pleasant (though I imagine the graduation from there isn’t so bad), and these are, after all, our brothers and sisters. [Yes, even the ones we don’t like too much.] But we pray for them because those saints that have given us what we know about purgatory also inform us that prayer helps these souls with their progress, and even helps them spring out earlier than they otherwise might. Even more, that those souls are aware of who prays for them—for instance, there are stories that several courteous souls visited St. Padre Pio to thank him for his prayers after they got out of Purgatory.

Now, I’m not really sure as to the mechanics of how my praying for a soul in Purgatory helps them, but again and again, the saints and apparitions of Our Lady say that praying for the souls in purgatory does actually help them. Moreover, we are told that there are many souls in purgatory that have no one to pray for them and finally, if they’re in Purgatory, then the only thing we can do for them is pray. To go back to our example—who’s going to pray for the soul of Hitler? Precious few people, is who. But simple charity inclines us to do what we can for who we can. At this time, there are many things I cannot do—I cannot stop terrorism, I cannot stop hurricanes, I cannot cure AIDS. But, if my poor prayers can help one soul to Heaven, then I would have to be the most completely lame person on the planet ever to not do so. I mean, it’s not like it’s hard or anything. Naturally, I’ll pray for my loved ones and friends who’ve gone on ahead. . . but I also remember all the other souls in purgatory. I don’t need to know their names, I just need to offer my prayers for them.

So, why do we pray for the dead? Because no matter that their sins, or who they are, they are still made in the image and likeness of God. If a stranger comes up to me and says “My cousin just died”, the response I will give is “Then I shall remember them in my prayers”, and never “Who the heck are you?!” If I was taking a hike in the Afghani wilderness and stumbled across a certain cave, and Osama Bin Laden said (through a translator) “My long-lost auntie died last week’, my response would be the same. [And hopefully, I’d be allowed to continue on my hike toward the nearest US troops. Unlikely, with that bunch, but miracles sometimes happen.] The point is, we are all called to call for all those who have died—no exceptions.

[For this reason, I now have a little spiral bound black notebook, for all the intentions I’ve been asked to pray for. My poor brain can’t always remember them all, and then I feel like a schmuck when I forget. That said, most people also include phrases like “And for all those in need of prayer. . .” which covers our bases pretty well, though trying to remember specifics is useful.]

And finally, it doesn’t even take much time. When I was a kid, we included it in our nightly “God blesses”, where at some point or another my brother, mom, dad, or myself would say [usually sometime after “God bless Gramma” and “God bless Huan” (our dog)], “God bless everyone who needs it!”

Nowadays, it might be the Fatima prayer, or during my morning coffee break prayers, something like: “God, thank you for coffee, tea, chocolate, and caffeine in general. Thank you for all things that help me wake up in the ways I need it. May the world be woken up to your presence and love. And may the souls us purgatory wake up in your shining presence sooner than they expect. Amen.”

[You think I’m kidding? Nope . . . I’m grateful for all the good Lord has blessed us with.]

Gah, getting back to the subject of this long winded post. We pray for all the dead because they are all our family, and we wish for them to be in Heaven’s joy as soon as possible. And further, the Catechism adds that

“Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.”

When a soul is released into heaven, then that’s one more person who can intercede for us.

So, all around, we’ve got some good reasons to pray for them, and no reasons not to. So, if you could, remember the departed in your prayers. We all need all the help we can get.

Holy Barista!

2007-09-04T14:44:00.000-04:00

This has been going around the Catholic-sphere today and, since half the Swingin' Rosaries staff either are current or former baristas, I thought I'd share.

Coffee Shop owner becomes Consecrated Virgin.

^___^

So, if you're ever in the vicinity of Waukesha, Wisconsin . . .

[H/T: The Curt Jester]

Holy Father's Prayer intentions for September:

2007-09-02T09:05:00.000-04:00

Because we want to foster a sense of faith and spirituality here, I thought that we can post the Holy Father's prayer intentions for the month at the beginning of each month (or as close as my poor dim mind can remember to do it):

September:

The Holy Father's General Prayer Intention for September is:

"That the ecumenical assembly in Romania this month may contribute to the growth of unity among all Christians."

His Mission Prayer Intention is:

"That, following Christ joyfully, all missionaries may know how to overcome the difficulties they meet in everyday life."

Free-Range Kiwis and Coyotes

2007-08-28T09:26:00.000-04:00

In a comment to the previous post, our wandering Kiwi said the following (in relation to a trip to Lourdes, and a conversation with a fellow kiwi of the priestly sort):

The priest's response was that . . . I didn't feel worthy. But I told him it wasn't that, it was more that I saw the Grotto as the holy of holies, for the 'true' believers, and it didn't seem like I belonged there. When I finally went, it was to place a prayer petition for someone I knew who was gravely ill. I am still not really sure if any feelings of unworthiness had anything to do with my reluctance to go there.
[Emphasis added by me]

Boy oh boy, do I know that feeling . . . not any more, mind you, but for several years, I was convinced that if what I really believed was discovered, I'd be tied to a stake and getting toasty before you could say "Repent!" Perhaps I fall into hyperbole, but the fear itself was real. For so many years I sang in my church choir and believed myself a fraud, because even though I could say the Creed and completely mean every word, even though I believed even then in the True Presence, I still felt like I was a bad Catholic. I felt like I didn't belong . . . like, as Kat would say, "The lone Indian at Custer's Tea Party." [Or, for you Harry Potter fans, like a lone Slytherin surrounded by Gryffindors.] Yeah, awkward.

I should note that the community I was with was very welcoming and warm, so one couldn't blame this on them. It was a mostly internal thing-- one only has to meet a few of the "All-or-Nothing!" Catholics for their glares and scowls to become internalized, and you start feeling guily because (gasp!) you don't recite the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy everyday, or because you don't automatically agree and follow exactly every single statement that comes from the entire chain of command up to the Pope.

[Considering that it's in my nature to reflexively argue with anything from anyone (seriously, the Pope could come out with a statement regarding how blue the sky looks on a sunny day, and I'd instinctively say "Not during sunrise!" I think it's the Scot in me. . . ~_^ )]

Anyway, I should come 'round to a point. What I had to figure out was "Why am I (still) here? Why don't I just leave?"

The answer was the Eucharist-- I cannot say that I believe that it's the True Presence, because I know, and there's a difference. That knowledge, from experience, makes it awful hard to walk away, whatever else is going on. He's addictive--not like a drug, but more like a new favorite song that you keep playing over and over again.

Now, after this was decided, came The Creed and the Infallible Statements. I poured over all of these, and my response was "Yeah, okay. No conflict there . . ." So, those were okay and set. And right about then, I realised that I really, despite the views of some, didn't need much more. Because everything else will eventually fall into place if you have those as the baseline. Take what you can, pray for the rest.

This didn't immediately solve my awkwardness-- that did linger for a bit, because although Guilt Beast had stopped gnawing on my ankle, he was still hanging around, demanding to be fed. But it helped. It also helped that I started going to Adoration, something that for some reason had intimidated me, but soon became a much anticipated part of my week. Ah, Jesus and me, mano a mano. . .or rather, Deo a Coyote . . .hmm, good stuff. And, of course, going to Confession more regularly helped as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I really, truly do understand that awkwardness one sometimes has, that feeling of "not belonging." I'd say, strip it down to bare essentials: The Eucharist, the Creed, the Infallible Statements. If these don't cause you to go into convulsions, then the rest will come with time and prayer, because most of everything else is connected to these things. The "All-or-Nothing!" Catholics would probably have apoplexy at such a suggestion, but that's because it's never occurred to them that some beliefs are more important than others, which is strange, because the whole point of the Creed and the Infallible Statements is precisely to emphasize certain teachings/beliefs as more important than others. You need to have a baseline, a starting place. If you start with "All-or-nothing!", most people will choose nothing. (Think about the way you respond to salesmen who use this approach, and you'll see what I mean. You'll walk before you sign a contract like that. . . why should people be less cautious when it comes to religious and spiritual matters which are all the more important?)

A lot of times the open displays of piety exhibited by others makes us think that they are better Catholics than we, that they are the "True Believers," and thus that such places as the Grotto at Lourdes are more for them than for us. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Lourdes, Fatima, Jerusalem, Guadaloupe, Knock, local churches. . . these are for the catholic church, which is to say, the whole church, everyone of us. Those who pray with great shouts, and those whose prayer is silence-- and even those who hardly pray at all. All of us, saints and sinners, fit, unfit and misfit, obedient and not-so-obedient. . .

Do not fall into the mistake of thinking that those who are most pius on the outside are "better" -- Mafiosos are sometimes known for their piety, and no one (today) would consider them good Catholics. Likewise, some of the best, most truly devout Catholics I've known were emo/ goth punks who listened to loud music, wore mostly black (sometimes some red for variety), and were considered "freaks" by the "good" people.

Finally, I'd say-- at least you're trying, which is a heck of a lot more than most people can say. Tolkien tells us that "Not all who wander are lost." The Bible shows us that not everyone who steps off the boat drowns--provided the circumstances are right. If you keep on with honesty, prayer and sincerity, you'll find the awkwardness will take care of itself.

2007-08-24T12:59:00.000-04:00

I just don't feel worthy of receiving the Eucharist. Is it okay to just attend Mass and not receive the sacrament until I feel worthy again?

If you are in a state of mortal sin, you shouldn't receive the Eucharist at Mass, but I don't think that is what you are asking. None of us are worthy to receive anything from God, that is why it is called Grace.

As a friend defined Grace once: Something Good that you don't deserve. Which is precisely what the Eucharist gives us, Grace. Unless we are in a state of Mortal Sin, we should avail ourselves of that Grace as much as we can.

Fixed...

2007-08-23T16:35:00.001-04:00

Random slashes got deleted somehow.... who knew a \ was so bloody important.

Technical difficulties. . .

2007-08-23T14:36:00.000-04:00

Um, yes, the header seems to have disappeared. I am wading through the code to see what happened. . .

Comments

2007-08-23T12:54:00.001-04:00

You might have noticed that we've installed haloscan for comments . . . which means that all your wonderful, earlier comments are gone. Well, rather, they're still on the Blogger servers, but cannot be seen by anyone except the staff, through the back door.

We've switched to haloscan for security reasons, really. There have been some problems on some other blogs that this will help prevent. We don't want to "moderate" comments, and those word verification thingy's are such a pain . . .

Thank you for your patience, understanding, and co-operation. We've appreciated that you've been respecting our request to name yourself and avoid posting as "Anonymous", and we hope that this will be too troublesome for any of you.

^_^

**** KAT's Update: We are working on the technical difficulties that cropped up with things suddenly disappearing. Code issues... what can we say.

Queenship of Mary

2007-08-22T15:42:00.001-04:00

Concerning the Saints

2007-08-22T12:46:00.000-04:00

For the past few posts we have all been discussing the Saints. I realized after the last few comments that some may not know the Saints or their place in the Catholic faith, though I am sure for many this is common knowledge.

So who are the Saints really?

When Catholics refer to the Saints, most commonly they are referring to those individuals who led extraordinary lives in Christ, which in turn have been examined and recognized formally by the Vatican in a process called canonization. The Saints are people who in one form or another sacrificed themselves for their faith and love of God. Some examples would be St. Francis of Assisi or St. Vincent de Paul.

However, Saints can also refer to others. As referenced by Richard P. McBrien in his book Catholicism, the term Saints can be applied to four groups of people. 1) those under the grace of Christ be they living or dead 2) those having received the grace of Christ have gone to eternal life 3) holy figures, such as those in the bible, who stand out as examples of sanctity and 4) those whom the Church formally recognizes (i.e. - those whom we spoke of above).
In essence and according to the Catechism of the Church the "communion (or group) of Saints, refers not only to the sancti (Holy people within the Church), but also the Church herself.

Why do Catholics pray to the Saints?

To say that Catholics pray to the Saints the way that one would pray to God the father or Christ is not correct. Rather Catholics have what is called the Intercession of Saints. Most basically this means that the Saints that have died and passed on into eternal life are closest to God through their being and their holy merits from their mortal life. Being that they are closer to the presence of God, Catholics will "pray to them" asking them for help in interceding with God and acting as a mediator on our behalf. The Saints also do this constant intercession without being asked.

I was once asked by a friend why I would choose to converse with a Saint versus going straight to God, since God is also always listening. My response was that there are times when it is hard to ask for help, even though there may be people around waiting to offer it up. I have friends and relatives whom I feel such a close connection to that I can tell them anything and at anytime without feeling anxious. Asking a Saint to intercede for you may be the same thing. There are Catholics that feel naturally drawn and comfortable with certain Saints and others that have passed on, in this way it is natural to communicate with someone whom you might have such a close bond.

Another reason that people ask for particular Saint's intercession is that some Saints have patronages. For instance Aloysius wrote asking Our Lady of Prompt Succour (a Saint) for intercession concerning safety from the hurricane. Well Our Lady of Prompt Succour is the patron Saint of New Orleans, and thusly asking her to pray on behalf of those needing protection from the hurricanes is fitting to her position.

I'm sure that we could go much more in depth into the theology of the Saints, but hopefully for those who do not know anything of the Saints, this will give some background information and a starting point from which to begin.

The two books I referenced are Catechism of the Catholic Church from Doubleday Press, and Catholicism by Richard P. McBrien, Harper San Franciso, 1989.

Feast of Our Lady of Prompt Succor

2007-08-21T16:39:00.001-04:00

Any New Orleanian knows that when there is a hurricane you ask Our Lady of Prompt Succor to pray for the city. On this day, let us remember to pray for those in the regions being affected by Hurricane Dean.

St. Bernard!

2007-08-20T11:43:00.000-04:00

So, I was sitting at my desk this morning, thinking "We ought to have a (semi-) daily feature for the saint's of the day," since they are a treasure-trove of insight and wisdom. And I thought "And Aloysius is just the guy to do it!" And further, I thought "Except for the Feasts of St. Cecilia, Michaelmas, and whenever the feast of St. Bernard of Clairvaux is, because I totally claim those!"

Several hours later, after completing a decent amount of paperwork, I was curious, and wondered who today's saints were, and lo, listed on Catholic-forum, there on August 20th was St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Awesome.

St. Bernard first came to my attention as the author of the primitive Rule for the Templars, and as a major figure in their early years. But, this was actually only a very small part of what he did. You can find the profile for him here-- he had a great devotion to Our Lady, and his appreciation for the role of angels is why he's kept my attention. He has been called the "mellifluous", because he was so eloquent, his words so sweet, they were like honey.

On Mary, he writes:

In dangers, in doubts, in difficulties, think of Mary, call upon Mary. Let not her name depart from your lips, never suffer it to leave your heart. And that you may obtain the assistance of her prayer, neglect not to walk in her footsteps. With her for guide, you shall never go astray; while invoking her, you shall never lose heart; so long as she is in your mind, you are safe from deception; while she holds your hand, you cannot fall; under her protection you have nothing to fear; if she walks before you, you shall not grow weary; if she shows you favor, you shall reach the goal.

On Love, he writes:

Love is sufficient of itself; it gives pleasure by itself and because of itself. It is its own merit, its own reward. Love looks for no cause outside itself, no effect beyond itself. Its profit lies in the practice. Of all the movements, sensations and feelings of the soul, love is the only one in which the creature can respond to the Creator and make some sort of similar return however unequal though it be. For when God loves, all he desires is to be loved in return. The sole purpose of his love is to be loved, int he knowledge that those who love him are made happy by their love of him.

And, on the subject of Guardian Angels:

In this, therefore, brethren, let us affectionately love His angels as one day our future coheirs; meanwhile, however, as counselors and defenders appointed by the Father and placed over us. Why should we fear under such guardians? Those who keep us in all our ways can neither be overcome nor be deceived, much less deceive. They are faithful; they are prudent; they are powerful; why do we tremble? Let us only follow them, let us remain close to them, and in the protection of the God of heaven let us abide. As often, therefore, as a most serious temptation is perceived to weigh upon you and an excessive trial is threatening, call to your guard, your leader, your helper in your needs, in your tribulation; cry to him and say: "Lord, save us; we perish!"

Now, actually, my favorite passage I cannot find an entry of online, and my copy is currently unavailible to me. But in the fifth of his Five Books On Consideration, in (I think) the eleventh chapter, he gives us what I think is the most beautiful description of the roles of the 9 Choirs of Angels--yep, I'd say even better than Pseudo-Dionysius (the guy who came up with the list of the Nine Choirs). If people are interested, when my copy is availible to me, I'll post it. The whole passage is highlighted in green in my copy, and is what I used to read back when Maggie, Al, Kat and I would sit around on Friday nights in New Orleans, exchanging passages from our favorite saints (thus the self-identification of "nerds").

Anyway, St. Bernard is a Doctor of the Church, the first Cistercian to be put in the Calendar of Saints, and is not the St. Bernard that the dog breed was named for-- that was St. Bernard of Menthon. His writings have a well deserved reputation for eloquence and beauty, and I would recommend them to pretty much anyone looking for good writing on spiritual subjects.

UPDATE: And, as always, Argent by the Tiber has some great related posts as well, here and here. Go read!

Mary Mary

2007-08-19T18:47:00.000-04:00

So, explain the deal with Mary... I mean why is she so important in your religion? Aren't you Christians?

First, let me say that yes Catholics are Christians. Christ is the source and summit of our lives and worship. Yes we honor Mary, but one of the biggest misconceptions about the Catholic faith is that we worship Mary, we don't. No Catholic would be Catholic if we worshiped anyone but God.

We honor Mary, because she said "yes" to God in a way that no one else has ever said yes to God before or since. We may never know if the salvation we have received through Christ would have happened if Mary had not said yes, but in a way that thought is irrelevant. Mary did say yes, and endured much to be the instrument of God. In the same way Christ made us family with God by teaching us to call God "Abba", so too Christ's mother is ours.

When we emulate Mary, we become the family of Christ "who ever does the will of the father is my mother and brothers". As we become the family of God we ask each other to pray for us, that includes our mother Mary.

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death. Amen.

"Beginning with Mary's unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the Person of Christ manifested in His mysteries. In countless hymns and antiphons expressing this prayer, two movements usually alternate with one another: the first "magnifies" the Lord for the "great things" He did for His lowly servant and through her for all human beings. The second entrusts the supplications and praises of the children of God to the Mother of Jesus, because she now knows the humanity which, in her, the Son of God espoused." - from the Catechism of the Catholic Church; 2675.

Homily

2007-08-19T13:59:00.000-04:00

Jesus said to his disciples:
“I have come to set the earth on fire,
and how I wish it were already blazing!
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized,
and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!
Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth?
No, I tell you, but rather division.
From now on a household of five will be divided,
three against two and two against three;
a father will be divided against his son
and a son against his father,
a mother against her daughter
and a daughter against her mother,
a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

“I have come to set the earth on fire and how I wish it were already blazing!”

What a thing to say! Especially from Jesus, the one who we think of as loving and peace filled. He not only wants to set us on FIRE but to create division.

What are we to think?

How are we to react?

The division Jesus is talking about isn’t our everyday quibbles and fights between family members and friends, no, it is the division between truth and untruth, between that which leads us to life and that which leads us to death. Jesus is that which is truth, that which leads us to life, so how can he cause division?

He causes division by leading us away from untruth and that which leads us to death, he causes division when we follow HIM giving up and leaving behind those things and unfortunately sometimes people who drive us from him, the division comes when we choose him above all things.

Recently, a very good and treasured friend of mine experienced this, she grew to trust and to care for someone who believed her capable of something horrible. This division, wasn’t created by Christ but the division came when she wouldn’t tell this person an untruth in order to preserve her relationship. Eventually, because my friend cared so much for this person and was so devastated emotionally because of several layers of events, she lied to him and told him what he wanted to hear. The situation only became worse, she forgot Christ as her focus and fell into the evil of untruth, with this the division only grew worse.

Now, because most of you don’t know me, let me tell you that I went to college and got my undergrad degree in counseling, one of them anyway. Division comes in many forms, abuse, anger, and various hurts real and imagined. My friend was subject to this division, and it wounded her deeply. This incident happened in layers over several months and several of her friends, I included, have been picking up the pieces.

Division need not be permanent, we can always chose Christ. We always have the opportunity to heal that which is broken if we acknowledge our sinfulness and reject that which divides us. How do we do this? We admit to ourselves our sinfulness, we attempt to heal our divisions and always remain open, most of all we seek the sacraments that bring us the most healing: Confession and Eucharist. We do not create more division by seeking to separate ourselves from persons who have harmed us. Our fathers are still our fathers, our mothers still our mothers despite divisions. Christ seeks to set us on fire, fire with the truth and fire with love.

Go forth and be set on fire.

*Note: Kat asked me to edit the posting of this Homily out of deference to some who read this blog who may be upset by some of the content.

Assumption!

2007-08-15T18:18:00.001-04:00

**UPDATED**

So, yes, we're a little late on this. Better late than never.

Today is the Solemnity of the Assumption, and is a holy day of obligation, so all you actual Catholics out there shoulda been to Mass today (or have plans to go to a late mass).

Today's Gospel is the Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth, a reading very dear to me, as I went to a Visitation school for high school (run by the Sisters of the Visitation), and my church has a chapel dedicated to the Visitation. This story is about Mary's utter selflessness. It's after her encounter with Gabriel, where she has learned that not only is she to bear the Son of God, but that her cousin Elizabeth (past childbearing years) is pregnant, too. So Mary, young, unmarried, and pregnant, sets of on foot to visit her cousin and help her with her pregnancy. And, in the course of greeting said cousin, graces scripture with the Magnificat, one of the most beautiful prayers in our repertoire.

I could try to write something deep and meaningful about this very meaningful and deep day, but you know what-- some other people already have, and they are far wiser than I, so let me recommend some links:

Argent has a ton of good reads today-- just go and scroll, there's so much . . .

Disputations of the Importance of the Devotion to Mary

Deacon Kandra gives us a bit of Merton on the Visitation.
Be sure to read his homily for today, as well.

Athos brings us a lovely music video focused on Our Lady

**And, Dimbulb, in the comments, recommended the two sermons to be found here, and I agree, they're quite good, so do be sure to find time to read them. Good stuff!**

Be sure to check all of those links out!

PS: Okay, I'm setting myself up for a beat-down in asking this, but I've gotta know. . . Considering my actual love of Chant and Old School Music, is it bad that everytime I sing "Hail, Holy Queen" I hear the version from Sister Act in my head?

Spiritual Direction revisited

2007-08-15T07:30:00.002-04:00

I was asked once on another blog awhile ago: "How do you go about finding a spiritual director?" At the time I really didn't know how to answer that question and am still not quite that sure. I won't go into details of personal events, but suffice it to say I am not in the most directed time in my own life at the moment on a faith level but I did find some information and resources in the following article. I am usually loathe to post another's article to answer a questions, but the following says it best (that I have been able to find).

"TAKE CARE"
Thoughts on Choosing a Spiritual Director

"It is very important that individuals, desiring to advance in recollection and perfection, take care into whose hands they entrust themselves, for the disciple will become like the master." (The Living Flame of Love, 3:30) This is a most wise instruction from Saint John of the Cross and should be taken very seriously. If we recognize the value and priority of our relationship with God and if we desire to grow in that relationship, then we should choose carefully the person who will serve as our spiritual director. We will reflect and act upon the advice and suggestions that our director gives; we want to "take care into whose hands we entrust" ourselves. What follows are some thoughts to consider in choosing a director.

I begin with a well-known text in which John of the Cross speaks of the principal tasks and responsibilities of those who serve in the ministry of spiritual direction:

Directors should reflect that they themselves are not the chief agent, guide, and mover of souls in this matter, but the principal guide is the Holy Spirit, who is never neglectful of souls, and they themselves are instruments for directing these souls to perfection through faith and the law of God, according to the spirit given by God to each one. Thus the whole concern of directors should not be to accommodate souls to their own method and condition, but they should observe the road along which God is leading one; if they do not recognize it, they should leave the soul alone and not bother it. (The Living Flame of Love, 3:46)

Though the main focus of this text is the director, there are important implications here for directees to consider.

"The principal guide is the Holy Spirit." This is at the very heart of the theology of spiritual direction. To be attentive to the Spirit as guide, we should choose a director with whom we do not have an extensive history. A person that we know well could become a distraction to the objectivity that is necessary for a healthy direction relationship. Our focus must remain on the Spirit at work within us. If we choose a director with whom we are familiar in another context(s), human factors can emerge that compromise that objectivity. We can become hesitant or embarrassed about sharing on a deep level because we know that we will encounter the director in those other settings. And, we may see the director in a light that is not helpful to the relationship. This has the potential to create a lack of comfort that can encumber effective spiritual direction.

"According to the spirit given by God to each one." Spiritual direction is not designed to be "one size fits all." It must be attentive to the unique ways in which the Spirit is guiding each of us. To maximize openness to the graces available through spiritual direction, we should choose a director with whom we do not have a personal or professional relationship. Dual relationships raise the issue of safeguarding appropriate boundaries. Personal boundaries are not only physical and emotional, they are also informational. Directees and directors who are in more than one relationship with one another may unintentionally share information outside direction; such inadvertent breaches of confidentiality can erode the trust necessary for direction. Closely related to this is the situation of a spiritual director serving for several members of a community/group to which he/she belongs. While there may be situations in which alternatives are not possible, in general, a diversity of directors from outside is preferable for the spiritual health and development of the community/group.

"Not to accommodate souls to their own method and condition." Directors who have been well formed and trained are keenly aware that the potential for compromising objectivity and personal [12-13] boundaries is very real. They will understand precisely why Saint John of the Cross cautions them in this regard. If that potential for compromise is present, we have the right to assume that the director will notice it and address it, or that the director will be willing to discuss it fully if we mention it. We must sense the director's conviction that spiritual direction is about God's work in us and not about what the director can accomplish.

In light of the above, what qualities might a directee look for in a director? First, a humility that invites our freedom to explore the ways of the Spirit in every dimension of life. When we do not sense that we are encouraged to take up that exploration, we need to examine the roots of that, even though it may involve questioning the health or focus of the direction relationship.

Second, a knowledge of the spiritual life that encourages faith in God and focus on God present and active in our life, and that nurtures confidence of being guided along the pathways of the spiritual journey. Though we may not be familiar with every kind of experience that can emerge in the spiritual life, we must have a basic trust that the director's guidance is useful and beneficial in providing us with some insight into our experience.

Third, a concern that promotes growth. Even though directors may ask about health or affective issues when appropriate, we must have a sense that our continuing spiritual development is at the foundation of the questions, suggestions, and recommendations we receive in direction.

Fourth, a respect that affirms us as persons. Spiritual direction can invite us to experiment with different prayer forms and perspectives. Still, we must experience our spiritual life as truly our own, as a graced adventure that fits our daily life and capabilities as they continue to evolve.

Fifth, an honesty that is willing to challenge. The preceding qualities do not negate the director's responsibility to challenge and address honestly any issues, behaviors, or practices that could be detrimental to our progress in the spiritual life. We should sense that we are welcome to ask the director for suggestions and recommendations that will facilitate the deepening of our relationship with and response to God.

Sixth, the above qualities together point to the director's faith which always recognizes and acknowledges that "the principal guide is the Holy Spirit." We should sense that this recognition and acknowledgment are never lost sight of in the direction relationship and that they are an expression of the director's own love and desire for God.

The director's humility, knowledge, concern, respect, honesty, and faith, however blessed and beneficial, do not exonerate us from taking responsibility for our part in the direction relationship. The topics which emerge in direction can be uncomfortable and probing. Failure to face and address those topics, at times, may not be a reflection on the director's ability, but a call to our own self-examination for any lack of self-knowledge, low self-esteem, or unwillingness to look at our life as it really is.

When speaking about those seeking a spiritual director, Saint John of the Cross makes the assumption that they are "desiring to advance in recollection and perfection." Two brief points implicit in this phrase will serve as a conclusion to these reflections. First, this desire to advance must be genuine and not merely a ploy to be noticed as "holy." Such a ploy is but a very thin veneer for pride. Second, the spiritual direction relationship must be at the service of that desire to advance. Anything less will not point the way toward recollection and perfection and, ultimately, union with God. Truly, then, directees must "take care into whose hands they entrust themselves." It is a matter of life, our spiritual life.

Brother Joel Giallanza, C.S.C.
Institute for Spiritual Direction - Diocese of Austin
P.O. Box 13327- Austin, Texas 7871

2007-08-14T12:40:00.000-04:00

Sorry I am a late-comer.
Coyote had to remind me how to log in since I am about as technologically advanced as a Catherine-Wheel.

So I am Aloysius, I attend Loyola University with Maggie, but we are in different tracks of the Theology Ph.D. Most of my study has been in spirituality of the Middle Ages, but I will try to be of as much help as possible.

Aw, Hell!

2007-08-14T10:50:00.000-04:00

This is an uncomfortable subject for many, and is one of the ways popular culture tries to call traditional Judeo-Christian traditions into question, often picking on Catholics as they do so. The question is usually posed thus:

How do you reconcile the idea of a Loving God with the idea of Hell? Aren't the two mutually exclusive?

To which my reply, if asked personally, is: Well, no, because the idea of a Loving God implies that of Hell. Allow me to explain. . .

First, let's address the questions of what Hell is and how one ends up there. The popular interpretation is that 1) Hell is a fiery abyss of sadistic torures, a la Dante's Inferno(you'll need a Flash plug-in for that link), and 2) you did something very bad, something that pissed God off so He sent you to Hell as punishment. But, interestingly enough, this is not what the Catholic Church teaches about Hell.

The church's teaching on Hell is first, that Hell is the complete and utter absence of God, and second that is it actually not that God condemns one to Hell, but rather, that one does that for oneself. People wind up in Hell who reject God, His Grace, His Mercy and Forgiveness. This is, in fact, the definition of Mortal Sin-- anything that constitutes a denial or rejection of God. Sin is the turning away from God, repentance is the turning back to God. Those who wind up in Hell are those who die and never, even in that last instant, repent of their mortal sin. It is, in that last moment, a choice: turn back to God and throw yourself on His Mercy, or reject Him.

Because there is that last moment to repent, the Church never teaches that any specific person is in Hell--not even Hitler. Now, we can certainly suspect that his Fuhrerness (and his buddies Mengele, Himmler, et al) are roasting merrily to the cackling delight of Asmodeus and the rest of the infernal pack, but ultimately, we do not know. It is theoretically possible that, at that last moment, Hitler (literally) saw the light and so is now spending a slow millennium or three in Purgatory, listening to "It's a Small World" over and over again. . .(Far better to repent during one's life, to Confess and do penance now, and skip the pain of purgation. It'll likely be several centuries of Stair Master for me. . . *shudders*).

What this all means then, is that Hell is a choice. People who are in Hell have chosen it. It may baffle us why anyone would be so. . . stupid as to choose Hell, but unfortunately, I've met a few people in my time who wouldn't surprise me if they did. All of them share certain traits in common-- they are unbearably Pride-full, and they are very, very angry at God. Those most angry at God tend to claim to be atheists, but their attitude proclaims quite clearly that they are actually anti-theists. [Mind you, I'm not saying all atheists are so, just some of them]. They literally hate God, and any suggestion that maybe they could see things from other perspectives is greeted with scorn, derision, and more predictable anger. They are sad, sorry cases for whom we must all pray, because there is little else we can do for them, and Hell is worse than even the worst things we can imagine, and it is not God's desire (nor should it be ours) that anyone, no matter how bad, end up there.

Ultimately, the ability to choose Hell is itself a proof that God is Loving. God created us with Free Will, and all choices (well, all moral choices at least) boil down to God/ not-God. While we live, we are constantly given the opportunity to choose again--and so the righteous can always fall, and the sinner can always find redemption. We just choose again. That final choice, given at the moment if death, is the last choice, the final decision between God or not-God. It is the most important of them all, and the ultimate proof of our freedom. For if we have free will in all other things, but no free will to choose God (or not-God), then all the other freedoms are fake, pretend choices in illusory freedom. Complete freedom demands that we have the ability to choose God or not-God, and so complete freedom therefore demands the existence of not-God, which is to say, Hell.

And this, finally, is how Hell and a Loving God are linked. God, loving us into existence, created us in His Image, including Freedom. That Freedom is only worth anything if it includes the ultimate freedom, to choose God or not. So, this is why the two ideas are not mutually exclusive--the existence of Hell and the ability to choose it are themselves evidence of God's Love.

For more reading: What the Catechism says (scroll down to part IV)
An article on "Radical Liberty"

I Wonder as I Wander (out under the sky)

2007-08-13T11:00:00.000-04:00

[I’ve been pondering to possibilities for the next subject matter to tackle, two very different subjects: Wonder and Hell. The first because some others have blogged on it recently, so it’s timely. The second because it comes up again and again in pop culture, and so I have to keep explaining it to people. . .Let’s start with Wonder. It’s more pleasant, naturally, and won’t leave us in a funk if I don’t get to the other subject today.]

When I was eleven, a cousin was getting married in Denver, CO, and the rest of my mother’s (rather large) family decided it would be a good time for a family reunion. My mom and dad decided that since this was all happening in the middle of the summer, when neither my elder brother or I had school, that we’d drive to the wedding, taking the long route there and back. They believed that I should know more of my country than just suburban Maryland and Cape Cod (where Grandma and Grandpa lived). So off we went, with many stops along the way, most of historic or geographical interest. Battlefields, rock formations, canyons, craters, caves, dinosaur bones, Native American ruins and reservations. . . it was all included.

On the second half of the trip, we stopped for two nights at Mesa Verde. I was sick the first night, so I didn’t have a chance to go clambering through the ruins with the rest of my family. I stayed in the hotel room, sitting in a chair on the balcony, reading Anne McCaffery’s Dragonriders of Pern, listening to Phantom of the Opera, and getting interrupted by grazing deer looking for treats. That night, I was feeling better, and I was back out at the balcony, and there I saw something that etched itself in my brain forever. There was a lightening storm over the town below the mesa, and I could see it clearly from our rooms. We were too far away to hear any thunder, but down there, beneath our feet, silent lightening poured down. Looking up, then, I saw something few suburban kids ever see—the Milky Way, and a billion other stars scattered across the blue-black velvet of space.

I was entranced. Not just by the stars (My mother—and Kat—have often accused me of being more magpie than human, easily mesmerized by anything that sparkles or shines), but by the spaces between the stars. As though the hard vacuum had reached down and was pulling me farther and farther into the vastness that went on forever . . .

It was not the first time I’d lost myself in the night sky, and it would be far from the last. But something about that night—the brilliance of the stars, the silent lightening. . . I remember that night so clearly, and it’s been a little treasure that I’ve carried since.

Naturally, then, sometime on that trip I got infected by the travel bug. I was just fourteen when I went abroad for the first time (without my parents, no less) to Australia, to gaze at night skies at once strange and familiar, then later to such varied places as Budapest, Salzburg, Vienna, or the jungles of Belize. And every time, the sheer vastness of the world, its endless variety, and unexpected similarities, has always left me speechless in dumb amazement.

But, it’s also done something else—it’s made me appreciate the beauty and awesome majesty in my own backyard (or rather, since I haven’t got a backyard at the moment, my parents’). There are the little flowers in the spring—snowdrops and violets that glisten in the morning sunlight. Even the grass, if you look close, has an iridescent sheen when new. In the autumn, we have trees that look like they’re on fire, in the winter is the joy of new-fallen snow. There is the incredible happiness of my dog, (Capt.) Malcolm Reynolds, when I come to visit, and his strange intelligence when at play.

And, there is coffee. And Chocolate. And the internet itself. Things that if I sit down and ponder for just long enough, I’m amazed. I mean, caffeine. Chocolate, so perfect in taste and texture, no wonder the old civilizations considered it the food of the gods. And that the internet works consistently is a source of unending amazement to me. Yes, some of these are more natural than others, but they still leave one with a sense of awe, of wonder. And wonder, if allowed its course, leads to humility and gratitude.

The wonder at the marvels of my own country led me to be endlessly grateful to be born in this country. The wonders of other places led me to be grateful to be born in this world, at this time. All the wonder I encounter nurtures a deep and abiding gratitude to God, that I have been allowed to see such wonders. Even when not-so-nice things happen, like the diagnosis of cancer, I am still able to be grateful (Well, thank you God that I live in a time and place where they can do something about it. Thank you for my friends, family and this kick-*** laptop that gives me access to the world even when in isolation. And backup generators in the hospital so I can get air conditioning and my Saturday morning cartoons when the rest of the region has no power for three days due to a hurricane. Niiiice. . .).

Wonder begets humility and gratitude, both of which form an underestimated source of strength when hard things happen.

Gagdad Bob recently wrote over at One Cosmos:

The sense of wonder is not merely a useless "luxury capacity" that serves no human purpose. Rather, it is a spiritual sense that discloses valid information about the cosmos. In fact, like a divining rod, it tells us where to look for the water. It senses those "holes" in the landscape through which the wondrous spiritual energies gently bubble forth to the surface.

And later:

A genuine sense of wonder preserves the extraordinary in the familiar, and is therefore a key to happiness. Pieper notes that for Aquinas, it was one of the indirect proofs of God, in that "in the very first moment of wonder man sets his foot on the path at the end of which lies the visio beatifica, the blissful perception of the ultimate cause." In this regard, you might say that wonder is a way of "metabolizing reality," in that it involves both digestion and resultant growth.

[The whole thing is worth reading, so please do.]

Dennis Prager also recently wrote something related—that too much excitement deprives children of happiness.

. . . All this excitement renders young people jaded, not happy. To cite a simple example, many children today would refuse to watch a black and white film -- "It's boring," they say. They would even refuse to watch many of the greatest color films if they lacked the amount of excitement -- usually meaning violence but also frequently meaning foul language and sexual content -- that they are now so used to seeing in films. Plot development is "boring"; blowing up people and buildings is exciting.

That is why the frequent complaint of "I'm bored" is often a sign of a jaded child, i.e., a child addicted to excitement and therefore incapable of enjoying life when not being excited.

[Again, read the whole thing].

In fact, Wonder is at the very heart of Christianity. What wondrous love is this? We sing every Lent, because that Sacrifice by the Son of God was something so incredible, so amazing, that it’s still blowing our minds two thousand years later. The whole point is that God loves us so much He went and sent the Son to save us by becoming one of us. That’s gotta blow your mind, just a little. I know it gives me shivers. . .

Our Easter celebrations may not express this wonder well (though, maybe they do. Something to discuss. . .), but we certainly do at Christmas. Between the fairy lights on the tree and house, the haunting carols, all the rituals once pagan and now part of celebrating Emmanuel. . .yep, wonder as you wander.

Wonder-free Catholicism is like chocolate-free chocolate chip cookies. If, as a Catholic (or heck, any sort of Christian) you are not at least sometimes struck dumb with wonder when contemplating what you believe, then you’re kinda missing the point.

First Week Roundup!

2007-08-13T08:17:00.001-04:00

So, we've been up a little over a week now (the blog was created Sunday night), and I wanted to thank everyone for such a great start. As of thus writing, our sitemeter reads 686, which is not bad at all for a first week in business. I would like to recognize some people specifically for making our first week successful:

Mark Shea, for giving us that sweet, sweet linkage over at his blog.
Also giving us sweet linkage (that we've noticed in the Sitemeter):
The New Roving Medievalist (Check out the photography. Niice!)

Argent By the Tiber (Ohh, Twice! Thanks!)

Astonished, Yet at Home (All-Stars? Ah, we're blushing!)

and last, but certainly not least

Tom from Disputations.

Also, all you commenters, for your contributions to discussions and (mostly) civil behavior, notably:

arjcoarocks

Kiwi Nomad 2006

Apostolic Anchoress

Cura Animarum

Fr. Scott Bailey, C. Ss. R (out of curiosity, and because I'm a dufus that doesn't know. . . what order is that?)

just for fun

dimbulb

and everyone else I just plain forgot (I haven't had my coffee yet, so my apologies, dear readers)

And, since it's not a proper blog with out someone being a little more belligerent that the rest:

Catholic Crusader.

[Yes, part of the point of the whole post was to give linkage back. Also to let all of you know that even if we don't answer every comment, we do appreciate them all, and we hope you continue to come by and contribute to discussions.]

Anyway, thank you all for a great first week! We likely won't post any more roundups like this until the first blogoversary, but I thought I should thank you all who helped us start out.

Thank you!

Confidentiality

2007-08-11T18:39:00.000-04:00

My daughter recently asked me a question- not about confession- but about talking to a priest. She knows what is said in the confessional is held in confidence, but is it the same for a conversation outside the confessional with a priest? I I told her I thought it would be, but it got me thinking. What if a teen came to a priest to talk about their drug or alcohol use, and it was obvious they needed some kind of help but were unwilling to go to their parents? Would a priest approach a parent to say they need to get help for their child, or would that be considered a breach?

According to Canon Law 983 and 984 what is said in confession is more then simply held in confidence. A priest who violates the seal, even indirectly, is subject to penalties up to and including dismissal from the clerical state and excommunication.

A conversation outside the confessional isn't held to the same degree of confidence, but most priests hold those communications to an extremely high standard of confidentiality and will not reveal those discussions and communications to anyone or betray that confidence unless they are required by law to do so. If say, a child were to come to them outside confession and tell them they are being abused in some way, they are required to report that information just as a teacher would. In the specific situation you are talking about, if it is a child, I think the safety of the child would be paramount but that must be balanced with retaining the child's trust. A priest, I believe, would have to first gain the permission of the child/person to approach another person regarding the information that was disclosed to them. Additionally they should encourage the child to go to their parents as well as finding the child/person the help they need. No priest should violate the trust and confidence someone bestows upon them, to do so is unconscionable.

More Music

2007-08-10T07:29:00.000-04:00

Related to the discussion we had the other day, yesterday the Anchoress linked to this post from the beginning of July, about a song called "Jesus was a Cool Dude". This gentle woman says "95% of all “praise music” and 98% of all Catholic “hymns” written since
1972 are just shudder-inducing. Most of what is played at mass these days serves
as useful penance and not much else."

My, my, Anchoress, tell us what you really think. . .

+ + +

Because I'm a music nerd, I was looking on YouTube for the Alleluia from the Missa Papae Marcelli, but, alas, no one's done anything with that yet. But, I did find something from someone who is possibly more of a music nerd than I and, feeling generous, I thought I'd share. Here we have a short film on the life of Palestrina, with effective use of his music and others, including that of Star Wars, Superman, and. . . yes, that's Eminem you heard. . .

Behold the Geekdom:

Don't you feel nerdier already? ~_^

PS: And, from Amy welborn, related thoughts and links.

Who is she?!

2007-08-09T21:45:00.000-04:00

I am late in coming that much is true. Better late then never! For all purposes here you can call me Maggie, it's a name that my family fondly gave me a good time back. My excuse for being late to write is that I was in the process of moving to a new city to begin work on my PhD in Christian Ethics. As stated by Kat and CC, I am a geek. Hopefully I can help with some of these questions. ^_^

Sacraments

2007-08-09T08:51:00.000-04:00

Can a priest refuse sacraments to someone who could otherwise receive them?

A priest would have to have a very good reason to refuse someone the sacraments of the church. IE the person would have to be excommunicated, even then the sacrament of penance would remove such an excommunication. In general terms, no.

*UPDATE* When I was writing this post, I was thinking, unfortunately, of the most common form of excommunication (abortion), most if not all priests in the USA have been given faculties by their bishops to absolve this. But the short answer remains, a priest must have a very good reason to refuse the sacraments to someone.

Jesuit Questions

2007-08-08T14:34:00.000-04:00

arjcoarocks asked the following:

My question is how do the Jesuits differ from say the Dominicans? I know the history, or at least a little of it regarding how they came to be, but I never quite understood how each is different. It seems that the Jesuits have a great deal to do with teaching. I have many questions- so I'll list them:

The main charism of the Jesuit Order is teaching. I can not compare us to the Dominicans or go into great detail on the similarities or differences because I honestly do not know that much about the Dominican order, I know they are quite well known for their preaching and pursuit of knowledge.

1. Are "brothers" kind of like "deacons"? 2. If not, why do they exists- what is their function? 3. Do all "orders" (until I know the proper word) have brothers and are they different from monks?

No, the deaconate is either permanent or transitional for those becoming priests. A Jesuit brother has a special and specific vocation to be a Jesuit brother, more information can be found here about Jesuit brothers. The term Monk is used in the western world to often describe men religious, however, in some orders Monks can be priests (I am thinking Cistercians, etc.). Brother is a common term for those who are in a religious order but are not on the path, necessarily, to ordination.

In particular to the Jesuits (since that is what you are):

1. What does S.J. stand for? Society of Jesus

2. Why does the other contributor here have the same suffix if he is yet a priest? All members of the Society have the suffix regardless if they are a Priest, Brother or Scholastics (one in formation who is studying) a novice will use the suffix nS.J. until he moves on to further studies

.
3. If you are not in service to a parish, can a Jesuit priest perform all the same duties as another priest- like the ones who serve my parish? All Jesuit priests can perform the same duties as any other validly ordained priest in good standing. A Jesuit priest would have to have permission of the pastor to perform weddings etc, as would any visiting priest.

4. Do Jesuits go to the same seminaries as everyone else or are there specific seminaries for those "orders"? Jesuits have a separate formation process that lasts on average 10 years.

5. Tony- why aren't you addressed as Father by the others here? Anyone is free to address me as Father, some here have known me since high school and are my good friends. Many Jesuits allow their friends to address them by their first names, it allows for personal connections and removes the ‘thin black line’ that separates clergy from laity. Beyond that, Tony is my name, Father is a title.

6. Again, Tony- what do you do? What I mean is how/where do you act in service to the church? Is there a particular church or area with which you are affiliated? I currently work in service to the larger order. I am not stationed in a particular parish.

7. Does one have a calling to be a Jesuit or a priest- is there a distinction one makes? Yes, the calling to be a Jesuit priest is different then the calling to be a priest of another order or even to be a diocesan priest. The calling to be a Jesuit is sometimes separate from being a priest.

8. Do the Jesuits operate outside of the archdiocese where they are working? Jesuits operate in a diocese with the permission of the local bishop, sometimes this includes working in parishes and sometimes this means in separate Apostolate.

Also, I've heard the term, for example, "Dominican Laity" (don't know if I spelled correctly) and wondered what that means? Priests and Deacons are ordained, and I thought all the rest of us were laypeople, so what is the distinction to what I above referenced? Dominican Laity, someone correct me if I am wrong, is a distinction for 3^rd order or Lay Dominicans. Those lay people who follow to some degree the rule and chrism of the Dominican order.

What Good is Spiritual Direction?

2007-08-08T10:08:00.000-04:00

This next topic doesn't come from any one specific question, but I've seen it enough out there, from evangelical pulpits to Chick Tracts, to discussions with friends in college, that I thought it would be worth introducing. The question/ idea is along these lines:

What's the point of spiritual direction? If I have faith, isn't that enough? Why should I turn completely hand over my spiritual development to another person? Aren't my prayers enough? Why does a priest (or anyone else) need to get involved?

First off, let me link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Spiritual Direction, so we all know what's being discussed.

Yes, it is true, we can all talk to God any time we want, we certainly don't need priests or anyone else for that. And having faith is good--> but a man can have great faith in God and still walk off a cliff in the dark.

What we're all kinda bad at is listening to God-- it's far too easy to hear our egos and decide it's God talking. This is the problem of interpreting scripture all on your own without any training-- the Bible becomes the mirror of our own desires, saying what we want it to say. Priests and other "professionals", especially in spiritual counseling, help ensure that we do not wander into error. And I do not mean simply "doctrinal error" as such, because arguments that boil down to "Because We Said So!" never impressed me much. Rather, they challenge us by ensuring that we're not cherry picking the Bible, misinterpreting passages, falling victim to that greatest of deceivers, Pride, or forgetting important aspects and insights from tradition.

In another forum, I once wrote regarding "no need for spiritual direction":

Kat can attest that when it comes to religious and spiritual matters, I can be fiercely independent. . . It is a very commonly held sentiment, one heard over and over again from evangelical pulpits and a myriad of other places. And, there was probably a time in my college days when I agreed with this-- partly out of bitterness and resentment, partly out of that native "fierce independence", partly stubbornness/ Pride. I, too, would rather "do it on my own."

Of course, when it comes down to it, we all have to do it on our own-- but doing something on your own does not mean doing it alone, or completely sans guidance.

. . .When you forgo spiritual direction/ counseling, you run the risk of not discerning correctly, because all your discernment will be completely subjective, there will be no outside input for you to consider, much less disagree with.

Spiritual direction is not putting your spiritual development completely into the hands of another mortal. It is, rather, a chance to hear something outside of our own heads. While it is true that some people possess the necessary honesty and self-discipline to be pretty OK on their own, I do not think it ever wise to assume that one is among those people. Because if you have any lack in these areas and most people, very much including myself, do lack in these areas, you end up running wild on the spiritual plains.

Without something to at least serve as a guidepost, discernment quickly becomes a self-centered thing, where God's Will becomes My Will. At this point, one is simply a Jesus-oriented Fluff-bunny Wiccan, wearing a cross and proclaiming "An it harm none, do as thou wilt!" A nice sentiment, but with no room for development or growth.

Spiritual direction, formal or informal, maintains the challenge of faith. In fact, if you never disagree with your spiritual advisor, then there's no chance for growth. The church and all the opportunities for direction are not in place to force marching orders down our throats-- they exist to serve as the structure for our growth. It is in the uncomfortable disagreements that we all grow in understanding and wisdom.

But those uncomfortable disagreements cannot happen if there is no one to disagree with. Do I always agree with 100% of what any other person says? Nope. And I think this is a good thing. If I agreed completely with everything someone said all the time, then there is no growth for me to gain from having known them-- nor for them to gain from having known me.

This is not a lack of confidence in my own Faith. Not at all. It is, however, a humble (or rather, as humble as I can currently manage ^_^) admission that I am imperfect, a sin-prone mortal who needs reminding that yes, I am mortal and sin-prone, but am called and created for something greater. That's what Spiritual direction is (at least how I see it)-- that reminder of the higher standard.

Spiritual direction is a comfort in times of challenge, and a challenge in times of comfort. In my private journal, I also wrote:

But in a balance, where there is overall agreement, but a very few non-agreements-- here there is a delightful, creative tension. Here, one learns the discipline of tradition without stifling the intellect. When one submits to what they don't really like, then the few places there are true disagreements become clearer. In fact, for all three of my disagreements, I can say that I do not agree--but, I can understand and accept. Mind you, it has taken. . . years to get here. First, I had to become a God-forsaken Liberal to learn what I had disagreements with, and then, Heaven help me, I started to become a (relatively) Rabid Conservative tired of all the self-indulgence in my former associates. Good Lord, I can b***h about post-Vatican II music with the best of them (Palestrina all the way, baby!), and nothing makes me happier than a bit of St. Bernard of Clairvaux as a chaser to the latest Harry Potter. But each movement was a challenge. In my God-Forsaken Liberal days, I swore I would never become one of those "mean, tyrannical, authoritarian conservatives."

I was wrong.

Our disagreements are not just challenges for them-- they must be challenges for us. I have, at long last, come to terms with the pain of the vocation I was not allowed to answer. I took a different road, and I would not change that now. . . Had I been allowed to follow that vocation, I would have missed so many precious things. And now, I can say "Look, I understand the ban. I don't agree with it, so much, but I understand and can accept it."

. . .Of course, with these differences, the attitude should always be "I don't understand this teaching as it's been presented, it seems unjust/ insane/ etc. . . I would like to come to understanding" and not "You are wrong, I am right, the Church must change to fit my ideas!" [Likewise, rabid Conservatives who answer all things with the standard "Because the Church says so!" really need to get out more. . .]

Yes, sometimes change is needed. But more often it is we who must change, not the whole rest of the church. And that's the challenge. We should never be completely satisfied and comfortable with the hand we hold-- as soon as we smile in smug satisfaction, God will raise us two red chips, and worse, He'll smile right back.

I think you can see a theme developing. The fact is, as individuals, we are prone to resting on our laurels. We love think that because we're "filled with the Spirit!" that we can then go and do as our hearts desire because "Ohh, I'm filled with the Spirit! I must have this craving for chocolate because God wants me to!" You know, this reminds me of some Handel my church choir sings now and then. . . "Oh we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned, everyone to his own way. . ."

Spiritual direction is the ongoing challenge to us. Our advisor lays down that challenge for us, to be sure that what we're filled with really is the Spirit, to be sure that we're correctly understanding what the Spirit's trying to tell us, to make sure we're not about to walk off a cliff and moreover, to always challenge us to greater degrees of perfection.

While we can all challenge ourselves, it's always better to have the interaction of two people challenging each other to grow in faith, hope, love and patience. It's one thing to tell yourself "Gee, self, we really need to work on ______." But hearing it from another makes it more real, and makes us more likely to actually act on that need to change.

Mary

2007-08-08T08:58:00.000-04:00

Thank you for your courage in volunteering to answer questions!!!!

I've got one for you. Someone told me " to Jesus through Mary" is "bad theology" eg we don't have prayers to Mary before mass etc.I asked a priest and he said " it's a given." and I agree with that especially if the church has always taught that Our Blessed Mother is our advocate, mediatrix of all graces. ( the latter is really a hard concept to get across).

First, we don't have prayers to Mary during Mass (generally, though one can say a Hail Mary after the prayers of the faithful) because the focus of Mass is the Eucharistic sacrifice; i.e.: "Do this in remembrance of me" (Jesus to the Apostles at the last supper).

As to it being "bad theology", hardly. The concept of "To Jesus through Mary" is based in two factors, the first being the communion of saints and the other is the brotherhood we share with Christ with God as our Father and Mary as our Mother. Flowing through this all, we can come to understand why Mary is termed mediatrix of all graces. She was conceived, born, and lived a life without sin. She was the only fully human, unlike Christ who was fully human and fully divine, to do so. Were it to be "bad theology", the person would be discounting Mary's place in the way that God chose to manifest himself on earth as Christ. Mary said "yes" in a way that allowed salvation history to progress, without that "yes" there is no telling where we would be as a human race.

Women in the Priesthood

2007-08-08T08:39:00.000-04:00

If it was women who didn't abandon Christ at the cross, and women who first knew the resurrection, why then can't women be priests?

I will attempt to explain this in such a way that does not devolve into what has been described as the "uterus argument" in some circles, meaning the argument that says that the reason women can't be priests is the same reason men can't get pregnant, it is hardly a dignified argument or response to a serious question. The following is also an explanation of how I personally came to accept church teaching on the matter.

The reasons behind why the church teaches the way it does regarding women in the priesthood are not simple. It has nothing to do with the church believing women are less then or inferior to men. Pope John Paul II in his Letter to Women undeniably reiterated for the modern age the church’s teaching on the dignity of women in which he said:

I know of course that simply saying thank you is not enough. Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women's dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, 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 which 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 honoured the dignity which 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?

Yes, it is time to examine the past with courage, to assign responsibility where it is due in a review of the long history of humanity. Women have contributed to that history as much as men and, more often than not, they did so in much more difficult conditions. I think particularly of those women who loved culture and art, and devoted their lives to them in spite of the fact that they were frequently at a disadvantage from the start, excluded from equal educational opportunities, underestimated, ignored and not given credit for their intellectual contributions. Sadly, very little of women's achievements in history can be registered by the science of history. But even though time may have buried the documentary evidence of those achievements, their beneficent influence can be felt as a force which has shaped the lives of successive generations, right up to our own. To this great, immense feminine "tradition" humanity owes a debt which can never be repaid. Yet how many women have been and continue to be valued more for their physical appearance than for their skill, their professionalism, their intellectual abilities, their deep sensitivity; in a word, the very dignity of their being!

How is this the same man who was accused by groups such as CTA as being anti-woman and misogynistic?

We have many many years of church history and tradition of an all male priesthood, the one thing that has not changed while other things have such as mass in the vernacular and even the requirement of celibacy (which was not always mandated) both of those things have changed and many other things have changed and been fluid within the church. Yes the church’s stance on women in the priesthood is hard to accept, and hard to swallow because we live in a society that devalues the uniqueness of women and promotes that ‘everything a man can do a woman can to’ in the job field. However, priesthood is not a job, it is a calling from God to serve completely in a certain way it is not a choice in the sense one chooses to be a firefighter or police officer or teacher. Yes God is God and can call whom he chooses but the Church recognizes that while we are limited in our understanding of God and his workings we must err on the side of caution in discerning God’s will. The Church is not subject to the whims of modern society and stands firm on teachings that may lead the faithful away from a greater understanding of Christ and the will of God in our lives. The problem with groups such as CTA etc, that promote women in the priesthood is that they have lost sight of the fact that priesthood is a call to serve and not a call to power, control or authority. Too many of those kinds of groups see the priesthood as a way to gain control over the church, these are the same groups who promote artificial birth control, abortion and euthanasia. We were told that we “shall know them by their fruits” Matthew 7:16.

The fruit of the tree of the church is good fruit, and while we may not all like every part of the fruit of the tree that is the Church, it is good fruit and must accept it as such. We are not called to agree with the Church but we are all called to accept Church teaching. Church teaching is not based on the opinions of John Paul II or Benedict but is based upon 2000 years of history and tradition, prayer and discernment and the leadings of the Holy Spirit no one Pope is going to step in and change that (church teaching in general) overnight. And lest we forget, the church has changed in how it relates to women. Women attended and gave input to the second Vatican council and women are involved in the church from the parish level to the Vatican .

The priesthood is not about power, and anyone who thinks of it as such be they lay or religious, male or female they have the message extremely wrong and need to examine their motivations. The idea that priesthood is power is clericalism at its worst and not a following of the call to be a servant to the servants of God.

Liturgical Colors

2007-08-07T21:34:00.000-04:00

What is the significance of the colors of the vestments during the different times in the liturgical year?

From Catholic Encyclopedia:

In the Roman Rite, since Pius V, colours are five in number, viz.: white, red, green, violet, and black. Rose colour is employed only on Lætare and Gaudete Sundays. Blue is prescribed in some dioceses of Spain for the Mass of the Immaculate Conception.

White is the colour proper to Trinity Sunday, the feasts of Our Lord, except those of His Passion, the feasts of the Blessed Virgin, angels, confessors, virgins and women, who are not martyrs, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, the chief feast of St. John the Evangelist, the feast of the Chains and of the Chair of St. Peter, the Conversion of St. Paul, All Saints, to consecration of churches and altars, the anniversaries of the election and coronation of the pope and of the election and consecration of bishops; also for the octaves of these feasts and from Holy Saturday to the vigil of Pentecost; it is used for votive Masses when the feasts have white, and for the nuptial Mass; also in services in connection with the Blessed Sacrament, at funerals, in the administration of baptism, and matrimony.

Red is used the week of Pentecost, on the feasts of Christ's Passion and His Precious Blood, the Finding and Elevation of the Cross, the feasts of Apostles and martyrs; and in votive Masses of these feasts. It is used on Holy Innocents if the feast occur on Sunday and always on its octave.

Green is used from the octave of the Epiphany to Lent, and from the octave of Pentecost to Advent, except on ember-days and vigils during that time, and on Sundays occurring within an octave.

Violet is used during Advent and from Lent to Easter, on vigils that are fast days, and on ember-days, except the vigil of Pentecost and the ember-days during the octave of Pentecost. Violet is also used for Mass on rogation-days, for votive Masses of the Passion and of penitential character, at the blessing of candles and of holy water. The stole used in the administration of penance and of extreme unction must be violet.

Black is used in some parts of the world but has largely fallen out of use. In the past it was mainly used in offices of the dead and Good Friday.

But to put it more simply:

White: Baptisms, Feasts of the Blessed Mother, Some of the feasts of Christ, weddings, funerals and Easter.

Red: Feasts of martyrs/Apostles and Pentecost.

Violet: Lent, Advent, penance (confession)

Green: Any time not already mentioned, ie: most of the year.

Black: Pretty much never.

Rose: One Sunday in Lent and one Sunday in Advent.

What is Paganism?

2007-08-07T10:00:00.000-04:00

I too am taking a first question from another blog.

What is a pagan? That term has come up a few times recently , and I tried to read about what that is, but I'm confused. Is it witchcraft or idolatry,
what?!!!

This is an extremely broad question. The dictionary defines a pagan as: "A people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks. A person who is not a Christian, Jew or Muslim. An irreligious or hedonistic person."

There is an inherent difference between the pagan, the neo-pagan, the witch, and the wiccan. True paganism is rare anymore. Using the definition above the only true pagans are those who are followers of Hinduism, Aboriginal religions, etc. The pagans that we all hear of today in the news are not true pagans, rather, they are a hodge podge of Celtic, Egyptian and Germanic based loosely on 'recreated' history as much, if not all, European paganism has died out. You probably weren’t thinking of this when you asked your question, you were probably asking about the neo-pagan/new age/wicca practices that are out there.

First let me explain that I have no animosity towards those who follow this path, I think they are misguided, but I am not ‘against’ them for their beliefs. My Problem with the larger New Age/wicca/neo-pagan movement is that it is not based on a solid ground of theology and belief structure, rather it is all fluff and feel good nonsense. The New Age movement is about the build up of the individual and making them feel good about themselves and that nothing is wrong unless it is causing direct harm to another person. Those in the communities I have lumped together will probably rally that “what they believe is different from the others”. I have studied it, it isn’t. Saying that the New Age movement is fluff and nonsense does not make it safe, there are plenty of elements in this movement that can lead you to a path away from God.

From the feel good fluff of the New Age we move into the more serious elements of Witchcraft and the Occult. Both of these can be extremely dangerous. Witchcraft is more serious and involved then Wicca, it can involve serious practical elements. Now before people I know get upset, let me say this, the purpose and the belief behind why someone does something is important. I know plenty of people who are Witches who would never harm a living thing with what they know or do that said, I know of some who would. Intent in the occult is, I believe, 90% of a thing because of this I will not dismiss all of the occult/witchcraft as “of the devil” out of hand. I do think it is very dangerous to “dabble”, THAT is where people get into problems. To dismiss everything that is occult as “of the devil” is to also dismiss when they were used to further the kingdom of God. Divination is in the Bible: Numbers 26:55; Proverbs 16:33 Proverbs 18:18; Numbers 27:21 and 1 Samuel 28:6. I do not pose this as a defense of it, but rather to point out that intent is important. Some, not all who are involved in the Occult/Witchcraft are so because it allows them the ‘freedom’ to do as they please, while others have as high if not higher sense of morality and responsibility to others then many Christians I know and their marriages have lasted where as many Christian ones haven’t, a friend of mine is a prime example, she and her husband have been married for a long time and both describe themselves as Witches and neither would use their system of beliefs to harm another living being.

There are dark elements of the Occult and things that can only be described as Evil. I will not go into detail here, mainly because I do not want to give information that could lead someone to reading or studying something that could lead them down that path. Suffice to say, anything that violates another person’s free will is wrong. There are a good many elements of the occult that do this. Like anything dealing with it, even reading on the occult if one is not secure in one’s belief is not a good idea.

To answer the other part of your question, is it idolatry? From a Christian/Jewish perspective yes it is, but for those who follow that path it isn’t because they do not look at it from the Christian perspective.

To Begin: Music and Church

2007-08-06T15:42:00.000-04:00

I'm starting with an unanswered question from another blog, and I chose this one because I got my degree in Vocal Music Education:

"A hymn is the praise of God with song; a song is the exultation of the mind dwelling on eternal things, bursting forth in the voice."
-Thomas Aquinas

Just wondering- are hymns thought of as a form of prayer? On the similar note, why does the church seem to frown on modern music in the church. If it's all about worship, why isn't this form also considered sacred? There definately is something about hearing the traditional hymns with which we all grew-up, but I also appreciate the more contemporary musical liturgy as at our Sunday evening service.

This is an older debate than many people realize. Legend has it that back during the Council of Trent, the church fathers were debating whether or not polyphony should be allowed in churches, or if the only music to be allowed would be chant. In defense of polyphony, the composer Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina penned the Missa Papae Marcelli (Pope Marcellus Mass), and thereby so impressed the bishops and Pope that they allowed polyphony to remain. [More recent scholarship suggests that the Missa was actually composed 10 years earlier, but it's still a great story!]

To answer the question, though, there are several points to be made/ discussed.

First, it must be understood that music is essentially an amplifier of sentiment and or idea, and as such, can actually be quite powerful--> and therefore, quite dangerous. The best of music can stir our soul and transport us to the heavens. The worst can leave us drowning in the rotting muck of hell. And, naturally then, it can leave us every place in between. Just because the lyrics might be about God doesn't mean it should be in a Church.

Second, some people have problems with a lot of the more contemporary lyrics. Several years ago there was a trend to have the congregation singing about God in the first person, which is not exactly humble. Likewise, a lot of the songs are not actually about God, but about how great we are as a community--Go Us! The focus in a lot of contemporary "hymns" is not God, it is I, we, us, when it ought to be God, or at least people in heaven, like Mary. Singing in praise of Us! is, well, weird at best.

Third, not all "sacred music", strangely enough, is meant for a mass setting. Verdi's Requiem Mass was intended as a concert piece, not to be such as an actual mass. It's too big, too hardcore for an actual mass, and Verdi knew it, maybe even made it so on purpose.

This third point is a very important one: Some music is better in a concert setting, even if it's got religious lyrics. A lot of contemporary "praise music" falls into this category, I think. It's great to listen to in the car, or to go to a concert to hear and sing along with. For instance, I'm a huge U2 fan, and they did a rendition of Psalm 40 called (du-uh) "40." It's a lovely little piece, but I don't think it should ever be used as the Psalm for Mass, no matter how well written. Not because of who wrote it, but because it does not lend itself toward communal singing, such as a psalm for Mass should.

And here is another important point-- music to be used in a Mass needs to balance between two sometimes opposing requirements: First, to inspire and move our spirits and hearts toward heaven and second, to be singable. To be singable for the average person means that one cannot be too complicated in terms of melodies, chords or rhythms (this rhythmic requirement knocks out most contemporary music). However, simplify too much and you get schmaltz and saccharin-sweet lullabies.

My church choir has actually found a way to maintain this balance effectively-- some things are congregational, some are just for the choir. Usually, it is divided as such:

Prelude--Choir
Processional-Congregation
All mass parts--Congregation
Offertory--Choir
Communion--Congregation
Communion Meditation--Choir
Recessional--Congregation
Postlude--Choir

This way, the congregation as a whole gets in a good bit of singing, and the more advanced music is still incorporated by the choir (And we sing a lot of the more classical pieces, which satisfies us music buffs.)

Now, to be sure that I've answered the questions:

are hymns thought of as a form of prayer?
Yes. In fact, to qualify as a hymn, I would think it would need to fulfill the requirements of prayer. Which would be: an address or meditation from us toward God. Therefore, something that went along the lines of "We are awesome! We are amazingly cool! How wonderful are we!" is not a hymn, because it is not a prayer. However, if it does fulfill the requirements for prayer, then yes, it most certainly counts as prayer.

why does the church seem to frown on modern music in the church?
It's not that the church frowns on modern music as such-- it's that the church frowns on bad music, and unfortunately, a lot of modern church music falls into this category. From songs with unrealistic ranges, to painfully awkward rhythms, or insulting lyrics . . . a lot of modern "church" music falls into un-singable. I didn't realize how hard it was to sing a lot of this until I began to cantor, and I've found that about 75% of what I have to lead has ranges that challenge even my trained voice, going from chest voice to mid-voice to head voice all in one verse!

[Now granted, one of my favorite "modern" songs is guilty of this very thing. I have a secret love of "On Eagle's Wings." To be honest, it's nearly impossible to cantor. Starts off a bit high for a congregation-- the "You who dwell in the shadow of the Lord" always sounds reedy-- and then the refrain dips way too low for a congregation-- "And he shall raise you up. . ." always makes me sound like a teen-aged boy trying to ask out a crush. It's simply not well written for congregations-- but like cheap chocolate, I just can't get enough.]

If it's all about worship, why isn't this form also considered sacred?
Look, I've been known to be able to pick out deep theological and philosophical meanings from episodes of DragonBall Z --> but that doesn't mean that I should write a hagiography of Vegeta, Prince of Saiya-jins (much though this nerd is tempted). For something to be sacred, it's not enough to be about God. U2's "40" is about God, but I wouldn't consider it sacred, fangirl though I am. Likewise, not everything that transports one person will work on most people. I might be moved by the music of Evanescence, Flyleaf, or Thousand Foot Krutch. . . (2 out of 3 are considered "Christian Rock"), but that does not make it sacred. There are many people that hear the strumming of guitars and are not inspired toward God, but rather toward the destruction of the instruments.

I think, to be sacred, it must inspire most listeners, most of the time. This is why most people consider the works by John Rutter to be sacred, while the work of Bono and The Edge, eh, not so much.

Also, worship is necessarily all about God. Therefore, sacred music is never about us. Lyrics matter.

Now, this does not mean that there is no good, modern, sacred music. I think there's just as much as ever-- I believe, however, that there's proportionately more not-so-good, and so the good stuff tends to get lost or drowned out. There's a lot of good music being written for choirs (Martin Lauridsen's "O Magnum Mysterium" still gives me goosebumps after several years of singing it), and there are some things being written in other styles that are excellent as well--from a jazz Mass I heard performed by a jazz band and singing ensemble in New Orleans, to a lot of the arrangements of spirituals that are becoming standards. But, the problem is, most of this is being written for musicians, people who can take the time to rehearse and learn things a little more complicated and interesting. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to write for congregations well, and so very difficult to find. The "classics" became such because they withstood the test of time. We can't come up with an entire year's worth of classics in the space of half a century--so if we want modern (as in, post-Vatican II) music, we're stuck with music still in the testing process.

In the end, friend, it comes down to not simply your taste and abilities, but the taste of the majority and the abilities of the average. This means then, that the appropriateness of a song may vary from place to place. Folk hymns from one part of the world don't always translate well into other cultures. But, sometimes they do. So, a lot of what decides the use of a certain song should be the abilities of the congregation. Most people can get "Siyahumba". "Betelehemu", on the other hand, probably not. But when taken over the average of the Catholic Church across the whole world-- I think the "oldies" are the easiest to sing well.

Well, that's what I think, anyway. I hope I've answered the question, and I invite discussion and differences of opinion, of course. ^_^

Hi!

2007-08-06T09:27:00.000-04:00

I am Tony, a friend of Kat's for what seems like forever. I am a Jesuit priest and I travel quite a bit. I, like Sam, do not know how much time I can put into this but I will at least occasionally drop in and grace all of you with my presence. ~_^

Hello there.

2007-08-06T08:58:00.001-04:00

My name is Sam, I am a Jesuit currently in formation, but not yet ordained. I have undergrad degrees in Counseling and Catholicism. I don't know how much time I will be able to put into this but I will do what I can.

Hello!

2007-08-06T06:46:00.000-04:00

I suppose, for the sake of record, I should introduce myself. I'm Crusader Coyote, and a brief consideration to the name should tell you a lot about me. First, Crusader: Yes, when terrorists make videos about the "Zionists and Crusaders", I'm the one of the people they're whining about. I'm a Taurus, enjoy Japanese Anime, sharp pointy things, and long walks through the writings of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Second, Coyote: . . . well, I'm sure you'll catch on. . .

I'm probably the only one writing here who doesn't have a degree in some sort of theology. I do, however, have a degree in education, and seeing as all my friends are theologians, I think I might have picked up on a few things here and there. Also, what I lack in schooling I think I make up for in experience.

No one can be more surprised than I that I've ended up in this position. I have no doubt that many of my former associates would be chagrined and horrified to see me doing this [That said, those former associates are the types that give exorcists grey hairs, so. . . yeah. . .experience].

Anyway, that's me in a nutshell. ^_^ Welcome to Swingin' Rosaries!

What the???

2007-08-05T19:55:00.000-04:00

Swingin' Rosaries, what the heck is the purpose of this blog?

All of the people who are and will be a part of this blog are inherently nerds. Our purpose is to offer answers to the questions on the faith that you may not find elsewhere, or to explain the answers that you do get in a way that you can understand.

The inner calling of our hearts is to help and to teach.

We are here for all of your questions regarding the Catholic faith.

2007-08-05T19:42:00.000-04:00

one moment...