I've Been Thinking...

Joe Pa Got 'Too Big to Fail'

2011-11-10T10:18:00.000-08:00

The recent sex abuse crisis facing Penn State reveals a glaring weakness in the entire Penn State enterprise: lack of courage. Courage was contained to a 50x120 yard piece of turf.

I've been trying to figure out what compels someone who has witnessed a grown man sodomizing a 10 year-old boy to do virtually nothing. And then for other people to get the same reports, claim to have done something, but in the end, with no follow through, have also done virtually nothing.

I think it's all because of 'Joe Pa.' I mean more than the man - the legend and all that surrounds it and defines Penn State. To believe that reporting this kind of crime when it happened would somehow have tarnished 'Joe Pa' is lack of courage. To not follow through after a poor response by your boss is a lack of courage (albeit - progressively more courage required).

To report the crime when it happened would not have tarnished the reputation of anyone except the accused. This is not the kind of thing you can find out when you interview someone for a job. It's deviant behavior that perpetrators work hard to hide.

To keep this dirty little secret for so long really meant that everyone became to know. An entire 'system' became infected with lack of courage. Outward appearances became only a facade.

Time to see The Wizard.

Repentance - Thoughts During This Easter Season

2011-05-14T06:09:00.000-07:00

His name was Dismas. For way too long he had to bear the insults and the jokes hurled at a man he didn’t think deserved it. These people’s emotions were out of control! But not the man to his right; he was in perfect control. Gestas was even insulting this man. What a fool! Other than the occasional grunt of discomfort from the enormous pain this man was enduring, the man to his right said nothing. He almost looked upon them with pity. Not revengeful pity; but a deep loving remorse.

How could a man under such intense suffering seem to love these enemies of His? Finally, Dismas had had enough. “Have you no fear of God,” he asked Gestas, “for you are subject to the same condemnation? This man has done nothing criminal." Then, he said to the man to his right, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

"Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise," said Jesus to a perfect confession from a contrite penitent.

To repent is to “feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's sin. But, one must first recognize sin. Recognizing sin means understanding that we don’t get to define right or wrong for ourselves. Right and wrong are defined for us by God. It has been handed to us through the Ten Commandments. Next, we must recognize the consequences of sin. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” That’s pretty clear.

Lastly, we must recognize the Sacrament of Penance is a sacrament instituted by Christ for the forgiveness of sins. The very first command Jesus gives to the Apostles the first time He appears to them after his resurrection is “(Jesus) said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.’“ That’s pretty clear too.

Resurrection - Thoughts During This Easter Season

2011-05-14T06:06:00.001-07:00

“Inconceivable!” cried Vincent, the Sicilian, on many occasions in “The Princess Bride.” Certainly a term used by women who discovered Jesus missing from the tomb, by the Apostles upon being told about Jesus, and still by us today when trying to comprehend this event.

It becomes even less difficult for us to believe this when we deeply consider what was lost in the Garden of Eden. One of the best ways to understand how well Adam and Even really had it when they lived there is to examine the curses they were now under after their sin. The most compelling of these curses was this:

“For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return."

A crushing punishment indeed! You see, before this Adam and Eve were They lived in a permanent state of sanctifying grace. God provided everything to them that they needed, including the capacity to take care of themselves effortlessly.

On Easter Sunday, Jesus restored our ability to live in sanctifying grace here on earth in this temporary living arrangement; then later, to live in sanctifying grace with the Father, under His care, in His constant presence, effortlessly and eternally.

Redemption - Thoughts During This Easter Season

2011-05-14T06:04:00.000-07:00

A redeemer is one who pays a price to regain something lost. And what a price our Savior paid for saving the world from original sin and the actual sins of men since Eden and forever in the future. We are reminded of the chief sufferings of Christ in the Sorrowful Mystery of the Holy Rosary: the agony in the garden; the scourging at the pillar; the crowing with thorns; the carrying of the cross; the crucifixion and death.

In order for this redemption to be effective – for both the past and the future – it had to be “a sacrifice of infinite merit and infinite completion of which can only be done by an infinite being.” And with such humility was this sacrifice carried out. Not once did Our Lord lose control of his emotions.

To fully understand this event, we must fully and completely open our hearts to understand the need for this redemption. The gates to Heaven had been closed because of what happened in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve bought the biggest lie of all: that God doesn’t love us completely and unconditionally.

We know what was lost in Eden by the curses that Adam and Eve were not going to forebear:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

"I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.”

“Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master."

"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat, cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life. By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat...”

“For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return."

Each of these curses tell us what it was that Adam and Eve did NOT have to worry about before this all happened: no enmity between Satan and them; no childbearing pains; no hardship with labor to feed themselves; no exploitation of women by men; no immortality. This was what was lost in Eden. This is what Jesus came to restore.

Repentance - Thoughts on Tuesday of Holy Week, 2011

2011-04-19T03:58:00.000-07:00

His name was Dismas. For way too long he had to bear the insults and the jokes hurled at a man he didn’t think deserved it. These people’s emotions were out of control! But not the man to his right; he was in perfect control. Gestas was even insulting this man. What a fool! Other than the occasional grunt of discomfort from the enormous pain this man was enduring, the man to his right said nothing. He almost looked upon these people with pity. Not revengeful pity; but a deep loving remorse.

"Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise," said Jesus to a perfect confession from a contrite penitent.

To repent is to “feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's sin.” But, one must first recognize sin. Recognizing sin means understanding that we don’t get to define right or wrong for ourselves. Right and wrong are defined for us by God. It has been handed to us through the Ten Commandments.

Next, we must recognize the consequences of sin. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” That’s pretty clear.

Mortification - Thoughts on Monday of Holy Week, 2011

2011-04-19T03:55:00.000-07:00

Mortification is a method of bringing oneself under control. It allows you to be more in tune with your intellect instead of your emotions. It is a way to achieve self-mastery. Mortification means “putting to death” through self-denial old habits that stand in the way of being what Matthew Kelly calls “the best-version-of-yourself.” The best-version-of-yourself is another way of “being perfect (whole and complete) as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”

“The man who has not learned to mortify (put to death old bad habits) himself, has within himself the enemies of peace and goodness. He is easily around against those who thwart or oppose his selfish desires. He sees the obligations of others, but he remains blind to his own. He blames little things in others, while he excuses bigger faults in himself (The Confraternity of the Precious Blood, http://confraternitypb.org)."

Jesus says what He means and means what He says. "Could you not keep watch for one hour (Mark 14:37-42)?" Why one hour? Why not more or why not less? Knowing He knew well our human nature, Jesus wasn't asking Simon for something that he could not achieve. Jesus' use of the words "keeping watch" is another interesting part of this passage. When you minimally interpret "keeping watch" as meaning "time of prayer” I take away the length of time for which you should "keep watch" daily. One hour of prayer a day. Sounds like a lot. But prayer is essential to mortification.

If you want to be the best at anything it takes practice and discipline. Athletes understand this; musicians understand this. Prayer also takes practice and it also takes discipline. But isn’t following Christ take discipline? Christ himself was the perfect example of discipline. He was in total control of himself at all times. He never lost control while he was preaching. He never lost control on his way to Calvary.

The Philosophy of Individualism Trumps the Truth

2011-03-28T11:56:00.000-07:00

Photo courtesy of www.thatsabortion.com.

This billboard was removed from the SoHo neighborhood of Manhattan soon after it was erected in February of this year. An objector to the billboard harassed workers in a Mexican restaurant below the sign (of which the restaurant had no involvement in the billboard). The general manager for Lamar Advertising claimed that the move to remove the billboard was not politically motivated, but instead was safety related.

This is clearly a case of the philosophy of individualism run amok. Matthew Kelly in his book Rediscovering Catholicism writes that "[the] social and political reforms of our age have exalted the individual in a way that is unhealthy for society as a whole...The rights of the individual have been strengthened at all costs, with no regard for right and wrong, and often to the detriment of the whole." A single man objects to the billboard, harasses restaurant workers and the advertising agency's general manager succumbs to the philosophy of individualism.

Photo courtesy of www.thatsabortion.com.

Let alone that the African American population in New York City has practically been decimated by abortion. Check out these facts. “Black people in New York and all over the country should be outraged at the numbers of black babies we lose every single day to abortion," said Dr. Alveda King. "An astonishing 60 percent of African-American pregnancies in the five boroughs of New York City end in abortion. That’s unfathomable,” King said.

Do You Know Anyone Born Today?

2011-03-25T05:51:00.000-07:00

Today is the Feast Day of the Annunciation of the Lord. Check out this article from http://www.universalis.com/.

What If She Had Said No?1

The question may strike you as irreverent. How dare I suggest that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptrix of mankind, could have left us in the lurch like that?

But what if she had?

Could she have said No? You might say that of course she couldn’t, she was far too holy — but you would be guilty of demeaning and dangerous sentimentality. It is demeaning because it turns Our Lady from a free human being into a sanctified automaton. The whole glory of the Annunciation is that Mary, the second Eve, could have said No to God but she said Yes instead. That is what we celebrate, that is what we praise her for; and rightly so.

This sentimental view is dangerous too. If we believe that the most important decision in the history of the world was in fact inevitable, that it couldn’t have been otherwise, then that means it was effortless. Now we have a marvellous excuse for laziness. Next time we’re faced with a tough moral decision, we needn’t worry about doing what is right. Just drift, and God will make sure that whatever choice we make is the right one. If God really wants us to do something he’ll sweep us off his feet the way he did Mary, and if he chooses not to, it’s hardly our fault, is it?

So Mary could have said No to Gabriel. What if she had? He couldn’t just go and ask someone else, like some sort of charity collector. With all the genealogies and prophecies in the Bible, there was only one candidate. It’s an alarming thought. Ultimately, of course, God would have done something: the history of salvation is the history of him never abandoning his people however pig-headed they were. But God has chosen to work through human history. If the first attempt at redemption took four thousand years to prepare, from the Fall to the Annunciation, how many tens of thousands of years would the next attempt have taken?

Even if the world sometimes makes us feel like cogs in a machine, each of us is unique and each of us is here for a purpose: just because it isn’t as spectacular a purpose as Mary’s, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. When we fail to seek our vocation, or put off fulfilling some part of it, we try to justify ourselves by saying that someone else will do it better, that God will provide, that it doesn’t really matter. But we are lying. However small a part I have to play, the story of the Annunciation tells me it is my part and no-one else can do it.

Faced with the enormity of her choice, how was Mary able to decide? If she said No, unredeemed generations would toil on under the burden of sin. If she said Yes, she herself would suffer, and so would her Son; but both would be glorified. Millions of people not yet born would have Heaven open to them; but millions of others would suffer oppression and death in her son’s name. The stakes were almost infinite.

You might say that Mary didn’t worry about all this, just obeyed God; but I don’t believe it. What God wanted was not Mary’s unthinking obedience but her full and informed consent as the representative of the entire human race. The two greatest miracles of the Annunciation are these: that God gave Mary the wisdom to know the consequences of her decision, and that he gave her the grace not to be overwhelmed by that knowledge.

When we come to an important decision in our lives, we can easily find our minds clouded by the possible consequences, or, even more, by partial knowledge of them. How can we ever move, when there is so much good and evil whichever way we go? The Annunciation gives us the answer. God’s grace will give us the strength to move, even if the fate of the whole world is hanging in the balance. After all, God does not demand that our decisions should be the correct ones (assuming that there even is such a thing), only that they should be rightly made.

There is one more truth that the Annunciation teaches us, and it is so appalling that I can think of nothing uplifting to say about it that will take the sting away: perhaps it is best forgotten, because it tells us more about God than we are able to understand. The Almighty Father creates heaven and earth, the sun and all the stars; but when he really wants something done, he comes, the Omnipotent and Omniscient, to one of his poor, weak creatures — and he asks.

And, day by day, he keeps on asking us.

1"What if she had said No?" www.universalis.com. March 25, 2011. .

Mary, the Mediatrix and the Great Equalizer

2011-02-20T14:34:00.000-08:00

God loves order! The sun and moon set and rise; water evaporates off of oceans and lakes, which turns into clouds, which then rains on the earth. Spring yields to summer, then to fall, then to winter, and back to spring. "To everything there is a season,

a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill and a time to heal ...
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance ...
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

God established an order beginning with creation which sustains through eternity - "as it was in the beginning, is now, and forever shall be!" That order extends to His decision on how He chose to incarnate His son. He could have done it anyway He wanted. Instead, He chose Mary. Therefore, "... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace." Lumen gentium # 61-62 (emphasis mine)

But wait! Mary is even more than that! St. Bernadine of Sienna states "[F]or by excellent order, [grace] is dispensed from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us." Mary is the dispenser of grace! This was established by God in the order that He first established with Mary. Remember, Mary's role was not necessary. God is God! But because God chose Mary, in it He establishes an order which we cannot ignore. An order established by God by its very nature is perfect, and therefore operates in both directions. This means, that our path to Jesus is through Mary!

Now then that we understand Mary in the order of grace, let's take it a little further. To whom may Mary dispense grace? To whomever she wants! Think about the Wedding at Cana. "Do as He tells you," was her order to the servants, after she told Jesus that there was no more wine. Would she not, while in perpetual union with Christ, continue to say to us, "do as He tells you?" And would we not then be beneficiaries of grace bestowed upon us from God, through Jesus, and through Mary?

Where am I going with this? There was once a time in Europe when it was all Catholic. It is no longer that way. Through the sins of the Catholic Church, many, many people have been misled. Through no fault of their own, they have been separated from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. My belief in a good and gracious God would leave a path for a non-Catholic to make it to heaven (no way am I implying that all Catholics get to heaven). How would this happen? Through Mary! If Mary is the dispenser of grace, through her eternal union with Christ, she may dispense grace upon non-Catholics as she sees fit. If this were true, then what comes naturally out of her role as Mediatrix is a role as the Great Equalizer - the Bridge on the path to salvation for non-Catholics.

This does not grant an exemption to non-Catholics to remain that way. Jesus Himself says so: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. (John 6:53)." Even further, St. Louis de Monfort proclaimed "As in the natural life a child must have a father and a mother, so in the supernatural life of grace a true child of the Church must have God for his Father and Mary for his mother."** But I would like to believe that Mary, in her role as Mediatrix and dispenser of Grace, could and would at the precise salvific moment, in her perfect union with Christ, bring about act of grace to a soul in most, great need.

*Theology 523: Our Lady in Doctrine and Devotion, by Father William G. Most. Copyright (c) 1994 William G. Most; from an Electronic text (c) Copyright EWTN 1996. All rights reserved.
** The Secrets of Mary, St. Louis de Monfort; from an Electronic Copyright (c) 1998 EWTN. All Rights Reserved.

Islam Ideology Is the Basis For Real Concern

2011-02-12T18:16:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich, in his letter of February 9, 2011 published by Human Events (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41679), discusses Ronald Regan's CPAC speech in 1975 (http://reagan2020.us/speeches/Americas_World_Purpose.asp), and begins to outline three Lessons of Ronald Regan to the current events in Egypt. Lesson #2 titled "Understand Our Enemies and Speak the Truth About Them" contains the following excerpt:

Reagan would have been prepared to have an honest conversation about the ideological connection that unites our enemies and motivates them. He would have been prepared to say quite bluntly that we are in a long war against radical Islamism, a belief system adhered to by a minority of Muslims but nonetheless a powerful and organized ideology within Islamic thought that is totally incompatible with the modern world.

Reagan would also have consistently found ways to reach out to all Muslims who genuinely recognize the same universal rights of man laid out at our nation's founding and who stand up for our Constitutional principles and the importance of religious freedom for all.

Furthermore, Reagan would have vigorously rebuked those who jump on any honest discussion about radical Islamism as an attack against all Muslims. After all, they're the ones conflating radical Islamists with all Muslims, not those trying to speak honestly about our enemies. In fact, knowing Reagan's humor, he probably would have found a way to make a joke about their confusion.

Muslims in general do not deserve the distinction of "radical." However, Islam in and of itself does. Once you get passed the Five Pillars, you discover some very troubling precepts of Islam, that while not all Muslims practice, it is part of Islam, A deeper review of Islam reveals:

- A standing order to commit violence against non-believers in the name of Allah

- An important principle of Islamic interpretation known as "abrogation" - the principle whereby later-written verses supersede earlier written verses; this is important because many later written verses advocating violence in the name of Allah superseded older, more peaceful verses.

- Doctrine of Islamic supremacy - a doctrine that calls for the conversion of all peoples to Islam, else be subjected to "dhimmitude."

- "I knew Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. Mohammad, you're no Jesus."

Mohammad's last wife was six years old when he married her; nine when then consummated their marriage
Mohammad ordered the stoning of a man and a women who committed adultery
Mohammad stating "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Digging A Little Deeper Into Heaven and Hell - Part 1

2010-12-09T18:22:00.000-08:00

I was fascinated by the Gospel reading on September 26th (Luke 16:19-31; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke16.htm#v19) . This is a story (or is a parable?) told by Jesus about the deaths of a poor man named Lazarus and an unnamed rich man. While living, the rich man walked by Lazarus each time he entered his home, for Lazarus was lying at the door for the rich man's home. Now the rich man is in hell and the poor man in heaven (exactly what sin condemned the rich man?).

What fascinates me about this heaven and hell story is this: first, from his place in hell, the rich man can see the poor man, whom is with Abraham, of which he can also see. Secondly, the rich man from his place in hell has a conversation with Abraham. Thirdly, Abraham describes "a great chasm" that separates heaven and hell. This chasm prevents one from crossing from hell to heaven (which would be understandable in certain terms) and prevents one from crossing from heaven to hell (presumably to help relieve torment).

One must be conscious to see and self-aware to engage in a conversation. While I always had a sense of "consciousness" during eternal life, it really means something much more real when understanding that consciousness in eternal life might mean for one to see each other in heaven and hell, and even being able talk to each other. What really emphasizes the realism of this notion for me is that this particular story kind-of-sort-of feels like a parable, but kind-of-sort-of doesn't. The Lazarus in this story is the same Lazarus of other raised-from-the-dead notoriety. So, the "rich man" was probably a real contemporary of Lazarus, Jesus, and all listening to the story. In fact, while Jesus doesn't name the rich man, most listeners may have well known who he was; certainly a jaw-dropping moment to hear Jesus describing the judgment of the rich man.

Also interesting enough is the rich man's behavior in hell. Does he ask Abraham to be brought into heaven? No. Does he apologize to Lazarus for ignoring him during their lifetimes? No. Does he seek Lazarus' forgiveness? No. The rich man remains unrepentant, even in hell!1

Finally, I find it interesting that the words "netherworld" and "the bosom of Abraham" are used for hell and heaven respectively. No mention of the "great gnashing of teach" or "unquenchable fire" however, the rich man does ask for water. So there are many more deeper realities being conveyed by Jesus.

Part 2: What does it mean when Jesus said that there is no "marriage in heaven?"

1http://blog.adw.org/2010/03/learning-the-lessons-of-lazarus-and-the-rich-man/

Homosexuality Myths Compared

2010-11-29T18:43:00.000-08:00

This comparison of similar "myths" comes from two sources:

Family Research Council, "The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality," by Peter Sprigg
Southern Poverty Law Center, "10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked," by Evelyn Schiatter and Robert Steinback

I included only those myths contained in both sources. The text that appears is the original; I only edited the content for formatting purposes. The source location of each is included in the table heading.

(http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf) Family Research Council The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality by Peter Sprigg	http://splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths Southern Poverty Law Center 10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked By Evelyn Schlatter and Robert Steinback
Myth No. 8: Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Fact: Sexual abuse of boys by adult men is many times more common than consensual sex between adult men, and most of those engaging in such molestation identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual. If this myth were true, it would support the notion that homosexuals should be allowed to work with children as schoolteachers, Boy Scout leaders and Big Brothers or Big Sisters. However, it is not true. The research clearly shows that same-sex child sexual abuse (mostly men molesting boys) occurs at rates far higher than adult homosexual behavior, and it strongly suggests that many of those abusers are homosexual in their adult orientation as well. As this is perhaps the most explosive claim about homosexuals, a couple of clarifications are in order. This does not mean that all homosexuals are child molesters—no one has ever claimed that. It does not even mean that most homosexuals are child molesters—there is no evidence to support that. But there is evidence that the relative rate of child sexual abuse among homosexuals is far higher than it is among heterosexuals. This conclusion rests on three key facts: Pedophiles are invariably males: A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: “In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male.”59 The book Sexual Offending Against Children reports that only 12 of 3,000 incarcerated pedophiles in England were women.”60 Significant numbers of victims are males: A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy found that “approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males.”61 A study in the Journal of Sex Research found that although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.62 Many pedophiles consider themselves to be homosexual: Many people who write about the issue of pedophilia argue that most men who molest boys are merely attracted to children, not to adult males, but they do not cite any specific data to support that assertion. In fact, a study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”63 Since almost thirty percent of male-on-male child sexual abuse is committed by homosexual or bisexual men (one-third male-on-male abuse times 86% identifying as homosexual or bisexual), but less than 3% of American men identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,64 we can infer that homosexual or bisexual men are approximately ten times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men. In addition to the actual data on elevated rates of homosexual child abuse, there is clearly a sub-culture among homosexual men that openly celebrates the idea of sexual relationships between adult men and underage boys, whether pre-pubescent or adolescent. Such relationships are referred to in some research literature using neutral-sounding euphemisms such as “age-discrepant sexual relations (ADSRs)”65 or “intergenerational intimacy.”66 Lesbian writer Paula Martinac summarized this phenomenon: . . . [S]ome gay men still maintain that an adult who has same-sex relations with someone under the legal age of consent is on some level doing the kid a favor by helping to bring him or her “out.” . . . [A]dult-youth sex is viewed as an important aspect of gay culture, with a history dating back to “Greek love” of ancient times. This romanticized vision of adult-youth sexual relations has been a staple of gay literature and has made appearances, too, in gay-themed films. . . . Last summer, I attended a reading in which a gay poet read a long piece about being aroused by a flirtatious young boy in his charge. In response, the man went into the boy’s bedroom and [sexually abused the boy as he] slept. . . . Disturbingly, most of the gay audience gave the poet an appreciative round of applause. . . . . . . The lesbian and gay community will never be successful in fighting the pedophile stereotype until we all stop condoning sex with young people.67 myth 8 - footnotes 59 John Briere, et al., eds., The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1996), pp. 52, 53. 60 Dawn Fisher, “Adult Sex Offenders: Who are They? Why and How Do They Do It?” in Tony Morrison, et al., eds., Sexual Offending Against Children (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 11. 61 Kurt Freund, et al., “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 10 (1984): 197. 62 Kurt Freund, Robin Watson, and Douglas Rienzo, “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” The Journal of Sex Research 26, No. 1 (February, 1989): 107. 63 W. D. Erickson, “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83. 64 Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 293—“Altogether, 2.8 percent of the men and 1.4 percent of the women reported some level of homosexual (or bisexual) identity.” 65 See Bruce Rind, “Gay and bisexual adolescent boys’ sexual experiences with men: An empirical examination of psychological correlates in a nonclinical sample,” Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol. 30, Issue 4, August 1, 2001; also Jessica L. Stanley, Kim Bartholomew, Doug Oram, “Gay and Bisexual Men’s Age-Discrepant Childhood Sexual Experiences,” The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 41, Number 4, November, 2004: pp. 381-389: online at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_41/ai_n9488757/ 66 Gerald P. Jones, “The Study of Intergenerational Intimacy in North America: Beyond Politics and Pedophilia,” Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 20, Issue 1 & 2 (February 1990), pp. 275 – 295. This entire journal of the Journal of Homosexuality—at least nineteen articles—was devoted to this topic. 67 Paula Martinac, “Do We Condone Pedophilia,” PlanetOut.com, February 27, 2002.	MYTH # 1 Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals. THE ARGUMENT Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron’s work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. THE FACTS According to the American Psychological Association, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men. Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because “he often finds adults of either sex repulsive” and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may “regress” to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships. The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.
Myth No. 7: Children raised by homosexuals are no different from children raised by heterosexuals, nor do they suffer harm. Fact: An overwhelming body of social science research shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage. Research specifically on children of homosexuals has major methodological problems, but does show specific differences. Few findings in the social sciences have been more definitively demonstrated than the fact that children do best when raised by their own married mother and father. The non-partisan research group Child Trends summarized the evidence this way: Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents who are in a low-conflict marriage.53 Homosexual activists say that having both a mother and a father does not matter—it is having two loving parents that counts. But social science research simply does not support this claim. Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School, for example, has demonstrated in his book Fatherneed that fathers contribute to parenting in ways that mothers do not.54 On the other hand, Dr. Brenda Hunter has documented the unique contributions that mothers make in her book, The Power of Mother Love.55 The truth is that most research on “homosexual parents” thus far has been marred by serious methodological problems.56 However, even pro homosexual sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz report that the actual data from key studies show the “no differences” claim to be false. Surveying the research (primarily regarding lesbians) in an American Sociological Review article in 2001, they found that: • Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms. • Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior. • Daughters of lesbians are “more sexually adventurous and less chaste.” • Lesbian “co-parent relationships” are more likely to break up than heterosexual marriages.57 A 1996 study by an Australian sociologist compared children raised by heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples and homosexual cohabiting couples. It found that the children of heterosexual married couples did the best, and children of homosexual couples did the worst, in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured.58 The clear superiority (in outcomes for children) of households with a married, biological mother and father; the limited but revealing research on children raised by homosexual parents; and the inherent mental and physical health risks (see Myths 5 and 6) and dysfunctional behaviors (see Myths 8 and 10) associated with homosexual relationships—all of these combine to suggest that we should be exceedingly cautious about deliberately placing children in the care of homosexuals, whether through foster care, adoption, or the use of artificial reproductive technologies. myth 7 - footnotes 53 Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., 2002. “Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?”, Child Trends Research Brief (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends) (June): 1 (available at http://www.childtrends.org/PDF/MarriageRB602.pdf). 54 Kyle D. Pruett, Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child (New York: The Free Press, 2000). 55 Brenda Hunter, The Power of Mother Love: Transforming Both Mother and Child (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 1997). 56 Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai, No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting (Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001). 57 Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter,” American Sociological Review 66 (2001), pp. 159-83. 58 Sotirios Sarantakos, “Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development,” Children Australia 21, No. 3 (1996): 23-31.	MYTH # 2 Same-sex parents harm children. THE ARGUMENT Most hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely. THE FACTS No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples. The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009. The American Psychological Association found that “same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.” Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America’s official position with regard to same-sex parents is that “lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.”
Myth No. 1: People are born gay. Fact: The research does not show that anyone is “born gay,” and suggests instead that homosexuality results from a complex mix of developmental factors. The widespread, popular belief that science has proven a biological or genetic origin to homosexuality can be traced to the publicity which surrounded three studies published in the early 1990’s. In August of 1991, researcher Simon LeVay published a study based on post-mortem examinations of the brains of cadavers. He concluded that differences in a particular brain structure suggested “that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.”2 In December of 1991, researchers J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study of identical and fraternal twins and adoptive brothers, and found that “the pattern of rates of homosexuality . . . was generally consistent with substantial genetic influence.”3 Finally, in 1993, researcher Dean Hamer claimed to have found a specific “chromosomal region” containing “a gene that contributes to homosexual orientation in males.”4 These studies suffered from serious methodological weaknesses, such as small sample sizes, non-random samples and even possible mis-classification of their subjects. Other scientists have been unable to replicate these dramatic findings. These problems led two psychiatrists to conclude, “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. . . . In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models.”5 Subsequently, more rigorous studies of identical twin pairs have essentially made it impossible to argue for the genetic determination of homosexuality. Since identical (“monozygotic,” in the scientific literature) twins have identical genes, if homosexuality were genetically fixed at birth, we should expect that whenever one twin is homosexual, the other twin would be homosexual (a “concordance rate” of 100%). Even Michael Bailey himself, co-author of the landmark 1991 twins study (which supposedly found a concordance rate of about 50%), conducted a subsequent study on a larger sample of Australian twins. As summarized by other researchers, “They found twenty-seven identical male twin pairs where at least one of the twin brothers was gay, but in only three of the pairs was the second twin brother gay as well”6 (a “concordance rate” of only eleven percent). Researchers Peter Bearman and Hannah Brückner, from Columbia and Yale respectively, studied data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, and found even lower concordance rates of only 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins. In fact, their study neatly refuted several of the biological theories for the origin of homosexuality, finding social experiences in childhood to be far more significant: [T]he pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe—the presence of an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.7 If it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now—no one is “born gay.” myth 1 - footnotes 2 Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science, 253: 1034 (August 1991). 3 J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 48: 1089 (December 1991). 4 Dean H. Hamer, et al., “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science 261 (1993): 325. 5 William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 50 (March 1993): 228, 236. 6 Stanton L. Jones and Mark A Yarhouse, Ex-gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2007), p. 124; summarizing findings of: J. Michael Bailey, Michael P. Dunne, and Nicholas G. Martin, “Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 78(3), March 2000, 524-536. 7 Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner, “Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,” American Journal of Sociology Vol. 107, No. 5, (March 2002), 1179-1205.	MYTH # 9 No one is born a homosexual. THE ARGUMENT Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of “special” civil rights protections to homosexuals similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against homosexuals would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic. THE FACTS Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces, not a personal “choice.” One of the more recent is a 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world’s largest twin study) that appeared in The Archives of Sexual Behavior and concluded that “[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors.” Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: “This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single ‘gay gene’ or a single environmental variable which could be used to ‘select out’ homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.” The American Psychological Association (APA) acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no evidence has emerged that would allow scientists to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Still, the APA concludes that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm said he was about to release a study showing that gay parents produced far more gay children than heterosexual parents. He told a reporter that he was “trying to prove [homosexuality is] not 100% genetic.” But critics suggested that his data did not prove that, and, in any event, virtually no scientists have suggested that homosexuality is caused only by genes.
Myth No. 5: Homosexuals do not experience a higher level of psychological disorders than heterosexuals. Fact : Homosexuals experience considerably higher levels of mental illness and substance abuse than heterosexuals. A detailed review of the research has shown that “no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology.”³⁶ One of the first triumphs of the modern homosexual movement was the removal of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s official list of mental disorders in 1973. That decision was far more political than scientific in nature,37 and an actual survey of psychiatrists several years later showed that a large majority still believed homosexuality to be pathological.38 Nevertheless, regardless of whether one considers homosexuality itself to be a mental disorder, there can be no question that it is associated with higher levels of a whole range of mental disorders. Ron Stall, one of the nation’s leading AIDS researchers, has been warning for years “that additive psychosocial health problems—otherwise known collectively as a ‘syndemic’—exist among urban MSM” 39 [men who have sex with men]. For example, in 2003, his research team reported in the American Journal of Public Health that homosexual conduct in this population is associated with higher rates of multiple drug use, depression, domestic violence and a history of having been sexually abused as a child.40 Findings released in 2005 from an on-going, population-based study of young people in New Zealand showed that homosexuality is “ . . . associated with increasing rates of depression, anxiety, illicit drug dependence, suicidal thoughts and attempts. Gay males, the study shows, have mental health problems five times higher than young heterosexual males. Lesbians have mental health problems nearly twice those of exclusively heterosexual females.”41 A 2008 “meta-analysis” reviewed over 13,000 papers on this subject and compiled the data from the 28 most rigorous studies. Their conclusion was: “LGB [lesbian, gay, bisexual] people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people.”42 Even the pro-homosexual Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) acknowledges: • “Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population . . .” • “Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate . . . .” • “ . . . [G]ay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse . . . .” • “ . . . [G]ay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men . . . .” • “Problems with body image are more common among gay men . . . and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder . . . .”43 The GLMA also confirms that: • “ . . . [L]esbians may use tobacco and smoking products more often than heterosexual women use them.” • “Alcohol use and abuse may be higher among lesbians.” • “ . . . [L]esbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women.”44 Homosexual activists generally attempt to explain these problems as results of “homophobic discrimination.” However, there is a serious problem with that theory—there is no empirical evidence that such psychological problems are greater in areas where disapproval of homosexuality is more intense. On the contrary, even a study in the Netherlands—perhaps the most “gay-friendly” country in the world—showed “a higher prevalence of substance use disorders in homosexual women and a higher prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders in homosexual men.”45 myth 5 - footnotes 36 James E. Phelan, Neil Whitehead, Philip M. Sutton, “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality,” Journal of Human Sexuality Vol. 1, p. 93 (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, 2009). 37 See the very balanced account offered in Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981). 38 Ibid., p. 167, citing “Sexual Survey #4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality,” Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 11 (November 1977), pp. 110-11. 39 Ron Stall, Thomas C. Mills, John Williamson, Trevor Hart, Greg Greenwood, Jay Paul, Lance Pollack, Diane Binson, Dennis Osmond, Joseph A. Catania, “Association of Co-Occurring Psychosocial Health Problems and Increased Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS Among Urban Men Who Have Sex With Men,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 6 (June 2003), p. 941. 40 Ibid., 940-42. 41 “Study: Young Gay Men At Higher Risk Of Suicide,” 365Gay.com, August 2, 2005; online at: http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/08/080205suicide.htm (page not available February 13, 2010; on file with author). 42 Michael King, Joanna Semlyen, Sharon See Tai, Helen Killaspy, David Osborn, Dmitri Popelyuk and Irwin Nazareth, “A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people,” BMC Psychiatry 2008, 8:70 (August 18, 2008); online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-244X-8-70.pdf 43 Victor M. B. Silenzio, “Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider” (San Francisco: Gay & Lesbian Medical Association); accessed April 1, 2010; online at: http://www.glma.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/Top%20Ten%20Gay%20Men.pdf 44 Katherine A. O’Hanlan, “Top 10 Things Lesbians Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider” (San Francisco: Gay & Lesbian Medical Association); accessed April 1, 2010; online at: http://www.glma.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/Top%20Ten%20Lesbians.pdf 45 Theo G. M. Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, Rob V. Bijl, Paul Schnabel, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS),” Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001), pp. 88-89.	MYTH # 8 Homosexuals are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol. THE ARGUMENT Anti-gay groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable “choice” — even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-gay groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-gay rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that “homosexual activists” managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision. THE FACTS All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is true that LGBT people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population. But studies done during the past 15 years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use. Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: “Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination … increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health.”
Myth No. 2: Sexual orientation can never change. Fact: Thousands of men and women have testified to experiencing a change in their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Research confirms that such change does occur—sometimes spontaneously and sometimes as a result of therapeutic interventions. When talking about “sexual orientation,” one important clarification must be made. While most people assume that “sexual orientation” is one trait and clearly defined, this is not the case. “Sexual orientation” is actually an umbrella term for three quite different phenomena—a person’s sexual attractions or desires; a person’s sexual behavior; and a person’s self-identification, either publicly or internally (as “gay,” lesbian, “straight,” etc.). While we tend to assume that a person with homosexual attractions will also engage in homosexual relationships and self-identify as “gay” or “lesbian,” survey research on human sexuality clearly shows that this is not the case. An individual’s sexual attractions, sexual behavior and sexual self-identification are not always consistent with each other, let alone static over time.8 This understanding sheds new light on the question of whether “homosexuality is a choice.” Homosexual attractions are clearly not a “choice” in the vast majority of cases. However, it would actually be insulting to people with same-sex attractions to suggest that they are compelled to act on those attractions. Homosexual conduct (if it is consensual) clearly is a choice—as is self-identifying as “gay” or “lesbian.” One’s self-identification can be changed at will, as can one’s sexual behavior (although perhaps with difficulty—just as other behavioral habits such as overeating can be changed). Although much attention has been focused on counseling techniques or therapies for unwanted same-sex attractions and on the work of “ex-gay” ministries, there is startling evidence that considerable numbers of people experience significant change in some aspects of sexual orientation, particularly their behavior, quite spontaneously, without therapeutic intervention. For example, two studies have found that a large percentage (46% in one survey,9 and more than half in another10) of all men who have ever engaged in homosexual conduct did so only before age 15 and never since. One’s internal sexual desires or attractions are undoubtedly the most difficult aspect of “sexual orientation” to change, but the evidence demonstrates that many people have experienced change in that way as well. Some people in therapy have experienced significant reductions in their same-sex attractions, even when that was not the goal of therapy, as a result of the resolution of other personal issues in their lives.11 One “meta-analysis” combining data from thirty studies on reorientation therapy, conducted between 1954 and 1994, showed that 33% of subjects had made some shift toward heterosexuality.12 Similarly, a survey of over 800 individuals who had participated in a variety of efforts to change from a homosexual orientation found that 34.3% had shifted “to an exclusively or almost exclusively heterosexual orientation.”13 The most methodologically rigorous (prospective and longitudinal) study yet conducted, on subjects who had sought change through religious ministries, which was published in a 414-page book, showed that 38% achieved success, defined as either “substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction” (15%) or “chastity” with homosexual attraction “either missing or present only incidentally.”14 One of the strongest pieces of evidence for the possibility of change came from an unlikely source—Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist who was instrumental in the pivotal 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. Spitzer studied two hundred people who had reported some measure of change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation as a result of what is sometimes called “reparative therapy”15 for unwanted same-sex attractions. He concluded, The changes following reparative therapy were not limited to sexual behavior and sexual orientation self-identity. The changes encompassed sexual attraction, arousal, fantasy, yearning, and being bothered by homosexual feelings. The changes encompassed the core aspects of sexual orientation.16 This is not to say that change is easy, that it is typically accomplished through prayer or willpower alone, or that the success of reorientation therapy can be guaranteed. However, personal testimonies, survey data and clinical research all make clear that change from a predominantly homosexual to a predominantly heterosexual orientation is possible. myth 2 - footnotes 8 See Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. 290-301. 9 Calculated from Tables 2 and 3 in Robert E. Fay, Charles F. Turner, Albert D. Klassen, John H. Gagnon, “Prevalence and Patterns of Same-Gender Sexual Contact among Men, Science, New Series, Vol. 243, Issue 4889 (20 January 1989): 341-42. 10 John H. Gagnon and William Simon, Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality (Chicago: Aldine, 1993), pp. 131-32; cited in Laumann et al., p. 289, footnote 8. 11 At least four sources reporting such cases, published between 1969 and 1992, are cited in: James E. Phelan, Neil Whitehead, Philip M. Sutton, “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality,” Journal of Human Sexuality Vol. 1 (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, 2009), pp. 23, 30. 12 Stanton L. Jones and Mark A Yarhouse, Homosexuality: The use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000); cited in: James E. Phelan, Neil Whitehead, Philip M. Sutton, “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Ho mosexuality,” Journal of Human Sexuality Vol. 1 (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, 2009), p. 32. 13 J. Nicolosi, A. D. Byrd, and R. W. Potts, “Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients,” Psychological Reports 86, pp. 689-702. Cited in: Phelan et al., p. 12. 14 Stanton L. Jones and Mark A Yarhouse, Ex-gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2007), p. 369. 15 Strictly speaking, “reparative therapy” describes a specific therapeutic technique which is not used by all therapists who treat unwanted same-sex attractions. “Change therapy” or “reorientation therapy” would be more inclusive terms. See Phelan et al., p. 6, footnote 1. 16 Robert L. Spitzer, M.D., “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 32, no. 5 (October 2003): 413.	MYTH # 10 Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality. THE ARGUMENT If people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges. A number of “ex-gay” religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching homosexuals to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can “come out of homosexuality.” Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, plainly states, “You don’t have to be gay!” Another, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, describes itself as “a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.” THE FACTS “Reparative” or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric, and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were “rare” and that “many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions” after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that “there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation” and asked “mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation.” The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal. Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Alan Chambers, current president of Exodus, said in 2007 that with years of therapy, he’s mostly conquered his attraction to men, but then admitted, “By no means would we ever say that change can be sudden or complete."

How Long Should I Pray Each Day?

2010-10-18T06:21:00.000-07:00

The passage from My Meditation on the Gospel (The Confraternity of the Precious Blood http://confraternitypb.org) that I read this morning was about Mark 14:37-42. When I read the line "Could you not keep watch for one hour?" I wondered about the significance of "one hour." Why one hour? Why not more or why not less?

Jesus says what He means and means what He says. Knowing He knew well our human nature, Jesus wasn't asking Simon for something that he could not achieve. Jesus' use of the words "keeping watch" is another interesting part of this passage. When I minimally interpret "keeping watch" as meaning "time of prayer" I take away the length of time for which I should "keep watch" daily. One hour of prayer a day. Sounds like a lot.

But given, the many different forms of prayer, one hour is not really much. A Rosary and a Divine Mercy chaplet will personally get me about 30 minutes. Add another 30 minutes of prayerful reflection of the Bible, or maybe Theology of the Body, and that hour is gone before I know it. The trouble is where do I find that hour. Actually, the real trouble is where do I make an hour to do this.

Cana - An Interesting Wedding Indeed

2010-09-19T17:18:00.000-07:00

God loves order: Sunrise, sunset; moon rise, moon set; clouds produce rain, water evaporates to produces clouds. Father William G. Most in his article titled Mary, Mediatrix of all Graces says “it was [Mary] who on behalf of the whole human race consented to God's plan of salvation by proclaiming herself the handmaid of the Lord. [Mary’s] role was not necessary, since Christ was and is the perfect Redeemer and the perfect Mediator. Rather, Mary was associated with her Son by the free decision of the Father, a decision which we cannot ignore. [Lastly,] her whole ability to do anything comes entirely from her Son.”
In other words, God chose to send His into this world through Mary. He could have done it any other way. He is God after all. In sending his Son to this world to save us in this way , God establishes an order of things sort of speak; an order of the flow of graces that was in effect then and continues to be in effect today.

At the Wedding at Cana, Mary instructs the waiters "Do whatever He tells you" (see John 2:5). In a sense she is revealing who Jesus really is and is sending others to him. In the Gospel of John, the Wedding at Cana is a "new creation" story for the gospel writer John. He wants us to see Mary as the “New Eve.” At Cana, the New Eve radically reverses the decision of the first Eve. The first woman led the first Adam to commit his first evil act in the garden. At Cana, the new woman leads the New Adam to perform His first glorious work. The first Eve counseled Adam to defy God and eat the fruit. The New Eve brings the people’s needs to her Son and teaches the people to obey Him in faith - "Do whatever He tells you" (see John 2:5). The first Eve was "the mother of all the living" (see Genesis 3:20). By teaching the disciples and servants to believe in Jesus, the new Eve becomes the mother of the Church - "the children of God" (see John 1:12; 19:26-27).

Even today, Mary continues to say over and over again "Do whatever He tells you.”

The Grand Design V. The Intelligent Design

2010-09-19T17:05:00.000-07:00

Not quite as old as the battle of the sexes is the battle between creation and evolution. Stephen Hawking, who is a British theoretical physicist and cosmologist, has recently released a new book called “The Grand Design.” In it he states that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing...Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist;" meaning that the universe is something that came from nothing.

Father Robert J. Spitzer, a Jesuit priest who recently published a book called “New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy,” says that “what many term the first principle of metaphysics” is “From nothing only nothing comes.” He goes on: “If the physical universe had a beginning (a point at which it came into existence) then prior to that point it was nothing,” Father Spitzer said in his blog. “And if it was nothing then it could not have created itself (because only nothing can come from nothing). “So what does that imply?” he asked. “The very reality that Dr. Hawking wants to avoid, namely, a transcendent power which can cause the universe to come into existence.”

“Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the universe,” Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury said. “It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence.”

It's All In What You Call It

2010-09-19T16:59:00.000-07:00

“Park51,” originally named Cordoba House and controversially referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque", is a planned 13-story Islamic community center and mosque to be located about two blocks from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. It would replace an existing 1850s Italianate-style building that was being used as a Burlington Coat Factory before it was damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The proposed facility's design includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court, September 11 memorial, and prayer space that could accommodate 1,000–2,000 people.

Using “Cordoba” in the name of the mosque project is not coincidental. Cordoba was an area of Spain conquered by Muslims in the 8th century. It was at Cordoba that the Muslims established a caliphate or Islamic seat of government. A mosque was built on top of a foundation of a Christian cathedral. Later in the 13th century, the Muslims were driven from Cordoba and the mosque was converted back into a cathedral.

In an article written by J.E. Dyer (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/02/a-choice-of-names-tours-house-lepanto-house-or-vienna-house/), he explains that

“Cordoba,” in Islamic symbolic terms, means Islamic rule in the West. It does not mean “coexistence,” unless coexistence is interpreted as referring to Islamic rule. Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs cites [an] article (original in Arabic) published by Iraqi-American [columnist] Khudhayr Taher on 18 May [in the Arab online liberal daily Elaph.com], in which Taher explains the following:

We must note that a hostile and provocative name [Cordoba] has been chosen for this mosque…Choosing the name ‘Cordoba House’ for the mosque to be constructed in New York was not coincidental or random and innocent. It bears within it significance and dreams of expansion and invasion [into the territory] of the other, [while] striving to change his religion and to subjugate him…

Adam V. Eve

2010-09-19T16:50:00.000-07:00

The battle of the sexes started on the fateful day in the Garden of Eden. While Eve had to battle the “serpent” in a war of words and deceit, Adam stood by silently. And when God asked Adam why he ate from the apple, he replied, “"The woman whom you put here with me--she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it." They were ultimately convinced by Satan that God didn’t care about them and couldn’t be trusted.

As a result, God levied a series of consequences upon them including for woman, that their “urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master." This is a prophecy of how men and women will wrongly treat each other. And the battle begins and rages on.

Fully understanding the spiritual battle of marriage, as well as fully understanding marriage as a sacrament and what "the two shall become one flesh" really meant, Tobiah and Sarah, in the Book of Tobit, were much wiser. Before he and Sarah consummated their marriage, this is the prayer they prayed together:

" 'Blessed are you, O God of our fathers; praised be your name forever and ever. Let the heavens and all your creation praise you forever.

'You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended. You said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a partner like himself.'

'Now, Lord, you know that I take this wife of mine not because of lust, but for a noble purpose. Call down your mercy on me and on her, and allow us to live together to a happy old age.'

They said together, 'Amen, amen,' and went to bed for the night" (Tobit 8:4-8).

Clearly, Tobiah's and Sarah’s prayer is words of a married couple that clearly understand the sacrament of marriage. A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible reality. This sincere gift of oneself is also called "a communion of persons becoming one flesh" which reflects in a mysterious way the self-giving love between God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Our bodies and conjugal love is a sign of the self-giving love between God the father and His son, Jesus Christ.

Christopher West in his book The Theology of the Body for Beginners says “If we want to know what is most sacred in this world, all we need to do is look at what is most violently profaned.” God’s plan of self-giving love in a communion of persons is part of His original plan we must diligently protect.

Ever Hear of St. Francis Xavier Parish in Manhattan?

2010-09-19T16:40:00.000-07:00

Nashua, NH 03064
July 24, 2010

Archbishop Timothy Dolan
1011 First Ave
New York, NY 10022

Dear Archbishop Dolan,

Can you help me understand what is going at St. Francis Xavier Parish in Manhattan, NY? As I understand it, the parish for years has not been faithfully presenting the Church's teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts. Most recently, the parish ignored your request to not carry a banner in the city's annual gay pride parade (in fact, they didn’t carry a blank banner as they claim – the carried their typical banner backwards).

More disturbing to me was the presentation to you, as the main celebrant at a recent church rededication there, of the parish's Lesbian Association and the parish's Gay Organization. Unless the reaction of you I have seen through the parish’s video of the occasion was mis-edited with the audio, you genuinely seem pleased to welcome the presentation of these groups, let alone the idea of the presentations themselves.

So, on the surface it seems that maybe even you have not been faithfully presenting and upholding the Church's teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts as it is clearly stated in CCC 2357-2359. Maybe, just maybe, it hasn't been made clear that the message that Sacred Scripture itself presents of "homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity" and that of "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" are being made at St. Francis Xavier. It doesn't seem likely though.

I enjoy listening to you on “Word to Life" on Sirius/XM's The Catholic Channel. However, I'm very disturbed that it appears that you in your compassionate manner cannot be more faithful to the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Archbishop, please help me feel better that you, whom I admire, can and will continue to faithfully represent the Gospel and the Magisterium in this matter.

Yours in Christ,

Daniel E. Goddu

It is a mistake to compare Catholicism with Islam in the name of religious freedom

2010-09-06T08:55:00.000-07:00

A recent article in Catholic News Service titled "New York mosque controversy echoes anti-Catholicism of another era" (www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1003399.htm) compared the current public criticisms against Muslims surrounding the building of an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero with what Catholics once experienced in the United States. The article's premise is that Islam is facing similar distrust of immigrant faith that Catholics faced 100 years ago, implying some equivalency between the two, and that some day Islam will be as "accepted" in the same manner as Catholicism has today.

This is a dangerous comparison. There are two types of equivalency related to religions: the manner in which the US Government treats religion and religious organizations, and moral equivalency - the two are often wrongly related together, as such is the case in this Catholic News Service article.

The fact of the matter is that Americans have very good reason to distrust Islam (the religion). A deeper review of Islam reveals:

- A standing order to commit violence against non-believers in the name of Allah

- An important principle of Islamic interpretation known as "abrogation" - the principle whereby later-written verses supersede earlier written verses; this is important because many later written verses advocating violence in the name of Allah superseded older, more peaceful verses.

- Doctrine of Islamic supremacy - a doctrine that calls for the conversion of all peoples to Islam, else be subjected to "dhimmitude."

- "I knew Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. Mohammad, you're no Jesus."

Mohammad's last wife was six years old when he married her; nine when then consummated their marriage
Mohammad ordered the stoning of a man and a women who committed adultery
Mohammad stating "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him."

- Sharia - a mandatory, legalistic codification of societal behavior. Sharia is not in effect in the general manner in the United States. It would have to replace the Constitution. This not to say that sharia is not in effect in some Muslim communities in this country. By definition, the Constitution and sharia law are mutually exclusive.

- Deception in the name of the protecting Islam - hearing "moderate" Muslims describe Islam as a religion of peace is a form of deception given these precepts.

- Dhimmitude - the prescribed treatment of non-believers in a Muslim society whereby non-believers are allowed to remain in a Muslim society under strict rules.

All of these tenets are found in the Quran.* You are not going to find this information coming from the mainstream media (one must first believe that there is such a thing as "mainstream" media and that alternate media with opposing opinions exists and should be considered as a check and balance). Just as not all Catholics follow all Catholic teachings, neither do all Muslims follow all Islamic teachings, especially those Muslims in the United States. However, there is something to be said about the mere presence of these tenets in Islam that some Muslims choose not to follow.

This is not to say that many terrible things have not been done in the name of Christianity. However, there is a very distinct difference between Jesus Christ and Mohammad, hence a distinct difference between Catholicism and Islam. Mohammad never claims to be divine. But neither does Jesus Christ plunder and pillage His way through Europe gathering converts or placing infidels under dhimmitude. Catholicism cannot boast of such Islamic principles that prescribe a violent manner of conversion or the treatment of infidels.

This is also not to say that many, many Muslims in the United States are not peaceful people and harbor no ill against Americans. However, many people do not completely understand their own faith and many act outside of its prescribed boundaries.* Just as a majority of Catholics do not faithfully represent or practice all of Catholicism, so too many Muslims do not faithfully represent or practice all of Islam.

Religious freedom cannot mean nor ever imply morally equivalency. Theologically, Catholicism and Islam are far, far from being equal. Religious freedom can only refer to the manner in which the United States Constitution and its amendments prescribe its treatment as a religion - and it must end there. This makes the debate at Ground Zero less of one of religious freedom and more of one of prudence and safety given 9/11/2001 and a deeper, objective scrutiny of the mosque's purpose when Islam itself is studied more closely.

If Islam is "accepted" like Catholicism has been "accepted" and Islam becomes less fearful as an immigrant faith, we will be soon and very soon be overcome by this "religion of peace."

* Refer to the excerpt from Gregory M. Davis' book Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World posted at www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html. Another excellent reference is two books by Robert Spencer: The Truth About Mohammad and Stealth Jihad.

Arizona Immigration Law Does Not Dehumanize Anybody

2010-05-17T08:28:00.000-07:00

Bishop Robert Vasa, Diocese of Baker (Oregon) recently wrote the following about the Arizona immigration law:

"I do find...that thinking about real, identifiable people, concrete human persons and human families, makes it much easier to see that those who cross our borders or remain here illegally are not necessarily evil or wicked men or women but simply people with human aspirations and longings and dignity. Crossing a border illegally does not eliminate that person's right to be treated as a brother or sister. Remaining in this country illegally does not eliminate that person's human dignity."

I wholeheartedly agree. But, the Arizona immigration law does not dehumanize anybody. The new Arizona law states that "[t]he provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States."

I'm not an immigrant. I'm not an immigration lawyer. I do not have any family members or friends who have gone through the immigration process. But, I am concerned with the quick assessments of the Arizona law that seemingly have come without much thought and analysis. For the first time, I find myself confused and in disagreement with several bishops. I cheered them on throughout the whole healthcare debate, standing by them when other catholic organizations did not. With all due respect to Catholic bishops who have spoken out, you are running the risk of "moralizing" instead of thoughtful catechesis.

In terms of immigration law, there is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant." You are either a "temporary" or "permanent" immigrant - a legal status. If you are in this country illegally, you are an illegal alien. These are terms defined by the US immigration laws. They are not meant to pass any individual judgment about any individual wishing to enter this country legally or otherwise. The laws define an individual's status and the rights afforded to an individual. What status and rights designated to an individual is defined by law and not definable by anyone else for political gain.

Simply, it is a crime to cross any country's border illegally. An individual knowingly crossing a border illegally is equivalent to "cutting in line." The US, as resourceful as it is, like all other countries, has a finite number of resources. The US, like all other countries, has a duty to protect its citizens. In theory, immigration policies allow for the safety of its citizens and for the measured allocation of rights to individuals. If an alien (a non-US citizen) wishes to reside in this country in order to make a better life for themselves and their family, the US immigration laws most definitely allow that to happen. The expediency in which that can occur for an individual is a problem that the individual most account for. In times of emergency, the immigration laws allow for asylum under certain circumstances.

Bishop Vesa also stated that "I am not suggesting that the American "immigration policy" is immoral, but there seem to be some elements of injustice that permeate it, and it is this injustice, whether legally sanctioned or not, the Church opposes." Which elements? It can't be in the manner in which the federal immigration law is administered, since, according to Arizona, the federal government fails to apply the necessary resources to defend the laws. It also isn't in the manner in which the law is defined; in fact, the law (Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR) - http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis) allows all kinds of accommodations of lawful status in the country based on ethnicity and when individuals first arrived in this country.

With respect to the Arizona law, here is how I interpret some excerts:

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL ...WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON (capitalization preserved)." In a state with habitual illegal entries across the US border, this seems perfectly reasonable.

"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES (capitalization preserved)." Can't a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, arrest a person for probably cause of committing a public offense already?

The rest of the bill describes penalties for unauthorized aliens and penalties for employers knowingly employing unauthorized aliens (with provisions for employers to claim entrapment), among other things.

What all this means to me is that the state of Arizona is guilty of no wrongdoing. It is simply doing what states in this country are allowed to do. In the absence of what is perceives as a lack of defense of immigration laws by the federal government, the law enables its own law enforcement agencies some latitude to help deal with the problem. The bill is littered with references to upholding federal immigration laws. You can't blame a state for taking matters into their own hands. And in doing so, Arizona does so in a responsible manner.

We Are A Chrisitan Nation

2010-05-06T18:10:00.000-07:00

"There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declaration of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people... that this is a Christian nation."

(U.S. Supreme Court, Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 1892)

Foundations of Our Government

2010-05-06T18:09:00.000-07:00

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson

What Have They Got That I Haven't Got?

2010-04-16T12:52:00.000-07:00

Courage. "Whatever you do, you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to the end, requires some of the same courage which a soldier needs." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Great Quote from @MatthewWarner

2010-04-05T10:17:00.000-07:00

"If the Media were around on the original Good Friday, the headline would have read 'Jesus’ Apostles Abandon Him in Hour of Need; Deny Him Repeatedly.' ”

http://ow.ly/16Z5u7

Thinking All the Wrong Things

2010-04-04T08:21:00.000-07:00

Sarah had been married seven times before. Each time, her husband died in the wedding chamber on their wedding night before they could consumate their marriage. What was going to make this night different from all the others with this man? Her father had the grave already dug for this next poor soul!

Fully understanding the spiritual battle of marriage, as well as fully understanding marriage as a sacrament and what "the two shall become one flesh" really meant, Tobiah was much wiser. Before he and Sarah consumated their marriage, this is the prayer they prayed together:

" 'Blessed are you, O God of our fathers; praised be your name forever and ever. Let the heavens and all your creation praise you forever.

'You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended. You said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a partner like himself.'

'Now, Lord, you know that I take this wife of mine not because of lust, but for a noble purpose. Call down your mercy on me and on her, and allow us to live together to a happy old age.'

They said together, 'Amen, amen,' and went to bed for the night" (Tobit 8:4-8). Later, Sarah's father sent a maid to see whether or not Tobiah was alive. She found both he and Sarah asleep, safe and sound.

Clearly, Tobiah's prayer are words of a married couple that clearly understand the sacrament of marriage. A sacrament is a visible sign of a invisible reality. That invisible reality is that "[s]exual intercourse must serve to build a true, loving communion between the spouses by expressing the sincere gift of oneself to the other (see TOB 116:3)" (Christopher West, Heaven's Song, pg. 161). This sincere gift of oneself is also called "a communion of persons becoming one flesh"which mimics the self-giving love between God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Men, we are thinking all the wrongs things we when "become one flesh" with our spouses. We think about how it feels for us; how we look doing it; how long we will last. This is self-gratification at the expense of our wives and not a sincere gift of ourselves. Our wives desire much, much more than this.

"A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden closed, a fountain sealed." (Song of Songs 4:12). Women are in total possession of themselves - always. Marriage is not an outlet to indulge our lusts.

Healthcare at what cost?

2010-03-21T08:37:00.001-07:00

[I just sent this email to each of my congressional representatives]

Mr. Hodes, Sen. Gregg, Sen Shaheen,

Stopping insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions - I agree; I get it.

Stopping insurance companies from raising premiums due to illnesses - I agree; I get this too.

Reducing the cost of care for the uninsured who's primary care physician is an emergency room doctor - I agree; I also get this.

But (sorry), at what cost? At what involvement and size of government? With what risk do we create more dependency on entitlement programs while at the same time reducing one's capacity for self-determination? And lastly, at what expense to the unborn?

These are the questions I am asking you to seriously consider.

Regards,

Daniel Goddu

Absurdity in the media

2010-03-13T07:30:00.000-08:00

In an article to appear in tomorrow's Washington Post, Howell Raines says about Fox News, "For the first time since the yellow journalism of a century ago, the United States has a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party. "

Are you kidding me? By my account, the score is Democrats 4+ (ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC,...), Republicans 1 (Fox).

Buddhism isn't going to save Tiger...

2010-02-19T08:36:00.000-08:00

If I were Tiger's agent, I would tell him to get back to golf as soon as possible. "As soon as possible" means after you have been fully reconciled with God and then getting the right amount of rehabilitative treatment. Full reconciliation with God can only come through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In fact, it is only through receiving the Sacrament that Tiger can come to believe that at least God has forgiven him and that he can get on with his life. As sincere as multiple apologies may be, once is enough. Moving on dealing with the consequences in full reconciliation and faith in God is his next step.

Taking People As You Find Them

2010-01-07T13:47:00.000-08:00

"Lord, you know how small and narrow I am on this point. I refuse so much to make allowances for people's weaknesses. And so when I see faults, especially faults that inconvenience me, I tend to write these persons off my book. I reject the good in them along with the bad. Dear King, teach me to change. Let me be big and take people as I find them. Let me look at their good points, and treat their faults in the same way I would treat bad thoughts - not give them a chance to enter my mind." [From "My Meditation on the Gospel", Rev. James E. Sullivan, pg. 424]

What is Marriage?

2009-12-23T16:15:00.000-08:00

Some extraordinary quotes from Heaven's Song: Sexual Love as it was Meant to Be" by Christopher West, pgs. 150, 152-154:

"Every marriage is a struggle to overcome the effects of sin on the human heart and to love as God intended in the beginning. And every marriage fails in numerous ways to do so. But for all of our failures in this regard, hope is not lost."

"...if spouses are to overcome lust and the certainty of death that comes with it (see Rom 8:6), they must open their union totally to the presence of the living God, to the 'Lord and Giver of Life.'"

"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear" (1 Jn 4:18).

"The 'perfect love'...that casts out fear is not [our] own...." It does not originate in us.

"No sacrifice is too great for true lovers - no suffering too much to bear - when it is need to ensure the victory of good over evil, love over lust, life over death...This is precisely the perfect love in which every husband and wife are called to participate."

"...when marriage exposes a person's selfishness and sins it's doing what is it meant to do: bringing our sins and wounds to light so we can recognize them, confess them, and begin the healing process."

Wow! How many of us signed up for this when we took our vows?

Jesus Never Lied

2009-05-31T10:46:00.000-07:00

I’m going to miss Fr. Ray. I found his homilies and talks interesting. While most people were sleeping during his talks on Saturday night on retreat, I was taking notes on what he was saying. I specifically remember one homily at a retreat mass on a Friday night a few years back. While I don’t remember the topic, I do remember one particular line: “Jesus said it. Jesus never lies. Therefore, I believe it.”

Knowing that God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are one in the same, how should we interpret Deuteronomy 5:12:

"Take care to keep holy the Sabbath day as the LORD, your God, commanded you."

Or, how should we interpret Genesis 2:2-3:

"Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.

So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation. "

Did you ever wonder, did God rest because he was tired? Why did he rest? I think to show us by example and to establish his relationship with all that he created. He didn’t create it and walk away like some lane addition to a highway. God said it. God never lies. Therefore, what? We must believe it.

There is this great website. It’s called salvationhistory.com. In there are some very easy and simple lessons on understanding the Bible. The author is Scott Hahn, a former protestant. He says God creates by speaking. God said, “Let there be light.” And there was, the Bible tells us; literally, light out of darkness; something out of nothing; sort of like being blindfolded and brought to some place and then removing the blindfold and instantly seeing everything in front of you. Do we really believe this about God, that he created something from nothing? God speaks, something happens. So, if at Mass, when the priest, who speaks for Jesus and says, “This is my body,” what does that mean? First it was bread, God speaks, and it becomes his body – a source of nourishment and renewal. Now, remember what the Bible says about the Sabbath and remember what the priest says during Mass, if we don’t go to Mass, and if we do go to Mass and do not receive the Eucharist, what are we really NOT doing? We are not following God’s will and there’s a consequence to suffer for that.

The last thing the priest says at Mass is “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and each other.” The priest doesn’t say “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and yourself.” It’s not about me or you. It’s about US. It’s about what God’s expects US to do during the week. Then, at the beginning of the next week, we gather again to reflect on how we have done during the past week at Mass on Sunday. Each Sunday, we get reminded of our mission, we get reminded of God’s covenant with us, we get reminded of how we should live our lives, and we get nourished. Because we believe that God creates by speaking, there’s a personal meaning for each and every one of us for EVERYTHING that happens at Mass. What else would Mass be for; to be bored or waste time or daydream? God would not let any “poor” homily stand in the way of fulfilling His will for each and everyone one of us. All we have to do is show up and be present.

Now, don’t forget there’s more than the homily where God tries to reach us. There’s the other 40 minutes or so of Mass where God tries to reach us over and over again. If we listen carefully to each and every prayer – not just the scripture readings - we get answers to our questions and we get advice on how to live our lives. We just have to be present. Are you “present” right here right now in this chapel? You might be here, but are you present? Many times it is not until later on that we come to truly understand the impact of what God is trying to say to us. Sort of like how I remember Fr. Ray’s words that he said at a retreat mass long ago. And if you remember a single thing from this retreat or any Mass, then know that you have indeed been present and know that God is pleased and that you are following God’s will.

When I was 10 years old I used to go to Mass with my sister without my parents. My parents stayed home while we went to church. It’s probably a little because of this past experience that I so dearly want to go to church as a family. It doesn’t happen often that me and my family attends church together. I wish we did. I wish we all could experience what God fully intends us to have at Mass together. I’m often there alone and feel very lonely. In my loneliness, I look around and see other families together. I start to despair. Can you image that I can have these feelings at Church during Mass, of all places? My wife Joan and I aren’t on the same page about our faith. What married couple is really? But, we don’t share the same feelings about the importance of faith, which is a deeper problem. So it seems that the slightest scheduling conflict or the slightest inconvenience with attending Mass throws us in a tailspin. The stress it creates and the arguments that result worry me. So I find myself backing off and going by myself or not going at all – it’s heart wrenching to me.

Where does this turmoil come from? How can I possibly honor the Lord on the Sabbath? One way is to understand that the disagreements at home about Church and faith our not our own. There are generations of this turmoil before us: my parents, Joan’s parents, our grandparents. Just as there are maybe generations of families that have attended church together, there are generations of families that haven’t. Not only are we bearing our own sins, we bare the sins of generations before us. Think about it. Think about the detachment from God caused by generations of detachment. Think about the some of the big problems of this world: poverty, alcoholism, drug addition, infidelity, homosexuality, murder, and abortion, just to name a few. They are the result of generations of sin from our ancestors all the way back to Adam and Eve. Don’t get me wrong – by no means should this absolve us from our own responsibility and accountability to God. But, this is why we come together as a community at Church: so we can create and be part of generations of grace; be part of generations of peace; be part of generations of charity; generations of humility, generations of life.

So, when I do get to Church, by myself, I bring my cross of loneliness with me. When one or all of my family is with me, I praise and thank God. When I don’t get to Church, I pray and ask for God’s forgiveness, forgive myself, and move on. There’s no use in standing still in self-pity and pouting. There’s always the next moment, the next hour, the next day, the next week to recommit to God’s will.

Inner Peace

2009-05-31T10:44:00.000-07:00

My son was telling me about a boy in his Religous Education Class. “Dad, I think there’s something wrong with him. When he talks, he stutters. It takes him a long time to get the words out. He says something like ‘Y-y-y-y-ou d-d-d-d-on’t have t-t-t-t-to read the B-b-b-b-b-ile to go to heaven. All y-y-y-y-ou have t-t-t-t-o do is b-b-b-be good..” I said, “Ya, it does sound like he struggles a bit with his speech.” But I was more struck by what the boy said, and less about how he said it. It seems saying what he did say was a bit advanced for a 10-year-old. It sounds more like he heard that from someone older than him, maybe an adult.

I used to think that way. Then, a few new friends of mine became “born-again” Christians. I fought it with all my heart and soul. I used to tell them, look, I don’t mind going hiking with you or playing basketball or whatever, but don’t preach to me. I guess I thought I had a better way to have “inner peace.” After all, isn’t inner peace what we are all really after?
Don’t we seek to be confident in ourselves and have high self-esteem? Don’t we seek to feel better about ourselves after we fail or are hurt by someone we least expect, or when tragedy strikes? Don’t we look for signs that someone cares about us?

Many of us try to find inner peace in the things we do and think about. We try to shy away from things that take too much commitment and responsibility. We have enough of that in our day-to-day lives, with school, and work, and all. But our inner peace is always challenged. Always. What happens when our inner peace is challenged? We turn to the things that we feel most comfortable with. Most of the time the wrong things: withdrawal, self-pity, lower self-esteem, lack of confidence, and fear to name a few. Mostly fear. How do most of us express fear? Through anger. Think about it.

Ever notice how your parents react when you do something that they think might lead to you harming yourself? They get mad! They yell, they scream, they shout. I also get angry when I feel that I am losing control. A man named Neale Donald Walsch in a book called Conversations With God says “anger is fear announced.” How true is that? And all of this can lead to the lack of inner peace.

We’ve heard many people this weekend talk about how they lost their inner peace. All of us have gone through the same problems that we’ve heard each of these folks talk about. Maybe not precisely the same problems. But it’s all the same thing – fear. Fear of what? Fear of rejection and fear of failure.

You’ve also have heard many people talk about how they rediscovered inner peace through their faith in God and His son Jesus. Having inner peace doesn’t mean that nothing ever goes wrong or that nothing bad ever happens. There are no guarantees, right? But what it does mean is how prepared are we to handle things that go wrong or things that go bad; how quickly we can bounce back; how quickly we can set aside the raw emotion that first comes out when something goes wrong, move beyond it, ask and seek for forgiveness and move to that great feeling of inner peace.

One of the reasons I enjoy being a Catholic Christian as opposed to other types of Christians, is that we as Catholics have a very special thing going here. That is the Sacraments. Sacraments are a means in which we receive God’s grace. And God’s grace is like the source of inner peace. And for me, the sacrament where I can get the most inner peace believe it or not, is through the Eucharist – Holy Communion. I wish I could find a way to receive communion every day – it means that much to me. It is nourishing. It helps me feel more confident in myself. It helps give me higher self-esteem. It helps me get that inner peace – like the inner peace you have when you first wake up in the morning after sleeping the night through and feeling totally rested. How often does that happen, sleeping through the night and feeling totally rested when you wake up? Not often enough for me anyways. So, through the Sacraments, God provides a little jump start, a little jolt to keep that inner peace going. Check it out.

God Is God

2009-05-31T10:40:00.000-07:00

I believe in the Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior for two reasons: hope and peace. Hope because I have three children, a wife, friends, family, and a soul. I have hope when my 19-year-old daughter goes out with her friends on weekend night that she returns safely home. Hope that my 13-year-old daughter will stay on track with her rock-steady grades and bubbly attitude. Hope that the adventure- or crisis-of-the-day for my 9-year-old son at school is something I can laugh about. Hope that my wife forgives me when I am thoughtless and selfish and away from home too many nights in a given week. Hope that my dad, who suffers from a lung disease that will eventually kill him sometime soon, not sure when, not tomorrow probably, but not sure when, will make peace with God before he dies.

Peace because stuff happens. I don’t know why and I don’t ask why. It just happens. Peace when a close relative passes away. Peace when my dad will pass away. And I know whom I can turn to because despite the most obvious signs to the contrary. God is in control. There was a time when if I couldn’t touch it or feel it, I didn’t believe it, that it wasn’t the truth. But slowly over time I have realized that there are more than facts to truth. There’s truth in mystery. There’s truth in what I cannot fully understand. There’s truth in what I don’t know. In fact, I don’t fully know what I don’t know. Most of us think in terms of what we know and not in the terms of what we don’t know. But hope and peace are wonderful things because they help me deal with what I don’t know, what I don’t understand, and what I ignore and shouldn’t.

Wicca is a religion largely on symbols, seasonal days of celebration and deities from ancient Celtic society. While there are some positive attributes of Wicca especially around stewardship of the earth, it’s a polytheistic pagan religion. It relies on rituals that some people associate with witchcraft or Satan, but Wiccas are very careful to note that they are not satanic. Personally, in my black and white Christian mind, I don’t see much of a difference. I tell Wiccans all the time that I’m really worried for her and that she is in my prayers.

I received an email on Sept. 12th (2001) that claimed that Nostradamus predicted the disaster at the WTC. Now Nostradamus was a French astrologer and physician who lived in the 1500s. He became famous for his innovative medicine and treatment of the plague during his lifetime. He began making prophecies about 1547, which he published in 1555 in a book entitled Centuries. Astrology was at a peak during the 1500s in France. In the email was supposedly a quote from Nostradamus:

"In the City of God there will be a great thunder, two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb.

In the city of york there will be a great collapse, 2 twin brothers torn apart by
chaos while the fortress falls the great leader will succumb third big war will
begin when the big city is burning.

On the day of the 9 month that two metal birds would crash into two tall
statues, in the new city, and the world will end soon after."

You might have seen or gotten this email. After a little research, I discovered that most of it is made up. Some of these words cannot even be found among Nostradamus’ writings. Even with the words that can be attributed to him, there are huge pitfalls in mistaking Nostradamus' vague, abstract poetry for predictions of future events.

These pitfalls exist too when reading parts of the Bible like the Book of Revelation. But for me the difference is that the Bible is about a man who claims to be the Son of God. No other prophet has ever made that claim – none. And any prophecy about Jesus Christ is a mystery that I think is worth keeping.

Now, in what or whom will we find comfort when things don’t go our way? Or when tragedy strikes us personally? Or when awful things happen to other people? Seems like our choices are a God in whom we can have a personal relationship with, a God who says that He loves us? Or selfish, greedy gods and goddesses who could care less about anyone but themselves. And as for reincarnation, personally, I only want to die once, not many times to only come back as something or someone else, to live another punishing life, and to do this over and over again until I get it right. Salvation is ours the first time we die if we chose Christ.

So who is it going to be: Nostradamus or Jesus? Jesus or Nostradamus? Christianity or Wicca? Wicca or Christianity? Let’s choose Christ. If we choose Christ, we choose hope and peace - which are really forms of love.

The Case For a Marriage Amendment

2006-02-04T08:41:00.000-08:00

The democratic process so cherished by our country produces laws and legislation to protect "natural law." Natural law is that law about right and wrong which we all inherently know. We are born with it. It's an equalizer among all of us - regardless of our faith, even if we've never step in a church. It's not what people already know, but also know that they know it.

We have laws that protect the natural laws of human relationships. The physical realm is the basis for this natural law of human relationships. Something that is physically unnatural cannot be made natural through some other means. And allowing natural law to be extended when the basis for the extension is of itself unnatural, is irresponsible. Given all this, how can anyone disagree that homosexuality is simply physically unnatural?

What else do we know through natural law? What we know is that it is unnatural for persons of certain ages to marry. It is also unnatural for persons of the same bloodlines to marry. Pedophilia is unnatural. We also know that children raised by homosexual couples is unnatural.

What is it we've been doing up until this time with this notion of marriage? Have we've been wrong? Have we now grown to a better understanding of a marriage union? Does a true union no longer need to be so exclusive? The issue before unfortunately is that what most of us found to be natural and inherently true now needs to be in print, in plain black and white. Because natural law is now under attack, a very organized one at that. We cannot think that this is going to go away. We need to act. To allow the current ambiguity to remain in our marriage statutes would be simply unnatural. Rarely does broadening a definition (or leaving it subject to intepretation that could lead violating natural law) ever improves anything. Ambiguity and subjectivity are our enemies. They are the loop holes of misguided tolerance.

We all know that life is a collect of tradeoffs and a series of cause and effect. Water evaporates off the surface of the ocean which creates clouds and leads to snow and rain. It's easy to understand this cause and effect because it's scientific. Saving money for college costs and retirement means less short-term disposable income. A commitment to an exercise program allows you to lose weight at the expense of some other activity. It's easy to understand these types of tradeoffs because they have a personal impact. There are always tradeoffs - either made or otherwise.

However, it's seems harder to recognize cause and effect as it relates to homosexuality. We claim it's personal. There are claims that it affects no one else. I do not condone the harrassment of any degree of persons who have freely chosen a lifestyle that I find unnatural. I believe people should be allowed to live and face their own consequences. Unfortunately though, while engaging in homosexual behavior is a personal choice, to state that is has no consequences is simply untrue and a lie. Just ask a marriage counselor, or a child psychiatrist, or a police officer, or an emergency room nurse or doctor. How many marriages have been ruined? How many children's lives have been impacted? How many people have died? How have medical costs risen? Sure, the same questions can be asked about divorce. But bringing that topic into this discussion is a only a distractor whose sole purpose is to derail getting at the real facts. Divorce has it's own set of problems which is another topic in and of itself.

Cause and Effect

2006-01-31T06:58:00.000-08:00

We live in a very ordered world. The sun rises and the sun sets; seasons come and go year after year; the date of Easter is set by a formula which uses the phases of the moon, for we can calculate along with tides, up and down every coast line in the world; water evaporates off the surface of the ocean which creates clouds and leads to snow and rain. It's easy to understand this cause and effect because it's scientific.

Saving money for college costs and retirement means less short-term disposable income. A commitment to an exercise program allows you to lose weight at the expense of some other activity. It's easy to understand these types of tradeoffs because they have a personal impact.

There are always tradeoffs - either made or otherwise.

However, it's seems harder to recognize cause and effect as it relates to homosexuality. We claim it's personal. There are claims that it affects no one else. How many marriages have been ruined? How many children's lives have been impacted? How many people have died? How have medical costs risen? Sure, the same questions can be asked about divorce. But bringing that topic into this discussion is a only a distractor whose sole purpose is to derail getting at the real facts. Divorce has it's own set of problems which is another topic in and of itself.

While engaging in homosexual behavior is a personal choice, to state that is has no consequences is simply untrue and a lie. Just ask a marriage counselor, or a child psychiatrist, or a police officer, or an emergency room nurse or doctor.

How can anyone disagree that homosexuality is simply physically unnatural? And isn't it true that unnatural acts by definition have a negative consequence that affect more than just a single person? Besides, we are not just talking about what two consenting adults due in the privacy of their home. We are talking about well-organized efforts on both sides of the issue that receive millions of dollars from donors to lobby politicians and the state and federal government. We are talking about corporate America that does not respect the views of people of faith in the workplace and yet still call it "diversity." We are talking about healthy Americans whose health insurance premiums and co-payments that help pay for domestic partner health claims. We are talking about organized efforts and outspoken gay teachers in schools that attempt to recruit teenagers or demand that a gay pride flag be flown along side flags from other countries. Unnatural acts always lead to terrible, terrible consequences

Death Penalty: This Says It All

2005-12-13T06:16:00.000-08:00

"Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, who visited with [Stanley Tookey] Williams, said [Governor Arnold] Schwarzenegger decided 'to choose revenge over redemption and to use Tookie Williams as a trophy in the flawed system.'

'To kill him is a way of making politicians look tough,' Jackson said. 'It does not make it right. It does not make any of us safer. It does not make any of us more secure.'"

From CNN article "Warden: Williams 'frustrated' by execution's slow pace" posted Tuesday, December 13, 2005; Posted: 8:48 a.m. EST (13:48 GMT).

You Are What You Eat

2005-10-29T10:06:00.000-07:00

I’m a firm believer that “the devil is in the details.” In the past, I used words where I didn’t fully understand the meaning. A lot of us do. We use clichés or Chinese proverbs or old wise tales to explain our feelings or a situation. And we all sort of know what we mean at least enough for most of us to move on; me too, but only some of the time. Most of the time I’m not satisfied; I’m restless. I want clarification. I want to sort things out. I want to get to the meat of the matter. It’s in the process of probing and asking and understanding that true meaning is revealed. I’m a believer in this process of clarification. I like being succinct. I don’t like carrying around alphabetical garbage. To be as succinct as possible is what I try to achieve.

I believe God is succinct all the time. I have some examples. God said “Let there be light.” And there was light. God spoke, something happened. In fact in this instance, something happened out of nothing. At each Mass, the priest repeats Jesus’ words at the Last Supper: “Take this all of you and eat it. This is my body. Take this all of you and drink it. This is my blood.” Note, God didn’t say “This is LIKE my body” or “This is LIKE my blood.” When we pray the Our Father, and we say “Our Father,” what are we really saying? God, who is like my father? God means precisely what he says. Yes, at times, we have to ask “what do you mean by that?” But that is only because of our limitations and not because of any error in which God is saying what he is saying. Either we believe that the Bible is the Word of God without error, or we don’t. It’s a matter of faith. Either we believe that we receive the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread or wine or we don’t. There’s no such thing as partial truth.

So now under our consideration is the story of the Multiplication of the Loaves. There were Jesus, the Apostles and five thousand men. Where there any women there? Where there any children there? Were only men allowed to hear what Jesus had to say? Maybe the Apostles said this is adult time – no kids allowed. I don’t think so. So what makes this miracle even miraculous is the fact that there was more than 5000 “men” there. So, what kind of numbers are we talking here? Let’s take an average – a woman for every man, and a child for each woman and man. That’s three per “man.” Now we are up to, about, 15 thousand maybe? Not too much of a stretch.

Now the Apostles have this bright idea that Jesus should tell the 15 thousand people to go home. After all the healing, crying, and saving - store’s closed, come back tomorrow. The Apostles did want any responsibility for taking care of these people. They thought there were too many of them. But Jesus tells them “you give them something to eat.” He’s telling them what they are capable of accomplishing. Doesn’t that happen to us all of the time? Our parents, a teacher, a friend, a coworker, all kinds of people tell us what we are capable of doing. And when we try, aren’t we tremendously surprised what we can accomplish.

So, the Apostles tell Jesus, we only have 5 loaves of bread and three fish. That would seem quite impossible amount of food to feed 15 thousand people. Jesus took “the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke them. Then he gave them to the disciples…” What does that sound like? Sounds just like those words said at the Last Supper. And also those words said at Mass. Why is that? When you really think of it, isn’t there a multiplication of the loaves every Sunday at Mass, all over the world? 1.5 billion Catholics are fed every Sunday in the same manner as the apostles were at the Last Supper; in the same manner as the 15 thousand were fed on that hillside; and again, in the same manner as the Israelites were in the desert with manna. Bread from heaven.

I like to think of the logistics of this miracle of the loaves and fishes on the hillside. Every time someone stuck their hand in a basket to retrieve a piece of bread or fish, there was something to take. Let’s say you were passing around the basket. If you are passing around the basket, you first might look inside if it is full. What do you know, it is! Then you walk around and people are crowding around you reaching in taking what they need. You’re not always looking at the basket because you are looking at the people; you’re talking, saying you’re welcome, and watching where you’re walking. Then you glance down to see that the basket is still full. And so it goes around the hillside. And then you attend to something else. When the baskets are collected at the end of the meal, there’s 12 baskets filled with leftovers. A miracle that is not that impossible to image.

The Jews believe that they are what they eat. They have hundreds of dietary guidelines about their food. These guidelines cover what to eat, when to eat it, and how to cook it. The guidelines are rich in Old Testament history and Jewish culture. Now let’s think about this as we talk about the Last Supper. At the Last Supper, Jesus says, you know in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, of those dietary guidelines, well they’re nice and all, but, “take this and eat it for this is My body.” You are what you eat. So the Apostles who are Jews themselves, very familiar with this concept, are sitting there listening to Jesus say “take this all of you and it eat. This is my body which will be given up to you.” Can you image the sound of 12 chins dropping to the floor at the same time? They must have been spooked out of their minds. We’re talking hair raising on the back of your neck and goose bumps.

Every year on the Day of Atonement, the Jewish High Priest would offer up a sacrifice to reconcile the Jewish community with God. The number of lamb to sacrifice would depend on the number of sins committed by the Jewish people over that particular year, say hundreds. Now Jesus comes around and says, you know all those lambs you’ve been sacrificing, well, that’s been nice and all, but I’ve got something to tell you. I am the Lamb. I’m the perfect sacrifice. I’m the last Lamb you’ll ever have to sacrifice. While those animals are certainly sinless, they haven’t got a soul. There not self-aware. They don’t know the difference between good and bad. Any other sacrifice after Mine is meaningless – so long as you believe that I’m the Bread of Heaven, the manna sent by God, the Bread of Life.

I think all of this connection is kind of neat. It’s orderly. It lines up. It makes sense. Even to my engineering mind. Many years ago after we bought our house in Nashua, I was building a new deck. My father-in-law was helping me. He was watching me place down floor boards and use a nail to separate the boards. I was being way too precise about it. He said to me, now there you go trying to be an engineer. Just nail the board, will you? So sometimes, there’s no devil in the details. It’s simple, clean, and straightforward. Other times, it’s messy and complicated. You don’t know if the details are simple or messy until you dive in and try. So what’s the way to figure this out?

I say, become an engineer. Look for those details. Ask the probing the questions. Do the research. Research isn’t just for high-school term papers. It also can be used for faith. Love the God with all our heart, our mind, and our soul. In other words do the research. You’re knowledge of anything doesn’t grow without doing research. While parts of the Bible are straightforward, other parts aren’t. Get yourself a bible commentary. Dig into the words. Look for the meaning. For me, not only does it strengthen my faith, but it leaves me with hope, confidence, and higher self-esteem in ALL parts of my life where I offer it up to God. You know that high you get from being on retreat? For some of you first timers, just wait until the end. We’re not destined just to feel that rush once a year. We can take advantage of the sacraments and get the rush as often as possible. We can be active in a faith community. We can volunteer our time. We can receive Holy Communion as often as possible.

But let’s remember one thing. Once a week, we owe God. Once a week, it ain’t about us. Once a week, it’s about God. It’s about honoring Him, about respecting Him. Once a week, we come and ask for forgiveness and we get fed. We get feed through the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

One of my favorite prayers at Mass is the form of the Penitential Rite at the beginning of Mass that goes something like “I confess to All-mighty God and to you my brothers and sisters.” Wait a minute now. Confessing to God isn’t enough? I have to confess to my brothers and sisters? “That I have sinned through MY OWN FAULT.” That’s taking responsibility. “In my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do.” Yes, it’s a sin to think it. You know that saying there’s nothing wrong with looking at the menu. Oh yes there is! What a bummer huh? And we sin not just what we do, but what we fail to do. “And I ask Blessed Mary ever Virgin, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord Our God.” Mary, the Mother of God praying for me. Interesting words aren’t they? Lots of meaning here.

So be an engineer of God. Do the research. Listen to the words. At Mass, listen for the difference between “the Kingdom of Heaven is like” and “With all the choirs of angels in Heaven we proclaim your glory!” Was that last sentence at metaphor? Are we speaking figuratively here? Do we really believe that all the choirs of Angels in Heave are singing along side with us? God speaks, stuff happens. God says what he means and he means what he says.

Getting It Straight

2005-06-08T18:35:00.000-07:00

Selections from Same-Sex "Marriage" Is Not a Civil Right by Peter Sprigg, senior director of policy studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

"The first point is that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Without exception, every adult in Maryland already has a right to marry. But everyone also has restrictions on whom they may marry--again, without exception. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. These restrictions apply equally to everyone--there is no discrimination involved.

Nevertheless, homosexual activists continue to hitch their caboose to the civil rights train--something which is offensive to a majority of African Americans. We ban discrimination based on race in this country for the specific reason that race is a characteristic which is inborn, involuntary (you can't choose it), immutable (you can't change it), and innocuous (it harms no one). Plus, race appears in the Constitution. The choice to engage in homosexual behavior is none of the above. The laws which once limited one's marriage partner on the basis of race were designed to build walls and to keep blacks and whites apart. But restricting one's choice of a marriage partner by gender preserves marriage as an institution that builds bridges to bring men and women together to create future generations and serve the health of society.

But even if same-sex marriage is not a legal right, some people ask, what harm would be done by letting same-sex couples marry? I sometimes find it hard to believe people can ask that question in light of the devastation we've seen from other changes in family structure in the last 35 years. The research we've done at the Family Research Council shows several things: homosexuals are much less likely than heterosexuals to enter into long-term relations in the first place; if they do have a partner, they are less likely to remain sexually faithful; and they are much less likely to remain committed for a lifetime. These problems--an unwillingness to commit to marriage, a lack of fidelity, and a lack of permanence--exist among heterosexuals as well. But the experience of the Scandinavian countries shows that opening marriage to same-sex couples would make these problems worse, not better, throughout the population...

Finally, let's be clear about one thing. This debate has not arisen because there's been a large groundswell of public support for same-sex marriage, for no such groundswell exists. We are sometimes accused of being "divisive" for opposing same-sex marriage, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there are few political issues on which Americans are so united as they are in believing that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The only reason this debate is taking place at all is because small groups of homosexual activists have gone to court in an attempt to gain from a small band of judges what they know they could never win through the democratic process. They did it in Vermont and succeeded; they did it in Massachusetts and succeeded..."

What Is Love?

2005-03-30T19:59:00.000-08:00

"...the best way to spell love is T-I-M-E...focused attention. Love concentrates so intently on another that you forget yourself in that moment. Attention says, 'I value you enough to give you my most precious asset - my time.' Whenever you give your time, you are making a sacrifice and sacrifice is the essence of love." [Rick Warren - The Purpose Driven Life, Pg. 127].

We need to remember also that love "expects and deserves trust and understanding, even when it seems to overlook and hurt and ignore." [Confraternity of the Precious Blood - My Meditation On the Gospel, pg.253.]

Time to go to confession...

Evangelizing to Young People

2005-03-21T06:27:00.000-08:00

No gimics; no fancy tactics; no coupons. Just the truth. The truth that demands reverence. The truth that demands penitence. The truth that promises peace and hope on earth and eternal life in God's presence in heaven.

I've tried gimics, tactics, and coupons to attract young people to active participation in the church. All with short term gains for many, but lasting effect for only a few. Sure, I sow, God reaps. But, there's a much better way to seed.

There's a tremendous difference between Fr. Gary and other parish priests. That is he speaks in simple terms. And he invites and invites, and never stops inviting. He provides countless (and I mean countless) worship opportunities that brings one closer to God. And he invites and explains in the most simplest terms - and people respond. People of all ages.

We too often underestimate people. We're afraid of raising expectations, if any at all. But it seems to me that the more we expect (with fairness and sincerity), the more people respond. There are plenty of extremes where people are turned off. But, Jesus turned off a lot of people all the time.

If we follow (and not just "believe") in Jesus, we can expect to get into the same kind of trouble He did.

Heaven On Earth

2005-02-07T16:23:00.000-08:00

If there is one book that has renewed my understanding of the Mass it is "The Lamb's Supper" by Scott Hahn. If we all really understood what is really happening at Mass, we would never approach it in quite the same way ever again.

Dr. Hahn points out a not-so-novel concept: that the liturgy is based on the Book of Revelation. If you have a copy, jump to page 118-119; not only can we clearly see the Mass in the Book of Revelation, but we can also view the Book of Revelation with our new eyes of faith.

Remember back in the Book of Genesis where God spoke and something happened. He spoke and he create the Heavens; He spoke and He created light; He spoke and He created Man. God speaks - something happens. God speaks at Mass, something happens. There is nothing metaphorical at Mass. When we proclaim "together with the Angels and Saints," there is nothing metaphorical about it. We proclaim WITH the Angels and Saints - they are there with us! It is a glimpse of Heaven on earth! How can we conceivably attend Mass amid this incredible sacredness in any other way but in total humility, reverence, contriteness, and awe!

Lastly, to tie this together a bit more, Rick Warren in his book "The Purpose Driven Life" states that if we go to Mass and say "we got nothing out of it," then we are going for the wrong reason. Mass if for God, not for us. It is for us to join with the Angels and Saints, our brothers and our sisters, the Blessed Virgin Mary, to praise our Almighty God! It's not about us! Just as the Old Testament prepared Israel for the coming Jesus, so to does the Mass prepare us for the second coming of Jesus.

An effective and unified evangelistic approach to our parish community at large would be to remind new and existing parishoners of the Mass being Heaven on Earth at every sacramental opportunity: at the parish's informational meeting for new parishoners; at Baptismal preparation for new parents; at First Communion; and First Reconciliation; at Confirmation Preparation; at Marriage Preparation; at every potential opportunity where we find our selves welcoming back our brothers and sisters whom feel alienated from the parish community for whatever reason. Let a sign hang above the door of our Church proclaim "You Are Now Entering Heaven On Earth!"

How Many Crosses Should We Bear?

2004-09-02T09:22:00.000-07:00

A recent inventory of the crosses I bear revealed to me that I am carrying too many crosses. When in fact, if I were to really "let go and let God," how many crosses would I end up having? Would I have any at all?