Illegal Immigration and the Catholic Church

Q - What is the Catholic Church's stance on hiring of illegal immigrants?

A- Wow, you just opened up a big can o' worms, didn't you? Thanks for the question. I will have to do a lot of background before I get to directly answering your question, so bear with me. Just to let you know, I talked to several people (all with at least a Master of Theology and one with a Ph.D. who is a moral theologian and head of a Theology dept. at a Catholic University) to make sure that this answer was kosher with them as well. They agree with my sentiments. With that, we will proceed.

There are several principles about immigration that the Catholic Church teaches, sometimes having a tension that we must balance when examining the issue.

As a nation we are obligated to welcome those who wish to enter the USA, in search of a better life (that is, within limits that are imposed by the state). Those immigrating also have the duty of following the law.

CCC 2241 "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

Notice, that this isn't an "open border" policy that the Church is advocating. Also, there are duties that those who immigrate have as well - notably to obey the laws of the country they are entering (including how they enter, paying taxes, etc.). Illegal immigrants, by definition, are not cooperating in fulfilling this principle.

Principle #1 - The state has the right to set the boundaries around what they consider to be the ordinary ways of entering the country and how they secure their borders. Thus, the policies of the USA are not inherently unjust because they define these parameters. But, this can't be a closed-door policy either. In fact, the manner in which all immigrants (both legal and illegal) are processed in the USA is shameful. But, the USA doesn't have to accept everyone who wants to come either.

Principle #2 - The homeland of every person should seek justice for it's people. Notice that corruption continues the cycle of poverty in most poor countries. If we truly want to seek justice for the immigrant, then we need to seek it in the homelands of our immigrants. The USA is still just in the vast majority of it's laws and public policies.

Principle #3 - If need be, then persons have the right to migrate for the good of their families of for their own sake. But, the Church doesn't make this an absolute. Rather, it is to be for the protection of those who cannot survive otherwise.

Principle #4 - Refugees and those seeking asylum should be protected. We should be the country where people can feel safe from totalitarianism and we should be a haven for refugees who cannot live in their homelands.

Principle #5 - Illegal immigrants are still human beings with inherent dignity and rights and should be treated as such. Of course, this doesn't mean that the USA can't enforce it's laws, but rather, it's laws should treat people justly. For instance, deporting only parents and not children is unjust. They also have the right to be treated fairly by the justice system during legal proceedings and/or deportation.

Marcel's Principle - Immigration is not an easy issue to solve, nor are any of the "easy solution" advocates balancing all of the above principles. This principle is my own. The best summation of a good solution to all of these issues, that I have seen, is from Mary Ann Glendon - the US Ambassador to the Vatican who wrote an article entitled, Principled Immigration, which I highly recommend.

What we should not do is pass off the issue as an easy one of either completely opening / closing the borders or of enforcement/non-enforcement of current laws. Rather, true immigration reform will have to take up the competing rights and interests of the many facets of the issue.

Now, to directly answer the question we can say this, with a caveat. As stated above, the state has the right to make just laws that govern immigration. This means that we, as Catholics and citizens, are obligated to follow such laws governing who can and can't be hired. The caveat is that like the speed limit, if the culture interprets the law loosely, then the application of the law in particular circumstances may also be loosely applied. So, in other words, you must do the following -

1. Properly form your conscience on the subject, including intellectual and spiritual formation. So, you should continue to study the issue and pray about it. I would also recommend discussing it with a spiritual director. 
2. You must then follow your conscience on the matter.

I know this was by no means an easy answer, which we are generally looking for, but this is the best I could do with the information you gave me. Thanks for the challenging question.

On a personal note, immigration policy is one of the more difficult issues for me as a political issue. I haven't seen any proposed (or current) policies that reflect the myriad of conflicting interests, but rather they seem to me to all serve a political purpose, not the common good.

Is Doing Drugs a Victim-less Crime?

According to the most recent homicide figures published by the Mexican government, 47,515 people were killed in narcotics-related violence in Mexico between December 1, 2006 and September 30, 2011, with 12,903 narcotics-related homicides in the first nine months of 2011 alone. Source.

Some say that smoking pot or doing other drugs is a victim-less crime. Yet, there are millions of direct and indirect victims of the drug-trade. Issues include addiction, broken families, trillions spent every year, slavery, abuse, sex-trade, environmental damage, kidnappings, thefts, etc.

• In the Korean War the US deaths were 36,516
• In the Vietnam War the US deaths were 58,206
• In Iraq + Afghanistan the US deaths are (so far) 6,580

To top it all off, intentionally getting high is gravely immoral, for the same reasons getting drunk is.

Mexico = 6 hours from College Station.


WARNING: The video below has graphic images of real violence.

We Hold These Truths...

Ben & Jerry's Once Again Supports Gay Marriage

In 2009 Ben & Jerry's renamed "Chubby Hubby" as "Hubby Hubby" to mark the legalization of gay marriage in Vermont. Now, they do it for UK's legislation:

This March as the UK government debates whether to legalise same sex marriage, we've partnered with gay rights organisation, Stonewall, to raise awareness about the importance of marriage equality by renaming our Apple Pie flavour, Apple-y Ever After!

If you think that Civil Partnership is the same as marriage, think again! Show your support and help convince members of parliament that it's time to say 'I do' to same sex marriage!

You can help support this campaign by "marrying" someone of the same sex through our Facebook App or by writing to your MP using this template. (Because everyone is equal and deserves to live Apple-y Ever After!)

Huge Growth of Catholicism in Texas

While many parts of the country struggle to keep churches and schools open, Texas has a different problem - staggering growth. Rocco Palmo wrote about it recently and he gives St. Mary's a nice plug. Here is a snip:

Grouped as Region X along with the three bishops of the Oklahoma City province (OKC, Tulsa and Little Rock), the Lone Star bench -- 15 dioceses in all, now split between two provinces of their own -- begins its week of meetings with the Roman Curia on Wednesday. Yet even as the thread of vitality and ongoing emergence is found through practically the entire final third of the pilgrimage -- the booming dioceses of California and Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and Utah, Georgia, Florida and the Carolinas are all still on tap before the visit wraps in mid-May -- more than any other visitors this time around, odds are the Texans will be welcomed at the Vatican as the darlings of the American church.

A quick look at the stats lays out the backdrop: since the last ad limina, Catholics -- their presence increased nearly 60 percent since 1990 -- have eclipsed Evangelicals to become the state's largest religious group. In a matter of years, three of its dioceses have erupted to comprise more than a million members, each reflecting five-or-sixfold expansions over the last three decades. On a 25 percent growth in general population since 2000, the Dallas-Fort Worth "metroplex" is now home to nearly 2 million of the faithful in what's just become the nation's fourth-largest metropolitan area. Along the border, a majority of Brownsville's 1.1 million Catholics are younger than 25; out East, rural Tyler's taken to ordaining more priests than New York, and in the capital, Austin's church of half a million -- projected to double within a decade -- is perhaps the Stateside church's most energetic outpost, boasting the nation's most celebrated Catholic campus ministry, to boot.
Continue Reading.

My Guest Editorial On The HHS Contraception Mandate

Here is my guest editorial in the Texas A&M Student Newspaper - The Battalion:

The Obama administration has mandated that insurance companies in the U.S. provide free contraception to all. The media has portrayed the debate as Catholics fighting against "women's rights." This is false and is an issue that should upset all Americans — believers and non-believers, women and men.

The real issue is about constitutional rights and the government's role. The government does not grant freedom of conscience and religious liberty. Rather, the job of the government is to protect our natural rights. If a right is granted by the state, it can be taken away by the state. Rights are above the government. This is why the power of our government was purposefully limited by the Constitution: to prevent oppression — ESPECIALLY religious oppression.

The U.S. was established in part because of the failure of other nations to grant the freedom of religion. This freedom is so foundational that it is addressed in the First Amendment listed in the Bill of Rights, and is why many non-Catholic leaders (Christian, Jewish, atheist, etc.) fear this intrusion into our constitutional rights and have voiced opposition to the mandate.

The debate is about basic human and constitutional rights. All have the right to believe as they wish, the right to follow their consciences and the right to religious freedom without coercion from the government. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Obama administration is attempting to limit these rights by redefining the free exercise of religion as a "right to worship." Just recently, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of religious freedom. The Court upheld 9-0 the right of a Lutheran Church to decide who its ministers are. The administration argued the church had no more right to religious liberty than a secular group, overstepping its bounds and making the invented "right" to free contraception one that even trumps constitutional rights.

The mandate forces everyone to pay for chemical abortions, contraception and sterilizations, which many morally oppose, without a way to opt out. Churches should decide what "ministry" is, not a bureaucrat. We are told to "feed the poor" and to "aid the sick." Yet, the administration says that feeding the poor means we also have to pay for drugs that can cause abortions, even if we object. Exemptions are given for Quakers who do not want to serve in the military and Amish who do not pay Social Security — because of faith.

In this case, Catholics don't get an exemption. It seems getting $9 birth control from Wal-Mart is too much of a burden. If it really is about health issues or "women's rights," then why not provide free heart screenings, workout equipment, cholesterol medicine? Pregnancy is not a disease and fertility is not a disability. No "right" is violated by paying for your own contraception.

It pains me to ask, but if the right to religious freedom is disposable, what right is next? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Take away the first right listed and anything seems fair game. This is an American issue.

I wanted to say more, but hit the word limit.
Here is a response from a student, if you want to see what the argument in support the HHS Mandate comes down to - babies are more expensive than contraception. Sad.

Why Would God Ask Abraham To Sacrifice His Son - Isaac? Fr. Barron Comments

Arizona State Hosts Theology Classes From A Catholic University in Public + Private Partnership

This is groundbreaking.

TEMPE — Arizona State University, the nation’s largest public higher education center, announced a new collaboration today with University of Mary.

The agreement, effective with the fall 2012 semester, allows ASU students who want to continue their Catholic education or are interested in studying theology to do so without going out of state.

Students will take theological and Catholic courses from the University of Mary. They can take single courses or earn a major or minor in either program.

“We’re happy to be in Arizona — finally,” said Fr. James P. Shea, president of U-Mary since 2009. Between 18,000-22,000 Catholic students attend ASU.

Other satellite campuses include Rome, two other North Dakota locations plus Missouri and Kansas. Fr. Shea said U-Mary is about creating servant leaders of moral courage who contribute to the common good. At ASU, he sees a commitment to excellence, impact and access.

“We at University of Mary resonate with that vision,” Fr. Shea said during a press conference. “You see before you two universities where the student is at the center.”

“ASU students will now have access to some of the best that the Catholic Church has to offer,” Fr. Shea said. The vibrant 34-year-old is the youngest college or university president in the United States.

“A public-private partnership of this kind is unprecedented and fantastic,” he said.
Continue Reading.

We have a theology class for-credit in our building, but have to do it independently of A&M. Maybe the future holds a possibility for something like this.

20 Tips for Proper Etiquette In Mass

Mass Etiquette: 20 Things To Do And Not Do In Mass

1. Fast before Mass. It is Church law that one fasts for at least 1 hour before receiving Holy Communion. The only exceptions are medicine, water or unless someone is ill and needs to eat sooner.
2. No Food and Drink in Church. The only exceptions would be milk for infants, water for the priest or choir (if discreet) and water for those who are ill.
3. Men take your hats off. It is impolite to wear a hat into any church for a man. 
4. Never chew gum in church! It breaks your fast and it’s distracting! 
5. Cross yourself with Holy Water on entering and leaving the church. This is a reminder of our Baptism, which made us members of Christ's Church.
6. Dress modestly and appropriately. Wear your Sunday Best. As Catholics we believe that God comes down to meet us at every Mass. Why would we not dress up? 
7. Show up at least a few minutes early. If you can't be on time, then sit in the back so you don't disturb others. 
8. Cell phones should never be used in Mass for calls or texting. The ONLY exceptions are emergencies (big ones, not everyday ones) and if you are using the phone for readings or prayers.
9. Gentlemen offer their seats to a any lady who is standing. Some churches, like ours, get packed. We live in Texas. In Texas men don't sit when a woman is standing. 
10. When we enter and leave Church, genuflect toward the Tabernacle. Christ is present for our sake. By allowing our right knee to hit the floor, we acknowledge He is our Lord and God. If someone is physically unable to genuflect, then a bow is sufficient. During Mass, if you pass in front of the altar or tabernacle, bow reverently.
11. Sit quietly while in church. It is not a time to visit with those around you. If you must talk do so as quietly and briefly as possible. Remember that your conversation might be disturbing someone who is in prayer, which is much more important. Sssshhhhhhhh.
12. Take loud children to the back. Every parent knows that sometimes the baby is going to have a bad day. Don't make everyone else's day bad as well. Sit on the end of a pew, if you can, and take the kid to the back quickly. Don't wait more than 10 seconds or so before you make a move. There is no reason to be embarrassed about having to quiet your child in the back of the church. It is worse to allow them to disturb Mass continually.
13. Prepare your offering before Mass. Christ tells us not to let your left hand know what your right hand is doing when you make your offering. Keeping the basket while you get your wallet out can be quite a scene. For tips on tithing, check this out.
14. No bulletin reading during Mass. Imagine if you invited a guest to your house and before dinner (or during) they decided to read a magazine instead of talking to you.
15. Respect Boundaries others may have. You might want to hold hands to pray, they may not. They might be sick and not want to shake during the sign of peace. These are all OK. Do not make any unnecessary judgment because they worship differently.
16. Bow before receiving Holy Communion. If it is God, then show your respect with a profound bow from the hip.
17. Do not receive from the chalice if you are sick. This is an act of charity.
18. Do not leave early. We should stay to the end of the recession and the hymn that accompanies it, if there is one.
19. Pray after Mass, if you can. It is a good custom, though not required, to offer a prayer of thanksgiving after Mass is over. What could be more important?
20. Leave quietly. We encourage you to visit with others, but once you are outside of the main sanctuary of the church so you won't disturb others who want to stay and pray.

SMILE

White House Tells US Bishops' Staff How To Interpret Catholic Teaching

I have no words to adequately describe this. From Thomas Peters:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan sent a letter to his brother bishops earlier this week where he revealed a shocking conversation that recently took place at a meeting between White House and USCCB staff:

At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers

Let’s break this down so we don’t miss anything about the context or gravity of the situation:

1. This meeting was prompted because the White House decided to curtail and violate the religious freedom of the Catholic Church and individual Catholics.

2. The White House refused to consult with Catholic bishops while originally formulating and issuing this mandate. President Obama misled Cardinal Dolan when he promised the Cardinal he would be happy with the White House’s final decision.

3. The White House has continually lied about and misrepresented the opinion and position of the U.S. Bishops in this process (claiming, for instance, that they were always against Obamacare and that Catholic Charities USA supported their false accomodation). They have continued to act in bad faith.

4. The White House has also chosen to ally itself with liberal, left-wing Catholic dissenters like Sr. Carol Keehan throughout this process, thereby snubbing the U.S. Bishops and all faithful Catholics.

(Are you still there? Because now it gets really good….)

5. After all of this, when the White House finally gets around to inviting staff authorized by the USCCB to negotiate on behalf of them, the White House says what to them?! First, they issue an ultimatum saying all compromise is off the table. So what on earth are they supposed to talk about if the White House refuses from the outset to compromise in any way, shape, or form? The cynical answer is the White House, once again, simply wanted to establish the appearance of dialogue while offering zero substance.

6. Then, the White House proceeds to lecture the USCCB staff about how to interpret Catholic teaching! Can you imagine anything more offensive? Telling Catholics how to be Catholic? They show them a copy of the America editorial as if a) the staff has not already read it and b) the U.S. Bishops give a fig what the editors of America think.

7. Let’s read Cardinal Dolan’s line again:

The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.

In other words, what we have here is NOT a failure to communicate. What we have here is an Administration and White House officials who believe they know Catholic teaching better than us. And who have the hubris to lecture us about what our faith teaches.
Continue Reading.

Catholic Unity vs Protestantism?

Q - Aren't there a bunch of different Catholic rites? I mean, you have the Roman, Byzantine, Carmelite, Dominican, and a whole bunch of other different titles. What happened? Why the split? What makes us different, and what makes us all Catholic? What makes our church the 'right one'/the one to be in? Can we recieve their communion and can they recieve ours?

And what makes this split different than the one Luther made? What makes the difference between one rite and another different than the difference between the catholics and the lutherans or the catholics and the baptists? Is the catholic church just as screwed up and separated as all of the protestant churches?

A - Thanks for the questions, I hope I can help straighten some of this out for you.  I will break up the questions below to see if I can answer them all for you.  Also, I have provided links that can answer the questions with more depth.

1 - Aren't there a bunch of different Catholic rites?
Yes there are.  Most Catholics are ignorant of this fact.  There are more than just Latin-rite Catholics, which 99% of us are.  In fact, there are dozens of other rites, you can read about all of them here.
A Rite = A way to pray liturgy and worship God which comes from a certain ecclesiastical (church) tradition.

2 - I mean, you have the Roman, Byzantine, Carmelite, Dominican, and a whole bunch of other different titles. What happened?
What happened is that each of the prayers and ways of worshiping God developed in different places in different ways over many years.  The Church has never believed that every catholic rite has to have the exact same prayers or ways of having the liturgy, as long as the essential elements of each liturgy are there.

3 - Why the split?
There is no split.  There is still unity.  A different Catholic rite is still Catholic.  They are still in union with Rome.  It might be the Eastern Orthodox you are thinking of here.  They are not Catholic, but this is a different story that you can read about here.

4 - What makes our church the 'right one'/the one to be in?
There is no "right" rite, but there is a "right" Church - which is the one true Church Jesus established = the Catholic Church.  You can read more about it here and here.

5 - And what makes this split different than the one Luther made? What makes the difference between one rite and another different than the difference between the catholics and the lutherans or the catholics and the baptists?
Again, between the differing Catholic rites there is unity in diversity, not disunity.  Between Catholics and Protestants we have much bigger doctrinal issues, the preeminent issue being authority.  Luther rejected the Catholic Church's authority and set himself up as an authority of one.  This opened the door to the doctrinal chaos we see in Christianity today.

The different Catholic rites developed different ways of praying, different doctrinal emphases, etc.  But, there is always unity.

6 - Is the catholic church just as screwed up and separated as all of the protestant churches?
No.  We can see this because we have the Pope who is the visible sign of unity for all Catholics.  To illustrate my point, a prominent Protestant theologian, Stanley Hauerwas, recently preached about Reformation Sunday (celebrated in some Protestant churches) about how that particular celebration was scandalous and what Protestants can learn from Catholic unity.  I recommend you read all of the article, but here is a snip:

Catholics do not begin with the question of “How much do we need to believe?” but with the attitude “Look at all the wonderful stuff we get to believe!” Isn’t it wonderful to know that Mary was immaculately conceived in order to be the faithful servant of God’s new creation in Jesus Christ! She therefore becomes the firstborn of God’s new creation, our mother, the first member of God’s new community we call church. Isn’t it wonderful that God continued to act in the world through the appearances of Mary at Guadalupe! Mary must know something because she seems to always appear to peasants and, in particular, to peasant women who have the ability to see her. Most of us would not have the ability to see Mary because we’d be far too embarrassed by our vision.

Therefore Catholics understand the church’s unity as grounded in reality more determinative than our good feelings for one another. The office of Rome matters. For at least that office is a judgment on the church for our disunity. Surely it is the clear indication of the sin of the Reformation that we Protestants have not been able to resist nationalistic identifications. So we become German Lutherans, American Lutherans, Norwegian Lutherans. You are Dutch Calvinist, American Presbyterians, Church of Scotland. I am an American Methodist, which has precious little to do with my sisters and brothers in English Methodism. And so we Protestant Christians go to war killing one another in the name of being American, German, Japanese, and so on.

At least it becomes the sin of Rome when Italian Catholics think they can kill Irish Catholics in the name of being Italian. Such divisions distort the unity of the Gospel found in the Eucharist and, thus, become judgments against the church of Rome. Of course, the Papacy has often been unfaithful and corrupt, but at least Catholics preserved an office God can use to remind us that we have been and may yet prove unfaithful. In contrast, Protestants don’t even know we’re being judged for our disunity.

I hope this helps. Peace to you.  Pray for Christian unity.

Forcing A Kosher Deli To Sell Ham Is Akin To Forcing A Catholic to Pay For Contraception

Bishop Lori testified before Congress about the HHS mandate. This is what he said:

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it The Parable of the Kosher Deli.

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork.

There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community — whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides — expresses its outrage at the new government mandate.

And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork — not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths — because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty.

They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle.

They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced — under threat of severe government sanction — to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you.”

It is, after all, the “other white meat.”

Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.”

Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following:

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate.

Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe — even if they believe in error — that pork is not good for you should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not — and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions.

Does the fact that large majorities in society — even large majorities within the protesting religious community — reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power?

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards.

Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews.

Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers.

Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: Can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli?

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

So, in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners and offer them a new “accommodation.”

You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer.

But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises and to offer, prepare and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept.

And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill. Continue reading.

How NOT To Evangelize

Top 10 - how NOT to evangelize:

10 - Post a sign outside your church that says "Eternity is a long time to be wrong" or on the flip side just make sure that everyone knows that God is love and nothing else.

9 - Argue with someone about being right.

8 - Use violence or manipulation.

7 - Mistake social justice as the whole of evangelization.

6 - Scream into a bullhorn and use "going to hell" often.

5 - Avoid all controversial subjects so that others will like you more.

4 - Expect everyone to be at the same place you are, to see the world as you do, and to speak the same language you do.

3 - Don't do or say anything that might challenge you.

2 - Preach a false gospel (e.g., the health and wealth gospel, all religions are the same, etc.)

1 - Live a life contrary to the Gospel. No need to live it out.

If You Listen To One Homily Online This Year...

...then make it this one.

40 Days In the Desert

If Lent is getting you down, reflect on what it was like for Jesus in the desert.
Here is one take on what it might have been like.

"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was hungry. The tempter approached..." - Matt 4: 1-3

Asking God To Be Fair Is Dangerous!

Some great thoughts on what is "fair" from Msgr. Charles Pope:

In the first reading from Mass today (Friday). God answers the question of his “fairness” in dealing with us:

You say, “The LORD’s way is not fair!” Hear now, house of Israel: Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair? When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity, and dies, it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if the wicked, turning from the wickedness he has committed, does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life; since he has turned away from all the sins that he committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. (Ezekiel 18:25-28)

It is a rather dangerous thing demand that God be fair. How easily we can declare of many circumstances. “That’s not fair!” But when it comes to the Lord, a little friendly advice is helpful: Be VERY careful before you ask God to be fair.
Continue Reading.

Are You An Idolater?

Fr. Barron has some great insights into idolatry and what we worship and how it affects the rest of our lives.

Cardinal Dolan's Update on the HHS Mandate Fight

Sobering, to say the least:

Over the last six months or so, the Catholic Church in the United States has found itself in some tension with the executive branch of the federal government over a very grave issue: religious freedom. Can a government bureau, in this case the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), define for us or any faith community what is ministry and how it can be exercised? Can government also coerce the church to violate its conscience?

I wanted to let you, the great people of the archdiocese, know how we’re doing in this fight. Thank you for your extraordinary unity, support, and encouragement. Throughout all the archdiocese, our people – both as patriotic citizens and committed Catholics — have been very effective in letting government know that we are not at peace at all with this attempt to curtail the freedom of religion and sanctity of conviction we cherish as both Catholics and Americans.

This has not been a fight of our choosing. We’d rather not be in it. We’d prefer to concentrate on the noble tasks of healing the sick, teaching our youth, and helping the poor, all now in jeopardy due to this bureaucratic intrusion into the internal life of the church. And we were doing all of those noble works rather well, I dare say, without these radical new mandates from the government. The Catholic Church in America has a long tradition of partnership with government and the wider community in the service of the sick, our children, our elders, and the poor at home and abroad. We’d sure rather be partnering than punching.

Nor is this a “Catholic” fight alone. As a nurse from Harrison emailed me, “Cardinal, I’m not so much mad about all this as a Catholic, but as an American.” It was a Baptist minister, Governor Mike Huckabee, who observed, “In this matter, we’re all Catholics.”

And it is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception. Pure and simple, it’s about religious freedom, the sacred right, protected by our constitution, of any Church to define its own teaching and ministry.

When the President announced on January 20th that the choking mandates from HHS would remain — a shock to me, since he had personally assured me that he would do nothing to impede the good work of the Church in health care, education, and charity, and that he considered the protection of conscience a sacred duty — not only you, but men and women of every faith, or none at all, rallied in protest. The worry that we bishops had expressed — that such government control was contrary to our deepest political values — was eloquently articulated by constitutional scholars and leaders of every creed. Even newspaper editorials supported us!

On February 10th, the President announced that the insurance providers would have to pay the bill, not the Church’s schools, hospitals, clinics, or vast network of charitable outreach. He considered this “concession” adequate.

Did this help? We bishops wondered if it would, and announced at first that, while withholding final judgment, we would certainly give it close scrutiny.
Continue Reading.

Read This If You Think Our Culture Would Never Allow Infanticide...

Peter Singer, an Australian Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, has long been the most vocal proponent of infanticide. His philosophy and worldview are firmly planted in utilitarianism, the view that you can determine the right course of action by following that which is most "useful". The problem is that it devalues human beings into objects for our own selfish "use". Thus, abortion is ok and it naturally will lead to the furthering of infanticide.

Two examples.

First - an article from the Journal of Medical Ethics, which argues that "after-birth abortion" is no different from a pre-birth abortion. In other words, you can kill your baby anytime you like. Here is a snip:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’

Second - If that isn't disturbing enough, here is a video of a nonchalant conversation between Singer and atheist Richard Dawkins, who discuss infanticide as no big deal:


There is no more slippery slope. We are hitting the bottom of the hill.

Tip o' the hat to Fr. Dwight for the video.