During my three years at Nashotah House (a seminary of the Episcopal church in Wisconsin) I had the pleasure meeting a bishop from the Church of England: Bishop John Broadhurst, who is now a Monsignor in the Catholic Church and part of the English Ordinariate.

I cannot exactly recall why he was there (I think it was because the school was giving him an honorary doctorate) but I do recall one specific interaction. He was giving a talk, or maybe it was a homily, to the students (and this being an Episcopal seminary some of the students were women) in which he brought up the topic of the ordination of women to the priesthood. For those who do not know, Anglicans all over the world do allow for the ordination of women, but since the inception of this novelty in the 1970s it has always been a contentious subject. And Bishop Broadhurst was part of a group of bishops within the Church of England that refused to perform such an ordination. And during his talk that day the good bishop made it very clear that he was against such an innovation. Needless to say, there were some feathers ruffled by his saying so. He then posed a question to himself, which went something like this,

He answered his own question quite simply by saying, "Tell 'em NO!"

There are many times when we all need to have this same bold and frank attitude. Of course, when we speak we should do so in a loving manner that has true concern for the welfare of the other person. But consider this - what is more loving than to correct our brother when he is mistaken about something of vital importance? And I think everyone will agree that things pertaining to the salvation of another person's soul is of ultimate importance.

The Church is very clear: certain things are right and certain things are wrong. If we see our fellow man going down the path that could lead him to everlasting damnation then we have a duty to speak up and boldly "Tell 'em NO!"

When looking something up this morning I noticed that the internet search provider I was using had a one of those ribbons (that are used to promote supposedly good causes) on its main page. I clicked on it and discovered that the little white ribbon represented the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I then discovered that, ironically, this is sponsored by the United Nations.

I want to explain why I find this ironic. But first, let me unequivocally state that I am all for ending violence against women. Women are created in the image and likeness of God just like men and therefore deserve to receive their due dignity and respect from the rest of mankind, whether male or female. No one has the right to abuse, harm or take advantage of another person for any reason.

The UN claims to believe the same thing. But, even though they sponsor this campaign to end violence against women, they ironically promote things that can only perpetuate the violence they seek to end.

First of all, they advocate for 'safe abortions' (whatever that is supposed to mean - it is certainly not safe for the baby, who is about to be killed, or the woman who is having the abortion). Why, if you want to stop violence against women, would you support abortion?What action could be more violent to a woman than for someone to shove medical instruments inside her and brutually dismember unborn child?

It should be pointed out, though, that the UN website claims that they do "not support or promote abortion as a method of family planning." And yet they try to use a scary statistic to promote 'safe abortions' saying that each year 74,000 women die each year from 'unsafe abortions'. In their mind it must seem that the only way to keep this from happening is to have 'safe abortions.' When in actuality, the only way to keep this from happening is to have no abortions!

Connected to this is the UN's promotion of artficial contraception. They support both the pill - an abortifacient - and so-called emergency contraception - also an abortifacient. Not only do both of these cause the violence action of abortion but both of these poisons are an act of violence against the dignity of women. These chemicals destroy something which is actually quite natural - her fertility. Not to mention that in addition to killing the baby she has conceived it can most certainly kill her.

Furthermore, chemical contraceptives can have a secondary cause of violence against women that is overlooked. With a so many women taking chemical contraceptives men can now almost assume that any woman is infertile. Therefore, there is no possible baby to worry about which in turn leads many men to take advantage of women, which is the very thing the UN is trying to prevent, right?

The UN - ending violence against women? More like UNending violence against women.

The Gospel reading for today is from St. Luke 21:1-4. We all know the story: the rich giving their gifts and the poor widow who puts in only two copper coins into the treasury. After witnessing this Jesus says, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had."

Until recently, when I had one of those "Aha!" moments, I always assumed that part of the lesson in what Jesus is teaching us in this Gospel reading was that those who were rich were in some way doing something wrong: that they were bad for not giving more. I think I always assumed this because Jesus had many hard things to say against the rich and the ruling class of His day. But, if we take the story as it is, we see that He isn't saying anything of the sort. Instead of tearing down the rich He is actually commending the actions of the poor widow. The rich were doing what they were required to do by giving back to God from what He had first given to them. And this is a good thing. But, the widow went a step further and gave all she had. It may not amount to much in the eyes of man but to God it is of great value.

When we give everything that we have and everything we are back to God then we are emulating our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus gave everything for us by becoming a man, teaching us the Truth, dying for our sins and conquering death for us by rising from the grave. We can do good by giving back to Him from what He has given us; like those who are rich in the Gospel story. But, we can do so much more for Him if we, like the poor widow, give Him everything. Therefore, the next time you are at Mass and about to receive Our Lord Jesus in the Most Holy Eucharist, remember that through that Sacrament Jesus is once again giving you all of Himself. And then ask yourself, shouldn't you do the same for Him?

This post is in response to comments on one of my sermons. You can find the entire comments under the Sermons tab and scroll down to the 'Sermon for the Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity'. I will address what I feel are the most important concerns in chronological order. When I first read his comments I must admit I was a little suprised because he doesn't seem to be addressing what I actually say in my sermon but instead seems to be jumping to his own conclusions of what he thinks that I meant. I will quote directly from the comment and include all typos.

He states that I am "violating us law by talking about issues that conflict between church and state." Here he must be referring to the supposed separation of church and state that various people want to claim is the law of the land. But, according to what I have been taught, the US has no such law that says I cannot let my religious faith influence how I think in regards to politics. And, as a Catholic priest, I am obligated to preach the Truth on teachings of the Church, which is what I tried to do in this sermon and in all of my sermons.

He states that I "judge and then condemn people because they don't think like" me. He seems to be inferring something that I did not say. Nevertheless, I was doing no such thing in my sermon. Instead, I was trying to explain the Truth of the Church's teaching so that people did not commit a serious sin in how the voted.

He states "christ said first remove the beam in your eye" but I am not sure which beam he wants me to remove. Perhaps he does not like what I had to say in the sermon and therefore thinks that I sinned in saying it. But, I was not expounding my own opinion in the sermon but the teachings of the Church so how did I sin in what I said?

He states, "you condemn gay people because they want some form of union" but again, I didn't say anything that is out of line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Also, to say that I condemned anyone in my sermon would be a stretch.

Next, he asks a question, "what would you say if your child is gay"? This question is so loaded that it really requires a separate post but let me try to answer briefly. If one of my children were to think they were homosexual and tell me about it I would love them just like I do now. But, (and I cannot stress this enough) I would not support them in their behavior if they acted on those misguided homosexual feelings. The teaching of the Catholic Church is quite clear in regards to homosexual acts: "Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Catechism of the Catholic Church §2357)

He then goes on to state, "you condemn pro choice people". Yet again, I simply spoke the Truth of what the Church teaches. The Church teaches in a definitive manner that abortion is wrong! Look it up in the Catechism: §2270-2275.

Then, in regards to the sin of abortion he writes, "in any case it is just a sin and god forgives all sins." Yes, God does forgive all sins, as long as we repent of them. But you should never deliberately sin while thinking to yourself, "God will forgive me. I can just go to confession." To do so is to commit the serious sin of presumption.

In speaking of Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal in the country, he says that it is the "will of the people". Well, so what! Just because abortion is the "will of the people" (which is debatable) does not make it moral or acceptable. And, as I have said before in this post, as a Catholic priest I must stand up for the lives of the unborn. So his apparent desire for me to be silent on this point boggles the mind.

Lastly, he writes, "think of all the parishoners feelings you hurt because of your belief and political party preaching". First of all let me address his comment of "your belief". My belief, sir, is in the fullness of the teachings of Jesus Christ that He has entrusted to His Holy Catholic Church. And my duty as a Catholic priest is to protect those teachings by giving my very life if I have to do so. At no point in my sermon that you disagree with have I contradicted Catholic teaching. And yes, because of my willingness to proclaim the Truth of the Gospel someone might get their feelings hurt, as you say. Hurting someone's feelings isn't my goal in my sermons but instead preaching the Truth. And I will not withhold the Truth just because someone might disagree with it. In fact, that is all the more reason to proclaim it. If I don't proclaim the Truth to them and they go on sinning then their sin falls on my head and the sinner my be eternally lost. (See Ezekiel 33:8). Whereas, if I preach the Truth and the sinner repents then I have saved his life and my own. (See James 5:19-20)

In closing, it seems to me that the person who left these comments doesn't really want to hear the Truth, at least not the parts that he happens to disagree with. In a second set of comments he states that he will now be attending another parish, but why? Is it just to hear what he wants to hear? Whether or not another priest preaches against abortion or homosexuality does not change the fact that the Church teaches that both of these things are completely and always wrong. Out of concern for his salvation I hope he reads this post and asks himself these questions: am I Catholic; if so, do I believe everything the Church teaches as the Truth of Jesus Christ; if I do then well and good but if I do not, then why am I Catholic?

Dear sir, you closed your initial comments by saying "may god forgive you because i will not." Why are you so angry with me? I do not feel sinned against in what you have said but if there is anything done against me by you then I forgive it. My only concern for you, and for all I meet, is your eternal salvation. I pray that if I have done you any real wrong you will forgive me as well, remembering that Christ Himself taught us to say, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trepass against us." (Matthew 6:12)

The Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, CSC, the Bishop of Peoria, has issued a very strong letter to his flock and has also required that it be read at all Masses for this coming Sunday by each celebrating priest. The letter is very succinct and would not take very long to read the whole thing by clicking the link above. Nevertheless I include here in this blog the Bishop's strongest point.

Today, Catholic politicians, bureaucrats, and their electoral supporters who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb also thereby reject Jesus as their Lord. They are objectively guilty of grave sin. For those who hope for salvation, no political loyalty can ever take precedence over loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ and to his Gospel of Life. God is not mocked, and as the Bible clearly teaches, after this passing instant of life on earth, God’s great mercy in time will give way to God’s perfect judgment in eternity.

So here we have yet another Bishop who is most certainly not namby-pamby. God willing, this courageousness will continue to spread like wildfire to all the Bishops of the United States and the world. May none of them fear death or the condemnation of this world for speaking the Truth, but only fear God and His judgment if they do not speak the Truth with boldness.

Earlier today I read Pope Benedict's Apostolic Letter Porta Fidei. The release of this letter marks the beginning of the Year of Faith inaugurated by Pope Benedict. This letter is absolutely wonderful and I recommend that all Catholics read it. Doing so will help ensure that everyone is on the same page, so to speak, with what this Year of Faith is all about.

I know my posts have been sporadic lately. Due to that fact I am going to start posting various parts of this great document on my blog. I will try to comment on every post but some may not need any comment like the one for today. Today's post is from section 9 and I believe that it gives us the main purpose for both the letter and the Year of Faith.

We want this Year to arouse in every believer the aspiration to profess the faith in fullness and with renewed conviction, with confidence and hope. It will also be a good opportunity to intensify the celebration of the faith in the liturgy, especially in the Eucharist, which is "the summit towards which the activity of the Church is directed; ...and also the source from which all its power flows." At the same time, we make it our prayer that believers'  witness of life may grow in credibility. To rediscover the content of the faith that is professed, celebrated, lived and prayed, and to reflect on the act of faith, is a task that every believer must make his own, especially in the course of this Year.

I don't think this really needs any further comment. May we all grow deeper in our own faith during this Year of Faith, but let us realize that won't happen unless we put our own effort into it.

by Thomas Howard (see post below for explanation)

No doubt the best-known remark ever made about Truth is Pontius Pilate’s laconic “What is truth?” It’s hard to know how he meant it. Was he being cavalier? Cynical? What? Or was there some rag of earnestness lurking there? Had he begun to realize that the man he was speaking with was not one to be trifled with? We can’t know.

But what is Truth? (We might as well capitalize the word.) A man says he was at the picnic and we know he wasn’t. So: no truth there. Or again, a political party makes promises: perhaps there is no bald lie here: but none of us would suppose that we are being hailed by Truth. Or yet again, a global movement (the “sexual revolution”) sweeps all before it in the l960’s: in this case, the question of Truth touches, not so much upon the veracity of statements or promises as upon the nature of Reality (the moral order, that is). Actually one element was true: it was a revolution. But the picture of freedom, fulfillment, and bliss for all was fraudulent. Under the radiant scrutiny of Truth, we would find that any such “freedom” leads to a sacrilege, “fulfillment” to disenchantment, and “bliss” to sorrow. In this case then, we would have the Truth that belongs to Reality itself being destroyed.

We are obliged, then, to acknowledge the truth about Truth. Yes, it can be a property of statements, in so far as they correspond to the external situation (the man wasn’t at the picnic), or of expectations (politics ordinarily sidesteps the brute Truth), or of the Nature of Things (sex that does not acknowledge the joyous and solemn order that presides over the whole Creation leads to squalor and tragedy).

The sexual realm is a domain in which we see how the Nature of Things can be violated. For example, the act of fornication would be false since it does not correspond to the Truth of things. The physical union of a man and a woman in Holy Matrimony is a case in point, under the species of our human flesh, of a Truth that streams ultimately from the fruitful and blissful mutual self-donation whose fountainhead is the Most Holy Trinity. Self-donation asks the gift of one’s entire being; and ultimately it entails bliss. The Father’s love “begets” the Son; the Son eternally offers Himself to the Father; and the Holy Ghost is the [means? seal? agent?-- words fail us in those precincts] of that Trinitarian self-giving. In the physical Creation, the mystery of that fruitful unity is enacted under two genders which each bear the stamp of the Maker under these two noble modes: hence the Jewish and Christian understanding of fornication, adultery, sodomy, and any other variation on the theme, as a confusion: the act itself, on that accounting, would violate the Truth of the matter. In each case the nuptial prerequisite is missing—the nuptial bond which alone hallows this Sacrament which, like all Sacraments, bespeaks Truth.

This understanding of what is True is now under assault. We hear news of Christian ministers in various countries having been imprisoned for teaching their congregations, inside their churches, about these sacred mysteries. More than fifty years ago, Flannery O’Connor remarked that the inevitable end of Liberalism is the guillotine. . . .

If you are Catholic and have one of these on your car -

- then you are a bad Catholic. And here is why: you cannot in good conscience vote for the person that this sticker represents because of his stance on abortion and homosexuality. That being said I am sure there would be many Catholics  that would complain about this by saying, "But Fr. Namby Pamby down at St. Karl Marx Catholic Church said that I could vote for him as long as I don't support his position on abortion. I know abortion is bad but this man is going to bring change to our country through works of social justice. And the Church supports social justice, right? And even if I believe that homosexuality is wrong, Fr. Namby Pamby says I can't support the legislation of morality through governmental laws. After all, it wouldn't be fair to limit someone else's freedom just because I don't approve of their behavior."

In response to Catholics who would answer in such a way let me start with the last statement first. So, you're worried about limiting people's ability to do anything they want in the name of freedom. Does that mean you would want to do away with all the laws against murder? After all, someone might not like the way you look and want to shoot you in the face. Do you want to allow him the freedom to do that? No, I don't think you do. But in response to that another Catholic might say to me, "But you're talking about someone doing harm. Homosexuals don't do any harm to anyone so why should there be laws against them?" My response - actually they have done a great deal of harm to our country by promoting the breakdown of the family and the severe weakening of sexual morals. But that is just in addition to the fact that the Catholic Church, of which you claim to be a part, says that homosexuality is wrong! Therefore, if you are truly in communion with the Church, then you also must stand against such moral perversions as homosexuality, which includes being in agreement with laws that condemn it.

Now for abortion. You claim to be in favor of all the so-called acts of social justice that the person in question (see bumper sticker above) says he wants to do. If so then please answer this: how can there be any true justice for mankind if we don't even have the right to be born? How is it just to deny that basic right to anyone? As another bumper sticker states:

Heavenly Father, send your Holy Spirit into our hearts, to direct and rule us according to your will, to comfort us in all our afflictions, to defend us from all error, and to lead us into all truth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

This is the prayer I use everyday when I say the noonday prayers on the website found here. If the Daily Office is not currently a part of your rule of life perhaps you should consider taking it up.

Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" (John 18:37-38a, RSV)
This infamous question from Pontius Pilate has infected our country. It seems that some people no longer know what truth is, don't believe that it exists or, some may say that truth does exist, but that it is unknowable. I am not here speaking of the simple truth of 2+2=4. Most sane people would be able to agree with that. The truth, or rather the Truth, that I am speaking of in this blog is the Truth that Christ refers to in the above quote from the Gospel according to St. John. It is this Truth that many people are not willing to accept, especially in this country.

Now some may ask how I can say such a thing when a majority of people in this country are still Christian. Don't Christians, by very definition of that name, accept the Truth that Christ taught to the world? Well they should. But the fact is that they don't. While I think that most Americans still believe that there is an Ultimate Truth, a problem arises when each individual acts as if he is the determiner of that Truth. And that is exactly what we have in America and other countries around the world.

Before I continue I will try to explain the Catholic understanding of the Truth that Jesus taught. Jesus, the Son of God who became man in order to save mankind from sin and death, revealed to the world the Truth about who God is, who we are and how we are supposed to act in relation to God and our fellow man. Notice that I used the word 'revealed' because this teaching of Jesus is something not created by mankind but has been revealed to us. And Jesus entrusted this revelation to the Catholic Church to safeguard from error and promised that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Matt 16:19, RSV) The Church's duty is therefore to protect this Truth and to hand it on to succeeding genereations without adding anything to it and without taking anything away from it.