Penance Peace

I went to a reconciliation, formerly known as penance, service last evening for our area deanery. I did not look forward to going, and apparently I'm not the only one who feels that way. The priest who gave the homily (who I think was Fr. Thomas Brown at Sacred Heart) said most people put this service on par with going to the dentist. The thought of spilling the beans about yourself to another person, known as confession, is not pleasant.

And yet before I even got to the confessional, I felt a greater peace than I have in a long time. The priest talked of a God who loves us enough to keep Himself on a cross until He died, and that was powerful. Often in Lent I think of Christ's journey to the cross, but last night I focused on what it took for Him to stay there. He could have easily shown the people who mocked Him that He was indeed the son of God and could come off. They would have been proven wrong in an amazing way.

But Christ kept His focus on the long-run, just as He had His whole life. He put aside the majesty and splendor He could have had in the short-run. He saw not only the people in front of Him, but all mankind. He gave us all a chance at future life with Himself and the Father and Holy Spirit.

When someone like myself becomes wrapped up in news stories of political fighting and even fighting within the Church, one can get angry and accusatory. But we pay a price in all that when we lose our own peace and best focus. I was really glad I went to the penance service to start concentrating where I should--on Christ's life, death, and resurrection to His present life where we can meet and know Him.

Maafa21

I just found out about a movie which theorizes that the abortion industry even today is an extension of the eugenics movement. It's called Maafa 21 and you can get to information on the website HERE. The term "eugenics" was coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. In the 1860's, he applied Darwin's theory, in which survival of the fittest supposedly brought about all evolution to superior beings, to humans. He believed the Caucasian race was superior to any others. What is more, others started getting on the bandwagon and pushed for population control, warning against feeble-mindedness and inability to rise above poverty. Only intelligent, talented people were to marry each other and produce a better and better race. The movie documents many articles written by famous eugenicists of their day. The creators of the movie ask why the percentage of minorities stay the same. Are people of color being encouraged to keep their numbers down?

The scientists in the past believed the Negroid races were inferior to the white because of evolution. Many believed that the African came from the ape and the white person from the African. And even as recently as 2007, James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, seemed to assume the same, considering remarks he made. He was quoted in The Times of London as suggesting that, overall, people of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European descent and had to apologize, reported by Randerson and Truscott, "DNA pioneer apologizes over race row," The Guardian (Oct. 18, 2007).

The eugenics movement is now being linked to the abortion industry in the United States. The claim the movie Maafa 21 makes is that the mass sterilization that became prevalent in the early 1900's is still at work today, though it might not be "forced" as it was early in the movement. A good article, though, about forced sterilization is at a George Washington University web page.  It is by Edwin Black, "The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics," History News Network at GW (Sept 2003).This quote comes from the article link:

Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes' words in their own defense.

This article also claims that only after eugenics became well-established in the US did it become part of the Nazi psuedo-scientific justification for genocide. It is interesting that the 2008 movie with Ben Stein, Expelled (YouTube trailer HERE), made the same connection to Darwin's theory, eugenics, and the Nazi's. Expelled exposed the current prejudice in academia against any theories which oppose Darwinian evolution.

I have not seen the entire Maafa 21 movie yet, just the first few sections. I hope to watch the whole thing eventually. And I think we must be careful in blaming abortion on this one factor alone. Statistics show a large proportion of non-white women have abortions, as described on a web page of abort73.com HERE. But there are things going on other than elite eugenicists doing clandestine operations to sterilize women as was the case before. Let us not forget the culture has changed so that sex is a constant temptation for young people who do not then want the ensuing responsibility. Also, sex crimes and even human slavery are increasingly parts of our abortion problem.

In fact, one thing the narrators of the Maafa 21 movie have not addressed is the apparent lack of responsibility related to unmarried, teenage pregnancy. I’m sure this factor, with its link to poverty, is a concern for many liberals. There is not always a sinister motive for those who approve of abortion, and in fact these persons can sincerely desire the welfare of African-Americans. They want the females to have more freedom to continue education and have a secure job before they have children. They want the children to be in a home with higher income and better chances for them to make it as well. This is why some African-Americans also see abortion as a freedom of choice issue. The narrators do themselves no favors when they mention welfare in a way that seems like an entitlement that African-Americans are owed. That is not likely to win a lot of sympathy in these days of huge national debt.

However, the movie makes some good points. I think many liberals have never even thought of the angle of genocide or been informed of it. As the movie points out, the press avoids this side of the argument against abortion. Not everyone believes a fetus is a full human being, which muddies the issue.

It does not hurt to examine the mindset of those who set up abortion clinics in poor and usually minority-race neighborhoods. Are they really there for the good of the people involved? Do they want to encourage responsibility or do they want to help people run away from it? Can human life be equated with money and the economy?

The creators of the Maafa 21 movie would contend that, just like latter-day eugenicists, those advocating abortion don't want more of the minority around. I understand the desire to see others be responsible with their own lives and those of their children. But though life without responsibility can be very tough, responsibility has no chance at all without life.

Re-Evangelization All Over Again

In one of the recent newsletters of Our Sunday Visitor (Jan. 15, 2012), a column by Msgr. Francis Mannion (pg. 19) answered questions about the reality of hell. Now, he believes there is one. But he also says that anyone who has loved or been loved will not end up there. He said he heard this idea "about 1970" and has believed it since then.

It doesn't surprise me this idea circulated in the 70's. All you need is love, right? This has been a pervasive idea among Christians. Of course love is a wonderful reality, an amazing characteristic of our Divine God. But we must also remember that Jesus Christ came to Earth for our redemption because of our sins. He is our true hero, for He overcame a terrible ordeal to win the victory. And he asks us to believe in Him so we may have everlasting life with Him (John 3:16 NABRE).

The idea that all religions are the same is called "indifferentism." Evangelicals kept free of this ideology for a while, but mainstream Protestants and many Catholics subscribe to the idea that one spiritual path is as good as another. Some theologians subscribe to "universalism," in which we are all acceptable. A part of this group may say this is due to Christ's redemptive act which included everyone, but some would not even go so far as to say we needed Him, but that God simply loves all of us and we are all just on different journeys to the great universal oneness of love we will all eventually experience. However, indifferentism is not new and was mentioned by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832. He quoted St. Augustine from an even earlier time (born 354 AD): “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit is the form, if it does not live from the root?” (20. St. Augustine, in psalm. contra part. Donat.)

A Church document called "Nostra Aetate" (proclaimed by Pope Paul VI in 1965) says though there may be some parts of truth in all religions, the whole Truth culminates in Jesus Christ. If you know Him, there is no reason to follow another religion. To me, Christianity is a combination of being able to read the Truth in the Scripture and experiencing it with Christ.

Love is a wonderful thing, but many people have loved some people and hated others. Criminals have loved. Did past tyrants and dictators love their children? Probably, at least to some degree. Are they prepared for or worthy of heaven? Remember, heaven is perfect.

There must be a way we are able to be righteous in heaven, and we are told how that can be. The Apostle Paul tells us: 20...no human being will be justified in His sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. (Romans 3:20-23 NABRE),

John Paul II and Benedict XVI have called for a re-evangelization of the Church. I went through a time of doubt and even disbelief myself, influenced by these kinds of theology I have mentioned. Yet it is really worth thinking about the afterlife. The more I read the Bible and prayed, the more I believed you really do have to believe in Jesus Christ, that He was God, and that He came to save us from our sins to enter heaven. God the Father made Him the center of our lives and our hope, and He truly is.

People say a good God would not let people who never heard of Him go to hell. It is God's business how to handle that and should not be used as some excuse to not believe. Christians have faith that God is just, and things would not come out right if there was no justice. But He is also merciful. Each human being who has heard about Christ and has the opportunity to learn must work on their own soul to believe. Hopefully, they will come to do so, and then can help others do the same. The idea that we don't need to believe in Christ to get to heaven, which in my opinion is implied by Msgr. Mannion, is the very reason we need evangelization and re-evangelization.

Why Not Drop Out

I had been reading selections from various Christian blogs for a while, mostly linked from the New Advent website home page HERE. New Advent seems to have some process for going through various blogs and and giving choices from about 30-40 posts, some of which are new and some that have been there a few days. I didn't usually read more than 2 or 3 in a day, but I often read the comments for the blogs. (Although now I am getting more into writing my book again, so I will probably not do it as much anymore.)

Many commenters ask how people can still be Catholic, with all the problems we have had. Many times this refers to the sexual predator crisis, but also has hit upon prejudice against women and other problems. In the last month, more scandal has broken. A report by Philip Pullela, "'Monsignors' mutiny' revealed by Vatican leaks," Reuters, Feb 13, 2012, says that a highly-placed Vatican official was transferred out of the Vatican to become an ambassador in Washington because he was allegedly trying to clean up corruption. Supposedly contracts were given out of cronyism instead of the best bid. It is also rumored that a right-hand-man of the Pope is trying to manipulate the number of Italian Cardinals so that another Italian will be voted in as the Pope in the next election. Does this sound like the leaders really care about the flock?

It's not really surprising that people ask why we put up with it. Actually, many don't, and leave the Church. Look at Europe--a great many have left. In Latin America, many are going to Protestant denominations. The problem is, there are human failures that come through in other denominations also. We believe the Roman Catholic Church was the first Church, starting with the Apostle Peter in Rome. And compared to some of the past popes, we're actually probably not doing so badly at the moment (I'm not referring to the popes right at the beginning but for example right before the Reformation when they were trying to sell passes to heaven).

Remember, much love and care comes in the name of Catholicism. We have had hospitals, missions, schools, all meant to help people and improve their lives. These are usually unsung, everyday commitments to follow Christ as well as we can.

Still, to try to hide the bad is to make things worse, as is easily demonstrated by the predator priest fiasco. Many who belong to the Church believe that evil does exist. And evil is very bad indeed. It does not affect only those Church members who have been accused in the news or people who have landed in jail. It can get its hands on any of us. It delights in embarrassing the faithful. It makes every effort to do harm in the worst possible of ways. People can point and shake their heads at how awful things are with the Church. But if they don't recognize sin within themselves, they are the ones who are the worse for it. Because then they don't seek help. If they would think about it a little more deeply, they would realize that the evil they see means that evil exists. We are back with one of the reasons to be in the Church in the first place.

Those in the Church to seek help can find it. Christ died for our sins, and we can go to Him, and only Him, to find redemption.

It is true that while in this life we need to keep trying with all our effort, including prayer, to stay on the right path. Unfortunately, we have trouble with that. We are human, and evil doesn't quit. It keeps trying to get us to the wrong road. It is too often successful. But there is no where like the Church to remind us, when we enter it and kneel within, that something very important is at stake. Then we pray for strength to go on.

Not everyone is in the Church for the right reason. They may have been born into it and decided they want to stay for power, social reasons, pressure from family or whatever. But those who sense God's presence know how overwhelmingly greater He is than any trouble that comes. They know Christ's gift to us of everlasting life, if we only believe in Him (John 3:16 NABRE), overcomes any evil we face now.

IC--Irreducibly Connected

The Indiana Senate passed a bill, SB 89, to allow the instruction of Creationism into the classroom (AP article on Fox News HERE). The Discovery Institute, which is the foremost think tank for Intelligent Design Theory (sometimes known as ID), condemns the bill, reported by Robert Crowther II, HERE. The ID proponents think evolution should be taught, but also that persons should be allowed to bring up flaws in the theory. The Creation in question is probably that called Young Earth Creationism, in which some people believe God created the Earth around 6 to 14 thousand years ago.

I disagree with the Discovery Institute. I think we should have long ago come to the realization there are irreconcilable differences between Americans when it comes to our various religions (or lack thereof) and science.

Though the Discovery Institute has been the victim of abuse by the leaders of today's scientific community, they are willing to heap abuse on an even more vilified group, the Young Earth Creationists. They may not intend to be demeaning, and perhaps are even trying to help. But they are not very farsighted if this is the plan.

Our country is based on freedom of religion. We are getting far afield, acting as though we believe it was founded on scientific political correctness. Please remember, not all scientific theories are right. Albert Einstein at one time believed the universe had been eternal, without a beginning. He even fudged a calculation to make his math fit his theory. But he was proven wrong by astronomers, primarily Edwin Hubble, who confirmed that the Universe is expanding and therefore had a beginning, now called the Big Bang. Why is this a lesson that never seems to sink in?

If the Discovery Institute had been around when Einstein theorized the Universe was infinite, are they saying children had to be taught that's the way it is because Albert Einstein said so? This is when the Creationist children would have believed the Universe had not been infinite, but they would be faced by authority figures who taught something against their own faith. And then later Einstein was proven wrong. Are we to say evolution is right, except it's OK to question it? The people at the Design Institute are themselves pandering to the politically correct scientific culture. If evolution is only one of various theories, it should be presented as such and the beliefs of others should be acknowledged from the start.

Though I talk here of whether a theory is correct, it is a separate but even more important matter that some Americans believe it is correct. As long as the religion of the person includes Creationism, it is a matter of freedom of religion. Catholic bishops are recently incensed over an attempt by the government to impose insurance rulings on Church institutions. They say it goes against religious freedom. But where are they when the government has walked all over other denominations in demanding that evolution and only evolution be taught in the nation's public schools?

The Discovery Institute often presents the argument that the Supreme Court has already decided that Creationism is to be kept from the classroom. But there are hundreds of thousands of people marching every year in Washington DC to reverse the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade in which abortion has been made legal. Writers from the Discovery Institute grouse regularly over the decision of US District Judge John Jones in the Dover PA trial about introducing ID into classrooms (TalkOrigins description HERE) but hold as unchangeable the Supreme Court decision to keep Creationism out. Maybe they have their reasons in their own agendas. They regularly talk about the Old Earth and fossils of millions of years old. Perhaps they are unwilling to stretch their abilities in order to consider others with different points of view, such as Young Earth Creationists.

"Irreducible complexity" is a phrase coined by one of Intelligent Design's proponents, Michael Behe. It is time to recognize that many people's belief systems are irreducibly connected to science. Faith forms our biology theories as it forms our laws and political systems. Young Earth Creationists unabashedly start right from their Sacred Text and go from there, as at Answers in Genesis website HERE. This is something the laws must reconcile, and not just collapse under the pressure of anti-religion groups who claim this teaching would be unconstitutional. The government enforces anti-religious views on students in the classroom--those whose mothers are unable to home-school them, that is. This is a large part of our population which is treated thus.

I know that to bring Creation Science into the classroom would be messy. People don't like it when they have to cope with other people's conceptions of truth. For example, those who believe in evolution don't want to think about design. But who are the intelligent ones? The persons who can understand only one point of view, or those who can see a variety of possibilities? Isn't that what scientific exploration is about?

Contraception vs. Abortion

The US bishops are fighting a mandate right now by the government to make them allow for contraceptives in their employee's insurance coverage. That is about preventive health care and I don't want to address that issue here. Plenty of others are--it is all over the news. But I am concerned about the whole attitude of the magisterium about contraception which feeds into this battle.

I'd like to say a little about barrier contraception, which would include the condom, diaphragm and perhaps both together, Natural Family Planning (NFP) type of birth control which is the one and only the Church approves, and abortive type contraceptives.

The NFP is apparently as effective as many other forms of birth control when used correctly. NFP does not use barriers or pills, but counts on female cycles, with daily checks of temperature and other physiology. However, it absolutely requires abstinence at certain times in a woman's monthly cycle, such as perhaps, if a woman is irregular, on one’s honeymoon.

Artificial contraceptives are supposedly the reason for sex outside of marriage. Does it occur to anyone that NFP could be used outside of marriage? It’s like the often heard, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Human beings are the ones that sin, not the birth control method. Yet I truly doubt if NFP is used much outside marriage, even though it would be virtually without cost. That might give us an idea of its convenience.

Studies have come out that say about 98% of Catholic sexually active women use contraceptives other than NFP, reported by Lauren Keiper, "Most Catholic women use birth control banned by church," Reuters, April 13, 2011. At my church and at a class at my college, the people who taught NFP had at least 5 children. They perhaps wanted large families, but I'd rather be taught by a couple who was married 30 years and had zero or one child that they could confirm they planned for. People are busy these days, and perfection, as you need with the NFP method, can be hard to come by.

There are issues for the Church Magisterium to legitimately decide, but in my opinion they could be doing a better role in leadership here. They have allowed that some family planning is OK (hence the NFP). Still, their tone is begrudging, and elsewhere the teachings give the impression of pressure to keep having children whether you can cope with them or not.

If bishops would go back to the drawing board and make more of a distinction between barrier contraceptives and abortive ones, they would show their understanding toward women who find NFP an unwieldy choice. These are the very women who spend hours of their time working for the Church institutions in question, such as hospitals and universities, yet are supposed to also let every sexual encounter be an occasion for another huge responsibility. Perhaps both women and men faithful would more seriously consider the bishop's teachings in the Church's fight against abortion if the authority felt greater sensitivity toward their flocks. Yes, children are wonderful, and many couples deeply want as many as they can naturally have. But some couples have limits, and those limits seem to be remembered one minute and forgotten the next. The women especially are judged when they are different than others. Some women do not feel the call to bear many children and it seems as unfair to pressure them to have them as it would be to pressure those who want children to not have them. I realize there are complications when it comes to unnatural methods of either prevention or inducement of pregnancy and we need to discuss them. But if modern science is used to prevent miscarriage, then I think it is not unreasonable it should be allowed for prevention of pregnancy.

The Church does not force individuals to become priests (although at one time that may have been true). Young men are asked to discern their calling directly from God, not from the bishops. So it should be recognized about all of us. It is not logical for us to think that even the bishops know each gift for every person in their diocese and how they may best be used.

More than to careers or parenthood, God calls all Christians to be evangelists. Many feel they evangelize by a "regular" job or by guiding their children, but there are other paths. The Church may be concerned about the number of souls being born, but these days, children born to Catholics do not automatically become Christians. They must be directly evangelized, and more and more, re-evangelized. The culture has led many away from faith, and it takes effort on all our parts to work against that tide. Some women may become evangelists in a way other than physical parenthood, and not just in convents. Though God's command to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply, priests and nuns do not feel compelled to do so. There are other considerations, and I believe decisions about reproduction for a married couple are similarly nuanced.

Unfortunately, the contraceptives are often defended by groups that desire abortion also. These persons, both male and female, I believe have similar tunnel vision but in a different direction. The Church has said life begins at conception, and I agree. The profound dignity the Lord gives to life is worthy of our greatest respect. We are in deep trouble not only in our country, but more importantly in our Church. It is vital to be concerned whether contraceptives actually prevent conception or abort a fertilized egg. There are disagreements what the pill does in this regard. With all our modern science, we should be able to find out whether abortion may occur. If any pill causes abortion, it should not be used by Christians. But we must remember we have a pluralistic society and not everyone agrees when life starts. Some Christians do not even think abortion is termination of human life, and so it is important to convince people that life begins at conception, such as they do with ultrasounds on fetuses, rather than denigrate the persons who abort.

I am not talking about a political-type compromise of contraception vs. abortion. However, if this were a political issue it would be obvious that this is the answer: barrier contraception is acceptable, abortion isn’t. But we are talking about getting to what is right, and I think the same answer applies. We use modern science to make medicines such as we use to prevent miscarriage, and the Church has recognized there can be a limit to resources so that family planning is necessary. To deny that barrier contraception is acceptable is to risk, or should I say continue, insensitivity to people's real lives. There may be many root causes for Christian women who either use contraceptives or have abortions. I've certainly seen a broad spectrum of speculation on why it is happening, and we need to communicate with each other within our faith. The Church took way too long to change its attitude over slavery. It took (and is still taking) the leadership way too long to take action against sexual predators, an example reported by Tracy Gordon, "Vatican to host global summit on sexual abuse," Religion News Service, Feb. 3, 2012. And it is taking way too long for the leadership to treat women equally.

The diaphragm is not as convenient as the pill, but perhaps if women demanded better methods of barrier contraceptives, they would come about. Yes, there may be some extramarital sex with contraceptives, but my guess is that most of the large percentages of sexually active Catholic women who use contraceptives are trying to deal with the many demands made upon them and the challenges they want to meet successfully. Modern science has brought about contraceptives as they are now. In my opinion, by saying women can't use them at all and that every sex act must be open to reproduction, the Church tried to mandate behavior in a way that drove many women away from the Church itself rather than help them cope with real life. We must be respectful of all life. The divide between what bishops are saying and millions of Catholic women are doing does not go unnoticed by the general public. That is a detriment to our unity and witness, both of which are critical to evangelization.

Joe Paterno, 1926-2012

Now that former Penn State coach Joe Paterno passed away (1-22-2012), I want to add a few thoughts to the ones I've given right after the scandal at Penn State broke out in November of last year (link to ESPN coverage HERE). This involved sexual molestation charges against a former assistant coach who was still using Penn State facilities but had resigned several years earlier. A witness told Joe about it, who then told his boss, the athletic director. However, nothing happened for a long time, and when the details finally broke in the media, the public was furious. In the end, the University president, the athletic director and Joe Paterno were all fired from their jobs.

Many think Joe was treated badly by the University Board, citing all the good he had done, not only in winning football games, but contributing money and encouraging education. But others agreed with the Board's actions.

Paterno had offered to retire at the end of the season. At the time, I felt Paterno should be fired, but after thinking about it, perhaps the board should have come to him. They might have said, retire immediately, not at the end of the season, and we won't fire you. The transition would not have been perfect, but it might have acknowledged all the good Joe had done in the past. No one would have forgotten why Joe left when he did.

Paterno himself had said about the scandal that he wished he had done more. In his last interview, he said he didn't know what to do about the situation. I believe that, and hindsight, as they say, is 20-20. Life can be complicated, and often we try to get away with things by ignoring them. Sometimes that works (we don't get in immediate trouble, that is), and sometimes it doesn't. Unfortunately, other people may be getting hurt by our inaction. I am thinking beyond the case at Penn State. Don't many of us ignore hunger in other countries and even our own? What about earthquake victims who still don't have homes? We might say it is too overwhelming and we can't fix everything. Even when we give, it is still not enough. Yet how much do we accumulate for ourselves that we don't really need?

The main point is that people can be very highly regarded, and even for good reason. They may raise a great deal of funds for good causes, and influence young people for good. Yet they are not perfect. No person on Earth, no matter how great his or her acts, has been perfect except One. Joe couldn't earn his way to heaven, nor can I.

What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. Romans 3:27 (NABRE).

We have been redeemed by our Lord Jesus Christ so that if we believe in Him, we may enter His kingdom. That puts us on the same field, but we're not just playing a game.