Adopt a Catholic Seminarian

Ten years ago, I would never have guessed I would be on Facebook- and not only every now and then, but daily. The internet age has provided us a way to communicate with others all over the world. When I first joined Facebook I assumed it would be a way to see family pictures of grandkids and that's about all. But I have found many fellow Catholics who share my love of our Church on that site. There are also countless pages dedicated to our faith. It was in February of this year that I saw a post from one of those pages with several comments from others. One comment caught my attention and I "liked" the comment. It was posted by a young seminarian in Uganda, and that day we became friends. We started communicating frequently and I learned a lot within a few weeks. Uganda is an extremely poor country where the average income is a dollar a day. Very few families have electricity or plumbing in their homes. The country is mostly Catholic, and families raise their children in the faith starting at a very young age. Many vocations to the priesthood are the result of frequent, usually daily, family mass attendance. However, seminary education is about 10 years of formation. It is not free, although very reasonable in cost compared to America. Families struggle to assist their sons, and some cannot pay. My new friend had been in seminary for several years and "cost sharing" had more than doubled recently. It was doubtful his family would be able to pay the higher cost. I decided to become his sponsor/benefactor. Since that time, I have gotten to know my young friend very well. We have used Skype several times and I was able to see him, other seminarians and the seminary where he studies. I have seen his family and talked to them. I have learned some of his language called Luo- just a few phrases but enough that his mother (who speaks no English) could understand me. I am so happy to assist him to reach the priesthood! He will be a fine priest in a few years. I hope to travel to Uganda for his ordination. I knew there were many more seminarians needing assistance, so I decided to start a page on Facebook called "Adopt a Catholic Seminarian." I posted pictures and a short description of others needing help. I currently have 7 young men listed, and 3 have received offers of partial assistance. There will be more listed as I know of them. The page just serves as a way to introduce the young men to those who may be able to assist. I suggest getting to know each other first. The cost sharing amount is $250 per semester which averages less than $50 a month. A sponsor can pay all or part of that- any help is greatly appreciated! Any funds are sent directly to the seminarian or to the rector at his seminary. Do you wonder what you can do to promote the Catholic faith? This is one way to do just that, and it is very rewarding. Please send a message to the "Adopt a Catholic Seminarian" page and I am glad to answer any questions. https://www.facebook.com/AdoptACatholicSeminarian

Setting Priorities

I don't have a huge amount of friends of Facebook- less than 300- but it occurred to me that many of my posts may irritate some people. I can imagine some of the thoughts- "is that all she ever posts about?"- "another post about religion"- "she has a holier-than-thou attitude." I admit, most of my posts focus on one thing. But we all post about what is important to us, and a relationship with God is at the top of my list. I do not claim to have the life of a saint! Far from it! But every day I cannot help but focus on that truth. It just is part of me, and comes to my mind constantly. It hasn't always been that way- something changed in me about 10 years ago. Before then, my life didn't include God much. I didn't particularly care about going to weekly mass. Outside of mass I never gave a thought to God. He was there, but in the background. I figured I could put Him off and concentrate on the "important" things. So what is important? Our family, friends, homes, jobs, health, wealth? Yes, to a degree! But our priorities need to look beyond and see the ONLY thing that truly matters! I recently saw a post about Joel Osteen, a wealthy television evangelist who preaches that God wants us to be wealthy. That may be true, but He expects us to use that wealth in ways other than buying multiple homes, private jets, and living like a king. If you are blessed with excess money, share it with those in need. If you don't have a lot of excess money, share as much as you can. I certainly am not rich, but I can look around and see excess in my life. What do I really need in this life? I need a relationship with the God who created me, because in the end, as Mother Teresa once said, it isn't about you and them, it's about you and God. Yes, I am Catholic and firmly believe in our faith. I depend on the sacramental gifts received there, especially the Eucharist. I wish all protestants knew of the joy and strength it provides! If you cannot accept those beliefs and choose to ignore the greatest gift given to us, so be it. I am quite well aware that there are many with a true love of the Lord in other denominations. But all need to have a relationship with God! Get out of the rut that keeps you from knowing Him. Everything you have is a temporary gift which will not last. Our lives are so short and can end at any time. I may have 30 years left, and I may have 30 days. God, help me to see past the clutter I have piled around myself, which blocks my view of You!

How much do we give to God? Something to think about

THE EXAMPLE SET US BY THE HOLY FATHERS CONSIDER the lively examples set us by the saints, who possessed the light of true perfection and religion, and you will see how little, how nearly nothing, we do. What, alas, is our life, compared with theirs? The saints and friends of Christ served the Lord in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness, in work and fatigue, in vigils and fasts, in prayers and holy meditations, in persecutions and many afflictions. How many and severe were the trials they suffered -- the Apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins, and all the rest who willed to follow in the footsteps of Christ! They hated their lives on earth that they might have life in eternity. How strict and detached were the lives the holy hermits led in the desert! What long and grave temptations they suffered! How often were they beset by the enemy! What frequent and ardent prayers they offered to God! What rigorous fasts they observed! How great their zeal and their love for spiritual perfection! How brave the fight they waged to master their evil habits! What pure and straightforward purpose they showed toward God! By day they labored and by night they spent themselves in long prayers. Even at work they did not cease from mental prayer. They used all their time profitably; every hour seemed too short for serving God, and in the great sweetness of contemplation, they forgot even their bodily needs. They renounced all riches, dignities, honors, friends, and associates. They desired nothing of the world. They scarcely allowed themselves the necessities of life, and the service of the body, even when necessary, was irksome to them. They were poor in earthly things but rich in grace and virtue. Outwardly destitute, inwardly they were full of grace and divine consolation. Strangers to the world, they were close and intimate friends of God. To themselves they seemed as nothing, and they were despised by the world, but in the eyes of God they were precious and beloved. They lived in true humility and simple obedience; they walked in charity and patience, making progress daily on the pathway of spiritual life and obtaining great favor with God. They were given as an example for all religious, and their power to stimulate us to perfection ought to be greater than that of the lukewarm to tempt us to laxity. How great was the fervor of all religious in the beginning of their holy institution! How great their devotion in prayer and their rivalry for virtue! What splendid discipline flourished among them! What great reverence and obedience in all things under the rule of a superior! The footsteps they left behind still bear witness that they indeed were holy and perfect men who fought bravely and conquered the world. Today, he who is not a transgressor and who can bear patiently the duties which he has taken upon himself is considered great. How lukewarm and negligent we are! We lose our original fervor very quickly and we even become weary of life from laziness! Do not you, who have seen so many examples of the devout, fall asleep in the pursuit of virtue! The Imitation of Christ Thomas à Kempis The Eighteenth Chapter

The Divinity of Christ

The doctrine of Christ's divinity is the central Christian doctrine, for it is like a skeleton key that opens all the others. Christians have not independently reasoned out and tested each of the teachings of Christ received via Bible and Church, but believe them all on his authority. For if Christ is divine, He can be trusted to be infallible in everything He said, even hard things like exalting suffering and poverty, forbidding divorce, giving his Church the authority to teach and forgive sins in his name, warning about hell (very often and very seriously), instituting the scandalous sacrament of eating his flesh—we often forget how many "hard sayings" he taught! When the first Christian apologists began to give a reason for the faith that was in them to unbelievers, this doctrine of Christ's divinity naturally came under attack, for it was almost as incredible to Gentiles as it was scandalous to Jews. That a man who was born out of a woman's womb and died on a cross, a man who got tired and hungry and angry and agitated and wept at his friend's tomb, that this man who got dirt under his fingernails should be God was, quite simply, the most astonishing, incredible, crazy-sounding idea that had ever entered the mind of man in all human history. Christ was either God or a bad man. The argument the early apologists used to defend this apparently indefensible doctrine has become a classic one. C.S. Lewis used it often, e.g. in Mere Christianity, the book that convinced Chuck Colson (and thousands of others). I once spent half a book (Between Heaven and Hell) on this one argument alone. It is the most important argument in Christian apologetics, for once an unbeliever accepts the conclusion of this argument (that Christ is divine), everything else in the Faith follows, not only intellectually (Christ's teachings must all then be true) but also personally (if Christ is God, He is also your total Lord and Savior). The argument, like all effective arguments, is extremely simple: Christ was either God or a bad man. Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic. For he claimed to be God. He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God's own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush. Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God. He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?) Now what would we think of a person who went around making these claims today? Certainly not that he was a good man or a sage. There are only two possibilities: he either speaks the truth or not. If he speaks the truth, he is God and the case is closed. We must believe him and worship him. If he does not speak the truth, then he is not God but a mere man. But a mere man who wants you to worship him as God is not a good man. He is a very bad man indeed, either morally or intellectually. If he knows that he is not God, then he is morally bad, a liar trying deliberately to deceive you into blasphemy. If he does not know that he is not God, if he sincerely thinks he is God, then he is intellectually bad—in fact, insane. The strength of this argument is that it is not merely a logical argument about concepts; it is about Jesus. It invites people to read the Gospels and get to know this man. A measure of your insanity is the size of the gap between what you think you are and what you really are. If I think I am the greatest philosopher in America, I am only an arrogant fool; if I think I am Napoleon, I am probably over the edge; if I think I am a butterfly, I am fully embarked from the sunny shores of sanity. But if I think I am God, I am even more insane because the gap between anything finite and the infinite God is even greater than the gap between any two finite things, even a man and a butterfly. Josh McDowell summarized the argument simply and memorably in the trilemma "Lord, liar, or lunatic?" Those are the only options. Well, then, why not liar or lunatic? But almost no one who has read the Gospels can honestly and seriously consider that option. The savviness, the canniness, the human wisdom, the attractiveness of Jesus emerge from the Gospels with unavoidable force to any but the most hardened and prejudiced reader. Compare Jesus with liars like the Reverend Sun Myung Moon or lunatics like the dying Nietzsche. Jesus has in abundance precisely those three qualities that liars and lunatics most conspicuously lack: His practical wisdom, his ability to read human hearts, to understand people and the real, unspoken question behind their words, his ability to heal people's spirits as well as their bodies; His deep and winning love, his passionate compassion, his ability to attract people and make them feel at home and forgiven, his authority, "not as the scribes"; and above all His ability to astonish, his unpredictability, his creativity. Liars and lunatics are all so dull and predictable! No one who knows both the Gospels and human beings can seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, a bad man. No, the unbeliever almost always believes that Jesus was a good man, a prophet, a sage. Well then, if he was a sage, you can trust him and believe the essential things he says. And the essential thing he says is that he is the divine Savior of the world and that you must come to him for salvation. If he is a sage, you must accept his essential teaching as true. If his teaching is false, then he is not a sage. The strength of this argument is that it is not merely a logical argument about concepts; it is about Jesus. It invites people to read the Gospels and get to know this man. The premise of the argument is the character of Jesus, the human nature of Jesus. The argument has its feet on the earth. But it takes you to heaven, like Jacob's ladder (which Jesus said meant him: Gen 28:12; Jn 1:51). Each rung follows and holds together. The argument is logically airtight; there is simply no way out. What, then, do people say when confronted with this argument? Often, they simply confess their prejudices: "Oh, I just can't believe that!" (But if it has been proved to be true, you must believe it if you really seek the truth!) Sometimes, they go away, like many of Jesus' contemporaries, wondering and shaking their heads and thinking. That is perhaps the very best result you can hope for. The ground has been softened up and plowed. The seed has been sown. God will give the increase. But if they know some modern theology, they have one of two escapes. Theology has an escape; common sense does not. Common sense is easily convertible. It is the theologians, now as then, who are the hardest to convert. The first escape is the attack of the Scripture "scholars" on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Perhaps Jesus never claimed to be divine. Perhaps all the embarrassing passages were inventions of the early Church (say "Christian community"—it sounds nicer). In that case, who invented traditional Christianity if not Christ? A lie, like a truth, must originate somewhere. Peter? The twelve? The next generation? What was the motive of whoever first invented the myth (euphemism for lie)? What did they get out of this elaborate, blasphemous hoax? For it must have been a deliberate lie, not a sincere confusion. No Jew confuses Creator with creature, God with man. And no man confuses a dead body with a resurrected, living one. Here is what they got out of their hoax. Their friends and families scorned them. Their social standing, possessions, and political privileges were stolen from them by both Jews and Romans. They were persecuted, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, exiled, crucified, eaten by lions, and cut to pieces by gladiators. So some silly Jews invented the whole elaborate, incredible lie of Christianity for absolutely no reason, and millions of Gentiles believed it, devoted their lives to it, and died for it—for no reason. It was only a fantastic practical joke, a hoax. Yes, there is a hoax indeed, but the perpetrators of it are the twentieth-century theologians, not the Gospel writers. The second escape (notice how eager we are to squirm out of the arms of God like a greased pig) is to Orientalize Jesus, to interpret him not as the unique God-man but as one of many mystics or "adepts" who realized his own inner divinity just as a typical Hindu mystic does. This theory takes the teeth out of his claim to divinity, for he only realized that everyone is divine. The problem with that theory is simply that Jesus was not a Hindu but a Jew! When he said "God", neither he nor his hearers meant Brahman, the impersonal, pantheistic, immanent all; he meant Yahweh, the personal, theistic, transcendent Creator. It is utterly unhistorical to see Jesus as a mystic, a Jewish guru. He taught prayer, not meditation. His God is a person, not a pudding. He said he was God but not that everyone was. He taught sin and forgiveness, as no guru does. He said nothing about the "illusion" of individuality, as the mystics do. Attack each of these evasions—Jesus as the good man. Jesus as the lunatic, Jesus as the liar, Jesus as the man who never claimed divinity, Jesus as the mystic—take away these flight squares, and there is only one square left for the unbeliever's king to move to. And on that square waits checkmate. And a joyous mating it is. The whole argument is really a wedding invitation. ~Peter Kreeft

And then there was one

At mass last week, during the homily our priest talked about life as a journey. We have many people that are with us during the journey- friends and relatives, spouse, children- as well as countless people we will encounter but never know their name. We get very used to our lives being filled with other people. Most of us don't want to be alone. We like noise- TV, radio, crowded restaurants, movie theaters- it makes us feel somehow alive and connected to life. If we don't have plans to go somewhere on the weekend, we complain that we're bored. It is hard for us to deal with time alone, and we feel lonely and left out when not surrounded by people. It occurred to me that no matter how much noise or how many people we surround ourselves with, at some point we WILL be alone. Totally, achingly alone. It won't matter how important we have been, how much money we make, or how many friends we have. We all will experience dying alone, by ourselves. Sure, there may be others around us at that time. But the instant we take our last breath, we are on our own to face our creator. There will be no supportive friends or relatives- just us alone, face to face with God. What an odd concept for such a noisy, busy world! It's coming to us all, at an unknown time. Just you and me, God. What will I say to you? What will you say to me?

Abortion: A Woman's Right/A Baby's Death

The HHS Mandate prompts me to post this, as well as those who continue to push for "women's rights." I haven't posted on this page for a long time but thought everyone should know what abortion actually is. This is graphic stuff. How is a suction (vacuum) aspiration abortion performed? Suction aspiration, the most common abortion method, is typically performed when the fetus is 6-12 weeks, but can be used up to 16 weeks.  The cervix is dilated, and a hollow plastic tube with a sharp tip is inserted into the cervix and then into the uterus.  An aspirator attached to the tube tears the body of the fetus apart and suctions the pieces through the tube. Source: Willke, John, MD and Barbara Willke. 2003. Abortion: Questions & Answers. Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Company. How is a D&C Abortion Performed? In a D&C (dilation and curettage) abortion, typically performed in the first trimester, a curette (a sharp looped knife) is inserted into the uterus to scrape its walls.  The curette is then used to dismember the fetus and placenta. Source: Willke, John, MD and Barbara Willke. 2003. Abortion: Questions & Answers. Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Company. How is an Intracardiac Injection Abortion Performed? In an intracardiac abortion, a needle is guided into the fetus’ heart with the aid of ultrasound, and poison (often potassium chloride or digoxin) is injected, causing an immediate heart attack.  Intracardiac injection is most commonly used for “pregnancy reduction” abortions following in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures, if multiple embryos were implanted to increase the likelihood of pregnancy.  In these cases, the procedure is typically performed between 10 and 12 weeks gestation.Intracardiac injection is also used in late term abortions when there is likelihood of delivering a live baby, in order to avoid state laws that would require the baby to be resuscitated and given medical care. Sources: Clowes, Brian, PhD. 2001. The Facts of Life. Front Royal: Human Life International. Jain, John K. and Daniel R. Mishell, Jr. 2001, February. Misoprostol regimens for termination of second trimester pregnancy, Human Reproduction, 16(2).abortion  facts How is a D&X or “Partial Birth” Abortion Performed? A D&X (dilation and extraction) or partial-birth abortion is typically performed in the late second or third trimester.  As with a D&E abortion (see above), the cervix must first be dilated, usually with laminaria (dried seaweed sticks).  Forceps are then inserted into the uterus to grasp the fetus’ legs.  The fetus is delivered breech while the head remains inside the birth canal.  Using blunt-tipped surgical scissors, the base of the skull is pierced, and a suction catheter is inserted to extract the contents of the skull.  This causes the skull to collapse, and the dead fetus is then fully delivered. Despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2007, D&X abortions are still being performed.  An abortionist can avoid violating the law by first injecting the fetus with a lethal intracardiac injection to ensure that the fetus will already be dead when it is partially delivered. Sources: Goldberg, Carey. 2007. Shots assist in aborting fetuses. Boston Globe, August 10, Health and Fitness section. Willke, John, MD and Barbara. 2003. Abortion: Questions & Answers. Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Company. How is a D&E Abortion Performed? A D&E (dilation and evacuation) abortion is typically performed in the first half of the second trimester (13-20 weeks), but can be used up to approximately 28 weeks.  At this stage of pregnancy, the fetus’ tendons, muscles, and bones are more developed.  In a D&E abortion, forceps are inserted into the uterus to forcibly dismember the fetus, and the pieces are removed one by one. Larger fetuses must also have their skulls crushed so the pieces can pass through the cervix. Typically, the cervix must be dilated for a period of one to three days prior to a D&E abortion.  This is most often done by inserting laminaria (dried seaweed sticks) into the cervix.  Therefore, a D&E abortion usually requires two visits to the abortion facility. Source: Clowes, Brian, PhD. 2001. The Facts of Life. Front Royal: Human Life International. How is an Instillation (Saline) Abortion Performed? In a saline abortion, amniotic fluid is removed from the uterus and replaced with a saline solution, which the fetus swallows.  The fetus is killed by salt poisoning, dehydration, brain hemorrhage and convulsions. Saline abortions, typically performed in the second and early third trimester, are rarely used today, due to the risk of particularly serious health complications to the woman. Source: Clowes, Brian, PhD. 2001. The Facts of Life. Front Royal: Human Life International. How is a Prostaglandin Abortion Performed? In a prostaglandin abortion, a dose of prostaglandin hormones is injected into the uterine muscle, which induces violent labor resulting in the death of the fetus.  Prostaglandin abortions, typically performed in the second and early third trimester, are rarely used today, due to the relatively high chance that the fetus will survive the abortion and be born alive. Source: Clowes, Brian, PhD. 2001. The Facts of Life. Front Royal: Human Life International. How is a Chemical (Medical) Abortion Performed? In a chemical abortion, also called a medical abortion, a woman is administered an abortifacient compound called mifepristone (also called RU-486 or Mifeprex). Mifepristone blocks the action of progesterone, the natural hormone vital to maintaining the lining of the uterus. As the nutrient lining disintegrates, the embryo starves.  Subsequently, the woman takes a dose of artificial prostaglandins which initiate uterine contractions and cause the embryo to be expelled from the uterus.  Abortions by mifepristone are usually done prior to 49 days gestation. Read more: Abortion Facts - Abortion Facts http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts/#ixzz22QoPnrpx

Upon this Rock I will build my church(es?)

I was driving down the road the other day and had to turn around and get a picture of this sign (click on the picture for a larger image). I had to chuckle when i thought how silly such denominationalism is — and the series of infighting and splits that must have brought this name about.

Think about it! Christians were first called Christians in Antioch in Acts 11:26. Jesus used the word Church in Matthew 16 and 18. From the 1st century, Christian communities were referred to as Catholic — the Catholic Church, as can be seen as early as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch. And Catholic it from then on. 

Then in the 16th century, Luther came along and broke with the Catholic Church and decided to ditch the name. His group became known as Lutheran. Then a large group broke away from Luther and his new denomination because they rejected the infant baptism of Catholics and Lutherans. They were called Anabaptists — “ana” meaning again — baptizing again.

This group was obviously spawned from the break with Luther in the 16th century (see my article on Baptist Successionism). They eventually shortened the name from Anabaptists to simply Baptists.

Then someone decided to start their own little church within the Baptist tradition when they began to send missionaries around the world — usually to convert Catholics. Their parent group of Baptists must not have been sending missionaries. It was worthy of a split. They must have set themselves apart and taken the name MISSIONARY Baptist Church.

But what happened then? Maybe the Missionary Baptist Church got old fashioned and stoggy and so there was another split and the Progressives started their own denomination. They happily called themselves the PROGRESSIVE Missionary Baptist Church.

But the Progressives started infighting about something or other and finally a group of elders or deacons rose up and split off again and started a new group down the street named the NEW Progressive Missionary Baptist Church.

Now what? Who knows! Tomorrow they may split again and make the FIRST New Progressive Missionary Baptist Church and the Second. And then it will probably split again into the NEWEST First New Progressive Missionary Baptist Church or the Holy First New Progressive Missionary Baptist Church. And then we will add multiple sects to the already 33,000 Protestant denominations.

Or maybe they will just chuck it all and call themselves the First Baptist Church and start all over again.

And probably, as actually happenings hundreds of times a day, many will leave these sects and return to the REAL First Missionary Church which understands true baptism and is always progressive. I happen to be speaking of the Catholic Church!

Man, am I ever glad that I left that nonsense and became a Catholic. I think the first name of the Church was the best — and the first teaching as well.

(Shared from Steve Ray's blog. If the picture didn't show up, it was of a church sign for the New PROGRESSIVE Missionary Baptist Church)