Devin and I prayed a novena in preparation for Pentecost, asking the Holy Spirit to give us His seven gifts in an even deeper way, and I was joyfully expectant of a wonderfully joyous Pentecost.  Today, I was too sick to participate in Holy Mass and felt so sad that I would be unable to receive Communion on this most special of feasts.  I had been so eager for Pentecost and now, even though my faith told me that I could receive every grace at home in bed, my heart shriveled in disappointment.

However, like the disciples locked away to whom Christ came, dear Mary Bertha came to me this afternoon, bearing the most Precious Body and Blood of Jesus.  She walked into our home, a dear plump smiling woman and said, “The peace of Christ be with you.”  And, I began to weep.  I had felt so alone and discouraged and here was Christ, come to me in the hands of this sweet woman, to breathe upon me His Holy Spirit.  Dear Mary Bertha gave me the most beautiful mother’s embrace and just let me cry, softly reminding me that I am part of the body of Christ, and, today, the body of Christ was reaching out to me.  She read from the Gospel of John about Pentecost and offered a short reflection, then gave to me Christ in Communion.

Oh, Christ, how good you are.  So humble, to allow yourself, under the appearance of bread, to be borne in the hands of a mortal woman and given to another woman, sinful and so small.  So faithful, to repeatedly seek us out, even when we are locked away at home.  So mighty, to breathe upon us anew with Your Fire of Love, we who time and again refuse to live fully the life of grace that is our birthright as adopted sons and daughters.

Thank you for Mary Bertha, your image and your herald today.

You have probably read about it by now, that George Tiller was murdered.

May God have mercy on his soul, and may God bring to justice, repentance, and salvation the man who murdered him.

This murder is so horrible for so many reasons.  Firstly, because George Tiller was given life by God and Christ redeemed his life on the Cross; God had not decided that Mr. Tiller should die at this time.  Secondly, because he was murdered while in church.  Thirdly, because this horrific act helps the abortion industry and its very confused supporters, giving them more supposed evidence of how “anti-abortion” people can be violent.

Every pro-life person, especially those in prominent positions, should unilaterally condemn this evil action.

I’m still hoping that goats go to Heaven.

Here are pictures of the boys at Sweet Berry Farms:

During a recent conversation with a Christian friend from another Ecclesial Community ["denomination"], he brought up a point that I have been thinking a bit about lately.  He and I were discussing various differences in doctrines between the Catholic Church and his Community, and he hinted that his own extended family would not and perhaps could never understand these often subtle differences in doctrine and arguments about these differences and therefore would not leave the Community they were brought up in because “it’s all they have ever known”.

I agree.  We each have been given talents by God, and some of us have more than others.  I often read scholarly articles or theological dialogue, and the writing and ideas are over my head.  I can just barely understand what they are saying, much less do I understand it so well that I can make a decision about whether one or the other is correct.  An example would be some articles on Called to Communion about differences between Luther, Calvin, and St. Thomas Aquinas concerning justification or original sin or some other important area of the faith.

Others have deeper learning and wisdom and gifts in these areas and can understand them.  I don’t doubt that Luther and Calvin (and of course Aquinas) were more intelligent than I am and much more learned in these matters.

Others also have even less understanding and intellectual gifts than I possess, and they might have a difficult time sorting through the arguments that I make, even though they appear clear to me.

The document from Vatican II that discusses some of these points is the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio.  Here is an important passage from that document:

3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

Emphasis mine.  Children born into these Ecclesial Communities are, for example, all or most Protestants that are living today: Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, churches of Christ, Brethren, all the Pentecostals, etc.  They are not culpable for the sin involved in the separation (schism) from the Church.

Luther himself, in one of his writings about baptism in his catechism, mentioned that lay people shouldn’t try to figure out all these deep questions about what baptism does or doesn’t do and should just leave it to wise and learned people like him to figure out.  And I to a large degree agree with him!  I can’t of my own scholarship (short of a special private revelation from God, which I have not received) figure out whether transubstantiation, sacramental union, or consubstantiation is true about the Eucharist.  Jesus said “This is my body” and not to be trite, but it really does depend on what the definition of “is” is.  Luther, Calvin, Zwingli all differed from one another about this important teaching, and all differed with the Church on it.  Who is right?  Can I solve it myself by reading everything they wrote?  Perhaps, but probably not.  Better to discern which of them, including the Catholic Church, have authority from God and then follow the one who does in this teaching as well.

The document continues:

The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

This exactly speaks to the question I blogged about yesterday about priestly celibacy being a barrier to unity.  Priestly celibacy is a “discipline” spoken about in the first sentence above.  And it can cause obstacles to unity which we must overcome, not necessarily by doing away with the discipline however.

How does the Catholic Church view these Communities and Churches?

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

As you see, the Church views them with great respect and recognizes that the Holy Spirit, in spite of the disunity, works through them in God’s plan of salvation.  However, we are still called to unity.

And that means that each of us, according to the gifts we have been given by God, must seek that unity that Christ called for.  I believe that our Lord makes it possible for everyone to come to the fullness of the truth and to salvation.  So even someone who is not that intelligent will be given grace that is perfect for him to see what he needs to see in this regard.

Still, it is up to each of us to make the concerted effort to explore, learn, study, pray, read, and dialogue with others to discover why and how we are separated in our Christian faith, and then, by God’s grace, strive to overcome those obstacles to unity through charitable disccussion and collaboration.

May Christ graciously bless you on Pentecost Sunday!

I listened to a podcast today from a Baptist blogger called the Internet Monk, and one of the topics he talked about was priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church.  Specifically, he thinks a requirement of priestly celibacy is a big mistake, not from God, and unbiblical.

Michael Spencer is the man behind Internet Monk; here is part of his bio to get an idea of his background:

He describes himself as a New Covenant, Reformation-loving Christian in search of a Jesus shaped spirituality. He has great appreciation for the ancient church, missions, Christian community and theological underdogs. Michael could be described as a libertarian-leaning conservative politically and an adventurous pilgrim theologically. He owes a lot to Baptists, the Apostles’ Creed, Raymond Brown, Ed Beavins, Eugene Peterson, Robert Capon, C.S. Lewis, the Gospel of Mark, Michael Horton, N.T. Wright, Shakespeare, his Dad, several pastors and always Martin Luther.

In the podcast, Spencer says that requiring priestly celibacy hinders Christian unity because it is a big stumbling block for Protestants who feel called to be ministers.  He realizes that not all priests are celibate as some are married clergy from other Christian communities who then become Catholic and become married priests, but most are and if you are a (Latin rite) Catholic and want to become a priest, you must not be married.  Spencer set up the discussion with a reference to Father Cutie, the priest who recently left the priesthood and the Catholic Church after it was discovered that he had been having relations with a woman.

I responded to this podcast post on his site with some questions that challenged his assertion that priestly celibacy is unbiblical, and he responded, if tersely:

Devin:

1) The New Testament doesn’t teach celibacy as a requirement for clergy. Whatever Matt 19 is about- which is unclear- it isn’t about requirements for clergy.

2) There’s no New Testament epistle describing the requirements for ministry that require celibacy. Actually, there is a strong case that a man MUST be married. (A case that is offset by the fact Jesus wasn’t and Paul wasn’t at the time he wrote.)

3) There is no papacy or magisterium to declare celibacy to be a requirement based on tradition outside of scripture.

Others have commented as well, and I was planning to respond again, but for some reason I couldn’t comment last night on his blog (it didn’t show the comment box) but also my comment would be too long (he wants people to keep them short for readability’s sake), so I figured I would just make a blog post on myne owne blog with some thoughts.

In case you haven’t memorized Matthew’s gospel, here is Matthew 19:1-12:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,    and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Others translate the phrase about men making themselves eunuchs as “renounced marriage” for the sake of the kingdom.  Spencer thinks that this passage is unclear but that it is not about requiring clergy to be celibate.

Why should this passage be unclear?  I would think that Jesus would intend for his apostles and us to understand it, since He said it, and it was also recorded in the sacred Scriptures.  He even says “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it”, echoing his statement from just a few verses prior when he affirms the truth of marriage.  Clearly Jesus intends at least some people to not only understand what He is saying but to also follow it!

Now, perhaps Jesus explained this statement to His apostles afterwards, as we know that He sometimes did (e.g. the parables), but in this case if He did explain it, we do not have it recorded in the sacred Scriptures.  So let’s look to sacred Tradition, the apostolic Tradition, to discover what this passage means.

St. Gregory Nazianzen on Matthew 19:

X. Marriage is honourable; but I cannot say that it is more lofty than virginity; for virginity were no great thing if it were not better than a good thing. Do not however be angry, you women that are subject to the yoke. We must obey God rather than man. But be ye bound together, both virgins and wives, and be one in the Lord, and each others’ adornment. There would be no celibate if there were no marriage. For whence would the virgin have passed into this life? Marriage would not have been venerable unless it had borne virgin fruit to God and to life. Honour thou also your mother, of whom you were born. Honour thou also her who is of a mother and is a mother.  A mother she is not, but a Bride of Christ she is. The visible beauty is not hidden, but that which is unseen is visible to God. All the glory of the King’s Daughter is within,  clothed with golden fringes, embroidered whether by actions or by contemplation. And she who is under the yoke, let her also in some degree be Christ’s; and the virgin altogether Christ’s. Let the one be not entirely chained to the world, Luke 8:14 and let the other not belong to the world at all. For that which is a part to the yoked, is to the virgin all in all. Have you chosen the life of Angels? Are you ranked among the unyoked? Sink not down to the flesh; sink not down to matter; be not wedded to matter, while otherwise you remain unwedded. A lascivious eye guards not virginity; a meretricious tongue mingles with the Evil One; feet that walk disorderly accuse of disease or danger. Let the mind also be virgin; let it not rove about; let it not wander; let it not carry in itself forms of evil things (for the form is a part of harlotry); let it not make idols in its soul of hateful things.

XI. But He said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Do you see the sublimity of the matter? It is found to be nearly incomprehensible. For surely it is more than carnal that that which is born of flesh should not beget to the flesh. Surely it isAngelic that she who is bound to flesh should live not according to flesh, but be loftier than her nature. The flesh bound her to the world, but reason led her up to God. The flesh weighed her down, but reason gave her wings; the flesh bound her, but desire loosed her. With your whole soul, O Virgin, be intent upon God (I give this same injunction to men and to women); and do not take the same view in other respects of what is honourable as the mass of men do; of family, of wealth, of throne, of dynasty, of that beauty which shows itself in complexion and composition of members, the plaything of time and disease. If you have poured out upon God the whole of your love; if you have not two objects of desire, both the passing and the abiding, both the visible and the invisible, then you have been so pierced by the arrow ofelection, and hast so learned the beauty of the Bridegroom, that you too canst say with the bridal drama and song, you are sweetness and altogether loveliness.

St. Jerome and St. Hilary (as well as St. John Chrysostom) on Matthew 19:

JEROME; He speaks of three kinds of eunuchs, of whom two are carnal, and one spiritual. One, those who are so born of their mother’s womb; another, those whom enemies or courtly luxury has made so; a third, those who have made themselves so for the kingdom of heaven, and who he might have been men, but become eunuchs for Christ. To them the reward is promised, for to the others whose continence was involuntary, nothing is due.

HILARY; The cause in one item he assigns nature; in the next violence, and in the last his own choice, in him, namely, that determined to be so from hope of the kingdom of heaven.

JEROME; Or we may say otherwise. The eunuchs from their mothers’ wombs are they whose nature is colder, and not prone to lust. And they that are made so of men are they whom physicians made so, or they whom worship of idols has made effeminate, or who from the influence of heretical teaching pretend to chastity, that they may thereupon claim truth for their tenets. But none of them obtain the kingdom of heaven, save he only who has become a eunuch for Christ’s sake. Whence it follows, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it; let each calculate his own strength, whether he is able to fulfill the rules of virginity and abstinence. For in itself continence is sweet and alluring, but each man must consider his strength, that he only that is able may receive it. This is the voice of the Lord exhorting and encouraging on His soldiers to the reward of chastity, that he who can fight might fight and conquer and triumph.

We see from these Fathers of the Church that Christ is teaching about virginity for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven in this passage.  While I agree that nowhere is it explicitly commanded that all priests be celibate (and there are married priests serving the Church), there exists compelling testimony here to know that this passage is not unclear at all, and we have only drawn on three Church Fathers’ writings on it.  Virginity for the Kingdom is commended, and from early on in the Church we see women and men who consecrated themselves to God for the sake of the Kingdom as nuns and monks.  St. Paul, as Spencer points out, was celibate as far as we know and commends virginity for the sake of the Kingdom.

It is fitting that recently we have been discussing John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, because JPII develops the theology behind celibacy for the Kingdom and its relationship with marriage and the eschatological virginity of the risen human person beautifully.  JPII links Jesus stunning reply to the Sadduccees on marriage  (Matthew 22:23-30, Mark 12:18-25, Luke 20:27-36) “At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven” with this very passage in Matthew 19:1-12 (which occurred prior to the meeting with the Sadduccees) with St. Paul’s commendation of virginity for the Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 7!  I would quote the entire chapter from the Theology of the Body if I could, but you will have to buy the book yourself and read it, in the chapter (collection of audiences) about “Virginity for the Sake of the Kingdom”.

A few excerpts:

Continence for the kingdom of heaven is a witness among men that anticipates the future resurrection.

Only Mary and Joseph, who had lived the mystery of his conception and birth, became the first witnesses of a fruitfulness different from that of the flesh, that is, of a fruitfulness of the Spirit….[their marriage] conceals within itself at the same time, the mystery of the perfect communion of persons, of the man and the woman in the conjugal pact, and also the mystery of that singular continence for the kingdom of heaven.

Christ himself chose continence for the Kingdom, marking a definitive turning point from the practice and understanding of the Jewish people as recorded in the Old Testament, where marriage was the only state of life which was good.  St. Paul followed after Christ in the same way, as have millions of Christians throughout the centuries.

Please buy the Theology of the Body and read this chapter for much more on these awesome truths.

Okay, but Spencer says that requiring clergy to be celibate is a barrier to unity amongst Christians.

I would say, yes it probably is, but that does not mean that we should change it.  Why?  Because it is a teaching from Christ Himself, as I showed above, and we would do well not to abandon it, as the Protestant communities have done.  But one could argue that we could still have celibacy but just not require it, since Christ did say it was good.  If that is the case, then why don’t Protestants have celibate clergy at all?  It is well understood that a Protestant minister needs to get married, and a husband-wife team is the norm.  Sure, there are widows and those not yet married, but with finality renouncing marriage for the Kingdom is not something I have ever heard of in Protestantism today.  I know of  a young man in the Methodist seminary serving at a church who is not yet married and how all of the parishioners are on the lookout for him to find his wife!

This is similar to women’s ordination: Why not let women be ordained to the priesthood, as many Christian ecclesial communities have done, and solve the priest shortage and remove that barrier to unity?  In this case, the Church cannot change this teaching, which is held at a higher level than the discipline of priestly celibacy, but the similar reasoning holds: We can’t change the truth, nor would we want to, in order that other Christians would not have this barrier to unity.

We refuse to lose the gift of celibacy for the Kingdom which the Holy Spirit makes fruitful.

Again, it is like the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, that is, that she was conceived in her mother’s womb and in that moment preserved from original sin by God.  Did God have to do that?  No!  Was it fitting the He do it, that Christ’s mother was never touched by sin nor Satan’s poison?  Yes!  This teaching is a barrier to unity as well.  Should we abandon it?  No!  Granted, this is a dogma of the Church, and not just a discipline.  It cannot change, while requiring priestly celibacy could change.  Nonetheless, why change something that is beautiful and good?

Finally, Spencer uses Fr. Cutie’s infidelity to his priestly vows supposedly as a consequence of celibacy and therefore a condemnation of this practice.  I asked him if men who are unfaithful to their wives are a condemnation of Jesus’ teaching on fidelity in marriage?  He didn’t answer that I don’t think, but the same logic should apply, which shows it is illogical.

Just because a man is not faithful, whether to his vows made to the Church or to a woman in marriage, does not mean that the teaching of Christ about fidelity is false but rather that men can fall to temptation and break their vows.  If a man promises to do some good thing and then does not do it, in whatever area, well that man failed and should repent and turn back to God for help in keeping his promises, not abandon his good promises altogether!

Not all are called to celibacy for the Kingdom: Let the person who can receive this do so, and most are not called to it but are called to marriage.  However, men enter the priesthood and women enter consecrated life with eyes wide open, spending years before making their final vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.  They can leave at any time if they discern they are called to marriage instead.  It is a choice of vocation that God gives us to discern freely, and both vocations are beautiful.

Spread the Gospel even unto the Terminators.  Not a Bible verse, but certain passages could be interpreted to support it!

My friend Kody and I watched Terminator 4, Salvation yesterday; it was a fun movie and fun to hang out watching it.  Kody pulled what I am sure is a first in Terminator movie-watching history by bringing in a copy of Dante’s Inferno to read before the movie began.

I won’t review the movie as you should know already what you are getting if you decide to go watch it by virtue of it being the fourth installment in the Terminator series and by this representative picture:

Doesn't Believe in the Gospel

Kody and I both agreed that the woman watching the movie who sat behind us in the theater summed it up best when the credits began to roll (paraphrased): “You know that wasn’t that bad”.  Talk about damning with faint praise!

Janet Smith has written a good defense of Christopher West, as has Michael Waldstein, who recently finished a full translation in a coherent style of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

I think Mr. West is doing awesome work and that the criticisms of him need to be put in a proper perspective.  There may be some areas where he hasn’t found the perfect words to use that are both intelligible to those who most need to hear it and acceptable by those who have already embraced it wholeheartedly–perhaps such words do not even exist in the English language–but overall his crafting of the Theology of the Body is brilliant and makes it understandable to all.

My first exposure to the TOB was through West’s tapes and one of his books.  By God’s grace, the TOB strengthened me in my fight against impurity and helped me grow in the virtue of chastity by leaps and bounds.  Ultimately I read the entire original TOB (unfortunately Waldstein’s was not yet finished, but the piece-wise translation still gets the points across) as well as various commentaries, summaries, etc., and I think that, like me, many others start with West’s distillations and then move deeper into either other of West’s works or others’ or to JPII’s opus itself.

Hopefully we can continue to encourage West and faithful Catholics like him to keep spreading this awesome truth while also benefitting from constructive criticism as to method, delivery, etc.

I also want to thank all of you sincerely for your kind words, congratulations, and prayers at the announcement of our good news.

I am ecstatic.  This was almost completely unexpected and certainly unlooked-for.  Since we had conceived before, when we lost John Thomas due to miscarriage, we knew that it was possible for us to conceive, but it has been 2 years, and after a while we quit thinking about it, especially with the adoption of the boys progressing these past 6 months.

At the same time, I have been guarded in my excitement and hopes since we have known from the beginning that there is a possibility that we might lose this child, God forbid, so I have not been jumping for joy yet.  Nonetheless, I couldn’t be happier nor more hopeful for this blessing from God.

That this child, along with every new human life, is a gift from God goes without saying, but we feel it all the more so since He has deigned to allow us to suffer from infertility and then, we believe, has led us to adopt before conceiving this child, who, please God, will see the light of this world with her own eyes.

The cross lays heavily both ways: Some couples are blessed with high fertility but struggle with the challenges of (seemingly constant) pregnancies, multiple young children and babies to take care of, etc. and some like us suffer from infertility and long for the gift of conceiving a child and bringing her into the world.  Neither situation is easy, which reaffirms for me the truth that, there is no escaping from the Cross in this world.

As for the challenge of, God willing, having 3 children under 20 months old in our home to love and take care of, I am not afraid and even look forward to it.  No, I am not a glutton for punishment nor do I think it will be easy nor am I so saintly as to laugh in the face of all obstacles, but the fact is that God has given us these children and so He knows what we can handle.  Others have handled more.  Others would long to have the “problems” and challenges that we do.  I still fear many things, but having lots of children is no longer one of them.

I am humbled and so grateful that our Father would give us another child.  This is my vocation: To love my wife Katie and to love our children, bringing them up to know and love their Lord.

May Christ bless you and help you carry your cross, and may you trust in His boundless love for you more and more!

Devin combed the boys’ hair with his pick today, just to see how high it would go.  I’d say they look pretty disco cool.  I’ve been wanting to call them “brotha’” all day and flash them the peace sign.

I took a number of photos and very few turned out well, so here is the best I could do.

The dreaded smile with closed eyes--but Tobias' smile is so sweet and the height of his 'fro is very evident here.

Verdant: a polite way of saying that something is overgrown.

Our garden is very verdant these days.  Our blackberry vine and tomatoes are officially taller than I and the squash vines are now trailing 10 feet over the raised bed out into our lawn.  We have tomato plants leaning on dill which is growing over garlic.  We have squash shading thyme and basil and melon.  We have cucumber vines growing up tomato cages.

Verdant.  I love it.  Contending with weeds is not a problem because there is simply no room for them.  And, after two seasons of failed gardens, we are enjoying the bounty.  We have already eated four squash, one cucumber, and two tomatoes, as well as many blackberries.  We are happy to report that the heirloom squash are very tasty, with a mild sweetness and very small seeds.  The heirloom tomatoes were more acidic than we expected, and the Thai cucumber was great, very mild and sweet.

Happy summertime to you!