September 11 - Twenty Years Ago

Life as you know it can change in an instant. The world can change in an instant. A prime example is September 11. We woke up on that day in one world and we went to bed that night in another. The plans that we had made and the path that we had expected to follow, both as a nation and individually, came to an abrupt end that day, and we were thrown onto a different course.

 

The Lord has warned that such could happen, that such will likely happen to us in our lives. We often will not know the time or the hour of life-changing events or, most especially, life-ending events. And so, we must always be ready, always be prepared, and part of that preparation for the possibility of catastrophic change is not merely stocking up on those things that might be changed or lost in an instant, but by building our lives on rock, on things that last, the eternal things, that is, the Eternal One, rather than building on lives on sand, which are then washed away when the inevitable storm comes, such as the sands of temporal worldly things, worldly wealth, possessions, jobs, health, all of which will one day crumble and turn to dust.

 

With the Lord, in hope, we are already saved. With Him, all things are possible, including perseverance in the face of hardship, peace of heart and mind, love, and even the ability to forgive, rather than retaliate in self-corrosive hate, when that hardship and life-changing event are brought about by evil and wrongs against you.

Eternal and Merciful God, at times of tragedy our intellects seek understanding, our hearts seek healing, and our souls turn to You: our source of hope and solace. Heal our troubled nation as our nation turns its eyes to You and comfort those whose lives are changed forever: those who have perished, those who have lost family, friends or loved ones, and those who now live in the aftermath of these acts of terror. May God bless our national leadership, may God bless our servicemen and women, and may God bless America. Amen.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, let thy protection be upon all those who are in the service of our country; guard them from all harm and danger of body and soul; sustain and comfort those at home, especially in their hours of loneliness, anxiety, and sorrow; prepare the dying for death and the living for your service; give success to our arms on land and sea and in the air; and grant unto us and all nations a speedy, just and lasting peace. Amen.

September 11, 2001. Many of us remember it as if it were yesterday. But also, for many, we experience our own personal September 11 in our personal lives when they are radically ended and our path forever changed by, for example, death of loved ones, illness and/or injury, job loss and inability to obtain other employment, or even the adverse consequences of our own sin and folly. But whether you are an entirely innocent victim or a sinner, the Lord is ready to protect us.

 

Written on Saturday, September 15, 2001: 

 

I drove by the Pentagon today. I decided to go by a condo I saw advertised that is nearby. Luckily, the damage appears to be quite localized to the crash site. I drove down the parkway along the river and then onto the highway that runs past the Pentagon.

 

As I approached, I saw the building, standing as firm and imposing as always. I curved around and the next side of the five-sided building was perfectly fine, but there in the parking lot were countless trucks and trailers. I could see some smoke and smelled food being cooked for the rescuers. There was a McDonald's sign atop one tent.

 

Then, I came around the bend and saw the unmistakable black markings along the exterior from the fire and smoke. Now I could see the crash site, the middle of the building that was rubble.

 

I turned off onto my exit and got on Arlington Ridge Road, on the heights above D.C. On the far east end, there is a hairpin turn and at that end there is a park, what used to be Fort Albany -- a place on the heights where cannon and other guns were placed to protect the city from attack in the Civil War. Here were many people, looking across the highway to the damaged side of the Pentagon. None of them said much of anything. Everyone just staring grimly at the collapsed middle. A few taking pictures.

 

As I said, thankfully, the damage was fairly localized, so I gazed around the city. Being on the heights, I could see a few miles to the spires of the National Cathedral. I could see about six miles in another direction to the dome of the National Shrine at my school Catholic University. The Washington Monument of course loomed over everything.

 

It was a beautiful day and a beautiful city. The one thing I could not see, try though I might, was the White House. Only two stories high, nestled in the trees, perhaps its lack of visibility saved it from being the place of destruction.

 

I had thought about going to a funeral mass for one of the victims this morning at St. Thomas More Cathedral here in Arlington, but my sleep was kind of restless last night and I woke up late. For the first time in the 12 years (so many!) that I've been here, I experienced a bit of personal apprehension for my safety.

 

I've always realized in the abstract that if we ever suffer a missile attack, all I'll ever know of it is a momentary bright flash and that's the last you'll hear of me, but it's never really concerned me. Never once during the Gulf War was I concerned. But late last night, as I was on the computer, I heard this very loud BANG! and then all the power went out. It was a very unusual sound, but last week I would have simply figured someone crashed into a electrical pole or a transformer blew, but this isn't last week. It was a sound I hadn't heard before and, although there is nothing in this neighborhood worth attacking, I was a little jumpy after that. Just to be safe, I reported it to the police. Just in case.

 

So, we all have to be a little more vigilant now that we are at war. A buddy of mine from high school is in the reserves and I expect he'll be one of those called to active duty. Over in the District, the national guard has been deployed. Many street corners have humvees sitting there with soldiers on the sidewalks. I'm glad to see them. Not for my benefit, because except for being startled last night, I'm not too concerned about me getting it, but I do expect further attacks on us.

 

This is war, not merely for some in uniform going to southeast Asia, but for all of us. We all have our part to do and sacrifices to make. It’s entirely possible that we will not be able to all be together this Thanksgiving. I expect we will have positioned our troops and have launched our campaign by then. If so, expect the airports to be shut down again. Even if we have not launched our attack by then, expect the planes to be grounded. Our enemy is perfectly aware that Thanksgiving is the busiest time of the year for air travel and would like nothing more than to kill some more of us.

 

If the planes are flying, as passengers, we'll need to stay alert during the flights and prevent that from happening. If hijacked, we need to emulate the heroes of the plane in Pennsylvania and retake the plane, no matter the cost. As for me, if I'm hijacked and we cannot regain control -- shoot us down. I'll not allow them to make a low-tech missile out of me.

 

At the same time, pray for true peace. Pray for my buddy as he gets activated and sent into battle. Pray for our enemy, that God grant them grace and wisdom to choose peace. Pray for us, that, as we destroy that enemy, that God grant us grace and strength to not hate those He commands us to love, that we kill not for vengeance, but to end the violence and the capacity and will of the enemy to make war on us, until the day we again may live in peace with these children of God.

_____________________ 

 

Added September 11, 2010: 

 

The morning of September 11, 2001, I was at the Arlington Courthouse, waiting for cases to be called in both circuit court and general district court. During a break, I popped down to the clerk's office for something and, while I was there, the phone rang and the clerk answered it. After a moment or two, he told us that a plane had just crashed into the Pentagon, which is about two miles or so to the south.

 

We thought that that was odd, to say the least. National Airport is almost right next to the Pentagon, but still, how could a plane crash into it?

 

I next went up to circuit court, where there was still a break, but the judge was on the bench talking to the clerks and bailiffs, saying that "this is war." Still not comprehending (not knowing anything about New York), I went down to general district court to see if my case down there could be called.

 

A few moments after I entered the courtroom, I saw sheriff's deputies running up to the bench, saying something to the judge. The judge then announced that all the cases were being cancelled and that an evacuation of the building had been ordered for safety reasons. (Apparently this was when there was a plane approaching D.C. (Flight 93). The deputies and police were also needed for mass mobilization to the Pentagon and throughout the area.)

 

Once outside, I talked to one of the prosecutors who said that he had seen a very low-flying plane over in the direction of the Pentagon.

 

As I got into my car to drive home, there was a report on the radio of an attack at the State Department, but that was later determined to be false. There was also talk about an attack on the World Trade Center and something about a collapse or possible collapse. In my mind at the time, I was thinking that they meant some of the facing had come off or something like that.

 

When I got home (about a mile away) and turned on the TV, I don't remember when it was that I first saw that the WTC building or buildings had collapsed entirely. I don't have any recollection of "Oh my God," but I must have had a response of that type. I was definitely stunned enough to not really remember my reaction, considering that I believed at the time that 25-30,000 people had just died, maybe even as high as 50,000 (thank-you Lord for the WTC personnel and firefighters who were able to evacuate the towers so efficiently).

 

After sitting in front of the TV for a few hours, I walked out of the house and went over to Lee Highway, which leads directly to the District. There were long lines of crowds of people walking down the sidewalk, they were federal government workers evacuating D.C. on foot because the Metro (subway) had stopped running.

 

In the days that followed, heavily armed military personnel began to populate many of the street corners. We were happy to see them.

 

See also Why I Believe, or, How I Know that God Exists .

When Life Begins, and Converting the Blind Pro-Choicer and Pro-Abortionist

"I respect those who believe life begins at the moment of conception. I don’t agree." -- Joe Biden

 

A person is neither forthright nor honest (if only with himself) when he states “we don’t know when life begins” and that “the only people who can say with absolute certainty when life begins do so as a matter of faith or belief, not as the inevitable result of a logical process.” 

 

Such statements are patently false. As a purely scientific matter, we know what “life” is. It has a specific scientific definition. And we know what a human is. Again, it has a scientific definition. And we know what an individual being is. Yet again, by scientific definition.

 

It is amazing that, in this scientific age, where we have all sorts of answers for all sorts of scientific/biological questions, some continue to insist that science cannot answer the question of the beginning of life. The fact is, science can answer it, science has answered it, and it is only because some do not want to hear the answer that they insist that this is some unknowable and unanswerable question. Were it not for the politics, which have become a quasi-religious belief on the part of pro-abortionists, then it would be acknowledged by all that, as a matter of scientific fact, the life of an individual human being begins at conception, that is, when a living human sperm unites with a living human ovum. Now, “life” per se does not begin at conception —- rather, science tells us that it began millions of years ago and is a continuum, but an individual life does begin at conception, not at some unknown and unknowable and magical point later on.

 

It is not a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of wishful thinking, it is not a matter of faith that the entity existing at the time a human sperm penetrates a human ovum is itself (a) human, that is, genetically a member of the species homo sapiens, (b) animate and living, with continued growth, and (c) distinct from either the woman who contributed the ovum or from the man who contributed the sperm cell. In short, a human being, however nascent. This is true whether that human being is floating along the fallopian tube or hitching him- or herself onto the uterine wall or sitting in an IVF petri dish or frozen in liquid nitrogen or about to be harvested by stem-cell ghouls. The abortion industry and lobby knows this. The abortion lawyers know this. The "emergency contraception" pushers know this. The embryonic stem cell scammers know this. The United States Supreme Court knows this. The abortionist sucking that human life into a jar or jamming a pair of scissors into his or her skull before ripping him or her from the womb knows this. It is simple, basic scientific fact.

 

A human being does not begin as something other than human, and only later convert or change into a human state. It is and always has been human. Life does not begin magically during the prenatal period. Indeed, it does not even begin at conception. "Life," as life, is, as stated above, a continuum which began millions of years ago. Yet so many abortion advocates argue with a straight face that we don't know and can never know "when life begins" or that an entity is not fully "human" if it is not "viable" (however they decide to define "viability" today or next week or next year). They would apparently have you believe in the spontaneous generation of life, that matter goes from inanimate to animate in some unknowable, mysterious fashion. Absurd? Of course. It is also the law of the land under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey.

 

As a matter of scientific fact, the last case of spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter happened millions of years ago. Since then, life has been a continuum. “Life” does not spontaneously begin ex nihilo. It is only because the entity within the womb is alive at the moment of sperm-ovum union that it begins the process of cellular division and reproduction and taking in nourishment and giving off waste and developing more recognizable organs and features, growing and growing and growing for the next 70-80 years.

 

Now that, is fact. Scientific fact. And it is neither forthright nor honest (nor helpful to the cause) to suggest otherwise.

 

* * *

 

Now, it is at this point (and only at this point from a strategic point of view) in the pro-life struggle that the Church and the Faith come into play. Until this point, the issue is one entirely grounded in scientific fact and reason. Religion only clouds the issue until this point.

 

But there are limits to science, and science has reached that limit when it comes to the guilt for the blood of over 60 million dead. To a large extent, the other side does not and will not admit to the humanity of the unborn because to do so would be to implicitly admit that they are complicit in the murder of so many innocents. That is too horrible a prospect for them to consider, so they continue to go down the Denial River, because there truly is nothing, absolutely nothing, on this earth that can wash away that blood on their hands.

 

But there is something, or rather Someone, not of this earth, who can wash away that blood. So, this is where the Church comes in, and only at this point. Instead of the delusional and ineffective tactic of arguing the human personhood of the unborn, which was proved long ago, the Church needs to return to Her mission of offering reconciliation with God, of preaching the possibility of redemption for even sins that are so great as the murder of 50 million innocents, which makes Herod the Great pale in comparison. Only in this way, can the blood be washed off the hands of all those complicit in their deaths. And that possibility of redemption, in turn, leads to the greater likelihood of them openly admitting the human personhood of the unborn.

 

* * *

 

In addition to the above facts, there is another indisputable fact -- this war will not be won by pro-lifers. Again, the war against the Culture of Death will not be won by pro-lifers. It cannot be, there are not enough of us.

 

Oh, it will be won -- eventually -- for the pro-life side, we will see a Culture of Life, but that victory will not be brought about by pro-lifers. Or, rather, it will not be brought about by today's pro-lifers. Instead, it will be won by today's pro-choicers and pro-abortionists . . . for the pro-life cause. It will be won by today's pro-choicers and pro-abortionists becoming tomorrow's pro-lifers. It will be won by them demanding the end of abortion, and other instrumentalities of death, in outrage that they were lied to for so long.

 

This is the only way the war can be won. There are not enough of today's pro-lifers to do the job. At most, we could win some judicial or legislative battles and force pro-life laws down the throats of everyone else. But that victory would last only until the next election cycle. No, we can achieve permanent victory only by converting the hearts of the enemy. We -- pro-lifers -- cannot win this war, only today's pro-choicers and pro-abortionists can win it, but win it for the pro-life cause.

 

But they will not be converted, their hearts will not be softened, their intellects will not be enlightened, they will not become tomorrow's pro-lifers so long as they believe that there is no possibility of redemption for the blood on their own hands. One day, they will rise up in anger and outrage at the lies that they were told and they will defeat that lie, but they know now that they have willingly bought into that lie, that they have advanced it. They know in their hearts, as explained above, that it is a lie. They know that they are complicit.

 

But if they can be redeemed, if their being sadistic monsters can be forgiven, then they can risk being honest to themselves, they can admit to themselves and others, "yes, the entity in the womb is a living human being." Their hearts will have been softened, their lives and perspectives will have been turned around, i.e. converted. And that will be the beginning of the end of the Culture of Death. .

The Face of the Innocent

He did not ask to be a poster child. But he is. A victim of the culture of death -- and of the culture of indifference that has infested even those places that were once -- and must become again -- a sanctuary of life.

Living the Faith: Conscience and Election Day 2012

Tuesday, November 6, 2012, is election day. Part of living the faith -- everyday, in all aspects of our lives -- is the question of how to apply the truths of the faith, most especially the truths of the inherent dignity of the human person, in that part of civil society known as the political and electoral process. (See Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est 28-29)

Who should you vote for?

The Church will not tell you who to vote for. Instead, it calls you to have an adult faith, such that, as with all decisions in life, your ballot should be based upon a properly-formed good conscience and well-informed prudent judgment. However, it must be understood that conscience is not the same as one’s opinions or feelings, and one cannot choose or create his own conscience. That is not the conscience, that is the will. Rather, conscience is a judgment of reason in the application of objective moral truth to a particular case.

A major objective of the New Evangelization is to explain the faith more effectively, including correcting misconceptions and misunderstandings that might present obstacles to conversion and people fully accepting and living the Good News of Jesus Christ. And one enormous area of misunderstanding in the modern day is this concept of conscience, an error which has led many astray. The word "conscience" comes from the Latin "con-scientia," meaning "with knowledge." Knowledge of what? Knowledge of something other than our subjective selves, something that is beyond the self -- it is knowledge of objective and eternal truth, the "anamnesis" of the Creator who exhorts us to love in truth. Rightly understood, conscience is not the voice of self or the personal will, but is the voice of God within our hearts, our very souls; it is the light of objective moral truth which is given us so that we might make our way in the dark. (See Blessed Pope John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem 43, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship 17)

The task of conscience is not to create moral truth, but to perceive it and then apply it, not ignore it. In our perception of such moral truth, we are assisted by the Magisterium of the Church, by the Pope and bishops, who are in turn specially guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete promised to us by Jesus Christ. Thus, as Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman noted, a properly-formed good conscience cannot be one that is in contradiction with the teachings of the Church.

Prior to the obligation of conscience is the obligation to properly form one's conscience, or more specifically, "an actual conscience, conscience understood as a 'co-knowing' with the truth," in the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (before he became Pope Benedict) in his 1991 talk, Conscience and Truth. If we have a false, improperly-formed conscience, one that is not "with knowledge" of objective truth, but is instead one that is "with ignorance" of objective truth, including knowing contradiction with authoritative Church teaching, including those teachings on the inviolability of human life, then we cannot assert a right to follow it. The obligation to follow one’s conscience is an obligation to follow a good conscience, one that is "with knowledge" of transcendent objective truth, and not a bad or malformed counterfeit "conscience." Conscience is meant to accuse one of error in sin, not justify it, and conscience is most emphatically not a license to delude ourselves to truth so as to justify doing, facilitating, or participating in that which is intrinsically wrong or mala in se (evil in and of itself). One's "subjective conviction and the lack of doubts and scruples which follow therefrom" are not sufficient, explains Cardinal Ratzinger in Conscience and Truth, "it will not do to identify man's conscience with the self-consciousness of the I, with it subjective certainty about itself and its moral behavior," especially in a relativistic age when so many can no longer see moral fault and sin. (see also Blessed John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 24)

Photo of White Rose from Wikipedia

With this connection to transcendent objective moral truth, in all things, including when making electoral decisions, we have an obligation in conscience, written as law upon our hearts, to do the good and resist evil. (Gaudium et Spes 16) This obligation to follow a good conscience, properly formed in conformity with the teachings of the Church, does not restrict human freedom, but instead calls the person to genuine freedom in truth, for only in truth will one be set free. On the other hand, Cardinal Ratzinger continues in Conscience and Truth, "the identification of conscience with superficial consciousness, the reduction of man to his subjectivity, does not liberate but enslaves. It makes us totally dependent on the prevailing opinions and debases these with every passing day."

O Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Mercy, at this most critical time, we entrust the United States of America to your loving care.
Most Holy Mother, we beg you to reclaim this land for the glory of your Son. Overwhelmed with the burden of the sins of our nation, we cry to you from the depths of our hearts and seek refuge in your motherly protection.
Look down with mercy upon us and touch the hearts of our people. Open our minds to the great worth of human life and to the responsibilities that accompany human freedom.
Free us from the falsehoods that lead to the evil of abortion, other assaults on the truth of the fundamental dignity of the human person, and whicht threaten marriage, family life, and fundamental rights of conscience. Grant our country the wisdom to proclaim that God’s law of Love and Truth is the foundation on which this nation was founded, and that He alone is the True Source of our cherished rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
O Merciful Mother, give us the courage to reject the culture of death and the strength to build a new Culture of Life.

(cross-posted in large part at Adoramus Te)

__________________

See also -
Letters from Bishop Paul Loverde:

Church Principles in the Public Square
Bearing Witness in the Public Square
Conscience and Faithful Citizenship
Our Faith is Challenged

From the USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
From the Virginia Catholic Conference:

Know the Positions of the Presidential Candidates
2012 U.S. Senate Candidates’ Survey Response Chart

Doctrinal Note, On Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Human Life and the Obligation of Conscience

Contraception - A Violation of the Total Love in a Communion of Persons that is True Conjugal Love

The Truth of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae
by Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, Archbishop of Krakow, Poland
as published in L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
16 January 1969, page 6

A Testimony

It will seem strange that we begin our thoughts about the encyclical Humanae Vitae with quotations from the Autobiography of M. Gandhi. "In my opinion," wrote the great Indian,

"to maintain that the sexual act is a spontaneous action analogous to sleeping or eating, is crass ignorance. The existence of the world depends upon the act of multiplying—upon procreation, we say—and since the world is the dominion of God and a reflection of his power, the act of multiplying—of procreation, we say—must be subjected to the norm which aims at safeguarding (the development of life on earth). The man who is aware of all this, will aspire at all costs to dominate his senses and will furnish himself with the necessary knowledge to promote the physical and spiritual growth of his offspring. He will then pass on the fruits of this knowledge to posterity as well as using them for his own advantage."

In another passage from his autobiography, Gandhi says that twice in his life he was influenced by the propaganda for artificial means of contraception in conjugal life. However he arrived at the conviction that "one must act primarily through interior force, in the mastery of oneself, that is through self-control."

With regard to the encyclical Humanae Vitae, these passages from the Autobiography of Gandhi take on the significance of a special testimony. They make us recall the words of Saint Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, concerning the substance of the Law inscribed in the heart of man and demonstrated by the dictates of an upright conscience (Rom. 2, 15). Even in the times of Saint Paul, the voice of an upright conscience was a reproach for those who, even though "possessors of the Law", did not observe it.

Perhaps it is also good for us to have before our eyes the testimony of this non-Christian man. It is appropriate for us to be aware of "the substance of the Law" written in the heart of man and demonstrated by the conscience, in order to be able to penetrate the profound truth of the doctrine of the Church contained in Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae. For this reason, at the beginning of our thoughts, which aim at clarifying the ethical truth and the objective foundation of the teaching of Humanae Vitae, we have used such a testimony. The fact that this testimony historically precedes the encyclical by a few decades does not lesson its significance: in fact, the essence of the problem remains the same in both, and even the circumstances are quite similar.

The True Meaning Of Responsible Parenthood

In order to answer the questions presented at the beginning of the encyclical (H.v. 3), Paul VI analyzes the two great and fundamental "realities of married life", conjugal love and responsible parenthood (H.v. 7), in their mutual relationship. The analysis of responsible parenthood constitutes the principal theme of the encyclical since the questions posed at the beginning present this problem:

"Could it not be admitted, that is, that the intention of a less abundant but more rationalized fecundity might transform a materially sterilizing intervention into a licit and wise control of birth? Could it not be admitted, that is, that the finality of procreation pertains to the ensemble of conjugal life, rather than to its single acts? ... has not the moment come for him to entrust to his reason and his will, rather than to the biological rhythms of his organism, the task of regulating birth?" (H.v. 3).

To answer these questions the Pope does not resort to the traditional hierarchy of the purposes of marriage of which the first is procreation, but instead he analyzes the mutual relations between conjugal love and responsible parenthood. This is the same formulation of the problem as that contained in the pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes.

A correct and penetrating analysis of conjugal love presupposes an exact idea of marriage itself. Marriage is not "the product of unconscious natural forces" (H.v. 8), it is "the communion of beings" (H.v. 8) based on their reciprocal gift of self. And for this reason a correct judgment of responsible parenthood presupposes "an integral vision of man and of his vocation" (H.v. 7).

To acquire such a judgment, "the partial perspectives—whether of the biological, psychological, demographic or sociological orders" (H.v. 7) are not at all sufficient. None of these views can constitute a basis for an adequate and just answer to the questions posed above. Every answer that comes from a partial view can only be a partial one.

In order to find an adequate answer, it is necessary to have a correct vision of man as a being, since marriage establishes a communion of beings which is born and brought about through their mutual gift of self. Conjugal love is characterized by the elements which result from such a communion of beings and which correspond to the personal dignity of the man and the woman, of the husband and the wife. It is a matter of total love, or love which involves the whole man,: his sensitivity, his affectivity, and his spirituality, which must be both faithful and exclusive. This love "is not exhausted in the communion between husband and wife but it is destined to continue raising up new lives" (H.v. 9); it is therefore fruitful love.

This loving communion of a married couple, through which they constitute, according to the words of Genesis 2, 24, "a single body" is a kind of condition of fecundity, a condition of procreation. This communion being a particular type — since it is corporeal it is in the strict sense "sexual" — of the realization of the conjugal communion between beings, must be brought about at the level of the person and must befit his dignity. It is on this basis that one must form an exact judgment of responsible parenthood.

This judgment concerns, first of all, the essence of paternity — and under this aspect it is a positive judgment: "conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of responsible parenthood . . . " (H.v. 10). The encyclical throughout its text formulates this judgment and proposes it as a basic answer to the questions posed above: conjugal love must be fruitful love, that is, "directed toward parenthood". Parenthood which comes from love between persons is "responsible parenthood". One could say that in the Encyclical Humanae vitae responsible parenthood becomes the proper name for human procreation.

This basically positive judgment of responsible parenthood, however, requires some further explanation. It is only through these further explanations that we can find a universal answer to the initial questions. Paul VI offers us these explanations. According to the encyclical, responsible parenthood means "both... the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, and... the decision... to avoid for the time being or for in indeterminate length of time, a new birth" (H.v. 10). If conjugal love is fruitful love, that is, open to parenthood, it is difficult to think that the meaning of responsible parenthood, deduced from its essential properties can be identified only with the limitation of birth. Thus responsible parenthood is realized both by those couples who, thanks to their generous and meditated decision, produce a large family, as well as by those couples who for "grave motives and with due respect for the moral law" (H.v. 10) decide to limit the number of their offspring.

According to the doctrine of the Church, responsible parenthood is not and cannot be only the effect of a certain "technique" of conjugal collaboration: in fact, it has primarily and "per se" an ethical value. A true and fundamental danger — to which the encyclical purports to be a providential remedy — consists in the temptation to consider this problem as being outside the sphere of ethics, to make an effort to divest man of the responsibility for his own actions which are so profoundly rooted in his entire personal structure. Responsible parenthood — writes the Pope — "means the necessary dominion which will and reason must exercise" over the tendencies of instinct and passion (H.v. 10). Thus this domination presupposes "the knowledge and respect of the biological processes" (H.v. 10) and this places these processes not only in their biological dynamism, but also in their personal integration, that is, at the level of the person, since "the human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person" (H.v. 10).

Love is the communion of persons. If parenthood and responsible parenthood correspond to this love, then the way of acting which leads to such parenthood cannot be morally indifferent. In fact, it decides whether the sexual activity of the communion of persons is or is not authentic love. "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love..." (H.v. 12).

Man "cannot of his own initiative break the inseparable connection between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning" (H.v. 12). It is for this reason that the encyclical supports the previous position of the Magisterium and maintains the difference between the so-called natural regulation of birth which calls for periodical abstinence and contraception which uses artificial methods. We use the word "maintains" because "the two cases are completely different from each other" (H.v. 16). There is a great difference between them with regard to their ethical qualification.

The encyclical of Paul VI as a document of the supreme Magisterium of the Church presents the teaching of the human and Christian ethic in one of its key points. The truth of Humanae vitae is therefore primarily a normative truth. It reminds us of the principles of morality, which constitute the objective norm. This norm is even written in the human heart, as is demonstrated at least in the testimony of Gandhi which we quoted in the beginning of this article.

Nonetheless, this objective moral principle easily suffers from subjective deformations or common obscuring. On the other hand, many other moral principles such as those which were recalled in the encyclical Populorum Progressio have met a similar fate. In the encyclical Humanae vitae, the Holy Father expresses above all his full understanding of all these circumstances which seem to speak out against the principle of conjugal morality as taught by the Church. The Pope is also aware of the difficulties to which modern man is exposed, as well as the weaknesses to which he is subject. However, the path towards the solution of the problems must be through the truth of the Gospel: "To diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ constitutes in eminent form of charity for souls" (H.v. 29). The motive of charity towards souls and no other motive moves the Church which "does not cease... to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical" (H.v. 18).

A Correct Hierarchy Of Values

The normative truth of Humanae vitae is strictly tied to those values which are expressed in the objective moral order according to their proper hierarchy. These are the authentic human values which, are connected with conjugal and family life. The Church considers herself the custodian and guarantor of these values as we read in the encyclical. In the face of any danger which threatens them the Church feels it her duty to defend them. The authentic human values constitute the basis and at the same time the motivation of the principles of conjugal morality mentioned in the encyclical. It is useful to emphasize them once again even though they have already been demonstrated in the preceding discussions, and the matter is quite clear, since the true meaning of responsible parenthood was already expressed in the encyclical in relation to conjugal love.

The value which is at the foundation of this demonstration is the value of human life, that is, of that life already conceived and blossoming in the living together of the married couple. The responsibility of parenthood, to which the entire encyclical is principally dedicated, itself speaks of this value.

The fact that this value of life already conceived or in its origin, is not examined in the encyclical within the framework of procreation as the purpose of marriage, but rather within the vision of the love and the responsibility of the partners, places the value of human life itself in a new light. Man and woman in their matrimonial life together which is a living together of persons, must create a new human person. The conceiving of a person by means of persons — this is the just measure of values which must be used here. This is, at the same time, the just measure of the responsibility which must guide human parenthood.

The encyclical recognizes this value. Even though the encyclical does not seem to speak of this value very much, nevertheless it indirectly emphasizes it even more when it places it firmly within the context of other values. These are the fundamental values for human life and, at the same time, the specific values for marriage and the family. They are specific because only marriage and the family — and no other human environment — constitute the specific field in which these values appear. They are the fertile soil in which they grow. One of these is the value of conjugal and family love, the other is the value of the person, or his dignity which is manifested in the closest and most intimate human contacts.

These two values permeate each other so completely that in a certain sense they constitute a single good. And this is the spiritual good of marriage, the greatest wealth of the new human generations:

"...husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace... it favours attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring; little children and youths grow up with a just appraisal of human values, and in the serene and harmonious development of their spiritual and sensitive faculties" (H.v. 21).

This is the full context and at the same time the universal framework of the values upon which the doctrine of responsible parenthood is founded, the attitude of responsibility extends over the entire conjugal life and over the entire process of education. Only those who have reached the full maturity of their person through a complete education can succeed, in educating new human beings. Responsible parenthood and the chastity of the mutual relations between the married couple inherent in it are the verification of their spiritual maturity. Thus they project their light over the entire process of education which is carried out in the family.

The encyclical Humanae vitae contains not only clear and explicit norms for married life, conscious parenthood and a correct regulation of birth, but through these norms it indicates the values. It confirms their correct meaning and warns us against false meanings. It expresses a profound solicitude to safeguard man from the danger of altering the most fundamental values.

One of the most fundamental values is that of human love. Love has its source in God who "is Love." Paul VI places this revealed truth at the beginning of his penetrating analysis of conjugal love because it expresses the highest value which must be recognized in human love. Human love is rich in the experiences of which it consists, but its essential richness consists in being a communion of persons, that is of a man and a woman, in their mutual self-giving.

Conjugal love is enriched through the authentic giving of one person to another person. It is this mutual giving of self which must not be altered. If in marriage there is to be the realization of authentic love of persons through the giving of bodies, that is, through the "bodily union" of the man and the woman, then out of regard for the value of the love itself, this mutual gift of self cannot be altered in any aspect of the interpersonal conjugal act.

Authentic Value of Human Love

The value itself of human love and its authenticity demand such a chastity of the marital act as is required by the Church and is repeated in the encyclical itself.

In various fields, man dominates nature and subordinates it to himself through the use of artificial means. The sum total of these means in a certain sense is equivalent to progress and civilization.

In this field, however, where love between one person and another is expressed through the marital act, and where the person must authentically give himself (and "give" also means "to receive" reciprocally) the use of artificial means is equivalent to an alteration of the act of love. The author of Humanae vitae is aware of the authentic value of human love which has God as its source, and which is confirmed by a correct conscience and a healthy "moral sense". It is precisely in the name of this value that the Pope teaches the principles of ethical responsibility. This is also the responsibility which safeguards the quality of human love in marriage. This love is also expressed in continence — even in periodic continence - since love is capable of giving up the marital act, but it cannot give up the authentic gift of the person. Renouncing the marital act can be in certain circumstances an authentic gift of self. Paul VI writes in this regard: "...this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value" (H.v. 21).

In expressing the thoughtful concern for the authentic value of human love, the encyclical Humanae vitae addresses man and calls upon his sense of dignity as a person. In fact, love, according to its authentic value, must be realized by man and woman in marriage. The capacity for such love and the capacity for the authentic giving of self demand from both partners the sense of personal dignity. The experience of sexual value must be permeated by a vivid awareness of the value of the person. This value, in fact, explains the necessity for the mastery of oneself which belongs to the person: in fact, the personality is expressed in self-control and self-domination. Without these man would not be capable of giving himself nor of receiving that gift according to the measure of the value which must characterize such an interchange. And therefore the moral doctrine proclaimed by the Church contributes

"to the establishment of a truly human civilization; she engages man not to abdicate from his own responsibility in order to rely on technical means; by that very fact she defends the dignity of man and wife" (H.v. 18).

The encyclical Humanae vitae formulates this hierarchy of values which proves to be essential and decisive for the entire problem of responsible parenthood. This hierarchy cannot be overturned and the correct order of values cannot be changed. We would risk such an inversion and changing of values if, in order to resolve the problem, we were to take partial aspects as our point of departure rather than starting from "the integral vision of man and his vocation".

Each of these partial aspects is very important in itself, and Paul VI does not diminish their importance in the least; whether it be the demographic-sociological aspect or the bio-psychological aspect. On the contrary, the Pontiff carefully considers them. He only wishes to prevent any of the partial aspects — no matter what their importance — from destroying the correct hierarchy of values and from divesting love of its true significance as the communion of persons and from divesting man himself of his true significance as a person capable of authentic self-giving, a self-giving in which man cannot be substituted by "technology."

In all this, however, the Pope does not overlook any one of the partial aspects of the problem; as a matter of fact he confronts them, establishing their fundamental content and declaring the correct hierarchy of values. And it is precisely along this path that there exists a possibility of birth control and therefore also the possibility of resolving the socio-demographical difficulties. And therefore Paul VI was able to write with all certainty that "...public authorities can and must contribute to the solution of the demographic problem" (H.v. 23). When it is a matter of the biological or even the psychological aspects — as the encyclical teaches us — the path towards the realization of the respective values passes through the heightening of the value of love itself and of the person. Here are the words of the eminent biologist, professor P. P. Grasset of the Academy of Sciences: "The encyclical is in agreement with biological data, it reminds doctors of their duties and points out to man the way by which his dignity - both physical and moral - will not suffer any offence" (Le Figaro, 8-10-1968).

One might say that the encyclical penetrates the nucleus of this universal problem which had engaged the Second Vatican Council. The problem of the development "of the world" both in its modern demands and in its more distant perspectives leads to a series of questions which man poses to himself. Some of these are expressed in the pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes. A correct answer to these questions is not possible if one does not realize the significance of those values which make man and his life truly human. In the encyclical Humanae vitae, Paul VI dedicates himself to the examination of these values in their central core.

Evangelic Profile

The examination of these values and through them the examination of the norm itself of responsible parenthood formulated in the encyclical Humanae vitae carry with them a particular stamp of the Gospel. It is important to point this out again at the conclusion of the present considerations, even though this very idea has been the connecting thread throughout. The questions which agitate modern man "required from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection upon the principles of the moral teaching on marriage: a teaching founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation." Revelation as the expression of the eternal thought of God permits us, and at the same time commands us, to consider marriage as an institution for transmitting human life, in which the marriage partners are "the free and responsible collaborators of God the creator" (H.v. 1).

Christ Himself confirmed this perpetual dignity of married persons and He inserted the totality of married life into the work of the Redemption, and He included it in the sacramental order. By the sacrament of Marriage "husband and wife are strengthened and as it were consecrated for the faithful accomplishment of their proper duties, for the carrying out of their proper vocation even to perfection, and the Christian witness which is proper to them before the whole world" (H.v. 25). Since the doctrine of Christian morality was set forth in the encyclical, the doctrine of responsible parenthood, understood as the just expression of conjugal love and of the dignity of the human person, constitutes an important component of the Christian witness.

And it seems to us proper that for this witness, man must make a certain sacrifice for the sake of authentic values. The Gospel continually confirms the necessity of such a sacrifice, and it is confirmed by the work of Redemption which is expressed in its totality in the Easter Mystery. The cross of Christ has become the price of human redemption. Each man who walks along the path of true values must assume part of this cross as the price which he must pay in exchange for authentic values. This price consists in a particular effort: "The divine law, as the Pope writes, demands serious engagement and much effort", and he adds right after this that "...such efforts ennoble man and are beneficial to the human community" (H.v. 20).

The last part of the encyclical is in appeal for this serious engagement and these efforts which is addressed both to the human community, in order that it "create all atmosphere favourable to education in chastity" (H.v. 22), and to public authorities as well as men of science in order that they may succeed in "providing a sufficiently secure basis for a regulation of birth, founded on the observance of natural rhythms" of fertility (H.v. 24). The encyclical finally appeals to married persons themselves, to the apostolate of families for the family, to doctors, to priests and to bishops as pastors of souls.

For contemporary men who are restless and impatient and who are at the same time threatened in the sphere of their most fundamental values and principles, the Vicar of Christ recalls the laws which rule over this sphere. And since they lack patience and seek after simplifications and apparently easy solutions, he reminds them of the necessary price for true values and of how much patience and effort are necessary for the realization of these values.

It seems that throughout all the arguments and appeals of the encyclical which are full of dramatic tension, we can hear the words of the Master: "by your endurance you will gain your lives" (Luke 21, 19). For in the last analysis that is precisely the point.

.

Pray for Christopher Hitchens

We previously considered the question of praying for one such as the late Christopher Hitchens, who at times was not merely atheist, but antitheist.

Love Your Enemy, Pray for Those Who Persecute You

Today, the Anchoress raises again The Hitchens/Prayer Debate. Recently, Christopher Hitchens has learned that he has cancer of the esophagus. Now, Hitchens is a writer who is not so much an atheist as he is an antitheist, he does not simply not believe, he attacks the belief and believers, and often disingenuously so. Nevertheless, we are called to love our enemies and pray for our persecutors. On that issue of whether to pray for Hitchens or not, the Anchoress writes:

It seems the New York Times has noticed the debate as to whether people of faith should pray for Christopher Hitchens. I like this; it reflects my feelings, exactly:

Jeffrey Goldberg, a colleague of Hitchens’s at The Atlantic Monthly, consulted the rabbinical authorities and decided that prayer was O.K. On his blog, Goldberg quoted the advice of David Wolpe, a Los Angeles rabbi who has publicly debated Hitchens on a number of occasions: “I would say it is appropriate and even mandatory to do what one can for another who is sick; and if you believe that praying helps, to pray. It is in any case an expression of one’s deep hopes. So yes, I will pray for him, but I will not insult him by asking or implying that he should be grateful for my prayers.”

The Anchoress wrote on this earlier, Hitchens' Challenge, where she said that she had been called to pray for him, and her post generated a lot of comments, including some opposition.

So, to pray or not to pray? What should one do?

The New York Times story notes, "While Hitchens himself doesn’t seem to have issued any official directives, prayers have rolled in from [the Anchoress] Elizabeth Scalia (no relation to the Supreme Court justice) at First Things, Greg Kandra at The Deacon’s Bench and Pat Archbold at The National Catholic Register."

“While Hitchens himself doesn’t seem to have issued any official directives . . .”

This is the real sticking point.

There are at least three points or perspectives, all of which need to be considered, in answering this question –

(1) Us, the one potentially offering the prayer. That is, do we have a moral obligation or permission to pray (or to not pray)?
(2) Hitchens (or any other person for whom it is to be offered). Is the prayer welcome or unwelcome? Is he receptive or at least neutral, or is he adamately opposed?
(3) The content of the prayer. Just exactly what does one pray for? His physical health, his spiritual health, his conversion?

We are obligated in faith to be charitable toward Hitchens, i.e. to love him, as we love ourselves and as Jesus loves us. BUT, part of love is respecting the free will of the other person. Love, even when expressed by prayer, cannot be forced upon the other against his will. The Samaritan dragging the wounded man out of the ditch when the man demands to be left alone is not “good”; what he does is an act of violence, not charity. Not even God forces His love upon people.

Hence the dillema. Does our prayer end up being a true act of love or an act of unlove against the will of the person? It depends.

Of course, the Samaritan can both love the man in the ditch and still respect his will by doing something else, call 911 perhaps, and let the EMTs come and offer their assistance. Perhaps the man will accept it then.

So, we have an obligation to love Hitchens. The question is how? For many people, we might in good faith and conscience simply assume that our prayers are welcomed. And since Hitchens has not publicly said “no,” perhaps we might assume the same for him, but we might be presuming too much. Which get us to (3) the content of the prayer.

Just exactly what do we or should we pray for in the case of Hitchens? If he welcomes prayer, then we have no problem, we can pray all out for whatever good thing we might want.

But if he does not welcome prayer, what then? We can still be charitable, and still pray, but we would seem to be limited in what we pray for, or at the very least, would need to make the petition conditional (e.g. “if he is willing to accept it Lord . . .”). We cannot go so far as to drag him out of the ditch and pour oil on him against his wishes, but we can call 911. We can stand by, ready to assist if he later wants it. We can tell him that lodging is available to him when and if he is willing to accept it.

It is not as easy a moral question as it might seem. It would be a lot easier if all we had to consider was (1) us. But (2) and (3) are factors we must consider as well.

The one thing that we CANNOT do is reflexively and arbitrarily say, “to hell with Hitchens, he’s only getting what he deserves.”

Love Your Enemy, Pray for Those Who Persecute You: Part Two

Some questions and objections have arisen with respect to the prior post Love Your Enemy, Pray for Those Who Persecute You.

You're confusing me. How do you pray for someone like Hitchens?

That's what I mean, it's not as easy a question as it first looks.

Love means respecting the other person as a person, as one with free will, and not as an object, a thing that we can manipulate or ask God to manipulate.

Hitchens is a person, not a puppet, and we should not treat him like a puppet. And God is Love, and we should not pray that God act contrary to Himself.

The same Jesus that said “pray for your persecutors” also said “shake the dust from your feet.”

To pray for a gross violation of another person’s free will is NOT an act of love. It is an act of violence.

Love cannot be forced upon another and still be love. And we are called to love, not to force ourselves on others. That means respecting their free will.

God gave them free will. We should respect His will to give them their will.

By no means am I saying “screw him, I’m not praying for him, period.” No, we should pray. But what I am suggesting is that we should actually think about what we pray for. That we make our prayer an act of love, and not an act contrary to love.

Of course, EVERY prayer of ours should include the proviso — “if it be thy will.” Maybe that in itself solves the dillema?

I respectfully disagree that it is not an easy moral question. On the contrary, it is quite simple to pray for Christopher’s mercy and forgiveness. We should even pray that God forgive against Hitchens’ will. After all, Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”

Jesus did not simply say, “forgive them,” and stop. He added “they know not what they do.” This additional aspect is important.

He previously taught on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Church has understood this to mean that forgiveness is something that must be accepted in order to be accomplished, and consistent with the understanding that God is Love, and love cannot be forced upon someone, and that God gave us free will precisely for that reason, to freely choose to love Him or not to love Him, the Church has consistently taught that God will not, indeed, cannot forgive such person (Mt. 12:31-32).

Sure, pray that God forgive Hitchens — but NOT against his will. That is not love, that is the theological equivilent of rape. It is contrary to Love, it is contrary to Truth, the truth of God.

Rather, pray that God forgive Hitchens, but adding the proviso, if and when Hitchens accept it. Pray that God offer forgiveness, but do not pray that God act contrary to Himself and impose that love upon Hitchens. God cannot do so, being Love, He cannot act contrary to love, and it is important that we understand that.

Okay then – specifically – tell me how you would offer a prayer to God for him. And how does that differ from, say, someone who has left the church but maybe not left God?

One could simply pray that God be who He is — Love and Truth — and that He act accordingly. One could pray that God be there for him, that God, who is Divine Mercy, be merciful and loving and compassionate.

I would suppose He can be compassionate (from the Latin “to suffer with”) with or without Hitchens’ consent, but implicit in that prayer is our understanding that love and mercy, from the Latin miserere, meaning to allievate misery, cannot be imposed. Those who have chosen Hell over Him must be respected in that choice. Of course, it is still not yet a definitive choice for Hitchens, but it is his choice to make, not ours.

Or I suppose one could pray for whatever one wants to pray for, so long as there is the added provisos of “if it be Thy will Lord” and “if he is willing to accept it Lord . . .” That might accomplish the requisite need to respect the other’s free will.

I disagree that the other person’s feelings should be considered. Hitchens’ free will is not involved in this matter. Nobody is pointing a gun at him or conning him into anything.

If someone tells a non-believer that they don’t care what he thinks or wants, that they are going to “pray” for him even against his wishes and consent — does that sentiment cause him to want to draw closer to God? Or does it cause resentment and drive him away?

Respect for the other person -- which is a part of love -- requires that one consider his wishes. To be sure, "love" means seeking the good of the other, and not necessarily what makes him happy, but if going against his wishes leads him away from the good, then it obviously needs to be taken into account.

Consider the younger son who asked his father for his inheritence and then left home. What did the father do? He gave the son his interitence and let him go. He did not bind the son in chains, he did not lock him in his room. And the father did not go after him and drag him back home. Rather, the father respected his son's decision.

Had the older son implored their father to go after his brother and forcibly try to bring him home, it may have only served to set the younger son permanently against their father.

Sorry, I think you are over-thinking this one. We should not have to think twice about this one: pray for Hitchens, and trust God’s wisdom.

Ours is not an unthinking Faith. Rather, ours is a Faith that seeks understanding, that seeks to know the Logos.

Believer #1: “I’ll pray for you.”
Nonbeliever: “What does that mean?”
Believer #2: “Yeah, I’m curious too. What does that mean?”
Believer #1: "It means . . . um . . ."

“Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope.” 1 Pet. 3:15. Furthermore, we should be ready to give ourselves a reason for our hope, for our faith.

It is not enough to simply hear Jesus say, “love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you.”

We should ask “What does that mean?” Before praying, we should actually think about what it is we are praying for and why. We should think about what “love” is, what it means.

As set out in the prior post and above, I submit that “love” is not self-centered; it is not merely a matter of what we do. We MUST consider the other person. We cannot simply stop at (1) ourselves, we must also take into account (2) the other, in this case, the non-believing if not anti-believing Hitchens. But that brings into our consideration (3) as well — what to pray for and how and why.

Maybe the first prayer of petition we offer should be for ourselves, to ask for the grace to understand how best to love, how best to simultaneously offer up prayers on behalf of another and still respect them as a person, that is, respecting their freedom to reject us and our love expressed in prayer.

But we cannot, I further submit, not even bother to think about such things.

.

Human Life, Higher Law, and the Obligation of Conscience

We have a duty under the higher law, as a matter of good conscience, to oppose and resist the evils of today: the attacks, in thought and deed, on the instrinsic dignity, value, and sanctity of human life.

More at Cinema Catechism.

.

God Before All Else

In these times, when some would complain to God and tell Him what to do, as if they knew better than He, we do well to consider today's Gospel reading:

Jesus entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed Him. She had a sister named Mary who sat beside the Lord at His feet listening to Him speak.
Martha, burdened with much serving, came to Him and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me."
The Lord said to her in reply, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her."

-- Luke 10:38-42

Catechesis of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Castel Gandolfo
Sunday Angelus, July 18, 2010

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

We are already in the heart of the summer, at least in the northern hemisphere. This is the time in which the schools are closed and in which most vacations are concentrated. Even the pastoral activities of the parishes are reduced, and I myself have suspended audiences for a period. It is therefore a favorable moment to give first place to what is effectively the most important thing in life, that is to say, listening to the Word of God.

This Sunday's Gospel always reminds us of this with the celebrated episode of Jesus' visit to the house of Martha and Mary narrated by St. Luke (10:38-42).

Martha and Mary are two sisters; they also have a brother, Lazarus, who, however, does not appear in this case. Jesus passes through their village and -- the text says -- Martha welcomes Him (10:38). This detail gives one to understand that, of the two sisters, Martha is the oldest, the one who rules the house. In fact, after Jesus is accommodated, Mary sits at His feet and listens to Him, while Martha is completely absorbed with much serving, which is certainly due to the exceptional guest. We seem to see the scene: One sister is very busy and the other is enraptured by the presence of the Master and His words.

After a while Martha, evidently resentful, no longer resists and protests, also feeling that she has the right to criticize Jesus: "Lord, does it not matter to you that my sister has left me to do all the serving? Tell her, therefore, to help me." Indeed, Martha would like to teach the Master!

But Jesus, with great calm, answers: "Martha, Martha" -- and this name repeated expresses affection -- "you are anxious and worried about many things, but there is only one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her" (10:41-42).

Christ's word is quite clear: no scorn for the active life, nor much less for the generous hospitality; but a plain reminder of the fact that the one thing that is truly necessary is something else: listening to the Word of the Lord; and the Lord is there in that moment, present in the person of Jesus! Everything else will pass and will be taken away from us, but the Word of God is eternal and gives meaning to our daily activity.

Dear Friends, as I said, this Gospel passage is very important at vacation time, because it recalls the fact that the human person must work, must involve himself in domestic and professional concerns, to be sure, but he has need of God before all else, who is the interior light of Love and Truth. Without love, even the most important activities lose value and do not bring joy. Without a profound meaning, everything we do is reduced to sterile and disordered activism.

And who gives us love and truth if not Jesus Christ? So let us learn, brothers, to help each other, to cooperate, but first of all to choose together the better part, which is and will always be our greater good.
.

Choice, Children, and Happiness

"A few generations ago, people weren’t stopping to contemplate whether having a child would make them happy."

A confused mother, who is infected with a utilitarian mind-set, struggles to understand.


By freezing embryos, couples try to utilize fertility while delaying parenthood

Another confused women wandering in the moral abyss. But as disheartening as is her brave new world, the comments condemning it are quite encouraging.
.

Diocesan Day of Prayer and Fasting Announced forToday, Monday, March 15, 2010

Letter of His Excellency Paul S. Loverde
Bishop of the Diocese of Arlington
March 11, 2010

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Late last year, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed differing versions of legislation intended to reform our nation’s health care system. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) continues to insist that any measure must maintain the longstanding policy against federal funding of abortion, include full conscience protection, and assure that health care is accessible and affordable for all.

Catholic teaching tells us that our support for the dignity of life includes access to affordable health care. This support, however, cannot come at the expense of the respect for life at all stages, from natural conception to natural death.

As negotiations that are now underway could lead to further Congressional action very soon, in accord with Canon 1244, paragraph 2, I invite you to take part in a day of prayer and fasting on Monday, March 15 for protecting the life, dignity, health and conscience rights of every human person in any legislation that Congress considers. I also invite Catholics to pray and fast for this intention beyond March 15.

In moments of concern and crisis, Catholic tradition through the centuries has unfailingly urged the faithful to turn to the spiritual aids of prayer and fasting in order to draw closer to our Lord and His will. Through these deliberate actions, we communicate a desire to avoid sin and unify ourselves with that which is right and good. I firmly believe that, working together while open to God’s wisdom, the citizens of our nation can respect the dignity of each human person both in law and in practice.

Although the law of fasting binds persons age 18 through 59, anyone can voluntarily fast. Fasting allows a person to eat one full meal as well as two smaller meals, which are not to equal one full meal. In addition, I ask you to consider offering a Rosary, prayers at Mass, time spent in Eucharistic Adoration or other forms of prayer for this important intention. Through our fasting and prayers, we ask the Lord to lead the hearts and minds of our nation’s leaders as they make crucial decisions concerning the protection of life.

Due to the uncertainty surrounding Congressional negotiations and the speed at which these discussions could be resolved, electronic media will be the most effective way to keep up with – and take action upon – any legislation. The Virginia Catholic Conference e-mail network will keep parishioners and priests apprised of any further updates on the issue of health care. Please visit http://www.vacatholic.org/ to join the e-mail network or to contact your members of Congress via the USCCB action alert.

Faithfully in Christ,

Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde
Bishop of Arlington

.

Remembering the Evil of a Cult of Death

Message of Pope Benedict XVI
International Holocaust Memorial Day
January 27, 2010

Seventy-five years ago, on January 27, 1945, the gates of the Nazi concentration camp in the Polish city of Oswiecim - known to the world by its German name Auschwitz - were opened to the world, and its few survivors were liberated.

That event and the testimony of the survivors revealed to the world the horrors of the crimes, whose heinousness was hitherto unheard of, committed in the extermination camps created by Nazi Germany.

Today, we celebrate the Day of Memory in honor of all the victims of those crimes, particularly the planned annihilation of the Jewish people, and in honor of those who risked their own lives to protect the victims of persecution and opposed the homicidal folly.

With spirits moved by the memory, let us think of the innumerable victims of a blind racial and religious hatred who underwent deportation, imprisonment and death in those aberrant and inhuman places.

May the remembrance of such deeds, particularly the tragedy of the Shoah which struck the Jewish people, inspire an ever more solid respect for the dignity of every person, so that all men may feel themselves to be one big family.

May the almighty God enlighten hearts and minds so that such tragedies may never again be repeated.


Address of Pope Benedict XVI
Visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau
28 May 2006

To speak in this place of horror, in this place where unprecedented mass crimes were committed against God and man, is almost impossible - and it is particularly difficult and troubling for a Christian, for a Pope from Germany. In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can only be a dread silence - a silence which is itself a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?

In silence, then, we bow our heads before the endless line of those who suffered and were put to death here; yet our silence becomes in turn a plea for forgiveness and reconciliation, a plea to the living God never to let this happen again.

Twenty-seven years ago, on 7 June 1979, Pope John Paul II stood in this place. He said: “I come here today as a pilgrim. As you know, I have been here many times. So many times! And many times I have gone down to Maximilian Kolbe’s death cell, paused before the wall of death, and walked amid the ruins of the Birkenau ovens. It was impossible for me not to come here as Pope.” Pope John Paul came here as a son of that people which, along with the Jewish people, suffered most in this place and, in general, throughout the war. “Six million Poles lost their lives during the Second World War: a fifth of the nation,” he reminded us. Here too he solemnly called for respect for human rights and the rights of nations, as his predecessors John XXIII and Paul VI had done before him, and added: “The one who speaks these words is ... the son of a nation which in its history has suffered greatly from others. He says this, not to accuse, but to remember. He speaks in the name of all those nations whose rights are being violated and disregarded ...”.

Pope John Paul II came here as a son of the Polish people. I come here today as a son of the German people. For this very reason, I can and must echo his words: I could not fail to come here. I had to come. It is a duty before the truth and the just due of all who suffered here, a duty before God, for me to come here as the successor of Pope John Paul II and as a son of the German people - a son of that people over which a ring of criminals rose to power by false promises of future greatness and the recovery of the nation’s honor, prominence and prosperity, but also through terror and intimidation, with the result that our people was used and abused as an instrument of their thirst for destruction and power.

Yes, I could not fail to come here. On 7 June 1979 I came as the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, along with many other Bishops who accompanied the Pope, listened to his words and joined in his prayer. In 1980 I came back to this dreadful place with a delegation of German Bishops, appalled by its evil, yet grateful for the fact that above its dark clouds the star of reconciliation had emerged.

This is the same reason why I have come here today: to implore the grace of reconciliation - first of all from God, who alone can open and purify our hearts, from the men and women who suffered here, and finally the grace of reconciliation for all those who, at this hour of our history, are suffering in new ways from the power of hatred and the violence which hatred spawns.

How many questions arise in this place! Constantly the question comes up: Where was God in those days? Why was He silent? How could He permit this endless slaughter, this triumph of evil? The words of Psalm 44 come to mind, Israel’s lament for its woes:
“You have broken us in the haunt of jackals, and covered us with deep darkness ... because of you we are being killed all day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Rouse yourself! Why do you sleep, O Lord? Awake, do not cast us off forever! Why do you hide your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression? For we sink down to the dust; our bodies cling to the ground. Rise up, come to our help! Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love!” (Ps 44:19, 22-26).

This cry of anguish, which Israel raised to God in its suffering at moments of deep distress, is also the cry for help raised by all those who in every age - yesterday, today and tomorrow - suffer for the love of God, for the love of truth and goodness. How many they are, even in our own day!

We cannot peer into God’s mysterious plan - we see only piecemeal, and we would be wrong to set ourselves up as judges of God and history. Then we would not be defending man, but only contributing to his downfall. No - when all is said and done, we must continue to cry out humbly yet insistently to God: Rouse yourself! Do not forget mankind, your creature! And our cry to God must also be a cry that pierces our very heart, a cry that awakens within us God’s hidden presence - so that His power, the power He has planted in our hearts, will not be buried or choked within us by the mire of selfishness, pusillanimity, indifference or opportunism.

Let us cry out to God, with all our hearts, at the present hour, when new misfortunes befall us, when all the forces of darkness seem to issue anew from human hearts: whether it is the abuse of God’s name as a means of justifying senseless violence against innocent persons, or the cynicism which refuses to acknowledge God and ridicules faith in Him. Let us cry out to God, that He may draw men and women to conversion and help them to see that violence does not bring peace, but only generates more violence - a morass of devastation in which everyone is ultimately the loser.

The God in whom we believe is a God of reason - a reason, to be sure, which is not a kind of cold mathematics of the universe, but is one with love and with goodness. We make our prayer to God and we appeal to humanity, that this reason, the logic of love and the recognition of the power of reconciliation and peace, may prevail over the threats arising from irrationalism or from a spurious and godless reason.

The place where we are standing is a place of memory, it is the place of the Shoah. The past is never simply the past. It always has something to say to us; it tells us the paths to take and the paths not to take. Like John Paul II, I have walked alongside the inscriptions in various languages erected in memory of those who died here: inscriptions in Belarusian, Czech, German, French, Greek, Hebrew, Croatian, Italian, Yiddish, Hungarian, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Russian, Romani, Romanian, Slovak, Serbian, Ukrainian, Judaeo-Spanish and English. All these inscriptions speak of human grief, they give us a glimpse of the cynicism of that regime which treated men and women as material objects, and failed to see them as persons embodying the image of God.

Some inscriptions are pointed reminders. There is one in Hebrew. The rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people, to cancel it from the register of the peoples of the earth. Thus the words of the Psalm: “We are being killed, accounted as sheep for the slaughter” were fulfilled in a terrifying way. Deep down, those vicious criminals, by wiping out this people, wanted to kill the God who called Abraham, who spoke on Sinai and laid down principles to serve as a guide for mankind, principles that are eternally valid. If this people, by its very existence, was a witness to the God who spoke to humanity and took us to Himself, then that God finally had to die and power had to belong to man alone - to those men, who thought that by force they had made themselves masters of the world. By destroying Israel, by the Shoah, they ultimately wanted to tear up the taproot of the Christian faith and to replace it with a faith of their own invention: faith in the rule of man, the rule of the powerful.

Then there is the inscription in Polish. First and foremost they wanted to eliminate the cultural elite, thus erasing the Polish people as an autonomous historical subject and reducing it, to the extent that it continued to exist, to slavery. Another inscription offering a pointed reminder is the one written in the language of the Sinti and Roma people. Here too, the plan was to wipe out a whole people which lives by migrating among other peoples. They were seen as part of the refuse of world history, in an ideology which valued only the empirically useful; everything else, according to this view, was to be written off as lebensunwertes Leben - life unworthy of being lived. There is also the inscription in Russian, which commemorates the tremendous loss of life endured by the Russian soldiers who combated the Nazi reign of terror; but this inscription also reminds us that their mission had a tragic twofold effect: they set the peoples free from one dictatorship, but the same peoples were thereby subjected to a new one, that of Stalin and the Communist system.

The other inscriptions, written in Europe’s many languages, also speak to us of the sufferings of men and women from the whole continent. They would stir our hearts profoundly if we remembered the victims not merely in general, but rather saw the faces of the individual persons who ended up here in this abyss of terror.

I felt a deep urge to pause in a particular way before the inscription in German. It evokes the face of Edith Stein, Theresia Benedicta a Cruce: a woman, Jewish and German, who disappeared along with her sister into the black night of the Nazi-German concentration camp; as a Christian and a Jew, she accepted death with her people and for them. The Germans who had been brought to Auschwitz-Birkenau and met their death here were considered as Abschaum der Nation - the refuse of the nation. Today we gratefully hail them as witnesses to the truth and goodness which even among our people were not eclipsed. We are grateful to them, because they did not submit to the power of evil, and now they stand before us like lights shining in a dark night.

With profound respect and gratitude, then, let us bow our heads before all those who, like the three young men in Babylon facing death in the fiery furnace, could respond: “Only our God can deliver us. But even if He does not, be it known to you, O King, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up” (cf. Dan 3:17ff.).

Yes, behind these inscriptions is hidden the fate of countless human beings. They jar our memory, they touch our hearts. They have no desire to instill hatred in us: instead, they show us the terrifying effect of hatred. Their desire is to help our reason to see evil as evil and to reject it; their desire is to enkindle in us the courage to do good and to resist evil. They want to make us feel the sentiments expressed in the words that Sophocles placed on the lips of Antigone, as she contemplated the horror all around her: my nature is not to join in hate but to join in love.

By God’s grace, together with the purification of memory demanded by this place of horror, a number of initiatives have sprung up with the aim of imposing a limit upon evil and confirming goodness. Just now I was able to bless the Centre for Dialogue and Prayer. In the immediate neighborhood, the Carmelite nuns carry on their life of hiddenness, knowing that they are united in a special way to the mystery of Christ’s Cross and reminding us of the faith of Christians, which declares that God himself descended into the hell of suffering and suffers with us. In Oświęcim is the Centre of Saint Maximilian Kolbe, and the International Centre for Education about Auschwitz and the Holocaust. There is also the International House for Meetings of Young people. Near one of the old Prayer Houses is the Jewish Centre. Finally the Academy for Human Rights is presently being established. So there is hope that this place of horror will gradually become a place for constructive thinking, and that remembrance will foster resistance to evil and the triumph of love.

At Auschwitz-Birkenau, humanity walked through a “valley of darkness.” And so, here in this place, I would like to end with a prayer of trust - with one of the Psalms of Israel which is also a prayer of Christians:
“The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters; He restores my soul. He leads me in right paths for His name’s sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff - they comfort me ... I shall dwell in the house of the Lord my whole life long” (Ps 23:1-4, 6).