New Page 0

A news item told of two homosexual partners from Israel who brought the sperm of one of them to a clinic in India where the sperm was used to fertilize an egg taken from one woman and then implanted in the womb of another woman. Consider that the resulting child will have no real assessment of who the actual father is – apart from insisting on a DNA test later in life. The child will certainly never know who the mother is since all that the word mother connotes belongs to neither woman. Ovulated by one woman, brought to term by another woman, and then nurtured by two dads, the child will never have a real maternal experience. In fact this child will clearly never have a full family experience in the sense that family has been understood since Eden. The firm presence of a father, the warm presence of a mother, the male/female parental interaction within the household will be denied this child. A further major loss in this unique child’s life will be a sense of tradition, civilization, and convention, dramatically isolating the child from history.

Persons who enter into this surrogacy procedure, according to recent news reports, do it obviously to gain a child for themselves. They might also justify the process by citing the vastly improved financial situation of the indigent women in India who are paid for their services. Everybody benefits -- except certainly the child. The secular society that tolerates this trafficking in reproductive experimentation has no way of forecasting how a totally rootless birth will impact on a child. Trial and error is a hazardous way to raise a new generation.

Recently, on a much firmer foundation, Jennifer Roback Morse spoke at the New York Archdiocesan Family Life Conference and outlined three fundamental truths to be considered by those who would tamper with parenting.

Focusing on the harm that would be done by changing the definition of marriage, especially as regards same-sex unions, Ms. Morse reminded her listeners first of all that “marriage is a pre-political institution of civil society.” Laws do not create marriage; laws recognize marriage as the union of man and woman. Marriage actually pre-dates all law. So the marriage of man and woman as husband and wife actually precedes society. In fact, marriage creates society; not vice versa. Christians should recall that the marriage of man and woman was the only blessing that Adam and Eve took from Eden after their sin. It’s that old – and that sacred. So for twenty-first century man to re-define marriage is totally to ignore human history – not to mention God’s Will.

Secondly Ms. Morse noted that “marriage is society’s preferred context for both sexual activity and child-rearing.” Sadly today this insight into perennial wisdom appears tragically, even comically, out of step with the prevailing popular culture – as the media often suggest. Yet in spite of all the racy programs on TV and the adulterous shenanigans of celebrities and the prevalence of cohabitation, divorce and single parenthood, family life consisting of mom, dad and the kids is still the aspiration, acknowledged or assumed, of the vast majority of mankind. The sleep-around-girl and the party guy are not anyone’s lifetime ambition. Ozzie and Harriet still surpass Britney Spears and Kevin Federline as role models.

Finally Ms Morse advised her New York audience that “marriage is a gender based institution for attaching fathers and mothers to each other and for attaching fathers to their children.” And in light of the news item reviewed above, Ms. Morse might now add, “…attaching mothers to their children.” In other words, marriage has traditionally been the best guarantee of family stability within society, the best guarantee that spouses will enjoy the complementary love that will fulfill them and the best guarantee that children will observe the loving male/female interaction so important to a complete family life. Marriage cannot be an experiment; marriage is an institution. For Christians it is a sacrament. To eliminate gender and gender roles from marriage is to de-humanize it, de-civilize it, in fact, to destroy it.

A radio commentator made mention recently of “market religion,” an unfamiliar phrase but one that makes perfect sense. The commentator first alluded to religions that are handed down from above, that is, “established” religions like the Church of England in Britain or the Lutheran Church in Scandinavia or the old Congregational Church in Massachusetts or the Catholic Church in most of southern Europe and Latin America. The Islamic Church in the Arab world and Buddhism in old China and Hinduism in India would certainly fit into this category of “established” churches. For most of history the faithful belonged only to these established churches, otherwise they were branded dissenters or non-conformists and were denied civil as well as ecclesiastical rights. One may recall the Pilgrims coming to the Plymouth to escape the established Church of England or the Huguenots fleeing France to escape the firmly entrenched Catholic Church. Formerly believers did not select their religion; it was handed to them. Religion was part of the local culture and dissent violated both Divine and public order. Governments enforced church attendance by levying fines (or worse) against anyone who failed to attend established Sabbath services. Going to the established church was an unquestioned duty. Those who missed services did so at great risk.

In the English speaking world, mandatory attendance at the Anglican Church on the Sabbath was abolished in the late 1600s under the joint monarchy of William and Mary. Persons were no longer fined for refraining from Anglican worship on the Sabbath – although a lot of established church privileges were denied dissenters. (Catholics could not vote until 1829.) The first result of removing fines for failure to attend church was that church attendance dropped off dramatically. Sometimes freedom of religion meant that believers could neglect religion, that religion would no longer matter, no longer be part of their lifestyle, no longer determine their Sunday schedule.

The novel freedom of religion that was introduced under William and Mary would become the “market religion” that is now taken for granted in the United States. Roger Williams was vastly ahead of his time when he began his lively experiment here in Rhode Island. While the new American federal government did not constitutionally establish any church, most colonies and later the states had established churches well into the nineteenth century. And civil rights were often denied to those who failed to conform. Now in our own day, freedom of religion is an unassailable American civil right. Religion has become a commodity, a product in the market place, which believers are free to choose or not to choose, to support or not to support, to embrace or to reject. To gainsay this notion of America’s prized market place religion would certainly be civic heresy. Freedom of religion is one of the pillars of American society. But are God and his Revelation and his Providence served well by “market religion?”

An authentic religion by its very nature is an established religion because God himself reveals it. Once God has revealed himself to mankind, man’s only valid choice is to make that religion, that revelation, his own. To do otherwise is to contradict the very idea of revealed truth. What the English speaking world has inherited via the kindness of William and Mary is a fractured Christianity, a faith which embraces certain aspects of revelation and ignores other features. Thus the Bible is embraced at the expense of the sacraments; preaching is favored to the detriment of sacrifice; the congregation is preferred to the priesthood; the church’s spiritual mediation is forsaken for individual access. Certainly today’s Catholic is not immune to this market place Christianity. Today’s Catholic will go to Mass on Sunday but never go to confession on Saturday. Baptism, First Communion and Confirmation are prized events in Catholic life but contraception, cohabitation and divorce are frequent options. Some parishes are big on social justice; others are renowned for their piety. Angels, vigil lights and the blessing of Rosary beads remain popular while sin, hell and a firm purpose of amendment are forgotten. The American government might not have a legally established religion. But God does. And believers ignore it at their peril. COMPLETE

John Newton was an eighteenth century Anglican clergyman and the author of the immensely popular hymn, Amazing Grace. The Reverend Newton is also the subject of a new biography by Jonathan Aitkens. Although some take exception to Newton’s Calvinistic reference to himself as a “wretch” in the opening verse of the hymn, Aitkens graphically recounts that the young Newton was indeed a shameful slave trader complicit in five brutal Atlantic crossings from Africa’s Gold Cost to America’s southern shores. Newton was certainly not alone is accepting the slave trade as simply part of European commerce. He failed for most his young years to confront the horror of exporting and importing human beings. It took a near death experience during a shipwreck to bring young Newton to his senses and to rekindle the Christian faith of his childhood. Newton left the slave trade, studied hard and extensively, and was finally after “many dangers, toils and snares” ordained to the Anglican ministry. The Reverend Newton was an effective parish curate, a popular hymnist, and an insightful spiritual counselor (as well as a happily married man). But Newton’s greatest contribution to Western history might have been the guidance and support he offered to the young William Wilberforce, who was finally successful, after a generation of attempts, in convincing Britain to ban the slave trade altogether.

The Reverend Newton sat in the midst of the British parliament and recounted before the membership the atrocities that he himself witnessed and sometimes inflicted during his five trans-Atlantic voyages. Two-hundred and twenty-five Africans were usually crowded into a slave ship; on an average seventy-five died during the crossing. No regard was given to family units. Once a crying baby was snatched from its mother’s arms and tossed into the sea. Limbs would be chopped off as a punishment for the unruly and as a lesson for the unsure. Newton also related the hardness that crept into the British crewmen who shared these violent crossings. Over 1500 seamen died a year, according to Newton, the victims of rebellious slaves, unruly crewman or harsh captains. In 1807 parliament faced facts and banned the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Slavery itself would not be banned until the 1830s in England, the 1860s in the USA.

John Newton and the members of parliament and the British public and most of the white man’s world were not horrid, wicked, cruel persons. In spite of religious divisions, Europe was a Christian society. The trouble was that eighteenth century man simply did not think of the carnage that was being promoted by the accepted commerce of the day. The enduring slave trade was not the result of ill will; it was the result of ignorance – and profit.

Two hundred years from now some author will analyze how the sophisticated society of our twenty-first century could tolerate the dreadfulness of abortion, the lunacy of reproductive experimentation, the arrogance of re-defining marriage, the frequency of divorce, the irresponsibility of cohabitation, the menace of pornography, the neglect of worship, the inequality of goods, and an accumulation of other evils that modern man takes for granted. Contemporary society is not irredeemably evil anymore than Newton’s countrymen were inherently vicious. But like Newton’s politicians and public, men and women today need a wake-up call, a warning, a witness to go before society and recount first hand the abuses that ignorance and indifference shield from the headlines. Twenty-first century man has little idea of how abortion and contraception have hardened the hearts of women and men toward new life. Twenty-first century man gives no thought to how the individualistic re-definition of marriage will affect generations to come. Twenty-first century man does not give a thought as to how the neglect of worship, religion, the Sabbath and the spirit will shape future generations.

The non-judgmental attitude of modern man, especially toward crimes committed against life and family, is defended as tolerance when it should be vilified as ignorance. What shipwreck will return our society to its Christian roots? What amazing grace will allow a generation that is lost and blind to be found and to see? COMPLETE

“Disturbing teen sex trends reported,” the local press observed recently. One in four teenage girls has a venereal disease; the promotion of condoms is being ignored; the teen birth rate is increasing. National sex educators are “on red alert” according to one spokesman. The new report “did not examine the reason for the trends,” the press continued with incredible naiveté. The reader had merely to read on in the same newspaper to get a pretty good grasp of the situation. “Teens sending nude photos via cell phones,” read the headline three pages later. “I don’t understand why kids would do a stupid thing like that,” remarked one unsuspecting parent. A psychologist passed some of the blame onto technology which has multiplied the potential for “mischief.” Next the statewide news, above the fold, offered a colorful photo of a Providence assembly man who makes no apology for embracing a same-sex lifestyle that not too long ago would have been the end of his public life. And in the entertainment section, a celebrity item informed the reader that the mature, female star of the once popular X-Files “and her boyfriend” have welcomed their second child into their home.

In a world where pornography, homosexuality and illegitimacy no longer raise eyebrows, it is no wonder that teenagers treat sexual activity very causally. If the Supreme Judicial Courts of Massachusetts and California can endorse the rights of couples to perform unnatural acts, then kids cannot be faulted for believing that other previously taboo sexual activities are now acceptable. “Sex and the City” debuted to a $55.7 million take, the fifth-highest debut for an R-rated film, and sent producers into a huddle to think up a sequel. This says a lot about today’s values. Notice the small but indicative adaptation by furniture companies who refer carefully to one’s “partner” when promoting mattress sales. Gone are traditional, specific words like “wife,” “husband,” or “spouse.” Intimacy is generalized – marriage be damned!

Sexual relations have clearly been trivialized. An adult world in which sex has become nothing more than entertainment has little foundation for criticizing the teenage world which follows its lead. Sex as a prerogative of that exclusive, permanent, life-giving relationship called marriage is a notion that has gone the way of nuns’ veils and priests’ birettas. In relieving sex of its responsibility to be exclusive (I, John, take you, Mary…) and to be permanent (‘til death do us part) and to be creative, society robs sexuality of everything that makes it noble, that makes is dignified, that makes it sacred. After taking sex off its pedestal, society cannot complain if it finds sex on teenage cell phones. Adult lack of respect engenders teenage lack of respect. Don’t blame the kids!

A cousin of mine once remarked with practical insight, “There are two reasons we didn’t have sex when we were teenagers: first of all, it was a sin; and secondly, our fathers would kill us when we got home.” Certainly some teenagers did have sex in the middle of the last century – and clearly before that as well. But extra-marital sex was done in those days with peril. Mercifully sex was still dirty and to abuse it was punishable – both in this life and the next. Teenage sexual impulses will never be regulated until society agrees to return sex to the marital bed. Unless sex is plainly and universally appreciated as a select and stable relationship open to new life then promiscuity will remain rampant. Classroom teachers, school psychologists, and discussion facilitators cannot correct the unbridled sexual permissiveness that pervades the media. “The fear of God can never be taught by constables,” wrote the essayist Sydney Smith in 1806. And his words are still accurate. Respect of any kind is not the task of lawmakers or schools; it is the duty of society. Teenage sexual abstinence will not result from a government program; it will be ensured only by the example of the adult world. Liberals are right, for once, when they claim that morality cannot be legislated. All the laws, all the forums, all the committees in the world will not convince teenagers of the value of chastity if they can still turn on the TV, open the newspaper, or overhear adults who insist on celebrating the tawdry, the titillating, and the tasteless. Teenage self-respect is guided by adult self-respect. The irony of the phrase “adult programming” says it all. COMPLETE

One Sunday last Spring, St. Francis parish in Warwick celebrated First Communion at a 12:30pm Sunday Mass, welcomed a newborn with the sacrament of Baptism at 2pm and then witnessed Bishop Mulvee confirm twenty-two young people at 5pm. The numbers here at St. Francis are not great so administering these three sacraments was not as stressful as those days when I was a curate at Ss. John & Paul in Coventry when First Communion would be on all four Sundays in May and a double Confirmation ceremony would be celebrated on a Sunday at 2pm and 6pm with a 4pm wedding in between. These statistics are not a plea for sympathy. (Although if some wanted to send a lasagna to the rectory to sustain me during the rigors of my ministry it would be appreciated.) Rather a busy Sunday helps to focus the believer’s attention on the fundamental framework of Roman Catholicism, namely, the sacramental principle.

At First Communion, the second graders not only heard the Word of God proclaimed from the pulpit, they accepted the Body of Christ into their hands, tasted the Sacred Host and consumed their Savior into the very fabric of their being. At Baptism again the assembled community heard the Word of God announced and the infant squealed as the chill water flowed across his forehead. Even before he could reasonably comprehend the marvel that was taking place in his soul, this baby was able to sense the action of God. God had taken the first human, earthly steps into this child’s life. At Confirmation, the young people and their sponsors and families would see with their bodily eyes Christ present in the person of the bishop. They would again hear the Word of God with their ears. They would see his hands raised in solemn imprecation to the Spirit and they would feel the warmth of the oil and the pressure of bishop’s hand on their foreheads. Unmistakable human contact was the vehicle God was employing to bring these young Catholics to the fullness of Church life.

In all these illustrations and in any instance that might be recounted regarding the celebration of the sacraments, the same principle is in operation. God continues to come to his people through human elements. Flowing water, baked bread, poured wine, strengthening oil, spoken vows, extended hands, even the assessment of guilt during confession are all creaturely essentials with universal and timeless significance. The same principle whereby God revealed his love to Adam and Eve through the creaturely comforts of Eden is at work here. The same principle whereby God supremely manifested his love for the human family through the human nature and human activity of Jesus Christ is wonderfully seen here. A grasp of this sacramental principle – the conferral of Divine grace through earthly enterprises – is vital to the understanding of authentic Christianity and especially of Roman Catholicism whose glory has always been to express the sublime through the mundane.

Critical to the believer’s full understanding of the sacramental principle is an appreciation of the dignity that God recognizes in human nature and in all creation. God could easily have saved mankind through exclusively Divine or angelic or spiritual means. The thunderbolts that the ancients imagined emanating from Zeus’ throne on Mount Olympus reflect this tendency to assume that all mighty things come from above and that man’s native abilities count for naught. But the Judaeo-Christian God does not despise the things of earth. In fact, the God of our fathers exalts the things of this earth. His Divine Son took on a human nature; he was born, lived, died and was buried. The Church established by this Son has an entirely human framework. It finds God in human history, human writing, birth, marriage, sickness, death, meals, and community. It takes into account even sin and sacrifice. Its administration is entirely human. Its worship mirrors the heavenly court by employing human excellence.

Christianity is clearly a resounding vote of confidence in the dignity of humankind. If God honors man with such respect certainly man should have the same reverence for himself. Disregard for a fellow human being, abuse of nature, neglect of life on earth is not only an insult to man it is a slap in the face to God. If God respects man, man should respect himself. COMPLETE

A few years ago I visited a cousin in Florida. As I sat by her pool, I took advantage of several copies of the Smithsonian Magazine placed on a nearby table. Noticing that I enjoyed this informative publication, my cousin has sent me a subscription to it every Christmas since then. I continue to enjoy the variety of historical, cultural and geographical topics featured monthly. This past month I opened the magazine to throw away those annoying re-subscription inserts that clutter up all reading material nowadays. One, however, especially caught my eye. It was a tear-out for a men’s cosmetic that would blend graying hair with a guy’s natural color. The announcement read: “Best news for boomers since the birth control pill.” How the mighty have fallen, I thought to myself. A sedate, even moderately learned, magazine succumbs to the sexual revolution. Instead of suggesting cruises to the Galapagos Islands or promoting tours of Mount Vernon, the Smithsonian is now advancing contraception. Apparently nothing, not even national institutions like the Smithsonian Institute, is impervious to the pan-sexualism that pervades today’s society. Is nothing sacred?

That a reference to contraception can become en eye-catching commercial in a family magazine clearly shows how much birth-control has been accepted by modern American society. The ambitious Generation Xer that thought up this ad for his senior executives probably expected it to be merely clever, not controversial. After all, although all pertinent official religious documents continue to condemn birth control, contraception is clearly a significant part of American Catholic life. It is estimated that only 3% of married couples practice Natural Family Planning. The other 97% constitutes a lot of people – and they are all not Protestants Jews or non-believers. For the most part, I would wager that religion does not even enter into the picture. America is sold on artificial birth control.

In the plan of God and in the teachings of the Scriptures and the Church, sexual relations and the possibility of new life have been fundamentally linked. The Book of Genesis has two accounts of creation. One celebrates the glory of procreation: Increase, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. The other celebrates the conjugal love of spouses: This one at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. The possibility of children and the expression of sexual love have been linked from the start. Pope Paul VI’s decisive words in his 1968 encyclical On Human Life must be recalled here: Each and every act of intercourse must be open to the transmission of life. The Pope does not say that every act of intercourse must result in the transmission of life. (Statistically 6 out of every 100 acts of intercourse result in new life.) He is not suggesting dozens of children for every family. The Pope writes that every act of intercourse must be open to the transmission of life. A Christian couple must always be straightforward about the possibility of new life. A believing couple must be welcoming toward new life.

Today’s reproductive technology can easily enable a couple to separate sexual activity from child bearing. The procreation of children need no longer be linked to the mutual enjoyment of the spouses. The division of sexual relations from procreation has led to what popes have called the “contraceptive mentality.” Much of the difficulties found in marital relationships today stem from this anti-life mentality. The contraceptive mentality scorns the prospect of a new birth, making sex a totally individual pursuit. Such self-centered love sadly and quickly degenerates into mere recreation. Excluding the possibility of new life from sexual intercourse effectively eliminates responsibility from sexual relations. What should be a serious and considerate but still enjoyable and fulfilling activity degenerates into mere fun and games – as the American entertainment industry well testifies.

The contraceptive mentality – the severance of sex from new life – leads clearly to recreational sex. If children are no consideration, then sex apart from stable family life -- casual sex -- is readily acceptable. If the possibility of new life is eliminated, then gay and lesbian sex becomes tolerable. The ultimate and foulest result of the contraceptive mentality, of course, is abortion. Denying the possibility of children during intercourse has lead to the denying of an actual child in the womb. Abortion is the triumph of technology over life and of the individual over the family. Boomers beware! COMPLETE

The Vatican has approved a new English translation of some of the frequently used prayers of the Mass, prayers that are “common” to most Masses. Probably the most notable change will be the people’s response to the priest’s greeting: “The Lord be with you!” For forty years the English speaking world has been responding, “And also with you!” To most minds this exchange was a pleasant greeting between the priest and his parishioners that drew attention to the prayer about to be offered. The brief dialogue was not that much different from the invitation: “Let us pray!” But all of this is about to change (“about” meaning sometime in the next decade). The response of the congregation will become, “And with your spirit.” These words reflect the old, historic Latin, “Et cum spiritu tuo.” Since the forty year response has become so automatic, pastorally this small change might be the most difficult to effect. Some might well ask why Rome is insisting on such a minor adjustment in terminology.

Apparently all those years that older Catholic congregations were reading in their missals, “Et cum spiritu tuo,” they were viewing words much richer than a pleasant greeting. As Francis Cardinal George, OMI, of Chicago recently wrote: “Our current translation might seem more personal and friendly, but that’s the problem. The spirit referred to in the Latin is the spirit of Christ who comes to a priest when he is ordained, as St. Paul explained to Timothy. In other words, the people are saying in their response that Christ as head of the Church is the head of the liturgical assembly, no matter who the particular priest celebrant may be. That is a statement of faith, a statement distorted by transforming it into an exchange of personal greetings.”

St. Paul happily participated in the priestly ordination of St. Timothy, a third generation Christian. In his letters to the young St. Timothy, St. Paul refers at least twice to the “gift,” the spiritual priestly gift, that Timothy received through the imposition of hands: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.” And again, “For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather one that is strong, loving and wise.”” The gift of the priesthood, the character of the priesthood, the “spirit” of the priesthood was received at ordination and was bestowed to insure the priest’s effective leadership of the community. In the brief liturgical dialogue, the priest first prays that the power of God be present within the assembled people. “The Lord be with you!” the priest prays. He is praying that his congregation will be filled with the Spirit of Jesus first made present in them through their baptism. He is praying that the graces of their baptism will be ready, active, and effective during the celebration of the Mass.

The people in turn offer their prayer for the priest: “And with your spirit!” The people here are praying that the special gifts of Holy Orders which the priest has received through ordination will be equally ready, active and effective during Mass. They are praying that the priest’s unique gifts of leadership, preaching, intercession, consecrating and nourishing may be alive and well. As the cardinal quoted above noted, the people are praying that Christ himself might preside at their assembly through the gifts bestowed on their parish priest. They are recognizing that the priest is not there before them simply sharing his own talents and charisma. He is there before them “in persona Christi,” in the person of Christ, ready to share with them the special Christlike graces he has received through ordination. Thus the whole Mass is raised from the level of a neighborhood meeting to a heavenly assembly, an gathering focused on Christ, riveted on Christ, centered on Christ who is made effective, real and present through the ministry of the ordained priest.

Many will be stumbling for months, maybe years, over the transfer from “And also with you,” to “And with your spirit.” Yet this terse prayer is an act of faith in the pivotal role of the priest in Catholic worship. The faithful briefly but pointedly acknowledge the priest’s special gifts as they commence, continue and conclude their worship. COMPLETE

Every school child knows the tragic end of King Louis XVI of France and his Austrian born wife, Marie Antoinette. The sharp blade of the guillotine made swift work their necks. Yet many readers might not be aware that their Most Christian Majesties had a daughter, Marie-Therese, who lived into her seventies. This French princess lost two siblings as infants, a brother to infection, and another brother to the rigors of imprisonment. Yet she survived to take an active, if only supportive, role in European history.

Marie Therese was imprisoned at same time as her mother but, after her mother’s death, when the cruelties of the revolution mellowed, she was dismissed to her uncle at the Austrian court in Vienna where she grew to maturity. These were not hopeful years for the exiled French aristocracy since the upstart Napoleon had replaced the fallen monarchy with his own self-declared empire. After Napoleon’s losses near Moscow, Marie-Therese happily returned to Paris to act as hostess for her father’s brother, King Louis XVIII. In no time, the royal family had to flee again as Napoleon returned briefly from exile. After Waterloo, Marie Therese again served her uncle the King until he died in 1824. Another uncle, Charles X, succeeded to the throne only to be expelled by rebellion in 1830. To add insult to injury, the exiled Charles X was followed by a king from the Orleans side of Therese’s family, Louis-Philippe, whose father actually had a hand in betraying her father. Louis-Philippe in turn was expelled from Paris in the calamitous year 1848 to be followed by a grand-nephew of Napoleon. In the meantime, Marie-Therese entered into a childless marriage with the son of Charles X. During all this turmoil, the daughter who began her life at opulent Versailles, moved from France to Austria to Lithuania to Germany to England to present-day Croatia where she died and was buried with her husband and her father-in-law the exiled Louis XVIII. On her grave stone are the maudlin Biblical words, “All you who pass by the way stop and consider if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow.”

Marie-Therese was an excellent Catholic, maintaining her faith in God and in the Church in spite of appalling, historical obstacles. When a friend remarked that the “finger of God” might be seen in the 1848 rebellion against her cousin King Louis-Philippe whose father had contributed to her own father’s death, Marie-Therese responded thoughtfully and serenely, “The finger of God is in everything.”

As the popular imagery in the poem “Footprints” reveals in its folksy way, God never abandons the distressed pilgrim on his journey through life. When there is but one set of footprints it is then that Christ has rescued the harried traveler with his own arms and bore the burden of the day’s travel. Marie Therese was scripturally and faithfully correct to insist that “the finger of God,” the hand of God, his supernatural support, is benignly offered and certainly present at every stage of life. This woman experienced the collapse of the six hundred year old Bourdon dynasty. She tragically lost her parents. She was never quite sure what happened to her imprisoned little brother. She lived most of her life as an alien dependant on the kindness of relatives and sometimes strangers. She was denied children who might have succeeded to her father’s throne. She saw less worthy persons favored by history. She died and was buried away from her beloved France. Yet she could declare, “The finger of God is in everything.”

No where is the finger of God better hidden than at the tragic events on Mount Calvary as God’s own Son hangs on the Cross for the salvation of man and the expiation of sin. On Calvary, God the Father seems to be frustrating his own plans. His finger seems to be pointing in an entirely wrong direction. Jesus was sent to preach the Gospel, to convert the Jews, to open the pagan world to the Divine message, to effect peace and reconciliation, to establish a believing community. None of these goals was plainly visible to those who beheld the Cross of Christ on that fateful day. Yet the finger of God was certainly there as the transforming power of Christ’s death and resurrection was lavished upon the earth. Only a truly Christian faith can perceive the finger of God in hardship as well as in good fortune. Hope in the face of adversity has described the Christian from the day of Calvary, throughout history, and is still the mark of the authentic believer. COMPLETE

Somewhere within his voluminous works, Benedictine Dom Aelred Graham, prior at Portsmouth Priory during the 1950s and 60s, wrote tersely and perceptively, “God’s justice is subordinate to his mercy.” Those words should bring a sigh of relief to every reader as each realizes that God’s pointing finger is less descriptive of the Divine nature than his caressing arm. This Sunday’s Gospel guides the believer to the same lesson as those workers in the vineyard who worked only one hour in the late afternoon receive the same recompense as those who “bore the burden of the day’s heat,” as the older translation neatly read. The dismay of the full day worker is certainly understandable – especially in today’s labor-union-conscious society. After all, the laborer is worth his hire, a just wage is a moral imperative, there’s no free lunch, etc. But the master of the vineyard, as the spokesman for the Divine nature, quickly advises the disgruntled worker: “My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ The vineyard master (read God) is indeed just. He cheats no one. But the vineyard master is also pre-eminently generous, outstandingly merciful, exceptionally sympathetic. God’s baffling benevolence is the moral of the story.

Sadly, such heavenly generosity is one of the least appreciated aspects of the Divine nature. Many pious believers still view God as stern, judgmental, and even condemnatory. It is certainly true that God is no fool, as St. Paul observes, “As a man sows thus shall he reap.” Still forgiveness is more expressive of God than blame. The pen of Father Frederick Faber, the charming nineteenth century convert from Anglicanism, well celebrates the Biblical generosity and kindness of God:

There's a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea;
there's a kindness in his justice, which is more than liberty.
There is welcome for the sinner, and more graces for the good;
there is mercy with the Savior; there is healing in his blood.

For the love of God is broader than the measure of man's mind;
and the heart of the Eternal is most wonderfully kind.
If our love were but more faithful, we should take him at his word;
and our life would be thanksgiving for the goodness of the Lord.

Although generous to a fault, so to speak, God does not wink at sin, nor gloss over wrongdoing, nor indulge transgression. God is truthful as well as merciful and he cannot accept evil as good. Instead the kindness of God, rather than ignore sin, admits sin, but then his effective mercy evokes trust and healing from sinful mankind. Through a prayerful contemplation of God’s mercy and a man’s own sins, the believer is led first to trust God – and trust is difficult. Trust means that the believer is no longer in charge of his own destiny. The believer has handed his fate over to God. There is a risk involved with this submission, a risk that looms understandably large for those of little faith. But this risk is most consoling for those who take God at his word, a word graphically revealed by the loving, suffering, redeeming Jesus Christ. Trust is integral to an authentic Christian faith.

Through a prayerful contemplation of God’s mercy and a man’s own sins, the believer will also be led into the truth. Mankind is indeed unworthy of the kindness of God. God’s kindness is a grace; it is never merited. The expanse of this grace, if personally appreciated, should lead a man to bring his life into conformity with God’s goodness. God’s goodness, therefore, is not only forgiving; it is also healing. God repairs the damage he finds; he does not merely absolve it. In yielding himself to God’s mercy, the believer also avails himself of God’s healing. COMPLETE

No one receives a harsher assessment in the New Testament than the religious leaders of Jesus’ generation. Jesus excoriates the pious shepherds of his day labeling them “…brood of vipers…blind guides…whitened sepulchers…” In their case Jesus did not shrink from breaking the bruised reed nor did he hesitate to squelch the smoldering wick. In a rare display of righteous anger, Jesus roundly denounced the scribes, the Pharisees, the priests and the rabbis of his day.

Jesus is simply taking his own words to heart: “From those to whom much is given, much will be demanded.” The religious leaders of Jesus’ community were the educated, respected, knowledgeable people of the day. These men knew the Scriptures by heart. They were familiar with all the arguments, pro and con, that arose in Biblical discussion. They were zealously observant of the laws and traditions of their ancestors. And, although some might have catered to well-to-do widows, they were in most respects morally good living. A number, like Gamaliel, were beyond reproach while others, like Simon, were attracted to Jesus’ ministry. Yet Jesus keenly and sadly perceived that something was missing in much of their otherwise honorable lifestyle. While these religious leaders were men of religious observance, they were lamentably short on spiritual insight.

The Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day were great lovers of tradition. This is simply a kind way of noting that they were not given to profound thinking. They appreciated their traditions but they did not understand the deep meaning their traditions. While they knew and practiced every jot and every tittle of the Old Law, they failed to grasp the spiritual meaning of these observances. They truly believed that God had spoken to them through the words and practices of their ancestors. Unfortunately they viewed Jesus as an affront to these time-honored and treasured words and customs rather than appreciating him as the very fulfillment of everything the Hebrews Scriptures and rabbinic practices proposed. In their observance what should have been liturgy became mere ritual. What should have been prayer became plain platitudes. What should have been enlightening became simply informative. They lived on the surface of their religion rather than penetrating to its depths. Like the unreliable son in today’s Gospel passage, their lips said, “Yes,” but their actions failed to support their words.

Most readers, perhaps all the readers, of the Rhode Island Catholic should take the sad example of the Scribes and Pharisees to heart. Like these religious observers of Jesus’ day, most subscribers to this weekly newspaper are educated in their religion. Many were taught by the “good sisters” in their parish schools. Many went to LaSalle or Mount St. Charles or St. Xavier’s. Some possibly attended PC or Salve Regina. Let’s hope that all of us are faithful to Sunday Mass, the occasional confession and a few other pious observances. In other words, most readers of The Quiet Corner are good, practicing Catholics. It is precisely because our Catholic traditions have become second nature to us that each of us has the duty, the obligation, the responsibility, to examine the deep recesses of our faith. Good Catholics who are very much involved in church activities have to make especially sure that their religion is a true expression of supernatural faith and not just a comfortable hobby that keeps them busy and engaged and sometimes even entertained. This was the error of the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Their religion became merely a comfort for them rather than a challenge to them. And when Jesus did challenge them to take a second look at their treasured teachings they dismissed him as a rabble rouser and an upstart. They failed to see that faith is both ever ancient and ever new. They should have constantly re-examined their religious convictions making sure that they reflected the truth and did not merely re-affirm routine.

Because the tax collectors and prostitutes of Jesus’ day had no deeply held religious principles, they were not threatened by the preaching of Jesus. They welcomed his words as redeeming and liberating. Sadly those who already treasured their beliefs could not accept the new slant Jesus was proposing for their enlightenment. They wanted their creed to be confirmed, not challenged. COMPLETE

A few years ago, maybe fifteen years ago, two young men moved into the neighborhood. They replaced a sagging gutter in the front of their home. They kept their lawn mowed. Their dog did not foul any other yard. A backyard basketball hoop left by the former owners did not get much use. Although other people on the street offered little comment, it was quietly acknowledged that a same-sex couple had moved into the area. A “live and let live” attitude prevailed. No harm was done. After about three years one young man moved to upstate New York and the other young fellow went home to his mother in Burrillville. Their sojourn in the neighborhood was singularly uneventful.

Now just suppose one of these young men had knocked on each neighbor’s door to announce that he and his housemate were thinking about getting married and to inquire if the neighbor had any objection. He would have assured the street that nothing would change. They would still be the same good neighbors but a lawful marriage would permit them unhassled access to one another’s finances, health records, and personal interests including the collection of Hummel figurines in the family room. Again, nothing would change. Marriage would simply confirm their individual rights.

Ah, but something would change. And what would change is the ancient and universal definition of marriage. In spite of any suggestion to the contrary, marriage is not fundamentally the guarantor of individual civil rights. Long before governments and even long before churches, marriage was, and remains, the unique, social institution for the birthing and education of children in a familial context. No matter how old fashioned or even outlandish it might appear in this twenty-first century, marriage is for the raising of children and not merely for the mutual consolation and comfort of the spouses, sexual preference notwithstanding.

The modern separation of sexual relations from parenting is certainly not the fault of the same-sex population. Homosexual couples are simply allowing heterosexual chickens to come home to roost. It was the heterosexual world that first discarded reproduction as integral to marriage. Nineteenth century feminists thought women freed from reproduction could better pursue education and employment. The Lambeth Conference in the 1930s put the final Protestant seal on the legitimacy of the childless marriage. Some American Catholics theologians and their European fellows weakened the Catholic population’s perennial appreciation of marital pro-creation by their resistance to Humane Vitae in 1968. Most recently artificial insemination and “reproductive surrogacy” have completely dissociated children from marriage and even from sex. Society itself lamentably redefined marriage. The same-sex world is simply taking advantage of the heterosexual world’s prior disdain for marital authenticity.

In the contemporary world in which sex connotes recreation and romance much more than reproduction and responsibility, those who would restore a culture of life have a seemingly insurmountable task. The media, the entertainment world, today’s celebrities, many politicians, much of academia, and – let’s be frank – many an average person considers marriage solely in terms of personal fulfillment and individual satisfaction. This frame of mind has been growing apace for over 100 years. Yet only when men and women of good will have the insight and courage to include mom, dad and kids in their definition of marriage can they truly argue that marriage must not be used to legitimate alternate lifestyles.

All citizens are free and encouraged to pursue their legitimate civil rights. But to erase pro-creation from the definition of marriage in order to legitimize another lifestyle is deceptive, dishonest, and, worse, dishonorable. Those nice guys with the trim hedges might not be as neighborly as they appear if they attempt to re-define the very basis of civilized society. COMPLETE

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 9 October 2008

One area of life that would seem to be exempt from the Cross, at least in the popular imagination, is sexual relations. Greatly influenced by the fashionable media as well as by one’s own romantic notions, sexual relations between spouses would seem to be far removed from the sacrifice, discipline and restraint that are essential to the Christian life. Still, the Cross, in fact, the full Paschal mystery of death and resurrection is just as essential in the marriage bed as in one’s prayer life, one’s family life, one’s community life.

July 25, 2008 marked the fortieth anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s insightful but neglected instruction on the transmission of life, Humanae Vitae. Damned with faint praise by some European hierarchies and vilified with defiant protests by some American theologians, Humanae Vitae has frankly been ignored by clergy and laity alike. The prohibition of all forms of artificial contraception is, for the most part, all that is recalled from Pope Paul’s courageous and even heroic presentation. The celebration of the natural cycle of fertility and infertility that is at the heart of Pope Paul’s teaching remains largely untaught and, it might be boldly added, largely disregarded. The dynamic of the so-called sexual revolution, supported by the media and driven by desire, was picking up steam in 1968 and led from free love to recreational sex and now to same-sex marriage. Pope Paul’s wise and thorough treatise on conjugal love held little appeal for a generation of laity being introduced to “sex, drugs and rock and roll” and it had equally small attraction for a generation of clergy recently introduced to the relaxing “spirit of Vatican II”. Humanae Vitae was a document whose time had not come.

The Vatican first addressed the issue of family planning in the 1860s (yes, 1860s) by acknowledging a natural cycle of fertility and infertility. In later years, Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII followed suit by insisting that nothing unnatural or artificial could interfere with a couple’s reproductive cycle. As the medical and pharmaceutical industries grew more precise during the twentieth century, the variety of artificial contraceptives grew as well. The celebrated “pill” was a truly revolutionary contribution to the birth control debate. But while science was being refined, economics was also in the picture. Before 1900 probably fifty percent of babies born did not grow in maturity. Infant mortality was nature’s sad birth control. Happily this situation is certainly changed. In an agricultural society and during the industrial revolution, large families were an asset – all the more hands to work on the farm or slave at the mill. With child labor laws, many children became a liability not an asset. Today, parents support their children well in their twenties. Large families were also a form of social security in the past – those maiden aunts who stayed home and cared for elderly parents, ailing siblings or abundant newborns. Certainly they are a dying, if not already dead, breed. Women, of course, always worked and worked hard either on the farm or in cottage industries. But for most of history women did not work away from home. Again the twentieth century witnessed a great departure from this traditional practice.

In the mid-twentieth century sincere, practicing Catholics as well as other persons of good will had legitimate concerns about family planning – either the spacing or the delaying for worthy reasons of births. Their question was how to do this planning legitimately, that is, within God’s design for marital love. And this is truly Pope Paul’s great contribution to the family planning discussion – God does have a design for love. Pope Paul wrote, “Marriage is the wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind His design of love.” In God’s plan, sexual intercourse is not the happy but hap-hazard congress of two individuals. In God’s mind, sexual intercourse brings a married couple together to express their exclusive and enduring love for one another and to manifest their concern for new life. Both love and life must always enter into the picture. Consider specifically Pope Paul’s terse summation regarding life, “Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.” Sexual intercourse must always, always, be respective of life – life already at hand, life desired now, or life to be welcomed in the future. To dismiss these considerations of life from the mind of the couple is the great evil of artificial birth control and a great disservice to the marital and spiritual life of the couple. (To Be Continued)

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 16 October 2008

Unless there is a problem with impotency, a husband is always fertile. Men are capable of engendering children from their teenage years until death. Women, however, are ordinarily fertile only on certain days of a monthly cycle. And as science develops, this fertile period can be determined with ever increasing accuracy. Temperature, fluids and the calendar are traditional female indicators of fertility and infertility which a couple may employ to regulate births. The uninformed will dismiss reliance on this cycle of fertility/infertility as the old “rhythm” system of the 1930s and 40s. But there is nothing antiquated about Natural Family Planning. And as time goes on and the secular world takes a second – or even first – look at the natural regulation of births, this God-given disposition in women will become even more meaningful and manageable.

Undeniably God’s design of love was portrayed most graphically and most lovingly through the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus denied himself, handed himself over to the Father’s Will, sacrificed himself on Calvary but then was raised up gloriously from the tomb to sit triumphant at the Father’s right hand. This is the Paschal Mystery. This is the very mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. In the sexual life of a married couple, this Paschal Mystery can be lived out even in the intimacy of their marriage bed. A couple has every right to enjoy those honeymoon periods when they give themselves to each other in romantic, tender and even passionate love. The popular notion nowadays is that the honeymoon should describe all conjugal relations. But abandonment to such ardor is the soap opera depiction of love. God’s plan of love differs from Hollywood’s portrait. God has built periods of restraint, interludes of discipline, times of sacrifice, into his design of love. The Christian couple who periodically deny themselves full intercourse in order to respect life confronts what marriage, sex, and love really concern. To understand married love simply as pleasure is to miss the sacramental and paschal significance of matrimony. To be productive, to be full, to be spiritually and physically rewarding, marriage must include the Cross of Jesus Christ. Periodic abstinence gently introduces the Cross of Christ into the Christian bedroom. The couple who does integrate this periodic self-discipline into their married life will appreciate their return to full marital relations all the more. A new honeymoon will follow these periods of restraint. For Christians, Easter always follows Good Friday.

Pope Paul recalls that Catholic theology, relying on Genesis, has always taught that married love must be pro-creative – it must be open to new life. Catholic theology, again relying on Genesis, has always taught that married love must be unitive – there must be spiritual and physical intimacy between the couple. Artificial birth control destroys both the pro-creative and unitive aspects of married life. It frustrates pro-creative new life through mechanical or chemical means. It destroys unitive intimacy by dividing the couple: the condom places all responsibility on the husband; the pill or diaphragm places all responsibility on the wife. By passing responsibility to one or the other, artificial birth control is blatant sexism, dividing a couple instead of drawing them together in mutual restraint. By being faithful to both the pro-creative and unitive aspects of married life, a couple acknowledges that they are “the ministers of God’s plan, not the arbiters of their own designs.” God’s plan, not their own convenience, is always primary.

Humane Vitae wisely viewed the intimacies of a Christian couple in the wider context of world society. The authentic regulation of births among believers will demand education in chastity, consideration of population changes, monitoring scientific improvements, good example from other married couples, frequent confession, and wise medical support. Humanae Vitae also insisted that the clergy “…expound the Church’s teaching on marriage without ambiguity…” – a woefully neglected challenge from Paul VI. The self-mastery needed for periodic continence matures the individual; the mutuality demanded by periodic continence develops the couple. Thus the Cross of Christ, as always, enriches every human enterprise and every human life. COMPLETE

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 23 October 2008

When I was a newly ordained priest in 1966, a classmate, Vin Maynard, observed, “Kiley, you preach the same sermon every week: social justice through the liturgy.” The assessment was probably valid. President Johnson had inaugurated his war against poverty. Neighborhoods established Community Action Programs. The Model Cities Program was not far off. Grape boycotts were fashionable. Bishop McVinney had graciously permitted Henry Shelton to establish inner city centers in metropolitan areas. Urban renewal, both structurally and culturally, was the rage.

These thoughts came to mind as I turned the pages of Kerri Kennedy’s new book, Being Catholic Now. In a series of two or three page essays Ms. Kenney offers the considerations of contemporary Catholics ranging from Bill Maher to Cardinal McCarrick. Largely Irish, largely political, some still practicing, some long disenchanted, the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Dan Ackroyd, Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister, Frank McCourt, Martin Sheen, Peggy Noonan as well as Nancy Pelosi and E.J. Dionne reflect on their Catholic heritage. The contributors remember their Catholic childhood fondly for the most part, although clergy abuse sadly enters a few histories. A number were born into or have entered into mixed marriages, adding a broader dimension to their religious experience.

But the overwhelming theme of practically all of these stories is right out of the 1960s: the equation of Christianity with social justice. Frank Butler: “Catholic social justice is the essential part of the Gospel…” Gabriel Byrne: “…the crux of Christianity, which is love thy neighbor as thyself.” Susan Sarandon: “I’d sell off most of that stuff that’s in the Vatican and eradicate poverty and disease.” R. Scott Appleby: The Gospel of Luke has always been very important to me because it’s about God’s agency in siding with and caring for the poor, the underdog, the marginalized.” Mary Jo Bane: “Now I attend services at the Paulist Center, a little haven for progressive Catholics; it’s very much oriented toward service and social justice.

The notion that social justice is integral to the Gospel message is nothing new. The Church has always been the “defender of orphans and widows.” Wages and wars are important Christian concerns. But issues that were unthought-of and even unthinkable in the 1960s are now major items. The list is sadly familiar: abortion, stem cells, reproductive experimentation, contraception, woman priests, optional celibacy, same-sex unions, gay lifestyle, HIV & condoms. Sadly, the Church’s consistent and clear teaching on these topics is overwhelmingly rejected or unhappily tolerated by the prominent American Catholics highlighted in this book. Anna Quindlen: “Then I would lift the ban on artificial birth control…” Andrew Sullivan: “…I’m openly gay because I’m Catholic, because I was taught not to lie…” Cokie Roberts: “The first thing I would do if I were pope is ordain women and then married men.” Donna Brazile: “As far as the pro-life/pro-choice issue…I believe it’s essential for women to have a choice.” Nancy Pelosi: “I’ve always been pro-choice.” And so on and so forth.

Frankly, the doctrinal aberrations of these prominent Catholics are not as disturbing as the failure of the clergy to convince this generation about the inviolable beauty of unborn life, about the compelling insights of natural family planning, about sexual complementarity and openness to life in marriage, about the priesthood of Jesus Christ “who was and remains a man,” about the unique dignity of women, about the supernatural elements of celibacy. Our American ancestors in the faith, Cardinal Gibbons, Msgr. George Higgins, Dorothy Day, exemplified an admirable tradition of social justice for the Catholics of the pre-World War II era, a tradition that has endured as Ms. Kennedy’s book testifies. Today’s Catholic clergy must eloquently preach and effectively teach regarding the life and life-style issues of the third millennium. The pervasive secular perspective that exalts individual choice, eschews sexual discipline, scorns sacramental tradition and refuses papal instruction must be exposed as profoundly unChristian. Apparently a lot of talented and influential American Catholics are clueless regarding the full Christian message. Today’s challenge is daunting but clear. COMPLETE

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 30 October 2008

A parishioner handed me a slim book entitled Church History 101. As the title implies, the brief treatise outlined Catholicism’s two thousand years in summary fashion: The Ancient Church, The Medieval Church, the Reformation Church, the Modern Church. The author focused largely on the structural development of the Church: the early Church adapting the trappings of the Roman government; the Church in the Middle Ages resembling a monarchy; the Reformation era Church splintering as the nation-states arose; and the modern Church greatly separated from the secular state. Of course, a good deal of other material filled out the hundred and a half pages. But a major aspect of Church life that was notably underreported was the multitude of saints that have filled the Church life.

As the solemnity of All Saints approaches, the myriad martyrs, missionaries, monks, mentors, monarchs and modern folk who enjoy heavenly glory deserve a prayerful consideration. It was Gregory the Great who significantly promoted the veneration of the Roman martyrs by demanding their relics be placed in all the altars of Christendom as a reminder that without their heroic faith the Church would be long extinct. The author of the slim volume estimated that at least “tens of thousands” of believers forfeited their lives for Christ in the Church’s first three centuries. Popes, bishops, priest and deacons, men and women went joyfully, if not gleefully, to their deaths knowing that a better life awaited them in eternity. Ignatius and Agnes, Sebastian and Lucy were persons of faith, persons alert to the supernatural, persons keen on the next world.

The same supernatural faith that fortified the martyrs energized the missionaries that went out from Rome with a papal mandate in the next generation to convert and sometimes re-convert the whole of Europe. St. Patrick went famously to Ireland. St. Augustine labored in England and St. David in Wales. St. Denis brought the faith to France and St. Boniface christianized Germany. St. Ansgar went as far as Scandanavia. Ss. Cyril and Methodius journeyed to the Eastern localities. The efforts of these missionaries cannot be overstated. They encountered superstitious and often barbarous tribes risking and even sacrificing their own lives to spread the faith. The vast majority of persons reading this article owe their faith to one of these men.

The influence of monasticism in the history of the Church is often obscured in our activist age. St. Benedict in the West and St. Basil in the East, along with St. Anthony and St. Mary in Egypt, first attracted men and women of prayer who gradually formed the immense religious congregations of the early Middle Ages. The Benedictines, the Camaldese, the Carthusians, the Cistercians, the Carmelites – both men and women, monks and nuns – not only prayed but cultivated land, taught school, copied ancient documents, and offered hospitality in the countryside. Their preservation of learning and culture during the so-called Dark Ages literally saved Western Civilization. St. Bruno, St. Stephen Harding, St. Robert, St. Gertrude, St. Mechtilde, and scores of other contemplatives offered the Church and world spiritual, intellectual and practical enrichment.

The great minds of the Middle Ages and the Counter-Reformation have left an extensive legacy that still enriches the Church. The learning of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and St. Catherine of Siena along with the zeal and insight of St. Charles Borromeo, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Francis de Sales as well as the charity of St. Vincent de Paul and St. Louise de Merrillac served and sustained a dramatically changing European society while Jesuits, Franciscans and Domincans brought the faith to the New World.

St. Alphonsus Liguori in the eighteenth century, St. John Bosco in the nineteenth century, and St. Katherine Drexel in the twentieth century, among many others, have brought saintly example into our own day. Even now the Catholic world awaits the formal announcement of sanctity for Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul, Cardinal Cooke, Solinus Casey, Charles de Foucauld. The Catholic world is proud to honor this rich heritage of saintly lives on the first of every November. COMPLETE

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 6 November 2008

Once a month I bring Holy Communion to the Alzheimer unit of a swank assisted living facility in the parish. The building’s whole character is reminiscent of the old Marlborough-Blenheim Hotel in Atlantic City. Paneled walls, white tablecloths, real china, uniformed help -- the old folks should feel comfortable indeed. Adding to their contentment is a cozy alcove with the Dutch (or is it Danish?) designation of Snoezelen Room. This room is dimly lit by a string of small blue lights that flicker on the far wall. Soft sounds reach the ear. A trace of air-freshener is sensed. The ceiling reflects a tranquil blue sky with only a cloud or two on the horizon. Soothing playthings – a doll, a teddy bear, a stuffed animal, a football – are propped here and there on the upholstered chairs. A book or two with endearing pictures of animals or flowers are placed on an end table. Photographs of grand, natural vistas are framed on the walls. A plant fills one corner. No symbol or device that might invoke calm and serenity has been omitted. Agitated or bewildered residents should find the room’s ambiance most effective.

On first encountering this cozy niche, I generously thought how clever the psychiatrist or psychologist was that gathered all these reassuring items into one spot hoping to calm a troubled soul. But then, with more characteristic cynicism, I thought of how much our Catholic people have lost by having our churches locked up tight all week. Our parish churches were indeed the original Snoezelen Rooms. The door to the street could shut out the workaday world; inside an otherworldly, even supernatural, ambiance took over. Stained glass windows softened the harsh light of the outside world. The small glow of candles flickered in front of the side altars. A lingering hint of incense and an indication of polish from the pews was just perceptible. Concoling figures of the Sacred Heart and the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph offered their re-assuring gaze. The sanctuary lamp heralded the Divine Presence. Fresh flowers flanked the tabernacle. Perhaps a plant highlighted the pulpit. The baptismal font recalled days when new life was welcomed into a family and into the Church. The Stations of the Cross evoked Lents gone by when piety and fever energized the believer. A favorite pew gave a firm sense of tradition and continuity. Parish churches were indeed havens of rest for the agitated and the bewildered and the devout.

On this Sunday’s feast of the Dedication of the Basilica of the St. John Lateran in Rome, the Catholic faithful should ponder the spiritual fortification offered by church buildings and chapels and shrines throughout the world. The possibility of vandalism has sadly occasioned the closing of many parish churches but some churches, chapels and shrines are certainly accessible. Nonetheless the loss of availability of the comforts of our parish churches, especially those parish churches that have witnessed our progress in the Christian life, is regrettable. The late Father Edward Flannery, notable for his intense involvement in the Jewish/Catholic dialogue, lamented once how the demise of access to parish churches in the present day contrasted so greatly with the accessibility of parish churches in former days. He observed that once people leave Mass on Sunday morning they can not get back into church until the following Saturday afternoon. While there is an early morning Mass during the week, the other twenty-three hours during the day allow no entry. Father offered that his generation would go Mass on Sunday morning, be back for vespers Sunday night, attend novena during the week, confess on Saturday afternoon, and stop into church anytime they wanted on their way to work or to school. And this opportunity was available in every neighborhood – not just the odd chapel or shrine. Church truly was a home away from home for Father’s generation. “Now locked doors,” he woefully observed.

Sacred space has been part of man’s spiritual and religious fabric since Eden. Every system of belief, Christian or pagan or otherwise, knows land or buildings or monuments where the presence of God is more effectively and more assuredly and more comfortably experienced. The consoling beauty of our parish churches (as well as the Divine Presence) should be generously available to our people.

COMPLETE

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 13 November 2008

The recent movie “The Duchess” allowed me to indulge my fascination with British history. Alas, before this saga of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, hit the screen, the viewers were treated to a pre-view of the new movie “Milk,” a docu-drama about openly gay San Francisco councilman Harvey Milk who was assassinated for his liberal opinions on same-sex activities. The pre-view offered glimpses of handsome young men and less handsome young women cheering Mr. Milk as he fought for so-called gay rights. The next day the Providence Journal arrived with the front page headline that the Connecticut Supreme Court had quite narrowly extended marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Later in the week, the Rev. Henry Rix, columnist for the local Warwick Beacon, offered an article explaining away the New Testament’s harsh words for homosexual activities.

Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, this is just the beginning. When our legislative session begins once again, the people of Rhode Island will be inundated with pro-homosexual propaganda which will not subside until any appreciation of traditional marriage has been obliterated from Rhode Island’s laws and the meaning of family life has lost any definition. Consider for a moment the celebrity backing received during October to defeat California’s Proposed Marriage Law:

* Brad Pitt ($100,000)                                                    * Steven Spielberg and wife Kate Capshaw ($50,000 each)
* George Lucas ($50,000)                                                                 * Ellen deGeneres ($100,000)
* Suze Orman, TV financial expert ($10,000)                          * T.R. Knight of Grey's Anatomy ($50,000)
* Monica Rosenthal of Everybody Loves Raymond ($25,000)           * John August screenwrite for Charlie's Angels ($50,000)
* California Teachers Association ($1,000,000)                * Hollywood Producer Steve Bing ($1,000,000 matching gift)
* California Teachers Union Issues PAC ($2,000,000)                    * California Nurses Association ($40,000)
* Service Employees International Union ($100,000)        * Barbra Streisand, Melissa Etheridge, Mary Blige fundraiser ($3.9 mil)

Rhode Island’s same-sex proponents will never accumulate backing such as this but there will be plenty of argument offered to the citizens of this state to renounce marriage as the permanent and exclusive union of a man and woman open to new life. Marriage is already being presented as the simple union of “two people who love one another.” And it very difficult to turn one’s back on love. The defense of traditional marriage will be dismissed as bigotry and prejudice; endorsement of same-sex unions will be welcomed as compassion and enlightenment. Christians should be prepared to be vilified.

What must be maintained at this time, however, is that Christians and other persons of good will have as their primary focus the defense of marriage. As peripheral to Christianity as same-sex activities are, it is not primarily a struggle against homosexuality that must occupy the believer; it is rather a personal re-examination and eager defense of the true meaning of marriage with its emphasis on an enduring union of one man and one woman open to children. It is marriage that Christians and others are protecting. It is not homosexuals that Christians are victimizing. Believers must not be intimidated by those who twist love for marriage into hatred for gays. Homosexuals are not the issue; marriage is.

Christians themselves must recall proudly and resolutely that openness to children is just as integral to marriage as the enduring commitment of the spouses. Incapable of producing off-spring, so-called same-sex marriage would strike at the very heart of civilization’s oldest institution. Family life has suffered enough with contraception, divorce, cohabitation, single parenthood and reproductive experimentation. While these abuses weaken marriage, so-called same-sex unions mock marriage. The thousands of years of prerogatives with which society has enshrined marriage for the protection of families and the security of children would be abducted. Marriage would be kidnapped. It would be hi-jacked.

In today’s Gospel, Jesus praises the wise use of talents. Rhode Island Christians should be eager to put their gifts and their genius to work defending marriage. The call is not to despise any segment of the community. The call is to defend the very foundation of community as set by God. COMPLETE

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 20 November 2008

Secrets of the Dead, viewed on the Public Broadcast System, investigates critical events of bygone generations bringing to light exactly how history evolved into the world of today. A recent presentation featured the introduction of the English Bible into the British Isles, tracing the extensive influence the early translations by William Tyndale and John Wycliffe have had up to the present day. The PBS program clearly made heroes out of Tyndale and Wycliffe who liberally placed Bibles in English hands. It also made scoundrels out of the medieval Catholic clergy who alone had the power to confect the Eucharist, seeming to keep the people at arm’s length from God. The handy Bible versus the exclusive Sacrament was a constant theme of the show.

The Holy Eucharist certainly depends on the mediation of a priest, as Secrets of the Dead made clear. The priest, in Catholic eyes, continues the unique bridge building ministry of Jesus Christ, the sole mediator between God and man. Perhaps with some sad justification, Wycliffe and Tyndale viewed the priesthood and the priest as a barrier between God and man. Even a little bit of knowledge about the Protestant Reformation reveals that the diocesan clergy often were obstacles to faith rather than channels of grace. Poorly educated priests, poorly spoken priests, high-living priest, low-living priests – the faithful of the later middle ages did have some legitimate gripes. But instead of renewing the priesthood as St. Charles Borromeo and St. Ignatiius Loyola did, Tyndale and Wycliffe eliminated the priesthood and disseminated their new and heartfelt translations of the English Bible to the parishioners of Britain. Now every man and every woman could be his or her own priest. There was no longer need for priestly mediation, nor for an episcopal hierarchy, nor for ordained clergy at all. Access to God was readily available through God’s written Word, the Sacred Scriptures, the Holy English Bible handily kept on one’s bedside table.

The inventing of the printing press and the general religious unrest of the era made these hand held bibles very popular. The handy Bible became for Protestants what prayer books and missals were for Catholics. They afforded quiet and practical admission to the presence of God. The Bible is, after all, the Word of God. The reformers argued that it need not be filtered through Church teaching or papal decree or episcopal definition or rude sermon. In the Bible God speaks directly to the heart. No man standing apart in vestments mumbling in Latin is required. The individual conscience, not the hierarchical Church, became the arena of salvation.

The Protestant believer discovering God for him or herself in the Bible was then accurately traced by PBS through the burgeoning of Protestant sects which swelled as charismatic preachers like John Knox and Charles Wesley and John Smyth engendered Presbyterianism and Methodism and the Baptists and on and on. PBS’ multiplying pictures of the abundant founders of Protestant sects on the TV screen was visually clever. But it also vividly exposed the Achilles’ heel of Protestantism. The Word of God was never intended to become chiefly a handheld book for private meditation. The Sacred Scriptures are meant to be proclaimed in the midst of the assembly, to be understood in the context of the assembly’s traditions, to be interpreted and appreciated in the whole context of what it means to be a follower of Christ. The Bible, the creeds, the sacraments, the priestly offices of the baptized and the ordained, the prayer life of the faithful, the example of the saints – these are all part of a package called Christianity. The Bible, with all due respect, cannot be properly grasped apart from the entire context of what it means to be Church.

The Bible does not compete with the Eucharist. The Bible should be employed along with the Eucharist as a “lens,” to use Pope Benedict’s happy metaphor, through which the breadth of revelation will be fully perceived. The Eucharist celebrates in sign what the Bible illustrates in word. To oppose the two, as some eager reformers did, or to neglect either, as some Catholic clergy might have done, is to deprive the believing community of the fullness of Christian tradition. Both Word and Sacrament are integral to the full Gospel message. COMPLETE

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 27 November 2008

“Watch, therefore,” this Sunday’s Gospel for the First Week of Advent warns rather ominously. “You do not know when the Lord of the house is coming, whether in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning.” Thoughts of death and its consequence, judgment, and its inevitable denouement, heaven or hell, are not among the most popular Christian doctrines as this third millennium of Christianity adds another year. Death and dying were an important part of nineteenth century culture with massive tombstones and parlor memorials woven from the deceased’s hair. The passing of loved ones continued into the twentieth century to have a strong cultural expression. Black arm bands and wreaths on the deceased’s front door are within living memory. Lately, almost precipitously, the death of a loved one is handled with more and more dispatch as wakes and even funeral Masses are replaced with brief graveside services. Cremation has now been added to the Catholic ritual although locally this option is not frequent. And of course the eulogy, borrowed from traditional Protestant burial rites, often intrudes into the Catholic Rite of Christian Burial.

In anticipation of All Souls Day earlier this month Bishop Tobin wrote to the priests of the diocese noting the lack of observance by some Catholic families for the traditional rites of Catholic burial. Priests are becoming more and more aware that some families will request a simple prayer service at the funeral home or even, as was noted, a blessing at the graveside. The vigil or wake held the day and evening before burial and, most sadly, the Mass of Christian Burial are “respectfully omitted.” The brevity of the grieving process is astonishing.

The reduction of a family’s grieving process is directly related to the diminution of a family’s faith. People who never go to Mass no doubt feel hypocritical or at least self-conscience participating in a Mass which they have not witnessed since their niece made First Communion in 1989. Sadly the Mass does not mean anything to them so, frankly, why bother? This is a problem broader than Christian burial. Mass attendance among Catholics in Rhode island and nationwide rests at about 25%. Fewer funerals reflect a wider spiritual malaise within the Church.

The Catholic funeral rites, and Catholic devotional life in general, have suffered greatly since the middle of the last century due to the loss of the sense of sin (“the greatest evil of our age,” according to Pius XII). Since sin is virtually eliminated from the Catholic conscience and the need to atone for sin has disappeared from the funeral sermon. The funeral Mass has become simply a time for mild reflection on the past and inevitable promise for the future. The notion that the deceased might be in need of one’s prayers is also “respectfully omitted”. Someone who never went to Mass, lived in an irregular marriage, was involved in dubious business deals, and was physically abusive might be grateful that his survivors kindly offered Mass for the salvation of his soul. But even to suggest the need of forgiveness would be considered the height of disrespect. Death, judgment, heaven and hell are the last things on a Catholic’s mind at the time of death.

Today’s society greatly underestimates the trauma that results from the death of a loved one. Human beings have to grieve. Persons have to get the death of a family member out of their system, so to speak; they have to deal with death. Death is casually dismissed at one’s own peril. The rite of Christian burial – wake, Mass, internment in consecrated ground – is not only the privilege of every baptized Catholic. These rites also comfort, fortify, and clarify the thoughts and emotions of the survivors. Frankly to skip them not only robs the deceased of effective prayers, it also robs the mourners of a time-tested routine for dealing with one of life’s critical events. An abbreviated burial rite for the deceased might well mean an elongated grieving process for the survivors.

Baptisms, marriages and funerals are the broad milestones by which most Catholics work out their life in this world and their destiny in the next world. When these are neglected, the traveler goes easily astray. COMPLETE

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 4 December 2008

A couple of Sundays ago, page two of the Providence Journal featured photographs of seven personalities highlighted during the week. Bruce Springsteen was being introduced to President-elect Obama’s young daughter. Singer Amy Winehouse was pictured on the day her husband was released from prison. Rapper Diddy Combs was seen exiting a poll booth. New James Bond actor Daniel Craig spoke from a red carpet. Musician Pete Wentz boasted that he too had voted. Another actor was shown at a political rally. Leonardo DiCaprio arrived for a London premier. Seven pictures, seven celebrities, seven entertainment personalities.

Apparently no fire fighter rescued an old lady from a burning house that week. No policeman stymied a bank robber. No one arrested a terrorist in Afghanistan. No surgeon saved a mangled limb in Iraq. No businessman secured a contract that would guarantee jobs to scores of workers. What is this cult of celebrity, this obsession with entertainers, this pre-occupation with music, movie and major league stars? James Bowman, in his book Honor, A History, observes that formerly heroes were precisely those persons who were uniquely different from the average person: Teddy Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill, Charles Lindbergh flying solo to Paris, Gertrude Ederle swimming the English Channel, marines and a navy man planting the flag on Iwo Jima, Dr. Salk discovering polio vaccine, astronauts landing on the moon. Nowadays heroes have sadly been forsaken for celebrities. And today’s celebrities must strive to show that they are the same as everybody else. Consider the recent presidential campaign. John McCain was already a hero by his endurance in VietNam. Hilary Clinton undeniably waged a heroic campaign to become the first serious woman candidate for president. President-elect Obama was equally heroic in his successful campaign as America’s first black president. Sara Palin was a hero to some for her undaunted embrace of family life. Yet all of these heroic persons felt compelled to bring themselves down to earth by joking late at night with Leno and Letterman, by pouring their hearts out to Oprah Winfry, or, gasp, allowing themselves to be ridiculed on Saturday Night Live. God forbid that there should be any pedestals in the twenty-first century.

Although government is not without its scandals, these politicians are certainly not the worst manifestation of lowered expectations in today’s society. The entertainment industry unquestionably merits that award and apparently thrives on the squalid attention accorded its excesses. Casual sex, addictive drugs, alcohol, multiple divorces, cohabitation, rehab, excessive wealth, exhibitionism, overdosing – very often joined to obvious talent – have not been the qualities that previous generations have sought in their heroes. Only the truly modern fan could reflect on celebrity suicides by singing, “…Hendrix and Joplin – my whole world is topplin’”

Contemporary society makes a great mistake in denying pedestals to its genuine heroes. To insist that great people are no different from the rest of mankind is to refuse greatness to them and also to preclude greatness for ourselves. Recall that Ignatius Loyola was converted reading the lives of heroic saints. Horatio Alger inspired the first decades of the last century with his tales of commercial success through hard work. “It’s A Wonderful Life” continues its annual holiday cheer by its portrayal of perseverance under pressure. This willingness of earlier generations to be inspired by heroism is dismissed nowadays as naiveté. All heroes are expected to have clay feet and Achilles’’ heels. Modern man cannot accept greatness in others and thus dispenses himself from greatness in his own life.

John the Baptist was the last hero of the Old Testament. He was indeed a celebrity: “People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him.” John was also heroic in his discipline: “John was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist. He fed on locusts and wild honey.” And he was certainly heroic in his humble dedication to Christ, ““One mightier than I is coming after me. I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals.” Society needs heroes. The Church needs heroes. True heroes summon men beyond themselves, affirming the strength of the human spirit and the effectiveness of God’s grace. Complete

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 11 December 2008

Ninety year old evangelist Billy Graham has announced through his son that he is not in the running for unofficial White House chaplain, an informal position he has sometimes held in previous administrations. This grand old man of traditional Protestantism has managed to maintain respect among the assorted Christian and non-Christian church families in the USA for many decades. Possibly the Reverend Robert Schuller of Anaheim’s Crystal Cathedral might also approach a similar non-denominational esteem within America’s civil society. Catholics and other Americans warmed to the gruff but affectionate demeanor of Richard Cardinal Cushing, mid-century religious confidant of the Kennedy family and later of Mrs. Onasis. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was also one of those religious celebrities who transcended denominational differences, gaining access to many assorted venues. Pope John XXIII in his day might also have enjoyed this position as universally accepted spokesperson for religion in public life. The Dahli Lama remains a less vocal but still visible worldwide spiritual symbol.

These religious personalities of the later part of the twentieth century were fortunate that they thrived in an era when the general Christian consensus endured intact and respected. The Bible was still the world of God. The Ten Commandments expressed a generally accepted natural law. Church attendance was reassuring. Divorce was the exception. Reproductive experimentation was unknown. War protestors were considered the fringe. Sexual preference was rarely voiced. Patriotism was a virtue; family life was clearly defined. Sadly and gradually, the old Protestant consensus began to fall apart in the late 1950s. The Catholic consensus began to unravel after the Second Vatican Council. By the turn of this new century, religious thought was broadly and contentiously divided between liberals and conservatives, progressives and traditionalists, modernists and reactionaries. It would be difficult to nominate a universally accepted voice for the Christian community today.

John Paul II was a religious genius for many but an out of touch Pole for others. Benedict XVI is an eminent theologian in some minds and a regressive traditionalist to others. Fr. Richard McBrien speaks obviously for the left; Fr. John Neuhaus writes unmistakably for the right; Andrew Greeley thinks he is in the middle. EWTN buoys up many traditional believers; the National Catholic Reporter thrills its liberal fans. The attempted ordination of women energizes some and scandalizes others. Some blush at same-sex unions and others embrace the prospect. Iraq is viewed as a duty by some and as a disgrace by others. The recent elections testify to a blatant pluralism within American Catholicism. Some fault the bishops for speaking too clearly on abortion and immigration; others regret that the bishops did not speak plainly enough on the war and the economy. As Yeats wrote prophetically decades ago, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

Freedom of religion has sadly degenerated into freedom from religion, actually freedom from a religious consensus, freedom from religion in public life. Any harmony inspired by common religious values is seen as an infringement upon individual liberty. Each American today lives with his or her own private beliefs. A religious consensus is viewed as a menace to religious freedom, not a support to national destiny. America is threatened, not strengthened, by strongly held beliefs. Still the venerable observer of early American life, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote, “Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot.” Lacking a tyrant, a free people need to share strong, inner convictions to guide them through life. For a free people, inner convictions are more important than external laws; a consensus is more important, frankly, than a constitution. John Adams knew this when he remarked that the American constitution was made “only for a moral and religious people.” Citizens need values that are both loftier and deeper than any written text; otherwise there cannot be any principled continuity, any enduring community, any shared sense of country. Christian tradition recognizes not only priests and kings but also prophets – men and women who summon mankind beyond rituals and beyond laws to the common ground of human nature and the noble ideals of the Divine call. John the Baptist challenged the people of his day to recognize what was truly central, truly integral, truly fundamental to their lives. A similar voice is needed again today. COMPLETE

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 18 December 2008

A devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows is not a piety that one would associate with the post-Vatican II Church. The stressed Madonna would seem to be much more suitable to a previous age of sentiment and romanticism. In fact this devotion was given a great boost by Queen Joan of Spain (daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella and sister of the ill-fated Catherine of Aragon) who warmly embraced the sorrowing Virgin after the death of her husband Philip I. But a second look at the litany of seven unhappy incidents in the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary can still have appeal in this less maudlin era in which today’s Church finds itself. If Mary’s seven sorrows are studied in the light of the Annunciation, which forms this Sunday’s Gospel, they are all easily understood as milestones in Mary’s pilgrimage of commitment. Mary’s “fiat,” Mary’s “let it be done unto me according thy word,” Mary’s embrace of her vocation of Divine motherhood, was renewed and deepened and intensified with every challenge that marked her maternal calling. Having put her hand to the plow, so to speak, she never looked back.

When Mary and Joseph presented their new born son into the arms of Simeon at the Temple, the mother’s heart was pierced with the prophet’s prediction that sorrows and distress lay ahead for both her and her son. Yet Mary, who had known of her Divine vocation for less than a year, did not shrink from her commitment. Rather than fret, Mary pondered this first puzzlement, confident that God who was good enough to save his Jewish people would not allow his plans to be frustrated. The flight into Egypt, early into Mary’s motherhood, must also have given her pause although she and her husband did not yield to discouragement. The Holy Family persevered as resident aliens in Egypt, secure that God’s good time would arrive and Jesus would accomplish his mission. The loss of the Child Jesus at the Temple in Jerusalem (for three day’s no less!) foreshadowed the loss that the young Christian community would experience as Christ lay in his tomb for three days. Mary was sorrowing but not discouraged. She and Joseph persevered in their fidelity to the young Jesus and to the mysterious plan of God.

Mary’s Divine motherhood was not entirely a vale of tears. The joy of giving birth to a healthy Son, the adoration of the shepherds, the homage of the Magi, the happy Nazareth home life certainly gladdened Mary’s heart. The miraculous response of Jesus to Mary’s kindly request at Cana must certainly have engendered much maternal pride. Jesus’ celebrity status during his public life must have provoked not only curiosity but also some satisfaction as this mother viewed her son grow into quite a public figure.

Nonetheless God the Father would continue to test Mary’s commitment to her noble vocation. Four of Mary’s traditional sorrows would be associated with Jesus’ agony on the way to and from the Cross. “Bruised, derided, cursed, defiled, She beheld her tender child, All with bloody scourges rent.” The old, familiar Stations of the Cross rhyme still says it best. The goodness of Mary and the goodness of Jesus overwhelmed by evil not only pierced their hearts but the hearts of every generation since Cavalry. Mary’s meeting Jesus on his unhappy way, her three hour vigil at the foot of the Cross, her valiant embrace of Christ’s dead body (immortalized in the Pieta) and her final parting from Christ enclosed in the stone cold tomb completed her motherly sorrows.

Still Mary persevered. She was the faithful mother of Christ and now she would accept the role as faithful mother of the Church. She is traditionally understood to have been present at the joyous birthday of the Church, the tremendous outpouring of the Holy Spirit which the early Church experienced on that first Christian Pentecost. Clearly Our Lady of Sorrows is equally our Lady of Commitment. Mary’s sorrows had nothing to do with self-pity or second thoughts. Having pledged her commitment to God’s plan in the stillness of Nazareth, she would persevere throughout the tears, taunts and final tragedy in Jerusalem. Her motherly way might have been sorrowful, but her maternal will was resolute. COMPLETE

THE QUIET CORNER The Reverend John A. Kiley 25 December 2008

The compelling example of Bethlehem’s shepherds responding eagerly to the birth of Christ depicted by St. Luke in his nativity narrative is rivaled nowadays by Frank Capra’s popular cinematic production of “It’s A Wonderful Life” with Jimmy Stewart persevering in his neighborly good works in spite of personal losses. Alas, the legend of poor St. Nicholas, a.k.a. Santa Claus, has been just about overwhelmed by commercial interests so his possible good example at this winter holiday season is often snowed under. Still again, Charles Dickens’ tale of a repentant Ebenezer Scrooge arriving with a plump turkey at the Cratchitt home on Christmas day is another enduring and appealing reminder of bigheartedness being one of the most basic lessons of Christmas.

Charles Dickens was to London’s nineteenth century poor what Harriet Beecher Stowe was to America’s nineteenth century slaves. These authors brought popular attention not only to the misery that the poor and the enslaved endured but also to the indifference and insensitivity that the middle classes and the well-to-do tolerated both in England and in America. Charles Dickens, like many of his era, understood Christianity to be an enlightened humanism which, considering the Incarnation, was not too far off the mark. The supernatural and otherworldly aspects of Christianity might be woefully lacking in some English literature and some American publications, but the social and community implications of the birth of Christ still strikes many hearts. Generosity with his funds was the lesson Scrooge garnered from Christmas. Generosity with his time and talent was the message Jimmy Stewart perceived in Christmas. And even an authentic picture of St. Nicholas will have the sainted bishop holding three gold balls, symbolizing this generosity toward three deserving and desperate young ladies. Certainly the traditional observance of gift-giving that marks the modern celebration of Christian is rooted in this spirit of generosity.

Generosity among mankind, whether read in literature or viewed on the screen or seen on Christmas cards or even experienced in our own homes, is just a faint reflection of the ancient and enduring generosity of God toward man. St. Paul describes the generosity of God best of all in a familiar passage from Romans five: “Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” The Cratchitts were certainly hardworking people who deserved some decency from old Scrooge. Jimmy Steward’s fellow townsfolk were equally respectable citizens who warranted some benevolent attention. And certainly all of us owe something to our relatives and friends with whom we enjoy Christmas. All of these people have some prior claim on the generosity of their benefactors. But there was no prior claim on the part of sinful mankind toward God’s goodness.

Man, through Adam and through his own willfulness, had turned his back on the heavenly Father. Mankind had sinned. He was numbered among the “helpless” and the “ungodly” and the “enemies” as St. Paul observes in the same passage. In fact man was “foolish, disobedient, deluded, slaves to various desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful ourselves and hating one another,” as St. Paul advised Titus. The Apostle’s point is that the goodness and kindness of God our savior toward mankind was totally undeserved, completely unmerited, entirely gratuitous. With all due respect to Dickens and Capra and Santa Claus, God himself is the prototype of abundant generosity.

And, even more happily, if God was good to man while man was in his sins, how much more will God be good to mankind once man has accepted redemption through Christ. “Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life.” As baptized Christians and believing Catholics there is almost a danger of complacency entering into one’s religious life. Overwhelmed with the generosity of the God through Christ, the believer might be tempted to bask in the light of God’s glory and neglect to share his spiritual benefits with his neighbor. Ideally the generosity of God should evoke a corresponding generosity from man. As God has “gifted” us, as the saying goes nowadays, so Christians and other men of good will should indeed “gift” one another. Mercy should evoke mercy – especially at Christmas. COMPLETE

HOLY FAMILY SUNDAY

+ Making its debut this Christmas season is the new movie “Milk,” a docudrama about openly homosexual San Francisco councilman Harvey Milk who was assassinated for his liberal opinions on same-sex activities. The pre-views offer glimpses of young men and young women cheering Mr. Milk as he fought for so-called homosexual rights. Last month the Connecticut Supreme Court quite narrowly extended marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Our northern neighborhood Massachusetts already extends this privilege. And also last month the Rev. Henry Rix, columnist for the local Warwick Beacon, offered an article explaining that the New Testament’s harsh words for homosexual activities should not be taken too seriously. Last week the Pope was slammed for suggesting that persons should fully respect the male or female gender with which they were born.

Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, this is just the beginning. When our Rhode Island legislature convenes next month, the people of Rhode Island will be inundated with pro-homosexual propaganda which will not subside until any appreciation of traditional marriage has been obliterated from Rhode Island’s laws and the meaning of family life has lost any definition. Consider for a moment the celebrity backing received during October to defeat California’s Defense of Marriage Law:

Brad Pitt ($100,000), Steven Spielberg ($50,000), Ellen deGeneres ($100,000), T.R. Knight of Grey's Anatomy ($50,000), California Teachers Association ($1,000,000), Hollywood Producer Steve Bing ($1,000,000 matching gift), Barbra Streisand, Melissa Etheridge fundraiser ($3.9 mil). Rhode Island’s same-sex marriage proponents will never accumulate backing such as this. But there will be plenty of argument offered to the citizens of this state urging Rhode Islanders to renounce the traditional meaning of marriage which is the permanent and exclusive union of a man and woman open to new life. Marriage is already being presented as the simple union of “two people who love one another.” No reference is made to producing to new life. Now it is very difficult to turn one’s back on two people who claim to be in love. The defense of traditional marriage will be dismissed as bigotry and prejudice; endorsement of same-sex unions will be welcomed as compassionate and enlightened. Christians should be prepared to be vilified.

What must be maintained at this time, however, is that Christians and other persons of good will have as their primary focus the defense of marriage. As alien to Christianity as same-sex activities are, it is not primarily a struggle against homosexuality that must occupy the believer; it is rather a personal and eager defense of the true meaning of marriage with its emphasis on an enduring union of one man and one woman open to children that must engage the believer. It is marriage that Christians and others are protecting. It is not homosexuals that Christians are victimizing. Believers must not be intimidated by those who twist love for marriage into hatred for gays. Homosexuals are not the issue; marriage is.

Christians themselves must recall proudly and resolutely that openness to children is just as integral to marriage as the enduring commitment of the spouses. By definition incapable of producing off-spring, so-called same-sex marriage would strike at the very heart of civilization’s oldest institution. Family life has suffered enough with contraception, divorce, cohabitation, single parenthood, reproductive experimentation, abortion and welfare. While these abuses weaken marriage, so-called same-sex unions mock marriage. The thousands of years of prerogatives with which society has enshrined marriage for the protection of families and the security of children would be abducted. Real marriage would be kidnapped. Matrimony would be hi-jacked.

In today’s liturgy, the church recalls Jesus, Mary and Joseph and celebrates family life. Rhode Island Christians should be eager to put their gifts and their genius to work defending marriage. The call is not to despise any segment of the community. The call is to defend the very foundation of community as set by God Himself. +

3 July 2008	4 September 2008	16 October 2008	27 November 2008	Archives	August - December 2003
17 July 2008	11 September 2008	23 October 2008	4 December 2008	July-December 2005	January - June 2004
31 July 2008	18 September 2008	30 October 2008	11 December 2008	Jan-June 2008	June - December 2004
7 August 2008	25 September 2008	6 November 2008	18 December 2008	July-December 2007	January -June 2005
14 August 2008	2 October 2008	13 November 2008	25 December 2008	July-December 2006	January-June 2007
28 August 2008	9 October 2008	20 November 2008		July-December 2006	January-June 2006