Please click here to vote for us in the Catholic New Media Awards 2009 - thanks!

Archive for October, 2010



24
Oct

“Infallible sign of the presence of God”

I have a piece of paper on the wall in my room which reads: “If you were placed in a courtroom and charged with being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” When I first read that quote several years ago I thought of things like having a crucifix or a picture of Mary on the wall in my house, or a bible on the bookshelf (one which wasn’t covered with dust), or not being embarrassed to wear a cross. I thought of things like being involved with St Vinnies or the parish youth group.

The more I have thought about it, though, the more I have realised that although all of these things are good, they must be accompanied by joy for them to be enough evidence of a true belief in Christ and His message. How can people really believe that you are a Christian if you do not live with hope and joy? (I believe that hope and joy must accompany each other).

Now, I’m not talking about joy in the sense of being cheerful all the time – in fact, one of my pet peeves is when people get true ‘joy’ mixed up with the ‘emotion of happiness’. Living your life with joy does not mean that you cannot have moments of sadness.

You can just tell when someone lives their life with joy. It’s that “I want what they’ve got” factor.

I read an article the other day which suggested that the decline in new religious vocations has a lot to do with ‘joylessness’. The writer of the article said that there are a lot of religious brothers and sisters out there who are not living out their calling with joy, and that this has more impact on new religious vocations than scandals do, in fact, he calls it ‘the scandal of joylessness’. Interesting point, and one that I agree with.

I’m pretty sure it was Pope Paul VI (correct me if I’m wrong) who said that joy is the infallible sign of the presence of God. Do you have enough joy to convict you of being a Christian?

23
Oct

Harmless fun, or hijacking a culture?

Exploitation of the human person is a theme that is prevalent on this blog, and in many ways it is something that I first appreciated about it. Like Being Frank, the Catholic Church acts like a bit of a ‘watch dog’ about matters moral; something the world badly needs.

So does the world need the truth that the Church (among other religions and organisations) gives concerning moral matters?

Henry Thoreau said it well when he said: “Rather than Love, than Money, than Fame, give me Truth.”

Truth is the path that leads to all good things. And we all know who Truth (with a capital ‘T’) is…

Two flagrant denigrations of the human person caught my eye this week.

Firstly, in Australia which is still buzzing from the “St Mary of the Cross high”,  a magazine has come out with a soft-porn version of St Mary, in a shockingly insulting article.

Secondly, the incredibly popular TV show Glee’s actors and actresses have bowed to the pervading pornographic culture and produced a provocative photo shoot for GQ Magazine.

I personally think that both women and men should be affronted by these examples. The tide seems to be against us, but there are people and groups trying to fight this culture and this reduction of the human person to entertainment and a commercial object.

I also personally think that while St Mary of the Cross is the obvious choice for Catholics to defend, we have to realise that an attack on ANY human person carries the same weight, regardless of religion, gender, nationality etc.

22
Oct

“Well, I hope you’re all satisfied. You bankrupted a bunch of naive movie folks — folks from a Hollywood where values are…different.”

Back in Auckland for the first time in a year and I see not much has changed around here.  The weather is still as inclement as ever, the papers are building up and beating down sports teams like they always do, and John Campbell still sports his Joker-esque smile /grimace.  Actually, the guy holding up the Domino Pizza ad on Mt Eden road may have changed, but the sign is still waggled around as unenthusiastically as before.  Haven’t yet attend Mass again in this country so I can’t comment on the quality of the music or the rate the homilies on my patented ‘Incitement Index’ (important parts of the Mass experience…).

From a quick scan of the Herald I see that ‘The Hobbit’ is in danger of leaving NZ for greener pastures.  Now I’m not fully informed on the background of this, but when has that really stopped anyone from having an opinion.  So in that vein, what were the unions thinking?  How dare they take advantage of a caring movie making organisation like Warner Brothers.  Did Actors Equity (or whatever their called) think it was a good idea to try and force something on a massive multinational? And Robyn Malcolm – why?  I’ve never been a fan of Outrageous Fortune, or your short stint on Shortland Street, but I held you in the same regard as I did other strangers I hadn’t met.  You’ve gone and ruined that perception now.  Actually, I don’t know if Robyn was on Shortland Street but every one involved with acting in NZ has been on the Street so it’s not too far-fetched a statement. I’m not sure what they want. More pay? Better perks? Recognition? More pastries? Is it not enough that you will be credited as ‘Hobbit Number 2′ or ‘Short fat guy with the pastry’ or ‘Best Grip Backup’? Just let them film the movie and stop taking advantage of the poor Studio. I came across this comment on the Herald page.

“Unions are selfish parasites that always end up killing their hosts.”

Teeheehee made me think about the chest bursting aliens.

Anyway, all I hear about unions is when they are about to throw a spanner into the works by striking.  Especially in London where we’ve had a couple of Tube strikes which has meant travel chaos for thousands. Chaos I tell you. Oh and the British Airways strikes.  It’s always about more pay seemingly.  I’m sure in the financial times most companies are currently operating in, it’s a fantastic idea to eschew further cutbacks and spend recklessly on staff costs. Would these workers prefer losing their jobs when the company goes bust.  I don’t understand strikes.  Most of the time the general public is completely against them but somehow it’s a good idea to go ahead with them anyway. It makes me mad in a white collar way.

I realise just is supposed to be a religious based blog and I must say something controversial.  Hmmm…. Jesus would not have approved of unions and their holding to ransom of general society. It’s in the bible – somewhere near the back.

21
Oct

RUBBISH REPORTING BY A. DICK:

Has anybody been following the controversy that has recently blown up in Belgium over the comment about AIDS by Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard?

Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard

Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard

Archbishop Léonard is the successor to Godfried Cardinal Daneels, who has recently been embroiled in controversy and scandal regarding his failure to help a victim who was sexually abused by a bishop-friend of his. Danneels tried to tell the victim, that he had some guilt in the whole matter.

Godfried Cardinal Daneels

Godfried Cardinal Daneels

Archbishop Léonard has recently said that AIDs is a matter of “immanent justice.”

As per normal with a topic such as this, people have misrepresented what he said, or twisted what he said, or are just too stupid to understand what he meant, or just plain unjust themselves and failed to clarify with him as to what he meant.

These are the things that he has said across time:

“AIDS is not a punishment from God, but it is more a kind of immanent justice, somewhat like ecology and the environment: as when we have to pay the bill for what we have done to the milieu.”
“Homosexuality is not the same as normal sex in the same way that anorexia is not a normal appetite.”
“It is an imperfectly developed stage of human sexuality which contradicts its inner logic. Homosexuals have encountered a blockage in their normal psychological development, rendering them abnormal.”

Jürgen Mettepenningen, Léonard’s spokesman, tried to clarify what the archbishop meant by “immanent justice.”

“AIDS flows logically from the facts: from a loose lifestyle. It is a bit like the person who smokes. That person has a greater chance of getting lung cancer.”

Now read this piece of trash writing from A Dick over at the National Catholic Reporter.

Instead of reporting on what was actually written, and trying to understand Léonard’s actual words, Mr A Dick twists and misrepresents what the Archbishop said: e.g., “Prelate asserts AIDS is punishment for gays.”

Is this what Léonard said?

Léonard said:

Loose lifestyle will lead to disease
Homosexuality is abnormal affective disorder
Homosexual acts are the use of the sexual capacity for unnatural ends
Acts against nature will have consequences
Homosexual acts will lead to disease

This is “immanent justice” for Léonard. Did he say anything about God punishing homosexuals? No. In fact he said the opposite.

Instead of trying to understand what “immanent justice” is within the natural world, as written and intended by Léonard (quite clearly too), the writer, J A Dick (a supposed theologian), drags Léonard’s statements about “immanent nature” into a transcendent theological statement, implying that Léonard said that “God punishes homosexuals with AIDS.” He said nothing of the sort.

A Dick then propagates this distorted view, and seeks out quotes from others who are replying to this misunderstanding, and within his opinion piece at NCR, sets up a dialectical construction, a dramatic juxtaposition, a false dichotomy, in order to create controversy and scandal, rather than quoting and analyzing what Léonard actually said. It’s like these people want to have a go, and deliberately twist what is said. It is unjust. A Dick should watch out, immanent justice might find him. If one lives by the sword of deception, one may die by the sword of deception. Didn’t Jesus say something like that.

What Léonard has said, is not rocket science: If one messes around with sexual stuff in a way that is not according to the human body’s natural rhythm, and natural internal structure, as easily discovered by science, then things will go wrong with the body at some point. From a scientific point of view, it is incontrovertible that the sexual organs are for reproduction of the species, no matter what your view is on evolution, or design, or nature. The female reproductive system is explicit in this regard. If the natural functioning of the body is continually disregarded, and pushed aside, and even twisted, and used in a way that is clearly against its finality (natural end), then expect defects to occur, and issues to arise.

Twist the natural physical laws (cf. genetic engineering) in complex organisms away from their observable ends, don’t be surprised when unexpected things happen; and things go wrong within nature: disease, or by products which cause defects.

An example within the sexual sphere is incest. Sleep with your mother, brother, dad, or sister, and at some stage, a little monster will be born.

Links are being discovered between abortion and breast cancer, stress and cancer, psychological anxiety and stomach ulcers, long work hours and cancer, lack of sleep and cancer, etc. There is a link with our psychological affective dispositions, and physical issues – such is the deep interconnection within the human being. There are also deep links in our intellectual life, and our love life, with our emotional well being, and our physical states. A person who refuses over a long time to forgive a friend, can end up carrying that pain physically, and having it manifested in all sorts of physical issues. These links between our internal states of mind and will, with our emotions, sensitivity, and feelings, and our physical wellbeing are co-natural links – which arise from the deep unity in our being, holding together all the complexity of life in us, as one living, knowing, and loving subject: one person.

From Léonard’s point of view, there is definitely a “nature” in the world, a natural way that beings act, and according to which they act (which is denied by many today), and when this nature is deliberately not adhered to by rational beings, then things will end up going wrong; and his spokesman uses the apt image of smoking.

If one fools around sexually one increases one’s chance of getting an STD. Simple logic. If a husband and wife are faithful to each other, there is less chance of getting an STD or HIV; or of the family falling apart. Fidelity to a person, and to nature, is a sure way of living healthily.

If one fools around (for whatever reason: curiosity, psychological stuff etc) with sexuality in a manner that is completely disconnected from life, and its origins, then the body will end up being oriented towards death. If we don’t want life, and value it, then at some stage this will manifest itself, not just in our mind and heart, but also in our bodies. I know of old couples, who, when one of them died, the other lost the will to live, and died shortly after. Our spiritual, and emotional life can be manifested in and through our body.

These things are connected in human life. There is a deep unity between the vegetative, sensitive, and spiritual levels of life in the human person.

Whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

J A Dick should be ashamed of himself.

20
Oct

The Old Man at the Bus Stop

Of the many variegated and colourful people that make up our communities and neighbourhoods, there are a few particularly interesting characters that one always sees here and there, quite alone, going about their daily business.  One such character is a little old man who stands at a particular bus stop for what seems like hours on end each morning, peering up the road in what seems a half-blind sort of manner.  Indeed, from his constant stoop and stiffness of neck, it would appear that waiting for buses is something of a regular occupation for him.

Once, when my sister arrived late at the bus stop, she found him standing there, and asked if the bus had come yet.  “The buses never come!” he told her.  “I stand here and they never stop for me!”

I had only ever observed this curious old fellow from a distance – occasionally I’d seen him on the bus, with a safety pin through his ear and smelling strongly of cigarettes.  Then, about a week ago, it was necessary for me to catch a bus from his stop, and sure enough, when I arrived, there he was, standing at the end of the bus stop, rolling a cigarette and peering up the road as if expecting a bus any second.

Not being of a particularly bold nature myself, I must admit I felt a little awkward at waiting at the stop with this old character, who appeared even more caricature-esque up close, not out of any dislike but more I suppose out of that sense of unease that comes from not knowing how someone will act.  I waited at the opposite end of the stop to him – and I made a rather more concerted effort to avoid his eye contact than to catch it.

At that moment, a young woman arrived at the bus stop.  Stopping a moment to take her ticket out of her bag, she then took a step closer to the old man and greeted him with a cheery ‘good morning!’.  Immediately, his gruff face (which I’d only ever seen in the same frowning expression) broke into a grin, and he greeted her back.  She remarked on the chilly weather, and to my growing interest, chatted away pleasantly to him for a few minutes.  Though his replies were somewhat mumbled and brief, he seemed suddenly changed, glad for the conversation.

It was clear from her tone that perhaps she’d only seen him at the bus stop a few times before – she was by no means an acquaintance.  When our bus arrived a short time later, the young woman and I climbed onto the bus, leaving the old man rolling another cigarette and peering in consternation up the road for the next bus.

For much of my journey into town that morning, I thought about the simple but genuine Christian kindness, charity and good-natured friendliness that the lady at the bus stop had shown to someone who I, and many others I know, would normally keep a distance from.  What a good soul she was!  I was ashamed at myself for not having the courage – or perhaps the charity – to do the same thing.  What a simple act, yet how it stuck in my mind!

I have since been emboldened enough to engage in conversation – albeit briefly – with this old character myself. And a few days ago, I was surprised and pleased to pass him in the streets around the downtown bus station.  I was glad to see that some buses, at least, do stop for him.

Let’s remember him and the other people in our communities who are in great need of love and kind words from strangers.

19
Oct

It’s just war and Jose Gonzalez

I decided this week to look at some of the past posts on being frank.  It seems that there have been some crackers here – just war, condoms in Africa, just war, women priest(esse)s, just war, global warming, just war – just to name a few.

I wanted – just this once, to look at this a little.  The arguments around this issue seem to be…heated – that would just about cover it in just one word.  Just a little thought just to add into the mix: there is a big difference between waging war in, say, 1099 to waging it in 1999 (just to take two years at random).  I accept that the effects can be the same – death rarely changes its form – but with the capacity to damage and destroy now more potent than ever before there is truly a vast difference between war now, and war then.  Just a thought.

Can a war now be just?  I found this interesting little video on youtube the other day and I reckon it’s one that has something to say to all of us about modern war and revolution.  Parts of it are tough viewing, be warned, but I’m interested to know what you think of it.

Just War & Jose Gonzalez

P.S. I think the song’s not bad too.

18
Oct

St Mary of the Cross MacKillop, pray for us

Over the years that I have had the privilege of posting on this blog, I have been able to post at a number of significant and unique occasions. However, I’m pretty sure (I’ll have to check) that I’ve never written about the canonisation of a Saint. ;) I definitely haven’t written about the canonisation of a Australasian Saint at any rate…until today, at least.

This is, of course, due to the fact that until last night there weren’t any.

Saints from Australasia that is. And I mean to capitalise that word deliberately. I am sure there are plenty of saints in Australasia, and there are probably a number that we could guarantee are in Heaven. But, St Mary of the Cross MacKillop is the first to have gone through the various examinations and tests required since Pope John Paul II instituted the new rules in the early ’80s to confirm that she is a Saint in the Catholic Church.

Watching the event live on TV last night, I found it quite powerful. The weather was very nice and there wasn’t a spare seat in St Peter’s Square – the multitudes from different nations re-affirming the historical nature of the event. It was good to listen to the commentators as they followed the process – which, I have to say, didn’t actually take that long. I mean, there was the procession of plenty of priests and bishops along with the Pope which took a bit of time (as you’d expect), and the reading in Italian of the short(ish) biographies of the various Blesseds being canonised (6 of them), and then with the following formula of canonisation, we have six new Saints (capital ‘S’):

“In honour of the Holy Trinity, for the glory of the Catholic faith and the development of the Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of Ourself, after long reflection, invoked divine assistance many times and listened to the opinion of many of our Fathers in the Episcopate (Bishops) declare and define as Saints the Blessed Stanislaw Soltys, Andre Bessette, Candida Maria de Jesus Cipitria y Barriola, Mary of the Cross MacKillop, Giulia Salzano, Battista Da Varano and inscribe their names in the Canon (list) of the Saints and establish that throughout the Church they be honoured devoutly among all the saints.”

Done. :)

I have to say that I’m also quite taken aback with just how big a deal this has become in Australia. The coverage showed thousands of people around the continent celebrating and watching the event, and the coverage in the mainstream media has been plentiful. Indeed, the main commentator on the news broadcast didn’t sound like a Catholic with her questions about what was going on, but she sounded very proud to be part of it and was quite moved when the actual moment came.

It’s all good stuff. The more people we have in Heaven to pray for us, the better I say.

If you want to learn more about the life of St Mary of the Cross MacKillop, check out www.marymackillop.org.au, and the most recent episode of the Catechiwi podcast.