Showing posts with label Pope Francis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pope Francis. Show all posts
Papolatry: Fix it or we'll fix it for you
9 October 2018
Here is an article which was difficult to write for me. It's on papolatry. Please read it HERE. And pray for our Church!
31 August 2018
I signed the petition. Have you?
Don't let this horrible scandal get swept under the rug. Pray, first and foremost. But also act. There needs to be, at the very least, a full independent investigation. Not creepy silence. Sign the petition HERE.
Don't let this horrible scandal get swept under the rug. Pray, first and foremost. But also act. There needs to be, at the very least, a full independent investigation. Not creepy silence. Sign the petition HERE.
25 May 2017
The philosopher G.F. W. Hegel (1770-1831), for all his many failed attempts at explaining life, has an interesting idea in relation to the passing on of ideas and events through history. This idea is known as Aufhebung. Perhaps fittingly, Aufhebung is contradictory in definition. It refers to both cancelling something, and keeping it. Contradiction is not a great obstacle to Hegel. A quick explanation of Aufhebung would be to consider some historical event/idea. This event/idea, as time passes, is somehow packaged up in its bare essence and moved forward as one complete big picture idea. For instance, when considering communism most might consider Stalin, government taking control, and many deaths. When considering Napoleon people might have a snapshot of him taking control of much of the world, failing, coming back and failing again. Or perhaps when considering the industrial revolution people might think about lots of pollution, slave labour, and the old way of life changing. In other words, events and ideas have a way of condensing into their bare essence, and being remembered only for this.
Now whether or not Hegel actually believed that events and ideas ontologically changed is besides the point. Forget about Hegel now. The point is that there is some truth to how we often only remember certain principles or general details of history. Perhaps in our modern day culture I fear our events and ideas are often reduced to even a single photograph.
For instance, mention the American Civil Rights movement and most people will picture something like this:
Well, I fear if you mention president Trump's meeting with Pope Francis, the enduring image will not be pretty. The two leaders held their highly anticipated meeting. The interest in this meeting was heightened after Pope Francis took some shots at Trump in the weeks leading up to the visit. So what did they talk about? Was Trump put in his place? Did Pope Francis get the arrogant Trump treatment? Was some form of understanding reached? Are they more or less enemies? Words have been shed over the meeting, but all in vain. What the meeting will be remembered for is this:
Modern day Aufhebung. Whatever events and ideas arise can be reduced to a simple picture. For better or for worse. The Hegelian message, then, is further reduced to one principle: Always remember to smile.
Or maybe that's the whole point of the picture?
Now whether or not Hegel actually believed that events and ideas ontologically changed is besides the point. Forget about Hegel now. The point is that there is some truth to how we often only remember certain principles or general details of history. Perhaps in our modern day culture I fear our events and ideas are often reduced to even a single photograph.
For instance, mention the American Civil Rights movement and most people will picture something like this:
Mention Iwo Jima and you will get this image:
Muhammed Ali?
9/11? Something like this:
Perhaps more recently, even certain news events become memorialized by a recent picture.
Pope Benedict XVI's resignation:
The whole Obama/Notre Dame controversy:
Well, I fear if you mention president Trump's meeting with Pope Francis, the enduring image will not be pretty. The two leaders held their highly anticipated meeting. The interest in this meeting was heightened after Pope Francis took some shots at Trump in the weeks leading up to the visit. So what did they talk about? Was Trump put in his place? Did Pope Francis get the arrogant Trump treatment? Was some form of understanding reached? Are they more or less enemies? Words have been shed over the meeting, but all in vain. What the meeting will be remembered for is this:
Modern day Aufhebung. Whatever events and ideas arise can be reduced to a simple picture. For better or for worse. The Hegelian message, then, is further reduced to one principle: Always remember to smile.
Or maybe that's the whole point of the picture?
28 April 2017
We were exhorted this morning at Mass to pray urgently for Pope Francis' trip to Egypt. Egypt is anything but safe for Christians these days, and Francis isn't exactly helping matters by refusing to travel around in his bulletproof Popemobile. That's just how he rides (literally). You have to both shake your head at it and respect it at the same time. Pope Francis clearly wishes to be with the Christians of Egypt at this most difficult time. They suffer greatly for their faith. We can learn so much from them.
Notice I said "their" faith. The majority of Egyptian Christians are, of course, orthodox Coptic. This dates back to the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451. The controversy surrounded the nature(s) of Christ. The Monophysites held that Christ had one nature. The Church upheld that Christ has a Divine nature and a human nature. Anything other than this would not allow Christ to be fully Divine and fully human. It would be to say that Christ is, I don't know, a mod or a Gan? Some sort of blend of God and man. This is fraught with problems. God cannot change or He wouldn't be God. Christ must be fully man or else humanity wouldn't be redeemed. The theological problems of Monophysitism are extremely significant. Hence a complete schism in 451.
How does this relate to the upcoming Papal trip? It may or it may not. For starters, the Coptics consider their Patriarch of Alexandria to be their head. For many Francis would merely be considered a schismatic bishop of Rome. Thus, I fear that if our Pope Francis arrives with his recent TED talk mentality of fluffy hope, revolution of tenderness, and future you blather, his words and actions will be to no effect. It would be the equivalent of the local Church of the Rock protestant worship leader coming over to our local Catholic church in the midst of some crisis to tell us that we are one, peace is flowing like a river, and that we should cherish his words and be honoured by his visit because he's so significant to the community. He'd then kiss a baby for the cameras and leave. I fear there'd be no real point to such a visit. It would have a touch of hegemony and pride.
Yet I also believe Pope Francis can have an impact with his visit. If he follows the method of his predecessor Benedict XVI. Benedict's method is twofold for it involves truth and justice. Firstly, Benedict understands when there are deep differences, and does not cover them. For Egypt, this would involve Pope Francis being cognizant of the schism, and not assuming Coptic Christians will heed his words as if he were their pope. The truth is that beliefs on Christ and the papacy differ, and thus the approach must reflect this reality.
Benedict XVI also firmly believes that peace is not possible without justice. For instance, in his second book of the Jesus of Nazareth series, Benedict explains that Pilate had Jesus handed over to death in order to maintain a false peace. This false peace was completely un-Romanesque, and ultimately ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. Peace requires justice. Benedict backed up the call for justice in his famous Regensburg Address where he lucidly explained the violence found in Islam. If Pope Francis comes out and demands justice for our Egyptian Christian brothers, he will surely make an impact. His visit will not be a photo op filled with empty words, but rather will be the head of the Roman Church showing a true concern for a Christian people struggling for daily survival. The orthodox Coptic Christians would surely appreciate this effort.
Therefore, I still see the schism of 451 as significant to the upcoming visit of Pope Francis. Though we are Christians, there is a difference which will affect the message Pope Francis brings. His substance must be true and it must speak of justice. Only then will they observe the love behind it.
Notice I said "their" faith. The majority of Egyptian Christians are, of course, orthodox Coptic. This dates back to the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451. The controversy surrounded the nature(s) of Christ. The Monophysites held that Christ had one nature. The Church upheld that Christ has a Divine nature and a human nature. Anything other than this would not allow Christ to be fully Divine and fully human. It would be to say that Christ is, I don't know, a mod or a Gan? Some sort of blend of God and man. This is fraught with problems. God cannot change or He wouldn't be God. Christ must be fully man or else humanity wouldn't be redeemed. The theological problems of Monophysitism are extremely significant. Hence a complete schism in 451.
How does this relate to the upcoming Papal trip? It may or it may not. For starters, the Coptics consider their Patriarch of Alexandria to be their head. For many Francis would merely be considered a schismatic bishop of Rome. Thus, I fear that if our Pope Francis arrives with his recent TED talk mentality of fluffy hope, revolution of tenderness, and future you blather, his words and actions will be to no effect. It would be the equivalent of the local Church of the Rock protestant worship leader coming over to our local Catholic church in the midst of some crisis to tell us that we are one, peace is flowing like a river, and that we should cherish his words and be honoured by his visit because he's so significant to the community. He'd then kiss a baby for the cameras and leave. I fear there'd be no real point to such a visit. It would have a touch of hegemony and pride.
Yet I also believe Pope Francis can have an impact with his visit. If he follows the method of his predecessor Benedict XVI. Benedict's method is twofold for it involves truth and justice. Firstly, Benedict understands when there are deep differences, and does not cover them. For Egypt, this would involve Pope Francis being cognizant of the schism, and not assuming Coptic Christians will heed his words as if he were their pope. The truth is that beliefs on Christ and the papacy differ, and thus the approach must reflect this reality.
Benedict XVI also firmly believes that peace is not possible without justice. For instance, in his second book of the Jesus of Nazareth series, Benedict explains that Pilate had Jesus handed over to death in order to maintain a false peace. This false peace was completely un-Romanesque, and ultimately ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. Peace requires justice. Benedict backed up the call for justice in his famous Regensburg Address where he lucidly explained the violence found in Islam. If Pope Francis comes out and demands justice for our Egyptian Christian brothers, he will surely make an impact. His visit will not be a photo op filled with empty words, but rather will be the head of the Roman Church showing a true concern for a Christian people struggling for daily survival. The orthodox Coptic Christians would surely appreciate this effort.
Therefore, I still see the schism of 451 as significant to the upcoming visit of Pope Francis. Though we are Christians, there is a difference which will affect the message Pope Francis brings. His substance must be true and it must speak of justice. Only then will they observe the love behind it.
19 January 2017
There was once a divided conclave which was trusted with selecting a new pope. Roughly half of the cardinals present were seeking a conservative pope. The other half or so were intent on a liberal pope. In the end, with just a three vote margin, a liberal pope was elected.
This pope immediately began working on political reforms. Many hailed this work with great enthusiasm, though some prudent men warned of disastrous results. Yet the pope continued on. He set up a council of laymen, as well he worked towards other reforms. However, the more this pope set about entrusting new tasks to others, the more people demanded their ideas be followed by the pope. In one case a street riot broke out, and only ended once the pope conceded to create a new position for various laymen. Riots nevertheless continued. A papal prelate was even shot during one such riot. The only appeasement being a further promise of democratic ministry. Liberals work like this. Finally, when the end seemed near, the pope was secretly smuggled out of the Vatican. His reign a complete and utter disaster. Peter, the rock of the Church, had been cast adrift by the earthly winds of change.
Yet all was not lost. Peter, the rock, by the grace of God eventually returned to Rome. He was no longer a liberal. Though the liberal political climate still existed throughout much of Europe, the pope successfully began defending the Church, and the primacy of the papacy. Errors were fiercely condemned. The inner life of the Church was promoted. Papal infallibility was defined. The Immaculate Conception was formally declared dogma. I speak, of course, of Pius IX. Declared Blessed Pius IX on September 3, 2000. After Peter, Pius IX is the longest serving pope. The one time liberal. Now looked upon as a great defender of papal infallibility (in the proper setting). Blessed Pius IX once wrote to a bishop stating the following: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him."
Blessed Pius IX, ora pro nobis.
People often panic because the likes of Pope Francis have never been seen previously in the life of the Church. There is truth to that. Yet, I think that the story of Pius IX can perhaps, and hopefully, be the closest match. There is a valid comparison between the early reformer Pius IX and the current reformer Francis. And I believe if Francis continues along his current path he will also meet similar dire circumstances. Yet the lesson is that there is still hope. As Pius IX became a great defender of the faith, so too can Francis. It may require significant suffering and prayer, but at least there is a precedent.
This pope immediately began working on political reforms. Many hailed this work with great enthusiasm, though some prudent men warned of disastrous results. Yet the pope continued on. He set up a council of laymen, as well he worked towards other reforms. However, the more this pope set about entrusting new tasks to others, the more people demanded their ideas be followed by the pope. In one case a street riot broke out, and only ended once the pope conceded to create a new position for various laymen. Riots nevertheless continued. A papal prelate was even shot during one such riot. The only appeasement being a further promise of democratic ministry. Liberals work like this. Finally, when the end seemed near, the pope was secretly smuggled out of the Vatican. His reign a complete and utter disaster. Peter, the rock of the Church, had been cast adrift by the earthly winds of change.
Yet all was not lost. Peter, the rock, by the grace of God eventually returned to Rome. He was no longer a liberal. Though the liberal political climate still existed throughout much of Europe, the pope successfully began defending the Church, and the primacy of the papacy. Errors were fiercely condemned. The inner life of the Church was promoted. Papal infallibility was defined. The Immaculate Conception was formally declared dogma. I speak, of course, of Pius IX. Declared Blessed Pius IX on September 3, 2000. After Peter, Pius IX is the longest serving pope. The one time liberal. Now looked upon as a great defender of papal infallibility (in the proper setting). Blessed Pius IX once wrote to a bishop stating the following: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him."
Blessed Pius IX, ora pro nobis.
People often panic because the likes of Pope Francis have never been seen previously in the life of the Church. There is truth to that. Yet, I think that the story of Pius IX can perhaps, and hopefully, be the closest match. There is a valid comparison between the early reformer Pius IX and the current reformer Francis. And I believe if Francis continues along his current path he will also meet similar dire circumstances. Yet the lesson is that there is still hope. As Pius IX became a great defender of the faith, so too can Francis. It may require significant suffering and prayer, but at least there is a precedent.
1 December 2016
"In life not everything is black and white, white and black. No! In life shades of gray predominate. We must then teach how to discern within this gray.”
These, of course, are the words of Pope Francis. His papacy is under fire right now for his insistence on keeping things muddled and unclear, especially in the realm of family life and how it relates to the sacraments. It is a gray papacy. And, unfortunately, to seek clarity opens one up to chastisement. Just ask Cardinal Burke and company. I'm not saying these things just to pick on the pope. It's not cool to pick on the pope. But then again, it's also not cool to have the pope say that young families who like going to the Latin Mass are rigid, insecure, and lacking in true love. Yes, I do take that personally. So fair is fair.
Returning to the matter, Pope Francis' insistence on gray is the last thing families need right now. The absolute last thing. Yes, I know pastor's see the darkest side of people, and can get a different view on life. But guess what, so do others. Take teachers for instance. Do you know what's it's like to have a student whose mom breaks up with his dad, then goes to another man, but then the original dad more or less kidnaps the kid, and then mom breaks up with the new man, and both men start trying to plot to get the mom in jail, but then the mom runs off with a girlfriend instead, and the teacher is left trying to contact the mom regarding something as simple as running shoes, but she's busy getting high at home and can't understand what is being said? Do you know what that's like? I tell you, that young child clings to his male phys ed teacher. I become the only stable thing in his life. And I see all kinds of brokenness, everyday. People, especially families, do NOT need more gray. They NEED truth. I just want to shout this out. The world is starving for truth. To be told, bluntly, what is right and what is wrong. When two people live together in an adulterous setting they are betraying truth. They will never be happy. Communion in a state of mortal sin will NOT remedy this. It will simply add another mortal sin to the equation. The pope is correct in that they need help. But their help must be that they are told the truth. I am sick of having to help so many broken children. Accompany what? We need to say when something is right, and when something is wrong. And to not be chastised over the matter.
I pray to St. John Paul II now more than ever. No he was not a perfect pope. But my goodness that man would stick his neck out to help families. He was a great defender of the family. He understood the various struggles, at their root, and spoke clearly on how to remedy them. As a family man, I am like that poor and confused boy at the moment, clinging to St. John Paul II as a stable protector in our lives. And thus ends my rant. In black and white.
St. John Paul II, pray for us.
Pray for our pope.
16 September 2016
One thing that has bothered me is how bishop conferences, including our CCCB, will take a Papal document, rewrite it, and then present it to people as Church teaching. I mean, why not just tell people to read the Papal document? We saw this on the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. Just, just... read Humanae Vitae. If anything, there should have been a letter from the CCCB apologizing for the Winnipeg Statement. But that's me waiting for such a letter:
I literally had a sinking feeling in my stomach as I saw a link yesterday to a document from the Alberta/NWT bishops regarding Communion for divorced and civilly remarried people. So I opened up the document and started skim reading. What could go wrong? Oh boy... Well, the document tackled Pope Francis' disastrous exhortation: Amoris Laetitia, paragraph 8. Oh boy indeed. Of course Amoris Laetitia is as vague as it gets, the type of writing that would earn any university student a failing grade, yet because of its vagueness many see it as an opportunity to give Communion to divorced and civilly remarried folks (who objectively speaking, are living in a grave situation contrary to the teaching of Christ). The swirling controversy of the past week has been a leaked letter whereby Pope Francis approves of such an interpretation of his Amoris Laetitia.
And then, surely by God's grace, the Alberta/NWT bishops did the unthinkable. They presented a clear, concise, and orthodox document. For example:
Now, ahem, for the Winnipeg Statement...
I literally had a sinking feeling in my stomach as I saw a link yesterday to a document from the Alberta/NWT bishops regarding Communion for divorced and civilly remarried people. So I opened up the document and started skim reading. What could go wrong? Oh boy... Well, the document tackled Pope Francis' disastrous exhortation: Amoris Laetitia, paragraph 8. Oh boy indeed. Of course Amoris Laetitia is as vague as it gets, the type of writing that would earn any university student a failing grade, yet because of its vagueness many see it as an opportunity to give Communion to divorced and civilly remarried folks (who objectively speaking, are living in a grave situation contrary to the teaching of Christ). The swirling controversy of the past week has been a leaked letter whereby Pope Francis approves of such an interpretation of his Amoris Laetitia.
And then, surely by God's grace, the Alberta/NWT bishops did the unthinkable. They presented a clear, concise, and orthodox document. For example:
"It may happen that, through media, friends, or family, couples have been led to understand that there has been a change in practice by the Church, such that now the reception of Holy Communion at Mass by persons who are divorced and civilly remarried is possible if they simply have a conversation with a priest. This view is erroneous."
Or further regarding conscience, which is often used as a license to sin:
"Conscience is the capacity to judge what is to be done in a given circumstance in obedience to objective truth. It needs to be carefully and patiently formed (cf. Veritatis Splendor, 54- 64)."
Well done Western bishops! They should be commended for their work. Clarity of truth is a beautiful thing. I believe God will bless it. They may have shocked a few people into having a heart attack, but we'll take it.
On the other hand, we're now left with a very unique situation. We now have it that it is far preferable for Catholics in Canada to read a document produced by their bishops, versus what the Pope has published. A flip of script. Does that not seem bizarre? Does it not seem potentially dangerous? Not in a Protestant way. More of an Eastern Orthodox way. The Pope is responsible for his Roman flock. The bishops here will take care of their flock? Of course I exaggerate, slightly. The real need is simply for people to know the fullness of the Catholic faith, including just how much theological weight an exhortation, or even a bishop's letter, really has. In the end, the Church's teaching is clear and concise, despite what anybody says contrary to this. The splendor of truth.
We shall see.
31 May 2016
The title makes me look like an expert on the subject. Of course I'm not. However, it doesn't mean I can't at least try to sound intelligent.
I've been thinking of writing about this for some time. Then, sure enough, I saw another article on it titled: Why Don't People Like Mercy?. I would bet many people have been reflecting on this theme. Even the Eye of the Tiber had an article: "Well, that was a complete bust," Francis tells crowd moments before cancelling remainder of the year of mercy. It seems that things have not gone as planned. This great year of mercy has come off as a bust. Not for all, thankfully, but in general it has been shrouded with indifference. That is indeed too bad. I'm sure Pope Francis had great and noble expectations for this year.
Yet God, yes in His mercy, can bring some good out of it. For starters, we can do some soul searching, and thus learn how to improve. So why hasn't the year of mercy panned out? And how can we get it back?
1) Logo
Marketing fascinates me. Product. Brand. Name. Z-Form. Light usage. What is portrayed. Marketing is important. Now mercy is not about marketing. Yet, the "brand" associated with mercy can certainly impede the message. The official logo for the year of mercy is a disaster. There is nothing appealing about it from the colour-scheme to the design, and especially to the three-eyed Jesus/sinner. What is the message? It is lost somewhere between the late 1960's Catholicism and the straight up weirdness.
2) Disconnect with St. Faustina's Divine Mercy
Following on the official logo, many Catholics were very surprised that St. Faustina's Divine Mercy image was not the official logo. Why not? It is tried, tested, and true. It inspires devotion. What is more, and yes I speak of private revelation, it was commissioned by Our Lord Himself. Catholics immediately connect this image with mercy. Can you imagine if a country was going to host the Olympics and they already had a perfect stadium, one that has successfully held huge events in the past, all ready for use. But the country instead decides to build a new stadium, based on modern art design. The new stadium fails. The old one sits vacant. No one understands why. That sort of is the feel with St. Faustina's Divine Mercy image.
3) No Need (as believed by some)
We all need mercy. Yet there are some who still believe they do not. In my own parish there used to be a priest, years and years ago, who would tell everyone in confession that they hadn't actually sinned. "And I hit my brother..." "That's not a sin!" "Oh, well I lied to my teacher..." "That's not a sin!" And on and on it went like that. Years later very few people go to confession in this parish. Even with the current priest ALWAYS waiting in the confessional. The people have been numbed into believing they are generally good people, and thus do not need confession. A year of mercy, then, is for doing nice things for the poor. Nothing more. This severely cheapens what mercy really is. God came to call sinners.
4) Mercy = License
Of course, some have taken the message of mercy too far, to the point that God forgives all things we do, whether we truly repent or not. As I stated in my previous blog post, Fr. Rolheiser was insinuating this belief on facebook, and people were eating the message up. One person accused me, after I quoted the catechism, of putting my own interpretation on the catechism in such a way as to limit God's love. All I said was:
"CCC1033 on Hell: 'We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves.' It is certainly possible for heresy, sexual immorality, or even willfully abandoning the Church precepts, to constitute a grave sin."
Nope. To suggest dying in the state of mortal sin can put us in hell is to use the catechism against God's love. Or so I was told.
Once mercy/love is used as a license for whatever goes, it actually does not become mercy anymore. It becomes a license for relativism.
5) Overplayed Message
For a while at Mass it seemed as if every statement made by the priest or commentator had to begin with: "In this year of mercy..." For instance: "In this year of mercy, let us begin in the name of the Father, and of the Son..." or, "In this year of mercy, let us offer our intentions to the Lord..." or, "In this year of mercy, there will be coffee and cake after Mass." It's been over done. Such that a zoning out has occurred. It's natural to zone out an overplayed message. Just like an overplayed song on the radio. People tune out.
6) A Touch of the Bizarre
By bizarre I mean not so much in concept as in appearance, especially to those less familiar to the Catholic Church. First there was confusion over the sin of abortion being forgiven only in the year of mercy, as if it wasn't forgiven before. This is nonsense. Then there is the deal with the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. Confessing to them during this year of mercy will actually forgive your sins (faculties). But confessing to them the day after this year of mercy will not. I hold out hope that Pope Francis is working at resolving this issue (!). Also we've learned about these Missionaries of Mercy, mercy priests?, who have special orders from the pope to deal with different situations. Finally, there's the whole deal concerning the doors of mercy. Pass through this door and obtain mercy. There is actually a pious tradition behind this, though I think it could have been better explained. For instance, I have not once heard mentioned the conditions required in order to obtain a plenary indulgence. People who walk through the holy doors and expect to go straight to heaven when they die may be saddened to hear there are other conditions attached. All in all, to the non-Catholic, or even casual Catholic, there is a hint of oddness to this year.
7) Synod
It cannot be understated how the recent Synod on the Family, and accompanying exhortation Amoris Laetitia, has dampened the joie de vivre of many Catholics (myself included). The obsession of many on Communion for those living in adultery has been promoted by some (Kasparites) as mercy. This should have been squelched a long time ago. Yet it continues to linger. Love without Truth is not Love at all. Promoting mortal sin is the opposite of mercy. The effects of the Synod have scarred the year of mercy.
WYD
The year of mercy is certainly salvageable, but action must be done quickly. There is a tremendous opportunity for a revival of this holy year. I speak of World Youth Day (WYD). Although I don't care for WYD, I do see a golden opportunity based on WYD's location: Poland. Poland is, of course, where the message of Divine Mercy was received by St. Faustina. Poland holds dear to this message. It is at WYD that Pope Francis should go all out in reconnecting the year of mercy to Divine Mercy. The pathetic year of mercy logo should be mysteriously dropped. In its place should appear the true image of Divine Mercy. World Youth Day must draw from the Diaries of St. Faustina. The youth of the world should be introduced to this spiritual treasure. Further, given that this is Poland, a special appeal to Pope John Paul II's love for Divine Mercy, as well as the story of St. Maximilian Kolbe, should be evident. From WYD a turning point in the year of mercy can occur.
Year of Mercy
Following WYD, the words "year of" should also mysteriously start vanishing. If God's mercy is so important, which it is, then we should prepare to hear about it beyond this year of mercy. Not in the annoying and over done "In this year of mercy..." sense. But instead an "Our Lord is dying to forgive you! Come to confession!" sense. Mercy will continue beyond this year. Hopefully more people will be going to confession, beyond this year. Think long term. This connects with my final point...
Clarification
There are many other things that could be said. Ultimately what is needed is for Pope Francis to step up and state the obvious: people living in an objective state of adultery must refrain from Holy Communion. He can hug them, cry tears with them, even kiss their babies, but ultimately the year of mercy needs an injection of clarity. Clarity on what is, and isn't, mercy. Clarity on what is sin, and how the Church can help. Without this clarification the year of mercy will continue to lack appeal for many faithful Catholics. It will continue to lack depth. It will continue to fail. In short, we need to know we are sinners! Only then will we understand our need for mercy. This year of mercy needs more sin! For, as St. Peter says:
I've been thinking of writing about this for some time. Then, sure enough, I saw another article on it titled: Why Don't People Like Mercy?. I would bet many people have been reflecting on this theme. Even the Eye of the Tiber had an article: "Well, that was a complete bust," Francis tells crowd moments before cancelling remainder of the year of mercy. It seems that things have not gone as planned. This great year of mercy has come off as a bust. Not for all, thankfully, but in general it has been shrouded with indifference. That is indeed too bad. I'm sure Pope Francis had great and noble expectations for this year.
Yet God, yes in His mercy, can bring some good out of it. For starters, we can do some soul searching, and thus learn how to improve. So why hasn't the year of mercy panned out? And how can we get it back?
1) Logo
Marketing fascinates me. Product. Brand. Name. Z-Form. Light usage. What is portrayed. Marketing is important. Now mercy is not about marketing. Yet, the "brand" associated with mercy can certainly impede the message. The official logo for the year of mercy is a disaster. There is nothing appealing about it from the colour-scheme to the design, and especially to the three-eyed Jesus/sinner. What is the message? It is lost somewhere between the late 1960's Catholicism and the straight up weirdness.
2) Disconnect with St. Faustina's Divine MercyFollowing on the official logo, many Catholics were very surprised that St. Faustina's Divine Mercy image was not the official logo. Why not? It is tried, tested, and true. It inspires devotion. What is more, and yes I speak of private revelation, it was commissioned by Our Lord Himself. Catholics immediately connect this image with mercy. Can you imagine if a country was going to host the Olympics and they already had a perfect stadium, one that has successfully held huge events in the past, all ready for use. But the country instead decides to build a new stadium, based on modern art design. The new stadium fails. The old one sits vacant. No one understands why. That sort of is the feel with St. Faustina's Divine Mercy image.
We all need mercy. Yet there are some who still believe they do not. In my own parish there used to be a priest, years and years ago, who would tell everyone in confession that they hadn't actually sinned. "And I hit my brother..." "That's not a sin!" "Oh, well I lied to my teacher..." "That's not a sin!" And on and on it went like that. Years later very few people go to confession in this parish. Even with the current priest ALWAYS waiting in the confessional. The people have been numbed into believing they are generally good people, and thus do not need confession. A year of mercy, then, is for doing nice things for the poor. Nothing more. This severely cheapens what mercy really is. God came to call sinners.
4) Mercy = License
Of course, some have taken the message of mercy too far, to the point that God forgives all things we do, whether we truly repent or not. As I stated in my previous blog post, Fr. Rolheiser was insinuating this belief on facebook, and people were eating the message up. One person accused me, after I quoted the catechism, of putting my own interpretation on the catechism in such a way as to limit God's love. All I said was:
"CCC1033 on Hell: 'We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves.' It is certainly possible for heresy, sexual immorality, or even willfully abandoning the Church precepts, to constitute a grave sin."
Nope. To suggest dying in the state of mortal sin can put us in hell is to use the catechism against God's love. Or so I was told.
Once mercy/love is used as a license for whatever goes, it actually does not become mercy anymore. It becomes a license for relativism.
5) Overplayed Message
For a while at Mass it seemed as if every statement made by the priest or commentator had to begin with: "In this year of mercy..." For instance: "In this year of mercy, let us begin in the name of the Father, and of the Son..." or, "In this year of mercy, let us offer our intentions to the Lord..." or, "In this year of mercy, there will be coffee and cake after Mass." It's been over done. Such that a zoning out has occurred. It's natural to zone out an overplayed message. Just like an overplayed song on the radio. People tune out.
6) A Touch of the Bizarre
By bizarre I mean not so much in concept as in appearance, especially to those less familiar to the Catholic Church. First there was confusion over the sin of abortion being forgiven only in the year of mercy, as if it wasn't forgiven before. This is nonsense. Then there is the deal with the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. Confessing to them during this year of mercy will actually forgive your sins (faculties). But confessing to them the day after this year of mercy will not. I hold out hope that Pope Francis is working at resolving this issue (!). Also we've learned about these Missionaries of Mercy, mercy priests?, who have special orders from the pope to deal with different situations. Finally, there's the whole deal concerning the doors of mercy. Pass through this door and obtain mercy. There is actually a pious tradition behind this, though I think it could have been better explained. For instance, I have not once heard mentioned the conditions required in order to obtain a plenary indulgence. People who walk through the holy doors and expect to go straight to heaven when they die may be saddened to hear there are other conditions attached. All in all, to the non-Catholic, or even casual Catholic, there is a hint of oddness to this year.
7) Synod
It cannot be understated how the recent Synod on the Family, and accompanying exhortation Amoris Laetitia, has dampened the joie de vivre of many Catholics (myself included). The obsession of many on Communion for those living in adultery has been promoted by some (Kasparites) as mercy. This should have been squelched a long time ago. Yet it continues to linger. Love without Truth is not Love at all. Promoting mortal sin is the opposite of mercy. The effects of the Synod have scarred the year of mercy.
What can be done?
WYD
The year of mercy is certainly salvageable, but action must be done quickly. There is a tremendous opportunity for a revival of this holy year. I speak of World Youth Day (WYD). Although I don't care for WYD, I do see a golden opportunity based on WYD's location: Poland. Poland is, of course, where the message of Divine Mercy was received by St. Faustina. Poland holds dear to this message. It is at WYD that Pope Francis should go all out in reconnecting the year of mercy to Divine Mercy. The pathetic year of mercy logo should be mysteriously dropped. In its place should appear the true image of Divine Mercy. World Youth Day must draw from the Diaries of St. Faustina. The youth of the world should be introduced to this spiritual treasure. Further, given that this is Poland, a special appeal to Pope John Paul II's love for Divine Mercy, as well as the story of St. Maximilian Kolbe, should be evident. From WYD a turning point in the year of mercy can occur.
Following WYD, the words "year of" should also mysteriously start vanishing. If God's mercy is so important, which it is, then we should prepare to hear about it beyond this year of mercy. Not in the annoying and over done "In this year of mercy..." sense. But instead an "Our Lord is dying to forgive you! Come to confession!" sense. Mercy will continue beyond this year. Hopefully more people will be going to confession, beyond this year. Think long term. This connects with my final point...
Clarification
There are many other things that could be said. Ultimately what is needed is for Pope Francis to step up and state the obvious: people living in an objective state of adultery must refrain from Holy Communion. He can hug them, cry tears with them, even kiss their babies, but ultimately the year of mercy needs an injection of clarity. Clarity on what is, and isn't, mercy. Clarity on what is sin, and how the Church can help. Without this clarification the year of mercy will continue to lack appeal for many faithful Catholics. It will continue to lack depth. It will continue to fail. In short, we need to know we are sinners! Only then will we understand our need for mercy. This year of mercy needs more sin! For, as St. Peter says:
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." 1 Peter 2:24
20 April 2016
I probably should just shut my mouth. But here are a few thoughts. Keep in mind that the following post is written with the presupposition that Amoris Laetitia, though containing many wise teachings, is ultimately a flawed document. I leave it to others, trusted theologians smarter and clearer than me, to explain why.
Amoris Laetitia: Nothing has Changed
Catholics, do we not remember our faith? Catholic doctrine does not change because it cannot change. A pope does not even define doctrine via an Apostolic Exhortation. Nor does a pope write something vague and then later explain on an airplane that his vague writings are to be understood as changing Church teaching (I thought I told my guardian angel to take away the pope's mic on airplanes?). Can you imagine Pope Pius XII writing a vague Apostolic Exhortation somehow hinting that Mary is body and soul in heaven. Then later in an airplane interview he says: "Yes. Period." to a reporters suggestion that he meant something in his Apostoloic Exhortation. From then the media then trumpets that Pope Pius XII has infallibly declared that Mary assumed into heaven? No, it actually went something like this... on Nov. 1, 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII declared:
Additionally, nor does a pope write (or have written by other people...) an Apostolic Exhortation and then say it is to be understood as changing Church teaching because the cardinal presenting the document, in a Q and A section, vaguely suggests of changes to Church teaching. Church teaching has not changed. Persisting in adultery is, objectively speaking, to persist in mortal sin. For valid absolution (needed before Holy Communion) one must firmly resolve to sin no more, i.e. get out of said adulterous relationship. This is entirely unchangeable. Otherwise the foundation of marriage, grace, and the sacraments would be undermined.
And one more thing, the official text of Amoris Laetitia has not been released yet. That document would be in the language of Latin, thereby clarifying and translation issues.
No doctrine has been changed. Catholics, we must remember our faith.
DisUnity
Yet clearly all is not well. Of course there are the liberals who declare that the pope has changedofficial teaching stuff. For instance, the fallacy-phantam, Cardinal Kasper, calls Amoris Laetitia a game changer. As do most secular/liberal media posts. They do not know Church teaching. Do not listen to them.
Then there are those who decry anything the pope says or does, and have declared him, by their apostolic power granted by God through the blogosphere, a heretic and one worthy of being chewed by Satan in the 9th circle of hell. Yes, we should not listen to them either.
Then things get more dicey. There are some, a vocal minority I think, who trump whatever Pope Francis says as perfect. They continually post memes and pictures of Pope Francis, often with some nice words or of a hug given to a disabled person (the picture on the left was posted by Fr. Larry Richards on facebook). They denounce anyone who has any issues with what Pope Francis says, and instead give the impression that everything is always great. While commendable in their defense of the Holy Father, I think they do a slight disservice to the Church and even to Pope Francis.
Let me explain.
Many insightful Catholic commentators, Fr. Z, Canonist Ed Peters, Fr. Rutler, Raymond Arroyo, Fr. Murray, etc., have suggested that though doctrine has not changed, the vagueness and insinuations in Amoris Laetitia will produce a change not so much in Catholic doctrine, but rather in practice. Amoris Laetitia has said some questionable things. It is long-winded and unclear in many places. It certainly has the potential to be misused by many in the Church. Now I personally don't know of any divorced and remarried Catholics who are just so bent out of shape in their desire to receive Holy Communion. I figure most people in such situations have simply moved on from the Church. Yet I don't live in places like Germany, where other rea$on$ might influence how to read Amoris Laetitia. In other words, whether or not you are head over heals in love with everything Pope Francis does, perhaps it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to admit that he in fact is unclear in his thinking/writing, and that this lack of clarity is actively being used against the Church. Let that soak in. Pope Francis' writings are being used against the Church.
Why is this important? Because Pope Francis desperately needs our prayers. He needs our specific prayers. Prayers asking for wisdom, for a strong defense of Christ's Church, for more refined words. He needs specific prayers, not an "Everything is Awesome!!!" sing-a-long. So again I say, those who act as though Pope Francis can do no wrong would do better to recognize that his words are causing confusion, and to quietly offer greater prayer and sacrifice in these difficult times.
But this goes for all Catholics. Remember, our faith will not change. We can take great comfort in that. Yet the battle for souls rages on. Pray for Pope Francis.
Amoris Laetitia: Nothing has Changed
Catholics, do we not remember our faith? Catholic doctrine does not change because it cannot change. A pope does not even define doctrine via an Apostolic Exhortation. Nor does a pope write something vague and then later explain on an airplane that his vague writings are to be understood as changing Church teaching (I thought I told my guardian angel to take away the pope's mic on airplanes?). Can you imagine Pope Pius XII writing a vague Apostolic Exhortation somehow hinting that Mary is body and soul in heaven. Then later in an airplane interview he says: "Yes. Period." to a reporters suggestion that he meant something in his Apostoloic Exhortation. From then the media then trumpets that Pope Pius XII has infallibly declared that Mary assumed into heaven? No, it actually went something like this... on Nov. 1, 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII declared:
Additionally, nor does a pope write (or have written by other people...) an Apostolic Exhortation and then say it is to be understood as changing Church teaching because the cardinal presenting the document, in a Q and A section, vaguely suggests of changes to Church teaching. Church teaching has not changed. Persisting in adultery is, objectively speaking, to persist in mortal sin. For valid absolution (needed before Holy Communion) one must firmly resolve to sin no more, i.e. get out of said adulterous relationship. This is entirely unchangeable. Otherwise the foundation of marriage, grace, and the sacraments would be undermined.
And one more thing, the official text of Amoris Laetitia has not been released yet. That document would be in the language of Latin, thereby clarifying and translation issues.
No doctrine has been changed. Catholics, we must remember our faith.
DisUnity
Yet clearly all is not well. Of course there are the liberals who declare that the pope has changed
Then there are those who decry anything the pope says or does, and have declared him, by their apostolic power granted by God through the blogosphere, a heretic and one worthy of being chewed by Satan in the 9th circle of hell. Yes, we should not listen to them either.
Then things get more dicey. There are some, a vocal minority I think, who trump whatever Pope Francis says as perfect. They continually post memes and pictures of Pope Francis, often with some nice words or of a hug given to a disabled person (the picture on the left was posted by Fr. Larry Richards on facebook). They denounce anyone who has any issues with what Pope Francis says, and instead give the impression that everything is always great. While commendable in their defense of the Holy Father, I think they do a slight disservice to the Church and even to Pope Francis.Let me explain.
Many insightful Catholic commentators, Fr. Z, Canonist Ed Peters, Fr. Rutler, Raymond Arroyo, Fr. Murray, etc., have suggested that though doctrine has not changed, the vagueness and insinuations in Amoris Laetitia will produce a change not so much in Catholic doctrine, but rather in practice. Amoris Laetitia has said some questionable things. It is long-winded and unclear in many places. It certainly has the potential to be misused by many in the Church. Now I personally don't know of any divorced and remarried Catholics who are just so bent out of shape in their desire to receive Holy Communion. I figure most people in such situations have simply moved on from the Church. Yet I don't live in places like Germany, where other rea$on$ might influence how to read Amoris Laetitia. In other words, whether or not you are head over heals in love with everything Pope Francis does, perhaps it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to admit that he in fact is unclear in his thinking/writing, and that this lack of clarity is actively being used against the Church. Let that soak in. Pope Francis' writings are being used against the Church.
Why is this important? Because Pope Francis desperately needs our prayers. He needs our specific prayers. Prayers asking for wisdom, for a strong defense of Christ's Church, for more refined words. He needs specific prayers, not an "Everything is Awesome!!!" sing-a-long. So again I say, those who act as though Pope Francis can do no wrong would do better to recognize that his words are causing confusion, and to quietly offer greater prayer and sacrifice in these difficult times.
But this goes for all Catholics. Remember, our faith will not change. We can take great comfort in that. Yet the battle for souls rages on. Pray for Pope Francis.
Combox is closed.
28 February 2016
A lazy Sunday, finally. Workouts are done. Brunch was yummy. And now some time to relax before we head out to do a pile of shoveling. I'd better get a few thoughts off before I ignore the blog again.
1) V-Day
I forgot to post about my Valentine's Day haul earlier. Look at it! My what a thoughtful wife!
Look closer and you will see these are just some of the items I received from my students. I threw out probably another third of this amount. That's right, many letters, cards, cheap chocolates, and suckers given to me by my students. So much, er, love shown. Ironically I hate Valentine's Day (just ask Becca). To me the day is actually St. Cyril and St. Methodius Day.
All of the big to-do over Valentine's Day really just shows that the secular world feels a deep seated urge to have meaningful celebrations. The Catholic world knows how to feast and fast. The secular world, well, they're trying to make it up as they go along. The students (and parents) feel an urge to celebrate, but they don't know what or why. In the meantime, I'm the one who is given bucket loads of candy. And, of course, I'm given this candy during the season of lent. They just don't get it.
However, I did get my wife something. I sent her the following greeting:
I think she was amazed by me. Yes, I think I never cease to amaze her.
2) Onion Day
Today is the anniversary of Pope Benedict's flying off into the sunset. The scene was so surreal. There had to be an onion farm nearby. Our Pope leaving his post in order to devote the remainder of his life to prayer for the Church. Such a sad day. And despite my plea that he move to our house, he still lives in Rome.
And then, soon after, Pope Francis took over. Things haven't been going so well lately. Many silly interviews, two ridiculous family synod sessions, and numerous other events have left many in the Church wondering what will happen next. A parish priest posted this picture on his blog the other day. He said to pray for the Pope. The Pope, according to his inside sources, is getting increasingly isolated by others in the Vatican. This picture, a picture of sadness, was offered somewhat as evidence.
I don't think a picture like this is evidence of much. In truth, it weakens the point the good priest was trying to make. It could be the Pope is waiting for someone, or saying a few extra prayers, or watching a dog pee on a rug, or simply zoned out after someone's boring talk and needs to be awoken. Nevertheless, my gut tells me that all is not well in the Vatican. Why, at out last Mass we had to endure another knee-slapper of a letter from our local bishop going on about climate change (perhaps in an effort to distract from the vocation crisis here?). Pope Francis was cited for every example as to why we need to take such action as throw our money at Development and Peace. When people roll their eyes in the pew over another bishop's letter, it's one thing. But when they do so while Pope Francis is mentioned numerous times, that's another. What can I say? It's times like these, as Catholics, we really need to pray for our Holy Father.
3) Brideshead Revisited, Revisited
One of our annual lenten traditions Becca and I have is giving up TV (except on Sundays). This is a time for a little more silence in our lives, as well as more prayer and reflection. It also means more reading. I've already finished two novels. The most recent being Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. *Spoiler Alert*
The book was tough slugging. By that I mean the flaws in the characters, characters brought to life by Waugh's talent, were simply overwhelming. All but one of the characters had significant, if not fatal, flaws. If it weren't for the amazing writing ability of Waugh, I daresay I might've put this book down. Drunkenness, abandoned families, lost faith, tyrannical family rule... it was not pleasant. And then the final 30 pages came. The grace of God, in the most intricately woven manner, started to shine through in the most unexpected ways. Funny how that happens. The book had no happy ending, and yet it had the happiest of endings. A shallow human mind would be disappointed in the book. They might even doubt that the main character, Charles Ryder, converts in the end, But a person open to the movement of God would be amazed by the ending (of course he converts!). I loved the book, though it must be read right up until the last word for ideas to fall into place. Waugh's style is so compelling that it took several days for me to shake the notion that I was living at Brideshead, or personally knew the characters.
4) Rider Gear
I was given two autographed pictures of John Chick (former Rider) by my principal the other day. John Chick was recently in Tisdale for a faith night at the local arena. Chick is a strong Catholic with eight, yes eight, kids. Anyway, my principal, who is not religious, was extremely impressed with Chick. She pointed out how in the picture of Chick with his Grey Cup rings he refused to have any picture of the rings taken unless is wedding ring was also in on the picture.
Also of note, I used the last of my Christmas money/gift cards to buy a game worn Geoff Tisdale Roughrider jersey. Since Tisdale does not play with them anymore, the jersey was only $50! Usually a jersey of a player who does not play for a team anymore can be awkward. Not this. I mean, I live in Tisdale. So it works. Although Becca commented that now we can't leave Tisdale. I say sure we can. I'll just get a jersey representing every place we've lived. Hopefully we don't end up moving to Smuts, Saskatchewan. Currently the jersey hangs in my, as Becca calls it, "man cave" (workout/book/music room).
5) There Goes the Neighbourhood
Speaking of life in Tisdale, our neighbours just put their house up for sale. Yes, this is your opportunity of a lifetime, to be the new neighbours of yours truly. I'm sure the bidding war will be fierce. Anyway, in a rather sudden turn of events, our neighbours decided to take a job in Yorkton (closer to their farm that they also help with). We'll miss them.
Because they need to sell soon, Becca and I think the asking price is low. Almost too low. We know the house. We know they've maintained it extremely well. The wheels started turning a bit. We have enough do-re-mi to put a down payment on it. We could easily rent it out and make a couple hundred bucks a month. Maintenance wouldn't be difficult. We're literally right next door. Yes, it could work. Quite well. And then we could sell it later for a profit.
We thought about it. Two main thoughts came to mind: 1) I'm not that gutsy. I mean really, me owning two houses? Yeah right. 2) Why the heck would we hitch ourselves so closely to Tisdale? Long story short, don't expect any announcements that we purchased a second home.
6) Token Pic
John Paul is asleep. But many of you want a picture of the boys. So I popped in and took a picture of Joseph while he was playing lego. Yes, he needs a haircut, and to stop giving goofy smiles. He's wearing shorts because he did a workout with me. He actually went 20 minutes into it. Not bad.
Meanwhile John Paul sleeps. Words cannot do justice to how cute he's been lately. He's talking up a storm. Putting little sentences together, minus any articles such as "the" or "and". He now says: "Jodeph" instead of "O-Jo". What a little guy. Just growing up right in front of our eyes. But for the record, he still calls Uncle Stephen "Me-me". I'm fine with that.
7) Lent is Lent
That's all I have for today. Hopefully your lent is going well. Thankfully we have Joseph here to keep us on the straight and narrow. The very mention of ice cream gets a loud: "Nooo! It's lent!" from him. He is also quick to point out others, such as that man who walked into DQ yesterday. "That man is going to DQ! And it's lent!" Aren't kids great? Still though, I'll bribe the kid yet...
22 February 2016
Yes this blog post has to do somewhat with the Pope's latest airplane interview. I won't be offended if you choose not to read it.
You know, in thinking of the latest interview with the Pope, the confusion over contraception, Zika, nuns from Congo, and even Donald Trump, I somehow marvel at the world of Catholicism. For better or for worse, we're just so human. Remarkably human. Too human, really. I can't help but think of the character Sebastian in Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited:
"So you see we're a mixed family religiously. Brideshead and Cordelia are both fervent Catholics; he's miserable, she's bird-happy; Julia and I are half-heathen; I am happy, I rather think Julia isn't; mummy is popularly believed to be a saint and papa is excommunicated - and I wouldn't know which of them was happy. Anyway, however you look at it, happiness doesn't seem to have much to do with it, and that's all I want. ... I wish I liked Catholics more."
Some Catholics are happy. Some are not. Some are great sinners. Some are hidden saints. Through and through to be Catholic is to be unreliable, in and of oneself. What makes Catholicism great, then, is one of the few things we can rely on: The Magisterium. Imagine, through the frail humanity in Catholicism we have an assurance of faith that cannot err. The Magisterium. The Pope, and bishops in union with the Pope, teaching infallibly on faith and morals.
I've spoken before on the Magisterium, and even on the anger and confusion that the word Magisterium invoked for some of my past professors at Redeemer University College. I remember vividly being yelled at by one: "It's NOT the Magisterium!" Another took over one hour to try and explain the infallibility of Scripture without the Magisterium, all in vain. Still another, a noted Scripture scholar, talked himself into circles when trying to avoid the significance of Magisterial authority in interpreting St. Peter's teaching on grace. It was all so awkward. I cannot claim to be better than these men. But I can claim adherence to the Magisterium, which teaches clearer than anything they ever said. A Magisterium which we cannot out-argued, ignore, or improve upon.
This is why the latest Papal interview stings so much. Or rather the predictable effects of the interview. In it we see a weakening of what is understood as the Magisterium. Following this latest airplane interview the Catholic blogosphere has been a buzz. One minute I have a popular priest friend on facebook declaring the Pope still to be Catholic. The next we have a philosophy professor claiming that what the Pope said is consistent with Church teaching, if understood in the proper context. This was then posted to facebook, with several "likes" and "comments" to follow. Not to be outdone, John Allen of the Crux started spouting his bizarre spin on the Pope's words, complete with his silence-is-consent-on-all-matters-in-the-world theory. Dr. Janet Smith also chimed in. The usual solid Smith did a great job, I thought, but slipped up on the whole Congo nuns-contraception myth, as well as the morality behind such an allegation. But that's ok, because more facebook friends trumpeted her words as being the words of truth and life, to the pleasing "likes" of many. Then it was more Allen, some Ed Peters, Kaczor, and finally, with much relief, Fr. Z. Lord only knows what Shea and Fisher had to say on it. For some reason I am reminded of Dr. Phil and Oprah when I think of them. All in all, it was yet another bizarre week. A totally unnecessary distraction from the discipline of lent. Yet, as premised earlier, Catholics are extremely human and so we act in extremely human ways. Fallen human ways.
But, more seriously, this past week was a tragic lessening of the understanding of the Magisterium. What we are seeing is people looking to others for clarity on Church teaching. Looking to that priest on facebook. That philosophy professor we don't really know. Or that popular (yet angry) scripture scholar/blogger. We are looking to others. We are seeking affirmation, clarity, or even what appeals most to us, in the words of others. This is entirely backwards. It should be that the words, examples, metaphors, and false urban-legend citations of others should be clarified by the Pope. Not the other way around.
"It's NOT the Magisterium!" was once yelled at me. As I see the confusion, once again, from the unclear words from our Holy Father in an airplane interview all I can say is: It IS the Magisterium. It is the Magisterium which has the truth. To the point that, ironically, sometimes we must ignore a Papal interview in order to continue our devotion to the Magisterium. Or at least ignore the statements of others seeking to clarify the Pope. Or better yet, go read, or re-read, Humanae Vitae for ourselves to be guided by clear, edited, Magisterial teaching.
Yes, it is ironic that I am spouting an opinion against seeing too much in people's opinions. However, what I am really saying is that we have a very Protestant situation on our hands. We are seeking others to clarify truth, and then we mull it over personally. Humans that we are. And that is dangerous.
Oh, and happy Feast of the Chair of St. Peter.
May St. Peter help guide and strengthen our Holy Father.
You know, in thinking of the latest interview with the Pope, the confusion over contraception, Zika, nuns from Congo, and even Donald Trump, I somehow marvel at the world of Catholicism. For better or for worse, we're just so human. Remarkably human. Too human, really. I can't help but think of the character Sebastian in Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited:
"So you see we're a mixed family religiously. Brideshead and Cordelia are both fervent Catholics; he's miserable, she's bird-happy; Julia and I are half-heathen; I am happy, I rather think Julia isn't; mummy is popularly believed to be a saint and papa is excommunicated - and I wouldn't know which of them was happy. Anyway, however you look at it, happiness doesn't seem to have much to do with it, and that's all I want. ... I wish I liked Catholics more."
Some Catholics are happy. Some are not. Some are great sinners. Some are hidden saints. Through and through to be Catholic is to be unreliable, in and of oneself. What makes Catholicism great, then, is one of the few things we can rely on: The Magisterium. Imagine, through the frail humanity in Catholicism we have an assurance of faith that cannot err. The Magisterium. The Pope, and bishops in union with the Pope, teaching infallibly on faith and morals.
I've spoken before on the Magisterium, and even on the anger and confusion that the word Magisterium invoked for some of my past professors at Redeemer University College. I remember vividly being yelled at by one: "It's NOT the Magisterium!" Another took over one hour to try and explain the infallibility of Scripture without the Magisterium, all in vain. Still another, a noted Scripture scholar, talked himself into circles when trying to avoid the significance of Magisterial authority in interpreting St. Peter's teaching on grace. It was all so awkward. I cannot claim to be better than these men. But I can claim adherence to the Magisterium, which teaches clearer than anything they ever said. A Magisterium which we cannot out-argued, ignore, or improve upon.
This is why the latest Papal interview stings so much. Or rather the predictable effects of the interview. In it we see a weakening of what is understood as the Magisterium. Following this latest airplane interview the Catholic blogosphere has been a buzz. One minute I have a popular priest friend on facebook declaring the Pope still to be Catholic. The next we have a philosophy professor claiming that what the Pope said is consistent with Church teaching, if understood in the proper context. This was then posted to facebook, with several "likes" and "comments" to follow. Not to be outdone, John Allen of the Crux started spouting his bizarre spin on the Pope's words, complete with his silence-is-consent-on-all-matters-in-the-world theory. Dr. Janet Smith also chimed in. The usual solid Smith did a great job, I thought, but slipped up on the whole Congo nuns-contraception myth, as well as the morality behind such an allegation. But that's ok, because more facebook friends trumpeted her words as being the words of truth and life, to the pleasing "likes" of many. Then it was more Allen, some Ed Peters, Kaczor, and finally, with much relief, Fr. Z. Lord only knows what Shea and Fisher had to say on it. For some reason I am reminded of Dr. Phil and Oprah when I think of them. All in all, it was yet another bizarre week. A totally unnecessary distraction from the discipline of lent. Yet, as premised earlier, Catholics are extremely human and so we act in extremely human ways. Fallen human ways.
But, more seriously, this past week was a tragic lessening of the understanding of the Magisterium. What we are seeing is people looking to others for clarity on Church teaching. Looking to that priest on facebook. That philosophy professor we don't really know. Or that popular (yet angry) scripture scholar/blogger. We are looking to others. We are seeking affirmation, clarity, or even what appeals most to us, in the words of others. This is entirely backwards. It should be that the words, examples, metaphors, and false urban-legend citations of others should be clarified by the Pope. Not the other way around.
"It's NOT the Magisterium!" was once yelled at me. As I see the confusion, once again, from the unclear words from our Holy Father in an airplane interview all I can say is: It IS the Magisterium. It is the Magisterium which has the truth. To the point that, ironically, sometimes we must ignore a Papal interview in order to continue our devotion to the Magisterium. Or at least ignore the statements of others seeking to clarify the Pope. Or better yet, go read, or re-read, Humanae Vitae for ourselves to be guided by clear, edited, Magisterial teaching.
Yes, it is ironic that I am spouting an opinion against seeing too much in people's opinions. However, what I am really saying is that we have a very Protestant situation on our hands. We are seeking others to clarify truth, and then we mull it over personally. Humans that we are. And that is dangerous.
Oh, and happy Feast of the Chair of St. Peter.
May St. Peter help guide and strengthen our Holy Father.
20 September 2015
You've probably heard by now that President Obama has invited some guests to join him in welcoming Pope Francis to the White House. His guests are quite diverse, in that they encompass nearly every gender ever imagined. Apparently the Vatican has since pushed back on this list. I'm not sure what exactly they mean by push back. I would hope it's not something along the lines of:
But why not? Sure these guests are vehemently against Catholic teaching, but Pope Francis is a big boy. He can take care of himself. Right? The only thing I would add to this is that if Obama can bring some friends to join him, Pope Francis should be allowed to do the same! Here are some people our Holy Father should bring to the White House with him.
5 - Cardinal Burke
Well duh. A high ranking American Cardinal. Very symbolic. Never mind the fact that he is known as The Lion due to his ferocious and outspoken defense of Catholic teaching, especially about marriage. Well, and his middle name is Leo.
4 - Kim Davis
Jailed for refusing to validate a gay marriage. In the spirit of openness I'm sure Obama's guests would be up for a civil discussion on marriage.
3 - The Rock (Dwayne Johnson)
Not that I would expect any trouble or anything. Of course not. But, you know, just in case...
2 - Donald Trump
The Donald would be a very entertaining guest. His hair alone would provide hours of amusement. But things might get a little tense when he starts taking measurements of the White House, to see how his furniture would fit.
1 - Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI
Tag team time. Two popes. Any arguments people there might have are invalid. It'd be the White House indeed.
Sss..ss..sstop that.
But why not? Sure these guests are vehemently against Catholic teaching, but Pope Francis is a big boy. He can take care of himself. Right? The only thing I would add to this is that if Obama can bring some friends to join him, Pope Francis should be allowed to do the same! Here are some people our Holy Father should bring to the White House with him.
5 - Cardinal Burke
Well duh. A high ranking American Cardinal. Very symbolic. Never mind the fact that he is known as The Lion due to his ferocious and outspoken defense of Catholic teaching, especially about marriage. Well, and his middle name is Leo.
4 - Kim Davis
Jailed for refusing to validate a gay marriage. In the spirit of openness I'm sure Obama's guests would be up for a civil discussion on marriage.
3 - The Rock (Dwayne Johnson)
Not that I would expect any trouble or anything. Of course not. But, you know, just in case...
The Donald would be a very entertaining guest. His hair alone would provide hours of amusement. But things might get a little tense when he starts taking measurements of the White House, to see how his furniture would fit.
1 - Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI
Tag team time. Two popes. Any arguments people there might have are invalid. It'd be the White House indeed.
Make it happen, Vatican. Less of this:
More of that:
We eat supper at 6pm.
27 May 2015
We got mail today! And it wasn't a bill! It was a shocking letter from Catholic Insight. They were writing to inform us that, due to financial reasons, there would be no more Catholic Insight. After a 23 year run of being one of the only truly Catholic voices in Canada, they couldn't survive.
It was both shocking and unshocking (sorry, my vocabulary is shockingly limited). Back in September Becca and I got our own subscription, finally. At first we were excited to read all the good stories and, well, Catholic insights offered. However, by about December we both had to admit our disappointment. There were endless pages debating the worth of the wacky Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, news updates nearly two months old, long long articles about female Lord of the Rings characters, and just overall unexciting and uninteresting publications. Oh there were some good articles too. Dr. David Beresford was/is always interesting and good for a laugh. I appreciated Dr. Ryan Topping's work on church architecture. And every now and then we'd read one or two good articles. But for the most part I would read very few of the articles in the magazine.
I'm tempted to speculate why they couldn't make a go of it. Why things fell off the way they did. But instead I mourn the loss of what had been, and what could have been. We've lost one of the few Canadian Catholic voices. I know that the internet is largely responsible for the loss of many print publications, and in fact there are still many good Catholic people writing on the internet. I also know that the quality of Catholic Insight seemed to have dropped a notch or two. It happens.
However, why do the liberal "Catholic" print voices always remain? Why, for instance, is the Prairie Heretic, er, Messenger, still able to promote shockingly heretical work (limited vocabulary again)? The Prairie Messenger has now resorted to publishing the work of a once Catholic Insight writer, and once Catholic-in-general writer, Michael Coren. In case you're wondering, Coren has now jumped on the abortion bandwagon in this article. At this rate expect Coren to be promoting child sacrifice by Christmas. Or worse, country music. But I digress. The Prairie Messenger still stands. No fear. They can say what they want. When pressed on the Coren article they brought out every heretical and illogical argument in the book. They referred to the seamless garment theory (because saving water bottles is just as important as Jesus dying for our salvation), staying "open" with dialogue, and the newly predictable "Pope Francis wants us to..." line. How about: Pope Francis wants you to stop lying and using his name to further your agenda. What next? Pope Francis for child sacrifice? Well, at least Coren can't use that line. He's burned his Catholic bridges, again. Or worse, Pope Francis for country music... at Mass...How Magisterial of you Prairie Messenger. Again, how shocking.
Where was I again? Oh yes, the bottom line is there is little room for error amongst good Catholic people, good Catholic publications, and any good Catholic work. We are held to the highest standards. We are not free to spout out whatever we want and be rewarded for it. We are bound to the truth. We are also bound to use our brains throughout the process; to be sharp as serpents and innocent as doves. And if we somewhat momentarily lose this, we may find ourselves looking back and saying "what if?..."
Thank you Catholic Insight for all the good things you have done. May your work carry on somehow, someway. Canada needs this.
I'd be shocked if it didn't. Pope Francis wants it that way.
It was both shocking and unshocking (sorry, my vocabulary is shockingly limited). Back in September Becca and I got our own subscription, finally. At first we were excited to read all the good stories and, well, Catholic insights offered. However, by about December we both had to admit our disappointment. There were endless pages debating the worth of the wacky Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, news updates nearly two months old, long long articles about female Lord of the Rings characters, and just overall unexciting and uninteresting publications. Oh there were some good articles too. Dr. David Beresford was/is always interesting and good for a laugh. I appreciated Dr. Ryan Topping's work on church architecture. And every now and then we'd read one or two good articles. But for the most part I would read very few of the articles in the magazine.
I'm tempted to speculate why they couldn't make a go of it. Why things fell off the way they did. But instead I mourn the loss of what had been, and what could have been. We've lost one of the few Canadian Catholic voices. I know that the internet is largely responsible for the loss of many print publications, and in fact there are still many good Catholic people writing on the internet. I also know that the quality of Catholic Insight seemed to have dropped a notch or two. It happens.
However, why do the liberal "Catholic" print voices always remain? Why, for instance, is the Prairie Heretic, er, Messenger, still able to promote shockingly heretical work (limited vocabulary again)? The Prairie Messenger has now resorted to publishing the work of a once Catholic Insight writer, and once Catholic-in-general writer, Michael Coren. In case you're wondering, Coren has now jumped on the abortion bandwagon in this article. At this rate expect Coren to be promoting child sacrifice by Christmas. Or worse, country music. But I digress. The Prairie Messenger still stands. No fear. They can say what they want. When pressed on the Coren article they brought out every heretical and illogical argument in the book. They referred to the seamless garment theory (because saving water bottles is just as important as Jesus dying for our salvation), staying "open" with dialogue, and the newly predictable "Pope Francis wants us to..." line. How about: Pope Francis wants you to stop lying and using his name to further your agenda. What next? Pope Francis for child sacrifice? Well, at least Coren can't use that line. He's burned his Catholic bridges, again. Or worse, Pope Francis for country music... at Mass...How Magisterial of you Prairie Messenger. Again, how shocking.
Where was I again? Oh yes, the bottom line is there is little room for error amongst good Catholic people, good Catholic publications, and any good Catholic work. We are held to the highest standards. We are not free to spout out whatever we want and be rewarded for it. We are bound to the truth. We are also bound to use our brains throughout the process; to be sharp as serpents and innocent as doves. And if we somewhat momentarily lose this, we may find ourselves looking back and saying "what if?..."
Thank you Catholic Insight for all the good things you have done. May your work carry on somehow, someway. Canada needs this.
I'd be shocked if it didn't. Pope Francis wants it that way.
10 January 2015
Have you heard about the latest plan for our Holy Father to release an encyclical on the environment?
No, that was not a set up line for a joke. By all accounts we are to be getting such an encyclical later this year. Obviously many people are thrilled with the topic. I just think of an article I read about Beijing, where the smog is so bad it is literally harmful to one's health to go outside to exercise. Bad stuff. Others are perplexed at the need for such an encyclical rather than writing about much more important issues such as abortion, Islam, homosexuality, and the like.
For my part, instead of an encyclical on the environment, I'd rather see one on DIY home renovations or something. You know, a paragraph or two with painting tips. Perhaps a section discussing the morality of not getting a permit to do work, and how this ties in with Aquinas' Treatise on Law. For instance, when is state regulation for installing new light fixtures too burdensome? Give me some guidance here! Of course asbestos would be a hot topic, as would contractor fraud. And is browsing online for a new tub surround permissible on a Sunday?
But that's not happening. The encyclical is to discuss the environment and, subsequently, creation. If I had to guess, I would say many protestants will be keenly interested in this upcoming work. At Redeemer, for instance, there was a growing, if not suffocating, emphasis on this earth being the exact place for the "new heaven and new earth" as promised by Scripture. Therefore, the talk was that we were to steward this earth in preparation for this final transformation. As if our actions now would affect the future of the planet for all eternity. Do I hear a Let us Build a City of God? Somehow this idea permeated every class that I took there. What a buzz phrase. But what can you expect in this creation/fall/redemption world?
Yes many are obsessed with the new heaven, new earth subject. Meanwhile, to go back to Aquinas, he simply said a new heaven and new earth must fit our glorified bodies. Not the other way around. I told this to a Redeemer professor once. He seemed to have difficulty comprehending the fact that humans, especially those in the beatific vision in heaven, are more essential to consider than whether or not the maple trees in his back yard will continue to grow when time passes away.
Ah yes, this upcoming encyclical will be a hot topic I'm sure. But to me the whole environment issue boils down to one thing: horses.
Let's face it, our problem is that horses are not picking up the slack. Once upon a time we used horses for everything. We got places. We plowed fields. We even ate them if we were hungry enough. Nowadays, horses do nothing. Not only nothing, they contribute to the problem. The carbon foot, er, hoofprint of horses is astounding. They stand in a field, never working. Some live in heated barns. They get fed hay that farmers have to plant and harvest using smelly diesel. Their water bins are heated with electricity in the winter. Even their fences now, to make sure they stay standing in place, are run by electricity. To use Thomas the Tank Engine terminology, they are not very useful.
Meanwhile people drive cars and trucks everywhere. Horses are too lazy to do it. If, by chance, a horse is used for riding. We have to drive them, in a trailer, to get to their little horse riding 4-H group. Horses used to make the earth vibrant. There was far less pollution when horses worked out in the fields some 500 years ago. Can you imagine Beijing with horses? But now, horses are not only not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Clearly there will be no horses in heaven. Not in a new heaven and a new earth, anyway. God forbid.
And so, a word of advice for Pope Francis: if you want to write about the environment then you'll need to practice what you preach. That is, ditch the popemobile! It goes too slow anyway. Get a horse.
But will he do it?
I'm chomping at the bit to find out.
No, that was not a set up line for a joke. By all accounts we are to be getting such an encyclical later this year. Obviously many people are thrilled with the topic. I just think of an article I read about Beijing, where the smog is so bad it is literally harmful to one's health to go outside to exercise. Bad stuff. Others are perplexed at the need for such an encyclical rather than writing about much more important issues such as abortion, Islam, homosexuality, and the like.
For my part, instead of an encyclical on the environment, I'd rather see one on DIY home renovations or something. You know, a paragraph or two with painting tips. Perhaps a section discussing the morality of not getting a permit to do work, and how this ties in with Aquinas' Treatise on Law. For instance, when is state regulation for installing new light fixtures too burdensome? Give me some guidance here! Of course asbestos would be a hot topic, as would contractor fraud. And is browsing online for a new tub surround permissible on a Sunday?
But that's not happening. The encyclical is to discuss the environment and, subsequently, creation. If I had to guess, I would say many protestants will be keenly interested in this upcoming work. At Redeemer, for instance, there was a growing, if not suffocating, emphasis on this earth being the exact place for the "new heaven and new earth" as promised by Scripture. Therefore, the talk was that we were to steward this earth in preparation for this final transformation. As if our actions now would affect the future of the planet for all eternity. Do I hear a Let us Build a City of God? Somehow this idea permeated every class that I took there. What a buzz phrase. But what can you expect in this creation/fall/redemption world?
Yes many are obsessed with the new heaven, new earth subject. Meanwhile, to go back to Aquinas, he simply said a new heaven and new earth must fit our glorified bodies. Not the other way around. I told this to a Redeemer professor once. He seemed to have difficulty comprehending the fact that humans, especially those in the beatific vision in heaven, are more essential to consider than whether or not the maple trees in his back yard will continue to grow when time passes away.
Ah yes, this upcoming encyclical will be a hot topic I'm sure. But to me the whole environment issue boils down to one thing: horses.
Let's face it, our problem is that horses are not picking up the slack. Once upon a time we used horses for everything. We got places. We plowed fields. We even ate them if we were hungry enough. Nowadays, horses do nothing. Not only nothing, they contribute to the problem. The carbon foot, er, hoofprint of horses is astounding. They stand in a field, never working. Some live in heated barns. They get fed hay that farmers have to plant and harvest using smelly diesel. Their water bins are heated with electricity in the winter. Even their fences now, to make sure they stay standing in place, are run by electricity. To use Thomas the Tank Engine terminology, they are not very useful.
Meanwhile people drive cars and trucks everywhere. Horses are too lazy to do it. If, by chance, a horse is used for riding. We have to drive them, in a trailer, to get to their little horse riding 4-H group. Horses used to make the earth vibrant. There was far less pollution when horses worked out in the fields some 500 years ago. Can you imagine Beijing with horses? But now, horses are not only not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Clearly there will be no horses in heaven. Not in a new heaven and a new earth, anyway. God forbid.
And so, a word of advice for Pope Francis: if you want to write about the environment then you'll need to practice what you preach. That is, ditch the popemobile! It goes too slow anyway. Get a horse.
But will he do it?
I'm chomping at the bit to find out.
Note: not everything I say should be taken seriously.
13 March 2013
We have a Pope!
We have a baby!
First, the Pope.
I was on my lunch break when the white smoke rose from the Vatican. Then I had to go back to class to teach science. What to do? What to do?
I don't care if it's a public school... this type of thing doesn't happen everyday! So I did the only thing I could do. I ran and booked the projector/laptop cart, grabbed an "Arthur" video from the library without bothering to sign it out, and I turned on a movie for the kids while I watched the live EWTN feed from my classroom computer. The kids looked over at me and asked what I was doing. "Oh, something important in the world is happening, and so I'm watching it" I told them.
And then I saw him walk out.
And he just stood there. And stood there. It was almost an awkward silence. Yet it was anything but. Here was this man who looked upon the world, and it was as if he understood fully the task he was being called to do. His look seemed surreal. It is surreal. He has to lead this Church. This mess of a Church. This holy Divine Church. It was completely unrehearsed. How could it be? His look was one of the most real and raw examples of humanity, in all its pain and glory.
"Feed my sheep."
Pope Francis. Yesterday I was thinking that Cardinal O'Malley was going to be elected, and that he would take the name of Francis. But, Pope Francis ended up coming from Argentina. A quick search of several articles about him told me immediately that the Church is in good hands. But I already knew that. Despite all the chaos and nervousness of going through a conclave ("what if we get some less than ideal Cardinal like Schonborn?"), seeing the Pope walk up instantly restores our visible anchor in life. Christ's promise of "I am with you evermore" is instantly proclaimed.
"Rebuild my Church"
Pope Francis I. What a beautiful name. I have always believed that of all the saints who have lived, there has never been a saint who has more closely lived the life of Christ than Saint Francis of Assisi. What a sign from our Holy Father!
I can't wait to see the pictures of Benedict and Francis together. Pope Francis is hopping on a helicopter tomorrow to go see him. That's what I'd do!
God Bless our Pope.
Habemus Infantem!
As if this wasn't enough, yesterday little Michael Joseph Rogal entered the world! Becca and I found out via an early morning text message. My first thoughts, besides overall excitement and joy, was that Joseph would have another little boy cousin to play with. Congratulations to Elaine and Brendan (and Catherine)! I will be able to see have a brief visit tomorrow. Oh I just can't wait to hold the little guy!
We have a baby!
First, the Pope.
I was on my lunch break when the white smoke rose from the Vatican. Then I had to go back to class to teach science. What to do? What to do?
I don't care if it's a public school... this type of thing doesn't happen everyday! So I did the only thing I could do. I ran and booked the projector/laptop cart, grabbed an "Arthur" video from the library without bothering to sign it out, and I turned on a movie for the kids while I watched the live EWTN feed from my classroom computer. The kids looked over at me and asked what I was doing. "Oh, something important in the world is happening, and so I'm watching it" I told them.
And then I saw him walk out.
And he just stood there. And stood there. It was almost an awkward silence. Yet it was anything but. Here was this man who looked upon the world, and it was as if he understood fully the task he was being called to do. His look seemed surreal. It is surreal. He has to lead this Church. This mess of a Church. This holy Divine Church. It was completely unrehearsed. How could it be? His look was one of the most real and raw examples of humanity, in all its pain and glory.
"Feed my sheep."
Pope Francis. Yesterday I was thinking that Cardinal O'Malley was going to be elected, and that he would take the name of Francis. But, Pope Francis ended up coming from Argentina. A quick search of several articles about him told me immediately that the Church is in good hands. But I already knew that. Despite all the chaos and nervousness of going through a conclave ("what if we get some less than ideal Cardinal like Schonborn?"), seeing the Pope walk up instantly restores our visible anchor in life. Christ's promise of "I am with you evermore" is instantly proclaimed.
"Rebuild my Church"
Pope Francis I. What a beautiful name. I have always believed that of all the saints who have lived, there has never been a saint who has more closely lived the life of Christ than Saint Francis of Assisi. What a sign from our Holy Father!
I can't wait to see the pictures of Benedict and Francis together. Pope Francis is hopping on a helicopter tomorrow to go see him. That's what I'd do!
God Bless our Pope.
Habemus Infantem!
As if this wasn't enough, yesterday little Michael Joseph Rogal entered the world! Becca and I found out via an early morning text message. My first thoughts, besides overall excitement and joy, was that Joseph would have another little boy cousin to play with. Congratulations to Elaine and Brendan (and Catherine)! I will be able to see have a brief visit tomorrow. Oh I just can't wait to hold the little guy!
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)