Where will we take a stand?

For years and years now the secular war on religion has become more and more clear. Day after day, month after month, being Catholic in today's world is becoming harder. Each day there seems to be a new story about Christians being forced to violate their consciences in one way or another. Most of the time, the assault on Christian values is centered around the Christian idea of sexual morality. Whether the issue be gay marriage, contraception, or abortion, secularism seems to detest the idea that sex is for a man and a woman who are married to each other, and it naturally results in children. Such a simple idea, and yet so detestable to a large majority of people in power today.

The recent hard-line decision by the Obama administration regarding mandatory contraception coverage in employer healthcare plans is no different, though it is more direct and open. As Cardinal DiNardo pointed out back in October, the religious exemption clause in this mandate is so narrow that it seems to show a disdain for religion. The secular definition of religion as being a purely "private" thing is being taken to it's logical conclusion: religious institutions are now only those that serve and employee members of their own religion. In other words, if an institution seeks to aid or employ anybody outside their own religion, i.e. step out into the public sphere, their religious beliefs are left behind and they must submit to the ideologies of prevailing thought, even if these ideologies conflict with their "private" beliefs.

In response to the Obama administration's effort to impose the contraceptive mentality on Catholic institutions, the Catholic bishops have responded with vows of a fight. Indeed, it always does the sheep good to see the shepherds go to battle against the wolves. It is encouraging as a lay Catholic to see bishops sticking up for our values, not willing to acquiesce to the attacks of secularism. The next year, during which Catholic institutions are  supposed to figure out how to violate their consciences, as Archbishop Dolan put it, I hope and pray the bishops will use every measure available to them to stop this mandate from going into effect. I hope and pray that they will stay strong, and not weary of the long fight ahead. 

Unfortunately, though, in the last 50 years we have witnessed many bishops growing weary of this fight. Many became silent on the issues of sexual morality and allowed secularist sexuality to take root in the hearts of so many in our country. A few bishops stood up, and they became beacons of light to faithful Catholics. But many chose popularity with the masses over faithfulness to the Truth. This coming fight, though, represents a new challenge. This fight no longer asks the bishops and the Church to be silent while secularists do their thing; this fight now asks the bishops and the Church to directly take part in the secularist view of sex. It directly asks Catholic charities, hospitals, and schools to fund contraceptives. This directness cannot be met with silence, it requires either an assent or dissent from the bishops.

But the bishops cannot, and must not be alone in this fight. Though the bishops are the leaders, and they must stand up for the truth, they cannot stand on their own. The Church is made up of clergy and laity alike, and now more than ever we the laity must be members of that Church. We must fight against the secularist encroachment on our morals as well. As laity, it is easy for us to complain and moan about the lack of strength amongst the bishops. It is easy for us to sit back and say "This is what should be done," but like the scholars of the law in the bible not lift a finger to bear the burdens ourselves (Lk 11:46). 

Our role during these times, though, is different from the bishops. The most important aspect of the laity's role during these times is prayer. We must be praying, we must be fasting, we must be begging God for a vistory. We should ask in trust that He give strength to His bishops, that He guide them in what to say. We should pray that our enemies be forgiven, and we should beseech that they too will come to Jesus. And we should ask this in trust, believing that God will give us good gifts out of His love for us. The biggest obstacle to this prayer, though, is often our own weakness! I for one know that I forget to pray for these situations. I forget to beseech God on behalf of our shepherds, and this forgetfulness is a sign that I do not feel as passionately about the issues as I should. I get worked up for a few minutes, but then move on with my life. For this fight, though, we cannot grow comfortable. We cannot lose our own stamina. It will be long, and it will be tiring, but we must persevere with our prayers. We must continue to pray. We must offer up our little sufferings for our Church and our world: for all those souls who do not yet know Christ. We can't forget to pray.

Prayer is the most essential aspect of what we can do as laity, but there is more for us to do as well. We need to encourage our bishops. We can write them letters, strengthening them when they stand for the truth, letting them know that the sheep are behind them and relying on them. We have to let our elected representatives know what we think. We cannot remain silent. I know I have remained silent for too long. It's so easy to not take the time to write a letter. It's easy to assume that somebody else is going to do it. But what if everybody was writing to their bishops and congressmen? What if we all stood up and shouted, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15)? This will, and can have an effect.

Similarly, we must witness to our views to those around us. Social media has made this easier than ever. We can share stories about the issue, write out our thoughts about it and how it would effect us as followers of Christ to have to fund something so evil. It's not only the leaders of our Church and our nation that need to hear from us, it's all our fellow men. We all have people we're friends with on Facebook who don't think the same we do - we need to show them the pain this would cause! We need to show them that we don't actually hate women, but rather we are following God's call to us. We are following His path.

Finally, we need to discern where we will make our own stand. If the battle is lost on a national level, what will constitute a victory on the personal level? When will it be necessary to sacrifice a job or career so that we can remain faithful to the Truth? If we lose this battle, what then? These are questions that we must wrestle with and find answers to. When will I enter the fray? We should always be asking these questions, but especially now. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Being a father at the March for Life

It is worthy of note that for all of man's incredible intellectual abilities, most of his life goes by forgotten not only by the outside world, but even by himself. Going about our day to day duties, it is often only the exceptional times in life that we remember with any lasting effect. There are many days on the calendar that I cannot tell you what I was doing, or what happened that day. I do not remember clearly October 22, 2011, or for that matter I do not remember exactly what I was doing on January 17, 2012. In order to remember what I was doing on either of these days I would need to go back in my calendar, or through my e-mails, to try to remind myself what was on my mind, who I was talking with, or what I was doing.

However, while the majority of my life flashes by in a blur of blessing and suffering, there are specific dates that stick out in mind. The days of April 23 and April 24, 2011 are both still with me, in vivid memory. Those two days stand out amongst the cloud of days before and after. April 23, Liz and I drove into the hospital in Winchester, arriving at a little before 9 o'clock in the morning. We had been to see the doctor on Wednesday, April 20 and Liz's blood pressure had been high, so they allowed us a few more days to see if she would go into labor naturally. Despite high volumes of walking and pineapple juice being consumed, she did not go into labor, so we drove to the hospital so that she could be induced.

For the next 24 hours I stood in awe of my wife as I could only try to help her through this experience. I could try to take her mind off the pain, and I could try to encourage her the best I could, but I could not take away the work she had to go through. Those 24 hours were marked by a series of highs a lows. She would progress in labor and then stall, progress and then stall. Despite hoping to have a natural labor, we had to make the tough decisions to put her on Pitocin, and then later on an epidural. However, neither of these helped her to progress any more, and towards the end we were finally ready for a C-Section.

However, right when we thought it would all be over, it turned out that Liz was ready to push. Just when we thought the work was done, it truly began. During the next hour, Liz showed strength that I could not imagine and that I unfortunately did not suspect she had. She gave everything she had in her. And, at about 9:45 in the morning, April 24, Easter Sunday 2011 Alan was born. For those of you who might not have experienced this blessing for yourselves, I can assure you there is no more joyful moment, no more powerful memory then the first time you see your child's face. For nine months you have waited to meet this person, wondering what they will look like and whose features they will possess. In an instant, you know. In an instant, you see the face of a baby you could not love more, the face of a human being who you will love until death takes one of you. At the moment, Liz and I wept tears of joy that we had never experienced before. We wept because God had entrusted us with another human life. He had given us an immense gift, one that requires sacrifice on our parts, but one that pays a thousand fold back in joy and laughter.

Going forward from that moment, calling myself "pro-life" took on a whole new meaning. There has never been a time in my life where I have not been pro-life. In high school, I attended the March for Life in Washington D.C. every year. During college I continued this practice, and since graduating I have always found myself in Washington D.C. around January 22 so as to witness to my beliefs. However, this year the March for Life took on a whole new meaning for me. Externally, the March was very similar to what it had been in the past couple of years. Many church groups were there, and the overwhelming majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were youth. The pro-choice protesters were also there, as were the graphic images of babies that had been aborted. 

Going through all this for the 9th year in a row, my mind couldn't help going back to the moment of my son's birth. The moment he was born, I knew him as my son. I saw him as a human being, alive and moving, his face in a little scowl from being taken from his nice warm home in his mother's womb. What was different from that baby I saw and those babies on the graphic billboards? Why was one a human, and the other not? Why did one deserve to live, and the other deserve to die? Why is it that our laws say that my son was a baby human being at 9:45 a.m, April 24, but not at 9:30 a.m., April 24?

The abortion of a human baby does not logically make sense. Science has not found a defining moment when a baby goes from being a "blob of tissue" to being a baby. Indeed, science is slowly starting to move toward recognizing that a baby always has the same identity from the moment of conception. It is always a living organism, not just a blob of tissue. 

But the reason there is any debate over this is because there are two persons primarily involved in the 9 month development of the baby (well four, including the God and the father). The pro-choice side is pro-choice largely because they emphasize the mother at the expense of the baby. They argue that women who do not want a baby for whatever reason (financial difficulties, emotional difficulties, or inconvenience) should not be forced to deliver this baby into the world. They should not be forced to go through the suffering of pregnancy, and thus abortion should be readily available so that they do not have to be forced to choose an unsafe back alley abortion. Their empathy is with the mother. They believe that a woman who for one reason or another is not ready to be a mother, shouldn't have to be.

However, because they have such a strong emphasis on what they perceive to be the well-being of the mother, they in turn believe that pro-lifers are just the opposite of them. Namely, they believe that pro-lifers have an over emphasis on the well-being of the baby at the expense of the mother. In truth, though, nothing could be further from the truth. There may be segments of the pro-life movement that care only for the well being of the baby, but by and large the pro-life movement wants both the mother and the baby to be happy. This is why so many pro-life organizations offer financial and emotional assistance to mothers in a crisis pregnancy. Many crisis pregnancy centers have strong ties with adoption agencies, so that if a mother is not ready to be a mother, she can give the baby to somebody who is. There are even houses that care for mothers in crisis pregnancies during the nine months they are carrying the baby, and up to a year afterwards so that they can help the women learn how to be mothers, find a job, and find an apartment for themselves and their new babies.

These organizations witness to what it means to be pro-life. To be pro-life is to genuinely want whats best for the mother and the baby. We do not want to see mothers forced into situations where they cannot support a child. The pro-life solution to this problem though is not to remove the child, its to remove the situation that is hostile to children. The solution is to help these women, so that each child has a moment of birth, as my son did.

During the March for Life this year, I was overwhelmed by what it means to be pro-life. Ultimately, it means that we must be a person who loves everyone. We must love the baby and the mother. We must teach others to love everyone. Recognizing the value of human life in our lives, we must love the value of human life in others'. 

Regarding "Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus"

For the past week or so, there has been a lot of talk and debate over a video on YouTube entitled "Why I hate Religion But Love Jesus." If you haven't watched it, here it is:

Now, many, many, many Catholic bloggers have already commented on this video and sought to refute it. Most of them have even done a good job at it. But since I am a sheep, I must follow along blindly and do as my peers are doing and attempt to add something to this debate. And indeed, there is one angle of the debate that I think has been missing so far (thought I may be wrong, and somebody much more intelligent than I may have already thought of this and written about it. In which case, you should probably read their article.)

The point I think needs to be made is one that comes out of the very existence of the debate itself. For several days now, which unfortunately is an eternity in internet time, different bloggers have been trying to refute the main claims of the video. Primarily, this video seems to be emphasizing a personal encounter with Jesus, through the intellect, will, and passions, over any sort of "organized" religion. Mr. Bethke, the young gentleman who made the video, equates institutional religion with self-righteousness and hypocrisy. His definition of religion seems to be a method of acting in order to look holy. However, as he rightly points out, only looking holy without knowing Jesus can lead to war and greed.

In refuting Mr. Bethke, many bloggers have taken to refuting his individual claims, and especially his definition of religion. For instance, in this video Fr. Pontifex points out that hypocrisy in the members of an organized religion cannot be blamed on the religion. Rather, it is an unwillingness of the people in the pews to listen to the message that is being preached. They do not take to heart the message preached by organized religions that you DO have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Or, Mr. Marc Barnes over at Bad Catholic takes to defending religion by attacking the specific claims made by Mr. Bethke. Indeed, Mr. Barnes does an admirable job of this, laying out the scriptural passages where Jesus does establish an organized religion and also pointing to the truth regarding the Church's charitable actions.

These men have done incredibly well defending the Catholic faith (for, as Mr. Barnes points out, Mr. Bethke's attacks do seem to mostly reflect on the Catholic faith) but they have not made the point I felt needs to be made. Fr. Pontifex alludes to the issue when he says, "See this had to be addressed, this use of illogical terms and definitions." However, he doesn't quite take this emphasis on terms and definitions where I hoped he would, so I will. The main point I want to make is this: this debate revolves around how someone defines religion, and the ambiguity over such a central term implies a need for an organized central authority that lays down definitions. In other words, unorganized religion is a strong argument for organized religion.

Unorganized religion, as it is understood by Mr. Bethke, seems to mean a gathering of people who come together in order to have an experience of Jesus. Indeed, Mr. Bethke does himself say that people should go to churches, it's just the highly organized churches he has a problem with. His definition of religion, as expressed in his video, seems to imply a state of organization that goes beyond the local community. And yet, Mr. Bethke himself defines religion here by saying, "You have to get back to my definition of religion... (Jesus) was coming to abolish self righteousness, justification, and hypocrisy." His definition equates religion with hypocrisy, and yet his video seems to equate it with organization. So the question is, what is religion? Do organized institutions of worship imply self righteousness, justification, and hypocrisy? Is religion simply a checklist of actions that our done so as to appear holy? Or, as Mr. Bethke believes, is true religion simply the personal, individual belief  in Jesus Christ without reference to actions or dogmas concerning that same Jesus?

Unfortunately for Mr. Bethke, unorganized religion cannot answer these questions for the simple reason that if it were to answer them, it would cease to be unorganized. The movement away from organized churches to small personal groups is a movement away from the concrete to the vague. Unorganized religion thrives on the fact that it does not enforce definitions and moral standards on its members. It has abandoned defined dogma for undefined experience. It has thrown out clarity so as to be casual, and this is its main appeal.

But unorganized religion cannot stay unorganized for long. Man longs for definitions and moral standards, for these come as natural to him as does breathing and sleeping. Definitions and moral codes feed his intellect and will, and he always needs them. Eventually, those in a small unorganized religious group will have to ask themselves "What do we mean by this?" or "Is this action in line with what Jesus taught?" They will have to find definitive answers so as to continue in their ongoing relationship with Jesus, and when they do find these definitive answers, whatever they may be, they will have taken a step away from chaotic experience and moved towards organized religion.

In fact, looking at man, it would seem that his need for answers and definitions, his thirst for moral codes and ethical knowledge would be something the Creator has put in him. And indeed, if the Creator did endow man with this desire to know, then in saving man He would have kept this in mind. He would have instituted a religion that could give many answers. He would have created an organization that could feed man's need for knowledge, so that man could come closer to God. For how can a man come to know Jesus and be one with Him in every thought and action if he does not definitively know what Jesus would think or do? How can he be united to the Savior in mind and heart if he only has a vague idea of what made the Savior a Savior? Man needs definitions and clarity so as to know God, otherwise man's finitude would get in the way of his relationship with the Infinite. So, the Infinite would have to find a way to go beyond's man's limits. He would need to provide a source of clarity to man's ever clouded mind. And lucky for us, He did: "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam."

The laboring and burdened

"Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you." - Mt 11:28.

As we traverse this valley of tears, it is the unique ability of man that he quite easily becomes sidetracked from all that is important in life. The many other creatures of God's creation seem to be steadfastly attuned to what is important to them. Dogs become incredibly focused on the matter at hand when it is time to go out for their walk. Birds rarely forget to eat. Cats do not often failed to bathe themselves, because this seems to be what is most important to a cat. Animals only fail to give priority to what is important to them when they are sick, and I guess in this way man is not much different. But what makes man unique is that he seems to be constantly sick, and thus he seems to constantly neglect those things that are most important in his life.

It is incredibly easy for him to become absorbed in things of very little importance, while losing sight of all that really matters. For instance, it is very easy for me personally to become absorbed in being a worker, and lose sight of being a disciple/ husband/ father. It is a constant struggle of mine that I continue to think about work when I have gone home for the day. I go over what happened during the day in my head, and I dwell on what is to be done tomorrow. And all the time I lose sight of being a husband and a father; two roles that are far more important than the job I perform from nine to five.

From speaking with other men, this seems to be a common temptation. In some sense, it is easier for us men to think about work than to think about home. It is easier for us to think about a world that is centered around personal control and regularity, instead of thinking about a world centered around abandonment of self and individual intricacies. For the world of the home really is one that centers around the often surprising realities that are individual human beings. It is this, above all I think, that leads men to the temptation to stay at work in their mind's eye. It is much easier to deal with accounting, teaching, lesson planning, editing, or writing than to actually engage and live with an individual. Work does not demand that we come out of our comfort zone, but family surely does.

Of course, the experience of being distracted from the more important things in life is not unique to the working man. Every person, no matter their occupation, experiences the distraction of being worried about their work. The working woman worries as much as the working man. The stay at home mom and stay at home dad each worry about the long list of things that need to get done around the house. Even the retired worry (or so I'm told). All human beings, at one point or another, allow their "to-do lists" to weigh them down.

But the solution to this temptation is simple, though often overlooked. Our Lord Himself gave us the solution when He spoke to "all you that labour, and are burdened." For, when He spoke of the laboring and burdened, He was primarily speaking of a spiritual reality. He was speaking of the reality of being burdened in thought, and laboring in anxiety. His solution to these problems was "Come to me." By going to Him, He promises us that we will be refreshed. We will be refreshed through the miracle of grace. We will be refreshed because what is most important is made most important, namely Jesus, and what is least important is made least important. We find rest in Christ, and this rest acts as an end in itself and it also refreshes us in such a way that we are made capable of continuing on with our labors.

This solution to "seek ye first the kingdom of God" (Mt. 6:33) is best lived out in prayer. We must commit ourselves to frequent prayer through out the day, raising our hearts to God so that He might refresh us. Often, prayer is the last thing we want to do. We want to accomplish our checklist, and prayer is seen as getting in the way. But we must remember His plea to "come to me", otherwise we will always remain the laboring and burdened.

The first (blog post) shall be last (in spiritual importance)

One interesting aspect about writing a blog is that you're never sure exactly how many people are reading it, nor are you sure exactly how they are coming to your blog. Are they coming directly to the blog and checking back every few days to see if you've updated it? Or do they only read the blog when you post something on Facebook under the very generic title "New Blog Post"? Unfortunately, as a writer of a blog, I'm just not sure, and thus I'm also not sure how many people noticed that I have not written a piece for this blog for nearly three weeks.

To any of you who did notice my absence, I am profoundly sorry if you were disappointed by, or perhaps pleased by, my lack of writing. Circumstances beyond my control (such as family and work) have kept me from writing until now. To those of you who did not notice my absence, I am not sorry for not having written. I do not feel bad about this absence of remorse to you, though, because in the end my absence from this blog did not affect you in the least. Thus, I owe you no apologies.

During the intervening time between my last blog post and now, a number of things have happened. Of course, there were the 12 days of Christmas, which involved Christ, presents, food, family and fellowship amongst other things. There have been spiritual graces given by God, and spiritual graces refused by my own sinfulness. But during all this time, I have indeed been thinking about what I would like to write about on the first blog of the year. As I thought about this blog post for the past few weeks there were a number of topics that came to mind, topics I thought could really shape the focus of the blog in 2012. For instance, I thought about writing another blog post about the need to make God the first priority, and to place everything else in relation to that. Or, I thought about beginning the year with a serious discussion of the Republican primaries, and thus perhaps move the blog into more political spheres. Or, I thought about writing an entire post about the merits of rugby, though this was quickly dismissed from my mind by the desire to retain some of the loyal readers this blog has.

However, no matter how many ideas I came up with for this first post, my mind kept coming back to one thing. I kept seeing a recurring theme in the media that I felt needed to be addressed by a serious minded young Catholic. Many commentators have offered their opinion on this phenomenon, but I have rarely heard a peep out of the Catholic blogosphere regarding one of the key mysteries of our time. Of course, I am referring to the Kardashians:

Pictured here: What I thought merited  the first blog post of 2012

Now, I recognize that I may have just lost a number of readers, and that I may have been better writing about rugby than rambling about the writing of this blog and then hitting you with the Kardashians, but let me explain before you click away back to Facebook. The Kardashians have not been on my mind because I am particularly interested in the Kardashians; I'm not more or less interested in them then I am in any other complete stranger. I pray for them, I hope they make it to heaven and have a deep relationship with God, but I don't particularly follow the "fascinating" aspects of their personal lives. What does interest me about them, though, is that there are people who follow all the different aspects of their personal lives.

The Kardashians are the perfect example of a phenomenon all too common in the digital era: the phenomenon of shadow knowledge. What I mean is that the Kardashians remind me of the shadows in Plato's famous cave. They are images available for everybody to see, and there is a certain segment of the population that prides themselves on knowing everything about them. However, the Kardashians that everybody knows are not the true Kardashians; they are often simply images meant for the consumption of general people. Thus, the people who know a lot about the Kardashians don't actually know a lot about the real Kardashians, but rather they are experts at images. To have knowledge of the real Kardashians would require the same circumstances that are required to have knowledge of any person: namely, we would need to live in community with them. To truly know someone requires that you work, pray, rest, and relax with them. You need to see them up close in various situations to truly know them, but all we know of the Kardashians are the images they chose to show. We don't know them in various situations, we only know them as they wish to be known.

The danger of the Kardashians is that the knowledge they purport to give distracts us from gaining the true knowledge of living in a community. The Kardashians, and other celebrities, make a living off of convincing people that they (regular people) do know them (the Kardashians). Hollywood wants people to have a connection with celebrities, because then they will purchase goods relating to those celebrities. It's a lucrative business, this game of shadows and images. If we're absorbed in our own community, if we're more concerned with our neighbor's marriage more than with Kim's marriage, the media won't be able to make any money off of us. They want to keep selling us tickets to the shadows instead of letting us get to the light for free.

Of course, the Kardashians are only one of a thousand examples of this in modern culture. Whenever we become more concerned with video games, sports, movies, Facebook, twitter, national politics etc.., than we are with our neighbors, we have fallen into the trap of virtual reality and lost sight of the importance of true reality. Indeed, many in our culture only know the shadow realities of Hollywood, TV and video games without every knowing the reality of their own street. To enjoy any of these cultural entertainments is not bad in and of itself, but it becomes bad when the enjoyment of images becomes a hindrance to living in the concrete reality in which God has placed us. This is why I thought the Kardashians worthy of the first post of 2012: they remind me that this year I want to get to know the true reality around me better.