Per Christum

While meditating on the topic of this post, a sweet memory from several years ago came to mind. My my oldest son must have been 4 or 5 years old and wasn’t feeling too well. He had laid down on our bed to take a nap. I think it must have been supper time or something, because I went in to wake him up to see if he wanted to try to eat.

I didn’t say anything, but I sat on the bed next to him. I could only make out a vague lump of kid huddled under the covers and couldn’t tell if he was awake or asleep. He let me know he was awake by speaking.

“Hello, daddy.” he said.

“Hey, sweetie, are you feeling better?”

“Uh-huh.”

“Good. How did you know it was me? I didn’t say anything.”

“By the shape of you, daddy.” he said.

It was too dark for him to see my features and he never heard my voice, but he knew me instantly by the dim silhouette in the darkened room. He could do this because of our daily contact and interaction. When you’re that age, daddy ranks right up there with Spiderman and Buzz Lightyear, so you can spot him right away, even in the dark.

Jesus said that His sheep would know his voice. In the beginning of my wading out into Catholic waters I was urged forward mainly by reading and listening. I read the Church Fathers, Church documents, apologetics and theology and, from my experience with Jesus in the Scriptures and in my life, heard His voice there. The same happened many times when I listened to teachers, apologists and Catholics I asked questions of. I’m very thankful for and believe God has used all of the above.

I can’t, however, say that I ultimately read and reasoned my way completely into the Church. There was something else. It’s admittedly very subjective and I don’t really write it here as an apologetic for the unconvinced. This is more a statement for those who either are where I am or have been where I am. This is a statement of encouragement, communion and solidarity.

I have to honestly say that one thing had as much or more to do with my decision to join the Catholic Church than anything I read or heard: being in the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

There was very little middle ground for me on the whole “Real Presence” thing. It was one of my strongest objections to the Catholic faith back in my anti-Catholic days. I saw it as rank idolatry to take a thing made my the hands of man, bow to it and call it “my Lord and my God.” Upon further reflection, I realized that the actions of St. Thomas when the Lord showed him His wounds would have been the same if Jesus hadn’t been God.

There is a palatable difference for me in place where the Lord is in the Tabernacle or exposed in a Monstrance. Again, this is subjective, but I have to admit that this awareness came as a great surprise to me. The first time I visited an adoration chapel, I left that place with the definite impression of having been in the company of Someone bigger than myself.

As time went on, and I started to attend Mass and share experiences with other “convert”, “revert” and “cradle” Catholics, the Real Presence of Christ became more and more evident and real to me. I went from saying “rank idolatry” to saying “holy, holy, holy” and joining St. Thomas in his exclamation: “my Lord and my God!”

Even behind the accidents of bread and wine and the Zwinglian hang-over of my early theological training, I knew the Lord was there. I had known Him for years through the Spirit and the Word and I could see Him there now due to the gracious gift of Faith. Even in the darkened room of the limits of human perception, I knew he was there by the shape of Him.

Since anything put out by the Vatican isn’t light reading, I’ve decided to post in parts. This represents Part I. It represents both summary and commentary. The document can be found here.

——

I think the key to understanding the new encyclical is in the introduction where the Holy Father states his intentions: “…I wish my new encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others.” Thus, Pope Benedict is writing about the very basis of Christian ethics: love of God and love of others. However, like in sports, where sometimes it’s vitally important to remind the team of the fundamentals, Benedict’s newest encyclical encourages the faithful to examine and embrace the fundamentals of our Catholic life.

One major reason we need to return to the “fundamentals” as a Church, is because society at large has seriously lost track of them. I think it’s safe to say that from a Christian standpoint, secular culture has no clue about what love is. Benedict sets up this discussion by first addressing the differences among the Greek words for love: eros, philos, and agape. (note: I’m not going to discuss the linguistic merit of this, but prefer like Benedict to stick with the philosophical issues behind the words). Basically the first is erotic love, the second is a love of friendship, and the third is a sacrificial, unselfish love.

Benedict notes that the Church has been accused of being against erotic love. This is a justification that isn’t totally without merit. However, Benedict looks at eros in a typically Catholic way. Eros as practiced in fertility cults, that is as an overpowering of the reason by “divine madness” in order to experience supreme happiness, is naturally to be rejected. The Pope rightly points out that this way of “loving” is in reality exploitation and a degradation of man (and I would add God). However, should we reject eros? According to Benedict, the answer is a resounding “no.” Essentially, we need to discipline and purify it. And then, in a Catholic context, eros can be legitimately described as “a certain foretaste of the pinnacle of our existence, of that beatitude for which our whole being yearns.” So, what does this Catholic eros look like?

Eros rightly implies a relationship between love and God, since love promises eternity. However, this can’t be merely giving in to instinctual urges. Rather it requires growth in maturity, purification and renunciation. Simply giving in to bodily urges denies the truth that humans are both body and soul. Neither the spirit nor the body can alone love. Since man is one, both dimensions must be truly united in love for him to truly attain “his full stature.” It is only in this context of unity that eros is able to “attain its authentic grandeur.”

Sadly, our culture at large sees eros only in sexual terms, exalting and isolating the body apart from the soul. Benedict notes that this has turned sex and people into commodities to be exploited. Our bodies and sexual acts are no longer a “vital expression of our whole being” but are seen as purely biological. Benedict sees eros as something that can lead us to closer union with God, but only in “a path of ascent, renunciation, purification, and healing.” Many will ask, “what does this look like?” Fortunately, the Holy Father fills us in.

In the biblical book The Song of Songs, the Hebrew word for love first used is dodim which implies an insecure, searching love. It is then replaced by the word ahaba which reflects an unselfish love. The same is true of the Christian life, where love may start as selfish, but must yield to a love that “seeks the good of the beloved” and “is ready, and even willing, for sacrifice.” As love grows and is purified, it becomes, both exclusive (to one particular person) and eternal (forever). In this way, the Pope provides us with one of the most beautiful quotes of the whole encyclical:

love is indeed ecstasy, not in the sense of a moment of intoxication, but rather as a journey, an ongoing exodus out of the closed inward-looking self towards its liberation through self-giving and thus towards authentic self-discovery and indeed the discovery of God. (emphasis mine)

This very path was first blazed by our Lord in his Cross and Resurrection.

Benedict next discusses how some have made a sharp distinction between the Christian agape as descending, oblative love and the worldly eros as ascending covetous love. However, he argues that we cannot separate the two loves or we’d risk detaching ourselves from the authentic human existence. Even while eros is still selfishly oriented, it still nonetheless gradually grows and leads to an unselfish love. A Christian can never seek one love or the other because we cannot always simply give, but also must be able to receive love (as a gift).

So, love is essentially a united reality with different dimensions. Although some dimensions may be more evident at different times, to separate them creates an impoverished way of loving. We can’t remove eros because it is a part of human existence. To suppress it completely would be to the detriment of “the whole man.” This continues Benedict’s theme of the unity of man and of love.

Love is perfectly shown through God who loves with a personal and elective love. God chose Israel and loves her, but for the eventual healing of all peoples. God’s love is eros and agape. God uses metaphors for erotic love to describe his relationship with his people and yet condemns pagan sexual practices as well. Eros is thus descriptive of God’s love, but only in the purified sense spoken of earlier. God’s eros for humans is also completely agape, something we should no doubt strive towards as humans. It is also an essentially forgiving love, one that culminates in the Incarnation and the Cross. In addition, the Logos, apart from metaphysical images, is a lover with all the passion of true love. However, this eros love is perfectly purified to be one with agape. Our relationship with God is one of love, not by entering into some formless ecstasy, but by entering into a unity with God where we become fully one with God, but remain human and God remains God.

As humans we also feel a need to become one with others, specifically the need for a man and a woman to enter into communion with each other to become complete. Eros as the desire for man to become complete by marriage is inherent in his nature. This love is exclusive and definitive and becomes the “icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa.”

Benedict asserts that God’s love is best shown through Jesus Christ. The divine eros goes in search of God’s lost sheep. This is a part of God’s very being: his seeking out of his people in love. Only from the pierced side of Jesus Christ who sought his sheep with a total love can the truth of love be contemplated. This is the path our life and love must take. Jesus also gives of himself in the Eucharist. It’s not merely standing in God’s presence, but a complete union with God through the Body and Blood of Jesus. We now can speak of a mysticism grounded in God’s love by coming down to us.

Love of God always leads, however, to love of others. We cannot be unified with Jesus Christ and not seek union with all those receiving his Body and Blood. Communion implies going outside of ourselves. We cannot separate issues of morality and love from the Eucharist. As the Pope so ably puts it, “Worship itself, Eucharistic communion, includes the reality both of being loved and of loving others in turn.” We are called to love our neighbor and our neighbor is now defined as everyone! Love of God is so connected to love of others that Jesus identifies himself with those in need. “In the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God.” As Benedict has been expressing all along, love is unified.

Love of God is not merely abstract, but is experienced, especially in his people, the Sacraments, and in a special way, the Eucharist. In this way, love is most certainly NOT a sentiment. Benedict correctly notes that “sentiments come and go.” Love is not temporary, but a process that is never finished, one that engages the whole man, including our will and intellect. Love is not something we merely should do to be obedient, but one that comes from our own will, based on the present love of God. In fact, we cannot fully love our neighbor without first encountering God intimately. This allows us to see others from the perspective, not of ourselves, but of Jesus. This love goes beyond a pious love because we should love, but should become a real love of others grounded in a real love for God. And this love needs the encounter with the Eucharistic Lord to truly branch out to love of neighbor.

I will comment on the rest later, but want to make a few points. Benedict has started his papacy on a strong note with this encyclical. I have no doubt that most who read it will find it to be edifying in many ways. The Catholic Church is often accused by many people of simply telling the faithful what not to do. While the Church certainly needs to emphasize right and wrong in a negative sense, I think this encyclical goes a long way in explaining the Catholic Church’s positive theology of love, morality, and justice. This encyclical reaffirms Catholic teaching that all love, whether of God, spouse, or neighbor is unified and grounded in the “always seeking” love of God.

Cross posted to Ancient and Future Catholic Musings

I just wanted to share an article written by Ann Coulter titled “Abortion stops a bleeding heart”
In that, she writes:

“The Democrats are trying to “reframe” their message to make people think they believe abortion is wrong. I think this is going to be a hard sell if they plan to continue ferociously defending abortion-on-demand right up until the moment the baby’s head is through the birth canal.”


It was great to read about the March for life, in the USA, that was very impressive and I believe that the message was very strong.

To read Ann’s article click here

Being a pro-life Australian who will reside to the USA eventually, I like to keep up on what’s happening politically on both sides of the world.

If you’re not busy, please join us tonight at 9:00PM EST for an online voice/text discussion about Christian Unity. We will be having this discussion on the Paltalk Network, in our “Catholic Building Bridges: Sane Ecumenical Dialog” room. For more information click here.

I like my tea watered down. I tend to steep my teabag long enough to get a medium flavor; this allows me to use the bag twice. This gives me more bang for the buck, while still providing all the same health benefits in my two cups that exist in one strong cup.

Unlike my tea, I like my Church full-bodied. By full-bodied I mean steeped in Tradition, rich in doctrine, and rounded off by the earthy flavors of great theological and philosophical minds. Does this put the Church outside modern man’s experience? I’d say no. Instead it puts modern man in touch with generations of experience and deep spiritual insight. Without this apostolic Tradition, we would not have access to the great theological ideas of the Church Fathers (Athanasius), or the philosophies of devout men (John of the Cross) and women (Teresa of Avila). They show us that a life in Christ is much more then an emotional reaction brought about by upbeat music and a charismatic sermon. They show us that a life in Christ is more than embracing secular principles, conservative or liberal. Rather a life in Christ reaches out past the walls of the church to the life we choose to live. We are called upon to use our freewill to serve the common good. It helps us to bridge the gap between the person-I-am and the person-I-ought-to-be.

In an age of materialism, it is fitting for the Church to hoist this sometimes-difficult banner for us to follow, rather then swaying with the minds of the times. It would be easy to slack off and go with the flow of society, embracing a passive spiritual lifestyle at best. Maybe that’s all God expects of some of us; maybe it’s the best we can do with what we are given. Maybe all we can handle is a watered down version of the Truth. I have doubts about these assumptions. My first reason is found in the ministry of Christ. Each person He encounters, He calls to be more than they comfortably are. Zacchaeus was called to be more than a tax collector; James, Simon, and Andrew were called to be more than fishermen. My second reason is found in human nature. It is not in our nature to readily accept defeat or follow the easiest path. Modernism would have us do just this: throw our hands up and state that the Church should change for us, not us for the Church, the Bride of Christ.

Following the will of Christ means conforming our wills to his, which requires trust, but also a thorough active examination of what the Church teaches. Accepting the full-bodied faith of the Church requires more thought than simply doing what comes naturally: a water-down and self-pleasing faith. Thus, while we Catholics put our trust in the Holy Spirit to guide our Bishops in their understanding of the Truth, this does not mean we blindly and uncritically accept Church Teaching. A good Christian must take an active personal role in his spiritual development and his understanding of the Creed and Catechism, the outlines our faith. This active, rather than passive, development allows even the most undeveloped spiritual understanding to grow, rather than to stagnate. So if we strive for the higher standard, the full-bodied faith of the Church that does not conform to our own watered-down standards, our reward is spiritual growth. In other words, water down your tea, not the Catholic faith.

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion in the USA. Since then, over 40 million babies have been killed. The numbers are staggering, but on a more personal note, how many great leaders, scientists, saints, actors, sports heroes, family members and friends were never even given a chance because of our country’s sinfulness? Although the courts and many people see it as a “choice,” it really is a life. No euphemism can hide that. Our society has made a terrible mistake, one that someday we may have to pay dearly for. Let us all pray for an end to the evils of abortion.

A recent discussion on Pontifications has highlighted the Episcopal church’s radical pro-abortion stance. Believe it or not, most historical mainline Protestant denominations are officially pro-choice, and radically so, in that their views on abortion are even more progressive than the average American. Many of these denominations even have opposed a ban on partial-birth abortions. Former Episcopal church presiding-bishop Edmond Browning was one of the first people to publicly congratulate Bill Clinton when Clinton vetoed legislation banning partial-birth abortions. Take a look at what different churches believe about abortion, and see what your church believes. What follows is my summary of a link on The National Right to Life site.

Catholic: Strongly Opposes
Orthodox: Strongly Opposes
Lutheran- LCMS: Strongly Opposes
Lutheran-ELCA: Lukewarm, but officially opposes in most cases
Presbyterian (USA): Officially pro-choice
United Church of Christ: Radically pro-choice, supports legalization of partial-birth abortions
United Methodist: Pro-Choice, supports legalization of partial-birth abortions
Episcopal: Officially pro-choice, supports radical pro-choice organizations
Southern Baptist: Strongly opposes

This being said, I think all churches that oppose abortion must recognize that in addition to pushing for anti-abortion legislation, we Christians must tackle the root causes of abortions in our society: poverty, lack of good fathers, materialism, lack of health care for many, etc. By this I mean be more generous in offering our services, demanding men stand up and be fathers, reduce the emphasis on flashy material things in our society, and help the poor with health care. I just wanted to add this last paragraph, because to truly end abortion, we have to fight it on all fronts. And what makes it more difficult, as you can see above, is that some churches are working for the other side.

First of all, we would like to invite you to join us in prayer during the Octave of Christian Unity. It starts tomorrow, January 18, and ends on January 25. Check out the link above for more information on the Octave, including history and prayers.

We also to invite you join us in the “Catholics Building Bridges” PalTalk room tomorrow, January 18, at 9 p.m Eastern for an event to celebrate the begining of this week of prayer:

“…we are hoping to have some frank discussion about ecumenism, especially the postmodern kind of ecumenism, which is much different than the ‘meld all churches into one bland church’ 20th century mainline Protestant model of (failed) ecumenism. Bring your questions and concerns, and if you are into old-school 20th century ecumenism, that’s ok too. Also, we will end with a Compline (Night Prayer) service. This event will likely be recorded for a future podcast.

“For those unfamiliar with the voice/chat paltalk system: Go to Paltalk.com, download paltalk messenger, sign up for a nickname, and look for our room.“

Even if you can’t make the event, please join us in praying that we would all be one.

When Clinton was running for president, his advisers began saying “it’s the economy stupid,” suggesting that we should vote for Clinton because the election boiled down to economic conditions. Whether or not this was true, it gives me an opportunity to write about authority.

Look around on Christian blogs, Christian chats, and even the myriad Christian denominations, and what causes most disagreements? It is the Bible, or more specifically, how to read the Bible. With the exception of a few mainline Christians, almost all Christians turn to the Bible for their beliefs. Yet despite the fact that most Christians agree on the importance of the Bible, interpretations of this holy book vary.

So ultimately, in the postmodern world, we can no longer speak of “believing the Bible,” nor can we with any certainty say “the Bible says…” The Bible, as evidenced by the large number of denominations, doesn’t clearly “say” anything. We cannot ask the Bible to clarify itself. The Bible must be interpreted. How can a Baptist and a Pentecostal both claim to “just believe the Bible” when their positions are miles apart on certain issues? Don’t give me the “but they believe the ‘essentials’” argument, because most denominations can’t even agree on what the “essentials” are. Even progressive denominations appeal to the Bible to support gay marriage. If the Bible “says” something, it isn’t very clear.

So if the Bible must be interpreted, who gets to interpret it? Well, many Christians say it is the individual believer guided by the Holy Spirit. However, we are then left with the same postmodern dilemma we have above. Just as both Baptists and Pentecostals claim to “just believe the Bible” both claim they have arrived at their interpretation of the Bible through reading it with the aid of the Holy Spirit. If both are right, the Holy Spirit is either leading different people to mutually exclusive conclusions, or is confused. Other Christians use different arguments. Many say something like “Scripture interprets Scripture,” meaning that if you have trouble understanding one verse in the Bible, you use another verse to clarify. Of course, hundreds of disagreeing denominations affirm the “Scripture interprets Scripture” principle, yet disagree, so this method is problematic in the same way saying “I just read the Bible” is problematic. Others appeal to the “plain meaning” of Scripture. However, virtually every denomination, including Jehovah’s Witnesses and Calvinists, appeal to “the plain meaning” of Scripture, yet they disagree vehemently.

Thus, we need some type of interpretive authority when reading the Bible. Ever since sola scriptura developed in the 16th century, Christians have been reading the Bible without any real interpretive authority, and the result has been continued splintering and disagreement. Catholics and Orthodox (while disagreeing on some of the details) at least agree that it is the Church, described by St. Paul as the “pillar and ground of the truth,” that interprets Scripture. In other words, for Catholics and Orthodox, the Church of the apostles has the right, even the duty, to correctly interpret Scripture. Just as the apostles had the authority to properly teach and exegete Scripture, so do their validly ordained successors.

The early Church emphasized its own teaching authority because it knew the dangers that resulted from reading the Bible outside the Apostolic Church. After all, the Gnostics appealed to Scripture. The Arians did too. In fact, for the most part, virtually every heretical group used at least some of the books we accept as canonical. This is why the Church Fathers emphasized the importance of the Church in interpreting Scripture. The Church is a living, concrete reality, and thus can actually speak and clarify what Scripture means for successive generations, something a book, even a holy book, cannot do.

To be fair, some Protestants do set up an interpretive authority outside of the Bible itself. Anglicans, whose church came out of the Protestant reformation, see the problems inherent in sola scriptura. Thus Anglicans have set up a system which gives Scripture, Tradition, and Reason interpretive authority, although not necessarily giving equal weight to each. The problem with using this model as an interpretive authority is that it gives us three sources of authority that themselves need interpreted. In other words, scripture and tradition must be interpreted, as does reason. What is tradition? Which traditions count, and which do not? Whose reason is authoritative, the Anglo-Catholic Anglican or the progressive one? Anglicans of all theological perspectives appeal to scripture, tradition, and reason, yet disagree wildly. Anglicanism, which is in a bit of a worldwide crisis, is a perfect example of why a church needs a concrete, living interpretive authority in the postmodern world.

Let me give a practical example of all of this: almost every theological discussion I have been involved in that has begun with a disagreement has ended in an impasse. Even though all sides quote a host of Scriptures at each other, and use convincing arguments (at least in each’s own mind), very few people ever change positions. Why? As I have written above: authority. We Catholics set the historical Church as the authority, while many others do not. Let’s look at baptism. It is the damn near universal testimony of the ancient Church that when Jesus said “you must be born again,” he was talking about baptism. Even Martin Luther believed this. Yet I still encounter Christians who believe what I just wrote is pure hokum at best, and a vile heresy at worst. They have no problem going against 2000 years of Church Tradition, because the only interpretive authority they have is their individual judgment. I am not putting them down either; most individuals I meet freely admit it is their right, even their duty, to read the Bible for themselves. It is no surprise that reading the Bible for oneself has led to so much splintering.

Ultimately, most theological disagreements boil down to authority. If we wish to have any discussion with other Christians, we must first deal with the issue of authority. We have to settle who has the authority to interpret the Bible and who has the authority to sort through tradition. Otherwise, any disagreement we have will result in an impasse. Only if we agree on some sort of concrete interpretive authority will we make real progress. This is not easy, since agreement on a common interpretive authority is unlikely, but at least it recognizes the source of our disagreement, which is a start.

I guess you’ll just have to endure this plague of Frank Sheed quotes until I finish The Church and I. This is from Chapter 5 “AND REMEMBER THE INQUISITION!”

“Having done no reading on the subject since my boyhood in my grandparent’s very Protestant house, I still assumed that the stories of heretic-burning were a pack of lies. Some Protestants, I knew, had been burned by Catholics, but I comforted myself with the thought (which I saw no need to document) that Protestants did worse things to us. But all this was extravagantly beside the point. What others did was a matter of their conscience; our concern is with what we did. Beating one’s own breast can be of great spiritual value, beating other people’s is of none.“

I think there’s more than an ounce of cure in that paragraph…especially the last few lines.

Well, the next chapter probably won’t be as relevant to the subject matter here (”I LOSE MY AWE OF BISHOPS”) so this may be the last Frank Sheed I subject you to for a while.

Most Christians take it for granted that we are supposed to tell others about Christ. Jesus’ final words in the gospel of Matthew exhort us to go into all nations bringing in candidates for baptism. However, often we give a lot of thought to evangelism techniques, but very little to the unintended consequences of our zeal. I grew up with all sorts of evangelism techniques, some that worked, some that embarrassed me beyond belief.

Let me give an example: Street preachers. One prominent street preacher is brother Jed Smock. He and his friends go from college to college preaching damnation and judgment to hoards of provoked students. I have seen Brother Jed preach about 10 times while at Ohio University. My brother and I’s photo is even on his webpage (or at least it used to be). Not once did I encounter any converted students among Jed’s group. When I asked, he admitted that a few are converted from his techniques, but not many. In other words, he is pretty ineffective. However, what many evangelists like Brother Jed fail to take into account is the number of people who actually avoid becoming a Christian because of their methods.

So let’s look at the effectiveness of evangelism mathematically. Let’s use the equation G-B=PC. G=People leaving with a good impression of the faith, B= people leaving with a bad impression of the faith, and PC=potential convert balance. So if G is greater than B, then your technique resulted in more potential converts than it turned off, which is good. Even if nobody converts, at least you know people have left with a positive, accurate impression of your church. Now, if B is greater than G, then you have actually turned off more from the faith than were interested, leaving many already angry or confused people even angrier and more confused. Of course, this is not scientific and you can’t actually accurately measure these variables, but it is a good thing to keep in mind.

This equation shows one thing: collateral damage from our evangelism techniques may turn more away than we bring in. Confrontational and provocative evangelism almost always results in a high collateral damage. Getting people angry and affirming the stereotypes people have of Christians almost never works. Look at Pat Robertson. “Assassinate Hugo Chavez,” he says. “Ariel Sharon had a stroke because God caused it,” he says. While I am sure Robertson brings some to the Christian faith, how many are turned off by such ridiculous (from the Catholic/historical faith standpoint) statements? While it should not be our goal to water down the gospel so people leave “feeling good,” there are tactful and charitable ways to speak the truth.

Another case in point is a provocative Catholic room on paltalk I encountered. The title of the room was meant to generate discussion. However, it implied that only Catholics are saved, something Catholics do not actually believe. Many people came into that room provoked and ready for a fight. Folks friendly to the Catholic Church, even exploring it, left angry. A few days later a room titled, “There is no salvation inside the Catholic Church” was thriving with over 30 members. The folks who set-up the provocatively titled Catholic room are good people, with good intentions, but I think they miscalculated. Once again, let’s use the equation G-B=PC. While we can’t know for sure, if so many people are being turned off (and I have talked to about 5 who were), this room title has turned more away from the faith than it brought to it. It also mobilized the anti-Catholic forces into starting their own room. Despite any good intentions, the collateral damage was too high.

I guess my point in all of this is that evangelism must have a purpose, and that is to bring people to Christ. We must speak the truth in ways that are charitable and effective, not self-serving. The techniques, the discussion, the debate, the preaching, the blogging, and so forth, should be the vehicles of evangelism, not the ends themselves. The moment our discussions become bitter and venomous, or our blogs become filled with sarcastic Christian commentary, and we know people are building up walls to block out our faith, then we must immediately stop. If we continue a pointless and angry debate, or constantly publish sarcastic and bitter blog entries, even though the collateral damage is too high, we have made an idol out of our techniques. In the examples I just mentioned, debating facts and posting scathing entries have replaced Christ as the end of our activities. I think we must all keep this in mind.

Now to what works: Do you really want to share Christ without turning people off? Act like Jesus at all times. Speak the truth when necessary in a loving way, but always show the mercy and compassion of Christ. Pray for those who persecute you. A paltalk example: A gentleman opened an anti-Catholic room. A few Catholics came into the room and engaged him in a reasonable discussion. In the end, the Catholics were praying for the room operator’s mother. They were having a civil discussion and finding points that Catholics and Protestants agreed upon. At the end, the room operator said that while he disagreed with the Catholic Church, he would never open an anti-Catholic room again. I have yet to see a debate room have that effect… ever. Acting like Jesus did has its benefits!

My wife and are big fans of thrift stores and yard sales. Like the proverbial box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get and you can usually get it for pocket change. A couple of days ago, we found out there was a St. Vincent De Paul’s thrift store nearby. My favorite thing to do in such places is to browse the bookshelves. I had high hopes for their shelves, since a high percentage of the donations probably came from Catholics.

We went there today and I was able to pick up a hardback copy of Frank Sheed’s The Church and I for 50 cents. I’m only on page 27, but I feel like I’ve gotten my money’s worth. I’ve already ran across a passage that’s blog-worthy and goes along with some thoughts and converstaions I’ve had as of late.

Sheed talks about Wilfrid Ward’s assertion that the post-Reformation Catholic Church had adapted itself to state of siege in which the disputes of the Protestants dictated the emphasis on “the great defensive doctrines-the Visible Church and its marks, Supremacy, Infallibility.” These issues “had first call on the Church’s energy” while “[t]he real life of the Church based on Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, the life to come, could not receive the degree of attention which would have been normal…[t]here was no development of the doctrines of Heaven and Hell because they were not attacked, but endless writing on purgatory, which was.“

I wonder if, in the realm of Catholic/non-Catholic dialogue and apologetics if this is not often still the case. I’m not saying that the truths about the Visible Church should not be defended, but I have found in my own transformation from anti-Catholic to Candidate that it is precisely the depth and beauty of the Church’s teaching and expression of “[t]he real life of the Church based on Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, the life to come” that made those truths about the Visible Church much easier to consider and digest. It was becoming convinced that many of the things I valued in my tradition were expressed so much deeper and truer in the Catholic faith that made me willing to look at those aspects of Catholicism that I was naturally antagonistic about. This is something to keep in mind when in conversation over lunch, in the chat rooms and at the debate podium.

Just some thoughts as much for my edification as anyone’s. Maybe more.

I rarely watch Hollywood dramas. However, since I frequent Episcopal blogs (and used to be an Episcopalian), I just had to watch “Book of Daniel” about an Episcopal priest, at least just once. Well, I did last night. Some Christian groups have vilified the show, while a progressive Episcopal Diocese is actually promoting it by establishing a blog about the show. So I figured my review would fall somewhere in the middle.

Let me give a brief summary of the first one hour episode. Keep this length in mind, because a lot was going on in such a brief show. As you read, look for as many Hollywood stereotypes and pet issues as possible.

The show is about Daniel Webster (Aidan Quinn), an Episcopal priest addicted to pills. He talks to Jesus, who is a sort of weird best-buddy meets Dr. Phil figure, although I think they did portray Jesus respectfully. The show starts with Webster giving a sermon about how unrealistic it is to try to fight temptation. He is married to an alcoholic wife named Judith who drops plates to get attention in the household and drinks in the afternoon. His son Peter is gay, and is pursuing his dream of cancer research despite his father wanting him to be a doctor. Oh yeah, the reason for his change is that his brother died from Leukemia. Rev. and Mrs. Webster take an active interest in their gay son’s love life.

The rest of the family consists of a daughter Grace and an adopted Chinese son Adam. Grace was arrested for selling drugs to fund her budding anime (Manga) ambitions. At the end Webster finally sees her art and agrees to fund it other ways besides through selling drugs. Adam is dating the daughter of the rich, white, local country-club going church member, portrayed as a semi-bigot, who says “I really don’t mind that he is Japanese.” Adam always gets in late (and feels his girlfriend up in the priest’s garage), and Webster seems indifferent to all of this, except to kind of laugh about it.

Webster’s bishop is a tough, conservative lady named Beatrice Congreve, who is romantically involved with a married bishop from New England, Webster’s father. Both are conservatives and both are portrayed as hypocritical, because Webster’s mother (as we learn in a future episode) has Alzheimer’s. Of course, those who are in the Episcopal church know that there is no real true conservative female bishop, or a true conservative bishop from New England…but you have to have somebody conservative to bounce Webster’s ideas off of I guess.

It turns out (keep in mind we are in the same episode) that Webster’s brother-in-law Charlie embezzled church money and then takes off, eventually ending up dead. Webster doesn’t want to go to the police, so he goes to someone who has underworld mob contacts, and guess who he goes to? The local Catholic priest! The Catholic priest assures Webster that his secret is safe with him, even though all the nuns do is pray and gossip all day. The brother-in-law turns up dead, with items shoved up his rectum (”did they find the money” his wife asks, to which Webster replies, “no, but they did search everywhere.”). The Catholic priest tells Webster all of this while sitting in an Italian restaurant and bar with mobsters.

Whew! So much jammed into one show. So many perfect Hollywood characters and stereotypes. While I enjoyed parts of the show, including some of the humor, and some of what Jesus had to say, the premise is just too Hollywood. Sure it shows a real-life, human priest, which is good, but I just can’t handle watching so many cliches in one hour, especially when applied to religion. All that is missing is the daughter being Wiccan. Maybe in a future episode. One last thought: Would Hollywood portray any other religious groups like this or just Christians? I can’t imagine an Muslim imam being portrayed like this. I can’t imagine that when Webster wants underworld contacts the show writers would have him visit a Muslim cleric with Al-Qaida connections!

I guess I don’t quite object to the show in the way some Christians do. I don’t think it should be banned or anything. Heck, I even had a good laugh at the Catholic stereotypes, after all, we can’t take ourselves too seriously. I just think it is a silly cliched show. Of course, I almost always think this when Hollywood gets a hold of religion. Any opinions?

Cross Posted to An Aid to Memory

Just wanted to offer a quick comment or two about the goings on during our celebration in the “Catholics Building Bridges” room on Paltalk last night. If you were one of the 15 or so who attended, please feel free to comment with your own assessment.

Two words were used by more than one participant to describe the evening: nice and peaceful. How often can you say that about a public religious chat room?

It was very nice just to hear the Word of God read aloud and be able to reflect on the readings while listening to on-topic music. People were also able to ask questions about the various carols as we played them. It was both worshipful and educational.

When we were finished there seemed to be a general consensus that we had “been to church” in a sense. Christ was present in His Word, in the praise and in His people.

Looking forward to the next one.

This blog has not yet made its official debut. This is why I have been the only one posting so far. We have yet to invite everyone who may be interested, and we have yet to work out the content guidelines for posting here. I am sure the content guidelines will be similar to the Ancient and Future Catholics page: show respect, no teaching contrary to the Catholic faith, always include Eastern viewpoints/practices, etc, etc.

You are encouraged to link over here if you wish, but just know that what you see now is rudimentary and may change!