A reader recently posed the following question

A reader recently posed the following question,

“As a ardent follower of Jesus, Protestant, not Catholic, I often want to ask why it is that most Catholics I speak with default to their association with the Catholic Church, rather than to Jesus Christ?”

I think the simple answer is that we Catholics believe the Catholic Church is the very Church established by Jesus through His Apostles. For us, leaning on our “association with the Catholic Church” is not a lean away from our Lord, but a leaning on Him.

When I say, “… I will attempt to approach the issues as a Catholic…” I am saying I will attempt to approach the issues as a Christian. But to merely say Christian would not completely paint the picture. I am Catholic. I am a special kind of Christian. I am a member of Christ’s Church—One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Our association with the Catholic Church is absolutely an association with Jesus Christ. Without Christ, there is no Catholic Church.

Ben Baptized

My newly born son, Ben, will be baptized today.

Vivat Jesus!

Armor of God

This is too cool.

h/t to Plain Catholic in the Mountains

The Englishman

St. George he was for England,
And before he killed the dragon
He drank a pint of English ale
Out of an English flagon.
For though he fast right readily
In hair-shirt or in mail,
It isn't safe to give him cakes
Unless you give him ale.

St. George he was for England,
And right gallantly set free
The lady left for dragon's meat
And tied up to a tree;
But since he stood for England
And knew what England means,
Unless you give him bacon
You mustn't give him beans.

St. George he is for England,
And shall wear the shield he wore
When we go out in armour
With the battle-cross before.
But though he is jolly company
And very pleased to dine,
It isn't safe to give him nuts
Unless you give him wine.

-G.K. Chestorton

h/t to The Blue Boar

It's a boy!

Baby Benjamin was born earilier today. Both he and momma are doing great.

Pope Benedict’s first social encyclical is balanced truth

I’m not a theologian, cannon lawyer, Catholic apologist, or any other such person of intellect. So, I feel pretty inadequate commenting on Pope Benedict’s first social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. However, I like it so much I have to say something. So here it is.

Pope Benedict doesn’t pander or attack the right or left. Instead he does something quite profound; he speaks of the truth that can be found on both sides, but which is not fully present on either. He also speaks of the false assumptions of both sides about their own self-proclaimed righteousness.

He stands firm against abortion.

"Yet we must not underestimate the disturbing scenarios that threaten our future, or the powerful new instruments that the “culture of death” has at its disposal. To the tragic and widespread scourge of abortion we may well have to add in the future — indeed it is already surreptiously present — the systematic eugenic programming of births. At the other end of the spectrum, a pro-euthanasia mindset is making inroads as an equally damaging assertion of control over life that under certain circumstances is deemed no longer worth living. Underlying these scenarios are cultural viewpoints that deny human dignity. These practices in turn foster a materialistic and mechanistic understanding of human life. Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development? How can we be surprised by the indifference shown towards situations of human degradation, when such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is and is not human?"

He speaks of our need to balance rights with duty.

“Many people today would claim that they owe nothing to anyone, except to themselves. They are concerned only with their rights, and they often have great difficulty in taking responsibility for their own and other people's integral development. Hence it is important to call for a renewed reflection on how rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere licence. Nowadays we are witnessing a grave inconsistency. On the one hand, appeals are made to alleged rights, arbitrary and non-essential in nature, accompanied by the demand that they be recognized and promoted by public structures, while, on the other hand, elementary and basic rights remain unacknowledged and are violated in much of the world. A link has often been noted between claims to a 'right to excess', and even to transgression and vice, within affluent societies, and the lack of food, drinkable water, basic instruction and elementary health care in areas of the underdeveloped world and on the outskirts of large metropolitan centres. The link consists in this: individual rights, when detached from a framework of duties which grants them their full meaning, can run wild, leading to an escalation of demands which is effectively unlimited and indiscriminate. An overemphasis on rights leads to a disregard for duties.”

He speaks of our need to balance our legitimate right to the resources of nature without abandoning our stewardship of nature.

“The environment is God's gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole. When nature, including the human being, is viewed as the result of mere chance or evolutionary determinism, our sense of responsibility wanes. In nature, the believer recognizes the wonderful result of God's creative activity, which we may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise, while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation. If this vision is lost, we end up either considering nature an untouchable taboo or, on the contrary, abusing it. Neither attitude is consonant with the Christian vision of nature as the fruit of God's creation…Let us hope that the international community and individual governments will succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment. It is likewise incumbent upon the competent authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations: the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet. One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that the notion of ‘efficiency’ is not value-free.”

He speaks of the need for us to unite in global solidarity, but insists solidarity must be balanced with subsidiarity.

“Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice. The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need. This general rule must also be taken broadly into consideration when addressing issues concerning international development aid.”

And this is just a small sampling. He talks about technology, bioethics, and more. But in every case he does something so many fail to do. He recognizes and speaks of the truth wherever it is found. And he does it all through the lens of Christ’s Church—through sacred tradition and sacred scripture. But maybe one of the most important lines of the entire encyclical is one which puts EVERYTHING into perspective.

"Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is."

Amen!

I don’t know what to say

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted anything original. I guess it’s because I don’t know what to say. I like reading other people’s blogs because I get to “hear” someone else’s opinion and insight on a subject of interest to me. And so, I try to return the favor by giving my own opinion.

But lately, I find that I don’t have an opinion on the things I’ve been thinking most about. I only have questions. My faith is still sound. I am a committed Catholic. I believe in an objective truth. But I find myself very frustrated and confused by the “either or” political movements going on. And I find it difficult to discuss these issues with people I know. They either think I am an “un-American liberal” or they think I am a “close-minded idealist.”

What does our faith tell us about our approach to issues such as…

• Universal health care
• Affirmative action
• Gun control
• Minimum wage
• Capital punishment
• Welfare
• Social security
• Migrants and refugees
• Green initiatives
• Economic policy

These are the questions I seek real answers to. But it seems that both sides (liberals & conservatives) are oversimplifying their own cases—they’re oversimplifying the issues. I’m afraid that too many of us put or allegiance to a certain political party over our own faith.

So my goal is to look at these issues through the lens of scripture and the teachings of the Magisterium and try to determine what is the best approach for each. I will attempt to approach these issues not as a Republican or Democrat or even as an American. Instead, I will attempt to approach the issues as a Catholic.

I hope to write more about each issue, as I feel confident in what I glean.