Reflection for August 18

How can Christ set our Catholic Communities on Fire?

A Pastoral Reflection

Today's readings can be found here.

In the gospel of this Sunday’s Mass, our Lord says, “I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing!” (Luke 12:49).  As I am beginning my third year as priest in Centerville and Hilltop Lakes (also part-time in Madisonville), I would like to reflect on the ways Christ is kindling a fire in the communities I serve.  However, I would also like to suggest a few ways that can help this light to burn more brightly.

At St. Leo the Great, much has been accomplished so far in 2013.  During Lent, we undertook the renovation of our little church.  Just recently we paved our driveway with concrete.  The great news is that – thanks to your generosity – we are doing well financially and not in debt.  The aesthetic improvements are a visible sign to Centerville that Christ has ignited a great flame of faith in his Real Presence, which is the heart of our Catholic community and identity.  We look forward to the feast of St. Leo the Great on Sunday, November 10^th, and the raffle of the iPad.  At this point, now that much of the needed maintenance has been taken care of, we will be saving and planning for a church hall with classroom space.  I also plan to write the Bishop this year to ask if St. Leo’s is ready to be promoted to “parish” status.  (We’re still a mission of Crocket!).

At St. Thomas More, our new church could be paid off before the end of the year, and we look forward to new pews before Thanksgiving.  The number of families has doubled since the dedication of our church in December 2011.  At both St. Leo’s and STM, we were able to have Family Faith Formation during 2012-2013.  With the help of my deacons and catechists, I plan to continue Family Faith Formation this year.  For adult faith formation, we will be doing The Great Adventure Catholic bible study in order to gain a holistic approach to Sacred Scripture.  I also plan to ask the Bishop if STM can be officially made a “mission” of St. Leo’s.

Building projects, financial stability, and catechesis are great qualities to have in our Catholic communities, but if these strengths are not moving us to a deeper interior life and a stronger sense of mission, then we need to consider that maybe Christ’s flame needs a bit more fuel.  Perhaps we could consider a stronger commitment to devotional confession, attending daily Mass, and spending quality time with Jesus in Eucharistic Adoration.  I realize that Mass and Adoration may be difficult for some families, but I plan to work with the pastoral councils about how to encourage more participation in these spiritual and sacramental opportunities.  

Another way Christ might be wanting to ignite you is by volunteering for both the needs at the church (sacristy, floral, and liturgical ministries) and the needs in the larger community (visiting the homebound, nursing homes, pro-life activities).  I kindly ask that we all prayerfully reflect on our personal contribution to our Catholic communities.  Am I responding to Christ’s flame of faith in my heart through some form of generous giving?  Is Christ asking me to volunteer in some way?  Do I see confession, Mass and Adoration as sure ways for Christ to intensify my flame so that I can ignite Centerville and Hilltop Lakes with the love of Christ?  May the Holy Spirit guide your discernment and may Christ set you on fire to be the saint He has called you to be.

Part IV: Paul VI, John Paul II and Building the “Culture of Life”

Birth Control and the Catholic Church

On July 25, 1968, on the feast of St. James the Apostle, Humanæ Vitæ was promulgated by Pope Paul VI.  It is a relatively short encyclical and speaks of the moral threats to holy matrimony, the Magisterium's response, pastoral principles, and catechesis on the meaning of human sexuality.  In continuity with the Church’s tradition, he affirmed his predecessors’ teaching that contraception and sterilization are intrinsically disordered practices and always contrary to the ends of holy matrimony. Unfortunately, there was a great deal of fallout over this encyclical —especially among faculties of theology in many universities and seminaries.  Men training to be priests were either told to “soft-pedal” this teaching or “just don’t go there.”  Lay persons were told “birth control is just a matter of conscience despite Church teaching against it.”  Because correct teaching on the right formation of conscience was neglected in the years directly following Vatican II, this is regrettably the approach many still take in the Church today.

[Soon to be Saint] John Paul II did much during his pontificate to build upon Humanæ Vitæ and made significant contributions of his own to furthering a holistic approach to the human person, and in particular, to human sexuality.  His very life showed the contrast between a “culture of death” and the “Culture of Life,” which energized the faithful around the world to have a better sense of what it means to be Pro-Life.  Being Pro-Life does not just mean we are against abortion.  It means we are against anything that offends against human and Christian decency.  In fact, being Pro-Life is not essentially about “what we’re against.”  It means imitating the Fiat – the “Yes” – of our Lady to the call to follow God’s will, to respond affirmatively to the universal call of holiness, and to proclaim the Gospel of Life in word and action.

The Gospel of Life is essentially the message of Jesus Christ — that He came to give us abundant life (John 10:10).  Therefore the message of life is essentially evangelical.  I want my Evangelical readers to reflect on some of the prophecies that Paul VI had in his encyclical: He predicted that if artificial contraception became widespread and accepted in society, there would be higher rates of infidelity, divorce, and abortion (for abortion is the Plan B of contraception); that many men (including married men) would lose respect for women and view them as objects for selfish pleasure; and that governments would promote and enforce contraception on the weakest members of society.  These atrocities have all come true.  While there may not necessarily be a direct causal relationship, it would be absurd to say that artificial contraception has not contributed to the demise of healthy, holy human sexuality during the last 50 years.

Thankfully, there is a “New Springtime” of lay faithful who are committed to living out God’s plan for holy matrimony.  John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” has provided a positive approach to sexual ethics.  Many practice Natural Family Planning (NFP) to space births when necessary in a way that respects marital goods and that helps spouses to communicate better and grow together.  For more information about NFP, I invite you to visit The Couple to Couple League website.  Please continue to reflect on the points I have covered the last few weeks and pray for the spread of the Gospel of Life!

Reflection for August 4

Birth Control and the Catholic Church

(Part II: The Old & New Testaments and the Early Church)

When did the debate begin in the Catholic Church on artificial birth control?  When did a Catholic’s stance on this issue become the litmus test to determine one a “liberal” or a “conservative”?  Interestingly enough, the answer is the 20^th Century, which is quite recent when one considers that the Church is nearly 2,000 years old.  Yet, even before the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, we do not see among the Chosen People a debate about birth control.  The Jewish People considered children as gifts – as blessings – from the Lord.  There is an instance in Genesis in which the Lord is displeased with a perversion of the marital act:  When Onan “wasted his seed on the ground” in order to avoid conception, God struck him down (Gn 38:9-10).  We are also aware of offenses against the 6^th and 9^th Commandments and their respective punishments throughout the OT.

With the revelation of Jesus Christ, we see marriage restored to its former luster.  Not only is the dignity and indissolubility of holy matrimony restored by Christ, but He elevates this union to the level of sacrament, which is the basis of Humanæ Vitæ (written almost 1,900 years after Christ instituted this sacrament) and which has always been the foundation of the Church’s consistent teaching on marriage and the meaning of human sexuality.  With the epistles of St. Paul (in particular Ephesians 5), we learn that holy matrimony reflects Christ’s passionate love for His bride, the Church.  There are also passages of St. Paul and of the other writers of the New Testament on marriage and love, yet the NT is silent on the issue of artificial contraception itself (even though forms of birth control were practiced in the ancient world).  It was understood that marriage is naturally ordered to an end, a purpose, and that purpose is the proliferation of children.  There is no dispute in the NT about birth control.  The Council of Jerusalem was about circumcision — not contraception.

In the early Church Fathers, we do not encounter a debate about contraception, but what we do encounter (in continuity with the NT) is a clear condemnation of all anti-life practices including euthanasia, homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, masturbation, abortion (including post-natal abortion) and any form of birth control.  Once again, there was no question that one of the principal purposes of holy matrimony was to generate human life.  St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom might have argued over the effect concupiscence has on marital goods, but all the Fathers were in agreement that marriage is ordered to procreation.

Next we will review the contribution of St. Thomas Aquinas and the ecumenical councils, and we will look closely at Protestantism’s approach to artificial contraception and how it gradually changed.  The Catholic Church stood her ground, but Christianity at large was acutely weakened in the fight against the “culture of death” when nearly all Protestant denominations accepted birth control in the 20^th Century.  In spite of a mostly unified front against the evil of abortion, this difference of belief does affect how Catholics and Protestants (particularly Evangelicals) contribute to the Pro-Life movement.  Without threatening our Christian unity, the difference is at least worth discussing.

(Part III: Aquinas, the Reformation, and the Lambeth Conference)

The former ecumenical councils and the scholastics (4^th-14^th Centuries) continued to reinforce that the purpose of holy matrimony is the unity of spouses and the procreation of children.  Particularly with St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church developed a greater dogmatic, sacramental and moral vocabulary by which she could articulate the goods of Christian marriage.  Surprisingly, Protestantism in the 16^th Century did not challenge the Catholic Church’s position against artificial birth control.  Luther, Calvin and Zwingli – while challenging the sacramentality of marriage – never challenged Christian marriage’s natural end.  The Council of Trent in Session 24 dealing with the Sacrament of Matrimony did not see a need to issue a canon explicitly anathematizing those who use contraception.  It was simply not a point of dispute with the Protestants.  Both Catholic and Protestant countries had civil laws against the use of contraception until the 20^th Century.  Even in our own country, many states had laws in the books outlawing the sale of contraceptives until just a few decades ago.  Most of these lawmakers were Protestants.

It was not until 1930 during the Seventh Lambeth Conference that the Anglican Church approved contraception in limited cases.  This radical move prompted all Christians to begin to re-examine the ethics of family planning.  The Catholic Church quickly saw the slippery slope that had been paved by the Anglican Church for other Protestant denominations.  By the end of that year, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Casti Connubii – on the dignity of chaste wedlock – in which he expressed in detail the perennial teaching of the Church on the sanctity of marriage which precludes deliberate interference with the life process.  While affirming the legitimate need at times to “space births”, Pius XI condemned contraception and sterilization as a means to this end.  He declared them as “against nature and thus intrinsically evil.”  Popes Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII issued statements in subsequent decades in continuity with Casti Connubii.  However, from the Protestant side, there was very little resistance to the change of thought initiated by the Anglicans.  Many ecclesial communities – Reformed, Traditional and Evangelical – began to follow suit with the Anglicans.  The “limited cases” qualification got wider and eventually members of these Protestant communities were able to justify contraception for any reason.  Vatican II, while not issuing a document directly addressing artificial birth control, did affirm the dignity of the sacrament of matrimony in Gaudium et Spes; and in footnote 14 of that same document, part II, chapter 1, Paul VI personally intervened to quote Casti Connubii’s condemnation of contraception.

In the interim between the end of the Second Vatican Council and the promulgation of Humanæ Vitæ, there were many who thought the Catholic Church would soon change this teaching.  Moral theologians debated about the absolute ban on all contraception — whether or not there are cases in which contraception could be licit or even necessary.  Pope Paul VI created a commission of theologians and specialists who came up with a Majority Report and a Minority Report in preparation of his encyclical.  These findings were published by the National Catholic Reporter and The Tablet in 1966, but it is unclear if they were ever meant to be public.  Many thought Paul VI was going to allow contraception in limited cases (similar to what the Anglicans had done in the 1930s).  Next week, we will focus on what Humanæ Vitæ actually said, how it was received, and what it means for the Pro-Life movement today.

Reflection for July 21

Birth Control and the Catholic Church

(Part I: The 1960s & Vatican II)

Sunday's readings can be found here.

Probably the most controversial moral teaching of the Catholic Church is her disapproval of all forms of artificial birth control.  This week will mark exactly 45 years since the promulgation of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical (letter) Humanæ Vitæ, on the transmission of human life.  Following the Second Vatican Council, this encyclical took a positive yet prophetic tone in treating some of the social changes in the 1960s.  The most notable change in society was the so-called “sexual revolution.”  This “revolution” was really a societal acceptance of licentiousness, and it certainly had a negative impact on Catholics and on other Christians.

The sexual revolution was made possible through the birth control pill (simply called “The Pill”), which became allegedly “safe and effective” in the 1950s.  Subsequently, in the 1960s, society began to rapidly embrace and promote artificial birth control for many reasons.  Some reasons seemed justifiable, for example, for a family to regulate birth rate out of financial necessity.  However, the real reason artificial birth control was promoted was so that people could have sex without “consequences.”  There was no longer need to abstain until marriage; contraception could keep babies out of the picture until the couple was ready.  Or, if two consenting adults wanted to have sex without worrying about getting pregnant, birth control was a sure way of avoiding conception. . . or so it seemed.

All these sexual possibilities opened up in a time when it looked like a lot was changing in the Catholic Church.  With much intrigue and confusion about the teachings of Vatican II, people began to wonder if the Church’s position against artificial birth control would change.  After all, it seemed if we could go from calling Protestants “heretics” to calling them “separated brethren,” couldn’t the Church allow the Pill in some limited instances?  If the Church could change the language of the Mass from Latin to the vernacular, couldn’t the Church see that some couples need the help of contraception to plan their families?  Of course, these are nuances about Vatican II’s developments, yet these were questions that lay persons, priests, theologians, and even bishops were asking in the years leading up to Humanæ Vitæ’s promulgation on July 25, 1968.

Over the next few Sundays, I will continue to explore the significance of Humanæ Vitæ via my bulletin write-ups.  I encourage those of you who may disagree with the Catholic Church — and even those of you who are serious in learning more about this important teaching — to actually read this document (available online; takes max. 30 min. to read).  It is my belief that modern Christianity’s “contraceptive mentality” is the biggest obstacle to overcoming the “culture of death.”  Correct understanding and holy living of God’s gift of sexuality is key to giving credible opposition to abortion, so-called “gay marriage”, and other anti-life practices.  I appreciate your openness to this topic and hope it sheds more light on the challenges we face as Catholic Christians in today’s world.

Reflection on trip to Austin

Pro-Life East Texans

in Austin

Sunday's readings can be found here.

Last Tuesday, I was privileged to join a huge group of East Texan pro-lifers in Austin for the voting on some important state legislation restricting abortion.  Thanks to the efforts of the priests and lay leaders of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Tyler, we were able to send six charter buses full of people to the State Capitol to show our support and pray for these intentions.  House Bill 2 and Senate companion Bill SB1 will provide safety measures for the mother and the baby.  These bills include four reasonable protection requirements: Abortion “clinics” must meet the safety standards of ambulatory surgery centers; It prohibits abortion after 20 weeks because of pain inflicted on babies; It requires the RU-487 abortion pill to be administered following recommendations by FDA standards; It requires that doctors performing abortions have “hospital privileges.”  Even though abortion would still be legal within 20 weeks, this type of restriction would still be a major step in the right direction in the pursuit of the legal guarantee to the right to life.

Rep. Hughes (R-District 5), Rep. Schaefer (R-District 6), and Rep. Simpson (R-District 7) greeted our group of almost 300 persons when we arrived in Austin.  These non-Catholic representatives thanked us for our support and expressed their respect and admiration for the Catholic Church’s consistent pro-life teaching and activism.  Most of our day at the capitol was peaceful, thank God.  There were state troopers from all over Texas who had been called into service at the capitol to keep peace.  I ran into a state trooper who used to work with me at Brookshire’s in Gilmer.  He secretly thanked us for our prayerful and peaceful presence.  I was able to lead a prayer in the rotunda (under the dome) of the capitol and we sang Holy God We Praise Thy Name and Faith of Our Fathers.  (We even sang Amazing Grace for the benefit of our Protestant brothers and sisters who were there with us standing up for life.)

As the day went on, the pro-abortion mob began to arrive and make noise.  I did have a calm conversation with someone from the mob.  It was clear that she had been deeply hurt by men in her life and treated unkindly by pro-life activists, which is unfortunate.  I apologized on behalf of the Pro-Life movement and was at least able to convince her of the evil of abortion in certain cases.  Overall, I was thankful to have had a chance to speak to someone “on the other side” and hopefully give a favorable impression of the Catholic priesthood and the Pro-Life movement.  These are truly historical days in Texas and in America for the cause of the Gospel of Life.  We should give thanks to the Lord for being a part of them!

Reflection for July 7

What is Conscience Anyway?

Sunday's readings can be found here.

        During the “Fortnight for Freedom” and for the last year or so, you have been hearing a lot from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (and from me) about the right to conscience and how this right is being threatened by the insidious HHS contraception mandate.  Yet, there is much confusion these days about what exactly conscience is.  It seems just about any action – good or evil – can be justified using a reference to one’s own conscience.  Unfortunately, there are some Catholics who fall into this category (even worse, some of them are the highest-ranking government officials in our nation).

        So, what is conscience?  Conscience comes from the Latin con “with” + scientia “knowledge”.  It is essentially an awareness of oneself, of others and of God.  Vatican II calls conscience: “[The] most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths” (Gaudium et Spes, 16).  Conscience is another quality of man (related to reason) that sets him apart from the other animals.  Usually, though, when we speak of conscience today, we are referring to moral conscience.  The Catechism says that the moral conscience is a practical judgment of reason that enjoins man to do good and avoid evil (CCC 1777).  Moral conscience is not only a gift that we as Catholics and other Christians enjoy; St. Paul teaches that even unbelievers have moral conscience: [The Gentiles] show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them (Romans 2:15).  However, because the unbeliever’s conscience lacks the enlightenment that comes from Divine Law, he is more likely to err in his moral judgments.

        For us as Catholic Christians, we have the obligation to form our conscience through the teachings of Christ and His holy Church, and by prayerful discernment (CCC 1783).  Conscience does not mean: “I form my own opinions on things, and then pick and choose the Church’s teachings I like the most and leave the ones I think are outdated.”  This is called “Cafeteria Catholicism”, which is a joke to anyone serious about living the fullness of the Christian faith.  If I struggle with a particular doctrinal or moral precept, I must continue to try to understand why the Church teaches something — and then prayerfully ask myself the question: “Does the Church need to change or do I need to change?” 

        The correct formation of our conscience is a lifelong commitment because it is intimately connected to our relationship with Christ.  As your priest and shepherd, I will assist with the formation of your conscience through instruction, but it is up to you to pray and meditate on the Scriptures, to take advantage of faith formation opportunities, to examine your conscience daily, and to confess your sins regularly.  These are all ways Jesus continues to abide in us — so that we may not become dead, dry wood, but rather that the Father may be glorified, that we bear much fruit, and that we give awesome witness that we are Jesus’ disciples (see John 15).

Reflection for June 30

The Future of Marriage in America

Sunday's readings can be found here.

This Thursday, we will celebrate 237 years of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as Americans.  Knowing our country’s history, we can honestly admit that these rights have not always been protected for all.  For example, it took time for these rights to be fully granted to African-Americans and women.  Although great progress of liberty has been made with these groups, we have regressed as a nation in regard to the most fundamental rights of humanity at large.  Sadly, in modern times the Supreme Court charged with the ultimate interpretation of the U.S. Constitution has been the chief instigator – the worst kind of legislator – of immorality in our country.  Could the Founding Fathers ever imagine that the Supreme Court would ever rule in favor of allowing women to kill their unborn children in 1973?  Could they have ever imagined that the Court in June 2012 would fail to overturn a “healthcare” plan that forces employers and individuals to directly fund abortion?  And more recently, could the Fathers have ever imagined that this Court would dodge the definition of marriage on June 26, 2013?  Yet these shocking decisions have been made!

Last Wednesday was described as “a tragic day for marriage and our nation” by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York.  The Supreme Court invalidated a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and rejected the right of the people to defend a law passed by millions of citizens in California.  The Court avoided the question of whether Proposition 8 in California is constitutional.  Even though the people of California voted to protect marriage (which is surprising but true!), reckless politicians refused to respect the right of the people and enforce the law.  The good news is that the Supreme Court did NOT create a constitutional right to so-called “same-sex marriage.”  States like Texas that have protected marriage and other states that seek to do so in the future cannot be stopped.  Therefore, we thank God that “same-sex marriage” advocates did not get what they wanted, namely a Roe v. Wade for “same-sex marriage.”

Nevertheless, I personally believe this is still a watershed moment for the future of traditional marriage in the U.S.  It is alarming that the Administration applauded this decision and has repeatedly expressed support for “same-sex marriage.”  Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) with the support of other congressmen is introducing Marriage Protection Amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  As faithful Catholics and as Americans concerned about the future of our great nation, we must support these legislative efforts.  In the near future, I will elaborate on why “same-sex marriage” is bad for America and why traditional marriage should be protected.  The USCCB has put the reasoning in a concise way: “When Jesus taught about the meaning of marriage – the lifelong, exclusive union of husband and wife – he pointed back to ‘the beginning’ of God’s creation of the human person as male and female (see Matthew 19).  In the face of the customs and laws of his time, Jesus taught an unpopular truth that everyone could understand.  The truth of marriage endures, and we will continue to boldly proclaim it with confidence and charity.”