Abbey-Roads2

Peter Canisius

There is a group in the archdiocese of Minneapolis/St. Paul who go around to various parishes looking for liturgical abuses and homosexuals.  One of their members has been known to pour blessed olive oil and sprinkle exorcism salt around various churches.  Another one - maybe the same guy, who goes by the name Peter Canisius, sends email alerts about abuses and homosexual activities in various parishes to Catholic bloggers across the country.  Members of this group, some of whom may have once earned a bit of fame as whistle blowers elsewhere, struggle to keep themselves in good standing with chancery people in order to discredit certain priests, religious, and lay folk.  These same people, who function like a catholic gestapo, have the ear of a few prominent priests, who hopefully try and guide them away from their lives of calumny and detraction.

Spirit Daily

Over the past couple of years a few of us in the blogging community jumped on Peter Canisius’ stories - not a few of which proved false.  Hopefully, we have learned our lesson.  Obviously some bloggers haven’t, and Spirit Daily, the Catholic tabloid of gossip and misinformation and scary end-times stories, usually buys into Canisius’ scandal mongering.  One example concerns a meditation room at the St. Lawrence Newman Center, under the care of the Paulist Fathers.  (See the Spirit Daily post here.)

Spirit daily ran the Peter Canisius’ story - with photos - of the prayer room wherein “icons” by Robert Lentz, of Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and another of Our Lady of the Disappeared hang on the wall around a crucifix.  The email I received said - “St. Paul Archdiocese canonizes new saints.”  That is misleading and contentious - until the photos emerged, the archdiocese most likely wouldn’t have been aware of the images.  The images of the lay people, which only imitate the style of icons, are heroes of peace and justice, and inspiration for human rights activists - especially Catholic human rights activists.  While it is true that the images ought not to be exposed for veneration, they may have their place as a work of art in a hallway or conference room.

Our Lady of the Disappeared.

On the other hand, the image of Our Lady of the Disappeared can indeed be considered an image of devotion which permits veneration.  Canisius and Spirit Daily falsely claim this image is from an apparition - which Canisius claims the archdiocese has approved of.  The following is what he wrote in his email:

This particular image originally painted by Lentz is based upon an icon of the Sorrowful Mother, which Lentz interpreted to represent the intercession of the Mother of God for the missing of the Argentinian “Dirty War” between 1976 and 1983.  The Asociación Madres de Plaza de Mayo   wore white scarves similar to Our Lady’s as depicted in Lentz’ image.  Devotionally there is absolutely nothing wrong with this particular image.

The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo

The Mothers’ association was formed by women who had met each other in the course of trying to find their missing sons and daughters, who were abducted by agents of the Argentine government during the years known as the Dirty War (1976–1983), many of whom were then tortured and killed. The 14 founders of the association, Azucena Villaflor de De Vincenti, Berta Braverman, Haydée García Buelas, María Adela Gard de Antokoletz, Julia Gard, María Mercedes Gard and Cándida Gard (4 sisters), Delicia González, Pepa Noia, Mirta Baravalle, Kety Neuhaus, Raquel Arcushin, Sra. De Caimi, started the demonstrations on the Plaza de Mayo, in front of the Casa Rosada presidential palace, on 30 April 1977. Villaflor had been searching for one of her sons and her daughter-in-law for six months. She was taken to the ESMA concentration camp on 10 December 1978. 

The military have admitted that over 9,000 of those kidnapped are still unaccounted for, but the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo say that the number is closer to 30,000. The numbers are hard to determine due to the secrecy surrounding the abductions. Three of the founders of the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo have also “disappeared”. After the fall of the military regime, a civilian government commission put the number of disappeared at close to 11,000. - Source

Scandal

So here is what you do if you find something scandalous in a local parish.  Speak to the pastor first.  Calmly, politely and respectfully explain why you are scandalized.  If that doesn’t work, contact the chancery, and calmly, politely, and respectfully ask them to handle it.  Do not spread lies and misinformation across the Internet, or deface Church property.

A friendly commenter posed this question on another post:

“Obviously, sexuality is a gift from God. How is a homosexual supposed to accept his sexuality, if not as part of their basic makeup?”

My answer:

Remember - this is only my personal opinion.  That said - yes, sexuality is a gift from God, “God made them male and female.”  He made us heterosexual, male and female.  At best, I believe homosexuality is really more a temptation for the heterosexual person, or an aberration of human sexuality.  Fundamentally, the person is always heterosexual.  The inclination to homosexuality is an objective disorder; Natural law, Tradition, the Church, psychology (up until recently) all agree on this.  God does not create disorder.  We can say the problem is the result of the fall of man - original sin - which is hotly contested in today’s world.  I’m convinced it is all basic anthropology, theology, and so on.  It just takes lots of humility and prayer and suffering to come to terms with that.

“Some men are incapable of sexual activity from birth.” 

However, some people claim they were born this way.  Maybe so - just as some people are born blind, others mentally challenged, other’s without arms or legs, others conjoined, and so on.  These are all disorders in the natural order.  Oftentimes these people seem to have extraordinary gifts that seem to compensate for the disorder they were born with, others may find a cure, most learn to live with it, and develop their other gifts. 

“Some have been deliberately made so.”

Other people, perhaps under duress, may have been “made this way” from some outside cause, or they may have mistaken temptation for sexual identity.  In other words, homosexuality may have become a coping mechanism, an acquired behavior, an accommodation, or an adaptation of sorts.  Possibly, but not always,  due to trauma, same-sex peer rejection, feelings of inferiority,  lack of identity with a same sex parent or sibling, sexual molestation or shaming, or any number of reasons, the person might be said to have “chosen” or “accepted” the inclination; albeit without total freedom or even informed consent - merely as an unconscious “adaptation”.  Upon discovery of the homosexual culture, the person may have recognized it as a “safe place”, a state of being, or lifestyle supported by like-minded, non-threatening people.   In this way, one eventually begins to believe and say, “Yeah!  That is me.  I’ve always been this way - so I’m gay!  I found my niche!”  This goes along with my theory that many people are deceived, and for whatever reasons, want to be deceived.  It is just that however, my theory.

Yes, yes, I know that is all very simplistic and some people would have us believe homosexuals are like angels, each an unique species unto himself, in an unique lifestyle.  But the basic fact is, the homosexual’s real sexual identity is heterosexual - male or female, the temptation or inclination, indeed in some cases, the compulsion to act out with the same sex is disordered.  I’m convinced that people with this disorder are called to chastity - they can, and oftentimes do, share their life with a partner - who both agree to abstain from sexual relations with one another and others, for the love of God and the peace of conscience.  (BTW - that is what I always mean by chastity for single people - NO SEX - not even “self-cultivation”, no porn, no cruising, no fantasizing, no sex.)

“Some there are who have freely renounced sex  for the sake of God’s reign.”

Other people with these inclinations may live in religious communities - I can’t really speak to that however.  Others find support in programs such as Courage.  Many will find support in same-sex friendship - if the friendships are chaste and they permit themselves to relate this way.  Yet all will find support in prayer, the sacraments, a life of service and charity, and living in obedience to Catholic Church teaching.  As another friend said, “Holiness is the opposite of homosexuality.”

“Deny your very self, take up your cross and follow me.”

If one chooses to live a chaste and celibate life, that person thinks they have done a great deal - and indeed they have.  But I’m convinced there is one thing more a person can do to become a saint, as in the story of the rich young man:  “If you wish to be perfect, you must sell what you have and give to the poor, and then follow Christ.”  I interpret that to mean, if one really wants to be free, they need to renounce their very self that identifies as gay - since saying - “I’m same-sex attracted”, “I’m gay”, “I’m homosexual”, holds the person captive in that milieu or cultural mindset.  The soul is still attached and held by that little thread, imprisoned in that broken image of self.  It is one of the most difficult things for gay people to do, to renounce their attachment to their unique-ness as gay people.  Very often it means taking a very hard look into the painful past, in order to understand the cause of their disorientation.  But, “what is impossible for man, is possible for God”. 

“Not everyone can accept this teaching.” - Matthew 19: 10-12

And no - I am not saying one no longer experiences homosexual inclinations, or that all people are to be totally healed, or they should suddenly want to marry a member of the opposite sex.  But by the grace of God, and often times long effort, they can experience detachment from homosexuality as their core identity,  and will to live as the new creation the Blood of Christ won for them.  And most especially, find strength to resist the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, all of which conspire to cause the fall of one resolved to live chastely.

I know people who have done this - I know people who have been freed from the yoke of slavery the sin of homosexuality becomes.  While the very conflict and struggle can be a means to great sanctity.    

The wages of infection is death… or something like that. 

When I was little, my mom always told me not to pick at a scab, that doing so would cause an infection and I could die from an infection.  Fearful of getting an infection through a deliberate act, I reasoned if I accidentally pulled the scab off by rubbing it against something, it would be okay.  Scabs are itchy, so I’d rub my arm or leg against a tree trunk or something to peel it off.  I told myself I wasn’t doing it to pick the scab, but to itch it.  When it came off, I consoled myself that I had not deliberately picked it off myself - it had been an accident, it wasn’t my fault.  I never got an infection and I’m alive to tell about it.

I thought of my deceit in relationship to sin.  If I can’t help doing something, is it still a sin?  If I play around with an occasion of sin, or entertain a temptation, and then commit a sinful act, was it my fault?  If I carelessly shoot what I think is a deer in the bushes, and kill a man, is it still murder?  Anyone with a conscience should know the answers to such questions.

Bad is good.

Today however, many people, indeed, entire groups of people, decide for themselves what is a sin and what is not.  Living together without benefit of marriage, self-cultivation, homosexuality, contraception, in many cases - abortion, all of these grave sins are no longer considered sinful by half the population - including many Catholics.  No matter what the Church says - these people no longer believe such behaviors are sinful.

A new study  claims Americans overwhelmingly believe in the concept of sin, yet apparently do not agree with what behaviors constitute sin.

“Sin,” as defined by the research organization, is “something that is almost always considered wrong, particularly from a religious or moral perspective.” The study questioned more than 1,000 American adult respondents whether they believe in such a thing as “sin” and then asked them whether 30 different behaviors were sinful.

Out the list of 30 behaviors, adultery was most often described as a sinful behavior by American respondents (81 percent).

Following adultery was racism (74 percent); using “hard” drugs such as cocaine, heroine, meth, LSD, etc. (65 percent); not saying anything if a cashier gives you too much change (63 percent); abortion (56 percent); and homosexual activity or sex (52 percent) rounded out the top five behaviors most often considered sinful by Americans. - Source

How convenient. 

I’m not saying the study is accurate, I think there were only about a thousand people participating anyway.  Of course, most active homosexuals, people who contracept, even drug users, would say they do not believe their behavior is sinful.  People doing the stuff, embracing whatever sinful lifestyle they do, usually say they no longer believe what they are doing is a sin - they have an excuse for it.

That’s almost cute - if you are under 5 years old.

“Put on then the full armor of God.” - Ephesians 6:11 

Yesterday a discussion arose concerning Roman Catholic clerical wear.  It was brought to my attention that non-Catholics mistakenly refer to the cassock and other tunic-like garments priests or bishops wear as “dresses”.   Many Protestant clergy also wear similar garb, while ministers of most religions throughout the world wear some form of ritual attire.  For instance, the Dalai Lama, Shinto priests in Japan, Hindu holy men, Muslim men, and others, wear tunic-like garments or robes.  I’m confident most people would agree their clothing is not at all feminine. 

In the West it is very common for women to wear slacks or pant suits, and their femininity is rarely questioned for it.  That said, most people, including men, would clearly differentiate a woman’s dress from the cassock and surplice, or alb, worn by an altar girl or boy.  And it goes without saying that liturgical garb, just as judicial robes, academic robes, and so on, is recognizable attire for whatever station represented. 

While looking for a site that traces the origins, history, and development of style of Roman Catholic liturgical vestments and clerical wear, I found a rather neutral site, Catholic Priestly Vestments.  It is a Christian site with descriptions and proper names of the garments typically worn by Roman Catholic clergy.  As I mentioned, Protestant clergy, as well as dissident clergy - including unlawfully ordained women priests - pretty much wear the same garments.  I doubt any of these people would refer to clerical garb as feminine, or their vesture as a dress.

Links:

The New Liturgical Movement, History of the Roman Vestment - Excellent resource.

The History and Use of Vestments 

Growing up alone.

I may have mentioned it before, but growing up I was the only one in my family to attend Mass daily, and as I got older - maybe 3rd grade - I started to attend Mass on Sundays alone as well.  My parents never attended Mass, but my siblings dropped me off at church on Sundays and picked me up after Mass - I had to make sure I got three bulletins so mom and dad believed we all went to Mass.

All my life, I have found myself in this situation, because nearly every one of my friends were either non-practicing Catholics, or irreligious.  Thus I have usually gone to church alone - of course I see people I know at church, but I arrive early and leave late because I like to pray alone before the Blessed Sacrament.

Wanting what is best for the kids.

I recalled my experience while praying for Catholic parents of gay children who are lobbying the Catholic Church to change her teaching on same-sex issues.  (Although, the Catholic Church has no authority to do so.)  On December 2 these parents and friends of gay people, along with a sprinkling of gay men and women, staged a protest on the steps of the Cathedral in St. Paul, Minnesota.  Looking at the photos, the crowd appeared to me to be middle-aged to senior folks.  Which is why I assumed many of them were parents, aunts and uncles, or friends of gays. 

Obviously missing from the photos were young gay men and women.  Placards held by the protesters read something like, “Our gay sons and daughters are not disordered.”  I understood how these parents sincerely want their children to be welcomed into the Church - “Just as they are.” - as Mr. Rogers would say.  (It seems to me many of these parents think that if the Church approved the homosexual lifestyle, their kids would go to church.)  Of course parents of gay children do not believe their kids are disordered, they love them “just as they are”.  They just want them to go to church - to be included.  I can understand their loneliness - going to church without their kids, or living with the knowledge their kids do not go to church.  Parents just want the best for their children.

Repent and believe - then receive.

Even though I went to church alone for so many years, I prayed that my parents would one day be able to attend Mass.  My mom had been divorced and remarried to my dad, so she stopped going to church because she could not receive the sacraments.  My dad never desired to go because he had been raised a Lutheran and hated the Catholic Church.  My siblings didn’t go because they were bored at Mass.  However, when my mother died, she was reconciled to the Church.  When my dad died, he came into the Church.  When my brother died, he too was reconciled to the Church.  Thus the Lord answered my prayers, but on His conditions.

You see, I understand how parents and friends of gays must feel about those they love not going to church or receiving the sacraments.  However, as the protest on December 2nd demonstrated, many gay people are obviously not interested in going to church, attending Mass, or receiving the sacraments.  Having said that, if indeed  they are interested, they should know the Catholic Church does indeed welcome them with open arms.

The Church simply requires that one be converted; that certain renunciations are made by the penitent to demonstrate he or she has indeed repented of their sins.  (The penitent must realize there are certain conditions to be met.)  Then, after sacramental confession, they can receive Holy Communion.  So parents, teach your children, but please don’t try to tell the Roman Catholic Church to change teachings she has no authority to change.

[Photos of the Cathedral demonstration from Wild Reed - a post detailing why the protest was staged in the first place.  Be advised the Wild Reed is a dissident website.]

Not giving what is holy to dogs.

The recent news of the Legion of Christ’s lawsuit against ReGain network made me aware of how we as Catholics need to be more discerning when it comes to spiritual matters.  “Wise as serpents, guiless as doves.”  While reading about Mother Teresa’s ‘pure’ spirit of prayer - its nothingness - I felt somewhat convicted as regards my own spiritual gluttony and attachment to spiritual delights, insights, as well as personal devotions and satisfactions.  Considering my imperfection, my reflections led me to consider various aspects of the spiritual life; that is, the ease by which one may be deceived, along with the great need one has for discernment, as well as good catechetical and spiritual instruction.

Just as our Lord cautions us not to cast our ‘pearls before swine’, or to ‘give what is holy to dogs’,  sometimes we ourselves in our desire to advance in the spiritual life, act like dogs who lick up every scrap of  food that falls in our path.  In other words, as in the case of those people who tune in to every would-be mystic and charismatic-holy-man or visionary; in their fervor, these people sometimes indiscriminately ‘eat up’ every spiritual morsel they receive.

Direct line to God.

For years now, especially since the events at Medjugorje began, there have been increasing numbers of locutionists throughout the world relating messages from heaven.  Sometimes it seems as if every neighborhood parish has one.  Many of the followers of these people claim the veracity of these messages lies in the similarities to what other visionaries claim to have received and announced.  Oftentimes the revelations are vague encouragements to deeper prayer and fasting.  At other times they are comprised of generalizations concerning the crises of faith and the breakdown of morals, warning of the just punishments the world deserves.  However, most of this stuff can usually be discerned through natural knowledge - if one is so inclined.  In some cases, locutions can simply be unconscious restatements of things learned through mystical writings one either read or heard about in one’s past.

For instance, in the approved apparitions of Akita, the message sounds strangely similar to the spurious “secret” of LaSalette, foretelling a grave disruption within the Church, “bishop against bishop, cardinal against cardinal” and so on.  I’m not saying that proves or disproves anything, but I am suggesting that natural knowledge can influence and enter into supposed supernatural locutions.  (Since the apparitions of Akita are approved, a person may piously believe the events to be authentic.  Having said that, the Church does not require the faithful to believe in private revelations or visions.)

Listen to the Church.

A famous locutionist Fr. Gobbi, claimed to have experienced numerous communications from the Virgin, and a whole movement of followers was almost immediately created.  I believe the Vatican said (officially or not officially, I’m not sure) that the locutions were derived from his own personal meditations.  That is not to say they were not necessarily inspired however.  When the intellect is recollected, guided  and united with the truth, the Holy Spirit who is truth, corresponds with these discursive thoughts and lights.  St John tells us, “This is one of the Holy Spirit’s methods of teaching.”    (John of the Cross covers this subject in the Ascent, Book II, Chapter 29.)

Locally. 

Not a few so-called mystics hold weekly prayer meetings and relate what the Blessed Virgin or some saint has told them, similar to the repetitive apparitions at Medjugorje.  For instance, as regards a case in my area, the local Bishop has forbidden these meetings to take place on Church property.  Elsewhere, local Bishops have declared that various seers’  messages in their diocese are not supernatural.  This ought to be a sign for all to be cautious in attributing great importance to these people, places and events.

Oftentimes devotees of these revelations claim that they experience an increase in fervor and devotion, and some renewal of faith, therefore, as they insist, the deception of the evil spirit cannot be at work.  I believe in some sense they have already been deceived, since they fail in the first measure through a lack of humility, and the obedience they owe to their Bishop.  It seems to me that in this they subtly open themselves to the original sin of Lucifer, who refused to obey God.  (Even a local Ordinary, albeit in good faith, can be mistaken in declaring an apparition to be false; nevertheless, the faithful are bound to obey his directives.)

Deception

As for the recipients of some of these private revelations, they can easily be decieved, either through their own natural intellect, or the suggestions of the devil.  In turn, their spiritual director can unintentionally be deceived by the seer as well.  (I know of a couple of cases wherein the spiritual director was convinced the person in their charge was possessed, and it turned out not to be the case.  This can happen in the reverse as well.)  Simply because a well known priest happens to be a seer’s confessor or director, I do not think this is an infallible guarantee the messages are supernatural, especially if the priest is already predisposed to accept such experiences as authentic.

Hearing voices.

The trouble with locutions, just as with visions, consolations and other spiritual favors, is that one can easily be deceived in them.  The devil can easily stick in his two cents, as it were, and the end result is confusion at best, while in some instances of a public nature, a cult or parallel church may begin to form.  (Which is why yesterday I was so edified by the spiritual life of Bl. Mother Teresa.  Just as St. Therese, her spiritual life was a life of pure faith, exercised in charity.  Therese of Lisieux used to say, “I prefer not to see.”  And she may have well said “or hear”.  Her greatest spiritual  insights often came when she was engaged in manual labor and the exercises of charity, which in community are often monotonous and tediously annoying.  But I digress.)

The other thing we often forget is that our natural intellect plays a major role in our prayer life as well - depending upon our education, formal or informal, it can play too great a part at times.   We all carry on an interior conversation with ourselves in the way we process our thoughts.  Likewise, natural deduction and intuition  plays a role in our ability to assess situations, and process information.  Again, the Holy Spirit teaches and influences us in through these means.  Just as He does in our imagination.  When Joan of Arc was told her visions were her imagination, she said ”Of course!”  Meaning that this was the faculty God used to transmit His messages to her.

Vanity and spiritual pride.

However, sometimes certain persons can get to be ”too spiritual” - to use a John of the Cross phrase.  They read a lot, pray a lot - virtually eat and sleep religion - and can become convinced that everything they imagine or think about is inspired by God, when in fact it may simply be the exercise of one’s natural faculties actively engaged in discursive prayer.  (Which again, does not preclude the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.)  Nevertheless, in some individuals who may have an inordinate desire for mystical gifts, signs, or wonders, which includes a desire for a direct line to God - that is, to hear messages and the like, this disposition can bring about a sort of morbid attachment or fascination to the supernatural.  Which opens a person to deception and spiritual pride. 

Frequently, these seers or mystics are called upon for spiritual counsel, or to pray over individuals, as if  just because they are supposed to be the recipients of supernatural locutions or visions, they are somehow holier because of it.  In the case of those mystics who have been recognized as saints after death, it must be understood the Church never canonizes anyone for the mystical gifts they experienced in life.  Holiness is always judged upon the practice of heroic virtue and the person’s conformity to God’s will in charity.  Mystical gifts and graces are not guarantees of holiness.

What is important?

This whole chapter in The Ascent of Mt. Carmel (Bk II: 29) is a helpful  one to read, but I’ll highlight a couple passages I think are significant to my point.  St. John writes:

“I greatly fear what is happening in these times of ours:  If any soul whatever after a bit of meditation has in its recollection one of these locutions, it will immediately baptize all as coming from God and with such a supposition say, “God told me,” “God answered me.”  Yet this is not so, but, as we pointed out, these persons themselves are more often the origin of their locution.” - S. John, Bk II; 29, 4

“People should learn to give importance to nothing other than sincere effort, the establishment of their wills in humble love, and suffering in imitation of the life and mortifications of the Son of God…” - 29, 9

Directing our will toward God; “we should carry out His law and holy counsels perfectly - for such is the wisdom of the saints - content with knowing the mysteries and truths in simplicity and verity with which the Church proposes them.  An attitude of this kind is sufficient for a vigorous enkindling of the will; hence we do not have to pry into profundities and curiosities in which danger is seldom lacking.  St. Paul in regard to this conduct states: ‘One ought not to have more knowledge than befits him’. [Rom. 12:3]“ - 29, 12.

So, be wise as serpents and simple as doves.  Blessed Mother Teresa excelled in this too. 

…Or teaching kids how to have sex.

When I was in the 6th grade - just a few years before the “sexual revolution” of the late 1960’s - Sr. Lillian, CSJ took it upon herself to instruct our class about sex.  Her first lessons sent us all to the dictionary to look up copulation, after she became concerned when we all laughed that, “Abraham saddled his ass” and when we read that Lot’s daughters slept with their dad.  (The “progressive”  Sr. Lillian was later ostracized from her community because she refused to give up the old habit and was a huge Fatima and Padre Pio devotee - which tells you something about just how liberal she really was.)

So anyway, when the sex education started, she supplied us with non-illustrated pamphlets on our bodies.  Blossoming pervert that I was, I took copious notes, writing out terms and definitions such as “gonads” and “testicles” and “penis”.  My friends and I would read the definitions to one another from these notes and booklets and the dictionary, laughing nervously, anxiously discussing when we would get our pubic hair.  My parents found my sex notes and accused me of things I didn’t even know the meaning of, which in turn, sent me to Confession, and more confusion about what “complete self-abuse” meant.  The thing is, all I learned about from Sister concerned our bodies, and that mine was different from a girl’s body.  (See - she really just didn’t want us laughing because “Abraham saddled his ass.”)  Yet for me - and my friends - this was too much information too soon - and I never figured out what ’self-abuse’ meant until 9th grade.

Do not awaken sex before its time.

I adapted that verse from the Song of Songs, “Do not awaken love before its time.”  In other words, in 6th, 7th, even 8th grade, I really didn’t have a clue about sexuality.  Sr. Lillian may have been instrumental in piquing our interest, but that was the extent of it.  I know things are different today, kids in 4th grade probably know as much about sex as I do now.  Sex is all over media - kids know it is not just kissing.

Rudimentary sex education in ‘health class’ does not seem inappropriate to me - especially if kids can discus these things with parents.  Nevertheless, I’m convinced that detailed sex education belongs to the parents first and foremost, and what children are taught in schools must  be monitored by parents.  Sr. Lillian never checked with the parents if it was okay to teach us about our bodies - and when I took my homework home, my parents freaked, thinking I was this little sex maniac in the making.

The “new” sex education - or indoctrination?

Today, the New York Times has a piece,  “Lesson on Homosexuality Move Into the Classroom” - here’s a snippet:

“After five years, one legal defeat and a challenge on the way, Montgomery County, Md., is at the frontier of sex education in the United States. This fall, barring last-minute court action, the county will offer lessons on homosexuality in its 8th- and 10th-grade health education courses.

To school officials, the lessons are a natural outgrowth of sex education and of teachings on tolerance and diversity. They consist of two heavily scripted, 45-minute lessons for each grade and a video demonstrating how to put on a condom. The lessons’ central message is respect and acceptance of the many permutations of sexual identity, both in others and in one’s self.” - New York Times 

Needless to say, I can’t think of anything more innapropriate.  No matter how much a kid knows about his/her body and sex, or how much they see it on TV or in the movies, they surely do not have to be trained that homosexuality is an option.  Especially at the age of sexual awakening, that time when there is a lot of confusion, and in many cases, experimentation. 

As sexually sophisticated as we believe contemporary kids are, they are still just kids.  If a kid “thinks” he’s gay because he has an innocent “boy/man crush” on someone - that doesn’t mean he is dyed in the wool gay.  If he isn’t yet interested in girls, or he happens to be fascinated with the adult male physique; again, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the kid is gay.  (My crazy mother thought my athletic brother was gay because he used to buy body-builder magazines - he just wanted to be Mr. Atlas!)  Adolescence is a time of great upheaval, emotionally, physically, psychologically, and to be sure - sexually.  Answer kid’s questions, but it is wrong to do the “TMI” (too much information) thing before they are ready.   

The Agenda

Sr. Lillian, God rest her soul, also told us that Communism would infiltrate our schools and universities, convents and rectories, every institution, sacred or civil.  She said that the aim would be to gradually, covertly indoctrinate people with socialist principles.  She said the first assault would occur in the breakdown of morality, that moral principles would be altered and confused, permitting the decline of good order.  (I thought she was nuts and wasn’t sure what the heck she was talking about.)

I’m not saying this is one big Communist plot, like Hilary Clinton does when she insists there is a massive ‘right wing conspiracy’ against she and her husband - but there are earmarks of an agenda perpetrated by some one or some organization.   It seems more than obvious to me that this type of sex education in our schools is not only an attempt to normalize the homosexual lifestyle, but also can become (intentionally or unitentionally)  a form of indoctrination into the lifestyle for the undecided.   Even when it is veiled under the title of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT students - A Catholic School Perspective, and in the establishment of LGBT clubs in our Catholic high schools, such as Cretin-Derham Hall in St. Paul, Minnesota has done.

I know - I’m going to get nailed for this one, but it seems to me it is just common sense.  To those who object to my views, I hope you can step away from your passions, your personal experiences, and your political agenda, and just look at this objectively.

That’s all. 

[Cartoon stolen from: Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex blog.] 

Some call it Catholic divorce. 

The former wife of Joseph Kennedy II has an interesting article regarding annulments in the Catholic Church featured in the LA Times op-ed page.  She claims that last year there were some 57,000 annulments granted in the U.S. alone.   If true, that is a high number.

According to the former Mrs. Kennedy, it appears grounds for most annulments have been based upon Canon 1095, which covers those who are incapable of contracting marriage due to a lack of sufficient reason; grave lack of discretion of judgement; or those, because of psychological problems are unable to assume the obligations of marriage.  Sheila Rausch Kennedy refers to this as the “loose canon” since canon lawyers seem to be able to twist a host of marital problems to fit into this category.

The right to appeal.

I only know a few Catholics who won an annulment, thus permitting them to remarry in the Church.  From what they told me, there was a bit of wrangling to win their decree.  In a couple of situations, the former spouse was not at all compliant in the process, which made things ugly.  In one case, the woman was not in agreement with the decision, but obviously had no idea she could appeal, as Sheila Rausch Kennedy had done.  (Although Mrs. Kennedy had to hire outside attorneys.)

Lacking discretionary judgement.

I have never been involved in an annulment process myself, so I can’t really speak to the issue.  However, the one question I have about the Kennedy thing is this:  If the Kennedy annulment was processed on the diocesan level, with Kennedy using Canon 1095 - which means he was either psychologically unfit, lacked a sufficient use of reason, or worse, discretionary judgement, what does this say about him?   Assuming these were his grounds, how can he be qualified to serve as a politcian?  Did he suddenly mature or find psychological stability after x-number of years?  (He has served in Congress, and has had his eye on his uncle Ted’s Senate seat as well.)