The Anchoress

Continuing the Q&A started here, although these questions become less about Giuliani as they go on…

Q: But Giuliani is an abortion supporter! There is no doubt about the state of his soul!

A: There’s always doubt about the state of someone’s soul, but let’s look at that for the moment. Rudy is a politician and he is “pro-choice”, but he does not currently hold office and - since he has never been either a legislator or a judge - his political stance has not in any way involved him in the procuring/legislating/legalizing of abortion availability. At the most, in his career, all Rudy has done is followed the law and done nothing to change it. That is not, perhaps, in the same league as a pol who legislates against the free-speech of pro-lifers or votes in favor of RICO laws being applied to them, or in any way makes abortions easier to come by. In that sense, the ‘big scandal’ then, is about his being divorced-and-remarried which - while rightly precluding communion - is hardly an earthshaking event within the Catholic community. He is nowhere near on par with Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy who have actively legislated on abortion. We’re just focusing on him because Cardinal Egan - after some prompting - releasd his statement. As Deacon Greg rightly wonders:

If Robert Novak had never written on the subject, would Egan have said anything?

I’m betting he wouldn’t have. Cardinal Egan may be “correct” on this issue, but he’s basically been in hiding for most of his tenure in NY and I imagine he’d have hidden on this, too. What a disappointing successor to the Mighty John O’ Connor.

I must add, there was no sense of the pope - during his visit here - telling the Cardinal or the Archbishop - “hey, get your capos to withhold communion from those heretics.” That was not Benedict’s vibe at all. I got the sense that Benedict - who is a teacher of the first water - intends to teach us and he’d rather not have to battle headlines and hyperpartisan hysteria as he goes about it.

Q: Anchoress, you’re a hypocrite; you don’t mind Catholics in sin receiving communion, but you had a fit when Bill Clinton did it!

A: Well, I didn’t say I didn’t “mind” Catholics taking communion no matter what - I simply said there was another way to think about it that keeps me from getting upset. As to President Clinton taking communion, why shouldn’t I have minded that? He’s not a Catholic! What Clinton did was the equivalent of me going into a Hindu ceremony, partaking in everything I didn’t believe and then, when asked to respect their customs, saying “nah, come on, that’s not how I understand it.”

Q: My father left my mother and got the marriage annulled; the church said it wasn’t a Christian marriage but it didn’t mind taking their money and their volunteer help! The church has no business telling people about marriage when it’s run by a bunch of celibates.

A: If the marriage was annulled, that means the judicial body of the church, having examined it through testimony and evidence, found that the marriage was not “sacramental,” which is entirely different than saying it is “not a Christian marriage.” The church has the authority of Christ in teaching about marriage, and he - not the pope or some priest you hate - is the one who gave the demanding teaching in Matthew 19:

“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate…I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

Annulments are the response to Jesus’ admonishment - during the process what is determined is if the marriage was indeed “sacramental” (and thus “lawful”) within the church. Celibacy has nothing to do with it. You can read more about them here.

Q: Isn’t Confession just a “get out of jail free” card for Catholics?

A: Oh. How funny. Confession is a sacrament of the church, instituted by Christ and meant to instill abundant graces within us to both strengthen us against those sins for which we have a proclivity, and allow us the release and freedom whereby we are unshackled by naming the sin and accusing ourselves. In Matthew, Jesus told the apostles “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Even the pope has a confessor. In Romans, St. Paul said, “confession on the lips leads to salvation.” Some may argue that he was speaking only of “confessing Jesus on the lips” - well…perhaps…but perhaps he meant both. If you’re really interested, I have a whole category devoted to confession right here.

Q: What business does Egan have telling anyone else about sins when he shuffled pedophile priests around in Connecticut?

A: Well, I’m no defender of Egan, that should be clear, but I will say only this: he and many other bishops were quite frankly, “men of their times” in one respect - the pederasty that has so roiled us in the 21st century was not recognized as the high-rate recidivist crime that we understand it to be today. Recall that as recently as 20 years ago, the conventional wisdom was that these deviations in behavior could be “fixed” with therapy and a change of surroundings. Thankfully, our understanding is much more finely tuned, I think, these days, but it came very very late in the 20th century. It does not excuse what is abhorrent, but it does explain why - not knowing what else to do with these priests - some bishops thought therapy and moves would be the answer; some bishops dismissed the therapy and simply made the moves - all were excruciatingly bad decisions. That said, Egan is still the bishop, and he has - as near as anyone can tell, given his tendency to hole-up - been faithful and very careful in his handlings of these matters since coming to NY.

Last one, because it is irresistible - fresh and hot off the email:

Q: You’re writing about humility while exhibiting the sin of pride in daring to set yourself up as an authority. Who died and made you pope?

A: Heh. No one, thank God, and they never will. But I am appalled that anyone would think I’ve presented myself as any sort of authority. I’ve always been very clear that I don’t like apologetics or do them well, and that my thoughts are simply that: my thoughts. Anyone can buy a catechism and a bible and find out what the church teaches. An emailer once wrote that I “meander and imagine and reason and always end up squarely on Catholic Orthodoxy.” Maybe. I’ve only ever offered Catholicism as I know it and live it and understand it by my lights, and I hope I’ve done it without pride - although I’ll admit to sometimes being a little fractious while I’m at it. But if I am sinning in pride, I wonder if you’re not sinning in presuming to know that. Beams and splinters - ain’t they a bitch!

I wasn’t going to write about this because - while I know it gets a lot of Catholic blood running - I can’t get that excited about it.

SOME CLARIFICATION FOR THOSE WILLFULLY MISREADING ME: That does not mean I do not CARE about the issue. It simply means that I think we’ve all managed at times to insult and offend the Lord in various ways, and sometimes Eucharistically, and so I prefer to leave the scolding to the ones who seem most comfortable with it. While I’ve often been called a “self-righteous prig” on some issues (daring to disagree with some on solutions to the illegal immigration problem comes to mind) and I don’t mind wagging fingers politically, I’ve never been much of a spiritual scold. I know that’s true because I’m always getting scolded by other, better, Catholic and non-Catholic Christians for not scolding enough! Quite opposed to those charging me with “not caring,” I think I make abundantly clear that I do care, and I do both accept and support the church’s teaching here, and I agree that the complaints are valid. I simply respond to these things differently than others. If that’s wrong, well…Jesus knows there is no malice in my heart and will judge me as he will us all. END CLARIFICATION

But between some emails I’ve gotten from angry Catholic readers, confused (or smuppity) non-Catholic readers, and a few internet forum comments I’ve read that display both astounding anti-Catholic bigotry or a clear lack of understanding, I feel like I should. Here’s a can of worms I’d prefer not to open, but in doing so, I’ll stick to the Q&A style, since they reflect (or are directly taken from) my email.

For the uninitiated, there is a scandal of sorts brewing because former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani received Communion at the Yankee Stadium mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI. Note that Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy all took communion at the mass at National’s Stadium without all this brouhaha. The reason we’re hearing about Rudy is because Robert Novak, took NY’s Cardinal Egan and DC’s Archbishop Wuerl to task, pubically scolding them for the fact that these grown-up Catholics, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy and Giuliani, communed.

Immediately after the column appeared, Cardinal Egan - who can’t retire soon enough for my money - released a statement criticizing Giuliani, most particularly for Rudy’s not abiding by what was apparently a private agreement between the two men, that he would not commune at the mass.

I know “conservative” Catholics tend to get scrappy on this issue, and more “liberal” Catholics tend to think it’s not much of a deal. Typically, I fall somewhere between the two, which is why I have no friends. So, here we go.

Q: What is the big deal, here? Isn’t Communion just a symbol and a way to “cleanse ourselves of sin?”

A: No and no. Catholics do not believe that the Eucharist is a “symbol” of anything, but rather the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, truly Present. And Communion is meant to draw us into deeper and more personal interaction with Jesus; by the grace of the sacrament, we are strengthened both physically and spiritually and that may help us in our sinfulness, but it is not the “means” by which we “get rid of” the sins we have already committed.

Q: Does that mean all the people receiving Communion are in a state-of-grace and free from sin?

A: Not by a long shot. None of us can know the state of anyone else’s soul…but can assume some are. Those who have recently been to confession for absolution of their most grievous sins and participated in the mass (where the lesser sins of our everyday humanity and brokenness are absolved within the Rite) are in a state of grace, but plenty of people taking communion do not fit that “ideal”. In 1 Corinthians 11:27, Paul writes of the seriousness of the issue:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord

For some Catholics, when a public figure receives “unworthily” this creates a public scandal; they fear that others in the church, seeing known proponents of abortion or divorced-and-remarried politicians take communion will both inspire others toward irreverence toward the Lord and weaken understanding of what the Eucharist truly is.

Q: And you think they’re wrong?

A: No, not at all. They certainly have a valid point, and intellectually I can go there. Emotionally, however, I always have a problem with Catholics pointing the finger at other Catholics and going, “ummmmmm…I’m telling!”

Q: Right, because in the end it’s between the politician and God!

A: Well…yes and no. It’s true that - ultimately - what Rudy did was “between him and God”, but - and it’s a big but - Rudy still publicly professes himself a Catholic, and so this is also between him and his Catholic community. This is the problem with community; it is something to answer to, in the same way that a Protestant pastor who leaves his wife for another must answer to his congregation, or a teenager who breaks the speed limit must answer to the judge. The rules are the rules, and Rudy, or Pelosi, or Kerry and Kennedy know full well that when they commune while the cameras are clicking, they’re deliberately riling that community up.

Q: So, you agree with the Novaks and the “conservative” Catholics, then?

A: Errrmrmrmrm…not really. As I said, I see their point, and it is a valid one, but there’s also that part about not knowing what is going on in one’s soul or in one’s heart - what sort of turmoil or even humility may be residing there. I know some would say that real humility would express itself in refraining from communing and, again, in the ideal that is precisely right.

But then there is Jesus, and there is this man or this woman. It seems to me that there is also a humility to be found in letting Jesus be Jesus and do what he does, in trusting that - whatever the condition of the soul of the receiver - Jesus is both larger and deeper than what we (or even the recipient) can know.

I keep remembering that Jesus said he “came for sinners; the well do not need a physician.” We must never be so protective of Jesus that we begin to think Him too small or fragile to be able to do the heavy lifting required to turn a heart. These pols know the score; they’ve had the doctrine explained. If they’re still receiving then we may assume two things - 1) that they are hard-hearted, do not care and wish only to score points with their constituents or 2) they are in dire need of a one-on-one encounter with the Living Christ - even if they do not consciously realize it or express it - and they will thus seek Him out, and take their lumps for it.

I think I will always err on the side of believing the best, rather than the worst of their motives, and give them the benefit of the doubt that they’re looking for the Encounter. And then we must remember, that Jesus had less patience for the Pharisee who stood at the front of the Temple and crowed about how he did everything just right, not “like that tax collector over there…” than for the sinner who kept his head bowed.

Q: So, then you agree with the “liberals!” You don’t think it’s a scandal.

A: Errrrrrrm….not really. There are lots of ways to scandalize a church or to desecrate the Holy Eucharist, and many people who are not public figures commune “unworthilly.” As near as I could tell Giuliani was the only one of the recipient pols caught on television cameras. I have to be honest, when I saw it, I thought, “he’s not supposed to be doing that…” but I also thought his mien and demeanor, his whole attitude was serious, thoughtful and yes, reverent - moreso than some of the others participating. I knew I was right smack dab in the middle of an abiding Mystery.

In the Apostles Creed, we’re told that Jesus “descended into hell” before he rose. In communion He descends into the hell of our own lives - all of our confusion, all of our sins those declared and those unfaced, all of our doubt, all of our love and our hate, all of our fear, our conscience, our deepest longings and our conscious and sub-conscious minds; our very souls - Jesus descends into it, and then we rise with Him. His very Blood courses through our veins.

This cannot leave us unchanged. Even if outwardly, we seem the same, inwardly, we have been penetrated. Some of us are very, very thick-walled; some of us have built astounding fortresses and battlements within us, and Jesus may very well want to go head-to-head, one-on-one so to speak, to tumble them. To descend into our personal “hells” in order to help us rise from them. He is, after all, the Divine Physician. Paul gave us an ideal and a basis for law. But Jesus has always been - ultimately - bigger than all of it.

And so, no…for all that I accept the validity of those crying “scandal,” I cannot cry it myself.

More to follow…here.

Poster available at catholicposter.com

I’m actually working on a piece answering various questions/rants that were sent my way during Benedict’s visit, but I haven’t had time yet to really put it together. But first and foremost I can answer this one question, which I was asked several times:

Do you really, truly, actually believe that Jesus is Present - physically present - in the Eucharist?

Oh, yes. Why shouldn’t God - who can raise the dead and walk on water - be able to do that?

(Photos by BK)

These young men, happening upon a Eucharistic procession, believe it too. (H/T)

As I’ve said before, if you find it impossible to believe - and that’s not unreasonable - see for yourself. Find a place where Adoration is offered sit there before the Blessed Sacrament for a little while. Or if you can’t do that, try praying some psalms while keeping this site opened and before you. You’ll see!

He is with us, even to the ends of the earth.

UPDATE: I love NYC Mayor Ed Koch’s remembrance of his great friend and “true brother” Cardinal John O’ Connor in this wonderful piece about Catholics and Jews, but I am very moved to read his understanding of our shared values, and the Catholic reverence for the Eucharist. (Thanks Siggy)

Catholics must feel similarly moved when they receive communion. Some receive the consecrated wafer from the priest into their own hands, while others receive it on their tongues. When that happens, the communicants generally make the sign of the cross, hold their hands together and walk off with an aura of purity and in a state of grace for those few moments of the Mass. Their eyes convey the same rapture that I see in the eyes of Jews kissing the Torah.

I see that state of exaltation when I attend Christmas Midnight Mass and St. Patrick’s Day Mass every year at the request of the presiding Cardinal.

Since today is 3 years since the very affecting funeral of John Paul II, thought I’d repost:

An email from a reader:I’m asking this because I think you will answer me respectfully. The service today was beautiful but wasn’t it too much? Jesus was buried in a simple shroud, and he was God. What we saw today bordered on idolatry. I have no problems with Catholics, I do believe you are Christians, but I think you are misguided on this.

Sigh. Really, I am NOT an apologist. I have no energy for it, and don’t feel called to it as others do. But…thank you for your question.

Look, I don’t know your background, or what your denomination is, but I’m assuming it’s “bible-based” and big on singing and short on liturgy, so maybe that’s what strikes you wrong. If I am wrong, please let me know. I’m at a loss to understand precisely what was offensive. Was it all the scripture contained in the readings and responses, throughout the mass, from Lord, have mercy… to Holy, Holy, Holy… to Lord, I am not worthy…?

I can’t imagine that is what is troubling you. If what bothered you was the size and scope of the mass, well…it’s a global age. In Jesus’ time he managed to draw crowds numbering in the tens of thousands, but everyone was traveling by foot or camel. I think the crowd you saw today was proportionate to the means of travel and the avaliability of communications technology. So, again, I don’t understand what is troubling you.

I gather, since you mention the burial of Christ, it is perhaps the burial of the pope, and the pomp preceeding it, which troubled you.

A few points: Jesus was buried in the manner of a wealthy man of his time - in a private cave hewn for the purpose and originally purchased by Joseph of Arimathea, so it could be argued that outside of pyramids and King’s tombs, Jesus’ burial was not quite “humble” for the time, but rather the arrangements (though rushed for Passover) could be construed as slightly better than average. He was wrapped in a shroud because that’s what was done, and is still done in that part of the world.

You could argue that the average American citizen who has a wake, then a funeral service, flowers, an expensive casket, pall bearers with dignified bearing, readings, grieving and a supper to follow, celebrating that person’s life, had a much more elaborate burial than Jesus, who was (IS) God. So what? Times and customs and cultures do have an effect on things. If a beloved family member of yours dies, are you going to limit his or her burial to a shroud and a howdy do, because that’s all Jesus got?

Remember, when Jesus was buried, his apostles didn’t know he was God. They thought he was a prophet. They’d thought maybe he was the messiah, but then, you know…he didn’t come through with the liberation, etc, and he was tortured and killed and his followers went into hiding. They didn’t KNOW what they had, among them, until later. Had they known, well…who knows?

The liturgy - that whole mass you saw today, beautifully sung, beautifully carried out, was not for John Paul, per se. Yes, it commended him to God and it celebrated his faithful service, but the liturgy was meant - as it is ALWAYS meant - for us. We are humans, and when something important happens, as the loss of a loved one, our hearts hunger for beauty as well as meaning, for beauty is another transcendent means to God. And so millions came to Rome to see off a servant of Christ, and for their efforts, they saw beauty, they heard and felt beauty, had the opportunity to pay their own tribute (”Sancto!”) and most importantly they got to to Commune with the Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.You’ll notice that the people kneeling in St. Peters, on the cobblestone, were not kneeling for JPII; they were kneeling while Communing with the Lord.

Liturgy does not only teach, it also entertains. That sounds wrong, but I mean it in a good way - it lifts our hearts, minds and spirits. If you belong to an Evangelical church, you probably have musicians and singers at your service, and that music they provide is uplifting, it brings another dimension to worship. Just so with the liturgy, and with all of that “pomp.” It is for us. JPII doesn’t care, he’s already in heaven!

So he is remembered with love. He is dressed in fine robes (when we buried Grandma we put her in her best dress - what else?). His casket is incensed, because incense has been part of our worship left over from our Judaic roots. The angel in revelation disperses incense in an incensor, so I don’t think God has a problem with it. Then, after the mass, the Rite of Christian burial, his body was solemnly processed and lain to rest.

It is all we would do for any of our loved ones, just on a scale calculated to uplift not just thirty or forty, but a couple billion.

Is it the three caskets that is bothering you? Well, there are reasons for that. The first is that there have been times in the history of Christendom when bodies of priests and popes and saints have been disrespected by those who hate, and perhaps TOO venerated by those who love. Three caskets does sort of put the damper on that possibility! But there are other reasons, as well. The humble cypress casket is a symbol of humanity and humility. The leaden casket helps to slow the deterioration of the body.

Why is this important? I dunno. Maybe some Italian Mama along the way - a precursor to the sort of Italian Mama who puts plastic on the sofa - gave people the heebiejeebies about the body getting damp!

But the thing is, if and when a man or woman is being seriously considered for sainthood, their body is disinterred, and investigated. For a couple reasons - but mostly because there has been a curious phenomenon over the years, attending to these people, in that sometimes their bodies do not corrupt, at least not at the rate, or in the manner, of the rest of us. And it’s not true of ALL saints, but its been true of enough of them (some of whom were buried in pine boxes and mud, some of whom had floods in their graves) that you know…put him in a lead box, and we’ll see what we get in twenty years.

And the last box, simple oak, simply contains his name and the dates of his pontificate. I don’t think ANY of this is a big deal. When Grandpa died, he was buried. His grave had a cement liner. It’s pretty much the same idea. Maybe it’s the culture - we’re all sticklers for tying things up neatly - but I don’t see the idolatry you’re talking about.

And if you mean the crowds chanting “Sancto! Sancto!” Well…at my son’s high school, one of the athletes just died, tragically, of cancer. The funeral convoy drove past the school, and all of the students had assembled outside. They stood solemnly and then applauded and waved to the hearse and to his parents, shouting his name, his hockey number, and saying, “We’ll miss you! Your son was great!” and other such things. Was that idolatry, or a simple, heartfelt last opportunity to praise a much-loved student?

It’s just a tribute. No one left St. Peter’s today having WORSHIPPED Karol Wojtyla, and no one left there unsure of who is the Savior of the world.

But…they did leave St. Peter’s with full hearts, having had a chance to do what my son’s classmates did for their fallen friend, to remember and pay a little tribute, and they got to do it surrounded by visual and aural beauty so that all of their senses participated in the Worship of God. Again, I just don’t see the problem.

But I’m glad you wrote to me about your concerns, and I hope I helped put them to rest. If I haven’t all I can say is…I’m not that smart. Someone else may do much better!

Don’t be so afraid of a little liturgy. BE NOT AFRAID!

PS…speaking only for myself, that funeral today made me long to hear more (or, ANY) Gregorian Chant at mass. I really hunger for it. Enough of the feel-good campfire-type songs, please!

Related: The Holy Spirit Stirs, then Ravishes

Via

Seven times a day I praise you for your just decrees.
— Psalm 119: 164

Got an email from a lady I’ve never corresponded with before - she seems very nice - and she says she’s lately more amenable than she was to the idea that Catholics really are Christians, mostly thanks to our splendid popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and to some of the Catholic bloggers she’s come across in her reading.

She did have one serious problem with us “besides Mary, who I feel less concerned about.” She no longer thinks Catholics are idolaters, and she’s come around to the idea that Mary, as the mother of the Christ, had a substantial and essential role to play in the salvation of the world, and is thus due appropriate homage. She even appreciates the idea that the rosary focuses “mostly on Christ,” but “I still can never approve of the Rosary or this other repetitious prayer [The Chaplet of Divine Mercy - admin] because Jesus condemned it” in Matthew.

Mt 6:7, “But when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”

The writer wonders how we Catholics can ignore that point of scripture.

Once again: I am not an apologist; I do not have the training, education or wherewithal to engage in point-by-point apologetic argument and besides, it makes me tired. I know others find it energizing and I say God bless them for it, but for me, I don’t have patience for the extended engagement and incredible minutia into which Christian apologetics can descend. I’m more of a “big-picture” sort of girl!

That said, I can share what I’ve gleaned in my own musings when it comes to this issue of repetitive prayer. While there are many Catholics who out-and-out love the Rosary and call it their preferred method of prayer, there are others - like me - who like it but struggle, and who pray it trusting that good intention overrides our imperfect attendance to the beads and the meditations…or our sleepiness. Like Therese of Lisieux, I often find myself giving the Rosary a hearty start and then dozing off halfway through. Since I am not over-scrupulous, I’ve decided to call it “holy rest” and assume the Father loves me just the same.

I will answer the writer as best I can by first admitting that I am a fan of “learned” prayer. I like extemporaneous prayer, too, and scriptural prayer, contemplation, psalmody and lectio divina - all prayer is good and useful of a particular moment in one’s day or circumstance, but I believe some “learned” prayers are essential to us for those times when our words fail. Sometimes being able to fall back on the “Our Father” as an entry into prayer can lead us to pouring out our hearts. And let’s face it, no one says The Lord’s Prayer only once in their lives.

It’s true I have wondered about Matthew 6:7, but the first thing that pops out at me in that verse is ‘vain repetitions’; since we Christians believe no prayer made earnestly to God is in vain (or foolhardy, or without effect), that already gets me thinking the verse might be interpreted differently than my emailer’s take on it.

As an observant Jew who probably participated in minyan, I doubt very much that Jesus was indicting his fellows or calling them “heathens” even though their prayers and psalmody were repetitious. Also, recall in Matt 26:39-44 that Jesus, in Gethsemane, repeated his own prayer three times. Once surely was sufficient, but the distress of his own mind and the human part of him needed more. For that matter, consider the Seraphim in heaven, who engage in repetitive prayer for eternity:

“they rest not day and night, saying Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord GOD Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.”
- Rev 4:8

Paul would have us “continuing instant in prayer” (Romans 12:12) and in 1 Thessalonians 5:17 wrote: “pray without ceasing.”

He makes it sound so easy and casual, but if you’ve ever tried to pray for 5 minutes without your mind wandering, you understand how difficult it is to “pray without ceasing.”

The Orthodox (and many Catholics, me included) use what they call “The Prayer of the Heart” or “The Jesus Prayer,” to observe Paul’s admonishment: “Lord Jesus, Son of God, have pity on me, the sinner.” In the Russian Orthodox classic, The Way of the Pilgrim we read the story of the narrator’s cross-country trek with this prayer constantly on his lips as he attempts to “pray without ceasing.”

And one of my favorite psalms, 136 is nothing less than a litany with repetition.

Just looking at the thing scripturally, it seems like there is sufficient biblical example of the efficacy of repetitious prayer to counter that one verse about “vain repetitions,” but even without those examples, what I have come to understand about the Rosary, and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy is that they are very effective tools for focused prayer, and (particularly the Divine Mercy) helpful in humility. The wonder of the Rosary, at least for me, is that it allows one to keep some astonishing mysteries before our awareness - the Annunciation, when Gabriel first came to Mary, her visit to Elizabeth in which the embryo John was roused in joyful recognition of the One he would proclaim, the Incarnation and Nativity of the Lord (a mystery of particular delight and endless rumination for me), etc, etc.

The Rosary brings us into contemplation of and appreciation for the depths of God’s love for us, and I say that even as a “Rosary-snoozer.” Without this tool, we would not be so fast to think back on and become so warmly familiar with all this which is so unfathomable, and so worth our regular study. How often do you think about Christmas in April? With a daily Rosary, you’re pondering it twice a week, at least, and always learning something new.

None of this is required for salvation, mind you. But it helps us get to know the Lord and ourselves better while we’re here.

Finally - and this is wholly my own idea about repetitive prayer and you may well disagree - what I increasingly appreciate about both the Rosary and the Chaplet is how fleeting is a moment. I say a prayer and my mind, intention and awareness are rooted in that moment, then the moment is gone and will never return. My fingers move to the next bead and I am literally in a “new” moment, and my prayer in that moment is “new” too. Then that moment is gone, never to be relived; I move to a new bead, a new moment, a new prayer - I am “praying ceaselessly” (for at least 15 minutes) before God. I am “in the moment” and in that moment, before God, I am utterly outside of “time” as we live it, and in the moment of Eternity.

When monastics are keeping the Divine Office (the Liturgy of the Hours) in all of its solemnity, they are praying 7 times a day and each time they begin, “O God, come to my assistance; O Lord, make haste to help me,” because each hour they pray is a new moment; a new prayer. They may have prayed only two hours earlier, but in two hours everything is different than it was, the sun, circumstances, the weather, health. If you are praying a new prayer in a new moment, then really…there is nothing repetitious about it!

I don’t know if that helps. I don’t know if I have sufficiently explained for my reader (and, I am guessing, other readers as well) how it is that a Catholic can feel alright about “ignoring” a debatable point of scripture.

In the end all I have to go on is my own trust in the Lord that he sees my heart and hears my prayer in all of its faulty humanity and sincerity and in the example of the many people who have come before me — better educated, holier and wiser, more gifted and devout — who have trod the path before me while moving their tongues to The Jesus Prayer, or rattling their Rosaries or continuing instant a plea for mercy in an increasingly proud society.

Related: 12 Suggestions to Reform the Catholic Church
Why Wasn’t JPII put into the ground in a simple shroud?

The two big stories of the last 48 hours have been the Spitzer fiasco and the “new sins from the Vatican” nonsense. Priests and Prostitutes? No, mostly prostitutes and the press.

Yesterday I got an email from a reader which read in part:

Has liberal cretinism permeated their minds? I mean, at a time when Christianity is under attack from Islam and secularism, is this a way to unify Christians and save Western Civilization? Am I nuts; aren’t all the saints in heaven shaking their heads over this move?

She was writing about the boneheaded coverage of the Vatican thinking outloud about sin. I referred her to Rule 27: If the news story is from the British press and involves the Pope….DON’T BELIEVE IT.

I suggested to the reader that there would be clarification of all of this coming down the pike, but that she’d probably have hard time finding it in the press.

Today, both Deacon Greg Kandra and Fr. James Martin did a better job explaining what was actually going on:

Greg, who works over at CBS when he’s not deaconing, writes on this from a veteran newsman’s position:

I was assigned to write that story for last night’s CBS Evening News, and the more I read about it, the more it sounded like something else that pollutes the environment: horse manure.

Every story on the wires told a different version. There were seven. No, there were six. It included abortion. No, one of them was stem cell experiments. It mentioned pedophilia. The guy who issued the decree was a monsignor. No, he was a bishop. He was the pope’s right hand guy. No, he was a Vatican spokesman. And on and on and on. It made my head hurt.

Finally, in the afternoon, I spoke with the CBS News religion consultant at the Vatican, Fr. Thomas Williams. He confirmed what I expected: there’s nothing new in the “new” deadly sins — and they aren’t necessarily deadly, and they don’t number seven, and it’s all one person’s interpretation of moral failings that are as old as time itself. The pope had nothing to do with it. It doesn’t change doctrine or dogma one iota. There was no there there.

Fr. Martin talked on NPR about the non-story, and also write an editorial over at America Magazine:

The Vatican’s intent seemed to be less about adding to the traditional “deadly” sins (lust, anger, sloth, pride, avarice, gluttony, envy) than reminding the world that sin has a social dimension, and that participation in institutions that themselves sin is an important point upon which believers needed to reflect.

In other words, if you work for a company that pollutes the environment, you have something more important to consider for Lent than whether or not to give up chocolate.

Fr. Martin takes pains to say he doesn’t think the press’ bizarre reporting comes from a place of malice, but of ignorance. Okay. Maybe. But I am willing to bet when the stories broke as they did, many non-Catholics shook their head with a “there go those damn Catholics again,” and plenty of Catholics had a response similar to one here:

Once again I have to tell my Church to f*** off. I’m really getting tired of that.

How many of those folks will ever see any sort of correction following the sensational headline? And if that’s not a malicious intent, it is certainly sloppiness that serves something other than truth. The press knows full well the power of a headline - what’s that old saying, “a lie makes its way around the world while the truth is still getting its pants on,” . The press knows full well that if it blares a sensational headline, that headline becomes part of the collective subconscious, and the inevitably buried corrections mean nothing. I think we saw such an example in the recent Rudy Giuliani campaign.

And these sorts of things always seem to happen as we approach Holy Week - a little distraction from what we’re supposed to be doing, a little discrediting before the Vatican actually proclaims the Risen Christ. Never fails.

Interestingly, Inside Catholic has a huge symposium on the subject of a recent Pew report on the state of religion in US public life, a report that had lots of Catholics talking and wondering “why do people leave the church?” As we see in this very interesting and provocative symposium, there are a million valid reasons which may be lain at the door of the church itself (and not just the Catholic church), but I do wonder if some of those exits are not helped along by a media eager to court sensationalism over sensibility. I urge you to take the time to read all of the gathered voices over there - Inside Catholic has collected opinions from a wide array of current Catholic writers and many churchmen and churchwomen, too. It is worth your time.

Also worth your time : Bookworm links to a heartugger from Gaza and Israel, whereby we meet an Arab family being helped by Jews:

Dr. Shmuel Zangen, the director of the hospital’s neonatal unit, doesn’t care who he treats. “As a doctor, I enjoy the privilege of not having to think about it,” he says. “It certainly is odd that we take care of Palestinian children while they shoot at us. It’s the sort of thing that only happens in the Middle East.”
[...]
The father is holding the first photos of his newborn twins in his hands. He is worried about the rockets being fired at Ashkelon. He says that he would never have believed it possible that he could be indebted to the Israelis for anything. “What a confusing situation,” he says.

What was it Golda Meir said, “Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.” Maybe that can only happen one family at a time?

Back in Catholicworld, Julie at Happy Catholic gives some timely help for confession and does a nice little Catholic round-up to boot.

And in the rest of the news:

Hillary Clinton is still making excuses about releasing her tax return. Her husband the ex-president won’t cant release their White House papers to demonstrate all that experience she touts, and she won’t release her taxes, but as Mr. Garfield used to say, “what, you can’t trust a little?” Meanwhile her peeps are playing the sly race card and she is disavowing them, but a few Hillarians are growing weary of her game.

Meanwhile those Euro leaders who hate Bush? Some of them are appalled at Clinton and Obama’s talk.

Don Surber looks at a report that says no recession, after all. I still figure we’ll talk ourselves into one.

On the Spitzer front: Gateway Pundit notes that if Spitzer resigns it will be a rare thing for a Democrat to do, and he counts the ways.

Surber notes Spitzer’s repellent narcissism.

Ed Morrissey notes that 25% of our teenage girls have STD’s, which is not related to the Spitzer story except as a comment on the times, themselves.

And Heck, yes says Romney, he’d be McCain’s veep. Naga happen, I don’t think.

Finally, the press’ reluctance to identify political parties when the scandal is about a Democrat continues apace, this time in Detroit.

Amy Welborn has more.

Fr. Corapi hears his own father’s confession:

Reviewed the book here (and highly recommend it - for some it might even be Lenten reading).

Thanks to Gloria.TV, came across EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo interviewing author George Weigel on the book - excellent!

Quickly transcribed excerpt - somewhat paraphrased:

Thomas Aquinas learned a lot of his Aristotle from Muslim philosophers…A religious community [Islam] which for several hundred years ad been the ground for great speculative accomplishment not only in philosophy but in math and other sciences suffered a kind of intellectual shut-down that continues to affect Islam today. A great illustration of this is that in any 20 year period more books are translated into Spanish than have been translated into Arabic in the last 900 years.

Also, read this well-done piece by Vasko Kohlmayer who argues that American Christians - particularly Evangelicals - are the West’s “Last Hope” against the advances of Islamic fundamentalism. Quite interesting. I’ve said before that Islam has a supernatural mindset that secularists simply cannot fathom - that takes others with the same eye/ear toward supernature. FTA:

[...] a piece which appeared late last year in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard. Its author, Oscar Van den Boogaard, who is a Dutch citizen and a self-described ‘humanist,’ wrote that facing the Islamization of Europe is like ‘a process of mourning.’ Although it makes him feel sad, he is unwilling to do anything about it: ‘I am not a warrior, but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.’

Distinguished Belgian journalist Paul Belien, one of Europe’s most insightful commentators, put it this way:

In Europe a secularized post-Christian culture is facing a Muslim one. The secularized culture is hedonist and values only its present life, because it does not believe in an afterlife. This is why it will surrender when threatened with death because life is the only thing it has to lose. This is why it will accept submission without fighting for its freedom. Nobody fights for the flag of hedonism, not even the hedonists themselves.

Via

First up: Tim Blair has cancer. GM Roper has a moving message for him. Godspeed with the treatment, Tim, hopefully you’ll be back at it very soon.

President Bush meets with Kuwaiti women in politics. Consider how unthinkable that sentence would have been a decade ago. And imagine what the press would have made of it, had a Democrat president whose vision had shifted the Middle East, taken this meeting.

AJ says Bush has a few more hat-tricks.

Three examples of solid, good, insightful and entertaining writing:

1) David Brooks thinks Hillary did herself no favors on Meet the Press. That seems to be the general opinion.

Clinton refused to admit any real errors. She implied that Barack Obama is unfit to be president, without ever honestly taking responsibility for what she actually believes.

She broadcast her own humility: “You know, I’m very other-directed. I don’t like talking about myself.” She also described the central role she plays in the lives of all living creatures in the universe: “The Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say.”

But Clinton’s real problem is that she is caught in a trap, which you might call The Identity Trap.
[...]
All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Churchill and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Summers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.

Indeed. And I think the Democrat candidates rushing to play victim and the GOP candidates rushing to play preacher will encourage the left and right extremes to step center. So let it play out!

2) Christopher Hitchens nails Candidate Clinton to the wall, and her husband, too.

In the New Hampshire primary in 1992, she knowingly lied about her husband’s uncontainable sex life and put him eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely as a smart move on her part. In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor by telling a huge lie about his own record on the war in Iraq, falsely asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part: trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?

That’s the mild part of his piece. Read it all. Hitchens has quit smoking, by the way. It doesn’t seem to have dulled his pen.

3) And what a great lede, by John Dickerson:

Hillary Clinton has a fair point about Barack Obama. He should be vetted more thoroughly than he has been so far during the primary process. He has not gotten the scrutiny she has. But every time she opens her mouth to make this point, a brass band starts playing, an 18-wheeler backfires, and the water heater explodes. This might create sympathy for Clinton—except that her campaign is causing the ruckus.

As my Li’l Bro Thom would say, “Gawd, that’s good!”

Maybe being the only guy on the ballot is not always a good thing.