Our Lady of Lourdes and Christ's Love of the Lowly

Today (February 11) is the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. On this day, Mary first appeared to Bernadette Soubirous, a poor but pious peasant girl, in a grotto in France.

Our Lady appeared many more times to St. Bernadette, asking her to pray and do penance. A miraculous healing spring arose in the place where St. Bernadette was commanded to dig by Our Lady. Mary also confirmed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception to St. Bernadette at Lourdes.

No one could have predicted that Mary would appear to a poor peasant girl in the middle of nowhere. But God loves the poor, and chooses them frequently to fulfill his designs. After all, He chose Mary, a poor Jewish girl, to become His mother.

To the secular world, this emphasis on the poor and lowly is utter foolishness. From those accustomed to viewing reality from the prisms of power and evolutionary struggle, supporting the poor is counterproductive at best. (And considering the Pope's announcement of his abdication today, the focus on the “hierarchy” of the Church might seem appropriate on this day of all days.)
But on deeper reflection, this solicitude of Our Lord and Our Lady for the poor and weak makes perfect sense. For the “handmaid of the Lord” was raised from poverty to become the Queen of Heaven and Earth. Her son, the omnipotent God, was born in a stable, became a preacher with “nowhere to lay his head,” (Matt 8:20) and was stripped even of His garments before He died.

Is it any wonder why Jesus and His mother love the poor and lowly? They lived and worked among the least of God's children, during their time on earth.
Truly, God and Our Lady have a special love for those whom they grew up around. Mary herself declared in her great Magnificat: "He hast cast down the mighty from their thrones, and has raised up the lowly." (Luke 1:52)

The beautiful stained glass window in this post was made by Stained Glass Inc. More artwork can be found at http://www.stainedglassinc.com.

Farewell, Benedict XVI!

In a stunning decision that surprised even his closest colleagues, Pope Benedict XVI announced that he is preparing to abdicate the Papacy at the end of February.

Benedict cited ill health as the reason for his abdication, eloquently stating: “After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. Here is a link to his statement.

It takes great humility to resign from one of the most powerful offices in the world – especially when this is the first time such a resignation has taken place in nearly 600 years. 

He was a less dynamic man than his predecessor, Pope John XXIII. But his quiet and steady guidance of the Church will be deeply missed. He was forward thinking enough to embrace modern methods of evangelization, encouraging social media and embracing Twitter, but cognizant enough of the tradition of the Church to grant a motu proprio for the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (popularly known as the Latin Mass). He was renowned as a brilliant theologian, yet his encyclicals discoursed simply and profoundly on the virtues of charity and hope.

Truly, Benedict was and is a sign of contradiction for our troubled time. Unthinkingly despised by many, he embodied the gentle but uncompromising wisdom of His Divine Master.

I only saw Pope Benedict XVI personally twice, and then only briefly. But I will miss his leadership and his wisdom greatly, and all Catholics everywhere owe him a debt of incalculable gratitude.

God bless you in the final days of your Papacy, Holy Father. May God bless the Catholic Church with another leader who will follow you in wisdom and holiness.

The Pope and His Trolls

Pope Benedict XVI is on Twitter! (So am I, by the way – shameless plug.) He doesn’t tweet much, preferring to instruct his flock without fanfare. His tweets (as you would expect from a holy man) are full of insight into the human condition, and a source of wisdom in a forum all too often lacking in that particular virtue. 

But the negative responses the Pope's tweets provoke are nothing short of astonishing. Every single tweet of his is met with volleys of obscene responses. Trolls vent their hatred of the Pope at every turn, sprinkling their "dialogue" with four-letter words and profanity.

The curious thing is that his trolls have nothing new to say. They rant about the Church’s stance on homosexuality, about how the Pope was supposedly a Hitler Youth, about how priests molested victims twenty years ago - all charges which have been leveled at the Church for years from more respectable corners. The only creativity his Twitter foes display is in their manifold misspellings.

The Pope must be doing something right if his foes display such uncreative and unthinking loathing. It as if his opponents actively seek to surrender their humanity by wasting their existence gibbering at a holy man.  

But although the Pope's trolls actively dehumanize themselves by taking refuge in profanity, such an obscene, foolish, and foul-mouthed set of opponents reflects well on the Catholic Church. For men and women who spend their days wallowing in the filth of their own obscenity and shrieking at the light are the most revealing of opponents; their unhinged railing at a Church they despise is a mark of the Church's goodness. Chesterton eloquently described this unwitting witness, calling it the “halo of hatred around the Church of God.” 

The Universality of Chastity

Catholics are placing a great deal of emphasis on the issue of “same-sex marriage.” The reason for this is simple: the very concept of chastity is under assault today, and same-sex marriage is the aspect of Christian morality undergoing the greatest assault.

But it is foolish to concentrate solely on chastity for homosexuals as the source and summit of Christian sexual morality, or to pretend that chastity for homosexuals is the only worthwhile application of chastity. Chastity is a universal virtue, and the confusion regarding marriage is in large part because of the abject failure of many "good Christians" to practice the virtue.

There are many heterosexual Christians who treat relationships as a means to engage in physical pleasure, sex as a toy, and who blithely engage in adultery and extramarital relations. Because of this, “the sanctity of marriage” has become a joke in the secular mindset. 
If those who are supposed to uphold Christian ideals mock them in practice, why would those who do not believe those ideals and those who undergo greater temptations practice those ideals which "good Christians" reject?

Every Christian are called to practice the virtue of chastity – to use the great gift of our sexuality to honor God and our neighbor. This call to chastity has different obligations for those in specific states of life. Those who are single are called those of the opposite sex in thought, word, and deed. Those who are dating are also called to respect their significant others, discerning whether their relationships are to lead to the great good of marriage. Those who are engaged are called to prepare themselves for marriage and for union with their spouse. Those who are married are called to fidelity with one another, to devote themselves totally and completely to one another in all ways, including the most intimate.

Everyone is called to chastity, and those who successfully live out their calling of chastity are better and happier people for doing so. 
Which is precisely why so many of us, even Christians, shun chastity and other virtues. We run from joy as fast as possible; we fear the true peace that happiness might bring and the temporary sensory privations that virtue might entail, and seek the cold comfort of mediocrity that immorality provides. 

Why Abstinence-Only Education “Doesn’t Work”

Everyone (except MTV television executives) views teenage pregnancy out of wedlock as something to be avoided. But there is widespread disagreement on the best method of combating teen pregnancy.

Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of preventing pregnancy and STDs, assuming it is faithfully practiced. It also comes free of the emotional and moral consequences of teenage premarital sex. Because of this, cultural conservatives often argue that abstinence should be taught to students in the classroom.

Others claim that hormonal urges dictate that teenagers will have sex anyway, and that promoting abstinence merely delays the inevitable and needlessly fills teenagers with guilt. Besides, since the magic pill known as hormonal contraception infallibly protects against pregnancy, and since sex is merely a pleasurable biological spasm, abstinence deprives teenagers of free fun. 

The opponents of teenage abstinence cite a host of “scientific studies” to claim that abstinence-only education doesn’t work. And a dutiful media touts these studies as proof that abstinence-only education is a bad idea.

Strange as it may seem, the results of these studies are fairly obvious to any impartial observer. Abstinence-only classroom education – at least as it is currently understood and practiced – is at best a valiant but doomed attempt to combat a very real problem.

“Abstinence-only” education doesn’t work because it is countermanded at every turn by a culture which celebrates permissiveness. For the classroom is not the only or even the most important place where children learn about relationships. There are four major sources of this education: upbringing, peers, education, and culture.

Since the natural impulse of fallen humanity is to engage in promiscuity, all of these elements must support morality for “abstinence-only education” to “work” effectively. If children receive no education from their parents about relationships or choose friends who encourage casual relationships, abstinence-only education will do little except temporarily scare and annoy students. If education encourages students to engage in “safe sex,” then students will act accordingly. And considering the prevalence of broken families and latchkey children in American society, such education is often difficult to come by. 

But even if teenagers are raised with a good moral code, choose good friends, and receive “abstinence-only education,” there is a fourth element present in modern society that militates against the other three. This element is culture, which is ever-present. Those who shun popular culture find themselves unable to communicate with their peers (which is part of the reason I spend so much time mocking modern excuses for Christian art).

American culture is adamantly opposed to abstinence. Movies, music, television, even advertisements – all of these use copious amounts of sex (and violence) to get their message across. Those who embrace chastity are mocked as either strange or unable to get dates.

A culture which celebrates promiscuity stands in direct opposition to abstinence education. In a culture where movies, TV, music, and magazines constantly inundate teenagers with the notion that extramarital sex is consequence-free and fun, of course abstinence-only education doesn’t work! It is the equivalent of setting up anti-drug programs next to posters advertising the location of drug dealers.

Society (thankfully) can do little to change two sources of relationship education. Parents can’t be changed, except in the rare, unfortunate, and highly undesirable instances of death or extreme abuse. Teenagers freely choose which friends they associate with. However, society can choose how it chooses to educate its children, and can choose what forms of culture it embraces.

Schools which promote “abstinence-only education” (and I shudder to think of what that actually entails in our silly modern age) fight tooth and nail against a culture which mocks and militates against abstinence. Even scientific studies criticizing abstinence-only education reference this fact. One report says: “Like it or not, sexual activity is a reality for teens in America, and it is hard to imagine a schoolbased intervention which will magically undo the media pressures (emphasis mine) and natural hormonal urges that young people experience.” 

The problem with abstinence-only education isn’t that it “doesn’t work,” per se. The problem is that in today’s society, such an education doesn’t exist, except among those few who shun modern culture. Children are reared in a culture which says that abstinence is impossible and undesirable and mocks those who value purity. A quote from Chesterton comes to mind: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

So is this true with Christian morality – and its societal applications. Abstinence-only education is not lacking (at least not from a logical standpoint); but it requires the inculcation of the virtue of self-control which modernity utterly rejects. It has been found difficult and left untried.

Why Compromise Is Impossible

Many people wonder why America is so polarized and why there is perpetual gridlock in Washington. I am surprised that America hasn’t descended into civil war yet.

For political polarization is a given in any civilized society – there will always be conflict between multiple competing factions in any political system. But the widespread acceptance of moral relativism has widened the divide between the two dominant political factions in America today.

One of two “major” political movements in America argues that their opponents are murderers who assist in the murder of children in shootings by advocating the right to bear arms, destroyers of the earth by pushing environmental destruction, and heartless Scrooges who starve children by not supporting anti-poverty social programs.

The other “major” political movement argues that their opponents are murderers who advocate the murder of children for the sake of personal convenience, the destruction of the family through the redefinition of marriage, and the encouragement of permanent dependency and laziness by providing endless handouts and disincentivizing work.

And then there are iconoclastic bomb throwers yelling “a pox on both your houses” and condemning both factions as corrupt and evil.

It is very difficult for any man, even a politician, to compromise with those he considers murderers. The only saving grace, at least from the standpoint of political violence, is that most of our politicians don’t care enough about abortion or marriage or gun control to do anything about them around the edges, or to really fight for them. Politicians (thank God) are still politicians, more concerned about maintaining their own power than about their ideals.

But the era of polarization will mean that more hardline politicians will be elected. God help America when the politicians that represent Americans actually start believing the rhetoric their constituents embody. For then there truly will be conflict.

America already was racked with a Civil War over the issue of slavery (or, more accurately, states’ rights, which were prompted by slavery). How will America be punished for its embrace of child murder?

A Partial Reprieve of the HHS Mandate

It appears that part of the infamous HHS mandate (which I wrote about back in July) is being rolled back by the Obama administration - or, more accurately, there is a proposal in the works to slightly relax the rule. Many non-profit organizations will be exempted from being forced to provide birth control for their employees, according to a proposed revision of the mandate.

I, for one, am shocked that the Obama administration would grant even a partial reprieve on the matter of contraception. I thought that his administration would push the HHS mandate through without regard for the consequences. Considering Obama’s fervent embrace of the Culture of Death, his administration’s decision is nothing short of miraculous.

It is likely Obama, a skilled politician, saw the blitzkrieg of lawsuits being launched against the mandate, and chose to cut his losses and retain what elements of the mandate he could. This recent decision is a partial reprieve at best, and not a permanent victory. For-profit organizations such as Hobby Lobby and non-profit organizations without a religious affiliation (such as the Susan B. Anthony List) are still not exempted from the mandate.

While the defenders of religious liberty may have won a partial victory in this first battle, there is more and worse to come. Those who seek the elimination of religious liberty are growing bolder in a secularizing world, and will have to contend with new threats to freedom (such as forced Church approval of same-sex marriage) in a world which values “old” rights such as religious liberty less and less.

Let us give thanks to God for this partial victory, but be ever more vigilant, and fight ever harder for a full repeal to this unjust mandate. Wars are not won in one battle; the fight for religious freedom has barely begun.