On the Ordination of Women

A shameful thing happened at the national Assembly of Women Religious (NAWR) of 1971. One religious sister and two laywomen put on a show. They read the prayers of the Mass that are reserved to the priest up until the Consecration. This demonstration was intended to highlight the “injustice” of excluding women from the priesthood. Instead, it exposed the impious radicalism of certain elements lobbying for the ordination of women. One of the organizers of NAWR was quoted by Commonweal magazine as saying, "I hope you are all as disturbed by this as I am." Indeed we are, but not for the same reasons. 

This is just one example among many of the abuses perpetrated by radical feminists in their quest for the priesthood. The ordination of women has long been the fervent hope of dissident elements of the Church. Given false hope by the reforms of Vatican II, the feminists "re-open" the question of the ordination of women every few years. I say "re-open" somewhat patronizingly because Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium have all consistently and definitively closed this question.

Women cannot be ordained for one simple reason: the priesthood was instituted by Christ and the Church has no power to change its fundamental nature.  Sacred Scripture makes it clear that God established the priesthood. In the Old Testament, Abraham was blessed by "Melchisedech, the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God" (Genesis 14:18). Melchisedech prefigures the priesthood instituted by Christ; that is why the Psalmist says, "Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech" (Psalm 109:4).

Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament priesthood at the Last Supper when He established the sacrament of holy orders. Though both men and women followed Jesus, He specifically chose twelve men as his Apostles. Though some of His closest disciples were women -- besides St. John, only women stood at the foot of the Cross -- Christ only ordained the Twelve. 

This was utterly intentional. Christ did not chose men as His priests simply to conform to the limitations of His time. Any argument to that effect insinuates that God's will can be limited by human culture. If Christ had willed it, He would have ordained women. The fact that He did not is ample justification for the constant practice of the Church. Indeed, the ordination of men alone is a Tradition that has never varied. The early Church did employ deaconesses, but even then, there was never a doubt as to the impossibility of their ordination. 

St. Thomas Aquinas treated the issue of women and the priesthood by distinguishing between the lawfulness and validity of a sacrament. Lawfulness describes whether it was right to administer the sacrament while validity describes whether it was possible for the sacrament to be administered. Stealing an example from Matt Fradd, to baptize an infant whose life is not in danger without the permission of the child's parents would be unlawful. While it was wrong to do so, the baptism was nevertheless valid and therefore took effect. It would, on the other hand, be invalid to try to baptize an animal. Because the creature lacks an immortal soul, a fundamental necessity for baptism, it is impossible for the sacrament to occur in the first place. 

St. Thomas Aquinas says that it would be invalid for a woman to receive the sacrament of holy orders:

"Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a Sacrament is a sign, not only of the thing, but the signification of the thing, it is required in all sacramental actions.... Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Orders" (Supplement to the Summa, Q.39, A.1). 

In other words, women cannot be priests because they lack "eminence of degree," being in "a state of subjection."

Now drop the torches and pitchforks, and give St. Thomas a chance to explain what he means by "subjection." In the first part of the Summa he writes:

"Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit.... There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good.... So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man" (Summa I, Q.92, A.1). 

The "eminence of degree" Aquinas attributes to men is not the result of medieval misogyny. Though our culture seems to have forgotten it, there is a difference between men and women. Part of that difference is man's preeminent position. 

"Superior" refers to position. For example, an elected official is superior to and exercises subjection over their constituents. But no one would say that the official is fundamentally better than anyone who voted for them. 

St. Lois de Montfort writes, "Jesus Christ gave more glory to God, His Father, by His thirty years' submission to His Mother than He would have done in converting the whole world by working the greatest miracles." No one would dare say that by subjecting Himself to the Blessed Virgin, Christ is indicating that she is fundamentally better than Him. Instead, God-Made-Flesh is obedient to Mary because she is His Mother. 

Thomas is saying that men and women are designed to play different roles, not that one sex is "better" than the other. This is no more oppressive than a father's position as head of the household. In the same way, men alone are called to be spiritual fathers through the priesthood.  

Unfortunately, dissidents all too easily brush off St. Thomas' arguments as the product of his time rather than looking at their validity. It is much harder to dismiss Pope Paul VI's letter to the Anglicans and St. John Paul the Great's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. When the Anglican church began ordaining women, Pope Paul VI responded by writing:

"[The Church] holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church.”

If that is not enough for you, St. John Paul the Great was even more firm:

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitely held by all the Church’s faithful.”

 Case closed.

In order to be a Catholic lobbying for the ordination of women, you must: deny some pretty strong Scriptural arguments; refute St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians in history; and find a way to explain how St. John Paul the great, when speaking ex cathedra, really didn’t mean what he said.

We cannot, however, in defending the restriction of the sacrament of Orders to men, neglect the instrumental role that women play in the Church. Even though they cannot become priests, there is indisputably a place for women in the Church. In the same apostolic letter quoted above, St. John Paul the Great writes, “The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remains absolutely necessary and irreplaceable.”

Without being priests, women make invaluable contributions to the Church. Lay women are lectors, Eucharistic ministers, CCD teachers, professionals who take Christ’s light into the workplace, and mothers who raise their children in the faith. Religious sisters sustain the Church with their prayers, serve the poor, teach in Catholic schools, and perform countless works of faith and love.

Of course, we cannot forget Mary, Mother of God. How could we? Her powerful intercessions preserve us from harm, her spiritual motherhood of all Christians brings us closer to her Son. Anyone who says that the Church is anti-woman is quite frankly self-deluded. The single most revered saint in history is the Blessed Virgin. In St. Gabriel’s address, “Hail full of grace,” we see that God has elevated her above the angels. My single greatest assurance that God does not intend for women to be priests is the fact that He did not make Mary a priest. If the priesthood signifies “eminence of degree” as St. Thomas Aquinas writes, and if it were at all possible for a woman to be a priest, would not Jesus Christ have ordained His Mother? Would not she who is honored by angels merit the priesthood if it were open to her sex?

Proponents of the ordination of women pretend that women feel alienated from the Church because they are excluded from the priesthood. This is demeaning to centuries of women who have courageously, humbly, piously, and selflessly served the Church. Women do not require admission to the priesthood to contribute to the life of the Church.

Deus Vult!

Martin Luther, Heretic

One of the most controversial figures of the last thousand years is Martin Luther. In a time when the Church was nearly completely united, he introduced chaos and schism. Martin Luther single-handedly destroyed fifteen centuries of Christian unity. I doubt there would be the several thousand Christian denominations we have today without Luther's betrayal.

And yet we seem to have forgotten those simple facts. The popular history of Martin Luther, the one taught in public schools, is a puree of truth and myth. Martin Luther is lauded, yes, even by Catholics, for his "spirit of renewal."

Martin Luther was not a hero. He was an arrogant man who broke with Rome. He was a heretic.

The late middle ages were a glorious time for the Catholic Church. Education continued to improve with the support of monasteries. New monastic orders like the Franciscans, Trappists, and Dominicans emerged, each dedicated to serving a particular need within Christendom. St. Thomas Aquinas successfully adapted Aristotelian philosophy to Christian theology, a monumental triumph. Clerical celibacy was reinforced, ensuring that priests remained models of chastity for their flock. Thirty years before Luther's act of disobedience, Pope Sixtus IV restored the Sistine Chapel, adorning God's house with the works of Renaissance masters. Hospitals, schools, and institutions that cared for the poor were all run by the Church. The idea that the Catholic Church was corrupt and decayed in the time of Luther is a lie of Protestant revisionism.

That is not to say that there were no challenges for the Church. Anticlericalism encouraged dissent. This was most fully expressed in the teachings of the heretic, John Huss, who claimed among other falsities that sacraments were only valid if the priest was sufficiently "holy." Catharism promoted a primitive dualistic theology where Satan was nearly equal to God in power. While not widespread, there were cases of corruption. The sale of indulgences did occur. What began as a way of rewarding the noble sacrifices of Crusaders was occasionally twisted into a source of funds without concern for the salvation of souls.

Into this fray stepped an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther. The facts of his early life are obscured by Protestant hero-worship. What we do know about Martin Luther is that he was of a temperament wholly unsuited to the monastic lifestyle.  He alternated between neglecting the Breviary and engaging in extreme ascetical practices our of guilt. This instability suggests a possible explanation for his "faith alone" doctrine.

We've all heard the next part of this story. Luther learns about Tetzel's abuse of indulgences. He drafts a condemnation of this practice and dramatically nails it to the doors of the Wittenberg cathedral. Well, not quite so dramatically. In those days, cathedral doors were bulletin boards of sorts.

Even in this early work, Luther's heresy is evident. Catholics should note that in this document of "renewal," he suggests the inefficacy of Confession writing, "When our Lord and Master Jesus said, 'Repent' (Matthew 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance..." (95 Theses, 1-2). I hope that our Protestant brothers and sisters likewise notice his belief in purgatory even while rejecting the authority of the pope, "The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them" (26).

When his theological errors came to the attention of the Vatican, Luther was summoned to Rome. Despite his monastic requirement of obedience, he refused on the grounds that he worried for his safety. Since he would not go to Rome, Rome went to him. Johann Eck, an esteemed theologian, who had identified 18 heretical statements in the Theses, invited Luther to join the Leipzig Debate. Luther was woefully outmatched; Eck was the greatest debater of his day. He maneuvered Luther into admitting his heretical views which ranged from denying the legitimacy of the pope to sola scriptura. Conveniently, Luther denied the authority of ecumenical councils to interpret Scripture while affirming his own. Eck answered his vain appeals to his personal interpretation by observing, "Martin, there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of Scripture."

Luther's statements during the Leipzig Debate led Pope Leo X to censor his teachings and threaten him with excommunication. Luther responded by becoming even more radical. About a year after the Leipzig Debate, Luther published his Address to the German Nobility. If the lies of his Theses were often subtle, the errors of the Address are blatant and inflammatory.

He rejects the priesthood in the strongest terms: "Therefore a priest should be nothing in Christendom but a functionary," "Thus we are all consecrated as priests by baptism." He also encourages priests to break their vows of chastity, "It is not every priest who can do without a woman." Of course, Luther subsequently took a wife of his own. What he should have said is that not every man (especially not Luther) can be a priest! Perhaps appealing to the German princes, Luther denounces the political power of the Church, "Let it be decreed that no temporal matter shall be submitted to Rome, but all shall be left to the jurisdiction of temporal authorities." The Address to the German Nobility is the raving of an anarchist; Luther wanted to overthrow the authority of the Church and the very foundations of Christendom.

Luther went on to found his own church, and thus Protestantism was born. He reduced the number of sacraments to two, encouraged the neglect of ascetical practices, and promoted personal interpretation of Scripture instead of relying on the authority of ecumenical councils.

No man, not Arius, Huss, or Erasmus, did as much damage to the Church as the heretic, Martin Luther. He lead millions into separation from Christ's Church. He put their souls at risk by preaching falsity. Truly it is he whom Christ condemns when He says, "It is impossible that scandals should not come. But woe to him through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones" (Luke 17:1-2).

Martin Luther was not a reformer. He was an obstinate heretic who refused to reconsider his own personal interpretations of Scripture when faced with centuries of tradition. Every one of the several thousand Christian denominations has some link to his lies. The almost universal Protestant hatred of the pope can be traced back to Luther's personal squabbles.

Martin Luther is not someone to be lionized. He is not a saint of orthodoxy but of the "dictatorship of relativism" as Pope Benedict XVI called it. He championed personal interpretation of the Bible, a mere step away from personal interpretations of objective moral realities.

Brothers and sisters, we cannot allow historical revisionism to make us forget what Luther did. The Church should never, not even in an ecumenical spirit, honor him. Rather, we must remain steadfast in our rejection of his heretical doctrines, even if it doesn't make us any Protestant friends.

Deus Vult!

The Lie of Gender Neutrality

Who am I? Our search for identity begins as soon as we are able to put together coherent thoughts. It involves understanding our own character and finding where we fit into the world. We know through the Gospel of Jesus Christ that each of us was "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14) by the hands of God. Each of us has a purpose, a vocation, a calling.

Part of this identity has to do with our gender. In fact, it's a big part. For the last couple of thousands of years (up until the last century) whether you we're a man or a woman decided a lot; whether you were a protector or a nurturer, a warrior or a child-raiser, a hunter or a gatherer. I'm not saying that all of this was a good thing or that women shouldn't leave their homes (I'll leave that to Islam). The feminist movement, when it wasn't trying to promote abortion or throw off the "burden" of sexual morality, did advance the rights of women and give them the opportunity to play a more important role in the public sphere. That is good. 

But somewhere along the line, something went wrong. We went from the positive message of enhancing the position of women to the autocratically egalitarian statement that all genders are the same. There's a huge difference here. While women certainly deserve to vote and get paid the same as men, that doesn't mean that there are no differences between men and women. There are! It's biological. Men are the providers and protectors. Men are the hunters and the warriors. Women, on the other hand, are designed to be nurturers. Their bodies have been perfected for the beautiful mystery of the creation of life. They are emotionally much stronger than men. This is the reality of masculinity and femininity. We cannot blot out these essential differences!

But we have done just that. The thought that there is a difference (not a superiority) between men and women has become "sexist", "bigoted", and "ignorant." And where does that take us? If there's really no difference between men and women, what's the big deal about which of the two you are? If I was born a man but feel like a woman, what difference keeps me from deciding that I am in fact a woman? A logical response would be the Y-chromosome, a male body, etc.... But this is not a logical movement. It is one driven by rabid passions and intolerant "tolerance."

This brings us to the philosophy of Gender Neutrality: the idea that gender is a social construct, distinct from biological sex, that is determined by the preference of the individual. Hence the 79 "genders" recognized by Facebook. They claim that your biological sex is distinct from your gender "identity". Anyone can decide what they want their gender to be at any given time, a gender for every mood, even. Gender Neutrality is not just wrong, it is insane. It is completely divorced from science, reason, and, most importantly, the Truth. 

Gender Neutrality owes much of its modern following to the work of one man, Dr. John Money. He wrote about the subjectivity of gender for years before the case that would make him famous. David and Brian Reimer were identical twins born in 1965. Both required circumcision for medical reasons, but David's operation failed, resulting in serious mutilation. Worrying about the effects his injury might have had on his development, David's parents brought him to John Hopkins Hospital where they met Dr. Money. He suggested that David's interests would best be served if he were to receive a surgical transformation that would attempt to give him the body of a girl. And so, until the age of 14, David was raised believing that he was a girl. Now, if the Gender Neutrality theory is true, David would have lived our the rest of his life as a "girl." If gender is just a social construct, then shouldn't David, who was treated like a girl throughout his childhood, encouraged by Dr. Money's self-interested and often unethical treatment (he forced the twins to engage in "childhood sexual rehearsal play"), and even injected with estrogen, have accepted the lie that he was in fact a girl? 

But he didn't. Ironically the case that is lauded for validating Gender Neutrality was an utter failure. Unfortunately it was also a tragedy. David rejected the lie that he was a girl as soon as his parents revealed the truth about his upbringing. Beforehand he had been struggling with suicidal depression. In his young adulthood, David reversed Dr. Money's operations and began speaking out against his treatment, wanting to protect other children from the same fate. But the abuses of Dr. Money had left their mark. Both David and his twin brother, Brian, committed suicide two years apart. 

Dr. John Money, on the other hand, received awards and fame for his "innovative" work. He went on to, and I'm not making this up, write that pedophilia is not a behavioral disorder and that its stigma is just another social construct. I would not be surprised, as insane as it sounds, if by the end of this decade speaking out against pedophilia will become just as "intolerant" as saying that there are only two genders. 

Gender neutrality has gone from the absurd fantasy of a depraved psychologist to a widely accepted "truth." This progression was gradual up until Bruce Jenner decided he wanted to be a woman and the legalization of same-sex marriage, both in 2015. Then the movement reached a fever-pitch, an acceleration that continues to this day. Now, children can receive the same operations as David Reimer, sometimes without their parent's consent. Our president personally led the noble charge to allow grown men who identify as women to enter the same bathrooms as little girls. Just a county over in Anne Arundel, boys confused about their gender can now sleep in the same hotel rooms as girls on overnight school field trips. And their parents apparently have no right to know who will be sharing a room with their children. 

This is not progress. This is insane! Brothers and sisters, we have become a society that sticks its head into the sand, ignoring reality in order to avoid offending anyone. We cannot, as faithful believers in Christ, allow this error to continue. 

The philosophy of Gender Neutrality is blasphemous. We read in the book of Genesis that "In the day that God created man, He made him to the likeness of God. He created them male and female" (Genesis 5:1-2). As Christians, believe that God created each of us intentionally, with "plans for your welfare" (Jeremiah 29:11). God does not make mistakes. Gender neutrality says that He does. 

If God made you a man, then you are a man, regardless of your inclination. If you quite seriously believe that you are a woman, that does not change the reality of who you are. Rather, it is a psychological disorder known as gender dysphoria, which has been linked with depression and suicidal tendencies. 

Instead of indulging the illusions of people struggling with their gender identity, we need to embrace them with the love of God which is inseparable from the Truth. Especially when children experience these difficulties, we must give them compassionate care while not ignoring the essential reality of their gender. 

To put it bluntly, there are not 79 genders. There are two genders. The rest are mental illnesses. 

We cannot sit back and allow our culture to destroy itself in a rabid frenzy of egalitarianism. The reality of human sexuality is the glue that holds the family together. The family is the foundation of society. When the family crumbles, as we are trying so hard to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage and now this Gender Neutrality ideology, society will follow. Just think about how far we have fallen! Forty years ago, of you were to suggest that there were more than two genders, you would have been ridiculed. Today, if you were to say that there are in fact only two genders, you will be persecuted. We need to draw a line in the sand, brothers and sisters. The progressive forces have gone too far. They are tampering with the essential facts of life. 

If not now, when? Will I be forced to write this same piece when pedophilia becomes legalized? If we do not stand now, we will have no voice when things get even worse. We need to be willing to suffer for the Truth about human sexuality, to endure momentary affliction in order to safeguard future generations from the insidious lie of gender neutrality, to make sure that our children will not be forced to drink this poison! Stand and fight men and women of God!

DEUS VULT!

Imprisoned by Desire: Pornography and the Road to Death

What is the most dangerous addiction of our time? Is it gambling, video games, tobacco, alcohol, heroin or cocaine? None of those. We worry about keeping drugs off of our streets, taxing cigarettes, and keeping the bottle beyond our child's reach. But all too often we pay far too little attention to an insidious poison, a thief that can reach into our homes and snatch away our children, destroy marriages, and annihilate the family. I'm talking about pornography.

Porn is a dirty word. Though it has become far less stigmatized than in ages past - we have the sexual revolution to thank for that - we still shudder when we hear the word whether from the pulpit or at the dinner table. And this is good. At the same time however, we cannot allow our revulsion to keep our heads buried in the sand while we pretend pornography isn't a problem.

The fact of the matter is this: a lot of people are addicted to porn. The statistics are hazy because of the shame involved, but I would go so far as to say that three quarters or more of Americans are addicted to pornography.

Addicted? Isn't that a little harsh? Can't there just be people who watch it every once and a while, recreationally? Most people could just stop any time they wanted to, couldn't they? It's an innocent habit.

Absolutely not. There is no such thing as a casual porn-user just as there is no such thing as a casual heroin-user.

The relationship between pornography and heroin is closer than you'd think. When you see a pornographic image or ingest an opioid like heroin, the same thing happens in your brain. Both trigger the release of a neurotransmitter called dopamine. Neurotransmitters are like the brain's messengers, and dopamine is a reward message. It not only makes the brain feel good, the brain wants to feel that way again. But there's a catch. The high levels of dopamine released from stimulus like pornography and hard drugs dull the receptors in your brain - you build up a resistance. It's the addict's tolerance. So there is a need for more of the stimulus for longer periods of time and in stronger dosages. This applies whether the trigger is cocaine or pornography. Both lead to addiction. Pornography is highly, dangerously addictive.

If you think an addiction to pornography is just something you can step away from, just look up the symptoms for going cold-turkey with cocaine.

But porn doesn't just hurt the individual. It hurts society. It drives a wedge into relationships. If a man is watching pornography, he cannot love his wife with his whole heart as he ought to. He falls for the lies portrayed in pornography and inevitably his real wife cannot meet those absurd and distorted standards of beauty. The high divorce rate in our country is certainly influenced by the increased availability and perversity of pornography. There is also a well-established link between sexual trafficking and the porn industry. One study found that as many as 49% of women involved in sexual trafficking are also coerced into participating in the production of pornography.

And it gets worse. There is a proven correlation between pornography and sexual violence. Pornography trains the brain to view women as objects. It trivializes sexual violence. What type of men does this training create? Men like Ted Bundy. The day before his execution for the rape and murder at least 28 women, serial killer Ted Bundy gave an interview. Hours before he faced the judgement of God, Bundy did not blame society or his parents for his horrible crimes. He did not insist his innocence.  Instead, he wanted to talk about the role pornography played in making him who he was.

He said that he came from a "fine, solid Christian home," but became addicted to pornography at the age of 12 or 13. He did not remain satisfied with the first magazine he stumbled across and was compelled to find more and more violent forms of pornography in order to satisfy his addiction. This played a huge role in the development of a sexual fantasy that he sought to fulfill by killing women.

It is incredibly significant that in his last chance to speak to the world, Bundy said that "If you don't want people like me, don't burn Catcher in the Rye, burn Hustler." The most chilling thing that Bundy said in the interview is that "There are lots of other kids playing in streets around the country today who are going to be dead tomorrow, and the next day, because other young people are reading and seeing the kinds of things that are available in the media today."

It's not an innocent habit.

While not every porn-addict is a Ted Bundy, every Ted Bundy is a porn-addict. He mentioned in the interview that the one thing all serial killers had in common was an addiction to porn.

The problem is that pornography trains you to see women, and human beings in general, as objects for your own pleasure, devoid of personhood. To see them as pieces of meat on display. And once you begin to look at people as meat, you are a fine line away from treating them like meat. Just like Ted Bundy did.

But the worst part of pornography is that it kills the soul. Christ tells us that adultery is not just an action: "But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). In his masterpiece on our human identity, The Theology of the Body, St. John Paul the Great wrote about the "ethos of the image." He defines pornography as taking place "when the limit of shame is overstepped, that is, of personal sensitivity with regard to what is connected with the human body with its nakedness." Reproducing the image of the human body carries with it an ethical responsibility to ensure its dignity. Otherwise, a grave sin is committed. For as man was created in the image and likeness of God, destroying the dignity of the human body through its objectification in pornography is a blasphemy against God. Pornography isn't just wrong because the Church says so (in fact nothing is). Pornography involves violating the inherent dignity and beauty of the human body and using it for self-gratification.

Real men and women are far more beautiful than the lies sold by porn. Love is far more than meaningless sex. Each and every one of us has a uniqueness given to us by God, a soul. We are far more than things to be used.

A great group, Fight the New Drug, uses "Porn Kills Love" as their slogan. And it doesn't get any simpler than that. Pornography is the antithesis of love. It seeks your wants and needs before the dignity of the human being you see on the screen. Real love puts the good of the other before yourself.

Pornography is not okay. We cannot accept it in ourselves, in our spouses, in our families, or in our society. What we face today is not a new problem. Porn has been around for a long time. The issue is that it has become so available. Nearly everyone of us can just whip our smartphones and have access to pretty much anything you could think of through the Internet. And I mean anything. Yes, it's convenient, but without the proper safeguards, it is also incredibly dangerous. Whereas a few decades ago you actually had to get your hand on a dirty magazine, today you have an unlimited supply of pornography through a device that has become ubiquitous.

And what is inexcusable is that parents give their children these Pandora's boxes, sometimes before they are even in school, and expect them to exercise a level of self-control that most adults don't have! To quote one of my favorite priests yet again, "Giving a child access to the Internet is like leaving them alone in an adult bookstore." The Internet can be a very nasty place. In caving to the fad of for every kid a smartphone, we are exposing them to incredible temptations.

If a kid stumbles across pornography, it's rarely even their fault. The porn industry is just that, an industry. They profit from every new user they get hooked just like your everyday neighborhood drug dealer. Matt Fradd is one of the greatest Catholic writers of our generation and a leading voice in the battle against pornography. In his podcast, Integrity Restored, he addresses this reality: "The pornography industry is looking for our children.... because our children, to the porn industry, are like dollar symbols." Pornographic websites target children through meta-tagging. They're sort of like hashtags in Twitter. That's why when you type "awesome Catholic blogs" in your web browser, you get The Crusade for Truth, even though that's not my URL (or you would if I paid Google for advertising). Porn sites use meta-tags like the names of cartoon characters so that children will accidently stumble upon their material and become addicted. What could be more despicable or perverse?

 Brothers and sisters, we have to make a stand against pornography. We have to protect ourselves, our families, our friends, and our children. Pornography is not just an idle pleasure. It is the crowbar of the Devil. It pries apart the soul from God, husband from wife, child from family, man from masculinity, and woman from femininity. Pornography reduces us to inanimate objects for the fulfillment of a passing pleasure.

What can you do? First, protect yourself. You can't defend anyone else if you are addicted yourself. "Cast first the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the mote from thy brother's eye" (Luke 6:41). If you are controlled by your passions, you must let God set you free. Do not let shame keep your sin in the dark and out of the light of the Confessional. Know that you are not alone. I have struggled with porn, many of the strong Catholic men I look up to have struggled with porn. Know that this is not something you can beat alone. No slave can remove his own shackles. The Lord is "the strength of my salvation" (Psalm 139:8), "our refuge and strength: a helper in troubles" (Psalm 45:2). Trust in God and His mercy, discipline your spirit, avoid the near occasion of sin, and you will find freedom. For a practical, Catholic approach to beating your porn addiction, Integrity Restored is a great place to start.

Next, you must protect your family. There's a lot of great software out there like Covenant Eyes that will block pornographic sites from your computer or even your Wi-Fi network. If your husband or wife is struggling, support them. Do not tolerate the sin, but remember to love the sinner. Maybe your kid really doesn't need a smartphone. It can be useful and convenient, but it can also be a door to sin.

Finally, we must protect our society. There is something deeply wrong in a culture that has no shame. Our culture of death is also a Playboy culture. Just look (or rather don't) at the music videos, red carpet, or the beach. Listen to our music. It has become acceptable to expose our bodies in the name of expression. It has become acceptable to treat women like objects in the name of sexual liberation. Remember that the ways of the world are not the ways of God! The Truth of our faith tells us that these things are not acceptable!

And so we must preach the Truth. In our dress, our thoughts, our words, and most importantly our actions, we must bear witness to the inalienable dignity of the human body. We must defend love as being more than sex and sex as being more than pleasure. Fight porn with purity and love!

DEUS VULT!

The Pelosi Heresy

Far too often in the public sphere, we have seen this watered-down, tamed, and inert kind of Catholicism, most recently with Hilary Clinton choosing Time Kaine as her running mate. Tim Kaine claims to be a "traditional Catholic" who is "personally pro-life." Of course, he doesn't let that interfere with his legislative career. Kaine is a firm supporter of a woman's right to chose, better known as a woman's right to kill - he has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, a gold star from the murder industry. Though it has not been as publicized, Kaine is also a staunch supporter of gay "marriage." What kind of Catholic is this?

Among other names he deserves to be called (spineless flip-flopper among them), Tim Kaine is a Pelosi Catholic. I choose the name Pelosi simply because the former Speaker of the House is one of the mots prominent of this type of Catholic, though there are others: Biden, John Kerry, and the late Ted Kennedy just to name a few.

Their error is both grave and scandalous; they believe that it is possible to separate your private life from your public life, to be a faithful Catholic at Mass but a partisan abortion promoter in Congress.

This doesn't work. Christ tells us that "No man can serve two masters.... You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matthew 6:24), or in this case you cannot serve both God and party. One or the other will end up being your priority. And I am not saying that this problem is limited to the Democrats. Many Catholics who operate in the public sphere, regardless of their political affiliation, are guilty of this. But the issue here is that these Catholics are in such prominent positions and flaunt such flagrant contradictions. When the New York Times writes articles like "In Pelosi, Strong Catholic Faith and Abortion Rights Coexist," the faithful must respond.

We are not simply condemning a sin. We are proclaiming to the world that this is not Catholicism!

In times past, we would have called such a trend a heresy.

It is a heresy because you cannot separate what you believe from how you live. There's that famous quote of St. Francis, "Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words." And this is the truth. Will people be inspired by your faith if you leave it on your lips and it never reaches your hands? How often did Jesus rebuke the Pharisees for merely sermonizing instead of authentically living their faith.

A popular excuse from people like Tim Kaine is that they don't want to impose their views on others. Sure I think abortion is murder, but I'm not going to interfere if someone else makes that their choice. But that is not consistent with the Message of the Gospel! Jesus imposed His views on others *gasp. When He saw the adulterous woman about to be stoned, Our Lord did not shrug His shoulders and rationalize that while He was personally opposed to this punishment, it would be intolerant of Him to try to stop it. No, Jesus stepped in front of the raised stones and rebuked the self-righteous condemnation of the crowd. Neither did Jesus allow the woman to continue in her sinful ways, accepting her different "lifestyle." After sending the crowd away, Jesus said to her "Go, and now sin no more" (John 8:11). That is not tolerance, that is love.

It is impossible to build a wall between your private faith and your public life.

While I cannot speak for Kaine, Pelosi, or any of the rest of their equivocating ilk, it does appear tht they are only Catholic when it looks good. Our country has not yet fallen so far that being a person of faith does not look good, just so long as that faith remains uncontroversial. Tim Kaine did a fair amount of mission work in his youth, and that ought to be applauded. And the truth of the matter is, that looks good. But the masses and the media and the party officials have decided that the right to have an abortion and gay "marriage" ought to be as sacred as the name of God. Hence Pelosi Catholics, despite the word "Catholic," are both abortion promoters and foes of traditional marriage. And complicity in the murderous evil of abortion blots out a whole lot of good.

Is this really Christianity? Faithful when it's convenient, pagan when it's not?

Father David Knight writes in His Way (a book that I can't recommend enough) that this is instead what he calls civil religion. "Civil religion is a religion whose morality is simply a reflection or an echo of what the 'nice' people in one's culture think, say and do." And that is what Pelosi Catholicism amounts to.

The scandal of this Pelosi heresy is great because of their position and power. Think about what good could be done if we had a truly faithful Catholic vice-president! God does not expect a lower standard of Catholicism from those in power. "And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required" (Luke 12:48). Children and even some adults look up to people in power. They become role-models. What message does it send our youth if abortion activism appears to "coexist" with the Catholic faith? It is these heretics who lend credence to the idea that support for traditional marriage is merely something for "conservative Catholics." Once more from the Gospel of Luke, we read that "It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin" (Luke 17:2). Woe to those who lead others into sin by their examples!

Of course, this rebuke is not limited to those with Secret Service details. Each and every one of us, myself most certainly included, must reflect upon our lives and ensure that there is no contradiction between our private faith and our public lives. Embrace the fullness of the Gospel! Catholicism is not a la carte. We cannot pick and choose. Being Catholic means that we also have to follow those teachings of Christ that we might not necessarily want to, those that make us uncomfortable, and even those that hurt a little like loving your enemy or praying for those who persecute you.

Remember that pretty much every one of us is an example for someone else whether we are a manager, a teacher, a parent, or even an older sibling. Your life is not just your own. Make sure that your conduct leads others, particularly the vulnerable, towards God instead of towards sin and bondage.

Brothers and sisters make your faith controversial! Counter the message that certain high-profile Catholics are sending. We are not of the world and so it is only natural for the world to hate us. If you're living comfortably in your faith in the midst of the world, chances are you're doing it wrong.

Deus Vult!

The Problem with Protestantism

Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has become more open to ecumenism. She has begun a dialogue with a variety of Christian denominations, most notably the Anglicans and Lutherans in an attempt to find common doctrinal ground. While this communication is very good in itself, and we should certainly pray that fallen-away congregations might once more be united in Mother Church, we must also be aware of the message that this can send, particularly to the youth. Unfortunately, this dialogue can be interpreted as approval rather than bride-building. Particularly in this age of moral relativism, people have come under the impression that any group just so long as it is Christian, or even just religious, will lead them to salvation.

But that is a lie. The Catholic Church is one as we profess in the Creed. There is no other Church. All other faiths are just a shadow of the Truth, they might contain a semblance, but never the whole thing. 

There is but one Church. We read in the Vatican II document Lumen gentium that the Church is the "instrument for the salvation of all" (LG 9.2). The Catechism states that the Sacrament of Baptism is "necessary for salvation" for all who have heard the Gospel message (CCC 1257).

We are playing a very dangerous game when we are not clear about the Truth that other Christian denominations are not just another path to salvation among many.

Ever since Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the doors of the Wittenberg cathedral in a supreme act of pride, Protestant denominations have been multiplying like, well, like Catholics. Including all the different separations within the denominations, there are something like 30,000 Protestant churches. Just because one man did not feel like reforming the Church from within as have so many saints since the days of Paul, there remains to this day a rift in Christianity between Catholicism and Protestantism, the Truth and imitation. 

Note that I am not attacking Protestants personally but rather the theology of Protestantism. There's a difference.

There are several very real problems with the Protestant faith. Chief among these are the absence of Apostolic Succession, a reverence of the Blessed Mother, and the Sacraments. 

There is a clear breach in Apostolic Succession in every Protestant faith whether it was founded by a lay person or by a fallen clergy. Apostolic Succession has two parts: tradition and authority. The Catholic Church has an unbroken line of bishops, cardinals, and popes going all the way back to when Jesus said to St. Peter "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18). This is why we can trust that the Catholic Church is true. And this lineage of tradition leads to authority. The Pope in Rome can speak with the backing of Apostolic Succession and respond to the challenges of today as Christ's vicar on earth. 

Some Protestant churches hardly even have people that can be called clergy. Pastors can get online degrees and then go off to lead congregations. Others allow votes to decide their course instead of the Word of God. Even denominations with hierarchies are insufficient because they are not valid successors of St. Peter. Their words have no authority. 

And all of this leads to confusion. Without authority derived from Christ or even a hierarchy to establish order, many pastors are free to do as they please, as long as the congregation does not revolt. They simply interpret the Word as they see fit. Some unfortunately exploit the power and influence of their position. For some this means greed and money laundering from the offering plate without oversight. Others twist the Word to mean whatever benefits them leading to godless ultra-progressives like the Unitarian Universalist Church or file and hate-filled groups like the Westboro Baptist Church (which isn't even Baptist). Some Protestant churches can't even follow their own rules like the United Methodists who just recently elected their first openly gay bishop. 

This is not to say that priests or even bishops cannot be guilty of the same flaws. The difference is that the structure of the Church means two things: they cannot change tradition and there is a higher authority with the power to rebuke them.

Outside of the Catholic Church and Apostolic Succession, the Truth can be hard to find and often comes packaged with lies.

The most negative comments I have ever received about my writing came when I published an article on Catholic365 about the importance of a devotion to Mary. And the attacks weren't from atheists or pagans but from Christians! Any Protestant attack on Catholicism always includes the claim that we worship the Blessed Mother and then goes on to demean her importance. This, of course, is enough to get the temper up of any red-blooded Catholic. We love our Mother - in his early stages of conversion, St. Ignatius of Loyola nearly killed a man for insulting Mary.

But perhaps instead of just defensively explaining the reasons behind our rightful veneration of Our Lady, we should question why the Proddies feel that they have to make this attack so consistently. Why are they so threatened by Mary?

St. Louis of Montfort writes that "An infallible sign by which we can distinguish a heretic, a man of false doctrine, an enemy of God, from one of God's true friends is that the heretic and hardened sinner show nothing but contempt and indifference for Our Lady. He endeavors... to belittle the love and veneration shown to her." Sounds just like the standard line of Protestant attack.

If you truly love Jesus, you cannot help but love His Mother.

A serious issue with Protestantism of today is that it shows a lack of reverence and sometimes even an "indifference" towards the Mother of God.

Thankfully, this is not the case for all Protestants. Some show a very healthy and commendable love for Our Lady. My grandfather was an Episcopalian, but in the years before his death he faithfully prayed the Holy Rosary.

The single greatest failure of Protestantism is that it lacks the Sacraments. Martin Luther himself began dismantling the Sacraments very early on. When he was done, only Baptism and Communion remained. And even then he denied the True Presence!

Now some denominations (or non-denominations) don't even pretend to have a communion service. The Unitarians don't even have baptisms (or a creed for that matter). The Eucharist is the "source and summit of the Christian life" (LG 11). Without the Eucharist our faith would be empty!

And that is the problem with Protestantism. It is empty. It can only ever offer fellowship and a chance to pray in a group, not the "Bread of Life" (John 6:35).

What would you or I be without the Eucharist? The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of God Himself sustains us along our spiritual journey, gives us strength through grace.

That is why we must protect and educate our youth. Teach them that it's not all the same to God whether you go to Mass on Sunday or a non-denominational praise and worship service. That the "communion" offered at another church is not the same as Holy Communion.

Not all denominations are the same, but there is only one Church.

Certainly a great number of Protestants are authentically trying to journey with God. But some Protestant churches are worse than others. And these we must be watchful against.

Too many denominations openly approve of the massacre of innocents that is abortion! They condone murder and trample every teaching of Christ. Some go so far as to attack the pro-life movement. For so many years, abortion has been thought of as just a "Catholic issue" simply because only the Church had the courage to stand in the breach and defend life. Make no mistake, any "church" that supports or is even indifferent to abortion is not Christian in any sense of the word. They are collaborators.

Too many Christian churches have backed away from defending marriage. They allow openly homosexual clergy, "open" in the sense that they revel in their sinful behavior, take pride in it. They perform gay "marriages" eagerly, without a thought to what example this sets to young people honestly struggling with homosexual attractions. These are cowards who when the world said "Move" they replied "How far?"

 The problem with Protestantism is that they are, to varying degrees, away from full communion with the Truth. You will only find the fullness of Truth, of life, within the arms of the Church.

Therefore, when we are engaged in ecumenical ministries, let us not forget the flawed reality of Protestantism. Let us engage in a Crusade for Truth to bring our Protestant brothers and sisters back into the fold. Spread the fullness of the Gospel where it is lacking in their chosen faith. Bring them home.

DEUS VULT!

The Fight for Marriage

The latest movie in JJ Abram's reboot of a classic franchise, Star Trek Beyond, will be coming out in a couple of weeks. From the looks of the trailer, it will be pretty good: a lot of action, a lot of special effects, and the sense of wonder that has attracted so many multigenerational fans. But there is something in this movie that you won't see in any of the trailers but you might have seen in the news. Sulu, the pilot of the Enterprise, comes out as gay. This is such an unnecessary and superfluous departure from the tradition of the original series that even George Takei, the actor who first played Sulu and a gay-rights activist in real life, condemned the move.

This leaves many people asking: why? Even without having seen the movie, it's probably pretty fair to guess that Sulu being gay contributes nothing to the film. We ask the same questions when we see the gay couple in Modern Family, Oscar in The Office, or the token homosexual characters in virtually any other TV series. 

The reason for this entertainment trend is quite simple. There is a concentrated effort to normalize homosexual behavior. And that effort is successful. The US Supreme Court ruled last summer that gay "marriage" is a constitutional right. The number of people who identify as a homosexual has more than doubled in the past decade. And if you dare say that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, you will instantly be branded as an intolerant, hateful bigot. 

This is not really a fight for rights. There's no such thing as a right to marry whomever you want just like there is no such thing as a right to abortion. Both are artificial creations of a political and activist Supreme Court bench. Just like we saw with Ginsberg's criticism of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump (which is literally a violation of Canon 5.A.1of the Code of Conduct for US Judges), Justices are far from above engaging in partisan politics, which certainly casts suspicion on the strict constitutionality of their decisions. And even if there was ever a fight for the rights of homosexuals, it has no real need to exist now. It is no longer legally or socially acceptable to discriminate against people who struggle with homosexual attractions. And that's a good thing. Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not hate homosexuals. We recognize first and foremost that they are people and therefore have an unalienable dignity. Struggling with homosexual attraction is not in itself a sin. Engaging in the behavior, however, is. 

The issue here is that there are forces actively trying to attack the traditional institution of marriage. The move towards normalized gay "marriage" is not a move towards equality, but rather a move towards the degeneration of marriage. While we certainly have a problem with divorce and adultery in our country, gay "marriage" does so much more to undermine the foundations of marriage. It lowers marriage to mere sexual attraction instead of self-giving love. 

The great lie of gay "marriage" is that sex is the greatest good. 

It is not. 

God is the greatest good, and He created men and women for each other, not for themselves. If sex is the greatest good, then why did Christ die on the Cross for us? The Cross is the greatest act of love. Our culture has deluded itself from divorcing procreation and self-giving from sex. This divorce has led to many of the evils that we see today. 

We can see the insanity and illogic of the gay "marriage" army in its foot soldiers and apologists. If you've ever made the mistake of pursuing the comment section of a Catholic post about gay "marriage," you will see the same arguments over and over again: "It's not hurting anyone," or "Let people love who they want," along with a string of straw-men and name calling. These arguments barely deserve that name, they are frenzies of emotion, not logic and certainly not Truth. The fact is people are hurt by the normalization of gay "marriage." The participants are hurt because they are in a state of sin. They follow their passions and end up in a mere shadow of real married love. Children the "couple" adopt are also hurt. Studies have shown that children raised by same-sex parents are significantly disadvantaged and, more importantly, they grow up being taught that love is only an emotion or attraction. 

Accepting gay "marriage" is not a victory for love because a homosexual couple cannot love each other the way a married couple ought to. That's the truth. That is why we defend the sanctity of marriage. As I have said before, love is so much more than sex. Married couples are called to a higher, procreative, and unitive love which cannot exist between a homosexual couple. 

Marriage is meant to be unitive. Marriage is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity: two people become one. That is why Adam exclaimed "flesh of my flesh" when he saw Eve, his wife. 

Sex and married life are also meant to be procreative; "go forth and multiply" was a command, not a suggestion. This, of course, does not demean the married love of couples who cannot have children because of medical complications. Their intentions and potential still point towards the creation of new life. But this does condemn homosexual "marriage" because it is physically incompatible with procreation. 

The gay "marriage" agenda is neither meek nor innocent. It is fanatical and cunning. It is engaged in a ware against the institution of marriage, against the family. This lobby uses shows like Modern Family to suggest that homosexual unions are normal, "modern." Sodomy was not such an issue even a few decades ago because our culture held some degree of Christian values, values that are rapidly disappearing today. The culture has become a crusader for the sake of sin. 

This is dangerous because we are walking a slippery slope. In the Bible, sodomy is always associated with incest and bestiality, and for good reason. Once one becomes "acceptable," the rest will soon follow. If a man can marry a man, why can't he marry his sister, or a cow, or a tree? If sexual attraction is the only justification we need, it becomes very difficult to argue against these grave moral evils. 

Brothers and sisters, we must mount a defense of marriage. We are on the brink of becoming another Sodom and Gomorrah. With Christ as our Commander and the Truth of the Gospel as our fortress, we can defy the powers of this world that will only be appeased by the utter desecration of marriage. 

You who are married, live in communion with the Church. Let your love and fidelity be a testament to the Truth. You who are single, honor sex as an expression of love for marriage alone. Court with an eye towards marriage, don't simply date and break hearts for the fun of it. You who have children, teach them. They need to learn the truth about love and marriage and they need to hear it from you! Be careful with what you let them watch and read. One of my favorite priests likes to say that giving unrestricted Internet access to a child is the same as leaving them alone in an adult bookstore. The Internet is morally neutral. It is a tool that can be used for good or for evil. But it also gives a voice to people who more often than not attack the traditions of the Church. They abuse their arbitrary influence and lead others into sin. Even be wary of seemingly innocuous cartoons. All too many are beginning to subversively spread a pro-gay-"marriage" message (as I understand it, Steven Universe and Adventure Time are among these, just to name two).

But most of all, in order to defend marriage, we must love. Show the world what love is - not an emotion, not an attraction, but self-sacrifice for the good of the other. Love those who struggle with same-sex attractions; help them bear their Crosses. Remember that an oft forgotten spiritual work of mercy is to instruct the ignorant. Spread the truth about marriage. It is not loving to allow someone to remain oblivious to the truth about marriage, it is tolerant and selfish. 

The only way we will defeat the forces who are trying to destroy marriage is by living an authentic witness to the true nature of married love. 

Deus Vult!

A World Without God

"God is dead." That resounding diagnosis was put into words by the German nihilist Nietzsche whom I've already written about. It was rephrased on the cover of the April 8, 1966 issue of Time magazine as "Is God Dead?" Both echo the same sentiment, the idea of a world without God.

This devastating idea has not been around for very long. Up until the era of the Enlightenment, belief in some sort of divinity was pretty much universal. It was unthinkable for any intellectuals or political leaders to say with any amount of public support that there was nothing, no God. That is until the so-called "age of Reason," in reality the death of reason, which was brought about by the dissent encouraged by the Protestant Reformation. If the Catholic Church could be questioned, then why not question belief in God as well?

Some of the most famous Enlightenment thinkers were either explicit atheists or at least toed that line: Spinoza, Hume, and Kant just to name a few. It should come as no surprise then that the greatest expression of Enlightenment thought, the French Revolution, was so profoundly atheistic. Voltaire, who laid the foundations for the Revolution with his writings, was militantly anti-Christian. Indeed, the persecution of priests and other clergy was characteristic of the Revolution. The French Revolution replaced God with the State.

This trend, the aggrandizement of personal power through the "elimination" of God, continued. We cannot forget the godlessness nature of the Nazis, Bolshevik Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, all responsible for horrific crimes against humanity. This is especially evident in modern China where churches are bulldozed and their pastors mysteriously disappear.

And indeed, the war on God is not limited to totalitarian regimes. Today, in America, there is a decided "bloodless" and "polite" persecution as Archbishop Lori so aptly called it. Christian values are under attack. Think about it. Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion on demand, the normalization of homosexuality, the de-stigmatization of promiscuity, and a culture of divorce have led to the breakdown of the family. Atheist groups with their litanies of "freedom of religion" and "separation of Church and State" attack that very freedom by silencing any mention of God and attempting to erect an atheistic government. Say the name of God in the public sphere and they might just try to arrest you. Proclaim the absence of God and you will be applauded.

Now beyond the existence of this war on God, which is undeniable, I want to look at the effects this has on our way of life. What does a world without God look like? It is not very hard to imagine because we are at its threshold! Look at how Planned Parenthood and its murderous ilk have convinced us that life only begins when we want it to. Look at how the media loses its mind when a gorilla is shot to save a child, but not when children are shot without cause. Look at how armchair philosophers sit in their penthouses and decry the existence of poverty and proceed to do nothing to stop it. Look at how homosexuality and transgenderism is applauded, encouraged, while traditional marriage is belittled. Virtue has become vice and vice, virtue.

For a hellish glimpse into the future of a world without God, we need only read the works of "ethicist" Peter Singer. Not that I am recommending so much as picking up anything that he has written. In fact, quite the opposite. His ideas are incredibly dangerous. In his seminal work, Practical Ethics, Singer begins innocently enough, with the topic of equality. It's hard to disagree with his conclusions, all he seems to want is for everyone to be treated fairly. At first. Then he takes it too far. Applying his godless utilitarian philosophy, Singer makes the argument that we ought to treat animal interests as having the same weight as human interests in the sphere of ethics. To do so, he frequently uses the example of newborns and the mentally disabled as human beings who are closer to the level of animals. "Killing a snail or a day-old infant does not thwart any desires [for the future], because snails and newborn infants are incapable of having such desires." (Practical Ethics p.90) You can't make this stuff up!

Singer goes on to argue that, because of his principle of considering only the interests involved, not only is abortion justified, but so is infanticide - "on purely ethical grounds, the killing of a newborn infant is not comparable with the killing of an older child or adult" - and euthanasia. He goes so far as to walk up to the precipice of justifying involuntary euthanasia, but falters.

These are dangerous ideas. And if you reject God, they are hard to argue against. That is because without God human life immediately begins to lose its value. If we were not created by a loving, all-powerful God (as we were indeed created!) then we are no longer men but beasts. Despite Singer's assertions to the contrary, this means that we are lowered to the level of animals, not that animals are raised to our level. And just like animals, we can be put down when it is convenient. Dostoevsky was all too accurate when he wrote that "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." I do not think that it is too outlandish to envision Singer's fantasies becoming reality in a world without God, and even involuntary euthanasia becoming accepted for the sake of the collective "good."

When I imagine a world without God, I see a world where human life is meaningless, where love is reduced to sexual sensation found as easily in the Internet as in human interactions, where the very terms "men" and "women" have become offensive, and where people of faith are persecuted.

This is not the kind of world that I want to live in!

Brothers and sisters, we must bring back a Godly culture of Truth! Where life and true love are valued!

How can we do this? It might seem that a monumental effort is necessary, something that will shock the world back into reality. In truth, it is the little things that will change the world and overthrow the very foundations of our godless culture of death.

First, we must love. It is easy to be angry with the way the world is headed. It is even more easy to hate those that are pushing it along the road to hell. It requires courage, however, to love them. Remember that as St. Theresa of Avila says, "Christ has no body now on earth but yours." Jesus did not condemn sinners, he lovingly rebuked them. Christ did not say to Matthew the tax-collector "Do what makes you happy." But he also didn't say "You're going to hell Matt." He said "Follow me"  (Matthew 9:9). Jesus, the only one who was without sin and could therefore throw a stone at the adulterous woman, didn't. Instead, he said "Neither do I condemn you. Go and from now on do not sin any more" (John 8:11).

To turn back this culture of death, I firmly believe that we must fully commit ourselves to the pro-life cause. I'm the president of my high-school's Students for Life of America club (a most excellent organization) and I also run its blog. Now it would be excellent if everyone could start or become active in local pro-life groups, but you don't even need to do that much. I have already written a list of ways you can be a Pro-Life Warrior. In short, the war on abortion is largely a war of information. Simply spread the word about the ugly realities of abortion. Lies told often enough often become half-truths. Planned Parenthood has convinced people that developing babies are just "clumps of cells" and that abortion has no psychological effects on women, both of which are patently false!

Very simply, you can help to create a culture of God by being men and women of God. Pray as often as you breath. Attend Mass whenever possible. Venerate the Blessed Mother. Pray the Rosary, our primary weapon. Stand up for your beliefs. Be an example to the world, your friends, your family. Raise your children in the faith.

The future of a world without God may be bleak. The future with God, however, is filled with hope and grace. Rise up and join the Crusade for Truth!

DEUS VULT!

The Dangers of Small Worlds

We all know the song: "It's a Small World After All." It gets stuck in our heads every time we go on that ride in Disneyland. Chances are, the moment you step off the float, you'll be humming that song. It's a cute little song. Reminds us that we are all connected, regardless of our culture or geographical location.

But there are two versions of the "Small World." The first is that represented by the Disney ride, a world without borders where physical distance is meaningless. And that is all well and good. God made each and everyone of us. In our shared humanity, we have far more in common than we have differences, despite various languages and customs. The first meaning is quite Catholic in fact, "universal."

I worry about the second meaning of a "Small World." It is one I see far too often today. These small worlds are characterized, not by their openness, but by their walls. They are small worlds because there is not much in them. This is the "me, myself, and I" attitude that is so popular in our culture. This small world thinking reduces your interactions and love into a microcosm, whatever is within your reach and nothing more. Only showing kindness to those who think exactly like you do, who look exactly like you do, who act exactly like you do.

In a certain sense, this thinking reduces humanity to those that you "like." Anyone else is dangerous, even less human than those within your walls. And I am not just talking about physical borders. Within our own country, we see this in conflicts of controversy. For militant feminists, pro-choice radicals, and groups like Black Lives Matter, you are either with them or against them. Anything less than a full pledge of loyalty results in your ridicule, not in person, more often than not, but over the veiled channels of social media, for most of them are too cowardly to attack you face-to-face. You see this whenever anyone tries to say that there are differences between men and women which mean they ought to be treated differently in some respects (bigot!) or that all lives matter (racist!).

Small worlds tend to be kind of boring. You'll only hear the same things over and over and over. They consist in a silencing of all "offensive speech" or what I would call free discussion. Try to tell a denizen of these small worlds that the unborn have a right to live, that there is no difference between sex and gender, or that supporting the death-penalty is inconsistent with pro-life beliefs, and you will instantly be silenced, and probably insulted too.

That is because small worlds are the houses built upon the sand (Matthew 7:26). They lack a firm foundation. Any challenge to the creed of a small world is therefore existential. Any change to the status quo could be deadly.

Small worlds are cowardly. They are inhabited by people who are too scared to look beyond their own walls. We saw this the other day at a rally for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in San Diego. Crowds of his opponents hurled eggs and bottles, harassed, and assaulted his supporters as they left the rally. Now, I am not saying that I support or even like Donald Trump. His flip-flopping on abortion is unacceptable. But no one deserves to be attacked like his supporters were. Those protesters reacted so violently because they were confronted by a group of people living outside of their own small worlds. They discovered that someone held opinions that were not their own, and they could not deal with this reality.

And I am not saying that Catholics are immune to this kind of thinking. I see a somewhat dangerous trend of small worlds in our American parishes. We are the universal Church. Therefore, though we might only go to Mass at one parish, we cannot limit our outreach or efforts to that parish. It is not a competition. We need a greater awareness of the ways in which parishes can cooperate and coordinate activities for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

God does not want us to live in small worlds. I think Pope Francis captured this quite succinctly. In response to Donald Trump's plan to build a barrier separating Mexico from the United States, Pope Francis said that "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel." Though this was in the context of Donald Trump, Pope Francis' statement was universal.

We cannot simply build up walls around ourselves. Those walls separate us from those whom we should show love.

Jesus did not live in a gated community. He walked with tax collectors, prostitutes, and Pharisees alike. The message of the Gospel would not have spread if Jesus had remain hidden in the gentrified suburbs.

Therefore, we must engage in the construction of bridges. Do not avoid the people who hold opinions that differ from yours, engage them. Get in the thick of it. "Launch out into the deep" (Luke 5:4). We will not change lives with the message of the Gospel if we only preach within our own walls, within our small worlds.

Do not live in a small world. Cast down your walls. Open up your hearts to those that live beyond your borders, physical and otherwise. Love your family, but also love your universal family.

There are those suffering beyond your walls. Go to them. Bring the light of Christ into the darkness of their own small worlds.

Deus Vult!

True Feminism

Do not believe the voices of unreason that say the Church restricts the rights of women.

Critics of the Catholic Church are quick to claim that there is a "war on women," especially when abortion is involved. They look at the Church's stance on abortion, birth control, and exclusion of women from the priesthood and call it oppression, as if the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church had actually conspired to do so!

This attack on the Church, this calumny, is one of the most frequent levied against the rock of Christ. But it is entirely contrary to the reality of our faith. The attitude of the Catholic Church towards women is not the watered-down talking points of the movement that calls itself feminist. It is an attitude of honor and reverence for the true nature of womanhood. It is true feminism.

"Male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27) Feminists like to believe that there are no differences between men and women. Not only is this a rejection of God's design, it is a reduction of the value of women instead of, as the feminists believe, a reach for equality. There are inherent differences between man and woman. As our knowledge of the human body increases, we are continuously finding more and more differences between the ways men and women function.

The most obvious difference between them, however, is quite obvious. Men cannot bear children. God created women to be capable of giving birth. Therefore, the idea of motherhood is central to our understanding of what it means to be a woman.

Motherhood is a gift from God. Feminists think it to be a curse. Their insistence on abortion and birth control is a rejection of that gift. This is a grave error. What is more beautiful than a newborn child? Fighting for an end to abortion is not an attack against women. It is a defense of womanhood. Abortion leaves scars. It hurts woman far more than it "helps" them.

Motherhood is central to the beauty of women. While men tend to be physically stronger, to women is given singular grace and beauty. Men are the protectors. Women are the treasure they protect. One of the central tenants of the medieval code of chivalry, the definition of manliness, was to respect the honor of women.

This does not degrade women. It celebrates them.

The exclusion of women from the priesthood is not a decision that was made by the Church. Once more, there is no anti-woman conspiracy. The priesthood was founded upon the example and teachings of Jesus Christ. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, whereby men become priests, was instituted at the Last Supper. When He said "this is my body," (Mark 14:22) Christ was instructing the Twelve. They became the inheritors of the order of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18). They became the new sons of Aaron, keepers of the new manna, the Eucharist (Exodus 16:33-34). Though Jesus had women followers: Mary Magdalene, Mary of Cleophas, and his own mother Mary, He did not grant them induction into His sacred priesthood. That was His decision, based upon the fundamental differences between men and women.

But women are in no way excluded from the operation of the Catholic Church. Religious sisters are the bulwark of our faith. Their prayers and works of mercy help to sustain the Church. Often, their hands are the hands of Christ in the most destitute places on Earth.

Some of the greatest Saints and martyrs of the faith are women. What Saint is more honored and venerated than Mary Mother of God? And many of Mary's visitations were to female saints like Bernadette. St. Theresa of Avila graced us with her mystical writings. St. Catherine of Sienna brought the Papacy back to Rome. St. Faustina's Diary reminded the world of Christ's mercy in a century when it was desperately needed. Blessed Mother Theresa (soon to be Saint) lived out the works of mercy in abject poverty with constant joy.

The Catholic Church is not prejudiced against women. It respects their true nature. Feminism does not. The Church refuses to ignore the motherhood that is essential to the nature of womanhood. It honors women for who they are.


DEUS VOLT!