 As promised, here's the entry I alluded to yesterday. All I can say is - thank God for Google.
Sorry again for the fuzziness, but the detail to your right is from a painting I posted yesterday by an artist known as "Master of Wilten." The painting depicts the Presentation of the young Blessed Mother. Curiously, these two animals seem to be a secondary focus of the painting in the central foreground. This struck me as odd, so I did a cursory search thinking I'd find a quick explanation of their significance. No dice. I located the artist of the original painting and, of course, he's anonymous, himself. He is presently known only as "Master of Wilten" and lived in the 15th century. Nothing more is known about him other than the paintings he left behind in his workshop detailing scenes from Our Lady's life. Go figure. So back to the painting I went. At first, I thought the two animals were a dog and a lamb (especially considering the latter's elongated muzzle and white coloring). However, the tail of the supposed "lamb" extends much longer than any lamb I've seen. That tossed "lamb" out the window. So I looked up the possible symbolism of dogs at the Presentation of Our Lady. The only recurring reference was that these two animals were "Barocci's cat" and "Bassano's dog." That didn't sit comfortably with me since neither looked like a cat. Dutifully, however, I researched both Barocci and Bassano in the hopes that I could glean what their chosen symbols represented. Federico Barocci, it turns out, just really loved cats. No symbolism there. He'd sneak one into most of his paintings, which is why any cat cropping up in random works of art became known as "Barocci's cat." This reminds me of Trigun's cat, but hey... that's a whole different story. Jacopo Bassano was similarly inclined towards dogs, but upon further research, I learned that dogs were associated with fidelity and contemplation. What's more, two dogs quarreling sometimes signified dueling theologians (kinda like Plato and Aristotle pointing up vs. down). Ah ha! Another piece of the puzzle falls into place. Just to be on the safe side, however, I tried to find out if these two artists had any sort of feud. No such luck. I also did a quick search to see if either had been tutored by the same guy. Also no luck, though I did note that, while Bassano studied under an artist by the name of Titian (who also enjoyed painting dogs), Barocci trained a pupil who had the same name as one of Bassano's sons. I couldn't locate proof that the two men were, in fact, the same person (since Giovanni's last name, Battista, was ridiculously common at the time), but it was still interesting enough for me to note. However, since I was burning rubber through search engines quicker than the ever-balding tires of the General Lee, I shifted gears and did a Bible search for the word "dog." I wanted to find biblical references to the animal in the hopes of gaining some insight into its literary value. Jackpot! Apparently dogs are mentioned in several places throughout the Bible! Go figure. These Old Testament dogs were called "pariahs." Guess who went and googled "pariah dog" with impressive results? *Grin* That's right! Pariah dogs look EXACTLY like the one portrayed in the above painting! This wasn't just ANY dog... this was a pariah!!! So I went and did some research on pariah dogs. It turns out pariahs were associated with evil in the Old Testament because of their savage and wild behavior. So with half the puzzle making sense, I decided to figure out if the other dog's breed held symbolism. I started with what I thought the dog looked like - a toy poodle. I cycled through the history of how poodles came to be bred into their "teacup" sizes so wealthy Englishwomen would be able to carry them around as personal hand-warmers (I wish I were kidding). This article mentioned, however, that these pups didn't really begin to be "bred smaller" until the 1600s. That's a good 150 or so years after the puppy in question was painted. That ruled out poodles. So I went back to the drawing board and did an image search for "toy dogs." One of the first pooches to grace my screen once again looked like the subject of my confusion - a bichon frise! Immediately, I began delving into this breed and learned they are, in fact, descendants of poodles and are valued for their natural loving temperament and keen intelligence. Armed with this new information, I once again cycled back to the painting. The bichon is engaged with the pariah, but from their stance, the bichon clearly has the upper hand. Thus, I concluded that these two animals were symbolic of the fight between good and evil, with the "good" clearly outmatching the "bad." I was still slightly confused as to the prominence of these bickering animals. Instead of focusing on Our Lady, everyone (even St. Anne!) seems to be paying attention to the quarreling dogs. The Blessed Mother, for her part, also is casting an eye back to them! I admit to being puzzled, but then I realized my error. Little Mary is at the center of the painting. Though she is caught between the Temple and her people, she is ever-moving towards the Holy of Holies. She does not turn a blind eye to the struggles we on Earth endure. Instead, she acts as our mediary (Mary, Mediatrix!), always calling us to follow her lead and walk towards God. In the end, good will triumph, and Mary's entrance into the Temple... Mary's acceptance of God's Divine Proposal... Mary's perfection which already embodies God before His willing Incarnation... all of that brings to pass the promises made by God to Adam and Eve upon their expulsion from Eden. A woman would come who would, indeed, bear forth a child that would forever strike at the head of sin. Through her, all Life would spring forth, and all Life would return back into the Hands of its Creator. Ah, the mysteries of Mary!
0 Comments
 Cool it with the Medjugorje haterade, people!
Geez! You'd think after the countless times children have been attacked for "stupidity" or "imagination" only to be later vindicated folks would be a little more willing to hold their tongues on condemning! I saw some super-angry commentary over at a blog I love and respect. Folks were only too happy to condemn Medjugorje as "the work of satan" or "people looking to get rich." How heartbreaking that we have become so jaded as to ignore the spiritual fruits blossoming there... I'm all for taking time to delve into reported messages to question their validity. I'm all for eyeballing the visionaries under a microscope for even the faintest sliver of dishonesty. Above all, I'm in full support of making a decision - for yourself - on the truth of ANY supposed apparition. What I am NOT okay with, however, is this suspicious attack on everything pertaining to Medjugorje. It seems as if folks are refusing to even discuss the possibility that Our Lady would come to us in such a manner. In fact, one of my least favorite arguments against Medjugorje is that Our Lady "prayed the Our Father" with the children. Of course, this was one of the first "SEE? Medjugorje HAS to be a fake!!!" Apparently the Blessed Mother reciting the Our Father is simply blasphemous. He was angry because Mary never had any trespasses to be forgiven, nor does she need "daily bread" since she's in Heaven. Obviously, for the Blessed Mother to utter such a prayer, Satan must be behind it!!! *Shakes head* I guess this guy (and all others who subscribe to this belief) forgets that Jesus, Himself, gave us that prayer. Would this fellow like to explain to me the trespasses Our Lord was guilty of? What "daily bread" was He in need of? What people tend to forget is Our Lady, much like Christ, comes to us as an example of how we are to live our lives. A large part of our lives should be prayer, and what better example of prayer do we have than Our Lady? Her entire life was (and is) a prayer, magnifying her God in so perfect a way as to please Him eternally. Thus, if Our Lady prays the Our Father, calling us to follow her example, who are we to turn away? Plus, Our Lady is full of humility - even in Heaven, she knows she would not exist if not for the Love of God. Thus, her "daily bread" is very much His Love, is it not? And let us not forget that both Our Lord and Our Lady died. They BOTH suffered the effects of sin not because they were guilty of sin themselves. On the contrary... both were sinless from conception (or incarnation) until death. She understood that death was God's means to reunite humanity to Himself. Through death, eternal life once again becomes our inheritance. Thus, Our Lady followed the same path of Her Perfect Son, that she may offer even her death for the salvation of sinners. Again... Mary is our perfect example. We all need God. Yes, even the Mother of God. If the Queen of Heaven humbles herself to acknowledge this... to follow every example He gives, who are we to arrogantly place ourselves above her? *sigh* That is, by far, my least favorite argument against Medjugorje. It just doesn't make any sense. None. Of COURSE Our Lady would pray the Our Father... as should we all.  True photo of an in-womb child. The below text is taken from Richard Wurmbrand's Tortured for Christ. For those of you who have not yet read this book, please avail yourselves to its contents here.
I've been thinking about this a lot recently. It's probably one of the most thought-provoking moments in his memoir (and he's got a LOT of those!). Ever since first reading it (several months ago), I've been unable to parray it from my mind for very long. It swooped in and enveloped my conscious again yesterday, when a friend asked me how I could possibly be sure there was an afterlife. "Suppose that we could speak with an embryo in his mother's womb and that you would tell him that the embryonic life is only a short one after which follows a real, long life. What would the embryo answer? He would say just what you atheists answer to us, when we speak to you about paradise and hell. He would say that the life in the mother's womb is the only one and that everything else is religious foolishness. But if the embryo could think, he would say to himself, ‘Here arms grow on me. I do not need them. I cannot even stretch them. Why do they grow? Perhaps they grow for a future stage of my existence, in which I will have to work with them. Legs grow, but I have to keep them bent toward my chest. Why do they grow? Probably life in a large world follows, where I will have to walk. Eyes grow, although I am surrounded by perfect darkness and don't need them. Why do I have eyes? Probably a world with light and colors will follow.' "So, if the embryo would reflect on his own development, he would know about a life outside of his mother's womb, without having seen it. It is the same with us. As long as we are young, we have vigor, but no mind to use it properly. When, with the years, we have grown in knowledge and wisdom, the hearse waits to take us to the grave. Why was it necessary to grow in a knowledge and wisdom that we can use no more? Why do arms, legs, and eyes grow on an embryo? It is for what follows. So it is with us here. We grow here in experience, knowledge, and wisdom for what follows. We are prepared to serve on a higher level that follows death." This truly is a beautiful insight... an inspired insight. May it touch you as it has touched me.  "The most important person on earth is a mother. She cannot claim the honor of having built Notre Dame Cathedral. She need not. She has built something more magnificent than any cathedral - a dwelling for an immortal soul, the tiny perfection of her baby's body. The angels have not been blessed with such a grace. They cannot share in God's creative miracle to bring new saints to Heaven. Only a human mother can. Mothers are closer to God the Creator than any other creature; God joins forces with mothers in performing this act of creation... What on God's good earth is more glorious than this; to be a mother?"
--Joszef Cardinal Mindszenty Just came across this quote today and wanted to share it with all of you. God bless Cardinal Mindszenty for such inspired musings. Women truly are blessed to have been called upon to reflect God in so intimate a way. Oh, that women come to once more understand the blessing such a calling is!  Jesus reminds me of my cousin here. During a meeting the other night, someone was lamenting the fact that many parents of CCD students don't care about bringing their kids to Mass. It's not seen as something important. To an extent, I would have to agree. I don't understand it, myself. Parents who have been away from the Church for years suddenly rush back to demand baptisms for their children then aren't seen until Penance / Communion rolls around, etc.
Same for folks looking to get married. They don't attend Church for years, barely have a grasp of the faith, and don't really care one way or the other about it, but force their way into a parish in the hopes of obtaining a Nuptial Mass. Why? Is it because there is a feeling of obligation? Is it a superstitious "just-in-case" comfort? Is it a nagging conscience that finally has a point based on tradition alone? I really don't get it. But I digress... Anyway, as folks began agreeing with her, adding their two cents to the "CCD parents kinda suck" fest, I pointed out that children could very well be the key to reversing the apathy of their parents. For example, one of my students burst into class on Tuesday night, barely able to contain his pride at having completed his homework. What was their homework assignment? Well, for All Saints Day / All Souls Day, I required my children to not only say St. Gertrude the Great's Purgatory Prayer (found here), but teach it to their families. One of my students took that and ran. He was so proud to relay that he was "a magisterium," and that he'd helped save some 6,000 souls... he simply couldn't wait to share it with everyone at class. It melted my heart and reminded me of the value of a child's enthusiasm. After class, I spoke to his mother who told me exactly how he taught them, too. He explained the significance of the prayer, how St. Gertrude got it, and why it's important to pray for the dead. Then he repeated the prayer for them, had them repeat it back, then they all said it together as a family. RIGHT?! C'mon and tell me your heart didn't just turn into a puddle in your shoes. I think I was given that special blessing so I could share it with these understandably jaded parishioners at the meeting. While I surely understand their frustration, we can't simply complain about the parents. We need to reach out to the children and harness their natural love of God and their desire to do good. That good will rub off on their parents. We can encourage these children to find God in their daily lives. We can and we MUST plant those seeds for them, because who knows where those roots will end up reaching? Who knows what souls their flowering trees may end up shading? It's our job as teachers to do the best with the children we've got, regardless of the parental support (or non-support) we get. All we can do is sow the seeds of God's love and leave the rest to Him.  That snowball seemed so harmless... See that snowball rolling down the hill? It's getting bigger and gaining ground - fast.
Our religious freedoms are being gutted, and increasing pressure is being placed on our shepherds to simply bow out to "modern logic." This must've been how Jews felt when Rome decided to force itself upon their culture. Rome demanded sacrifice to Caesar, Rome stipulated who got to be high priest (and for how long), Rome decided which religious customs could be tolerated and which could not. Welcome to Rome, my friends. We, too, are experiencing audacious governments that shamelessly criminalize religious beliefs and expression, establish laws effectively eliminating charitable missionary work (I'll give you two on this one), threaten the Sacramental foundation of our faith, and label us as traitors simply for defending our right to practice our religion freely. There are those in our hierarchy who, much like the Sadducees of Jerusalem, are going along with these malicious and disgraceful persecutions (whether through silence or even direct disobedience). However, there are also many others (WDTPRS for starters) who are decrying this outright attack on religion. Catholics need to figure out which side they intend to stand on. We're called the Church Militant for a reason - our job is not to remain silent. Our job is not to remain complacent and oblivious to the obvious signs of persecution our brothers and sisters are enduring throughout the world. We are the Church MILITANT. Our job is to actively fight this evil. Our call is to decry such indignation... to rise up and alert others to the injustice. Our mission is to bear forth the Truth, even in the face of political pressure and man-made law. Our Archbishop said it best in his recent address at the University of Pennsylvania: "... people have a right to bring their beliefs to bear on every social, economic, and political problem facing their community. For Christians, that’s not just a privilege. It’s not just a right. It’s a demand of the Gospel. Obviously, we have an obligation to respect the dignity of other people. We’re always bound to treat other people with charity and justice. But that good will can never be an excuse for our own silence. Believers can’t be silent in public life and be faithful to Jesus Christ at the same time. Actively witnessing to our convictions and advancing what we believe about key moral issues in public life is not “coercion.” It’s honesty. It’s an act of truth-telling. It’s vital to the health of every democracy. And again, it’s also a duty—not only of our religious faith, but also of our citizenship." We are called... COMMANDED... to bear forth the Truth, and as citizens of a democratic world, it is our DUTY to uphold so basic a right. So again... we need to truly ask ourselves where we stand. As the Gospel from this week suggests, we need to take stock. Are we ready? Are you?  Isn't this beautiful? I finally found my way into a confession box this weekend. I decided to make this one of the best confessions ever, so I took some advice from a friendly blogger on WDTPRS and spent a bit of time doing a real examination of conscience. I cracked open a new notebook for the purpose, and got to work.
I first went through the list of Vices - I had to look up Avarice just to be sure I wasn't mistaking that definition for Envy (which I sorta was in my mind), then upon completion of that list, I began on the 10 Commandments. Once I finished with those, I did a quick Google search for another "Examination" just to be 100% sure I covered my bases. All in all, I ended up with like 4 or 5 pages of sins (and this was in SHORTHAND!), and a sinking feeling that the unfortunate priest who would get me would be a little put-off by my lengthy list. I don't think he'd've been upset by the sins so much as the "list" feature. I was worried if I got "caught" with a book the confession would seem insincere (since I was just reading off a list) and cold. However, I really liked the idea of being 100% sure (okay... about 98% sure) that I'd covered my bases. How often do we come out of confession only to realize two words into our penance that we forgot X, Y or Z? Heck, to be honest, even with my little list, I had to stop Father just before absolution to tell him one more! Just to be sure... Ha. He was very kind, though. I ended up getting the room behind the screen, so he couldn't see my book anyway. I told him I had it anyway, because I wanted him to know that even though I sounded like I was just reading from a list, I'd put a lot of thought into it in order to make a good confession. Ah well. All in all, I think I'm going to go that route again. I felt scrubbed down afterwards. And the best part? It was a great conversation-starter for a friend of mine and I about confession. She's getting married soon, and when I brought up confession as a great way to prepare, she explained her fear behind the sacrament (ah, the familiar fear of humility). I shared my old fears of Confession, and even showed her the book that housed my list. She was surprised, to say the least. I dunno if it made her feel better about confession, but hopefully it planted the seed somewhere. Maybe, in a few weeks, it'll spring up in her heart. One can hope, right? :)  I have this veil in Merlot! LOVE IT! I just came across the most wonderful letter ever from a husband who rejoices in his wife's desire to veil.
You can view it here, along with another contest from Veils by Lily. Upon reading it, my heart practically melted into my shoes. The love and respect this husband has for his wife overflowed from every sentence. The fact that he acknowledges they're normal just like the rest of us (writing checks during the homily... ha!) made me even more willing to hug him in my heart. At the same time, though, I felt a sadness. Far from loving or respecting my desire to veil, John is embarrassed by it. Granted, he's also embarrassed by any and all signs of my Catholicism, but the veiling is particularly cringe-inducing for him. I understand that. It's a testament to the fact that I'm not only Catholic... I'm a "traditional" one at that. I'm a "crazy old-school" one. He's not alone, though. My youngest sister saw me veiled for the first time about two months ago and she openly scoffed at me, rolling her eyes and insisting I was ridiculous. My brother, just this weekend, saw me veiled for the first time (at my neice's baptism) and backed away, making a joke about "not wanting to know" about the crazy that had somehow seeped into my brain. Veils, for many, are an awkward topic of conversation because it's such a traditional, outward sign of faith. The convoluted history of veiling doesn't help this awkwardness, either. Some folks mistakenly think veiling is a form of oppression. Some, like my brother, thought it was something you did while attending a funeral. Some think it's an outdated practice that traditionalists cling to in an effort to spite Vatican II. Still others think it's a way for women to act "holier-than-thou-art." I touch on the history and meaning of veiling here. I don't normally get into it with those who question my choice because I realize they're not questioning my choice so much as scoffing at me for it. I don't mind, to be honest. I realize the scoffing isn't really an attack so much as an expression of "I'm not really sure what to say because I don't really understand why you'd wanna do something like that." So unless they question me further, I allow them an easy escape route and simply smile at their awkward laughter, slight quip, or indignant eye-roll. This entry, however, made me feel a little jealous of the wife. Heh. Obviously I don't want to exchange him for John. I love John and know he's the only one for me. :) He's the most perfect father and provider a woman could possibly ask for. He, in so many ways, is my best friend. What I'm jealous of is the sharing of faith. For as many things as John and I share, faith isn't one of them. And I don't hate him for it, and he obviously doesn't hate me it. Same as he doesn't hate me for not loving movies as much as he does. We understand there is simply a divide there, and though we secretly wish the other would be more enthused about our individual passions, we respect that sometimes there are things we must do on our own. So for as much as I'd like John to attend Mass every Sunday with me, and be an active part of the faith, I know that won't happen and would never enforce it upon him. For as much as he'd like me to take part in every meeting / screening / film shoot he does, he understands it wouldn't happen and doesn't hold it against me. Just a thought I had. Regardless, I wanted to share the note (and subsequent contest) with you folks in the hopes that you can take part in that which I cannot! Enjoy and best wishes!!!  "What's the Church's stance on infertility?"
This is a common question I get. Funny thing, though, is that half the people asking are genuinely curious and looking for an answer that might guide them through some very difficult choices. The other half are simply trying to convince me that the Church is a backwards, patriarchal mess hell-bent on ensuring no one is happy - EVER. Truth be told, for the first half of folks this is a really, REALLY tough question with even tougher answers. For the second set, however, nothing seems to satisfy them and my answers only serve to frustrate them more (since my answers only reconfirm my staunch support of and faith in the Church). Anyway, I am gearing this response to the first group. Men and women dealing with infertility have my deepest heart-hugs. I understand what it means to desperately want a child and grapple with the threat of miscarriage. I understand the feelings of inadequecy, the self-loathing and the anger at God, the world, biology, genetics. I really do. However, Church teaching, tradition and examples have made this much clearer for me, and through my own threatened miscarriage, it is what gave me peace. The Church teaches that children are a blessing from God established through the union of a married man and woman engaging in sex the way it was intended. That is the only way children are ever supposed to be brought into the world as ordained by God. However, because humans take part in the creative process, we've got children born out of wedlock, we've got teen moms, abortions, child trafficking, etc. What recourse does a couple have when they want children, but are biologically unable to produce those children? The answer, in the Church's mind, is adoption and patience. I, for one, truly believe infertility is God's way to answer the problem of unwanted children. The Church also teaches patience on this through the examples of Sts. Joachim and Anne. They, too, were childless and infertile for MANY years. They trusted in God's Will and remained patient and prayed. As a result, they were blessed with the most perfect child (barring Jesus) in creation - the Blessed Mother. IVF, "test tube babies" and surrogates are all contrary to Church teaching. Many people find that arrogant / heartless. How can an institution deny the basic desire to procreate with your own genes, especially when science has evolved to help us with that? The answer is simple - Science does not account for the Will of God, and those who chose the IVF route may very well derail the Will of God. Instead of granting that couple a child a month or two down the line (or even a year or two down the line) so he or she is the proper age to marry the person He created for her, or to have the teacher that would inspire him or her to become a religious, president, or doctor who cures cancer, they place their own desires above the desires of God through science. Slippery slope there. We are asked to trust in God's Providence. We aren't asked to understand, just trust. In the end, God always rewards those who trust in His Will with countless blessings. Also, I'd like to direct you to this article. Infertility is sometimes a gift given specifically so God can glorify His Blessed Mother through miraculous healings. We never can fully understand the Mind of God, so we do best to simply accept His Will with the trust that He will provide exactly what we need when we need it, both for our good, and the greater good of all people (children and future children alike). All lives (past, present and future) are hand-made threads sewn into a tapestry that only God can see. When we attempt removing threads (through abortion), cutting threads short (euthanasia / murder), or pushing an extra thread through the needle before the time is right (IVF, surrogates, etc), the tapestry becomes sullied. God blessed us with the unique ability to take part in the creation process with Him, however, we have the responsibility to trust in His Design. Doing things contrary to His Will is a lack of trust in His Design, and I honestly feel that sin against Him must hurt most of all. After all, God loves us so much and knows exactly what each of us wants / needs to reach salvation. He laid out the path for us to follow, but time and again we turn from that path for our own selfish reasons. Though a heartbreaking trial, infertility could very well mean salvation for not just the couple dealing with it, but the children they would have adopted had they not chosen IVF. Or the children THOSE children would have impacted positively having felt the loving embrace of adoptive parents. We cannot see how the threads are to be intertwined. We don't know our parts to play until all is said and done. The best we can do is trust that God has our best interests at heart. Infertility, at its root, is an opportunity to trust the Will of God and take part in Divine Providence. My prayers are with all men and women dealing with this issue. It truly is a difficult cross to bear. May the angels surround you and guard you in your decisions, and may the Holy Spirit be kind and kiss you with extra wisdom, that you may see His Plans for you and your family.  This Sunday's gospel is of great interest to me. Only recently did I come to understand the meaning of "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."
I admit that as a child, I was always highly confused by this. First, it's on the heels of Jesus' seemingly psychotic reaction to moneychangers in the Temple. That, in and of itself, was at odds with my idea of the peaceful, loving Jesus of the NT. The Jesus who overturns tables, scatters the merchants, and physically assaults the wares of the temple-goers seemed so fundamentally wrong that I'd brush it off, unable to reconcile the differences. Next, Jesus seems to be saying that just because a coin has the Emperor's face on it, it belongs to him. That seems like a cheap way to say "Well, his name is on it, so give it back." That always reminded me of the bully in school who would say "That desk is mine!" and when you'd look at him thinking "What?" he'd point out his name, angrily etched into the grain, as proof the territory belonged solely to him. However, I came across a book not too long ago that taught me how to delve deeper into the context of these passages. In attempting to better understand the Bible, this is one of those passages I took out for a test drive. As I try to teach my current crop of students, we cannot fully appreciate the lessons of the New Testament without first understanding the Old. We also cannot understand the lessons of Christ without looking at His messages as a whole. In other words, I'd been going about processing this particular story all wrong. Instead of "ignoring" the images of Jesus I was uncomfortable with, I needed to embrace them. Instead of reading this story out of context (just a snippet of a larger message), I needed to place this on the timeline of Christ's message and hear what He was trying to say and listen to the message as one of those present would have. So let's lay out the framework for those less familiar with this particular story. Jesus is preaching, publicly, to a group of the faithful. The Pharisees send a representative to entrap Jesus with a question. The answer to that question, they believe, will indict Him against Rome and ensure His execution as traitor. Jesus discerns the motive for the question and reprimands the representative, not before, however, indicting the representative against the Jewish people He was preaching to. Now that we have the framework, we need to place this in a timeline. This exchange happens on Holy Tuesday... two days after Palm Sunday and three days before Good Friday. Unless you really know your gospels, that fact can be lost when you're hearing this reading on a Sunday in October. The reason this is particularly important is the holiday in which it occurred. Jesus was in Jerusalem for Passover. Passover brought INCREDIBLE numbers of Jews from all over the empire to the temple to celebrate their most important feast. Keep in mind... since Jerusalem was a huge mecca the week leading up to Passover, extra Roman authorities were brought in to keep Roman rules in check. In other words, there were a lot Jews in Jerusalem and because of that, there were a lot of Roman soldiers eyeballing everyone as a potential threat. That's also why Pontius Pilate was in Jerusalem. He didn't typically reside there. He, too, was brought in as an extra presence... a heavy reminder that though the Jews were allowed to practice their religion, they were still to recognize Rome and Caesar as the supreme "Son of God." As a result, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would be extra inclined to get Jesus out of their hair. After all, Jesus represented a very real threat to them. They weren't just concerned that He challenged their religious authority... they were extremely concerned that He threatened their very existence in the face of THEIR bosses (the Romans) who had tasked them with keeping their people under the authority of Caesar. So the fact that Jesus is running around preaching, in public, about the Kingdom of God and inviting the lower classes to unite (peacefully) against the materialistic, imperialistic and oftentimes violent Rome... it's no wonder their panties were in a bunch! If Pontius Pilate caught wind that the puppet leaders of the Jews weren't doing their job in assuring the authority of Rome, not only could they have been deposed - they could have been put to death as traitors themselves! Again, this is VERY important to understanding why the Pharisees were so gung-ho about trapping Jesus in a public setting. Considering that Jesus had already gone berserk with the moneychangers just a day earlier, their nails were bitten to the cuticle and they needed to prove themselves as capable of squashing this rebellious leader. The question they posed to Jesus was this: "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" Truth be told, that is an absolutely BRILLIANT question to ask. To answer "No!" would label Jesus a rebellious traitor who could be jailed or worse for His denial of Roman rule. To answer "Yes!" would label Jesus as a traitor to His own people. Remember, the Jews at this time were under the rule of Rome. The yearly siphoning off of their hard-earned money was a painful reminder that they were not free and were, instead, working to prop-up the arrogance and wealth of their overlords. This is why tax collectors were hated. This is why money-changers weren't trusted. So the Pharisees figured this question was win-win for them. A "no" would ensure Jesus was sent to jail and a "yes" would ensure every Jew listening to Him would spite Him henceforth. I have to give credit where credit is due, and they deserve credit here. That is a BRILLIANT question to pose. No worries, though. For as brilliant as that question is, Jesus' answer trumps it by a mile. Jesus says "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the money for the tax." This first piece of information, though typically glossed over, is hilarious. Why did Jesus call them hypocrites? Why did He ask them to show Him a coin? Because Jesus didn't have a Roman coin! None of the people He was preaching to would have had a Roman coin. Only the Pharisees or their corrupt representatives would be carrying around Roman coins! Jews would have to go to the Temple to change their local currencies into Roman currency in order to pay the tax. Once the tax was paid, they'd go right back to using local currency, doing their best to avoid any and all ties with Roman lordship (including use of Roman money). Jesus, in asking for a coin, proves two things at once. First, He is unified with His Jewish followers against using Roman money. Secondly, He proves that the Pharisees were NOT unified with the Jews because they DID, in fact, keep and use Roman money. This is why Jesus revealed them to be hypocrites. They put Jesus to the test without realizing that they, themselves were guilty of that which they were attempting to paint Christ into a corner with. Ah... hilarious. Anyway, after they acknowledge the image of Caesar on the coin Jesus' response continues "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." This response is in no way evasive. It seems like that at first glance, though. However, in order to understand how precise this response is, the listeners must first understand the reference Jesus makes. Since the Roman soldiers wouldn't have been avid followers of Jewish Scripture, they wouldn't have picked up on the fact that Jesus was calling His listeners to mobilize for the coming revolution. The Jews Jesus was preaching to, however, would have heard the message loud and clear. The representatives of the Pharisees, too, would have understood the message, but would have been powerless to explain it to Roman soldiers. Thus, Jesus spoke the Truth free from reprisal. You may be wondering how this could have been a call to mobilize. Again, let's go back to the Old Testament. 1 Maccabees, Chapter 2 deals with the defilement of the Temple and the enslavement of the Jews by Gentile forces. A small group of Jews decided to accept the violent force the Gentiles were using in coercing them to ignore God and His Commands. As a result, they were murdered viciously. Another small group of Jews, seeing this attack on their way of life, banded together and began a rebellion against the Gentile forces, demanding respect for the laws of God in the face persecution from Gentiles (those with no regard for God's Commands). The leader of this rebellion, Mattathias, was put to death for his part. However, before he accepted his fate, he pressed his followers to continue the fight for the right to follow God's Will above all else. His final words before execution were "Pay back the Gentiles what they deserve and observe the precepts of the law." Sound familiar? Mattathias wasn't telling his followers to pay the Gentiles taxes. He was requesting that his followers avenge the violence committed by the Gentiles and to always give God the obedience His Law deserves. This entire nuance was lost on the Roman soldiers who no doubt stood watch over the crowd. Jesus' followers, however, must have inwardly rejoiced, amazed - no doubt - by His courage and desire to overthrow the Romans who so viciously ruled them. Jesus took their very dangerous trap and turned it into such a triumphant victory that the Pharisees were probably besides themselves with fear. It's no wonder they stepped up their efforts (through Judas) to dismantle Jesus' "Kingdom of God" rebellion before they, themselves, ended up killed. So now, having a better grasp of the timeline, framework, and audience of this exchange, we come to understand that Jesus isn't just saying "Everything belongs to God." Jesus is concretely saying: "Followers, I have come as I have promised you. I have begun the rebellion as your Messiah. I have come to bring you salvation... to bring you the Kingdom of God. For that, I am happy to die. I now ask the same of you. After My Death, you must continue to carry out God's Commands. You must continue to strive to follow God's Will, and God's Will alone. Despite imperialism, despite materialism, despite the persecution that is sure to come, you MUST be willing to abandon yourselves to the Word of God. YOU carry the stamp of God within your soul, and as such, YOU belong to God. Give yourselves to Him wholly in all you do." A very interesting and spine-tingling note about Mattathias' final words that only more firmly cements Jesus' prophetic call to action: "Here is your brother Simeon who I know is a wise man; listen to him always, and he will be a father to you. And Judas Maccabeus, a warrior from his youth, shall be the leader of your army and direct the war against the nations." Just as Mattathias left his followers Simeon (also known as Simon or "Thassi") as a wise and trusted father for his people, Jesus left for us Peter (ALSO known as Simon) as our first Holy Father. It's interesting to me that Mattathias' Judas is a champion of the Jewish armies while Jesus' Judas turns out to be unwitting champion of the enemy's army. "Behold, I make all things new!"  On the heels of this post, I thought it best to reaffirm something that might have become a little confused due to my handling of Midnight's euthanasia.
I must point out that I (as a Catholic) do not, under any circumstances, believe in the practice of human euthanasia. As a testament to my reverence for human life in all its forms (conception through natural death), I trust in Divine Providence that all stages of life (including bodily decay through age, illness, etc) are meant for a higher purpose. Animal euthanasia, however, is an entirely different ballgame. Mary, concerned that Midnight might be trapped inside some sort of "kitty-Purgatory" asked me why it was OK to euthanize animals but not humans, especially when it's considered "humane" to end the suffering of a terminally ill pet. This is an extremely valid question, and one that shows logic and compassion. I've been posed this question in the past, but never really took the time to explain as I did to Mary yesterday. I'm posting an edited version of my response here in the hopes that it answers that question for others who are grappling with the same fear, worry or confusion. The short answer to the question, "Do all dogs (or animals in general) REALLY go to Heaven?" is YES. No collecting of $200 as you pass Go, and no jail-time through Purgatory. Animals do have souls, and they do go straight to Heaven. Now for the more involved answer... In Judiac tradition (keeping in mind that Catholicism is the fulfillment - the full expression - of the promises made by God to the Jewish people), there are a few words to describe the life and soul of both people and animals. The same words are used in an effort to paint an increasingly detailed description of how the physical world becomes animated through the invisible (or Divine) world. For example, in Genesis, the word "neshama" means "breath" or "wind." It translations roughly into "breath like my own" In other words, when God animated Adam and Eve, He very concretely breathed Life into them, in His own Image. This breath of life... this "neshama" is the soul... the immortal animation of our mortal bodies. In Leviticus 17:11, the word "nefesh" is utilized in stating that "the life [nefesh] of the flesh is in the blood." As a result of the close connection between blood as life-sustaining and God's breath as a fluid, living function, Judaic tradition revered blood and soul to be inseparable. In other words, blood was the physical manifestation of the soul, which is why it wasn't considered impure until it left the body (thus no longer serving a life-sustaining purpose). It is also why blood was used in worship. Blood, being so closely united to the spirit- to the breath of God- was revered and precious. Finally, we have "ruah" in Ecclesiastes. Much like "neshama" from Genesis, "ruah," too, means "breath of God." The beautiful sentiment found in Ecclesiastes 12:7 states that a person dies when "the dust returns to the ground where it had been and the [ruah]returns to the God who had given it." In other words, death happens when our bodies exhale that final life-sustaining breath which returns upwards to the God who originally deigned to forge that breath in a mother's womb at conception. The physical body, now separated from the soul, decays rapidly into the dust it was created from. To break it down: Ruah is the invisible breath of God that animates physical bodies Nefesh is the result of this ruah (the physical motion of the invisible animation) Neshama, to cycle back to the story of Genesis, is specifically granted to man through Adam because this breath of God was "like unto Ours." In other words, Neshama is the unique part of God's Ruah that enlightens humanity and gives us the capability for free will. So yes, God gave the gift of Life to all His creation, but He reserved a special, more enlightened life for Man. That is "neshama" and it is because of this "neshama" that Purgatory exists for humanity, but not for our beloved pets. Since animals have no free will (or neshama) to utilize, they can never really "sin." Sure, they can pee on the carpet, chew your favorite boots or claw apart your newly upholstered sofa, but sin? Not so much. As a result, once their mortal life ends, their life force is returned to God, free of the stain of sin, and thus not in need of the cleansing of Purgatory. Humans, on the other hand, who have been given the grace of Free Will, also have the responsibility of using that gift wisely. Since humanity is pretty much incapable of always utilizing Free Will to do good, Purgatory was created as a mercy to help us one day unite ourselves back to the God who first gave us life. It is important to note, at this point, that while we are still alive, God offers us, through Divine Providence, countless opportunities to rectify the wrongs we created by misusing the gift of Free Will. This counts as a "Purgatory on Earth." I'll be dedicating tomorrow's blog to this. Stay tuned!  On the heels of yesterday's post, I wanted to also blog about another analogy that sprang to mind.
A man asked me what the difference was between Catholicism and any other random brand of religion. Even Atheism, for that matter. To answer him, I told him a story. I'm going to edit it a bit for you guys. A man is in the middle of a giant city. All he wants is to find a pizza parlor because he's both hungry and thirsty. He bumps into an Atheist who basically tells him there aren't any pizza parlors in the city... at least none worth going to. Disheartened, but not hopeless, the man then sees a Muslim who is kind enough to stop and give directions. He says, "Go up ten blocks, turn left, go three lights until you hit the park, circle it, and you'll find a parlor at the end of an alley to your immediate right." Gratiously, though slightly overwhelmed, the man thanks the Muslim and is just about to follow the directions when he spots a Jew. The Jew, too, stops and kindly gives directions, but in giving the directions left out which street the pizza parlor was on because he didn't quite remember. Finally, a little frustrated and still super hungry, the man is about to cross the street when he is approached by a Catholic. The Catholic just says, "Hey, I heard you were looking for a pizza parlor for some grub. There's actually a place right up the street. I'm going that way. Wanna tag along?" And within five minutes, the two of them were at a booth eating pizza. The difference between all of these religions is that, sure, all of them have the potential to get you pizza and a coke, but Catholicism offers you the most direct route because (as Catholics) we believe that Jesus Christ, God Himself, gave us this religion in order to lead us back to Himself. And since this route was paved by God, it is the most direct. Typically I use a "Mountain" or "Desert" analogy with this question, but this story came to mind when he asked and I think it made more sense - I found out later he's a city dweller and actually gets asked the pizza parlor question a lot. Ha ha. Go figure.  BVM "teaching" Jesus to pray Now that I'm back from vacation, I can post en masse.
Saturday's topic? Pope Benedict's apology lamenting "cradle Catholics" who haven't shared their faith with subsequent generations. As is typical, our Holy Father is spot on. This is a particulalry thorny issue for me, especially now that I'm taking charge of a CCD class and moving "full-steam-ahead" into evangelization. A few months ago, I was given the opportunity to share some ideas regarding children within the parish during what we called "Open Forum" nights. I was sadly the only person from my age group to attend, but it was a worthwhile night anyway. I asked the others who were there what function the Youth Group served within the parish. No one could tell me. All they said was "Well, they do a car wash" or "The do a Mass once in a while." So I stated (for the Holy Spirit, I think): How can we expect them to know their value in the parish if we don't? And it's true! Children are SO eager and SO full of love that they'd happily bend over backwards to feel useful. So it is OUR job to harness that potential and direct it in a positive, life-affirming way. It is our job as parents, educators, community leaders, etc to define their roles and encourage participation in our faith. Something as simple as having the Youth Group lead the Monday night Rosary would have such a lasting effect! But we don't do these things. We ignore an entire category of parishoners because of their age... because of their lack of perceived value! How foolish we are! And as Pope Benedict points out, it goes even farther than that. How many of us have witnessed parents pushing their way into a foreign parish to enable the baptism of their baby only to never set foot inside a church again? How many couples move mountains to enable a Catholic Nuptial Mass only to ignore every other aspect of our faith? How many parents drop their children off to CCD classes only to ignore the greatest expression of our faith, the Mass, every Sunday??? Worst of all, maybe, how many times have we... fully vested Catholics who understand and love our faith... not practiced the day-to-day profession of faith in our actions? How many times have we not followed the most basic of Catholic principles, to love thy neighbor as thyself? All of these things have deprived our youth of truly understanding and appreciating the Catholic faith, and we've only ourselves to blame. Seriously... we need to do better at acknowledging the value of our children and encouraging them to take part in all the beauty our faith has to offer. We need to do better at holding ourselves accountable for our role in depleting respect, awe and understanding of Catholicism. Pope Benedict was kind in "apologizing" on behalf of Catholics everywhere. It opens the door to a mirror which reflects our own sad truth back at us, and acknowledges the pervasive, growing problem of lack-luster Catholics... hopefully this gentle chide is enough to push us back on the path towards true evangelization.  Since I decided to make the full leap back into Catholic life, I've felt very alienated from most people. My husband is content to call me crazy, my friends have either patiently remained silent "until the storm passes" or have taken some offense to my newfound zeal for the Church.
It's been especially hard for me to find an outlet for the outpouring of love and excitement I have regarding my faith and my God. I have to admit, however, being blessed with one soul who is an absolute mirror to the spark in my own. She is the one responsible for pulling me back into the Church, and she's the one I continuously return to for guidance and comfort as I move forward in my "reversion." We've been friends for over 10 years now, but at no time have I ever relied so heavily on her as I have in recent weeks. Thank you, God, for sending me so patient a teacher and so loving a friend. In an attempt to find more like-minded people who loved God, His Blessed Mother and His Church, I went online and found several "Catholic" chat rooms. I entered into each, excited at the prospect of kindling a greater love of God through discussion and prayer. Instead of finding solace, I was horrified by the workings of these so-called "Catholic" chats. Most were nothing more than technological corners on which prostitutes of both sexes could whore themselves out behind the screen of anonymity. Finally, though, after weeks of loneliness, I came across the most amazing chat room ever. Not only was it truly Catholic, it was full of people who relished their Catholicism!!! Oh, my heart couldn't stop singing praises to God for the gift of finding these wonderful, wonderful people! I jumped right in, feeling as though I had found "home" amongst family. I called up my aforementioned friend and shared the good news. What a wonderful blessing! Other Catholics who made me feel I wasn't so alone... that I wasn't completely insane! Ha ha. For days I'd feel my heart skip happily at even the thought of sharing discussion of the Divine through this chat room. Unfortunately, a moderator came under the impression that I was someone I wasn't. Another chatter told me that there had been a rash of "trolling" within the room, and moderators were taking extra precautions to protect the innocence of the room (which is appreciated... something so wonderful NEEDS to be protected for the good of all who enter). Apparently my communication style was similar to one of these "trolls" and I was mistaken for him or her. As a result, my IP address was banned. At the time, I simply thought it was a glitch, not realizing that I had been misunderstood for someone else. It took a few weeks for this realization to dawn on me, and only after a particularly confusing discourse with the offending moderator. Instead of using my work computer, I could only access the room from home. So each night I'd get my fill of friendship and enlightenment. So many of these chatters helped me learn more about the various topics in question, and I am eternally grateful for their patient and generous expression of wisdom. However, I was again attacked by this misled moderator. At first, it started out innocently enough. He reprimanded me, rightly, for the downturn of conversation. Upon apologizing for any offense, I continued about the joyous chat. Not content with my reply, and still thinking I was an enemy, he roadblocked me by once more disabling my IP address, successfully cutting me off from the bounty of comfort I found within the people there. I was smart enough to save the conversation this time, and asked the administrator to assist me in rectifying this problem. It took a while, but once she got a hold of my messages, she must've realized I hadn't done anything to solicit a ban and reinstated my home IP address. Again, I was filled with an ecstatic happiness and gratefulness to God for once again placing me in the company of faithful Catholics. I was immediately welcomed back into the room by the friends I'd missed during the assault on my integrity. They, too, wondered what had happened as they saw no reason for the moderator's behavior. I didn't wish to speak poorly of a moderator who was probably just attempting to do his job, but I admit to being very slighted by this intense attack against me. I did my best to simply steer clear of him and once more fill myself with the love of God that flowed within the room. Unfortunately, he found me again and blocked me without so much as a word of warning. In fact, he did it very cowardly, by muting my communications in the room. It took me a couple minutes, but I quickly realized that no one could read what I was saying. I then realized the moderator was invisible in the room, and the only moderator who would act so childishly would be the person who has been after me since day one. I calmly asked, in the only way I could, if he was present and if I'd need to once again submit the matter to the administrator. Apparently he took this as a threat and once more I found my IP address blocked. *Shakes head* I sighed and lifted my heart to God. I recognized the devil was at play here. The devil knows of my intentions, and how inflamed I become with love of Catholicism after taking part in discussions within the room. As a result, he has attempted to stifle that conversation as best he can. Silly little demon. He doesn't understand that I have the power of God behind me, and try as he might, he can never defeat the love of Catholicism I have. So I sought out the chat on my mother's computer. I got a hold of one of my most favorite chatters to solicit his assistance. I was blessed to have him in the room at that moment, because as soon as the moderator realized who I was, I was once again booted from the room. By some miracle, my communications with him went unaltered, and I was able to send out my little SOS. Hopefully, soon, something will come of it. Until then, I remain happy to have been blessed with the chat room at all, because through it, my love and understanding of Catholicism has grown, I've met wonderful people that I wish to continue a relationship with, and hopefully, in the end, this moderator comes to his senses and realizes the error of his judgement. I sincerely pray he hasn't done this to someone else with less patience than I. God forbid he continues misusing his authority, chasing others who truly seek out the friendship of other Catholics away. Please pray for me and for the moderator who needs guidance. Though I feel a distinct pang of loneliness within my heart over this foolishness, I offer it to God in the knowledge that all is allowed by Him for His Will. Thus, if it be requested that I feel such loneliness so I rely more firmly on Him, so be it. |
Top Rated EntriesMy Darkest Secret
Do Animals Have Souls? 10 Things a Parent of an SPD Kid Wants to Say Fun and Easy Lenten Crafts Tattoo Taboo Blessed Mother as Intercessor Loss of Life Women Priests II Animal Sacrifices Render Unto Caesar Veiling The Godparent Poem Broken Friendships Miscarriage Reflection NYT Anti-Catholic Ad Categories
All
Pages I StalkA Woman's Place
Dymphna's Road Having Left the Altar Fr. Z @ WDTPRS Spirit Daily These Stone Walls St. Joseph's Vanguard Catholic Sistas Catholic Icing Liturgical Time Traditional Latin Mass Shameless Popery Life Victorious Catholic Dads S'aint Easy Truth, Beauty and Goodness The Way Out There Written by the Finger of God Little Catholic Bubble So You're a Church Musician There and Back Again Make It - Love It St. Monica's Bridge Seeking Renewal 
Archives
June 2017
 |
RSS Feed
Copyright 2023