The Lesser of Two Evils: The 2016 Presidential Election

If you’re like me, you have been taking the candidates for the 2016 presidential race with a grain of salt.  In the past I was never really into politics.  Ironically, political science was my first major in college.  My entire first year of college I spent convincing myself that I hated to read.  Once I changed my major to theology, I realized that I hated to read politics.  Before I could vote, I had absolutely no interest in politics.  I honestly felt that once I reached adulthood and could vote I still wouldn’t because I had no interest whatsoever.  However, I did find myself voting as soon as I could.  That didn't change my interest though.  I never sat down and watched any debates.  I didn’t watch the news or read the newspaper. Basically, I started to consider the election about two weeks before I had to cast my vote.  By that time, all of the sub candidates had been whittled away and we were left with two potential presidential nominees.

The first time I voted was in 1996, less than two months removed from my 18^th birthday.  I voted for Bill Clinton, and looking back, I think the only reason I did was because of Dana Carvey’s impression of George Bush on Saturday Night Live.  I based my vote on the caricature of a person rather than anything that that person legitimately had to say.  Unfortunately, I didn’t quickly learn my lesson, and in 2000 I voted for Al Gore.  The main reason I voted for Al Gore was because I thought there was no way we should elect someone who came across to be as dumb as George W. Bush.  I just couldn’t stomach the thought of voting for someone who pronounced it nuke-you-lar instead of nuclear.  When 2004 rolled around, I was even more convinced that George W. Bush had 3 to 4 screws loose. I'm struggling to remember who I voted for.  I think it was John Kerry, and I’m too tired to look it up see if I’m right.  In 2008 I voted for Barack Obama.  I know what you’re thinking.  Every single vote I cast was for a Democrat. My votes were cast based on my perception of how intellectual a person was, not on the content of what he was actually saying.  All that changed in 2012.  I voted for Mitt Romney.  At the ripe old age of 34, I had finally reached adulthood and was actually listening to what candidates had to say.

I had taken a close look at American Society and the factors that have contributed to its recent decline.  With that election, I found myself taking hard-line stances on certain issues.  While the “money for everyone” and equitable share rhetoric of the Democratic Party are wonderful ideas, I couldn’t get past the broken welfare system, the government’s hands in everything, and, above all, that pesky abortion thing.  My faith had finally kicked in and became the source from which all politics would flow.  In one election, I turned from an unknowingly solid Democrat to a staunch Republican.

Actually, I claim to be an independent because I think the fact that we have only two political parties means that we are always choosing the lesser of two evils.  In a perfect world, we could have a third-party that would value the dignity of every human life and destroy the abortion industry like the conservative party would like while at the same time upholding social justice issues for which the liberals are well known.  I feel like the 2012 election was going to be that identifying moment where I would become a Republican voter regardless of the nominee.

That brings us back to 2016 and the current circus that the Republican Party continues to throw on the national television and news media.  I was really hoping that the conservative party would learn the lesson of vetting quality candidates after the debacle of picking Sarah Palin as a running mate.  Apparently not.  Despite my insistence that time would take its toll and eliminate Donald Trump as a viable candidate for the nomination he continues to make headlines and climb up the rankings.  This time I don’t need SNL to offer me a whimsical look at political candidate.  The man himself is a walking caricature.  And so I found my relatively new and staunch conservative status in limbo because of who is leading the charge of the conservative party.  Watching the conservative’s battle each other has been nauseating.  Yet, I realized I hadn’t even looked at the liberals.

So the other night I clicked on the Townhall between Sanders and Clinton.  To be honest, I’ve never really listened to Bernie Sanders so I thought I would give him a chance to it least say something to me.  I listened to him for five minutes.  He talked about social justice and the elite billionaire class and I found myself nodding in approval.  Then he hit me with the closer that “every woman has a right to be in control of her own body.”  For those of you new to politics, that’s liberal speak for “go ahead and kill a baby because its human value isn’t the same as the person it’s in.”  He lost me.  So I, again, return to the lesser of two evils debate.  I have really been struggling so I thought I would seek out some guidance.  It was so short and so simple that I’m really kind of embarrassed I didn’t think of it myself.  I was told to look at the nonnegotiables.  I needed to look past the candidate as the party would attempt to do.  I would also need to hope that the party would surround the president with the right people to help make quality decisions.  Again, to decode, if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee I may have to vote for him and hope that he has a quality Cabinet.

So what are the nonnegotiables?  Here’s a short list for brevity’s sake: abortion, marriage, family.  Actually I probably could’ve made it simpler; it all comes down to love.  Pope Francis puts it very succinctly in his latest encyclical Laudato Si (paragraph 65):

 “The Bible teaches that every man and woman is created out of love and made in God’s  image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26). This shows us the immense dignity of each person, “who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons”.[37] Saint John Paul II stated that the special love of the Creator for each human being “confers upon him or her an infinite dignity”.[38] Those who are committed to defending human dignity can find in the Christian faith the deepest reasons for this commitment. How wonderful is the certainty that each human life is not adrift in the midst of hopeless chaos, in a world ruled by pure chance or endlessly recurring cycles! The Creator can say to each one of us: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (Jer 1:5). We were conceived in the heart of God, and for this reason “each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary”.

I am capable of love because I was created out of love and for love.  This love requires that I see that every single human life has value.  It is for that simplest of reasons that I will vote against the Democratic Party again.  If it turns out that Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, and he is the least objectionable of the pro-life candidates remaining then he will get my vote.  If that happens I pray for two things.  First, when the new president, whoever that may be, places his/her hand on that Bible and he swears that oath (which requires swearing to GOD by the way.  Seriously, it isn’t an oath unless you swear to God) that he really means it at the very end when he/she says “so help me God.”  And second, that God helps him.

Why Are People Really Attacking Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of its services are abortions. Recently, pro-life activists claim that number is as high as 94%. If you want to read the full explanation on how both of these numbers can be correct, there is an article at the Washington Post called "For Planned Parenthood Abortion Stats 3% and 94% are Both Misleading."

For those that don't want to read the full article, I propose an alternate percentage. Planned Parenthood says it services 2.7 million people in 2013. In the same year, it provided 327,653 abortions. Simply put, 12% of the people that walk in that door, get an abortion. The goal of this simple math is not to say that PP needs to be de-funded, or close its doors, or is a horrendous monster. The goal is to just simply say that at a minimum 12% of what it does is abortion related.

Let's move on to talk about the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. Again, there are a variety of articles that paint her as, both, a saint on one side and Satan himself on the other. Many of her quotes are taken out of context on both sides so I intend to list 2 quotes that give a window into her mind regardless of the context in which they are given.

"(Our objective is) unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children...    (Women must have the right) to live...to love...to be lazy...to be an unmarried mother...to create...to destroy. The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order."
Regardless of the context, it's clear that Margaret Sanger wants to sever the link between sex and love. Sex has nothing to do with children and even less to do with a marriage.  The saddest thing about this quote is the fact that every TV show, movie, book, liberal arts college, public high school, mainstream newspaper, etc. endorses this concept.   Let's move on to quote number 2.

"The fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty stricken classes should not be held up for emulation. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective..."

Couple that with her saying, "Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying..demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism..."
In the first quote, Sanger implies that not only should sex rarely lead to children.  In the second, she goes so far as to say it should never lead to one who is mentally or physically disabled. (Nazis anyone?)

One doesn't have to take too much of a leap to suggest that PP was not founded to "help women be healthy."  It was founded to decrease the amount of undesirable people either by contraception or abortion.

Finally, I want to close with a quote from the current CEO of Planned Parenthood. In a recent YouTube video responding to the chargers that PP profits from selling fetal tissue, the CEO made the comment about pro-life activists: "They have never been concerned with the health and safety of women.  Their mission is to ban abortion completely and cut women off from care at Planned Parenthood and other health centers."
I don't think I have ever heard a pro-life activist say a woman should not have access to a pregnancy test or cervical cancer exams. If that's all that PP did, then pro-life activists wouldn't have a problem with them. But, PP is the country's largest provider of abortions. I hope the CEO is just misspoken and not feeble-minded. Otherwise, the founder of the company would not think too highly of her.

In conclusion, people are against PP because of the large number of murders that they commit. It has nothing to do with women's healthcare. PP continues to claim that it is only protecting a woman's health.  According to Ms. Sanger, PP is also protecting a woman's right to "unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children."  This is the disconnect. News flash... SEX LEADS TO CHILDREN.  If you don't want kids, don't have sex.  No woman, regardless of her desire to remain childless should have the right to murder an innocent person.  I have always been in favor of abstinence over murder.



Which Interpretation is Correct?

I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY...Just let those words sink in. You got it? Now, what does that mean exactly? Whether you know it or not, that sentence can mean five entirely different things. Place the emphasis on each of the words separately. Now I ask again. What did I mean when I said it? Which interpretation is the correct one? The answer is “I never said you STOLE money.” I said you simply hadn’t paid back what you borrowed yet. Okay, I have to give credit to Pat Madrid for that exercise. The purpose is simple: to understand that sentence, you would need to have access to certain information. You might need to know me or the circumstances surrounding the event about which I am speaking. You might need to know if I am sarcastic or a compulsive liar. Now apply this same exercise to the Bible.

The Bible presents a vastly more difficult test than my single sentence. There are thousands of sentences in that book. Sometimes those sentences give “seemingly” conflicting information. One may cite the commandment “though shalt not kill” found in Exodus. But that is followed up with reasons that you can kill as a punishment in Deuteronomy. In Exodus, again, we get another commandment “You shall not create a graven image,” followed just a few chapters later with the command to create images of angels for the Ark of the Covenant. If you want a New Testament reference, how about Romans 2:6 “who will render to every man according to his deeds” followed quickly in Romans 3:28 with “for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”  The point of all this is interpretations. To be honest, recent debates between Protestant and Catholic scholars largely show a general agreement on the contextual application of these verses. While there is much theological agreement between Christian subgroups, the fact that there are thousands of subgroups should be cause for concern.

There are over 35,000 Christian denominations today. That means that there are at least 35,000 different interpretations of Scripture. All of these different groups splintered off from something that was already there. The first major split came around 1100 A.D. when the Orthodox churches broke off from the Catholic Church. There are very few dogmatic differences between those 2 distinct Christian traditions. Nevertheless, they have a different interpretation regarding some issues. It must be noted that the Catholic Church will allow its members to take the Eucharist at an Orthodox church if necessary because they hold the same belief about the real presence of Christ. The next major split came with Martin Luther, Calvin, and others in the form of the Protestant Reformation almost 500 years later. The Protestant battle cry was two-fold: Sola Scriptura (Bible alone-meaning that the Bible is the only place to look for the Truth of God) and Sola Fide (Faith alone-meaning that we are saved by faith rather than our merits; which the Catholic Church also teaches even if it hasn’t always done a great job of teaching it). Martin Luther and the other Reformers led the revolt, which basically said that each person can decide for him or herself what the Bible teaches. Interestingly, when followers of the Reformers started to break off, which happened almost instantly, Luther and the rest had no problem telling those people that they weren’t reading the Bible right.

So how are we to know? Do we get a warm fuzzy feeling when we read it? Do we know we are interpreting correctly when we get a large number of “Amens” from the congregation? I, for one, believe that if Christ wanted Scripture to play such an important role in evangelization, that he would have given us some assurances that we could trust the interpretation. In Matthew 5:15 Jesus says “Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and It gives light to all the house.” Why would Jesus establish a church and give it as its only tool, a book that, as history has shown, can be interpreted at least 35,000 different ways without some sort of protection from false interpretation? Again in Matthew 28:18-20 we hear: “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’”  Jesus promises to be with his church forever. In John 16:12-13, we get the promise that the church will be guided by the Spirit into all truth. “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak and He will disclose to you what is to come.” Finally a Catholic apologist would be remiss to omit Matthew 16:18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Peter means rock so the quote should read: “you are Rock and on this rock I will build my church.) Even renowned Protestant scholars agree that Jesus is pointing to Peter as the rock. They just differ in their interpretation of what that means. (I know. Shocking. Right?)

If the Bible can be interpreted in countless ways, why even believe in the Bible at all?  I guess the short answer is that we believe that Christ is God and that Scripture is his revelation to us.  But lots of people have claimed to be God.  Many people have claimed new revelation.  Islam and Mormonism immediately come to mind.  The founders of those religions made it perfectly clear that their revelation came directly from God.  But the vast majority of Christians wouldn’t buy it.  What makes the Bible so different?  Since we don’t believe the claims of Joseph Smith, why would we believe Matthew, John, Peter and Paul?  Just because a book claims to be inspired hasn’t helped me to get on board with Islam.  I have chosen to believe the Truth of Christianity based on the answers it gives me to the most fundamental questions.  Why are we here?  Where are we going?  What does it all mean?  Since there are over 35,000 options within Christianity, what would lead me to believe that the Catholic position is correct?  To quote Jennifer Fulwiller, (whose conversion story from atheist to Catholic is very illuminating) “Either the Catholic Church is guided in its teachings by the Holy Spirit or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then why put any stock in any of its claims, including the claim that it chose the correct books for the cannon of the Bible.” She has it spot on. This is the crux of the argument.  I believe that Christ founded a church with apostolic succession. I believe that the church developed Scripture (inspired by the Holy Spirit) to assist in the evangelization of the whole world. I believe that church was entrusted with a protection by that same Spirit to interpret that Scripture faithfully. I guess you could say Jesus lit a lamp (Scripture) and placed it on a stand (Catholic Church) to give light to the whole world. The Reformers put a basket over it.

 

Immaculate?

 LUKE 1:26-38

 

¹⁰ In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, ¹¹ and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" ¹² And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived ¹³ a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; for nothing will be impossible for God." Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.

 

I have to say that I am very familiar with this passage.  It is a popular series of verses this time of year, especially for Catholics, especially today.  December 8 is the feast of the Immaculate Conception.  This was the Gospel reading at today's mass.  It is also a chronically overlooked passage by opponents to two specifically Catholic beliefs regarding Mary.  The first, is the Immaculate Conception itself.  This post isn't dedicated to defending that particular belief.  The early church fathers did more than enough to solidify that and I will just steer you to them.  They go to great lengths to defend Mary as "mother of God" and as "free from original sin."  Professional "anti-Catholics" like to point out that the original Greek translation (above) calls Mary "favored."  It wasn't until the Latin translation that "full of grace" replaced it.  They point out that since "full of grace" didn't appear in the original Greek that it is a false doctrine.  But the word Trinity was never used either, so why isn't that false?  The early church defined and defended the Trinity as well as the Immaculate Conception.  The basic teaching is that Jesus, by virtue of choosing Mary to be his mother, preserved her from sin.  Mary did nothing to merit it; she was saved like every other Christian, by the grace of Jesus Christ. 

 

The second doctrine that is in question is the perpetual virginity of Mary. Again, for the sake of simplicity, I will be brief.  The early church fathers (seriously, if you haven't read them you really should) covered this at great length.  In case you don't get the chance I will make a few comments regarding Mary's virginity.  While Christians essentially agree that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Christ, most disagree that she remained one.  The passage above makes it clear that she was a virgin at the birth of Christ, but I think it also makes it fairly obvious she was a lifelong virgin. What does the angel tell her?  "She will conceive and bear a son."  She clearly isn't confused at the mechanics since she knows it will require relations with a man. Also, she was betrothed.  So it would make perfect sense for her to conceive. I find it interesting that of all the the things the angel told her would happen, it was the conception that she questioned.  A little copy and paste action might help here.

 

"He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, ¹¹ and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end... The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

 

Mary doesn't question any of these phrases.  She questions the likelihood of a married woman getting pregnant but not that her child would be called "Son of God." Again, I find it interesting.  It is entirely probable that she had made a lifelong vow of celibacy (which Joseph supported).  This would make perfect sense as to why she trusted the angel's promises about who Jesus was while at the same time questioning the process.  It is not proof positive of her perpetual virginity, but that is kind of the point.  Scripture isn't to be used as a proof text.  Scripture doesn't "prove" much of anything. 

 

On a day like today, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, I say a prayer of thanks for being a Catholic.  I say a Hail Mary so that the mother of Jesus might pray for me. I marvel at how Jesus worked.  He became a man.  He preserved his mother from sin.  He filled her with grace.  He died and rose so that His grace might fill us.  He established a Church to lead us to Him.  What he didn't do was write a book.

 

 

Belts and Buttons

Belts and Buttons

OK.  I have always had a knack for making astute observations that generally cause those around me to share in my amusement.  Maybe not a knack, but it does sometimes happen.  What I actually have a knack for is forgetting the observation later and generally failing to recapture the whimsy when retelling the observation to the second group.  Congratulations.  You are in the second group so I will do my best to surpass your expectations. 

                I work for a large company with many locations throughout the country.  On a daily basis I would say I easily see more than 100 people.  My company caters to every type of person.  I have ample opportunity to observe people at their highs and lows.  I see people in pajamas, suits, and everywhere in between.  Sure, there are websites devoted to people whose attire is dirty, ironic, oxymoronic, and still more that show wardrobe malfunctions and a complete lack of clothing all together.

                Generally, I would say that when you laugh at someone for what they are wearing, or what they are attempting to wear, that person probably doesn’t care.  They don’t care that their shirt is too dirty.  They don’t care that their belly hangs over their pants.  They don’t care that corduroy pants are better at making weird noises when you walk than at making someone look fashionable.  Some people care about not caring so much that they make sure you realize how little they care about it (and then think they are cool because you noticed).  I actually get all that.  I have had the pleasure of being every one of these people at one time or another, except corduroy guy … I could never pull that off.

                Anyway, here is what I don’t get.  People who obviously care about the way they look and the image they are projecting yet seem to do everything they can to make it difficult.  I have three examples.  First, a young woman came into the office the other day and was sitting with a coworker.  When she got up to leave, I noticed she was wearing a skirt.  She stood and talked with my coworker for about 2 minutes.  She kept tugging at her skirt the entire time.  Yes, the skirt was short.  It was very short.  No amount of tugging was going to make it even close to an appropriate length.  She did not possess the arm strength to stretch this fabric into a modest size.  But she kept on tugging.  It was apparent, both to me and my coworker that she was embarrassed about just how little her skirt covered.

                Similarly, today a woman came in wearing a very low cut top.  She had a long sleeve shirt on top of that which was unbuttoned.  The entire time she was there, she had one arm or the other held in such a way to block her readily visible cleavage.  After she left, I asked a female coworker if she thought the girl was trying to cover up and she said “definitely.”  It’s not like she just couldn’t find clothes to fit.  She had a perfectly good shirt available to cover up had she simply used the buttons the manufacturer provided.  Yes I know that clothes makers are making it tougher for a woman to dress modestly but that is only half the battle.

                Finally, a man came in wearing gym shorts.  Think 1995 Michigan basketball.  These were long shorts.  They were made even longer by the fact that the waist band was completely below his butt.  He also kept tugging them up.  He would tug and they would sag.  He would tug again and they would sag again. Sag and tug. Sag and tug. Sag and tug. Sag and tug. Sag and tug. He was like the little engine that could.  Then when he left he made sure to get them nice and saggy again.

                All three of these people genuinely cared about the message they were sending with their clothes.  The problem is that they are all trying to send 2 contradictory messages.  The first says “this is what I want you to see.”  The second says “this is what you ought to see.”  But they can’t win the argument in their own mind between the modest and appropriate choice versus the attention seeking exhibitionist choice.  Society tells them to flaunt it, and they try even though it bothers them deep down.  Maybe we should spend a little more time praising the modest.  With that, I want to congratulate them on giving modesty a chance.  They are trying, whether they know it or not.  In the future I know saggy pants will pull up his shorts and give the extra material to short skirt.  Short skirt will explain to low cut and saggy pants how to use buttons and then they will all be more comfortable in their own skin.

Is the Pope changing the rules?

     In the last few days, the media has jumped on a new comment from Pope Francis.  As usual, the coverage seems to promote that Catholicism is becoming more modern and inclusive.  While I agree that the pope has been less polarizing than previous pontiffs, nothing he has actually said reflects an upheaval of church teaching.  At the very least, he is simply trying not to push non-Catholics further away.  At the most, he is making a slight modification to ritual.  But it seems to me that he is clarifying church teaching with compassion and humility without really changing what it teaches at all.
     The most recent coverage stems from the pope issuing a decree that women who have procured an abortion may be forgiven if they show true contrition.  Let's take a look at what people assume this means.  First, some people think that the church may change its stance on abortion.  The Catechism would say otherwise:
                Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
     You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.⁷⁵God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
It's pretty clear that the church won't condone an abortion. Notice the word "unchangeable."  When an ecumenical council is held and the pope makes a declaration regarding faith or morals in union with the other bishops, that decision is unchangeable.  Abortion will always be a sin.  That can't change.  The pope "could" allow for the ordination of women.  He probably won't any time soon, but it will serve as an example for the types of church teaching that may change.
      The second thing I have heard passed around the digital world is that the church has never forgiven women who have sought forgiveness with a contrite heart.  Lets again look at the Catechism:
               Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”⁷⁷ “by the very commission of the offense,”⁷⁸ and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.⁷⁹ The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
This one, I will concede is less clear.  Some would have you believe that every woman who ever had an abortion was automatically excommunicated and doomed to hell despite true sorrow.  First lets deal with what excommunication entails:
               Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them.⁶⁸ In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.
Excommunication means a Catholic cannot receive the sacraments. It is not a decree of damnation.  Second, the penalty can be lifted.  The pope has always granted the ability to forgive these types of sins to "certain" bishops and priests.  This year he is extending that ability to "all" priests.  He has not introduced a radical change in dogma.  He has simply opened the arms of the Catholic church a little wider.
               Finally, some have simply undermined the church's teaching on the Sacrament of Reconciliation itself.  I will more than likely cover the basis for confession in a future post so I will simply address a specific comment I read.  To paraphrase, the writer said: "Glad to know the pope is willing to forgive people.  I'm pretty sure that's why Jesus died on the cross.  Why do I need the pope's permission?  Two reasons.  First, Christ gave his apostles the ability to bind and loose. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (MT 16:19)  The sins of those your forgive are forgiven. The sins of those you retain are retained." (JN :20:23)  Second, the Bible is filled with stories of Jesus forgiving people of sins.  The most famous is when Jesus said the one without sin could throw the first stone.  He clearly offers her forgiveness.  This power to forgive is what he passed on to his apostles.  His death on the cross opens up the gates of heaven to those who repent of their sin and put their faith in him.  But repentance is not a statement of sorrow.  It is more than that.  It is a turning from a sinful lifestyle.  It is a cessation of sin.  Jesus himself makes this clear.  Many people seem to forget the last thing he says to her: "Go and sin no more." (JN 8:11)

The Journey Thus Far...

Ten years ago I was a morbidly obese, non-practicing, Catholic with almost a master's degree in Theology. Today I am a slightly less obese, practicing and evangelizing Catholic with almost a master's degree in Theology. How did I get here? I'm not good at giving the short answer so I'll try my best. 

     I was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic grade school, went to Catholic high school and like many people with the same background, I was easily disenfranchised.  That might not be the best word.  Actually the best word, believe it or not, would probably be uneducated.  This is the spot where it all went horribly wrong.  I had typed four and a half pages at this point, when I went to ask my wife how long a blog is supposed to be.  Her exact response was "not four pages."  She said this because she knows me.  She had no idea how many pages I had typed yet.  She said "if you think the details are important, they're not."  I know what she means.  This is not an autobiography.  So, dejected, here is the short, short version. 

      I was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic grade school, went to Catholic high school and like many people with the same background, I was easily disenfranchised.  That might not be the best word.  Actually the best word, believe it or not, would probably be uneducated.

     I ended up getting a degree in theology with a minor in philosophy.   There aren't a lot of job prospects for a Catholic man with no interest in celibacy yet armed with a degree in theology.  I can either go back to school for a different degree or go back to school to get an advanced degree in the same field which would lead to the same amount of job prospects.  I chose the second option. 

    After graduate school, armed with even more theology and even less job prospects, I moved back in with my parents and worked at a Best Buy.   This was the point in my life where this post began.   The next five years saw me systematically ruining my potential, wasting my life away, with no purpose or ambition.   Then my dad died.   It was December of 2007.  Have you ever seen the movie City Slickers?   There's a scene in that movie where the three guys talk about the best day of their lives and the worst day of their lives.   One of the characters tells a story about the best day of his life.   The worst day of his life was the same day.   Looking back, I can easily say that the day my dad died was my best day and my worst.   That was truly the catalyst for my losing the weight in making something of myself.   That was the day when my insincere prayers of "God please give me blank" were replaced with sincere prayers of "God please lead me to do whatever it is you want me to do."

     One year later, I had dropped 199 pounds. Six months after that, I met the woman who is now my wife.  That time, unsurprisingly, also saw the resurgence of regular mass attendance.  One year more saw me engaged with a substantially better job. The next year saw me get married, buy my first house, and have my first child.   During this whirlwind of events, my wife thought it would be a good idea for me to use my theological education to help out with the local youth group.   Whoever said, that "the only way to truly know something is to teach it" was right.  I have probably read more in the five years I have known my wife than in all of my previous coursework in theology and philosophy.

     Now, I have led multiple Bible studies.  I am preparing to lead my parish through a condensed study of the entire Bible starting in September.  I will be teaching moral theology through the ELM program of my diocese starting in April.   And I feel that God is finally answering my most sincere prayer.  I am doing what He wants me to do.   So I plan to keep writing.   If you plan to keep reading, I can promise you three things.   First, I am long-winded.  Second, I love movies and I will often quote them.  Finally, my goal is to evangelize, and I will do that to the best of my ability.