The Vatican Continues To Evade It's Culpability And Most Irish Bishops Collude In The Charade

Benedict gets his loyal hierarchs to circle the wagons and protect his back and sides.

Meeting has given us new courage, says Cardinal Brady
PADDY AGNEW in Rome, Irish Times, 2/17/10

PRESS CONFERENCE: CARDINAL SEÁN Brady and four of his fellow bishops yesterday strenuously defended the spiritual value and potentially healing quality of their two-day meeting in Rome with Pope Benedict XVI and senior members of the Curia. (I couldn't help but notice Cardinal Brady is not strenuously defending it's PRACTICAL value.)

Asked if he was worried that Irish public opinion might see the meeting as a disappointment, given that it failed to produce an invitation for the Irish victims of clerical abuse to meet with the pope, Cardinal Brady said: “I hope not, the question of the victims was a main concern right throughout the meeting. The meeting was held to help the Holy Father put the final touches to his letter which will address the victims . . . appropriately.”

He continued: “The discussion was frank, the difficulties were raised but at the centre of it all was concern about how to help the victims heal completely.

“This is one step that will have to be taken. Ultimately the Holy Father will give us a message of encouragement to deal with this matter honestly and courageously and then it will be up to us to continue the work which is not just beginning now, it has been going on for many years. This meeting has given us new courage.” (I guess encouragement is better than a kick in the butt, and yet, this is exactly a kick in the butt to victims.)

Cardinal Brady was speaking at a news conference held at Vatican Radio yesterday afternoon, following the third and final session of the meeting with the pope.

He was flanked by Bishop Joseph Duffy of Clogher, Bishop Michael Smith of Meath, Bishop Dennis Brennan of Ferns and Bishop Brendan Kelly of Achonry. (Where was Archbishop Martin?)
All five church leaders said that their meeting with Pope Benedict had been exceptionally positive and helpful.

Cardinal Brady said they had had two days of “intense discussions”, adding that the Holy Father is “extremely concerned about this issue”. (I'm sure Benedict is extremely concerned, and the question remains as to what exactly he is concerned about.)

Dr Smith admitted that prior to the meeting, he had had reservations about just how useful it might prove to be, adding: “I found it was as productive a meeting as I have ever attended, with very clear, frank and open discussions . . . The bishops were listened to and responded to.”

He continued: “The pope was there for all the meeting, showing tremendous engagement and he thanked everyone for their openness, frankness, honesty and adherence to truth.”

Dr Duffy struck the same note of gratitude, saying: “We came to Rome in a mood to listen, to listen to each other and with the expectation that we would be listened to. I would say that both of those expectations were fulfilled. We listened to each other and, extraordinary as it sounds, we heard stories from each other that we hadn’t heard before, a measure of the intensity of the discussion and the openness of it. We were listened to by the Holy Father himself, who is a marvellous listener.”

Dr Brennan said that he had been impressed by having “the Holy Father listening to us for a day and a half”, adding: “[The pope] was listening to the story of the Irish church and especially the sad story at the moment. I was also struck by how pained he was by this issue . . . People don’t always realise how painful it is for him to listen to these stories. This was a wonderful opportunity and a great privilege.

“The Holy Father encouraged us in our ongoing dialogue with the victims and survivors and this is what we are taking out of this, this is not the end of anything, it is the beginning and the continuation of the dialogue and the meetings and the caring that we’ve tried to have with the victims. I take that with me as an encouragement to continue the work of healing at home.”

Cardinal Brady rejected media suggestions that the Irish bishops were divided on how to handle the sex abuse crisis. While admitting “tensions”, he strenuously claimed that “there is no disunity amongst the Irish bishops concerning the importance of safeguarding of children”.
In relation to the position of Bishop Martin Drennan of Galway, whose resignation has been sought by victims’ groups, Cardinal Brady said that the issue was one for the Holy See and not for this week’s two-day meeting.

Cardinal Brady did, however, acknowledge the need for all the bishops to do a “real act of penance”, saying: “There have been failures in our leadership. As one of the victims told us down in Maynooth, the only way we will regain credibility will be through our humiliation. That is what we are setting out to do. Tomorrow is the beginning of Lent, the time of penance and we must begin with ourselves, do a real penance and have a change of heart.”

Asked if he felt that the Irish bishops had been scapegoats, abandoned by the Vatican, the real source of the policy of systematic cover-up of abusive priests, Cardinal Brady said: “We do not feel like scapegoats, on the contrary we are very encouraged by the offers of help from various Curia cardinals.” (Nice of them to offer 'help', but an admission of culpability would have really been of help.)

In response to questions about the refusal of the papal nuncio in Ireland to appear before a Dáil foreign affairs committee to answer questions linked to the Murphy report, Cardinal Brady said: “I have raised that matter today with the secretary of state. What they tell me is that the commitment of the Holy See and the people in the nunciature is to strengthen relationships between the Holy See and Ireland, but it is not the practice that a nuncio should appear before a parliamentary committee.” (God forbid a nuncio would step outside the 'normal practice' to foster good relationships. Better to stick with 'normal practice' and harm good relationships I guess.)

Finally, all the bishops rejected any suggestion that the absence of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin from yesterday’s news conference was due to tensions among the bishops. This was “most certainly not” the case, said Cardinal Brady. (Well, what was the case? Is this statement another case of 'mental reservation?')

***************************************************

I can't say that I'm disappointed by what came from Rome in this unprecedented meeting between the Irish hierarchy and the Vatican. I expected nothing concrete and that's what happened. The Irish bishops--excluding Archbishop Martin--can wax eloquently about the 'spiritual' concerns of the Pope, but that really doesn't cover up the fact that the Vatican is taking no responsibility for it's part in the abuse crisis nor suggesting any practical changes in the system which encouraged the cover ups and lies. All in all this press conference appears to be nothing more than a case of five bishops engaging in another cover up.

I have no doubt that there was a great deal of truth exchanged in these meetings with Benedict and the other curial officials. I have no doubt it may even have gotten heated. There is now no doubt that they have circled the wagons to protect the Vatican status quo.

Pope Benedict's letter will not contain any self admission that many of the victims in Ireland owe their status as victims to the policies of the CDF under Benedict which left their abusers in place to abuse them. Pope Benedict is himself responsible for enabling the creation of a lot of victims--and not just in Ireland. Does the humiliation which Cardinal Brady spoke about extend to Peter's successor? It certainly should since Peter humiliated himself on more than one occasion, so there is precedent, but I suspect the letter will contain no such personal admission. Benedict may be a man of thousands of words but not very many of them express much self reflection.

I guess it's not surprising that Irish abuse victims and groups are not impressed. The fact is until the Vatican admits the Irish bishops were only following Vatican orders, nothing can really be changed. Irish bishops can talk all they want about their own humiliation and they may even begin to come to the conclusion they are culpable for following Vatican orders, but they would do us all a very big favor if they too demanded the Vatican own up to giving the orders.

This whole charade makes as much sense as it would have for Germany to have left the Nazi regime in place after losing World War II and learning about the Holocaust. Somehow I doubt just because Himmler mouthed some nice platitudes about the victims while ignoring the facts of his own orders regarding that holocaust would have gone very far with the German people. Why does the Vatican think Roman Catholics will accept such a similar thing? Hopefully this is why Archbishop Martin is conspicuous by his absence. He gets the Vatican message and won't comply with the charade.

Benedict may be dressed in green, but Irish eyes aren't smiling. Does his idea "Caritas in veritate" extend to his own culpability in the Irish abuse crisis?

Irish bishops, pope begin summit on sex abuse
By John Thavis, Catholic News Service, 2/15/10

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict XVI and the bishops of Ireland began a two-day, closed-door meeting to assess responsibility in the Irish church's handling of priestly sex abuse cases and explore ways to heal the wounds left by the scandal.

Each of the 24 bishops was scheduled to speak for seven minutes, in effect giving the pope "an account of themselves" and their own actions, Bishop Joseph Duffy of Clogher told reporters on the eve of the Feb. 15-16 summit.

The pope convened the bishops in response to the continuing fallout from the scandal, following an independent report that faulted the church for its handling of 325 sex abuse claims in the Archdiocese of Dublin in the years 1975-2004.

"I would admit quite frankly what everyone else knows, and shout it from the housetops: that the church has been seriously wounded, and we're in a very serious situation, that this has done immense damage to the authority of the church," Bishop Duffy said.

"And our business is to try to repair that damage and to restore confidence, because confidence has been lost not only in the bishops, but by the bishops themselves," he said. (This is not necessarily a bad thing. Loss of confidence in shaky supports is the beginning of true spiritual evolution.)

Bishop Duffy said that "the casualty in all this has been the truth," and added: "The fullness of the truth must come out; everything must be laid on the table." (That truth is about far more than sexual abuse. It's also about the potential for real evil in the clerical system.)

"This is not just a cosmetic exercise, as some people might seem to think. It's very serious," he said.

Joining the pope and the bishops at the summit were 10 leading Vatican officials who deal with doctrine, church law, bishops, clergy, religious life and seminaries.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state, set the tone of the meeting at an opening Mass Feb. 15 with the Irish and Vatican participants. He said the most difficult trials for the church were internal ones, especially, as in this case, when the church sees "some of its own men involved in particularly abominable acts." (Those abominable acts were also those engaged in by the bishops who covered up and enabled abusers.)

The cardinal said renewal can be the outcome of this trial, as long as people take responsibility for their failings. (And yet nothing will be effectively changed if the people who run the institution don't account for institutional failures.)

Cardinal Bertone compared the church to a ship in a storm, and said the prelates need to put their trust in Christ. The "more dangerous storm," he said, was "the one that touches the hearts of believers, shaking their faith." (My faith in Jesus wasn't shaken. My faith in the institutional church is another story. I don't confuse the two anymore.)

There has been widespread indignation among Irish Catholics following the revelations of the sex abuse cases and the way they were handled by the bishops. The report by an independent commission headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy concluded that bishops often protected abusers and were more interested in maintaining secrecy and protecting church assets than in helping the victims.

After Pope Benedict held a preliminary meeting with two Irish bishops in December, the Vatican said the pope shared the sense of "outrage, betrayal and shame" felt by Irish Catholics, and that he would write a special pastoral letter on the subject. (Sorry, I have difficulty buying into his shame and outrage. As head of the CDF he knew all about this long before the Murphy and Ryan reports. He did nothing except encourage and enforce the silence, secrecy, and cover ups.)

At the beginning of the Feb. 15-16 summit, the Vatican said the pope's letter would be discussed at the meeting but that there was no date set for its publication.

Bishop Duffy, who is chairman of the Irish bishops' communications commission, said a primary concern of the discussions was how the church can respond to the survivors of abuse and "the enormous injustice and cruelty they have suffered."

He said that while the question of resignation of bishops was not formally on the agenda, it could come up in the talks. Four bishops criticized in the Irish report have offered their resignation, but so far the pope has officially accepted only one of them. Bishop Martin Drennan of Galway, also criticized in the report, has rejected demands by Catholic groups for his resignation.

Asked if the bishops would try to shield the pope from details of the sex abuse cases, Bishop Duffy said the meeting "would be a complete flop if that were to happen."

"It's meant to be frank and open, and if it's not either of those it will not have succeeded," he said.

Bishop Duffy added that he was convinced that Pope Benedict was already aware of the gravity and complexity of the sex abuse cases.

"It's my information that the pope is very well clued in on this whole issue, that even before he became pope, he had access to the documentation, that he knew exactly what was in the documentation, and that he wasn't living in a fool's paradise," he said. (It is becoming more and more apparent that he wanted us to think he was living in a 'fools paradise'. Or was it he wanted us to continue to live blindly in his 'fool's paradise'?)

At a Mass for the Irish bishops in St. Patrick's Church in Rome Feb. 14, Bishop Colm O'Reilly of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise said the prelates were especially aware this year of the Lenten call to confession and repentance.

"It is a time for undoing, insofar as this is possible, the damage our sins have done, for what is done and what we have failed to do. It is a time for a new beginning," he said in a homily.

**************************************************

This is a very dangerous time for the Vatican. The anger over the sexual abuse issue is one that transcends the typical political divides with in the Church. People may not agree on what the causes for the scandal are, but they do agree the bishops mishandles the whole thing, and they did it for pure self interest.

If this meeting generates nothing more than the generic apologies of the past, maintains the hierarchy operated from misguided care for the simple faithful, or out of innocence as to the nature of the issues, the Vatican will find it has made a major and fundamental error. This isn't about individual rogue priests. It's about a fear filled Roman Catholic hierarchy acting in concert to cover up criminal acts and effectively engage in a Vatican inspired criminal conspiracy. And this international criminal conspiracy was the fruit of the policies of the Ratzinger led CDF.

I sincerely hope Archbishop Martin and other Irish Bishops have the courage to tell 'truth to power'. If they don't, there will be little hope left for the Irish church and it will be the first in a long line of falling dominoes.

Forget the new Mass translations, or the LCWR investigations. The Irish abuse scandal is the biggest indicator as to whether or not the Vatican is willing to entertain it's own culpability in the state of global Catholicism. If the men of the Vatican fail to clean up their act and admit they engaged in and demanded a systemic cover up of sexual abuse, they will have forfeited their right to speak with moral authority on any issue. Cappa magnas will not cover up the fact the Emperor has no clothes.

Here's another statement from a Vatican official I found on today's NCR. I guess I found this disturbing because I like Cardinal Turkson. But, it also indicated a total callousness on the part of a celibate male when it comes to women's issues and his personal understanding of child birth and child raising. It's taken from an interview done by John Allen and referenced Europes immigration fears.

Can the church help calm those fears?

The church can calm fears only if people listen. The church has been calling for a change in attitudes and lifestyles for a long time. Look, Europe can't have its cake and eat it too. You can't have a population that's unwilling to bring forth children, because you want to be comfortable and have your vacation and so on, and at the same time worry about someone else taking over. Unless we're able to produce kids in a lab, the only way to do it is through this human body, but there are many people today who don't want to put up with the inconvenience of nine months of pregnancy and so on. Qadafi supposedly once said that they don't need terrorists and suicide bombers anymore to overcome Europe, they'll do it with the womb of the Arab woman.

This statement shows an appalling lack of understanding of what it takes to raise children in today's western culture. It isn't about vacations. It's about far far more than that. For Cardinal Turkson to equate a woman's unwillingness to submit to the 'inconvenience of nine months of pregnancy' as the sole reason for the European demographic trend demonstrates his stunning lack of respect for the reality of a woman's reproductive biology and zero understanding of the kind of life long commitment a child actually represents.

He is right to equate his personal take on pregnancy and children with Qadafi's. Women are just uteruses whose mission in life is to pop out enough children to maintain male culture. This is the exact same thinking seen in the sexual abuse crisis. The relevance of children and women is directly dependent on their effect on whatever male culture happens to dominate. Outside of that neither women or children are worthy of real respect. With that kind of thinking, neither are most of today's bishops.

A New Study Yields Some Fascinating Results

Young adult Catholics are largely pro-life but say they are moral relativists

February 12, 2010, Catholic Culture

In a 1997 report to the American bishops, Archbishop Daniel Buechlein of Indianapolis documented “a pattern of doctrinal deficiencies” in the catechetical texts he had reviewed. Over a dozen years later, some of the fruits of that insufficient catechesis are on display in a new survey conducted by the Knights of Columbus and the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. (There is more that contributes to moral formation than an hour or so a week in CCD Classes.)

The survey found that 82% of Catholic millennials-- those between the ages of 18 and 29-- believe that “morals are relative; that is, there is no definite right and wrong for everybody,” while only 18% believe that “morals are fixed and based on unchanging standards.” (This is quite the statistic.)

Contradicting this profession of moral relativism, large majorities of Catholic millennials believe that plagiarism (91%), adultery (87%), and “business decisions motivated by greed” (76%) are morally wrong. Despite a largely pro-abortion media culture, 66% of Catholic millennials believe that abortion is morally wrong, and 63% believe that euthanasia is immoral. (Haven't noticed the media being pro-abortion lately.)

In addition, 65% say that medical testing on animals is immoral.
Smaller percentages of Catholic millennials believe that drug use (47%), same-sex marriage (37%), gay and lesbian relations (35%), divorce (35%), embryonic stem-cell research (33%), and pre-marital sex (20%) are immoral. (To get the impact of these numbers one really needs to read them from the affirmative. Then one understands that two thirds of millenial Catholics have no issue with gay and lesbian relationships.)

Among the survey’s other findings:

85% of Catholic millennials believe in God

49% of Catholic millennials say that their faith is “extremely important” or “very important” to them, and an additional 31% say that it is “somewhat important”

a remarkable 61% of Catholic millennials-- vs. 50% of millennials overall-- believe that “it is okay for someone of your religion to also practice other religions” (this is a very interesting finding. This isn't just cafeteria style Catholicism, this is restaurant hopping.)

28% of Catholic millennials are “very interested,” and 31% are “somewhat interested,” in learning more about their faith. Among Catholic millennials who are practicing Catholics, the figures rise to 32% and 52%.

**********************************************

I encourage anyone who has the time to take a look at the survey itself. The above link is to the K of C website. Be forewarned though, that the presentation uses multiple forms of visual presentation. For some things they use bars, for others pie charts, and for others mixed bars. It may just be a personal peeve of mine, but I hate when statistics are presented this way. It's just way too statistically relative.

Over all this survey does not bode well for the future success of the K of C, much less the reform of the reform or the Catholic identity movement. Catholic Millennial are far more open minded than previous generations when it comes to Catholic identity and Catholic sexual morals. They seem to have both a more 'live and let live' philosophy and a willingness to go outside their own religious tradition to find spiritual meaning.

The other real difference I found striking was 31% of Millennials rate being spiritual or closer to God as their biggest life goal. For this age group, this goal surpasses all other listed life goals including marriage and family (27%). This is not your grandfathers generation, where this spiritual goal (21%) is a very distant second to marriage and family (49%).

The differences between the Millennials and the 65 and over group is something of a chasm, and the biggest differences are precisely in the areas which the Vatican-largely all 65 and older- is currently promulgating: the certainty of sexual morality and religious identity. On these two issues over 60% of practicing Millennials are not accepting the over all message. Even with abortion, while they may be pro life, it doesn't extend to stem cell research.

82% of practicing Catholic Millennials agree with this statement: "Morals are relative, that is, there is no definite right or wrong for everybody". I wonder if this attitude is the fault of poor catechesis or the direct expression of an entire Catholic generation sick of the Catholic culture wars and willing to move on, or in too many cases, willing to walk out. I think it also might be a reflection of a generation which is far less willing to judge the circumstances of others. It may reflect they have taken to heart the old adage of walking a mile in another's shoes before passing judgment.

In any event, this survey has really meaningful information for the American Catholic Church. Addressing these generational differences, and with them the future viability of the Church, won't be solved by expounding on the Catechism. It will take dialogue and the willingness to hear this message. The Millennials are not Benedict's generation. They aren't looking for certainty. They are looking for meaning.

The Skewed "Ethical" Concerns Of New Mexico Bishops

New Mexico's bishops say domestic partnership bill would undermine true nature of marriage
Santa Fe, NM, Feb 12, 2010 / 07:14 am (CNA).-

The bishops of New Mexico have voiced opposition to a bill in the state legislature that would create domestic partnerships for opposite- and same-sex couples, saying it would undermine the “true nature” of marriage and would serve as a foundation for the implementation of same-sex “marriage.” Last week the bill passed the Senate Judiciary and Senate Public Affairs Committee. It needed to pass the Senate Finance Committee before heading for a full vote, KFOXTV.com reports. (I love how CNS always puts 'marriage' in quotes when it comes to gay marriage.)

In a January statement, the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops (NMCCB) said they cannot support the proposal because of “ethical concerns.” They said the language could serve as a “stepping stone” for a state court’s future approval of same-sex marriage. (Seems to me there are other goings on in New Mexico that should generate far more 'ethical' concerns.)

Citing Jesus’ words about how a man and woman become “one flesh,” they emphasized the unique nature of marriage as a “permanent bond” between man and woman that is “naturally ordered” towards authentic union and new life. (What about that other permanent bond in New Mexico between Los Alamos and the state legislature?)

They also voiced concerns that the bill would lead to the teaching of homosexuality in public schools and would affect religious freedom.

The bishops’ statement made clear they oppose any unjust discrimination and “emphatically” condemn hate crimes directed at anyone, including those of homosexual orientation. (Blah, blah, blah. How many openly celibate gay employees do these non discriminatory bishops have? Probably none. Where as they have a whole lot working for Los Alamos or other DOD contractors.)

Catholic News Agency contacted the NMCCB for further comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

****************************************************

This holy ethical concern over gay partnerships is utterly laughable. New Mexico probably has as many nuclear war heads as it does gay couples, with more on the way. Last I checked, two nuclear warheads destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima, not two men having sex.

The Theology of Death: A Weed Choking Off Catholic Life

LESSON THIRTY-SEVENTH: On the Last Judgment and the Resurrection, Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven

Catholic News Agency

Q. 1371. When will Christ judge us?
A. Christ will judge us immediately after our death, and on the last day.

Q. 1372. What is the judgment called which we have to undergo immediately after death?
A. The judgment we have to undergo immediately after death is called the Particular Judgment.

Q. 1373. Where will the particular judgment be held?
A. The particular judgment will be held in the place where each person dies, and the soul will go immediately to its reward or punishment.

Q. 1374. What is the judgment called which all men have to undergo on the last day?
A. The judgment which all men have to undergo on the last day is called the General Judgment.

Q. 1375. Will the sentence given at the particular judgment be changed at the general judgment? A. The sentence given at the particular judgment will not be changed at the general judgment, but it will be repeated and made public to all.

Q. 1376. Why does Christ judge men immediately after death?
A. Christ judges men immediately after death to reward or punish them according to their deeds.

Q. 1377. How may we daily prepare for our judgment?
A. We may daily prepare for our judgment by a good examination of conscience, in which we will discover our sins and learn to fear the punishment they deserve.

Q. 1378. What are the rewards or punishments appointed for men's souls after the Particular Judgment?
A. The rewards or punishments appointed for men's souls after the Particular Judgment are Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell.

Q. 1379. What is Hell?
A. Hell is a state to which the wicked are condemned, and in which they are deprived of the sight of God for all eternity, and are in dreadful torments.

Q. 1380. Will the damned suffer in both mind and body?
A. The damned will suffer in both mind and body, because both mind and body had a share in their sins. The mind suffers the "pain of loss" in which it is tortured by the thought of having lost God forever, and the body suffers the "pain of sense" by which it is tortured in all its members and senses.

Q. 1381. What is Purgatory?
A. Purgatory is the state in which those suffer for a time who die guilty of venial sins, or without having satisfied for the punishment due to their sins.

Q. 1382. Why is this state called Purgatory?
A. This state is called Purgatory because in it the souls are purged or purified from all their stains; and it is not, therefore, a permanent or lasting state for the soul.

Q. 1383. Are the souls in Purgatory sure of their salvation?
A. The souls in Purgatory are sure of their salvation, and they will enter heaven as soon as they are completely purified and made worthy to enjoy that presence of God which is called the Beatific Vision.

Q. 1384. Do we know what souls are in Purgatory, and how long they have to remain there?
A. We do not know what souls are in Purgatory nor how long they have to remain there; hence we continue to pray for all persons who have died apparently in the true faith and free from mortal sin. They are called the faithful departed.

Q. 1385. Can the faithful on earth help the souls in Purgatory?
A. The faithful on earth can help the souls in Purgatory by their prayers, fasts, alms, deeds; by indulgences, and by having Masses said for them.

Q. 1386. Since God loves the souls in Purgatory, why does He punish them?
A. Though God loves the souls in Purgatory, He punishes them because His holiness requires that nothing defiled may enter heaven and His justice requires that everyone be punished or rewarded according to what he deserves.

Q. 1387. If every one is judged immediately after death, what need is there of a general judgment?
A. There is need of a general judgment, though every one is judged immediately after death, that the providence of God, which, on earth, often permits the good to suffer and the wicked to prosper, may in the end appear just before all men.

Q. 1388. What is meant by "the Providence of God"?
A. By "the Providence of God" is meant the manner in which He preserves, provides for, rules and governs the world and directs all things by His infinite Will.

Q. 1389. Are there other reasons for the general judgment?
A. There are other reasons for the general judgment, and especially that Christ Our Lord may receive from the whole world the honor denied Him at His first coming, and that all may be forced to acknowledge Him their God and Redeemer.

Q. 1390. Will our bodies share in the reward or punishment of our souls?
A. Our bodies will share in the reward or punishment of our souls, because through the resurrection they will again be united to them.

Q. 1391. When will the general resurrection or rising of all the dead take place?
A. The general resurrection or rising of all the dead will take place at the general judgment, when the same bodies in which we lived on earth will come forth from the grave and be united to our souls and remain united with them forever either in heaven or in hell.

Q. 1392. In what state will the bodies of the just rise?
A. The bodies of the just will rise glorious and immortal.

Q. 1393. Will the bodies of the damned also rise?
A. The bodies of the damned will also rise, but they will be condemned to eternal punishment.

Q. 1394. Why do we show respect for the bodies of the dead?
A. We show respect for the bodies of the dead because they were the dwelling-place of the soul, the medium through which it received the Sacraments, and because they were created to occupy a place in heaven.

Q. 1395. What is Heaven?
A. Heaven is the state of everlasting life in which we see God face to face, are made like unto Him in glory, and enjoy eternal happiness.

Q. 1396. In what does the happiness in heaven consist?
A. The happiness in heaven consists in seeing the beauty of God, in knowing Him as He is, and in having every desire fully satisfied.

Q. 1397. What does St. Paul say of heaven?
A. St. Paul says of heaven, "That eye hath not seen. nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man what things God hath prepared for them that love Him." (I. Cor. ii., 9.)

Q. 1398. Are the rewards in heaven and the punishments in hell the same for all who enter into either of these states?
A. The rewards of heaven and the punishments in hell are not the same for all who enter into either of these states, because each one's reward or punishment is in proportion to the amount of good or evil he has done in this world. But as heaven and hell are everlasting, each one will enjoy his reward or suffer his punishment forever.

Q. 1399. What words should we bear always in mind?
A. We should bear always in mind these words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: "What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul, or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then will He render to every man according to his works."

Q. 1400. Name some of the more essential religious truths we must know and believe.
A. Some of the more essential religious truths we must know and believe are:

1.(1) That there is but one God, and He will reward the good and punish the wicked
2.(2) That in God there are three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these Divine Persons are called the Blessed Trinity.

3.(3) That Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, became man and died for our redemption.
4.(4) That the grace of God is necessary for our salvation.
5.(5) That the human soul is immortal.

********************************************************

I have been writing lately about fear and love and how fear is not a state which benefits the evolution of consciousness nor leads to spiritual growth. The above perfectly illustrates why in many respects Christianity has lost it's way. There is not one mention of the necessity for love in the above, but multiple messages of fear, guilt, damnation, hierarchical rewards, and forced retribution.

This is a description of a God who keeps a scoreboard on each one of us. He's a score keeper of a game He designed with a field of play which is arbitrary and meaningless but will all make sense, not when we are playing the game, but when the game is completely over. In the meantime, once we as individual players are taken from the game, we will be judged mostly on our inability to play the game, not what we might have learned in playing the game. (But like the game of hockey, we have the hope of spending time in the penalty box rather than game misconducts.)

According to the above, the principle aspects of the game are believing in one arbitrary and vengeful God, who is manifested by three distinct faces, that Jesus is the human face and died for our redemption from our ignorance about the game, that grace is necessary to score in the game, and that the consequences of our play is endless. I prefer Nintendo games. They at least have reset buttons.

There is not one word here about love, there is only a lame attempt to justify how the Last Judgment will explain how a God of love could act in arbitrary ways. There are plenty of words about why we should fear the Scorekeeper and the end of the game. None of this is based on any experience from anyone who ever came back from the dead.

People who have experienced near death or actual death, and were brought back, do not speak of the scoreboard type judgement described above. The judgment they describe concerns lessons about love; about both successes and failures in understanding the importance of love. The rarely describe anything about obedience. They describe the shock and dismay they felt when these failures to love, to care for others, to see the Christ in the stranger, are played back for them. They learn an insignificant act of indifference can have major consequences far beyond the occasion of the act itself.

These actual witness accounts of life reviews are all about learning to love with practical compassion and recognizing the profound aspects of our relationships. They are shown that all relationships, no matter how odious, can have windows of opportunity in which to learn more about the power of love. This kind of life review does not recognize winners and losers. It recognizes we are all the same in our essence and all are worthy of God's love. It recognizes that there those who are beginning to see and those who are still blind, those who are learning to hear and those who are still deaf. It seeks not to judge, but to heal, not to separate but to make whole.

Ultimately Catholics have to come to a decision about the nature of the God they believe in. Do we believe in a God of reward and punishment, judgment and condemnation, salvation for only the select few true believers? Or do we believe in a God who has told us through Jesus that we are all one, that we all have the divine spark with in, and that the reason for our lives is to freely choose to learn to love and to act on that love. It is through that love that we unite with His Father. Those lessons of love are of such paramount importance that even when we are crucified we must still love our crucifiers. We must still look for the window of opportunity to express our love and not to the judgment of some celestial score keeper. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

It is in love that we share in the true driving creative power of the universe. Life is not a game. It's an evolving process in which the will of God opens like the petals of a flower. Fear is the weed in garden of our individual consciousness and it chokes off the flowering of our soul. When we make the God of Love the object of our fear, the weeds have won.

Down The Rabbit Hole

Chilean petroglyph of an ancestor. Note the four fingers and toes. I have seen similar petroglyphs in New Mexico.

Lately I have been intrigued by two really different strains emanating from the Vatican. One is the current retrenchment to the view of the institutional church of the fifties and it's emphasis on the truth embodied by an historical --mostly European--elitist male authority. This is a trend which flies in the face of a global and post modern reality. But the other trend is the Vatican's far less well publicised opening to the idea of extra terrestrial life. Before I get into that though, here is an article dealing with last year's Vatican symposium on ET life held in November.

Vatican Holds Conference on Extraterrestrial Life
Written by Nicholos Wethington, 11/10/09--Universe Today

Though it may seem an unlikely location to happen upon a conference on astrobiology, the Vatican recently held a “study week” of over 30 astronomers, biologists, geologists and religious leaders to discuss the question of the existence of extraterrestrials. This follows the statement made last year by the Pope’s chief astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, that the existence of extraterrestrials does not preclude a belief in God, and that it’s a question to be explored by the Catholic Church. The event, put on by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, took place at the Casina Pio IV on the Vatican grounds from November 6-11.

The conference was meant to focus on the scientific perspective on the subject of the existence of extraterrestrial life, and pulled in perspectives from atheist scientists and Catholic leaders alike. It was split into eight different segments, starting with a topics about life here on Earth such as the origins of life, the Earth’s habitability through time, and the environment and genomes. Then the detection of life elsewhere, search strategies for extrasolar planets, the formation and properties of extrasolar planets was discussed, culminating in the last segment, intelligence elsewhere and ’shadow life’ – life with a biochemistry completely different than that found on Earth.

Speakers at the event included notable physicist Paul Davies and Jill C. Tarter, the Director of the Center for SETI Research. Numerous astrobiologists and astronomers researching extrasolar planets also were in attendance to give lectures. The whole series of speech abstracts and a list of participants is available in a brochure on the Vatican site, here.

The event was held to mark the International Year of Astronomy, and the participants hope to collect the lectures into a book. Father Gabriel Funes, the chief astronomer of the Vatican, said in an interview to the Vatican paper, Osservatore Romano last year:

“Just like there is an abundance of creatures on earth, there could also be other beings, even intelligent ones, that were created by God. That doesn’t contradict our faith, because we cannot put boundaries to God’s creative freedom. As saint Francis would say, when we consider the earthly creatures to be our “brothers and sisters”, why couldn’t we also talk about a “extraterrestrial brother”? He would still be part of creation.”

Even with the discovery of over 400 exoplanets, the question of extraterrestrial life still remains to be answered in our own Solar System. It is a pertinent question for the religious and non-religious alike. Though it wasn’t answered at this most recent conference, the existence of life outside what we know here on Earth has an equal impact on the findings of science as it does the meaning of religion. This event certainly brought the two under the same roof for what were surely some interesting and fruitful conversations.

*********************************************************

The Indigenous cultures I've worked with, all without exception, claim to be descended from Star Nations. They even point out the constellations. Their creation stories all talk about the evolution of humanity from what can only be considered genetic manipulation or recombination. They maintain the answer to man's evolution as one species, in contrast to all the other species represented in other mammalian populations, has one answer. Human life is a manipulated existence on this planet. In other words Adam and Eve were test tube creations of Extra Terrestrial explorers. We are mostly earth based but also alien in our genetics.

The creation stories also maintain that there have been at least four or five earth civilizations. The history we have knowledge of represents only the last civilization of which we are current members. They also teach the end of each civilization and the start of the next represented a break through in human consciousness and intellectual ability. In this context the Mayan prophecy of 2012 is not about the destruction of civilization, but the evolution to a new understanding of reality with a further evolving of inherent human attributes of consciousness. In other words man will move into quantum thinking and living in which consciousness is seen to be grounded in material reality but capable of using quantum thinking and quantum reality to create an entirely different human civilization.

Some of this will be mirrored in our technology, and those technologies are probably already in existence in places like New Mexico, or any other area which has a very high concentration of DOD, NSA, CIA, UN science agencies, high levels of corporate security and huge numbers of ET sitings. These indigenous elders are convinced that mankind has already made contact with our alien progenitors and other ET's. This face to face contact was re initiated before world war II and accelerated after the US developed nuclear capability. In their way of looking at things, our Michael and Lucifer could be descriptors of the conflict between the Plaedians and Reptilian/Gray races of ET contactee stories. Their own interaction with alien beings has been in the nature of consciousness and not technology. They call their ET mentors the Holy Ones or the Ancestors. The Holy Ones though are not limited in that they also include deceased ancestors, and other disembodied consciousnesses. Our Lady of Guadalupe fit right into this pantheon of beings of celestial material who make rare appearances in every day reality.

I will freely admit this interaction I've had and some of my experiences have been hard to assimilate. They have been well beyond what I thought I was prepared to accept, or acknowledge, or integrate. It's one thing to idly watch some of this in a Star Trek movie or read it in a fantasy novel, it's another thing to experience it first hand.

I'm beginning to wonder if the Vatican's decision to re emphasize faith, trust, and obedience in the benevolence of a divinely instituted paternalism is preparation for something else entirely. Perhaps it's the notion that we are not alone in the universe and never have been, but in spite of that, we still need to trust the Vatican to know how to deal with this truth and to represent us in the new expanded multi dimensional and multi intelligent universe. For some of us, that would indeed be a leap of faith.

It's Not About Taliban vs Catholic Lite. It's About Love vs Fear

John Allen's latest Friday column in the NCR has generated a great deal of commentary. In it he expresses his notions of Catholic Lite vs Catholic Taliban. Allen claims most people have a little bit of both in their outlook about Catholicism:

At least in my mind, the defining feature of "Catholicism Lite" is not a liberal or conservative outlook, but rather taking one's cues from secular culture rather than the faith. No ideological camp has a monopoly on that.

Similarly, there's a Taliban instinct on the Catholic left that can be just as noxious as its right-wing version. It generally includes paranoia about almost any exercise of authority in the church, coupled with derision of any attempt to defend traditional Catholic thought, speech or practice -- a liberal "hermeneutic of suspicion" that can easily shade off into rage. Try telling a certain kind of Catholic liberal that Benedict XVI isn't actually "rolling back the clock" on Vatican II, for example, and you'll want to duck and cover before the shooting starts.

Bottom line: When I talk about "Taliban Catholicism," I know I'm playing with fire -- but the point is to invite an examination of conscience across the board, myself very much included, not to slur one side or the other in Catholic debates.

I can't disagree with John's take that by his definition there's a little bit of both in most Catholics. Some people might refer to these traits a little differently. Talibanism can be considered holding passionate views and Liteness can be considered taking a more easy going approach. The problem is that both are illusions. They have practical implications only because they represent aspects of thoughts which are generated from programmed memories and those memories come with emotion as part of their information packet. Passion is generated from memories which have a large content of emotion as part of the information.

I don't really believe any spiritual system can adapt to the present and future of humanity without taking into consideration what we now know about human consciousness. Or more precisely, what it is we are talking about when we say "I" did this or believe that. That sense of I is not a product of our brains. Our brains and all it's attendant neuropathways are products of the consciousness we call "I". Consciousness supersedes material reality and constantly creates that reality. This isn't New Age philosophy. This is quantum neurophysiology.

There was an experiment conducted on kittens at Harvard Medical School in which kittens were raised in a room which had only horizontal stripes. A separate group of kittens was raised in a room which had only vertical stripes. Both groups of kittens developed neuropathways distinctly different from the other group. They adapted their behaviors to mirror the surroundings in which they grew up. Horizontal kittens still acted if their world was horizontal when placed in a vertical environment and vice versa. Their reality as determined by their brains was a horizontal world. The consensual reality of their cat ancestry did not apply, because it would not and could not compute.

Here's another interesting experiment. Researchers fed groups of rabbits high cholesterol diets in order to measure physiological responses to the levels of cholesterol. To their amazement they discovered that one group of rabbits did not develop cholesterol related diseases. The answer was that the lab tech who fed these rabbits also stroked, sang and petted them at the same time she fed them. These rabbits developed completely different sets of neuropeptides that in turn transmuted the cholesterol into a different digestive end product, one not harmful to their over all physiology. Her demonstrated love for them contained different information for the rabbits physiological system and that in turn changed how their cholesterol laden food was processed in beneficial rather than harmful ways.

Take the rabbit experiment and apply it to our theological information. It validates Jesus's whole emphasis on love. Love provides information which is beneficial to the material construction of the body. On the other hand, fear or indifference is not just controlling in a hypothetical sense, it is also debilitating in a health sense.

Here's a human example of this process. The Miami School of Medicine did a study with premature infants in which one group was given more tactile stimulation than the other. Although both groups were on the same formula and same amounts, the group given the extra holding and cuddling gained 49% more weight in the same time frame. A rational material view of energy in equals energy out would predict there should be no statistical difference in weight gain.

The group of babies which was held was found to have produced more human growth hormone. It appear the additional information their minds received because they were held was interpreted to be beneficial for growth, hence the release of more growth hormone.

Another interesting fact about the United States is we now have more cancer researchers than we do cancer patients, yet the incidence of cancer continues to escalate. Is this too an indication of humanity taking in and processing information which is interpreted in such a way that it generates it's subject matter? That rather than helping anything, all the cancer information is interpreted fearfully and the body slavishly manifests the information as cancer? Exactly the same way preemies who are held will interpret this information as beneficial and manifest growth?

I think we need to stop talking about spirituality in terms of traditional or progressive, truth or heresy, and start understanding the real categories are fear and love. Any concept which teaches about God in terms of fear is suspect and ultimately detrimental. Love and it's expressions are the information pathways that lead to personal salvation and growth. This is clearly written in our real biological natural law. Jesus knew what He was talking about. It's time the Church really listened. Science certainly is.

Marian Visions And The Infallibility Of The Modern Papacy

I've been doing a lot of reading in my time off. A lot of that reading has been in books I bought from seven or eight years ago and I've found it surprising how things I was taken with back then are not the things I'm taken with now. I've always done this, reread things years later as a way to track how much I've changed and learned--or how much I haven't.

I reread John Cornwall's "Hitler's Pope" about Pius XII. Part of my desire to reread the book was motivated by the current push to canonize Pius XII and part of it was because Cornwall has backed off from some of what he's written.

I came away with different points of emphasis this time. This time the part of the story which really hit home was Pius's failure to reign in the Catholic Ustache in Yugoslavia. He had ample reason to do so, but instead allowed this movement to engage in genocide with nary a peep in opposition. I've done more than a little research into the Ustache and their campaign of horror against the Serbian Orthodox. That particular region of Central Europe has been a thorn in European politics for a long time, precipitating World War I and continuing it's hate well into this current century.

Part of that research had to do with the Marian appearance at Medjugorge. The Medjugorge area was the site of Franciscan led Ustache atrocities in World War II, but it also has a history that predates World War II in this category of mob atrocities in the name of religion. The ground is soaked with the blood of Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic adherents and has been for a millenia. It's a piece of land that testifies to the atrocities mankind is capable of committing in a selfish understanding of God's will. I've always thought this was quite the area for an appearance from the "Queen of Peace". Her appearances are now causing more than a bit of a battle within the Vatican itself. The message of Medjugorge is as always about the need for conversion, but it's not always about conversion to Catholicism. It's about conversion to the way of love promulgated by her son. This Mary calls for the end of sectarian strife in the name of God and conversion to the love for all of mankind.

However, it was not Mary at Medjugorge which influenced Pius XII and then John Paul II. It was the Marian apparition at Fatima. Just as the Marian apparition at Lourdes influenced Pius IX. In all three popes Marian apparitions seem to influence these papacies to greater levels of centralized control for the papacy. Pio Nono and Pius XII announced the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. John Paul II was seriously considering declaring Mary as Co Redemptorix. These seem to be calculated attempts to equate the standing of the Papacy with Mary's standing with Jesus. As Mary is in heavenly kingdom so the Pope is in the earthly kingdom.

This final notion of John Paul's ran into serious opposition from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, but it now seems to be gaining favor with the same man as Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict is now scheduled to visit Fatima in May and say Mass at the Basilica on May 13th, which is the 93rd anniversary of the first vision. Perhaps he too has had a conversion, if not to the truth of the Fatima, at least to it's historical importance to papal notions of centralized Papal spiritual authority.

It seems this papal need to identify with Marian appearances has coincided with the papacy's forced redefinition of itself from a secular political power to the single spiritual authority for Catholicism. Pius IX saw this potential in Lourdes and used the message of Lourdes to embark on his redefining Papal infallibility. This trend continued more or less unabated until the Papacy of John XXIII. John refused to release the third secret of Fatima in 1960 as Fatima legend has he was supposed to have done. He said at the time it didnt' apply to his papacy. Instead he opened Vatican II and according to Fatima die hards, 'let the smoke of Satan' into the Vatican. (Or the Holy Spirit depending on one's point of view)

When Ali Agjca attempted to assassinate John Paul on May 13th, 1981, I suspect this was an attempt to undercut not just his papacy, but some of the spiritual authority Fatima had given the papacy. If Mary couldn't protect the Pope, as the third secret prophesied, it would have been a major hit to pious Catholics. That it didn't turn out that way was a major hit to communism. John Paul lived and the Iron Curtain fell. Mary triumphed against communist Russia without another shot being fired. Instead, those shots were once again fired in Medjugorge.

Maybe it's because the message of Medjugorge is not always about conversion to Catholicism that the Papacy is disinclined to take these visions seriously. The Vatican is wrong. They need to take these visions very seriously because they are missing the point. Mary is not talking about a conversion to a set of religious beliefs or intellectualizations, she is talking about a conversion of the heart. The very same conversion Jesus came to show us. She is talking about the power of love. That power is not bound in any dogma. It's boundaries are self imposed by love's very nature and those boundaries are much more open than those of religious dogma.

If Fatima was about Mary's view of communist Russia as the biggest threat to individual freedom and love in the twentieth century, Medjugorge is about the biggest threat in the twenty first century. That threat is religious dogmatism and that threat is as much a core part of Catholicism as it is in the Islamic or Christian evangelical movements.

This may be a message the Vatican does not want to hear. I admit Fatima is a much more Vatican friendly message. Unfortunately for Benedict, Fatima is a finished message. Medjugorge is not.

Back And More Stunned Than Ever

Cardinal Rode surrounded by the splendor of European culture. Note the absence of any shallow vocations from any non white non European sycophants.

Rodé: Religious orders are in modern 'crisis'
Feb. 04, 2010 By John Thavis, Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY -- A top Vatican official said religious orders today are in a "crisis" caused in part by the adoption of a secularist mentality and the abandonment of traditional practices.

Cardinal Franc Rodé, prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, said the problems go deeper than the drastic drop in the numbers of religious men and women.

"The crisis experienced by certain religious communities, especially in Western Europe and North America, reflects the more profound crisis of European and American society. All this has dried up the sources that for centuries have nourished consecrated and missionary life in the church," Rodé said in a talk delivered Feb. 3 in Naples, Italy.

"The secularized culture has penetrated into the minds and hearts of some consecrated persons and some communities, where it is seen as an opening to modernity and a way of approaching the contemporary world," he said.

Rodé said the decline in the numbers of men and women religious became precipitous after the Second Vatican Council, which he described as a period "rich in experimentation but poor in robust and convincing mission."

Faced with an aging membership and fewer vocations, many religious orders have turned to "foreign vocations" in places like Africa, India and the Philippines, the cardinal said. He said the orders need to remember that quality of vocations is more important than quantity.

"It is easy, in situations of crisis, to turn to deceptive and damaging shortcuts, or attempt to lower the criteria and parameters for admission to consecrated life and the course of initial and permanent formation," he said. (What in the world is he saying here? That white Anglo European vocations are more true and valid than other vocations?)

In any case, he said, "big numbers are not indispensable" for religious orders to prove their validity. It's more important today, he said, that religious orders "overcome the egocentrism in which institutes are often closed, and open themselves to joint projects with other institutes, local churches and lay faithful." (Perhaps Rode is slyly referencing the style of Opus Dei and the Legion who combine lay apostolates with consecrated religious and insinuate their view of Catholicism in ordinary dioceses.)

Rodé, a 75-year-old Slovenian, is overseeing a Vatican-ordered apostolic visitation of institutes for women religious in the United States to find out why the numbers of their members have decreased during the past 40 years and to look at the quality of life in the communities.

He spoke Feb. 3 to a conference on religious life sponsored by the Archdiocese of Naples. The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, published the main portions of his text.

Rodé said it was undoubtedly more difficult today for all religious orders to find young people who are willing to break away from the superficial contemporary culture and show a capacity for commitment and sacrifice. Unless this is dealt with in formation programs, he said, religious orders will produce members who lack dedication and are likely to drift away. (Perhaps the Benedictines should start their own version of Hitler youth.)

The challenge, however, should not be seen strictly in negative terms, he said. The present moment, he said, can help religious orders better define themselves as "alternatives to the dominant culture, which is a culture of death, of violence and of abuse," and make it clear that their mission is to joyfully witness life and hope, in the example of Christ. (The dominant culture in which Rode grew up was all about death, violence, and abuse. That was the Catholic European culture he seems to miss. He also seems to have forgotten he was liberated from that culture by the generosity of North American blood and sacrifice. The very same North American blood which flows through the veins of the LCWR. And some of that North American blood was not white European blood, but Black, Hispanic, and Native blood.)

Rode told Vatican Radio Feb. 2 that his office was working on two documents: a joint document with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments on the importance of prayer in the life of religious; and a document highlighting the importance of religious brothers in the church. ( I can't wait to read Rode extolling on the virtues of religious brothers as opposed to the vices of religious sisters. Won't that be a novel change.)

*********************************************************

If this little message from Cardinal Rode is indicative of where the Vatican has it's brain, then Catholicism is truly facing a serious crisis of mission. This is an incredible insult to any Catholic whose skin is not white and whose native origin is not European or North American. Even if Rode meant to insinuate that North American congregations were using developing countries to pad their numbers, it's still completely outrageous.

This message seems to me to be a very clear statement that Roman Catholicism is at it's core all about white European male culture. Rode would have us believe that that culture, as modeled by Roman Catholicism, is Christ's preferred culture. For some reason I doubt that Christ had white European culture in mind when he described the Kingdom.

Maybe the sin being committed by the LCWR is that it no longer bows down to that culture, somehow having gotten to the point where the violence, domination, and death in white European culture no longer has any credibility. It was after all, this Catholic European culture that gave us the twentieth century horrors of totalitarian fascism, totalitarian communism, and the subjugation and domination of non white non European cultures.

This is a stunning message in the depth of it's pathology and maybe that's a good thing. It shines a very bright light on the choices we are being asked to make as members of the 'Catholic' church. It's only 'Catholic' if one is willing to agree to the supremacy of European culture and the world view of it's elitist white male leadership.

Using Our Free Choice To Cement Ourselves As Slaves

It is incomprehensible that a loving Creator would desire self imposed physical slavery and the physical bondage that that notion implies. That's the thinking of the other side of the spiritual equation.

Just a short post to let folks know I'm taking a short sabbatical. I realised I have been at this blogging thing for almost three years and maybe it was time I took a break and recharged the batteries. I want to thank the people who have made these past three years such a pleasure and let you all know that I will be back at it in the near future. It always good for people to break their routine once in a while.

Before I extend my break, I do have one thing to comment on. I found the recent revelations about JPII and his penchant for self flagellation unsurprising. It is consistent with his inconsistencies. What I have found surprising in the lack of commentary is how his own treatment of his own body stands in stark contrast to his writing in Theology of the Body. Reminds me of a bulimic who extols on the virtues of nutritious healthy eating and then runs to the bathroom to forcibly expel that nutritious healthy food. The message of course is two fold. One the bulimic is addicted to the endorphin release and subsequent lessening of physical anxiety, and two, the lectures about healthy food apply to everyone else but the bulimic. Somehow their universal rules for others do not apply to their personally unique situation.

In reading the NCR article on JPII I found it very fascinating that JPII would make it look as if he slept in his bed on those nights he prostrated himself on the cold floor and used a 'normal' looking belt to flagellate himself, and that none of the witnesses to his self abuse were named. This penchant for secrecy is a huge red flag which every bulimic I've ever talked with has become masterful at maintaining. It's their 'dirty' little secret shared between them and the porcelain goddess they sort of worship. They know it's not healthy or normal--period.

The question which really needs to be meditated on is why we are to find this behavior of JPII's saintly. This is especially important in that he came of age in a period of time in which totalitarian leadership of both communist and fascist persuasions had no regard for physical suffering and used it to their advantage specifically to underline the point that individuals were not in control of any aspect of their lives. This is a lesson JPII apparently took to heart. Beating himself bloody was a mechanism in which to deal with a fundamental sense of having no control.

Are we being prepared for some type of suffering by being re accustomed to the thought of the benefits of enforced suffering for our own good? Is that why we are being told the devil is alive and well and we are in a virtual war with the powers of evil? Is that why Catholicism's most influential lay apostolates are obsessed with issues of control and authority and the inherent spiritual benefits of personal suffering. Is that why they so infrequently speak of compassion and love. Are we being prepared for something in which negating our own value is important?

Here's what I think. I think we're in a war all right, but it's a different kind of war. It's all about a choice we have to make about where we put our trust. Is it in authority figures like JPII, or Rush Limbaugh, or Barack Obama, or Wall Street? Is it in the value of personal suffering and purifying ourselves of personal autonomy? Or is it in our own capacity to reason to truth and make informed choices? Is our spiritual evolution to be one of submission to an external authority or one of maturing in personal responsibility and love?

This spiritual decision has practical consequences. Will we place our trust in the continued search for technology which mimics our innate capacities and enslaves us to those who control those technologies or will we understand what Jesus was teaching about the real ability of humanity and how we can effect change on the quantum level through intentional focus and the real power of love?

Whipping ourselves with a tool of self flagellation into an endorphin rush is not spiritual. Instead it's an admission of feeling out of control and powerless. It's the act and the choice of a slave. It is not the act of someone who feels liberated and empowered in Christ.

Until next time.