As always, our loving Shepherd is leading us through his own painful cross, surrending his life for the Church he loves.
How does this "old celibate man" in Rome know anything about the One Flesh union and giving up his body in love? He's living it.
Now that's love.
Pray, pray, pray for our beloved JPII.
May the Precious Blood of Jesus cover him with Its healing strength.
11.24.2004
11.11.2004
2,400 lawmakers warn of Kinsey influence
With the movie on Alfred Kinsey soon to be released, here is one interesting article on the effects of Kinsey's bogus research.
According to ALEC, the paper details how "a pornography-addicted, sadomasochistic, bi/homosexual pedophile propagandist was able to launch the sexual revolution, reduce sex crime penalties and sabotage American sex law."
The group's Education Subcommittee on Junk Science in the Classroom said it commissioned the research "because of widespread use of 'junk' science misdirecting legislatures, courts and education."
As WorldNetDaily reported, Kinsey's life is the subject of a Hollywood film starring Liam Neeson, scheduled to be released in November.
The ALEC paper says since World War II, Kinsey's fraudulent data informed and directed the American Law Institute's "Model Penal Code" in eliminating and weakening 52 sex laws that once protected marriage.
Laws adopted between 1960 and 1980 permitted Kinsey's abnormal sexual conduct to be taught to American children via sex education, the paper says.
"Since then," says a summary of the paper, "public health costs from sexual disease and dysfunction have skyrocketed; indeed all measures of socio-sexual disorder have soared from the 1960s, when protective laws began to be weakened and/or eliminated."
Judith Reisman, the scientific adviser to the Subcommittee on Junk Science for the project, notes a sentence was omitted from the introduction by California state Sen. Ray Haynes, the Republican whip, which recognized Kinsey’s "junk science" as the "unquestioned foundation for all the legal, legislative and media debate on marriage and civil unions."
Another paragraph that didn't make the final cut, says Reisman, was about the influence of Kinsey's fraud on the debate about homosexuality in legislatures nationwide and the "bogus data" cited by the U.S. Supreme Court to normalize sodomy in the Lawrence vs. Texas decision in 2003.
Along with Haynes, state legislators who worked on the project were Sen. Kay O'Connor, Kan.; Rep. Keith King., Colo.; Sen. Laurie Bleaker, Kan.; Del. Janet Greenip, Md.; Rep. Carolyn Coleman, Okla.; Rep. Andre Martel, N.H.; Del. John Reid, Va.; and Sen. Jack Westwood, Ky.
The report says the evidence of wrongdoing comes from Kinsey's confessions in his own "Reports," published in 1948 and 1953.
Charles Rice, professor of constitutional law at the University of Notre Dame, concluded Kinsey's research was "contrived, ideologically driven and misleading."
He said, "Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty."
Kinsey's data in 1955 said "nearly 2 males out of every 5 that one may meet" have had some kind of homosexual experience.
His influence can be seen today in the calls for "discrimination" laws to protect the full range of sexual activities including transvestitism, transgenderism, polygamy and bestiality.
Also, it influences the debate in education over whether to teach our children all "alternate" sexual acts as normal, or to teach chastity and abstinence until marriage.
The paper says Kinseyan law "revisers" ended our American Common Law sexual controls via:
Sex law revision commissions using Kinsey and his therapeutic elites as consultants.
Bar, law school journal and media articles relying on Kinsey.
Creation of the 1955 Kinsey-based American Law Institute Model Penal Code.
Redefining sexual predators as "ill" and in need of therapeutic/drug cures and early parole.
Conclusions are based on data from 30 states where laws were changed according to the Kinsey-based penal code, focusing on six: Missouri, Kentucky, New Jersey, Kansas, Minnesota and Georgia.
In Missouri, for example, laws have redefined rape as 11 different crimes yielding more than 11 different adjudication issues and sentences. Rapists can now plea-bargain for a substantially lesser offense, such as sexual misconduct or simple assault. In other cases, offenders simply pay a misdemeanor fine, avoiding the "sex crime" stigma.
Other state Law Journals have cited the Kinsey Report data to:
Legalize prostitution (Maine, 1976)
Trivialize boy prostitution (Duke University, 1960)
Lighten all sex crime penalties (Ohio, 1959)
Express "beneficent concern for pedophiles" (Georgia, 1969)
Aid molesters as children seduce men (Missouri, 1973, Tennessee, 1965)
Reject judicial "condemnation of sex offenders" (Pennsylvania, 1952)
Assert that 95 percent of males are sex offenders (Oregon, 1972) Reduce, eliminate most sex crime laws, including rape (Oklahoma, 1970)
Legalize homosexuality (South Dakota, 1968)
Legalize sodomy since 10-37 percent of males have been homosexual (most journals)
In his introduction, Haynes says, "This State Factor is a valuable reference and resource for your work in government, because it provides you with history and current information of the utmost importance for any informed understanding of many public issues crucial to the protection of America’s families and young people. Understanding how junk sex science has deformed our thinking and laws is vital as legislators 'point the way.'”
Haynes urges legislators to "call attention to Kinsey's questionable findings."
Only then, he contends, "can we start to reverse the misguided assault on American law and way of life through investigation, inquiries and repeal of laws and public policies based on 'junk' science."
A copy of the report can be obtained by telephoning ALEC at (202) 466-3800.
According to ALEC, the paper details how "a pornography-addicted, sadomasochistic, bi/homosexual pedophile propagandist was able to launch the sexual revolution, reduce sex crime penalties and sabotage American sex law."
The group's Education Subcommittee on Junk Science in the Classroom said it commissioned the research "because of widespread use of 'junk' science misdirecting legislatures, courts and education."
As WorldNetDaily reported, Kinsey's life is the subject of a Hollywood film starring Liam Neeson, scheduled to be released in November.
The ALEC paper says since World War II, Kinsey's fraudulent data informed and directed the American Law Institute's "Model Penal Code" in eliminating and weakening 52 sex laws that once protected marriage.
Laws adopted between 1960 and 1980 permitted Kinsey's abnormal sexual conduct to be taught to American children via sex education, the paper says.
"Since then," says a summary of the paper, "public health costs from sexual disease and dysfunction have skyrocketed; indeed all measures of socio-sexual disorder have soared from the 1960s, when protective laws began to be weakened and/or eliminated."
Judith Reisman, the scientific adviser to the Subcommittee on Junk Science for the project, notes a sentence was omitted from the introduction by California state Sen. Ray Haynes, the Republican whip, which recognized Kinsey’s "junk science" as the "unquestioned foundation for all the legal, legislative and media debate on marriage and civil unions."
Another paragraph that didn't make the final cut, says Reisman, was about the influence of Kinsey's fraud on the debate about homosexuality in legislatures nationwide and the "bogus data" cited by the U.S. Supreme Court to normalize sodomy in the Lawrence vs. Texas decision in 2003.
Along with Haynes, state legislators who worked on the project were Sen. Kay O'Connor, Kan.; Rep. Keith King., Colo.; Sen. Laurie Bleaker, Kan.; Del. Janet Greenip, Md.; Rep. Carolyn Coleman, Okla.; Rep. Andre Martel, N.H.; Del. John Reid, Va.; and Sen. Jack Westwood, Ky.
The report says the evidence of wrongdoing comes from Kinsey's confessions in his own "Reports," published in 1948 and 1953.
Charles Rice, professor of constitutional law at the University of Notre Dame, concluded Kinsey's research was "contrived, ideologically driven and misleading."
He said, "Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty."
Kinsey's data in 1955 said "nearly 2 males out of every 5 that one may meet" have had some kind of homosexual experience.
His influence can be seen today in the calls for "discrimination" laws to protect the full range of sexual activities including transvestitism, transgenderism, polygamy and bestiality.
Also, it influences the debate in education over whether to teach our children all "alternate" sexual acts as normal, or to teach chastity and abstinence until marriage.
The paper says Kinseyan law "revisers" ended our American Common Law sexual controls via:
Sex law revision commissions using Kinsey and his therapeutic elites as consultants.
Bar, law school journal and media articles relying on Kinsey.
Creation of the 1955 Kinsey-based American Law Institute Model Penal Code.
Redefining sexual predators as "ill" and in need of therapeutic/drug cures and early parole.
Conclusions are based on data from 30 states where laws were changed according to the Kinsey-based penal code, focusing on six: Missouri, Kentucky, New Jersey, Kansas, Minnesota and Georgia.
In Missouri, for example, laws have redefined rape as 11 different crimes yielding more than 11 different adjudication issues and sentences. Rapists can now plea-bargain for a substantially lesser offense, such as sexual misconduct or simple assault. In other cases, offenders simply pay a misdemeanor fine, avoiding the "sex crime" stigma.
Other state Law Journals have cited the Kinsey Report data to:
Legalize prostitution (Maine, 1976)
Trivialize boy prostitution (Duke University, 1960)
Lighten all sex crime penalties (Ohio, 1959)
Express "beneficent concern for pedophiles" (Georgia, 1969)
Aid molesters as children seduce men (Missouri, 1973, Tennessee, 1965)
Reject judicial "condemnation of sex offenders" (Pennsylvania, 1952)
Assert that 95 percent of males are sex offenders (Oregon, 1972) Reduce, eliminate most sex crime laws, including rape (Oklahoma, 1970)
Legalize homosexuality (South Dakota, 1968)
Legalize sodomy since 10-37 percent of males have been homosexual (most journals)
In his introduction, Haynes says, "This State Factor is a valuable reference and resource for your work in government, because it provides you with history and current information of the utmost importance for any informed understanding of many public issues crucial to the protection of America’s families and young people. Understanding how junk sex science has deformed our thinking and laws is vital as legislators 'point the way.'”
Haynes urges legislators to "call attention to Kinsey's questionable findings."
Only then, he contends, "can we start to reverse the misguided assault on American law and way of life through investigation, inquiries and repeal of laws and public policies based on 'junk' science."
A copy of the report can be obtained by telephoning ALEC at (202) 466-3800.
11.04.2004
What I learned From a Muslim about Eucharistic Adoration
by PETER KREEFT
The central problem of the Church today is that most of the generation now becoming adults simply do not know Jesus Christ. They are not merely unaware of right doctrine about Him (though that's tragically missing too) but of Christ Himself, His real presence.
“We do,” said John.
“Your Church teaches that he is really present there, yes? That what's there is the man who was God?”
“Yes. The formula is 'Body and blood, soul and divinity.'”
“And you believe that?”
“Yes.”
Isa made as if to say something, but stifled it. John assured him he would not be offended.
Finally, reluctantly, Isa said, “I don't understand.”
"I understand how you feel. It sounds very shocking.”
“No, you don't understand. That's not what I mean. You will take it as an insult, but I don't mean it to be.”
“I promise I won't take it as an insult. But I really want to know what's on your mind.”
“Well then. . . . I don't think you really do believe that. I don't mean to say you're dishonest, but . . . .”
“I think I know what you mean. You can't empathize with anyone who believes something so shocking. You don't see how you could ever get down on your knees before that altar.”
“No, I don't see how I could ever get up. If I believed that thing that looks like a little round piece of bread was really Allah Himself, I think I would just faint. I would fall at His feet like a dead man.”
John looked carefully at my reaction as he reported Isa's words. My eyes opened, and he smiled. “What did you say to him?” I asked.
“Nothing. Then, after a while, just 'Yes.'”
John is a wise man.
Culture clash
This story got me thinking about the ills of our culture both outside and inside the Church. Every American knows our culture is in crisis. And every Catholic knows that the crisis has infected the Church as well as the world. But what is the root of the disease — Liberalism vs. Conservatism, Newchurch vs. Oldchurch? Yes, but that is only the formal structure of every conflict — new vs. old.
Is it infidelity vs. fidelity, then? “Fidelity” — to the “deposit of faith” — adds both a personal dimension of moral responsibility and a theological dimension of content to “conservatism.” But this is not enough; we must ask what part of the “deposit of faith” is in peril. It seems to be the supernatural. Modernism, the master heresy of the modern era (as Gnosticism was to the ancient era), is essentially the denial of the supernatural: It means reducing God to goodness, Christ to a good man, the Holy Spirit to something like “school spirit,” scripture to man's word about God instead of God's word about man, and divine institutions to human ones. Is that the deepest source of the crisis, then?
No, it goes even deeper. Even the destruction of Modernism would still only be a victory of doctrine. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, the primary object of faith is a reality, not a proposition (though propositions are indispensable). Not the proposition “God exists” but God; not the doctrine of the Resurrection but the reality of the Resurrection; not the creeds about Christ but the real presence of Christ, is the crux and crisis. It is a crisis of Christlessness.
“Real presence” is impossible to conceptualize, for it is not a “what” at all, but the “thereness,” or “hereness,” of the “what”; not essence but existence. It must be shown, not defined. Whenever God shows up in scripture, it is His real presence that makes all the difference. Job's three friends talked about God as if He were absent, but Job talked to Him, however confusedly, for his faith was in God's presence. That faith was rewarded when God appeared to Job but not to his friends and approved Job's speeches, not theirs.
Throughout the Gospels we find Jesus constantly doing just that: showing the difference between mere concepts and real presence. He did it when He proved the Resurrection to the skeptical Sadducees on the basis of the first five books of Moses alone (which was all that they accepted as divine authority), by connecting three names for Himself that God had revealed to Moses: “I AM WHO AM,” “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” and “the God not of the dead but of the living.” “For all live to Him,” He concluded (Luke 21:38).
He did it when He berated the Pharisees, with ironic humor, for keeping their noses in their books instead of looking to Him — the book was wholly about Him! (John 5:39-40)
He did it in His parting words to His apostles, when He left them with the only thing powerful enough to transform the world: not comforting words about Him but His real presence: “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28:20)
This is what transformed them from confused cowards into saints and martyrs. Instead of being shaken by the world, they would now shake the world. How? What converted the world's longest-lived, successful, and hard-nosed dictatorship — the Roman Empire — into “Christendom”? Not just Christ's theology or teaching, not just Christ's morality or example, but Christ's real presence, in His Body the Church and in His Spirit. And it was meant to continue.
A long retreat
Why has it stopped? Why are the Christian soldiers no longer marching onward but retreating?
Because we no longer understand this “real presence,” this difference between Christ abstract and Christ concrete; because we no longer understand St. Paul's startling one-word definition of “wisdom,” “righteousness,” “sanctification,” and “redemption” given in I Corinthians: Christ. That is why his decision to “know nothing but Christ Jesus” to those sophisticated Corinthians was not a “know-nothing” anti-intellectualism or a minimalism, but a maximalism.
The crisis of faith in the Church is a crisis of faith in Christ's real presence. The deepest root of the dullness and ineffectiveness of most parishes, laity, clergy, homilies, liturgies, music, catechesis, programs, and all the extra Martha-like activities, is not outright heresy or apostasy but simply remoteness — not, as the “liberals” say, the Church's remoteness from “the people,” but from The Person.
Let's ask ourselves honestly: Why have Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Pentecostal Protestant sects and denominations been so much more successful throughout the Americas during the past generation? Why would a Catholic, who is in possession of the fullness of the faith, the full gospel, exchange it for a faith that is only partial? It is not primarily because of a disaffection for the things Catholics have and Protestants don't—history, tradition, popes, saints, sacraments, etc. Rather, it is due to an affection for the one thing Catholics have but don't know they have—in fact, the main thing Catholics have: Christ. These Catholics never knew Jesus Christ in the Church, but they did find Christ present in the souls and lives of Protestants.
Do you think I exaggerate? I teach philosophy at Boston College — one of the top Catholic universities in America. Eighty percent of my students are Catholics who have had twelve years of catechism. Yet when I ask them what they would say to God if they died tonight and were asked why they should go to Heaven, only one in 20 even mentions Jesus Christ. (Only one in 20 Evangelicals, Pentecostals, or Fundamentalists would not know that answer.) This is worse than a “problem;” this is an inexcusable scandal, an unmitigated disaster.
Ironically, the Church has a presence these Protestants do not even claim to have: an objective and perfect real presence in the Eucharist, worthy of worship, not just a subjective and imperfect presence in souls. Christ is really, truly, objectively, fully present in the Eucharist — hidden under the appearances of bread and wine — as He was in the streets of Nazareth or on the Cross.
And that's what we're neglecting!
The central problem of the Church today is that most of the generation now becoming adults — the generation educated by CCD texts full of deadly platitudes — simply do not know Jesus Christ. They are not merely unaware of right doctrine about Him (though that's tragically missing too) but of Christ Himself, His real presence. Nothing less than Christ could have Christianized the world, nothing less than Christlessness has de-Christianized it, and nothing less than Christ can re-Christianize it. What happens when Christ's real presence is known? Read the Gospels and find out. The Gospels are not mere historical records; they continue, they happen, for the One they present is not dead and gone and past but alive and here and now.
Where is He present now? In His Church. This means essentially two things. First, He is present in the Church's sacraments, primarily in the Eucharist. Second, He is also present in the Church's members, in the souls and lives of those who have believed in Him. What a tragedy that so many Protestants do not know that first presence! And what an equal tragedy that so many Catholics do not know the second!
What will happen if we also neglect the first? What sound will we hear to replace the great silence of eucharistic adoration? The same sound we hear from the National Council of Churches: the sound of coffins being built, the sound of dead logs falling.
And what will we hear if we rediscover His presence and adore Him? The same sound we hear in the Gospels: the sound of a blazing fire, the rattle of dry bones coming to life, the shouts of joy that ring through scripture and through the great old Protestant hymns.
Return to joy
How do we get this joy back? Not by any gimmicks or human contrivance, but by recognizing the real presence and responding with adoration. And the primary place of the real presence is the Eucharist.
The primary reason for eucharistic adoration, however, is not the one we have been exploring so far: that it will bring passion and power and joy and life to us, our Church, and our world. Those are only incidentals! The primary reason must be to obey the primary moral rule, which I shall call Right Reality Response (the 3 R's), or (in a single word) Realism. Adore Him because He is adorable, and present. Even if it didn't save the world, the Church, or the soul, it would be the right thing to do, not just because of who we are, but because of who He is.
Right Reality Response is the ultimate basis for all morality. We must be moral because God commands it, of course; but also because it is good, or right; and it is good, or right, because it is true. And it works both ways: Not only do understanding and loving the truth lead to moral obedience, but obedience also leads to understanding the truth. Adoration trains us in the habit of seeing the Absolute as absolute and the relative as relative, instead of vice versa.
For in adoration we focus on Christ the center, and everything else then appears as it truly is: as a ray of light from that sun, the Son of God. We see the world in terms of Christ's coordinates instead of looking at Christ in terms of the world's coordinates. It is the great exercise in realism, since reality is Christocentric. Even this great mental benefit, or “payoff,” must not be our primary motive, however. If we adored the Adorable One for the sake of something else, we would really be worshipping the “something else” as the end and using God as the means. This would reverse the order of reality, treating the End as a means and the means as the end. God has left us clear instructions forbidding this: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and then all these other things will be added unto you.” He commands us to adore Him for His sake, not for our sake; but He does this for our sake, not for His sake. His glory is to be our concern; our glory is His concern. That is what love is: exchange.
A conversation
What holds us back, then? What is the objection to eucharistic adoration?
It's not that it's hard or requires any special gifts or education. The only requirements are faith and love.
Perhaps it would be a good exercise for us to get our objections out in front of us by inventing an imaginary objector.
Our objector protests,
“Although it is not hard in itself, it is hard for us, because our faith is weak. It is our nature to live by sight, not by faith.”
True. Our faith is smaller than a mustard seed. But faith is like a muscle. And this is a compelling reason for strengthening our faith by exercising it through adoration.
“How can we exercise a faith we don't already have?”
That's like the question: “How can I read a book entitled How To Read A Book? If I can read already, I don't need to read that book, and if I can't read already, I won't be able to read that book.” We can read a little already, and reading that book will help us to read a lot better. So we have a little faith already, and we can adore a little bit; doing that will help us to have more faith and to adore better.
“Well, it's still hard. It doesn't look or feel like there's anything there but bread. Why couldn't God have come out with some visible miracle to make it easier for us?”
Because He wants to strengthen our faith, and wean us from relying on our senses and our own minds.
“Then why doesn't He give us more interior highs, mystical experiences?”
Because He doesn't want us to rely on our feelings either, but on faith. If we relied on what the saints call “sensible consolations,” we'd get a spiritual sweet tooth.
“Why is that so bad? It would make us happier.”
Because we are happiest when we are most like Him, when our happiness is the most like His and the least like the happiness of animals or addicts.
“But there's such a distance! He is a simple, pure spirit. We are complex and material.”
That is why He gave us a world, and an Incarnation, and a Eucharist. But even in this complex world He trains us to be simple. Our faith grows by getting simpler, not more complex. The saints' faith was simple. Remember St. Thomas's Eucharistic hymn:
Sight, taste, and touch in Thee are each deceived; The ear alone most safely is believed. I believe all the Son of God has spoken; Than Truth's own word there is no truer token. A modern equivalent is: “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!”
“But how can sitting alone in an empty church address the urgent needs of a life and a society in chaos? It's like fiddling while Rome burns.”
Your objection is very common, and very important. And my answer is not very commonly known or believed. Your objection assumes a whole “world-view” that is erroneous. We habitually see reality inside-out and upside-down. We see reality inside-out because we see matter as containing spirit instead of spirit as containing matter. We think of the material universe as the basic containing reality, and spirit as a tiny bit of light surrounded by an enormous quantity of matter, time, and space. But the whole universe is only a little hazelnut in God's hand. That's the vision God showed Lady Julian of Norwich: “He's got the whole world in His hands.” That's the true vision. Saints are not fools; they're realists. We also habitually think of the soul as “in” the body instead of the body in the soul—as if a play were “in” its stage setting instead of the setting being “in” the play, as one of its dimensions.
We see reality upside-down because we think of earth as the foundation and Heaven as far away, “up there” somewhere, so religion becomes a kind of Tower of Babel reaching up. That's upside-down, because the Church has its foundation in Heaven, and the New Jerusalem comes “down out of Heaven as a Bride adorned for her Husband,” according to Revelation. Heaven isn't insubstantial; it's far more substantial than earth. And God is not “watching us from a distance.” Heaven came to earth in Christ.
“But Christ ascended back to Heaven. He is in Heaven now.”
That does not mean He is not here. “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age.”
“Is Christ in Heaven or not?”
Christ is not relative to Heaven, Heaven is relative to Christ. So Christ is not in Heaven, Heaven is in Christ, Heaven is wherever Christ is. And Christ is still here, in the Church and especially in the Eucharist. If you want to understand the Church, you have to see her as primarily a Heavenly reality.
“But the Church is a visible, earthly institution.”
It is primarily invisible, primarily Heavenly.
“That sounds Protestant.”
It is Catholic. It is the “mystical Body of Christ.”
“But how does that mean you can help the Church and the world by sitting in a dark building doing nothing?”
You can't. But you can mightily help both by doing something: adoring Christ, who is really present there in the Eucharist.
“But what do you do when you adore?”
You let God do things. He forms our minds and hearts — if we give them to Him.
“That sounds Quietist, or Buddhist.”
Buddhists often understand the superior power of silence over speech, and of contemplation over action, better than Catholics do today. “By serving a cup of green tea, I stopped the war” — I'll bet you don't understand that saying, do you?
“No. It's silly. How can drinking tea stop war?”
By changing souls, which are the sources of war. By touching the root, not the branches.
“What does that have to do with eucharistic adoration?”
There too we touch the root — the root of everything, Christ the Pantocrator. And when we touch this root — the root of all life — with our own root, our heart, we touch our candle to His fire. We touch a power infinitely greater than nuclear power, the sun, or the Big Bang.
“What power is that?”
The Blood and Body of Christ.
“Oh.”
Your responses are getting wiser.
“But we can't just sit around adoring all day.”
Can you do it for one hour?
“There's so much else to do. . . .”
Yes there is, and that's why you can't afford not to give God five loaves and two fishes of your time so that He can multiply it. He really does, you know. Because it's His — time is His gift to us, and it's precious to Him when we give it back to Him. Try it; you'll like it. Everything will fall into place once you acknowledge the Center.
“You said earlier that we shouldn't do it for the sake of its payoffs.”
No, but they will happen anyway, if we do it because it's right.
“Suppose I don't feel a great desire for this form of prayer.”
Then pray for the desire.
“You've got an answer for everything, don't you?”
No, but He does. Unless Philippians 4:19 is a lie. Do you believe it is?
“No. . . .”
Then you believe it's true.
“Yes.”
Then go. Do it.
“I have no more excuses.”
Then I'll see you in church.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Kreeft, Peter. “What I learned From a Muslim about Eucharistic Adoration.” Crisis 16, no. 11 (March 1998).
Reprinted by permission of the Morley Institute a non-profit education organization. To subscribe to Crisis magazine call 1-800-852-9962.
THE AUTHOR
Peter Kreeft has written extensively (over 25 books) in the areas of Christian apologetics. Link to all of Peter Kreeft's books here.
Peter Kreeft teaches at Boston College in Boston Massachusetts. He is on the Advisory Board of the Catholic Educator's Resource Center.
Copyright © 1998 Crisis
The central problem of the Church today is that most of the generation now becoming adults simply do not know Jesus Christ. They are not merely unaware of right doctrine about Him (though that's tragically missing too) but of Christ Himself, His real presence.
“We do,” said John.
“Your Church teaches that he is really present there, yes? That what's there is the man who was God?”
“Yes. The formula is 'Body and blood, soul and divinity.'”
“And you believe that?”
“Yes.”
Isa made as if to say something, but stifled it. John assured him he would not be offended.
Finally, reluctantly, Isa said, “I don't understand.”
"I understand how you feel. It sounds very shocking.”
“No, you don't understand. That's not what I mean. You will take it as an insult, but I don't mean it to be.”
“I promise I won't take it as an insult. But I really want to know what's on your mind.”
“Well then. . . . I don't think you really do believe that. I don't mean to say you're dishonest, but . . . .”
“I think I know what you mean. You can't empathize with anyone who believes something so shocking. You don't see how you could ever get down on your knees before that altar.”
“No, I don't see how I could ever get up. If I believed that thing that looks like a little round piece of bread was really Allah Himself, I think I would just faint. I would fall at His feet like a dead man.”
John looked carefully at my reaction as he reported Isa's words. My eyes opened, and he smiled. “What did you say to him?” I asked.
“Nothing. Then, after a while, just 'Yes.'”
John is a wise man.
Culture clash
This story got me thinking about the ills of our culture both outside and inside the Church. Every American knows our culture is in crisis. And every Catholic knows that the crisis has infected the Church as well as the world. But what is the root of the disease — Liberalism vs. Conservatism, Newchurch vs. Oldchurch? Yes, but that is only the formal structure of every conflict — new vs. old.
Is it infidelity vs. fidelity, then? “Fidelity” — to the “deposit of faith” — adds both a personal dimension of moral responsibility and a theological dimension of content to “conservatism.” But this is not enough; we must ask what part of the “deposit of faith” is in peril. It seems to be the supernatural. Modernism, the master heresy of the modern era (as Gnosticism was to the ancient era), is essentially the denial of the supernatural: It means reducing God to goodness, Christ to a good man, the Holy Spirit to something like “school spirit,” scripture to man's word about God instead of God's word about man, and divine institutions to human ones. Is that the deepest source of the crisis, then?
No, it goes even deeper. Even the destruction of Modernism would still only be a victory of doctrine. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, the primary object of faith is a reality, not a proposition (though propositions are indispensable). Not the proposition “God exists” but God; not the doctrine of the Resurrection but the reality of the Resurrection; not the creeds about Christ but the real presence of Christ, is the crux and crisis. It is a crisis of Christlessness.
“Real presence” is impossible to conceptualize, for it is not a “what” at all, but the “thereness,” or “hereness,” of the “what”; not essence but existence. It must be shown, not defined. Whenever God shows up in scripture, it is His real presence that makes all the difference. Job's three friends talked about God as if He were absent, but Job talked to Him, however confusedly, for his faith was in God's presence. That faith was rewarded when God appeared to Job but not to his friends and approved Job's speeches, not theirs.
Throughout the Gospels we find Jesus constantly doing just that: showing the difference between mere concepts and real presence. He did it when He proved the Resurrection to the skeptical Sadducees on the basis of the first five books of Moses alone (which was all that they accepted as divine authority), by connecting three names for Himself that God had revealed to Moses: “I AM WHO AM,” “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” and “the God not of the dead but of the living.” “For all live to Him,” He concluded (Luke 21:38).
He did it when He berated the Pharisees, with ironic humor, for keeping their noses in their books instead of looking to Him — the book was wholly about Him! (John 5:39-40)
He did it in His parting words to His apostles, when He left them with the only thing powerful enough to transform the world: not comforting words about Him but His real presence: “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28:20)
This is what transformed them from confused cowards into saints and martyrs. Instead of being shaken by the world, they would now shake the world. How? What converted the world's longest-lived, successful, and hard-nosed dictatorship — the Roman Empire — into “Christendom”? Not just Christ's theology or teaching, not just Christ's morality or example, but Christ's real presence, in His Body the Church and in His Spirit. And it was meant to continue.
A long retreat
Why has it stopped? Why are the Christian soldiers no longer marching onward but retreating?
Because we no longer understand this “real presence,” this difference between Christ abstract and Christ concrete; because we no longer understand St. Paul's startling one-word definition of “wisdom,” “righteousness,” “sanctification,” and “redemption” given in I Corinthians: Christ. That is why his decision to “know nothing but Christ Jesus” to those sophisticated Corinthians was not a “know-nothing” anti-intellectualism or a minimalism, but a maximalism.
The crisis of faith in the Church is a crisis of faith in Christ's real presence. The deepest root of the dullness and ineffectiveness of most parishes, laity, clergy, homilies, liturgies, music, catechesis, programs, and all the extra Martha-like activities, is not outright heresy or apostasy but simply remoteness — not, as the “liberals” say, the Church's remoteness from “the people,” but from The Person.
Let's ask ourselves honestly: Why have Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Pentecostal Protestant sects and denominations been so much more successful throughout the Americas during the past generation? Why would a Catholic, who is in possession of the fullness of the faith, the full gospel, exchange it for a faith that is only partial? It is not primarily because of a disaffection for the things Catholics have and Protestants don't—history, tradition, popes, saints, sacraments, etc. Rather, it is due to an affection for the one thing Catholics have but don't know they have—in fact, the main thing Catholics have: Christ. These Catholics never knew Jesus Christ in the Church, but they did find Christ present in the souls and lives of Protestants.
Do you think I exaggerate? I teach philosophy at Boston College — one of the top Catholic universities in America. Eighty percent of my students are Catholics who have had twelve years of catechism. Yet when I ask them what they would say to God if they died tonight and were asked why they should go to Heaven, only one in 20 even mentions Jesus Christ. (Only one in 20 Evangelicals, Pentecostals, or Fundamentalists would not know that answer.) This is worse than a “problem;” this is an inexcusable scandal, an unmitigated disaster.
Ironically, the Church has a presence these Protestants do not even claim to have: an objective and perfect real presence in the Eucharist, worthy of worship, not just a subjective and imperfect presence in souls. Christ is really, truly, objectively, fully present in the Eucharist — hidden under the appearances of bread and wine — as He was in the streets of Nazareth or on the Cross.
And that's what we're neglecting!
The central problem of the Church today is that most of the generation now becoming adults — the generation educated by CCD texts full of deadly platitudes — simply do not know Jesus Christ. They are not merely unaware of right doctrine about Him (though that's tragically missing too) but of Christ Himself, His real presence. Nothing less than Christ could have Christianized the world, nothing less than Christlessness has de-Christianized it, and nothing less than Christ can re-Christianize it. What happens when Christ's real presence is known? Read the Gospels and find out. The Gospels are not mere historical records; they continue, they happen, for the One they present is not dead and gone and past but alive and here and now.
Where is He present now? In His Church. This means essentially two things. First, He is present in the Church's sacraments, primarily in the Eucharist. Second, He is also present in the Church's members, in the souls and lives of those who have believed in Him. What a tragedy that so many Protestants do not know that first presence! And what an equal tragedy that so many Catholics do not know the second!
What will happen if we also neglect the first? What sound will we hear to replace the great silence of eucharistic adoration? The same sound we hear from the National Council of Churches: the sound of coffins being built, the sound of dead logs falling.
And what will we hear if we rediscover His presence and adore Him? The same sound we hear in the Gospels: the sound of a blazing fire, the rattle of dry bones coming to life, the shouts of joy that ring through scripture and through the great old Protestant hymns.
Return to joy
How do we get this joy back? Not by any gimmicks or human contrivance, but by recognizing the real presence and responding with adoration. And the primary place of the real presence is the Eucharist.
The primary reason for eucharistic adoration, however, is not the one we have been exploring so far: that it will bring passion and power and joy and life to us, our Church, and our world. Those are only incidentals! The primary reason must be to obey the primary moral rule, which I shall call Right Reality Response (the 3 R's), or (in a single word) Realism. Adore Him because He is adorable, and present. Even if it didn't save the world, the Church, or the soul, it would be the right thing to do, not just because of who we are, but because of who He is.
Right Reality Response is the ultimate basis for all morality. We must be moral because God commands it, of course; but also because it is good, or right; and it is good, or right, because it is true. And it works both ways: Not only do understanding and loving the truth lead to moral obedience, but obedience also leads to understanding the truth. Adoration trains us in the habit of seeing the Absolute as absolute and the relative as relative, instead of vice versa.
For in adoration we focus on Christ the center, and everything else then appears as it truly is: as a ray of light from that sun, the Son of God. We see the world in terms of Christ's coordinates instead of looking at Christ in terms of the world's coordinates. It is the great exercise in realism, since reality is Christocentric. Even this great mental benefit, or “payoff,” must not be our primary motive, however. If we adored the Adorable One for the sake of something else, we would really be worshipping the “something else” as the end and using God as the means. This would reverse the order of reality, treating the End as a means and the means as the end. God has left us clear instructions forbidding this: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and then all these other things will be added unto you.” He commands us to adore Him for His sake, not for our sake; but He does this for our sake, not for His sake. His glory is to be our concern; our glory is His concern. That is what love is: exchange.
A conversation
What holds us back, then? What is the objection to eucharistic adoration?
It's not that it's hard or requires any special gifts or education. The only requirements are faith and love.
Perhaps it would be a good exercise for us to get our objections out in front of us by inventing an imaginary objector.
Our objector protests,
“Although it is not hard in itself, it is hard for us, because our faith is weak. It is our nature to live by sight, not by faith.”
True. Our faith is smaller than a mustard seed. But faith is like a muscle. And this is a compelling reason for strengthening our faith by exercising it through adoration.
“How can we exercise a faith we don't already have?”
That's like the question: “How can I read a book entitled How To Read A Book? If I can read already, I don't need to read that book, and if I can't read already, I won't be able to read that book.” We can read a little already, and reading that book will help us to read a lot better. So we have a little faith already, and we can adore a little bit; doing that will help us to have more faith and to adore better.
“Well, it's still hard. It doesn't look or feel like there's anything there but bread. Why couldn't God have come out with some visible miracle to make it easier for us?”
Because He wants to strengthen our faith, and wean us from relying on our senses and our own minds.
“Then why doesn't He give us more interior highs, mystical experiences?”
Because He doesn't want us to rely on our feelings either, but on faith. If we relied on what the saints call “sensible consolations,” we'd get a spiritual sweet tooth.
“Why is that so bad? It would make us happier.”
Because we are happiest when we are most like Him, when our happiness is the most like His and the least like the happiness of animals or addicts.
“But there's such a distance! He is a simple, pure spirit. We are complex and material.”
That is why He gave us a world, and an Incarnation, and a Eucharist. But even in this complex world He trains us to be simple. Our faith grows by getting simpler, not more complex. The saints' faith was simple. Remember St. Thomas's Eucharistic hymn:
Sight, taste, and touch in Thee are each deceived; The ear alone most safely is believed. I believe all the Son of God has spoken; Than Truth's own word there is no truer token. A modern equivalent is: “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!”
“But how can sitting alone in an empty church address the urgent needs of a life and a society in chaos? It's like fiddling while Rome burns.”
Your objection is very common, and very important. And my answer is not very commonly known or believed. Your objection assumes a whole “world-view” that is erroneous. We habitually see reality inside-out and upside-down. We see reality inside-out because we see matter as containing spirit instead of spirit as containing matter. We think of the material universe as the basic containing reality, and spirit as a tiny bit of light surrounded by an enormous quantity of matter, time, and space. But the whole universe is only a little hazelnut in God's hand. That's the vision God showed Lady Julian of Norwich: “He's got the whole world in His hands.” That's the true vision. Saints are not fools; they're realists. We also habitually think of the soul as “in” the body instead of the body in the soul—as if a play were “in” its stage setting instead of the setting being “in” the play, as one of its dimensions.
We see reality upside-down because we think of earth as the foundation and Heaven as far away, “up there” somewhere, so religion becomes a kind of Tower of Babel reaching up. That's upside-down, because the Church has its foundation in Heaven, and the New Jerusalem comes “down out of Heaven as a Bride adorned for her Husband,” according to Revelation. Heaven isn't insubstantial; it's far more substantial than earth. And God is not “watching us from a distance.” Heaven came to earth in Christ.
“But Christ ascended back to Heaven. He is in Heaven now.”
That does not mean He is not here. “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age.”
“Is Christ in Heaven or not?”
Christ is not relative to Heaven, Heaven is relative to Christ. So Christ is not in Heaven, Heaven is in Christ, Heaven is wherever Christ is. And Christ is still here, in the Church and especially in the Eucharist. If you want to understand the Church, you have to see her as primarily a Heavenly reality.
“But the Church is a visible, earthly institution.”
It is primarily invisible, primarily Heavenly.
“That sounds Protestant.”
It is Catholic. It is the “mystical Body of Christ.”
“But how does that mean you can help the Church and the world by sitting in a dark building doing nothing?”
You can't. But you can mightily help both by doing something: adoring Christ, who is really present there in the Eucharist.
“But what do you do when you adore?”
You let God do things. He forms our minds and hearts — if we give them to Him.
“That sounds Quietist, or Buddhist.”
Buddhists often understand the superior power of silence over speech, and of contemplation over action, better than Catholics do today. “By serving a cup of green tea, I stopped the war” — I'll bet you don't understand that saying, do you?
“No. It's silly. How can drinking tea stop war?”
By changing souls, which are the sources of war. By touching the root, not the branches.
“What does that have to do with eucharistic adoration?”
There too we touch the root — the root of everything, Christ the Pantocrator. And when we touch this root — the root of all life — with our own root, our heart, we touch our candle to His fire. We touch a power infinitely greater than nuclear power, the sun, or the Big Bang.
“What power is that?”
The Blood and Body of Christ.
“Oh.”
Your responses are getting wiser.
“But we can't just sit around adoring all day.”
Can you do it for one hour?
“There's so much else to do. . . .”
Yes there is, and that's why you can't afford not to give God five loaves and two fishes of your time so that He can multiply it. He really does, you know. Because it's His — time is His gift to us, and it's precious to Him when we give it back to Him. Try it; you'll like it. Everything will fall into place once you acknowledge the Center.
“You said earlier that we shouldn't do it for the sake of its payoffs.”
No, but they will happen anyway, if we do it because it's right.
“Suppose I don't feel a great desire for this form of prayer.”
Then pray for the desire.
“You've got an answer for everything, don't you?”
No, but He does. Unless Philippians 4:19 is a lie. Do you believe it is?
“No. . . .”
Then you believe it's true.
“Yes.”
Then go. Do it.
“I have no more excuses.”
Then I'll see you in church.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Kreeft, Peter. “What I learned From a Muslim about Eucharistic Adoration.” Crisis 16, no. 11 (March 1998).
Reprinted by permission of the Morley Institute a non-profit education organization. To subscribe to Crisis magazine call 1-800-852-9962.
THE AUTHOR
Peter Kreeft has written extensively (over 25 books) in the areas of Christian apologetics. Link to all of Peter Kreeft's books here.
Peter Kreeft teaches at Boston College in Boston Massachusetts. He is on the Advisory Board of the Catholic Educator's Resource Center.
Copyright © 1998 Crisis
11.03.2004
Pro-Life Movement Scores Victory in Elections 2004
In races across the country and at diverse levels of government, voters once again demonstrated the strength of the pro-life movement in America on Election Day 2004.
Despite being outspent (as usual) by powerful pro-abortion political groups, the pro-life movement once again demonstrated that it has something the pro-abortion movement has never had: the support of the people!
Priests for Life wants to thank the many groups and individuals who gave so much time, effort, and sacrifice to elect pro-life candidates.
Of particular note is the Catholic vote in the 2004 election: Catholics voted for President Bush over Senator Kerry by 52 to 47. Among regular Mass-attending Catholics, votes went to President Bush by a 56-43 percent margin!
Now it becomes our task to work with these newly-elected leaders to bring about continued advances in the protection of the unborn. The legislative tasks ahead are painstaking and slow, and require immense patience. We are committed to working with each of you, so that with the same dedication and persistence we have all shown during the elections, we may translate electoral victories into legislative victories!
-- Fr. Frank Pavone
Despite being outspent (as usual) by powerful pro-abortion political groups, the pro-life movement once again demonstrated that it has something the pro-abortion movement has never had: the support of the people!
Priests for Life wants to thank the many groups and individuals who gave so much time, effort, and sacrifice to elect pro-life candidates.
Of particular note is the Catholic vote in the 2004 election: Catholics voted for President Bush over Senator Kerry by 52 to 47. Among regular Mass-attending Catholics, votes went to President Bush by a 56-43 percent margin!
Now it becomes our task to work with these newly-elected leaders to bring about continued advances in the protection of the unborn. The legislative tasks ahead are painstaking and slow, and require immense patience. We are committed to working with each of you, so that with the same dedication and persistence we have all shown during the elections, we may translate electoral victories into legislative victories!
-- Fr. Frank Pavone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)