Lifesitenews.com is reporting an amazing story about a prolifer named George Krail who was run over by a car driven by a man who was taking his pregnant wife to an abortion clinic. Apparently, Krail’s wife Tina was then able to convince the man and his wife to not have an abortion. Talk about laying down your life for your friends!

I particularly love the quote from the victim’s wife:

Asked by LifeSiteNews how long they’d been participating in pro-life witness, Tina replied cheerfully, “We’ve done it [pro-life activism] for the last twenty years. Yeah, it’s been our life – and this’ll probably be our death too. What’s our life worth anyway?”

God bless George & Tina Krail – what an amazing witness!

One of the great tragedies of Christian history is that the papacy, whose primary purpose is to be an office of unity, has instead become the primary object of disunity within Christendom. By having a singular head, Christ intended Peter and his successors to be the visible sign of unity among his followers. But it is in fact that very office which many non-Catholics consider to be the principal stumbling block to a reunified Christian Church.

But this is not the case with all non-Catholics. A former Episcopal bishop has converted to Catholicism and become a Catholic priest and has credited the role of the papacy in his conversion:

For Father Steenson, the role of the pope as the successor of St. Peter, the servant of church unity and the guarantor of the church’s fidelity to tradition was key to his decision.

Father Steenson recognized the importance that Christ’s Church be one, as Christ desired it to be, but also realized that his former way of life was in fact contrary to that desire:

“The frustration with being a Protestant is that every morning you get up and have to reinvent the church all over again,” Father Steenson said.

This is an unfortunate reality for the religious groups who trace their origin to the Protestant Reformation (including the Anglicans): when every individual is able to authoritatively interpret Scripture with regard to doctrine and liturgical practice, then unity is simply impossible. Man is not able to maintain such unity; we are naturally more prone to Babel than Pentecost. But God in His loving mercy has given us an office which ensures the unity of the Church. By the Grace of God Father Steenson realized that.

Think the New York Times is biased against the Church?

Frustrated that the Washington Post doesn’t give the Pope a fair shake?

Well, take a look at this headline from Pravda, the formally-official news organ of the Soviet Union:

The Satanic Roman Catholic Church in limbo

It’s the story of the 9-year-old girl in Brazil who had an abortion, which led to the excommunications of her mother and the abortionist. Pravda doesn’t worry too much about the facts, however, as it reports that the bishop excommunicated the girl and not the rapist.

I know that the American newspapers are laying off workers left and right – perhaps some have gone over to Russia to find work?

(A more accurate account of this tragic story can be found here.)

I’ve posted my reflection on this Sunday’s readings, in which I contemplate the meaning of Christ’s Sonship.

I have long been a lover of icons. These beautiful depictions of the persons and events of salvation history are much loved in the East, and in fact form an integral part of their liturgical and theological life. What many Westerners don’t understand, however, is that icons are not merely a form of art, but windows which help us draw into a deeper communion with God.

ZENIT recently had an interview with Fabio Nones, a doctor in theology and director of a center of iconography in Trent, Italy. An excerpt:

Nones explained to ZENIT that there is a great difference between an artist, in the ordinary sense of the word, and a painter of icons.

“The artist who creates a work of ark looks to communicate his sentiments, his vision of the world,” he explained. “Meanwhile, the painter of icons is called an iconographer and this is a vocation that looks to express through the colors not so much what he feels, his sentiments, but the faith of the Church, of the Christian community he carries inside.”

This reflects the fact that many Eastern Christians say that one does not “draw” icons, but “writes” them. Icons are much like Sacred Scripture: they are a written means through which we draw closer to our Savior.

I particularly notice the value of icons when I see them through the eyes of my children. We have a number of icons in our house and I often find that my children know the events and people of our Faith more deeply through their knowledge of these icons. For example, my son likes to point out that in the icon of the Last Supper, Judas is the only apostle depicted with only one eye showing (i.e. in profile). In iconography, the eyes are the windows to the soul, and by depicting Judas in profile, the icon is reflecting how Judas has turned from God. This helps my son then understand that we must be open to God at all times, never turning our eyes away from His saving Love.

If you are looking for icons to purchase for your own home, I would recommend skete.com, which has beautiful icons and wonderful customer service. My wife and I have found that icons make wonderful First Communion gifts.

Last week at the “On Faith” blog of the Washington Post, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary, wrote an article called “God’s Batterers: When Religion Subordinates Women, Violence Follows” which addressed the issue of violence done to women in the name of religion. She opened by writing,

“Wives should submit to their husbands in everything,” writes Paul to the Ephesians about how they should order their domestic lives. Mary Slessor, 19th century Scottish missionary and early feminist wrote in her Bible next to this text, “Nay, nay, Paul laddie. This will na do.” Mary Slessor was right. Religious women need to challenge such religious justifications of domestic violence. Their lives can depend on it.

After this opening, she simply gave a number of examples of men battering women and being given a free pass by their (Christian) religious leaders. But she doesn’t again engage the text which she uses to open her arguments, instead simply encouraging us to ignore Paul’s advice.

As a professor of theology, I would think that Thistlethwaite would at least make an attempt to understand the biblical text, rather than simply dismissing it without a second thought. If she had, she might have realized that Paul’s admonitions, while not politically correct by modern standards, actually are the ideal for a mutually loving husband-wife relationship.

Here is the passage in context. I have highlighted some key texts:

Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5:21-32)

Note first how Paul begins his discussion of a harmonious marriage: “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ”. Even though there is a natural hierarchy within marriage, Paul makes it clear that both the husband and wife are to “be subject” to the other. What this means is that neither can put themselves and their own desires ahead of the good of their spouse. Instead, they must subordinate themselves to the good of their spouses out of love.

After Paul gives his advice that wives submit to their husbands, he then states, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Think for a minute what husbands are called to do: they are to imitate our Lord in his passion and death for the sake of their wives! As a husband for almost 14 years now, I can tell you that this embracing of the cross is a daily event: it involves the sacrifice of self for the good of the wife and the family. Any husband will tell you that this is a literally impossible task -without the grace of Christ. But Paul is telling the husband that this is exactly what he must do out of love for his wife – give himself up completely for her sake.

If a husband were to follow the advice of Paul, the idea of battering his wife would be unthinkable. Every decision would be made in light of “giving himself up” for his wife, not for selfish gain. Thistlethwaite recommends that we ignore Paul to end wife-battering. I recommend that we more fully embrace the Apostle’s teachings so that all marriages – even those that do not involve abuse – might be strengthened and might more fully reflect the relationship between Christ and his Church.

In my own experience of parish-based evangelization, I have found that a pastor’s personal desire to evangelize is paramount to a successful evangelization apostolate. I am very fortunate to have a pastor at my parish who not only supports evangelization, but personally is involved in it. As soon as he arrived at our parish, he asked the evangelization committee, “So when do we go door-to-door?” It was music to my evangelizing ears.

Recently, Pope Benedict spoke with the parish priests of Rome and gave them practical advice on how to evangelize:

“It is very important,” he emphasized, “that these faithful really find in their parish priest a pastor who loves them and helps them to listen today to the Word of God, to understand that it is a Word for them and not only for people of the past or the future, to help them even more, in the sacramental life, in the experience of prayer, in listening to the Word of God, and on the path of justice and charity, because Christians should be the leaven of our society with so many problems [...].”

The Holy Father emphasized the primacy of proclaiming the Word in the work of evangelization. Often we hear about “lifestyle evangelism,” in which our actions evangelize those around us. This is very important, but it only forms the foundation for evangelization – it is not the sole content of our sharing of the Good News of Jesus Christ. We also must explicitly proclaim the Word of God – both Jesus Christ the incarnate Word and the Scriptures the written Word – to those who will listen. As the Pope said, we must “try to create, with the help of the Word, what the primitive Church created with the catechumens: venues in which to begin to live the Word, to follow the Word, to make it comprehensible and realistic, corresponding to real forms of experience.”

Pray for your pastors and encourage them that they might be open to evangelization opportunities. There are many lost souls out there who need to hear the Word of God, and the local parish is best situated for making this proclamation.

Italy has returned an historic Orthodox church to its former Russian Orthodox owners:

At a ceremony March 1, the little Church of St. Nicholas in Bari was formally handed over to the Russian Orthodox. Built by Czar Nicholas II, the church became the property of the Italian government after Russia’s 1917 revolution.

This church was built originally so that Russian Orthodox pilgrims could travel to Bari to visit the tomb of St. Nicholas – the patron saint of Russia. But as the article states, it has been in the possession of the Italian goverment since the Russian revolution.

Pope Benedict used this gesture as an opportunity to speak of his great desire for unity with the Orthodox Churches:

The Russian people has never faltered in its love for this great saint, who has always supported it in moments of joy and in difficulties. This is witnessed also by this Russian Orthodox Church of St. Nicholas, built at the beginnings of the past century, to welcome the pilgrims who, in particular in their trips to the Holy Land, made a stop in Bari, a point of encounter between East and West, to venerate the relics of the saint. How could we not recognize that this beautiful church awakens in us the nostalgia for full unity and maintains alive in us the commitment to work for union among all the disciples of Christ?

Saint Nicholas is revered in both the East and the West, and is a powerful intercessor. He would make a great patron of our prayers for the Church to breath with both lungs again.

St. Nicholas, pray for us!

On the surface, the beliefs and practices of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches appear to be very similar, if not identical: seven sacraments, hierarchical structure, importance of tradition, etc. However, there often are subtle distinctions that can make for significant practical differences.

Take for example ecclesiology. The Orthodox consider the local church of supreme importance – each particular church (i.e. diocese) is considered a “catholic” church, whole in itself. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, tends to emphasize the importance of the universal Church throughout the world and sees each particular church as a part of that. Because of their view of the local church, the Orthodox grants their bishops an almost complete autonomy; each bishop is consider supreme in his diocese, and there are few instances in which outside authorities can intervene in how a bishop leads his flock.

Thus there is a strong connection between a bishop and a diocese in Orthodox ecclesiology. In general, the Orthodox do not have auxiliary bishops; they believe fervently in the idea of one bishop, one church for each diocese. Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas argues in “Eucharist, Bishop, Church” that this bond was so strong in the early Church that there was only one weekly eucharistic celebration in each diocese until the time of Constantine, and it was always celebrated by the bishop.

Understanding all of this makes a recent action of the Antiochian Orthodox Church all the more perplexing. Their holy synod recently declared:

Article 76
The Metropolitan is the point of reference of all bishops in his Archdiocese and they are under his authority.
Article 77
All bishops within the Antiochian See are auxiliary bishops and are directly under their spiritual authority.
Article 78
The Metropolitan defines the responsibilities of the bishops and the place where they should serve. The bishop does not do anything contrary to the will of the Metropolitan.

This is language that sounds more heavy-handed than the most ultra-monist of statements from the 19th century Catholic world. There is much confusion among the Orthodox because of this ruling, as it appears to fly in the face of Orthodox theology. I have seen many participants of Eastern internet forums in a near state of panic trying to determine what this can mean.

I pray that this situation doesn’t cause any undue burdens to our Antiochian brothers and sisters in Christ, and that they might be faithful to their traditions regarding the episcopacy.

Speaking of the Garden of Eden, we all know that there has been great debate over the past 150 years regarding the first three chapters of Genesis, one that recently flared up again on a few blogs. Questions such as “Did God create the world in six 24-hour days?” “Does the human race have only two parents?” and “Is evolution compatible with the Genesis account?” have dominated the discussion. However, it seems to me that these are the wrong questions, as they are not the questions the sacred author was trying to answer.

Instead, the author of Genesis is trying to answer more fundamental questions – questions that every human person asks in the depths of his heart, questions that every religion tries to answer. What is amazing is that in story format and a modicum of words (under 2,200 in the RSV translation) he does answer them. Here are the questions he addresses – and answers:

• Who created us? Why were were created?
• Are we made simply for this world, or something greater?
• Why is everything so wrong here? Why is there suffering, evil, and death? Is Someone going to do anything about it?

Religious and philosophical tomes by great minds have been written about these questions, and none are as insightful as this short section of the Bible. Creation, love, sin, death, hope: all are deftly handled in Genesis 1-3. Everything else in the Bible is simply the result or fulfillment of the events conveyed there.

Ultimately, the Genesis account is trying to answer the questions of “Why” and “Who,” not “What,” “When” and “How.” Only once in the Bible (in Job) is the question of how God created the world addressed, and God’s response is basically, “It’s a God-thing, you wouldn’t understand.” The authors of the Bible – and God – seem unconcerned about us knowing the details of creation; they are more interested in deeper questions. If we are asking the right questions, Genesis 1-3 is ready to respond with some pretty amazing answers.

There is a fascinating article at the Daily Mail website about a remarkable archaeological discovery. Called “Gobekli Tepe”, it is a “Turkish Stonehenge” which pre-dates any other such discovery by thousands of years. It calls into questions many theories about the development of man as it is more sophisticated than previously thought possible by men of that era.

But what was most interesting is that the author makes the claim that Gobekli Tepe is possibly the Garden of Eden. Needless to say, his evidence is sketchy, but it makes for fascinating reading if nothing else. Being a post-modern, the author of course ties Original Sin with the only sin still condemned today, exploitation of the environment.

Whereas I’m far from accepting that this is the Garden of Eden, it does raise some important questions about the development of man and religion in the ancient world.

I am an enthusiastic subscriber to Touchstone magazine, and I just finished reading their latest issue. It hit the ground running, as the opening editorial by Russell Moore challenges all Christians to look at their own priorities in this time of economic crisis. An excerpt:

Some Christians, on the Left and on the Right, would tell us that economic matters are of paramount concern right now. They would assert that we’ve no time for the “luxury” of “culture war” discussions about “abstinence” or divorce or “gender roles” or other such matters. Instead, they tell us, we should concentrate on tax cuts or economic stimulus projects or Wall Street bailouts or home ownership.

They’re wrong.

They’re wrong not only because the family is, ultimately, more important than the marketplace, but also because the two are interconnected. They’re wrong also because, as Marxists and hyper-capitalists both correctly grasp (though wrongly apply), man as an economic being cannot be abstracted from other aspects of life.

A time of economic crisis is, therefore, a time for the Church to reconsider—and re-imagine—her priorities. The first step is to recognize that one of the roots of the family crisis all around us—in the pews we sit in or preach to every week—is the wallet in our own back pocket.

Consuming Ourselves to Death

It is no accident, after all, that our Ancient Foe first appears in Holy Scripture as a snake—imagery that follows the devil all through the canon to the closing vision of the Revelation to St. John. As philosopher Leon Kass puts it, “For the serpent is a mobile digestive tract that swallows its prey whole; in this sense the serpent stands for pure appetite.” Indeed he does—and the whole of Scripture and of Christian tradition warns the Church against the way of the appetites, the way of consuming oneself to death.

One of the great challenges to modern American Christians is our unprecedented affluence. Never has a people lived with such material benefits, and it appears that all of Christ’s warnings against money were sage advice; the love of money has destroyed the faith and the family of many believers. Moore is ecumenical in his challenges to the Church – instead of criticizing others, we who believe that we are faithful to the “hard” teachings of Jesus have to ask ourselves if we really trust Christ’s teachings about money above the false security mammon gives us. For example, Moore writes,

Why do Christian parents, contra St. Paul’s clear admonition in 1 Corinthians 7, encourage their young adult children to delay marriage, sometimes for years past the time it would take to discern whether this union would be of the Lord? Why do we smilingly tell them to wait until they can “afford” it? It is because, to our shame, we deem fornication a less awful reality than financial hardship.

Why do our pastors and church leaders speak bluntly about homosexuality but not about divorce? Because, in many cases, they know the faces of the divorced people in the pews before them—and they fear losing the membership statistics or the revenue those faces represent.

It is easy to criticize the ill-advised attempts to “solve” this economic crisis by government officials. What is harder, but more necessary, is to look inside our hearts and examine what we have done to foster it through our own personal materialism and greed.

Speaking of public figures, James Dobson stepped down as the head of Focus on the Family. Although he is not Catholic and therefore holds some beliefs that I don’t endorse, I have always admired Dobson’s work. The family is the main focus of attack in our age, and I believe more people have been estranged from the Lord through a broken family than any other cause over the past 50 years. Whenever I think of Dobson, however, I can’t help but think of the story of his father.

Dobson’s dad was a popular traveling evangelist, and was quite successful at it. However, his job also meant that he was away from home a decent amount of the time. When young James Dobson was a teenager, he got into a bit of trouble. Finally, it got quite bad and Dobson’s mom called his father and told him he had to do something about his son. Dobson senior immediately came home from his preaching tour, talked to Dobson’s mom, then decided on the spot to quit his ministry, move to a small town in Texas and take a job as the pastor of a small church. This meant the end of his success, but allowed him more time with his son, and young James Dobson turned around his life.

I am awed by this story of Dobson’s father. As a father myself, I know how important my children are to me, yet I wonder if I would have the wisdom and strength to give up success so readily for their sake.

Buried in this New York Times article about Newt Gringrich is a note that he is becoming Catholic (h/t: Christianity Today). Gringrich, who has a Baptist background, has had a checkered past personal life, especially regarding his marriages, so I can’t help but think of our Lord’s parable of the lost sheep:

“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, `Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. (Luke 15:4-7)

Welcome to the Church, Newt!

Yesterday’s readings about Christ’s temptation in the desert – the inspiration and model for the Lenten season – remind us of the existence of the devil. Although we moderns tend to downplay or even deny his existence, the Bible has no such compunction. He is literally there from Genesis to Revelation, and he and his demonic host are often confronted by Jesus in the Gospels. By my count, at least seven of the 26 healings found in the Gospels are actually demonstrations of Christ’s power over a demon or demons. The confrontations include:

• The Man with an Unclean Spirit (Mark 1:21ff, Luke 4:31ff)
• Demoniacs at Gadara (Matthew 8:28ff, Mark 5:1ff, Luke 8:26ff)
• Possessed Mute (Matthew 9:32ff)
• Blind, Dumb, Possessed Man (Matthew 12:22ff, Luke 11:14ff)
• Daughter of Canaanite (Matthew 15:21ff)
• Epileptic Boy (Matthew 17:14ff, Mark 9:14ff, Luke 9:37ff)
• Woman Bent Double (Luke 13:10ff)

John does not have any direct encounters between Christ and demonic forces, but it is in his Gospel that Christ declares at the Last Supper, “Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out” (John 12:31). The entire work of Christ in salvation history is seen as the overthrow of Satan’s kingdom and the establishment of the reign of Christ.

This focus on the devil was brought to my mind by reading St. Athanasius’ “Life of St. Antony.” This short biography has two main characters: Antony and the devil. It includes many stories of Antony physically battling demons, which might either be metaphors for Antony’s spiritual struggle against demonic forces, or it might well be literally true: we normal folk succumb easily to Satan’s temptations and he might take a more direct approach against a holy man like St. Antony. Either way, it is clear that the path to holiness must include overcoming the powers of Hell. Fortunately, Christ promised that exact power to his Church (Matthew 16:18).

Placing the temptation in the desert reading on the first Sunday in Lent reminds us who our battle is against – not just self, but also the devil.