I am very happy to announce that my book Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew is now available. I am especially pleased that the official publication date is September 30th, the feast of the great Scripture scholar St. Jerome.

You can purchase my book at Amazon, Barnes & Noble online, my publisher, Aquinas and More Catholic store, or you can buy a signed copy from my website. Most authors ask that you buy it directly from them because then they make more money on the sale, but I would prefer if you purchase it from Amazon or another online store if you don’t want a signed copy. Since I would like as many people as possible to come to know Christ more deeply through reading this book, purchasing it from an online store like Amazon helps promote the book more readily on their site, which then allows it to reach more people. (I’m assuming, of course, that you don’t have a local Catholic bookstore available. If that is the case, go there and ask for it). No matter where you buy it, I would appreciate a review on Amazon if you could and please consider recommending it to your friends and family.

To whet your appetite, you can download the Foreword by Fr. Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. as well as my Introduction.

This book has been a long time coming – I signed the contract with OSV almost two years ago – and I’ve written about it on this blog a number of times. Here are a few of my posts so you can get a feel for the book:

How my book “Who is Jesus Christ?” came about

Scriptural references in “Who is Jesus Christ?”

Church Fathers and Saints references in “Who is Jesus Christ?”

Watch a marketing video for the book

Buy your copy today!

Today is the feast of the greatest Latin Scripture scholar of all time – St. Jerome.

Jerome is most famous for his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate. This translation became the norm in Western Christianity for more than a millennium, and its impact was far-reaching. One area, however where it had an (unintended) impact is in the debate over the filioque (“and [from] the Son”), that addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed which has caused such division in the Church.

When translating John 15:26 (“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me”), Jerome used the Latin verb procedere to translate the Greek word εκπορευεται (“proceeds from”). This decision is not a bad one, as both mean “proceed” or “come forth from”. However, by the time of Jerome, this Greek word had come to take on a particular meaning in Greek theology – a meaning that was not there originally. It was used to designate the Holy Spirit’s unique mode of proceeding as opposed to the begetting of the Son in the Godhead. But the Latin term had no such meaning in the West; it could be used interchangeably for both processions.

For example, in John 8:42 (“Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not come on my own, but he sent me”) Jerome again uses the Latin verb procedere, yet the Greek term used is εξηλθον, which means “come forth”, but by Jerome’s time was not identical to εκπορευεται. So in the Latin, both the Son’s procession and the Spirit’s procession used the same broad term – procedere – but the Greeks used different terms for them. Both East and West agreed that both processions could not be identical, so in the West there developed an understanding that the Spirit’s procession was “from the Father and the Son“, a development that did not take hold in the East, which saw the begetting of the Son and the generation of the Spirit as distinct even though both were “from the Father.”

It is important to note that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Jerome’s translation; the fact is that the languages are just different and any translation sometimes has to use the best word available even if it is not an exact match. Furthermore, the Greek language, like every language, had developed, so the term εκπορευεται came to have a precise theological meaning in the East which it did not have at the time of the New Testament. Even without Jerome’s translation decisions the debate over the filioque might have erupted, but the human constraints of language surely played their part in this divisive phrase.

St. Jerome, pray for us!

An awesome video to remind us that there is no one like Jesus and nothing more important than knowing him:

Catechism of the Catholic Church translated into the Pidgin language

and in less important translation news, my Rules of Engagement for Catholics on the Internet has been translated into Spanish.

…that’s how long I’ve been waiting for this moment:

Cincinnati Reds clinch NL Central title

And there was much rejoicing in the Sammons household.

Most informed Catholics are by now quite familiar with Vatican II’s insistence on a “universal call to holiness” (Lumen Gentium Chapter 5). By this, the Council Fathers reminded Catholics that each one of us, no matter our vocation, is called to be holy. After all, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, in which he said that we must “be perfect” and that his followers were to be salt and light in this world (Matthew 5), was directed to all the crowds, not just the apostles. This has always been the teaching of the Church, but it had admittedly been forgotten in many parts of the Church in the years before Vatican II.

However, since Vatican II in some quarters of the Church this universal call to holiness has been tinged with a certain clericalism, which believes that the only way to be holy is to do the tasks that clerics traditionally have done or to work directly for the Church. In other words, the path to holiness for the laity is through ecclesial ministry (One bishop even wrote a book about this!). Obviously there is a need for the laity to perform certain tasks for the Church, and our priest shortage has made this even more true in recent years (I am the head of Evangelization at my parish, so I’m clearly not against the entire concept of lay ecclesial ministry).

But a problem arises when parishes push “involvement” as the most important component of a “vibrant” parish and a holy life. In my mind, a “vibrant” parish is one where the lines for Confession are long, the adoration chapel is packed and parishioners are sharing their faith in their everyday lives. None of these activities, you will note, involves lay ecclesial ministry. The fact remains that God does not call most lay people to volunteer for a parish, but He does call every single person to be holy.

What we have forgotten is the second component of the “universal call to holiness”. Not only does “universal” mean all people are called to be holy, but it also means that all honorable walks of life are means of growing in holiness. In other words, no matter what you “do” for a living – be it as a housewife, a garbage collector or the CEO of a large corporation – your work can be used to sanctify your life. One does not need to be a Eucharistic minister or a lector or a parish music minister to be doing “Christian” activities. Every activity – as long as it is moral – can be a means to grow in holiness if it is offered up to God for His glory.

St. Josemaría Escrivá, that great saint of “ordinary” life, like to say that each person has an altar on which they offer sacrifice to the Lord. For the priest, it is the Eucharistic altar. For the lay person, however, it is the work desk, the kitchen counter-top or the workbench: wherever we do our work we offer our “first fruits” to the Lord.

Let us today, and everyday, offer our ordinary tasks and work to the Lord and know that they are the means which God has given us to grow in holiness.

Fr. Thomas Dubay, SM has passed on to his reward.

Fr. Dubay is most known for his work Fire Within, which is a classic of spirituality and which I would recommend to anyone who is serious about deepening their life of prayer. However, it is not even my favorite Dubay book. That would be Happy Are You Poor, in which Fr. Dubay argues (persuasively, in my mind) that every Christian should live a life of poverty. And if you think you know what he means by that, I challenge you to read the book to actually find out.

May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

This is an interesting find: a document has been uncovered in which Pope St. Pius X tolerated communicatio in sacris (i.e. shared communion) with the Orthodox.

Translation:

Most Blessed Father!
Andrew Szeptycki, Metropolitan of Halycz, Metropolitan of Kiev and Administrator of all Russia at the foot of His Holiness most humbly asks that faculties may be conceded to himself and also to confessors in communion (capable of being communicated) for dispensing secular faithful from the law which forbids communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox as many times as they will judge it in conscience to be opportune.

Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius X deigned to sign with his own hand this document written by me with the words “May be tolerated”.

A number of years ago I wrote a paper on pre-Vatican II ecumenism in the Catholic Church. Many people are under the (false) impression that Vatican II “started” ecumenism in the Catholic Church, but my research showed me that while Vatican II was a giant leap for the Church in regards to ecumenism, it was the result of many years of ecumenical work within the Church.

Note: the purpose of this post is not to endorse a wider practice of communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox, but to emphasize that the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church did not consider the Orthodox to be simply schismatics outside the Church – which is the impression you get in some quarters.

Scientists have proven a bonafide miracle: Moses and the Israelites happened to be on the shores of the Red Sea at exactly the moment when a wind gust came by to separate the Sea so that they could pass:

In a computer model, Drews was able to simulate what might have happened at the Red Sea just before Moses started a journey that lasted for 40 years. After modeling a body of water that resembled the waters trapping Moses and the Israelites, Drews enforced the laws of physics and applied a wind stress to the water body.

“What I did was use a wind, sort of the strongest wind that I thought … a mixed group of adults and children could walk straight into,” Drews says. This amounts to about a 63 mph wind — a medium-strength tropical storm, as measured by the scale the National Hurricane Center uses.

But this is different from other tropical storms that occur frequently around the world.

“The wind blows on the water, and it stacks it up at the other end. The opposite component of wind set-down is called storm surge,” Drews says. He proposes that there was a bend in the body of water pointing east, and as the water shifted, it separated at the point of the bend, leaving a gap there.

I love these naturalistic explanations – they are so much more far-fetched than an actual miracle from God. It is getting to the point that materialistic scientists need much greater faith than believers.

Watch this video of a “megachurch” service and try to figure out what – or who – is missing:

Two important announcements regarding Catholic radio:

1) I’ll be starting a weekly series on the Son Rise Morning Show this Thursday at 7:00am. I’ll be going through the title given to Jesus as found in the Gospel of Matthew (in other words, I’ll be going through the chapters of my book).

2) The Catholic radio station here in DC – Guadalupe Radio Network – is holding a Radiothon this week and desperately needs your support! Catholic radio has a great impact on an area, but it cannot stay on the air without financial support from listeners. I’ll be on the air today at 2pm talking about the importance of Catholic radio.

Please consider giving to this wonderful station – you can donate online at their website. (Also, the Radiothon means my segment tomorrow on the Son Rise Morning Show be preempted locally).

Pray for the growth of Catholic radio throughout the country!

Today is the feast of my favorite Evangelist and tax-collector, St. Matthew. Contrary to most modern biblical scholars – but consistent with the overwhelming tradition of the Church – I believe that Matthew’s was the first Gospel written, and it has always been my favorite Gospel. I particularly love the story of his conversion, told in stark terms but rich in meaning. As I wrote in Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew’s story of his own conversion is perhaps the most personal account found in the four Gospels (Mt 9:9-13). In typical Gospel fashion, the narrative is short and modest, yet it reveals a profound self-understanding and a deep dependence upon Jesus.

The story really begins when the Evangelist, after recounting the core of Jesus’ preaching in the Sermon on the Mount, begins to detail the other pillar of Jesus’ public ministry: healing the sick, the lame, and the possessed. Beginning in Chapter 8 and culminating in the story of the paralytic in 9:1-8, Matthew describes the healing of a leper, the cure of a centurion’s servant, the restoration of Peter’s mother-in-law, and the exorcism of two demoniacs. The disease of the person or method used by Jesus does not matter — the result is the same: instant healing…

Immediately after the story of the paralytic, Matthew recounts his own calling. This context is important: he has established Jesus as a true healer of body and soul to lay the groundwork for his own transformation.

As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him. And as he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” — Mt 9:9-13

Here, Matthew is defending his apostolic call against those who might question a tax collector as one of Christ’s closest collaborators. As a tax collector, Matthew has the most despised of jobs: he not only had to interact with “unclean” peoples, but he also worked for the hated Romans. And if Matthew was like most tax collectors of his time, he collected taxes above the Roman rate in order to line his own pockets. On the Jewish social scale, he was no better than a prostitute — yet Jesus personally called him to be one of his inner circle of followers.

The beauty of this conversion story lies in Matthew’s recognition of his own state — he knows he is a “sinner,” yet he rejoices that his sinfulness has brought forth the great mercy of Christ. Furthermore, he is telling his readers that all who would follow Christ must first recognize their own sinfulness. Christ is not interested in the “righteous” — he wants to call sinners to his table and bring them to salvation.

St. Matthew, pray for us sinners!

In recent years it has become fashionable to question the sexual orientation of historical figures. Was Lincoln gay? Was Alexander the Great? This search has also reached into the lives of saints of the Catholic Church, and one of the main figures whose sexual orientation is in question is the just-beatified John Henry Cardinal Newman.

NPR just ran a story last week entitled “Was Cardinal John Henry Newman Gay?” In it, his relationship to Ambrose St. John is found to be suspiciously close and thus some modern people believe this may mean that Cardinal Newman was homosexual. Although the article is careful to never suggest that Newman had a sexual relationship with St. John, there are real problems with this type of speculation.

The most significant problem is that people who suggest that Newman was gay are transferring our culture into another, very different, culture. In today’s society, heterosexual men rarely express outward affection for other heterosexual men. It would be very odd, for example, for me to sign a letter to a male friend “with much love” or “your dearest friend”. However, this was not the case in Newman’s time. It was very common for men to express affection for other men outwardly in and even in flowery language. If you read any of the letters of Newman and the other men in the Oxford Movement (married or celibate), you notice immediately that they are very outward in their expressions of affection for one another. And this is the case with most educated men of Newman’s time. So when a modern person reads such letters, he must be careful not to inject our culture’s reserve to Newman’s time. Just because Newman wrote affectionately to other men says absolutely nothing about his sexual orientation, one way or another.

Regarding Newman’s close friendship with Ambrose St. John, the same cautions must be noted. Because of the rise of the homosexual movement, most heterosexual men are very hesitant to form deep attachments to other men, for fear of being misunderstood. The idea of two unmarried men being very close friends and yet having no sexual attraction to one another is becoming more and more foreign to those of us seeped in today’s over-sexualized culture. Yet this was not the case in Newman’s time. Newman and St. John were very close to one another, but that says absolutely nothing about either of their sexual orientations. Also note that they belonged to the Oratory of St. Philip, which is not a religious order with vows, and thus there is no binding rule against strong friendships like you might find in actual religious orders.

It is important to note that one’s sexual orientation does not need to have an impact on their sanctity. Every single person affected by Original Sin has disordered passions, and all of us need to overcome them. This is true no matter one’s sexual orientation. So even if it were discovered that some saint or blessed from the past was attracted sexually to the same sex, it would not detract from their struggle for sanctity. But at the same time, it is a meaningless gesture to try to “out” past figures with no real evidence, and often such an effort is used by those who wish to normalize the disordered passions of homosexuality.

So, was Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman gay? We have absolutely no reason to believe so, and speculation on the topic says more about those who push that idea than it does about Newman.

Whenever the pope arrives somewhere, it seems like every possible protester comes out of the woodwork – atheists, women priests supporters, etc. I remember having a debate with a fundamentalist Christian in Denver back in 1993 when Pope John Paul II was there for World Youth Day. Most of these protesters are hard to take seriously, because none of them seem to take the Church’s teachings seriously. But there was one papal protester in London this past weekend that I can respect (even if I don’t agree with him):

It’s not every day you see Latin on a placard protesting the Pope. When the anti-papal crowd of several thousand atheists, radical feminists and gay activists gathered in London this weekend, most of the banners were pretty simple: stuff like “Nope to the Pope” and “Papa Don’t Preach.”

But later in the afternoon, on the edges of the papal motorcade, and amidst a number of cheering fans of Benedict, there was a poster raised demanding, “DROP THE FILIOQUE.”

What? You have to know a little bit of Latin, and a lot of theology and history to get that one.

It wasn’t really a poster; it more like Magic Marker theology on a pizza box. And a young man named Toby Guise was happy to explain where, in his opinion, the Catholic Church had gone wrong.

“Filioque” means “And the Son,” and refers to a centuries-old debate between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as the Orthodox believe, or from the Father and the Son, which is the Catholic teaching.

That’s tough stuff, material for smart folks debating in a graduate school seminar. Perhaps it’s too bad the Pope didn’t see the pizza box; he would have been amused.

And in his former career as a professor and not a pontiff, he probably would have liked to talk to the young man holding it up.

H/t: Eirenikon

Phil Lawler over at Catholic Culture reports a very insightful exchange between Pope Benedict and a reporter. The reporter asked what the Church can do to be more attractive to the public. After all, the Church is about bringing in new members, right? Not according to the pope:

I would say that a Church that seeks to be particularly attractive is already on the wrong path, because the Church does not work for her own ends, she does not work to increase numbers and thus power. The Church is at the service of another: she serves, not for herself, not to be a strong body, rather she serves to make the proclamation of Jesus Christ accessible, the great truths and great forces of love, reconciling love that appeared in this figure and that always comes from the presence of Jesus Christ. (emphasis added)

How many of us have, even subconsciously, fretted about how unattractive the Church can look at times? After all, we are not going to win any popularity contests with the “right” people. We want the Church to be attractive to Hollywood, Washington, our teens, our relatives, and all those whom we love. This is natural, because we want them to see the Church for what she really is: the Body of Christ and the Ark of Salvation. We know that if people find the Church attractive, they are more likely to investigate her claims, and then might consider joining her ranks.

But Pope Benedict is reminding us that being attractive is not something we can manufacture, nor should it be a goal in our evangelistic efforts. Our attractiveness comes from being faithful to Christ, and even then we will only be attractive to those who desire the good with a sincere heart. We will never be attractive to those who reject God, and trying to make ourselves attractive to them will only lead to a watering-down of the Gospel.

But lest anyone get too carried away, let us also remember that it is not our goal to be unattractive either. I have met some people over the years who have shown no charity along with their proclamation of the truth. When challenged on this, they claim that they don’t care if they are liked, they just want to preach the Gospel. Preaching the Gospel, however, doesn’t mean being a jerk. So while we never want to put “being attractive” as the primary goal of our evangelization, that doesn’t mean we make extra efforts to offend either. We present the truth in the most loving way possible and leave it to the Holy Spirit to impact hearts.