Almost two years ago I wrote a post about the “good fruit” argument: that almost knee-jerk reaction that followers of a person or movement trot out whenever their hero is associated with illicit behavior – “look at all the good fruit he has produced! Didn’t Jesus say, ‘by your fruits you shall know them’? So he must be legitimate!” We saw this argument with Fr. Maciel, we still see it with Medjugorje, and now we see it with Fr. Corapi. Thus, I thought it fitting to just re-run that post here, with a few comments thrown in that address Corapi’s situation in red:

Often when there is debate within the Church about some controversial movement or vision or person, defenders will trot out the positive “fruits” as a definitive proof that the phenomenon is legitimate and from God. For example, those who believe that the Virgin Mary is appearing in Medjugorje will note all the good fruit – conversions, increased prayer, return to the sacraments – as proof positive that it is not a hoax or delusion or something man-made. In this article, the author advocates rejecting the legitimate authority Christ has instituted – the local bishop – based solely on the fact that “the fruits, as many have said, are undeniable.”

Likewise, defenders of the Legion of Christ, founded by the fraud Fr. Marcial Maciel, note all the good fruit that the Legion has produced – thousands of priests, support of Catholic orthodoxy – as proof that even if Maciel was a deceiver, the order he founded and which is largely based on his personality is still legitimate.

[In the case of Fr. Corapi, we have a priest abandon his priesthood simply on the fear that the investigation would be biased, yet many of his 'fans' act like this fear is reason enough to abandon sacred vows].

The Scriptural support for such defenders is of course Christ’s words in Matthew 7:15-20:

¹⁵“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s [or sheepdog's] clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. ¹⁶By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? ¹⁷Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. ¹⁹Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

So what should we make of these arguments? Most people take one of two views:

1) Deny that there is any good fruit. I think this is a mistake in the case of both Medjugorje and the Legion. The evidence is simply overwhelming. I myself became Catholic partially through the influence of Medjugorje and I know many faithful Catholics who have deepened their faith through their associated with the Legion of Christ. It is unquestionable that these phenomenon have produced good fruit. [Likewise with Fr. Corapi's ministry].

2) Deny that there is any bad fruit. Again, in both the case of Medjugorje and the Legion, there are documented cases of “bad fruit.” A priest closely associated with the Medjugorje seers has been defrocked, many followers of the visions are openly advocating disobedience to legitimate authority, and there have been cases of theological errors in some of the messages from “Mary.” Likewise, the “bad fruit” from Fr. Maciel should be obvious, as news of his double life has been leaking out for months now. It is clear that these two phenomenon are not immaculate. [And in the case of Fr. Corapi, the "bad fruit" is the actions of Corapi himself over the past few months].

I think the problem is that people are using the wrong biblical passage to evaluate these events. We should not look to the “good fruit/bad fruit” passage, but instead listen to Christ’s words about the wheat and the weeds found in Matthew 13:24-30:

²⁴Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. ²⁵But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. ²⁶When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

²⁷“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

²⁸” ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

²⁹” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. ³⁰Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ “

In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that things will not be clear-cut on this side of heaven. Both the wheat and the weeds will grow together and we must wait until the harvest – the return of Christ – to have them separated. Thus, God can work good out of even bad situations (and, likewise, the devil can work evil out of good situations). We cannot simply assume a phenomenon like Medjugorje or the Legion is completely evil because of the evil associated with it, nor can we assume it is 100% from God because good has come out of it. As Scripture says, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him” (Romans 8:28); in other words, God is not afraid to use ANY situation or person to work out His holy will – even if the situation or person is against God themselves. [In other words, even if Fr. Corapi happened to be a scoundrel, that does not mean that people could not have been converted to the Church through his preaching].

This might sound quite confusing for the average Catholic – how are we supposed to evaluate these phenomenon which have both good and evil associated with them? Fortunately, we have the magisterium of the Church to guide us; it is their job – guided by the Holy Spirit – to weigh both the good and bad associated with these phenomenon and determine if it is something that is fundamentally good with some “bad apples” or if it is something that should be rejected by Catholics because the weeds are so strong that they ultimately choke out the wheat. In both the case of Medjugorje and the Legion, this is exactly what the magisterium is doing now, and we would do well to listen and follow their guidance. [Of course, in the case of Fr. Corapi, he has taken the matter out of the Church's hands by quitting the priesthood. But the fact that he has removed himself from that process and publicly denounced the bishop of Corpus Christi before that bishop even had a chance to actually conduct the investigation is a sure sign of at least partial rejection of Church authority].

[End post]

I will close with a final thought that I keep coming back to when considering Fr. Corapi’s recent actions:

A priest offering a single Mass, even a private one, is of infinite more value than all the talks and sermons that have been, or ever will be, given.

Today has been officially declared “Catholic Blogger Complaint Thursday.” As we all know, today used to be known as Ascension Thursday, but that has been moved to Sunday to allow Catholic bloggers a day to complain about the state of the Church. So we can now distinguish today from every other day, which are considered unofficial Catholic Blogger Complaint Days.

Excuse me, Lord, there is some debate down here about when you should ascend. Could you hold on while we determine if today or Sunday is best for us?

In the Catholic blogosphere, no one seems to like the fact that the celebration of the Ascension has been moved from its traditional date 40 days after Easter (when, you know, it actually happened) to the following Sunday. And to be honest, I don’t like it either. I realize that the intentions behind the move are quite sincere and well-meaning: people were afraid that celebrating the Ascension on a business work day would cause too many people to miss Mass on this important day, and so moving it to Sunday would allow more Catholics to actually celebrate it. But I think this was short-sighted and in the end actually causes more people to miss celebrating the Ascension because they are not going to Mass on either Thursday or Sunday. What do I mean by that?

Making a day like Ascension Thursday a holy day of obligation sets apart Catholics from the rest of the culture. While I do believe that Catholics are to be immersed in society in many ways, we also need to have a strong Catholic identity so that we don’t drown in the prevalent culture. There has always been a thin line balancing our need to be part of the culture yet separate from it. The early Christian Diognetus wrote,

Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign

Yet he followed this description with the following:

And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives.

In other words, Catholics are to naturally blend into society, but, simply by virtue of following Christ, they will form a Catholic identity which will cause them to sometimes not “fit in” to the greater culture.

And having a specific Catholic identity is a powerful evangelization tool. When a Catholic must rework their schedule on Ascension Thursday to make it to Mass, he sends a message both to those around him and to himself: there is more to this world than work and priming the economical engine. And we see a perfect example of the power of Catholic identity each year on Ash Wednesday: although it is not a holy day of obligation, more Catholics attend Mass that day than some other actual obliged days. I remember my first Ash Wednesday after I began my professional career. I went to Mass early in the morning, so I had my ashes on my forehead for the whole day. Most of the morning, non-Catholics would do double-takes but did not say anything. Catholics in the office, however, would see me and say, “I forgot it was Ash Wednesday! I need to go to Mass at lunchtime!” They were reminded of their Catholic identity and decided to make an effort to stay connected to the Church. Simply going to Mass on a day other than Sunday drew others to do the same.

I think a similar thing would happen on Ascension Thursday. When you tell your co-workers that you have to go to Mass at lunchtime, it sends a signal of your life’s priorities. This opens you up for conversations and inquiries about your Faith, which can lead others to it.

A Florida parish is in some hot water because they accepted a request to offer a Mass for the repose of the soul of Osama bin Laden. Although praying for bin Laden’s salvation is clearly acceptable within Catholic theology, some do not believe it appropriate to pray for the salvation of this notorious mass murderer. One commenter even asks,

So Adolph Hitler is next? Why not masses for Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, too?

Well, actually, there would be nothing theologically wrong with that either. We do not want anyone to go to hell, not even our worst enemy.

Some fear that such an attitude reflects a belief in universal salvation – that all men and women (and even demons!) will eventually be saved. Known also as Apocatastasis, the doctrine of universal salvation is most associated with the Church Father Origen (although St. Gregory of Nyssa also seemed to accept this doctrine), and has been condemned by the Church. In recent times, Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar seemed to flirt with this doctrine as well, although his position is a bit more nuanced than a simple acceptance of the salvation of all people (von Balthasar also explicitly acknowledged the eternal damnation of the devil).

Do we want bin Laden to go here?

However, praying for the salvation of the worst that the human race has produced – Hitler, Stalin, bin Laden – does not necessarily imply a belief in the salvation of all. There is a difference between hoping for the salvation of each person and believing in the salvation of all persons. Let me use an analogy that I’ve used here before.

My favorite baseball team, the Cincinnati Reds, is supposed to be good this year (and so far they are playing well). Before every game, I hope that they win. However, never would I believe that they could win all 162 games, as I know that is a hope for something that is simply not possible. The reality is that they will lose some games no matter how good they are.

The problem with believing in universal salvation is that it effectively negates human freedom. If all men are saved, then in truth there is no human element in the process of salvation, something which goes against Catholic teaching. To return to my analogy, if the Reds did somehow win all 162 games, I (along with everyone else) would suspect that something had been rigged. Likewise, if all men are saved, I would have to suspect that man is not truly free – his salvation is predetermined regardless of the choices he makes. And freedom is a necessary component of love; without freedom, we are simply slaves of a benevolent master, not children of a loving father.

So we can (and should) hope that Osama bin Laden is saved, as well as Hitler, Stalin or any other person who has committed terrible public sins (as well as ourselves, who commit terrible private sins). But that does not mean that we believe that all men are saved, for we know that God as our loving father respects our human freedom too much to force us even into something as blessed as eternal salvation.

Opus Dei is again in the press, this time because of the release of the movie There Be Dragons, which is somewhat based on the life of Opus Dei’s founder, St. Josemaría Escrivá. Whenever Opus Dei comes up, it seems that strong opinions and even controversy is sure to follow. Some of this is understandable – after all, any organization that quickly grows and becomes as influential as Opus Dei is sure to attract both strong friends and enemies – but some of it is also laughable for those who even have an inkling of knowledge of the group. But one thing I’ve noticed is how often in many minds the scandals involved with another Catholic movement – the Legion of Christ – have impacted Opus Dei.

The reason for this is due to the many similarities between Opus Dei and the Legion of Christ. A few include:

• Both were founded by Spanish-speaking men in the first half of the 20th century.
• Both desired to promote an orthodox understanding of the Catholic faith.
• Both were embraced by the Church hierarchy as a means to reform the Church after the troubles that followed Vatican II.
• Both focused on helping lay people grow in holiness in their daily lives.
• Both dramatically increased in size and influence in a short period of time.
• Both have been strongly attacked by outside forces, as well as by former members.

Because of these similarities, these two organizations have melded in many people’s minds almost into a single entity. So when the Legion faced serious scandals, some held Opus Dei in suspicion as well. I will admit to doing this myself. I personally have felt for some time that the Legion should be disbanded, and my strong feelings towards them seeped into my view of Opus Dei as well. I was suspicious that the failings of the Legion (which don’t just include the failings of its founder) were replicated by Opus Dei.

But over time I realized that my thoughts were an injustice to Opus Dei, which in fact is not in any real way related to the Legion. The similarities I mentioned above are superficial and none really relate to the Legion scandals. So to judge Opus Dei based on the sins of the Legion would be like judging Abel for the sins of Cain. And in fact, there is one big difference between the two organizations, which is:

The Legion of Christ doesn’t offer assassination training to its albino monks.

No, wait a minute, that’s not right (but realize that all articles on Opus Dei are required to have at least on albino monk joke). The real difference between the two groups is:

Opus Dei was founded by a canonized saint. The Legion of Christ was founded by one of the most notorious scoundrels who ever lived.

One cannot overemphasize this point too much. In the Catholic tradition, religious orders and movements are integrally linked to their founders. An authentic movement is faithful to its founder and keeps his or her spirit and teaching alive for future generations. In the case of Opus Dei, its founder has been officially recognized by the Church as living the faith heroically and in a way that can be imitated. In the case of the Legion, its founder has been recognized as a deceiver, an abuser, and an all-around scoundrel of the first order. Not exactly someone whose spirit we should keep alive, is it?

This of course does not mean that Opus Dei is for everyone or that its members have not sinned or done things at times improperly. But it does mean that as Catholics we should treat Opus Dei as we would the Franciscans or the Dominicans: as an authentic movement founded by a holy man whom we can look to as a heroic example of someone who lived the Christian faith well.

In today’s first reading, we hear of Peter’s Holy Spirit-inspired preaching, and the effect it has on the people:

On the day of Pentecost, Peter said to the Jewish people, “Let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other Apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” (Acts 2:36-37)

Before we see what Peter’s response is, let’s look at a few things Peter did NOT say:

• Accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.
• Be the best “you” that you can be!
• Take care of your mother, the Earth.
• Be nice to everyone.
• Strive for social justice.
• Nothing – you are okay just the way you are!
• Elect the right leaders.
• Be baptized in the Trindentine rite and only attend Latin Masses…and be suspicious of anything I say from now on.

No, what Peter said was, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38). We must completely change the direction of our lives in order to be saved, and the only way to do this is through God’s grace, which is why baptism is necessary. During this Easter season, let us all renew our baptismal vows, repenting of the ways we have followed the wisdom of this world rather than the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

(The following is from Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew, pp. 133-134.)

In Acts, Luke relates that the Church in its earliest days was united in purpose and action:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
— Acts 2:42

This description shows the vital relationship between the “breaking of the bread” and achieving true fellowship. As the Shepherd of the Church, Jesus has remained with his sheep, keeping them united in one flock, primarily through the sacrament of the Eucharist — the “breaking of the bread,” which is the sacrament of unity. The Eucharist binds the Church into a mystical communion that is impossible through any human means. Simply put, without the Eucharist, there is no Church: “The Eucharist makes the Church” (CCC 1395). Examining the history of the Church, one cannot but marvel that it still even exists today; the attacks from both within and without have been constant and, at times, brutal. From heresies arising from the bosom of the Church to persecutions launched by the state, the gates of hell have not relented in their assaults (cf. Mt 16:18). How could a purely human institution survive through the centuries against such opposition? But the Church has the benefit of a divine Shepherd who not only watches over his flock but gives his body as the very food by which it can remain united and strong.

From the very origins of the Church, her Eucharistic unity is clearly visible. St. Paul writes to the church in Corinth:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
—1 Cor 10:16-18

It is through participation in the Eucharist that Christ’s followers become more than just a likeminded group of people — they become one body. The Eucharist unites the Church to the saving act of Jesus on the cross, making her part of the world’s redemption.

The Eucharist binds its recipients not only to the Lord but also to each other. In a very real way, the bond a partaker of the Eucharist has with his fellow communicants is deeper than that of flesh and blood. Biological unity is of the flesh, but Eucharistic unity is of the Spirit of God. Christ said in his Eucharistic discourse, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” (Jn 6:63). Each member of the Church is a true brother and sister in the Lord, and the Church is the family of God. A family may have arguments or disagreements, but nothing can make two of its members cease to be part of the same family. Likewise, the Church cannot be divided as long as it is united in the Eucharist.

Bryan Kemper, a long-time pro-life leader who founded both Rock for Life and Stand True Ministries, recently announced on his website that he has decided to join the Catholic Church:

My Journey Home To The Catholic Church – Why I Am Converting To Catholicism

Dear friends,

I know this may come as a shock to many of you; I am in shock in a way my self. I have spent the past 23 years living my life for Christ always wanting to serve Him and know His truth.

I have been a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for almost 10 years as I was so inspired by the liturgy and reverence I found there. I have also been in a constant journey for God’s truth, studying His Word as well as church history. After many, many years of resisting a calling that I tried to suppress I have finally felt the peace of God with my decision to join the Catholic Church.

I know that many of you will be confused, even concerned for me. I know that you will have many questions and even be tempted to try and dissuade me from this decision. While I will most certainly talk to you about what God is doing here, I will not be entering into any debates about this right now.

I want to let you know this is not made lightly; I fought against this for years. There are several things that led me to search and finally choose to go back to the Church. I will share a few things in brief here and would love to sit down in person some time with you if you want to peacefully discuss them in more detail.

Continue reading…

As a fellow pro-life Protestant Christian who came home to Rome, I can’t be happier for Bryan. Welcome home!

Thirty years ago someone coined the term “reality distortion field” to describe the effect on an audience when Steve Jobs made a presentation. Due to his charisma, Jobs is supposedly able to convince others of his viewpoint even when reality says otherwise. In other words, he could convince Eskimos that they need the ice-making machine he has built.

While this may or may not be true, I think there is a similar effect that occurs with every media personality. When we regularly see someone on TV, or hear him on the radio, or even read his blog, we begin to believe that we really know him personally. We believe that we have developed a relationship with this person, much like the relationships we have with our family and friends. But this is not reality: having access to someone solely via media grants us no real knowledge of a person, at least not the type of knowledge that comes from interacting with someone in person. Although we think we know him, we are in truth strangers. Of course, one can be fooled even when in close personal contact with someone, but this is much more unlikely than if our only contact is through some technological medium.

Which brings us to Fr. Corapi. As most people know by now, he has been accused of immoral behavior and has been put on administrative leave. It is also important to note that he has denied all the charges against him. What I am most surprised by, however, is how many people have strongly defended him (and attacked the accuser) in spite of only “knowing” him through his TV and radio shows. If we have learned anything over the past few years, it is that someone who is orthodox in his public preaching is not immune from personal failings and sins (which we should have known from our reading of the Bible – see St. Peter). Most of us don’t know Fr. Corapi (or the woman who is accusing him), so how can we know whether the accusation is true or not? Because he’s a good preacher?

Does this mean that whenever someone is accused of immoral behavior we should never defend him before all the facts are out? No, but it does mean that we should withhold judgement regarding people we don’t really know. If one of my good friends were accused of something like this, and he denied it, I would defend his good name until any facts contradicted his story. This is because I have built a personal trust that allows me to give him the benefit of the doubt. But if a stranger were accused and protested his innocence, I would wait until all the facts were in before forming a judgement. And in reality, Fr. Corapi is a stranger to me, as my only knowledge of him comes from seeing him on TV and hearing him on the radio. He is as much a stranger to me as the woman who made the accusations against him – so why should I assume that she is guilty (of slander)? Of course I hope and pray that the accusations are false, because if true they are a great scandal, but until the facts are out, I will simply assume that both parties – Fr. Corapi and the woman – are innocent. I realize that it is probably impossible that they are both are innocent, but I see no reason to assume guilt on the part of either party at this point.

I am disturbed by how much we Catholics have let the media influence our judgement. Just because you see someone on TV, or hear him on the radio, or read his blog, doesn’t mean you truly know them. The best reaction in these situations is not to assume guilt by either party, but to pray that the truth might come out and justice served.

I’ve had a few things cross my in-box recently, and I’ve been remiss in passing them along.

• For those who have the iPhone or iPad, there is a cool app called “iPieta” that “contains a vast library of Catholic Treasures including: writings, prayers, calendars, and documents”. As the creator of the app stated, “it could be a great tool for on the spot apologetics, teaching, and any situation in which the Word of God and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can be spread.”

• Next, a project to encourage confession: The Penance Project. I am a strong proponent of frequent confession, so anything that helps bring people to that sacrament sounds great to me.

• Finally, please consider supporting the St. Francis Mission in South Dakota. This mission is a “ministry of the of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) among the 20,000 Lakota (Souix) people on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in south-central South Dakota. The Mission is a not for profit organization founding in 1886, whose mission is to serve the spiritual, educational, and physical needs of Lakota Catholics and those who are un- churched on the reservation.”

Check them out!

Life as a Catholic involves many complex issues and debates. From transubstantiation to the Immaculate Conception to purgatory, these issues have been discussed and debated by great minds and saints for centuries.

But life as a Catholic is not simply made up of such theological topics. We also live in real-world parishes with real-world issues. These might not be as weighty, but they make up the fabric of Catholic life nonetheless. Certain issues arise that must be addressed: Do we like the music? Is the church building properly designed? Is the youth minister any good? Are there enough chocolate donuts supplied after Mass? These and other such questions are at the forefront of living as a Catholic today.

This leads me to a pressing issue that has always vexed me:

When a new priest is assigned to our parish, do we call him by his first name or last name? Is he “Fr. Bob” or “Fr. Smith”?

There seems to be a certain stereotype associated with both ways. For example, I have noticed that whenever a secular news outlet reports on a local priest’s death, they will usually include the line, “…known simply as ‘Father Bob’…” to represent that this priest was beloved by his parish. This (overused) line is shorthand for “this priest was not one of those rigid authoritarian priests, but instead just one of the guys.” Use of the first name supposedly makes the priest more approachable and more “down to earth,” whereas calling a priest by a last name conveys more authority to the cleric (which is bad in the eyes of most people in the secular media).

In my own experience this stereotype has some basis in truth, as many of the priests I know who want to be called by their last name are more likely to exercise their priestly authority in the parish. (Note that, unlike the secular media, I think this is a good thing). I have also noticed that it seems that it is was more common to call priests by their first name a decade ago than it is today. The majority still seem to go by their first name, but more and more priests – especially pastors – prefer to be called by their last name. Personally, I prefer to use a priest’s last name, as I think his position demands a certain level of respect. Every culture conveys a message with the titles they give to a person or office, and the priesthood is no different. I would not call the commander-in-chief “President Barack”, nor do I let my children call adults by their first name. Using a formal title represents that the person or office deserves respect.

Now I admit there are exceptions when it comes to priestly titles. For example, in the Franciscan tradition, it is most common for priests and brothers to just go by their first name. I respect this and keep to this practice with all the Franciscans I know. But when it comes to diocesan priests, I usually try to use a priest’s last name when referring to him. His office deserves respect (more respect than any office on earth, in fact), and this is a small way I am able to show that respect in my life.

In today’s world we tend to try to minimize most authority figures. This has led to fewer and fewer people being called by anything other than their first name. Even the CEOs of major companies are just called by their first name by their employees. But I always get a kick out of old movies when everyone calls each other by their last name, “Hello, Mr. Jones, how are you?” “I’m fine, Mr. Franklin. Great weather we are having, isn’t it?” Such a way of addressing each other seems foreign today, but it does convey an important social message about respect. Perhaps it is time we apply that to the titles we use for one of the most important jobs in the world: the holy priesthood.

The past 20 years or so have seen an explosion of conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism. During that time, a certain common narrative seems to be associated with these conversions (including my own):

• Protestant is a devout Christian who knows his faith and initially has no interest in the Catholic Church.
• Some issue or event spurs the Protestant to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church.
• This leads to more and more study of the Church’s teachings, in spite of internal and external resistance to the idea.
• Through a long study of the Scriptures and early Church, Protestant begins to realize that Catholic Church is “The Church.”
• Finally, after much prayer, Protestant decides to become Catholic.

On the other hand, there has also been an even greater exodus out of the Catholic Church over the past 40 years. Some of that is people leaving Christianity altogether, but much of it is Catholics becoming Evangelical. The narrative for that type of conversion is usually along the lines of:

• Catholic grows up with little training in the Catholic faith.
• Catholic barely, if at all, practices his faith as he gets older.
• At some point, Catholic realizes that there is more to religion than felt banners and banal homilies.
• Catholic is invited to an Evangelical Protestant service and meets devout, good people who are on fire for the Lord.
• Catholic decides to become Evangelical.

Yes, I realize that there are generalizations in these narratives, but I think most of us recognize that in many cases they broadly represent reality. Norm Geisler, a prominent Evangelical, sums it up like this:

So, while we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts out the bottom from Catholicism. The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism.

Source: Dr. Beckwith

Even aside from the derogatory “egg-head” comment, this is an interesting analysis from Mr. Geisler. He basically admits that converts to Catholicism are intellectual, thus acknowledging that they have studied their faith, while converts to Evangelicalism are basically “falling out” of the Catholic Church without any real knowledge of Catholicism (or Protestantism) before their conversion. Even though the raw numbers today favor Evangelicalism, is this movement really to the benefit of the Evangelical’s cause?

It seems to me that, long-term, I would prefer to have converts who deeply know (and love) both their previous faith and their new one. Converts who must agonize over their conversion, studying every angle of it, are usually those who most seriously embrace it after it is done. Those who convert for basically emotional reasons (I saw on-fire people and want that for myself) are much more likely to eventually drift away. But the “egg-head” convert, with the grace of God, is going to be much more likely to spread his new-found faith to others, understanding both what is good about their previous faith and why he left it.

All in all, I’ll take the egg-heads. Sunny side up (perhaps that should be “Son-ny side up”?), not scrambled.

…that is how one member of my favorite religious order, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, describes his vows of poverty, chastity and obedience:

Brothers from the Bronx take on a tough Irish town

This Christmas will be a tough one for many people living in Ireland. The economic crisis there isn’t helping to lift what is a gloomy holiday season. It’s even more challenging in Limerick, the city that featured in Frank McCourt’s memoir “Angela’s Ashes”.

The poverty, unemployment and deprivation portrayed in the book are still features of daily life in the suburb of Moyross. And that’s exactly why a group of men from New York have moved in. Not just any men though – they are Franciscan friars from the Bronx.

People riding in an open air carriage pulled by a horse might be considered quaint if it wasn’t an indication of the troubles that beset the suburb of Moyross. Horses are sometimes used for transport, but they are often abandoned and left to wander through the gritty neighbourhood or a nearby field.

That is also where the drug deals go down.

Burnt out and boarded up houses are easy to find and so is poverty. It is just the kind of place the Franciscan friars of the Renewal were looking for.

“And we were shown this area Moyross and it seemed like a perfect place: there were burnt out houses there was graffiti on walls there dogs and horses wandering around aimlessly sometimes kids wandering around,” said Brother Shawn O’Connor. “So I said this is a good place for us to be.”

O’Connor and four other monks opened their friary here in 2007 by converting three abandoned houses into a simple residence and chapel. Shortly before they moved in, they got a reminder of how tough the neighbourhood was.

Two children were nearly burned to death when three teenagers firebombed the car they were sitting in. But O’Connor and the others saw a need and over the last three years they have worked hard to get to know the community…

The friary’s statue of the Virgin Mary is missing her hands. One of the other boys living near here cut them off a few months back.

“Many of the young people here just have no real proper guidance that’s one thing we found,” admits O’Connor. “They’re very wild. They’re great and they’re wonderful kids but they don’t have any discipline, they don’t have any sense of right or wrong.”

The monks persist with the kids, not shying away from a bit of soccer, or football or some good old fashioned roughhousing. They do it all wearing their grey hooded robes and beards and shaved heads…

Amidst tales of scandal and sexual abuse by priests, the friars are finding both popularity and celebrity.

In 2008, they appeared on a national late night talk show that also featured U2. The monk’s American street cred seemed to charm the audience. The host asked them to describe their vows. Poverty, chastity and obedience, came the reply. Then one friar offered another version.

“Or like we say in the Bronx, no money, no honey and a boss,” and another, the former rap artist, gave his own slant, “no bling bling, no sweet thing and I gotta serve my king.”

These days, Moyross residents like Lorraine Fitzgerald seem comfortable with the monks in their midst, but she admits she couldn’t take them seriously at first.

“I was laughing I have to say it, I was roaring laughing,” Fitzgerald said. “It’s strange looking at men coming in with long dresses and big beards you know, but I mean they are great sports they are.”

17-year-old Nicole said she’s grateful for their presence too. Young people her age are dropping out and drinking, she said, but the monks share their own experiences in order to warn her of the pitfalls.

“You know like it’s not good but you just try your best to stay away from it,” said Nicole. “That’s what the brothers do. They teach us stuff like all that stuff is bad.”

Read full article…

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past decade, you are aware of the meteoric rise in homeschooling during that time. What was formally the reserve of a few fundamentalists and hippies has now gone mainstream. Just this week it was reported that over 2 million children are homeschooled, which constitutes approximately one in every 25 children currently in school today.

Catholics have not missed this bandwagon, as many Catholic families (including my own) have decided that homeschooling is the best way to educate their children. But what does the Church have to say in her magisterial documents about homeschooling? Is it allowed or prohibited? If no definitive word has been pronounced, is it encouraged or discouraged?

The first place to look to answer this question is Gravissimum Educationis (GE), Vatican II’s “Declaration on Christian Education.” In this document the Council Fathers address the importance of education and the need for every child to be educated. At first glance, it appears that homeschooling is clearly approved:

Parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their children must enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools (GE 6).

If parents have the “primary and inalienable right and duty to education their children” and they must “enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools,” then surely they should be able to educate their own children in the home, correct? However, another passage should be examined as well:

The Council also reminds Catholic parents of the duty of entrusting their children to Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible and of supporting these schools to the best of their ability and of cooperating with them for the education of their children (GE 8 emphasis added).

In the context of GE and other contemporary Church documents related to education, it is clear the Council is thinking of traditional Catholic schools here; in other words, it is not thinking of a Catholic family homeschooling as a “Catholic school.” So what does this mean? Are homeschoolers violating Vatican II by not “entrusting their children to Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible” and not “supporting these schools to the best of their ability and of cooperating with them for the education of their children”? Should all Catholics send their children to Catholic schools if they are available to them?

To answer this question we must first consider what the Church considers proper education. According to GE,

a true education aims at the formation of the human person in the pursuit of his ultimate end and of the good of the societies of which, as man, he is a member, and in whose obligations, as an adult, he will share (GE 1).

But this is not the only objective of education. All the baptized also have the right to a Christian education, which

does not merely strive for the maturing of a human person as just now described, but has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of Faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. John 4:23) (GE 2)

So parents, who have a “primary and inalienable right and duty to education their children,” must take into consideration both of these aspects when determining their choice of schools – they must both consider a child’s formation as a human person as well as his formation as a Christian. But this also means that Catholic schools need to fulfill these two aspects of a Christian education – if they do not, then they are not truly “Catholic schools,” thus making it impossible for parents in their area to send their child to an outside Catholic school, as GE hopes every parent will do.

But I think we can go a step further than just saying that homeschooling is an option when the local Catholic schools are failing in their mission to offer a Christian education. To do this, we must consider the context in which Vatican II occurred. At that time, there was, for all intents and purposes, no such thing as Catholic homeschoolers as we would define them today. Homeschooling as a movement didn’t really start until the 1970’s and it didn’t become “mainstream” until this century. So the Council Fathers had no way to consider homeschooling as even an option. It should be remembered that ecumenical councils are protected by the Holy Spirit from error, but they are not given the gift of precognition. Faced between the choice of public, government schools and Catholic schools, it is no surprise that they urged that Catholic parents send their children to Catholic schools “wherever and whenever it is possible.” That was the only possible way for a child to receive a true Christian education as the Council Fathers envisioned it.

However, since the time of Vatican II, it has become clear that Catholic homeschooling has become a viable type of “Catholic school”, offering a fully Christian education as defined by the Council Fathers. Thus, I would argue that homeschooling can be a legitimate response to Vatican II’s call that Catholics entrust their children to “Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible” – even if there are good Catholic schools in the area. In today’s world, this fulfills the Council’s wishes that children receive a Christian education and that parents enjoy “true liberty” when choosing a school for their children.

It should be clear that I am not saying that all Catholics should homeschool their children. Each family is different and every child unique – what works for one situation might not work for others. But I do believe that Catholics who choose to homeschool their children – even if there is a good Catholic school available – are not violating the intention of the Council Fathers behind their desire that parents entrust their children “to Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible.”

Update: Esteemed Catholic canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters alerts us to an informative article he wrote about 10 years ago addressing this issue from a canon law perspective.

If you want to be an informed Catholic (and why would you not?), then there are two books that must be read and understood: the Bible and the Catechism. However, neither of these books is an “easy read” – both total hundreds of pages and touch on difficult and complex subjects. Because of this intimidation factor, many people don’t know where to start and so don’t start.

Fortunately, the Coming Home Network has devised a plan to read both the Bible and the Catechism in a year. It can be found here:

Read the Bible and the Catechism in a Year

As the Plan states:

The Catholic Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures, and teaches that “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.” She also, “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ’ (Phil. 3.8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. ‘Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.’” (From the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, nos. 9, 21, and 25)

Many of us today do not know our faith well. But thanks to the loving initiative of Pope John Paul II and the Bishops of our Church, we now have a universal Catechism which explains what Catholics are to believe in a format that is easy to read and addresses current issues.

By making a commitment of only twenty to thirty minutes a day, you can prayerfully read through the entire Bible and/or Catechism in one year! Use whatever Bible translation you like that contains the entire Canon of Scripture. This guide is divided by month, but you can start at any time.

H/t: Charles

One of the more interesting facets of the liturgical year is that two of the first four days of the Christmas Octave are dedicated to martyrs: December 26th is the feast of St. Stephen (although it was bumped for the feast of the Holy Family this year) and today, December 28th, we remember the Holy Innocents. At a time when most people are thinking festive and jolly thoughts, the Church focuses our attention on gruesome deaths. Why is that?

Merry Christmas!

There is one event that dominates the life of Jesus: Golgotha. The Cross casts a shadow upon every aspect of Christ’s life, from his conception to his Ascension and Second Coming. When Simeon first encountered the baby Jesus, he proclaimed, “Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:34-35) – not exactly something that would typically be said at a baptism or baby shower, is it?

Joseph Pieper defined an “encounter” as “something which turns up within my mental horizon in such a manner as to stand in my way, as ‘to resist’.” This is what happens in our encounter with Jesus Christ: he “stands in our way”, especially his death, and resists our fallen desires. Even when we encounter him as a little babe in the manger of Bethlehem, the Cross looms over us, resisting our efforts to relegate Christmas to a nice, comfortable story. The brutal deaths of Stephen and the Holy Innocents remind us during this Christmastime that we must encounter Christ’s Cross and take it up in our own lives.

But what also must be remembered is the other color of Christmas: green. In the merciful plan of God, His Son’s bloody death leads to everlasting life. St. Stephen and the Holy Innocents were drenched in red, but that led them to the never-ending green of eternal life. We too, when we embrace our crosses, can enter into that life with all the martyrs and saints.

Holy Innocents, pray for us!