+A.M.D.G.+
Boycott The DaVinci Code!
29 April 2006 at 07.13
The movie The DaVinci Code is opening imminently. Don’t support such heresy. Boycott the movie! Go to the movie theatre, but see something else!
For more about the lies in The DaVinci Code, visit Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights.
Veil of falsehood
28 April 2006 at 18.03In his weekly e-bulletin, Karl Keeting of Catholic Answers writes that acclaimed author Umberto Eco, who abandoned the Faith a long time ago, nonetheless has not abandoned common sense: Recently, the novelist commented that
We are supposed to live in a skeptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity. The ‘death of God,’ or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols. They have multiplied like bacteria on the corpse of the Christian Church–from strange pagan cults and sects to the silly, sub-Christian superstitions of The Da Vinci Code.
He continues,
It is amazing how many people take that book literally and think it is true. Admittedly, Dan Brown, its author, has created a legion of zealous followers who believe that Jesus wasn’t crucified: He married Mary Magdalene, became the King of France, and started his own version of the order of Freemasons. Many of the people who now go to the Louvre are there only to look at the Mona Lisa, solely and simply because it is at the center of Dan Brown’s book.
Anyone who goes to any bookstore nowadays is attacked by display stands filled with all things Da Vinci: the novel, offshoots, ‘texts’ of Gnostic ’secrets,’ uncovered ‘conspiracies’ of the Catholic Church, board games, puzzles, videos, etc. Keating points out, to be fair, that the displays usual have a few anti-Da Vinci Code books, although these are by far the minority.
I did not read the book, only excerpts and plot summaries that confirmed that the book is sacriligeous… not to mention an utter waste of time. I could think of a dozen better uses of my time… things that are more productive, intellectually/academically or spiritually rewarding, or just plain relaxing and fun. Even tiptoing in the grass is preferable — At least that reminds me of the beauty of the world… and serves to combat the gnostic heresy that this world is corrupt, evil and a veil of falsehood thrown before our eyes.
If there exists any veil of falsehood that obscures our collective moral vision and, thus, serves the Prince of Lies, it is books like The Da Vinci Code.
Child-rearing in the culture of death
25 April 2006 at 12.59Part I of an insightful series on parenting from Fr. John Fullerton:
I am sure that many of you have had occasion to see how the standards of child-rearing have changed in our country. Or, even if you are not aware of the changes, you are at least aware of the ill effects these changes have had not only on our youth, but also on our families, our schools, our communities and even our Catholic parishes. Disrespect, irresponsible behavior and lack of perseverance are among the most obvious weeds that the changes have cultivated.
One of the factors that has led to a change in standards here in the U.S. was the breaking up of the extended family unit after the last world war. Shortly after the War, family members began to disperse themselves hundreds, or even thousands, of miles away from one another. Thus, the extended family was broken up into smaller units and young parents found themselves without the support of their parents or grandparents. This, coupled with family problems caused by the rapid pace of ‘progress,’ pushed parents into hands of various so-called professionals (e.g., family counselors, psychologists and clinical social workers).
These ‘professionals’ took an intellectual (rather, in-the-clouds) rather than commonsensical (down-to-earth) approach to child rearing. With their modern philosophies in hand, they persuaded parents that the ultimate goal of ‘parenting’ was something called ’self-esteem’ and that the family needed to be ‘child-centered.’ In order to raise their children’s self-esteem, these ‘experts’ told parents that they needed to pay a lot of attention to (i.e., be highly invoved with) their children; the more attention, the better the parent.
[Parents] were also told that they must praise their children a lot, while ignoring their inappropriate behavior. The ‘experts’ said that if children received a surplus of ‘warm fuzzies’ for their good behavior, they would in turn pass them on to others. But if too much attention were given to the inappropriate behavior, by making any mention of it, that bad behavior would be likely to happen again. Also, by telling children that they did something wrong, a parent would make them ‘feel bad’ about themselves, thus causing low self-esteem from which they might never recover.
Finally, the ‘experts’ instructed parents that they must protect their children from frustration and failure. This aspect of raising ’self-esteem’ seems to have taken root especially in our public schools, where educators ran with this idea and did all that they could to try and take the frustration and failure out of learning and make both the process and the place ‘fun.’ This was accomplished by dumbing-down the level of education, grading students according to their ability rather than [according to] their performance, and [by] promoting students whether or not they had mastered the material because, as [the ‘experts’] said, to hold them back would hurt their self esteem.
The ‘experts’ also tried to discredit the traditional methods of childrearing by saying that these methods were psychologically damaging to children. To prove this, they referred to such professionals as Sgmund Freud, whose bizarre theories had achieved great acceptance among intellectuals prior to being thrown upon the general public. Freud’s contribution caused parents to begin questioning even the most mundane approaches to child-rearing, and every little aspect took on great psychological significance.
Other psychologists such as Carl Rogers, Thomas Gordon and Dorothy Briggs also had their hands in the destruction. In his best-selling book of 1970, Parent Effectiveness Training, Gordon says that the real problem is not so much that parents repress but that they suppress their children’s intellects and psyches. They do so by demanding obedience to rigid rules, punishing deviations from ‘unreasonable’ narrow parameters and by not allowing their children to freely express opinions and emotions. In his view, power and authority were the source of many, if not all, of the world’s problems, and his solution was for families to become democratic rather than autocratic:
[Gordon’s] no-lose method III approach communicates to kids that parents think their needs are important, too, and that kids can be trusted to be considerate of parental needs in return. [T]his is treating kids much as we treat friends or a spouse. [The method] feels so good to children because they like to feel trusted and to be treated as an equal. (Gordon, PET, 213).
Dorothy Briggs amplifies Gordon’s themes in her 1970 book, Your Child’s Self-Esteem, another best-seller. In her book, she fires at the traditional child-rearing methods, saying that they were damaging to ’self-esteem,’ as was the very concept of obedience. According to her, parents were not to make unilateral decisions when it came to dealing with dissatisfaction or disagreements on the part of children; rather, they should engage in ‘active listening,’ respecting the child’s point of view, [and] then negotiate with them in a compromise. Thus, there would not be one winner and one loser, but two winners.
Discipline is democratic when parents share power, when adults and children work together to establish rules that protect the rights of all. In democratic homes, children have an equal part in working out limits. The family works as a unit to establish broad, general policies while permitting flexibility within those limits. (Briggs, YCSE, 244)
The underlying theme in this thought is that children are born into this world [as] pure little beings. They are then corrupted by their parents, and so-on. This way of thinking can be traced back to the self-serving philosophy of the eighteenth-century philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau — who fathered, abandoned and refused to support three children. Rousseau argued that humans were inherently good, and thus not guilty of anything. They were only warped by society, which alone could be held responsible for all the depraved things people did.
As these highly subversive ideas were picked up and echoed throughout the professional community, the effect on parents was crippling. For the first time in history, parents began to walk on eggshells around their children, trying not to upset their state of bliss. Soon, they became the most insecure, anxious, indecisive and guilt-ridden parents that history has seen.
Since the 1950s, one need not look very deeply to see the impact that these new practices have had on our culture. For example:
- Violent crimes committed by juveniles have increased six-fold.
- Violence on the part of children against their parents and teachers — almost never heard of before — has become a serious problem.
- the rate of unmarried teenage births has increased almost 200%.
- Teenage depression has almost become epidemic.
- Classroom discipline has become a serious problem, as teachers no longer have to deal merely with children talking out of turn or cutting in line, but must [also] deal with drug and alcohol use, assault and robbery.
- Since 1960, the rate of teen suicides has more than tripled and is now the second-leading cause of death among teenagers.
Child-rearing standards or practices play a major role in setting the social foundations of any culture, and it is not too difficult to see how, in teh final analysis, a culture is defined by its child-rearing practices.
Neither is it too difficult to see that these standards or practices have been ultimately designed to attack the rights of God and His Church by trying to destroy legitimate authority and our dependence [upon] it. Should we wonder that our youth and now young adults have such a problem accepting authority? That they show such a weakness of will when it comes to practicing self-sacrifice and perseverance? That more and more of them often find it difficult to be serious about their responsibilities?
one moder psychologist, John Rosemond, seems to have come down off the intellectual cloud and returned to the commonsense of the time-tested traditional practices. He holds to the necessity for parents to train their children in ‘The Three Rs.’ No! He is not referring to ‘reading, writing and arithmetic’ — although these are also very important in education. [Rather, he is referring to] ‘respect, responsibility and resourcefulness.’
In days of old, these were the standards of good child-rearing. parents were not measured by how exhauseted they made themselves driving their children from one event to another or how involved they were in their children’s hoework or how many ‘warm fuzzies’ they gave each day, but rather by whether or not they had managed to endow in their children adequate amounts of each of the ‘Three Rs.’ The success of whether or not a parent had succeeded [in doing so] was self-evident to friends and neighbors, who would have held them in high esteem and [lauded them for] “doing a great job!” Whether their children became doctors, carpenters or janitors was secondary to the fact that the good child-rearing had all but guaranteed that they would be assets — not only to their family, but also to the community in whatever vocation they chose.
Good child-rearing practices are, of course, important for both parents at home and teachers in school. Thus, over the next few months, we will consider a bit more in-depth each of these ‘Three Rs.’ Suffice it to say, for now, that [each] must ultimately be grounded in the resepect we show to God; in the responsibility that we, as members of the Mystical Body [of the Church] take for our actions; and in the resourcefullness in cooperating with His graces during our daily struggles.
» Other parts in this series:
St. John Chrysostom on Easter Sunday
16 April 2006 at 13.05
On this most joyous of days, all the world is changed. Certainly, our lives are changed, for the Risen Christ contradicts the postmodern assumption that there is no transcendent purpose to life and that existence is simply a moderated form of chaos. As the Holy Church on earth has survived unholy corruption and incompetence in many epochs to rise again, so is Benedict XVI proclaiming the resurrection to souls afflicted today. Most joyous is the actual resurrection Christ promises to all who love him: “The dead shall be raised incorruptible” (1 Cor. 15:52).
Over our pulpit is a holy icon of St. John Chrysostom, patron of preachers [and Doctor of the Church], whose plain-speaking against feline courtiers and clerics 1,600 years ago brought exile upon him, but whose heroic virtue issued in eternal glory. Let his ‘golden mouth’ preach of Easter to us:
Read more »
The solemnity of Confession
9 April 2006 at 18.36
Christ followed solemn rituals in the first Holy Week, culminating with being sacrificed on the Cross as the lambs ritually were being sacrificed for the Passover rites. To begin, He entered the Golden Gate through which the Messiah was supposed to arrive, on the donkey which was the royal beast. In the most solemn week of the year, we recall words of C. S. Lewis in his Preface to Paradise Lost:
[The Middle English word solempne] . . . implies the opposite of what is familiar, free and easy, or ordinary. But unlike [the modern English] solemn it does not suggest gloom, oppression or austerity. . . . Feasts are, in this sense, more solemn than fasts. Easter is solempne, Good Friday is not. The Solempne is the festal which is also the stately and the ceremonial, the proper occasion for pomp â?? and the very fact that pompous is now used only in a bad sense measures the degree to which we have lost the old idea of ’solemnity.’ To recover it you must think of a court ball, or a coronation, or a victory march, as these things appear to people who enjoy them. . . . Above all, you must be rid of the hideous idea, fruit of a wide-spread inferiority complex, that pomp, on the proper occasions, has any connexion with vanity or self-conceit. A celebrant approaching the altar, a princess led out by a king to dance a minuet, a general officer on a ceremonial parade, a major-domo preceding the boar’s head at a Christmas feast â?? all these wear unusual clothes and move with calculated dignity. This does not mean they are vain, but that they are obedient. … The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; rather it proves the offender’s inability to forget himself in the rite, and his readiness to spoil for everyone else the proper pleasure of ritual.
Lewis did not live to see the self-conscious grotesqueries in many modern churches: banal music, levity, clapping and a general obliviousness to the sacred space. Most solemn is the ritual of sacramental confession. There are certain protocols for confession. (Use one of the examinations of conscience available in the rack by the confessionals or on the parish website.) Come early and try not to delay until they are about to end. Confess clearly and briefly without rambling. Be efficient in telling the number and kind of serious sins, do not confess the sins of others, be sad for sins in humility but do not be embarrassed by them for that is a form of pride, and do not worry about what the priest confessor may think of you because he is always edified by humility. And resolve in this season to be more frequent in confession and to encourage others to come. By solemnly opening your heart, you make it a Golden Gate through which Christ can enter.
Of Passiontide & ‘living sainthood’
2 April 2006 at 15.00One of the most redundant expressions in common use is “a living saint.” There are no dead saints, though they pass through death. Saints living in our midst are just in the first stage of that process. Their liveliness is not just a spectacle to admire but a model to follow.
In Holy Week, the Church follows our Lord along the path he walked in history. The saints follow him as their Saviour from sin and death. When he healed the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem, he warned him: “See, you are made well. Sin no more, so that something worse does not happen to you” (John 5:14). What could be worse than being paralyzed thirty-eight years like that man? Worse than physical sickness is sickness of soul. Christ cures that in baptism and confession. A quadriplegic with a pure soul can attain eternal glory, when even an Olympic runner without divine grace cannot.
After he had healed the man, Jesus went into hiding, for he had not come to cure the flesh, but to cure the fatal contagion of mortality itself. In Passiontide, by an old tradition, the crucifix is veiled as a sign of this and statues of the saints are covered too, because Christ’s followers do not walk abroad while he is in the shadows. This is not fanciful stage acting. It is the living history of which all of us are part. Formerly, many scholars like the cynical Alfred Loisy thought St. John’s description of the pool of Bethesda might have been inaccurate or misinterpreted, but very recently archeÂologists uncovered the full splendor of the pool of Bethesda just as the Beloved Apostle described it. Beth Chesda is Hebrew for “House of Grace” and that grace was real and effective, not by the water in the pool but by the will of Christ whose simple command cured a man.
The liturgical re-living of the Passion is different from nostalgia. A wit said that nostalgia is history after a few drinks. The solemn liturgies walk through the events that open the gates to eternal life, and this aperture into eternity is as real as the Golden Gate that opened on the first Palm Sunday and the tombstone that rolled away on the first Easter. Passion Sunday this year is the first anniversary of the death of Pope John Paul II at 9:27 pm in the Apostolic Palace. The Vatican is still there, and John Paul’s successor is there serenely leading the flock as the newest successor of Peter. John Paul is no less alive now that he has gone, as he prayed, to the “House of the Father.” In these days the Church prays for the catechumens about to enter the Church in the Easter Vigil, that they and all of us may give thanks for such great mysteries.
The Compleat Gentleman
Transformation in Christ