For This Society, Tomorrow is a Pain in The Ash

   Tomorrow, as all Catholics with a clue know, is Ash Wednesday which, in light of the absurdity raining on our Faith from the present powers that be, takes on an even more significant and profound tone. Ash Wednesday is about a number of key concepts which clash with the society we live in and the leaders that society has enabled.

1. Mortality…….First of all, Ash Wednesday is about reminding us of our own mortality; the fact that, regardless of whether we are a king or a pauper, a president or a plumber, a saint or a sinner, our powers are limited.  Mortality, then, is about more than the certainty that we will each die someday.  Beyond that, it is about the sheer temporary nature of our existence, relevance, significance, and importance in the temporal plane. Not only do our very lives have a limit on this earth but, just as importantly, everything we foolishly grasp onto throughout our journey on this rock has its limits as well. As much as we all would like to fool ourselves, we are not and have never been the masters of our domain because, for one thing, we are neither masters nor is this our domain!

This society preaches a very different view. It deludes us into accepting the fantasy that it is all about us; what we want, how we feel, what makes us comfortable, what is easiest, what feels good, and what fits our “domain”.  Ironically, the core of this view that “we are it” is the notion that “this is it” and that there are no eternal consequences for our actions and beliefs, nothing beyond this life we have. By brazenly declaring themselves qualified to say that there is nothing beyond this existence, Atheists irrationally propose the transcendence of their own limitations.  By sheepishly passing on the discussion altogether, agnostics replace the atheists’ arrogance with cowardice.  Ultimately, while we all must obviously function in the temporal, earthly plane, we must choose whether or not our aspirations will be chained to that plane or aspire to a more eternal, sacred one.  If our aspirations go beyond this earth, then we must necessarily recognize and accept  the limitations of this existence, and the mortality of all that enables that existence. “Remember you are dust and to dust you shall return” is not exactly what this society is about.

2. Accepting Responsibility and Confessing Faults

Pointing fingers has become a national pastime.  Nobody accepts responsibility, their participation, in anything wrong, unsuccessful, or foolish. We have a leadership which is driving our national bus off a cliff while pointing at everyone but the driver.  Everybody spews lists of reasons why x and y cannot  lead us while ignoring the catalogs of reasons why O should not lead us any more. We have an emperor with no clothes dictating our moral fashion. A society which ignores its faults, supported by its enabling media, is the first to mock, criticize, dictate, and marginalize others. How can we confess our sins when we do not even accept fault, much less sin, much less responsibility for anything we do? We have turned our backs on what is true, critical, and central in our struggle to render meaning to our lives, content to admire ourselves in the mirror of our own self-obsession rather than humbly and contritely conceding our own limitations and need for healing ourselves and others. We can all use a little more modesty and self-reflection.  If we bother to look at ourselves with more critical sincerity before we point at others, we might be able to more often turn that pointed hand into a helping one.

3. Wearing our Faith on Our Sleeve

We have witnessed what this society thinks of open displays of faith.  Tim Tebow’s courageous demonstrations of faith were met with anger, resentment, mockery, ignorance, and outright rage by diverse people and sources. From those whose lives embody anything but love, modesty, humility, unselfishness, kindness, compassion, sincerity, or respect, such displays of objection against a young man living his faith are deplorable. A society which finds no objection in vulgar, sacrilegious, superficial, hypocritical, and false displays dares to dictate, mock, and judge the displays of people of faith. A society which embodies “out of sight, out of mind”  now equally represents “out of its mind,  out of its sight’.

If you are Catholic, wear your ashes proudly tomorrow.  Know that you are witnessing Christ and His ultimate sacrifice.  Understand that you are preaching His message of humility, contrition, unselfish love, forgiveness, redemption, and salvation.  Every time someone mocks or is amused by that cross on your forehead, offer those arrows to God. Whenever someone stares at you with a puzzled look, return that look with a smile.  If someone asks you to explain, do so with pride and passion and, if someone should inform you that you have some dirt on your forehead, answer “It is there because my Lord is always there, for I put God first and let everything else fall into place.”

Copyright, 2011  Gabriel Garnica

You have found your cross!

Love…endures through every circumstance.’ 1 Corinthians 13:7

Imagine a world without divorce.

Imagine families without separation.

Imagine no children or hearts torn apart.

 

People of one place in this world do not have to imagine.

In the town of Siroki-Brijeg in Herzegovina not one of the 13,000 inhabitants can recall a single divorce or broken family.

What is their secret?

One look at their marriage rite says it all.

When the bride and bridegroom go to the church to be married they carry a crucifix with them.

The priest blesses the crucifix and exclaims, “You have found your cross!

It is a cross to love, to carry with you, a cross that is not thrown off but rather treasured.”

When they interchange the marital vows,

the bride puts her right hand on this crucifix and the groom puts his right hand over hers.

Both are united to the cross.

The priest covers their hands with his stole while they pronounce their promises to love each other in good times and in bad.
Then they both first kiss the cross, not each other !

If one abandons the other, they abandon Christ on the cross.

Afterwards, the newly-weds cross the threshold of their home to enthrone that same crucifix in a place of honor.

 

It becomes the reference point of their lives and the place of family prayer.

In times of difficulty and misunderstandings, as all human relationships experience,

they do not turn immediately to the lawyer or psychologist,

they turn to the cross.

 

They kneel, cry and open up their hearts …

begging for the strength to pardon and implore the Lord’s help.

The children are taught to reverently kiss the crucifix daily

and to thank him for the day before going to bed.

These children dream of enthroning one day a crucifix of their own.
The family is indissolubly united to the cross of Christ.

Is this simply a morbid outlook on marital and family life?

 

Or is it a piece of wisdom that few in our modern world can understand.

Until our world does, it will continue to imagine and long for the unbroken hearth.

(Marian Observer Feb. 2002).

 

 

 

Does The Novus Ordo Mass Embody Deus Solus? Part Two….The Eyes Have It

In this second and final installment dealing with the question of whether the Novus Ordo Mass embodies Deus Solus, we will briefly review the message of Part I in the context of the content of Part II to reach a humble conclusion which I suspect may surprise many readers.

Having discussed the shift toward the individual and away from God through the infection of the Enlightenment and subsequent philosophical forces, we then focused on the psychological bias against the sacred and toward the power and supremacy of the individual, with the added twist of the theory that individuals will rationalize and twist their beliefs to reduce the inconsistency and disharmony between their external and internal environments. Finally, we noted with dismay the definite Protestant influence on the Catholic Mass as demonstrated by the Vatican II changes which gave rise to the Novus Ordo Mass.

Key Differences Between the Two Rites

The Language……The argument in favor of the use of Latin in the Latin Mass is that Latin is a universal language such that someone could enter a Mass in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, or the U.S. without losing any understanding.  The argument against Latin is that, in the eyes of many, it is a dead language which, in this case, merely serves to disconnect the people from the proceedings since they do not understand what is going on. Since history shows that people properly disposed and interested can learn enough Latin to follow along plus booklets can have side by side translations of everything, I think that the arguments against the use of Latin are relatively weak. Besides, Pope Paul VI  made provisions for celebration of the Mass in the vernacular for pastoral reasons, but his missal assumed that the Novus Mass would continue to be celebrated in Latin.  Given these points, Mass should be celebrated in both the vernacular and Latin in each parish, respecting the pastoral benefits of the vernacular and the traditional and enhanced holiness of Latin.

Altar Position….In the Latin Mass, both the people and the priest face Jerusalem, to remind all of Christ’s sacrifice to God and, hence, to the sacrificial nature of the Mass.  In the Novus Ordo, however, the orientation is versus populum, or facing the people, and mainly emphasizes a table focusing on the Mass as a supper rather than a sacrifice.  Many will argue that the supper reminds us of the sacrifice but, as history has shown, this supper focus has mainly served to cause many to forget the sacrificial character of the Mass. Given these points, the individual must strive to maintain that focus on Christ’s sacrifice by focusing on the sacrifice and not merely the view of Mass as a meal.

Laity, Servers, and Participation….In the Latin Mass, the people’s role in worship is reserved mainly to silent prayer and some singing, and the priest is central and key to the celebration of the Mass. In the Novus Ordo, however, the laity have a very active and one would say almost equal part in this celebration, including the readings and distributing Communion. While many will argue that this involves and invigorates the laity more by giving them a greater role in worship, others will contend that it plays to abuses, presumptions, and the sort of defiance which modernist arguments fan. Given these points, efforts should be made to re-assert the centrality of the priesthood above the role of the laity in the worship of the Mass, and assert greater control over the spread of the laity’s role in that worship.

Music………..In the Latin Mass, the Gregorian chant and Hymns in Latin are the forms used. In the Novus Ordo, however, every type of musical instrument and singing has been incorporated into the celebration of the Mass. While there are reasonable arguments in favor of this extended form of musical expression, there seems no doubt that the traditional forms inspire a greater sense of  sacred holiness. In this vein, greater control over the nature of musical worship should be exercised, and the more traditional musical expressions should be at least included significantly in the celebration of the Mass where possible.

Altar Rail and Reception of  Communion….In the Latin Mass, the altar rail represents the distinction between Heaven ( the Altar) and earth ( the people) and allows people to kneel for the reception of Communion. In the Novus Ordo, however, the removal of that rail blurs that distinction, fuels the notion of the people as equals to the priest and a central component of worship, and renders reception of Communion on the tongue and on one’s knees less practical.  In contrast to some of the above differences, which may inspire some reasonable arguments either way, this distinction seems totally arbitrary at best and nefarious at worst. What is wrong with having the altar rail, and with the reception of Communion on one’s knees and on the tongue?  What is wrong with recognizing the distinction between Heaven and earth, between the priest and the people, between the worship of God and the celebration of people celebrating?

I find no greater demonstration of Deus solus than reception of  Christ on one’s knees, on one’s tongue.  Reception on the knees shows the proper respect for Our Savior, as well as the proper orientation of our lives.  Just as we prostrate ourselves before our God and place  Him above us keeping our gaze upon Him while receiving Communion on our knees, so too we must always remain loyal and subservient to His Will and Power maintaining our gaze fixed on Him. Furthermore, what is wrong with making every effort to emphasize reception of Communion on the tongue as preferred to reception in the hand given the consecrated hands of the priest?  Does this not also emphasize the special role of the priest, the centrality of the priest in the worship of God as our focus, and the Real Presence which is increasingly forgotten today? Given this, the altar rails should be returned, and every effort made to have Communion distributed by priests alone.

The Lesson of Parenting and Education

Anyone who is a parent or has been an educator knows that parents and teachers who cater to their children or students ultimately lose the respect, attention, and influence over those whom they have a responsibility over. Similarly, to the extent that any form of the Mass and even the Catholic faith itself seeks to appease, to please, to practically petition, its followers in an effort to keep them, that form of worship and that faith will ultimately lose the very people it seeks to serve. This reality has been proven by the fruits of all of these modernist innovations.  Where the effort was made to make Mass more understandable, more convenient, more appealing, more people-centered, more a meal, more a celebration rather than a sacrifice, we only see that Mass attendance has halved since Vatican II, and that only 30% of Catholics actually believe in the Real Presence. We know that most Catholics do  not even attend Mass regularly anymore, and that all of this appeasement seems to have the success rate of that practiced by England’s Chamberlain in answer to the Nazis.  The Church has surrendered respect in an effort to gain popularity, and has lost both. Like the clueless parent or teacher, a Church which blindly seeks affirmation according to the terms of those it serves has only sought to lose the very people it so desperately twists and distorts itself to keep.

Christ never sought to appease, to please, to conform. Rather, He embodied Deus solus, as should we.

The Evil of Convenience

I have tried to briefly review the distinctions between the traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo in the light of our question as to whether the Novus Ordo embodies Deus solus.  Many of these changes have their basis in questionable motives grounded in arrogance and defiance. Others are rooted in simple convenience, or serving the desires and preferences of people.  Either way, Deus solus is not being served.  Realism tells us that these changes are very much like the debate between mother’s milk and formula.  In this latter case, the many benefits of mother’s milk are eventually ignored via the convenience and good taste of formula. In fact, the manufacturers of formula tempt parents with the convenience of formula knowing that, once the baby tastes the formula and the mother tastes the convenience of using that formula, the days of mother’s milk will be counted. What was once acceptable and even delightful will suddenly be seen as dull, distant, or foreign.  Once the floodgates are opened, all manner of abuse and distortion has better access to the faith.

The answer does not lie in demanding that the Novus Ordo be eliminated, for that would be a fanciful delusion given present realities and human  nature.  Neither does it lie in equating ecumenism with liturgical and sacramental surrender of our Catholic faith by crafting a Mass acceptable to non-Catholics. It certainly does not lie in defining worship as centered and focused on those who worship, nor in allowing anyone other than God Almighty to be the star of the show.  It does not lie in increasingly defining the Mass as a memorial banquet, the Blessed Sacrament as anything other than the Body of Christ, or the people as being in any way or form equal to the priest much less God Almighty. It lies, rather, in driving home the point that the Mass is a sacrifice to God, that the priesthood is special, that anything that emphasizes total respect and subservience to God and to The Real Presence should be emphasized and practiced as thoroughly as possible within and outside the Mass.

This is not about what is most comfortable, or convenient, to us.  Mass should not fit our notions or preferences, nor bend and twist to our whims and desires like some tired fad or product on QVC. It should certainly not be about political correctness or inclusiveness devoid of our basic Church teaching. Whether we are comfortable or not, pleased or not, inconvenienced or not, offended or not, is not the issue to those whose gaze is fixed on their God. Comfort, convenience, political correctness, social offense, are all fixtures of those focused on earth and on each other.

Does the Novus Ordo Mass embody Deus solus?  The bigger question is does our society embody Deus solus?  Even better, do we embody Deus solus?  While in many ways the Latin Mass may empahsize Deus solus more clearly and easily than the Novus Ordo, the ultimate responsibility of whether this society or whether we ourselves embody Deus solus lies within each one of us.

Deus solus begins in our souls, our hearts, and our minds, regardless of how we worship. The critical importance of the Mass lies in its ability to help us express the Deus solus which should be deep within our being.  Did not Christ embody Deus solus? Given that, should not we, as His followers, embody it as well?

In the final analysis, our eyes will measure whether or not our souls embody Deus solus. Are they constantly fixed on God Almighty, on Heaven and salvation which should be our ultimate goals, and on serving our Creator to the best of our abilities using our talents?  Are they fixed on the eternal over the temporal, the sacred over the societal, and the truth over the deceptions of this world?  Are they fixed on our Heavenly treasure over earthly gain, on pleasing God over pleasing humans, and on serving the Almighty over our own agenda? When it comes to Deus solus, the eyes certainly have it.

Copyright, 2012  Gabriel Garnica

Pro-choice is about anything but choice

We have just passed another anniversary of one of the darkest stains in this nation’s history, The Roe v. Wadefiasco and, increasingly, the belief that abortion has anything to do with choice should be seriously considered as proof of mental instability or radical bias.

Having a choice obviously implies having information, and the pro-abortion industry and its allies in the government and media want no part of accurate, impartial information. Their bread and butter, in fact, is deception, distortion, bias, secrecy, and disinformation. When you see how the media ignores, trivializes, and even mocks the March for Life each January, and how it ignores downplays, or distorts such horror stories as what the monster Kermit Gosnell did in his Philadelphia abortion clinic as reported last year, you realize that choice, freedom, and health are not what abortion is all about.

For those who have not heard of this nightmare, Kermit Gosnell drugged and tied up numerous women who had second thoughts about having an abortion at his filthy house of horrors, performing grisly infanticides and leaving women with fetal remains inside who later developed infections. There were numerous accounts of women who were left sterile, disabled, and emotionally as well as mentally ravaged by this fiend. Part of the media downplayed this horror story, and the remainder actually used it to blame pro-life protestors for forcing women to go to smaller, less known clinics like Gosnell’s in an effort to avoid their protests at Planned Parenthood clinics. While the media largely ignores or downplays reports linking Planned Parenthood with everything from concealing rape and sexual abuse to fraud, it manages to use reports of atrocities at other abortion clinics to encourage women to seek Planned Parenthood clinics instead, as if abortion can ever be fully sanitized, safe, or morally acceptable regardless of where it is performed.

The recent decision of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas to uphold the constitutionality of a new law in Texas requiring that abortion providers provide ultrasound exams and that women listen to the doctor’s description of her unborn child and to the heartbeat before deciding to abort provided another example of how abortion supporters are actually quite allergic to the choice they so passionately trumpet. Studies indicate that 84% of women actually change their mind about having an abortion after seeing and hearing their unborn child, so you would think that people who claim to be about women’s freedom, choice, or health would welcome such efforts, and you would probably be right. On the other hand, one might ask who would not welcome such efforts. Clearly, that would be someone more interested in preserving the abortion than the choice.

If the abortion industry is so concerned about women’s health, freedom, and choice, one would wonder what they would do if Congress passed a law requiring that all abortions be absolutely free for one year. I mean, following their rhetoric, wouldn’t that just make their beloved abortion even more accessible to more women, thereby spreading the kind of noble benefits they claim to provide? My guess is that they would go absolutely ballistic, citing how such a measure would result in all forms of terrible results including, but carefully placed, concerns about their financial status. Considering how many in that barbaric industry claim that abortion is only a fraction of their sacred work, I do not see how making abortion pro-bono for one year would destroy them, do you?

There are those who argue that things such as marijuana and prostitution should be legalized and taxed in order to reap a benefit from their existence and increase regulation of their unavoidable presence. These people often argue that it is precisely the illegality of these things that infects them with danger and lack of control, as well as wrapping them in the underworld element. That same argument is used by pro-abortion advocates who claim that legalized abortion has largely removed the danger of abortions. However, the Gosnell incident and even reports of abuses by Planned Parenthood demonstrate that legalizing abortion does not guarantee that the abortion industry will soon become the source of societal saints anytime soon.

Like the drug trade and prostitution, abortion is about making money off desperation and manipulation. Like the drug trade and prostitution, abortion is about unseemly practices which rob individuals of their freedom and choice. Unlike the drug trade and prostitution, however, the abortion industry is about legalized lies wrapped in facades of choice, health, freedom, and rights which actually conceal nothing but blatant greed, financial and political.

If one thinks about it, abortion is more about surrender than choice. It is more about eliminating freedom than generating it. It is more about fiction than non-fiction. It is about seeing life as a punishment, a penalty, a mistake to be avoided at all costs, all in the name of convenience, practicality, and carte blanche for pleasure without consequence and responsibility.

Abortion is about convincing women to surrender to the twisted notion that they cannot find fulfillment encumbered by children, to the patronizing insult that people who will make money off their abortion care about anything other than that profit, and to the blatant and despicable lie that a child is a typo one can delete and forget about. The same people who tell women they have the right to integrity and self-respect will turn around and scrape women’s motherhood off their most private parts as one removes mud from one’s shoes. Those liars who pretend that the constitution ensures the right to kill will ignore that same document’s very clear protection of the right to live. Worst of all, those so-called leaders whose record indicates a disdain for the unborn, partially born, or newly born will turn around and treat us as if we were born yesterday with their offensive assumptions, condescending clichés, and hypocritical demonstrations of noble intent.

At the end of the day, abortion may well be the most hypocritical, patronizing, and vile irony inflicted on mankind. Those who preach it wax poetic about being progressive, enlightened, modern, practical, reasonable, fair, compassionate, noble, and, yes, even moral. They wrap these lies in platitudes about freedom and choice, painting those who oppose abortion as oppressive, obtrusive, intolerant, ignorant, arrogant, and manipulative. When push comes to shove, however, the abortion lobby and its friends are the ones who oppress, obstruct, distort, patronize, manipulate, and hide. They who would cite freedom and choice are the ones most often limiting women’s potential and choices.

The abortion industry pretends to be all about the “yes” in women’s lives but, when the rubber hits the pavement, it is much more about the “no” in their options.

© Gabriel Garnica

Abortion: The Ultimate Discrimination

In observance of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I will hold off on Part 2 of my discussion on whether the Novus Ordo Rite embodies Deus solus until a later time. At this time, I would like to state the case why abortion is truly the ultimate form of discrimination. The dictionary defines discrimination as “ treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group,class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.” Clearly, abortion advocates make an unfavorable distinction against the unwanted unborn based on the fact that they are unwanted and unborn. In other words, to be aborted in this country at the present time, you usually have to be both unwanted and unborn.

Unwanted as enough reason to murder?

Presumably, no abortion advocate in this country would yet argue that a wanted unborn child should be forcibly aborted. I say “yet” because, as we all know, there is evidence of forced abortion by the state in countries like China. One may assume, unfortunately, that continued extension and twisted justification of the right of the state to allow abortions could eventually lead, as it has in China, to all forms of even more detestable rationalizations for abortion in any society which argues that the state knows what is best for its citizenry. Not accidentally, this argument is often at the root of many  Democratic and liberal policies and, also not coincidentally, Democrats and liberals are usually ardent supporters of abortion. Thus, being unwanted is a critical requirement for ending up dismembered, chemically burned, or poisoned in a trash can of Planned Parenthood.

Would anyone in their right mind argue that we should be allowed to kill unwanted people?  Is that not what the Nazis did?  Suppose the powers that be decided that the homeless, poor, or sick are unwanted, or burdensome. Should said powers then be allowed to go around shooting or beheading such people to get them of out society’s  hair?  Of course not, although, again, such evils as euthanasia and health policies which treat the sick and elderly as less worthwhile recipients of health care are certainly a step in the direction of the kind of madness that the Nazis displayed with great ease.

Having shown that, thankfully, we have not yet reached the moral cesspool where being unwanted is enough reason for being killed, it has to be accepted that legal abortion requires yet another unfavorable distinction to pass this society’s twisted legal muster.

The Unborn Requirement

In order to be disposable by abortion in this country, one has to be not only unwanted but, more importantly, unborn.  Being born, of course, means that one has not yet been born. Again, we have an unfavorable distinction being made based on the class belonged to rather than on individual merit and considerations, so making an unfavorable distinction against any person or thing based on that person or thing not yet having been born is clearly discrimination.

Discrimination is Usually Illogical

If there is one thing we can argue about most cases of discrimination, it is that such cases usually illustrate a glaring lack of reason and logic.  It is absurd, for example, to argue that a Latino female cannot be a great doctor simply because she is Latino and/or a female.  Similarly, saying that African-Americans cannot enter certain professions simply because they are African-Americans would justifiably be widely seen as a detestable and logically pathetic illustration of ignorance.  If society is so quick to revolt against the above examples of bias propped up by pathetic logic, then how can that same society even dare to defend the heinous evil of abortion?  Clearly, those who defend and even support abortion dare to do so by propping their case on the most flimsy logic possible.  Sadly, the popular media and others supporting abortion give themselves and others a waiver on logic in order to justify this drivel.

The Logical Absurdity of Abortion Defenders

Abortion supporters generally present a number of arguments in favor of abortion which have about as much logical depth as a drunk attempting to solve a moral dilemma.  These pathetic arguments and their logical weaknesses are as follows:

1)  Abortion is a Private Matter Between a Woman and Her Doctor……Can I kill someone in the privacy of my home or with the help of a doctor?   Of course not!

2)  Poor women who cannot afford a child should not be forced to support one……If I lose my job and cannot support my kids or wife, can I kill them to cut costs?  Absurd!

3)  Victims of rape should not be forced to have a child which reminds them of that nightmare………Can a woman kill a co-worker who reminds her of her rapist?   Kidding right?

4)   The unborn is not a human being…………………This claim is contradicted by modern embryology as well as countless experts in that field, and is usually really saying that the unborn is not yet a human being. However, as many pro-life experts argue, if you took a photo of a once-in-a-lifetime event that could change your life using an old Polaroid camera and I ripped up that photo before it developed, you would likely become enraged and yell something like “Hey, you destroyed my photo of a rare once-in-a lifetime event!!!”  It is, conversely, unlikely that you would either say “Oh, too bad, what you destroyed was not yet a unique photo anyway”  or “Hey, you ripped up my blank photo!”  The point is, the photo was developing on its own and only needed time to become what it was destined to be, just as unborn child is!  This contrasts with a few parts of a car or computer which cannot become a car or computer from themselves but need an outside addition of more parts.  Given time, the blank Polaroid will become a unique photo of  rare event and the unborn child will become a unique person. Given all the time in the world, the steering wheel, motor, transmission, and glove compartment, however, will never become a car unless someone adds more parts.

5)  The unborn may be human, be it is not a person…..At its core, this “person hood” argument, which has been identified by many as the core of the abortion debate and, not coincidentally, the greatest weakness of  the pro-abortion side, is really saying that the unborn have less rights than the born because, as philosopher Stephen Schwarz and others point out, there is no    morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. In fact, the only difference between that embryo you were and you today is based on size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.  However, would we argue that smaller people have less rights than bigger people, that young girls have less rights than fully developed women,  that the mentally retarded or physically challenged have less rights than others, that people in Alabama have less rights than those in New York, or that people who need a respirator or wheelchair have less rights than those who do not need these things?  Of course not, and to do so would represent, you guessed it, the kind of absurd and heinous discrimination that many of the very same people who scream in support of abortion rights rail against the next day.

Conclusion

We live in a society which proclaims to be intolerant of all forms of discrimination, which protests even the slightest hint of bias against people based on who they are or what group they belong to, which twists into a pretzel with even the smallest appearance of profiling against certain groups.  We define discrimination as a great evil, and pretend to be crusaders against this evil on every level.  Despite this, we are living in a society which allows the unborn to be slaughtered under the most pathetic, the most absurd, the most repugnant rationales ever concocted by human beings with a working ( I presume) brain.  Like all forms of discrimination, these rationales are weak and flimsy.  Like all forms of discrimination, these crimes should not be tolerated in a sane society.  Do we allow women to become prostitutes because they have a right to do whatever they want with their body?  No, because we argue that prostitution victimizes these women and others.  Despite clear evidence that abortion increases the danger of breast cancer, of subsequent depression, and other harms to the woman, the popular media and its abortion allies continue to paint abortion as a great and noble element of women’s health.  Despite the logical absurdity of the abortion argument as noted above, these forces continue to paint abortion as a virtuous and logical defense of women’s rights.  Like all discrimination,  abortion is nothing more than blatant ignorance justified by illogical absurdity painted as a societal and even moral right and good.

At the end of the day,  abortion, like all form of prejudice, can only exist where there is a moral vacuum between what what we ought to do and what we want to do.  For too long, and in too many ways, we have been brainwashed into thinking that, if we come up with enough excuses, we can excuse anything.  For too long, and in too many ways, we pride ourselves morally superior of ancient societies that sacrificed humans to appease their gods.  Simply put, we have no right to dress ourselves in the garb of moral arbiters for any society, modern or ancient, so-called enlightened or backward,  good or evil, until we remove the plank in our eye which is this most ultimate discrimination of all.

Copyright, Gabriel Garnica   2011

Does The Novus Ordo Mass Embody Deus Solus? Part One…..The Foundations of The Change

There are many online discussions and articles regarding the relative merits of The Tridentine Mass and the arguments supporting the changes brought about by Vatican II resulting in what is commonly described as The Novus Ordo Mass. Rather than dive into this debate arguing one side or the other as most do, I wish to humbly ask the following question:  Which version of the Mass more fully embodies the essence of Deus Solus?  I will leave the answer to that question to each of you.  Necessity and practicality will demand a brevity which, by its very nature, contradicts the very importance of this topic.  However, I am convinced that readers will be divided into three camps.  Namely, those who will need no further detail; those who will seek such detail sincerely in an effort to develop their own conclusions; and those for whom further detail would be useless.  Quite frankly, I am inspired and encouraged by the first group, motivated by the second, and amused by the third.

Philosophical Foundations

In the traditional Christian view, founded in  Aristotelian philosophy and the Thomistic synthesis of biblical theology, the state derives its authority vertically from God and is subject to the law of God including the natural law.  In The Enlightenment view, the state derives its authority horizontally from the people. The people, rather than the law of God, define if and how the power of the state will be limited,  how rights are defined and enforced and, ultimately, right and wrong. Thinkers such as  Hobbes,  Locke, and Rousseau, for example carried this evolution from God and toward man by  focusing, respectively, on security, rights, and the general will of the individual. Add the later thinking of utilitarians such as Bentham and Mill, who saw the purpose of law and society as achieving the greatest good for the greatest number, and one has a dangerous moral brew.  This maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain embodies an exercise of the individual will, as defined by the practical collective will of those in power, leading to relativism, secularism, and individualism. The Higher Good of  Artistotle and the essence of law as reason of Aquinas is thus replaced by a new Garden of Eden stumble, where morality is defined by what one wants over what one ought to do. Hobbes upholds and, ultimately, institutionalizes self-interest, and Locke declares that the individual cannot be subject to any authority without his consent.  Taken as a whole, Hobbes and Locke reject the authority of God and thus see worship as subject to individual whim.  Simply put, worship which is uncomfortable is at best worthless or disposable and at best dangerous since it dares to impede the omnipotence of the individual and that individual’s interpretations of right and wrong.  The State is about generating  comfort; physical, social, economic, as well as moral, and anything or anyone who interferes in that comfort by generating the discomfort of the masses  must be stopped or transformed into a more comfortable form.

The enlightenment and its subsequent subjectively based accomplices find their current expression in radical liberalism which, while pretending to reject and degrade all faith, actually replaces traditional Judeo-Christian faith with its own theology of subjective moral whim dressed in the garb of individual rights and freedom. This pseudo-liberal faith advocates the supremacy of the collective comfort of those who define society’s ethical and moral infrastructure.  This new, convenient morality is subject to the transitory winds of a social, economic, political and, ultimately, moral expediency which has no patience or taste for absolutes, natural law, or divine authority. Free of such constraints, the individual becomes the primary and determining agent of his or her own moral evaluation, akin to having students grade themselves in a classroom where only chaos is a certainty.  Grounded in its enlightenment roots, this radical liberalism relishes defiance and revolt as virtues and moral arrogance as a natural right.  Ultimately, the inherent value of worship becomes its ability to serve the needs, wants, and whims of those who worship rather than serving the Creator. Rather than outright rejection of faith, this twisted form of worship relishes in infecting that faith with its toxic devotion to the individual, for what better display of authority can there be than invading and overturning an opponent rather than merely ignoring or rejecting that foe?

Given these philosophical forces and their implications, it is no wonder that what is commonly seen as modernism is laced with a buffet secularism passionately entranced with individual moral autonomy. Under such circumstances, Deus Solus is not only impossible but, actually, anathema.

Psychological Foundations

Even a cursory review of the history of psychology reveals a general intolerance for the moral absolutes of traditional faith and, often, an infatuation with the supremacy of the individual. Men such as Freud, Skinner, Watson, and other key figures in the  rise and development of psychology clearly saw religion as nothing more than an annoying superstition of the ignorant.  That patronizing posture is quite vivid today as illustrated by the APA’s opposing positions to various components of traditional Catholic teaching regarding the family and sexuality, among other things.  There are numerous cases involving graduate counseling programs seeking to suspend or terminate students who have expressed religious convictions contrary to the practice codes of governing psychology or counseling bodies.  Of more relevance to this discussion, however, is Cognitive Dissonance Theory, developed by Leon Festinger. This theory proposes that individuals will always seek to reduce stress or discomfort in their environment, even if such efforts require that they shift their beliefs and rationalize their behavior.  From the standpoint of faith, this theory would seem to suggest that individuals will invariably shift their moral and worship behavior so as to ease their own doubts, discomforts, confusions, and other issues.  Most often, following the crowd, popular societal norms, and  favored nature of worship will ease that discomfort and prove increasingly appealing, regardless of the validity or effectiveness of such practices or norms.

Protestant Foundations

It has been extensively proven and documented that the Vatican II commission set up by Pope Paul VI was led by a  Progressivist,  Fr. Anibale Bugnini, and included six Protestants whose main intention and goal, as stated by Fr. Bugnini himself,  was to “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” 1  In fact, Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.”2   There is clear evidence that this change was meant to be more an obliteration than an alteration of the Roman rite as indicated by one Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the Catholic experts involved in its formulation, who stated: “This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” 2   This view was extensively confirmed by many critics, including Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani,  head of the Holy Office under three Popes,  who wrote that “the Novus Ordo Missae …. represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in the Council of Trent,” and that there are “implicit denials of Christ’s Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation.” 3

Summary

In answering the question of whether or not the Novus Ordo Mass embodies Deus Solus, I am not stating or judging whether or not this form of the Mass is valid, for there are many others far more qualified to discuss that issue than I will ever be. Neither am I pretending to be qualified to evaluate or assess the relative piety or benefit derived by attendance of one form of the Mass or the other, as that determination is one best left to God Almighty. I am well aware that there may be many attendees of each type of Mass whose approach, attitude, understanding, or devotion may leave much to be desired thereby wasting much of the potential benefit and value of their attendance.  In other words, there is nothing inherently transcendent about either form of the Mass which makes attendance per se regardless of devotion automatically superior, in my opinion.   We all know how Christ felt about hypocrisy, outward pretense, and lukewarm faith and, sadly, these defects transcend whatever form worship may take.

In attempting to answer the question of whether or not the Novus Ordo Mass embodies Deus Solus, I have briefly presented relevant philosophical, psychological, and protestant considerations involved in this issue. Taken as a whole, these elements tell us that Deus Solus is inconsistent with the belief that the individual is the supreme and most critical element of worship; that said individual is necessarily the best judge of his or her own morality; that the convenience, comfort, and ego of the individual trumps Deus Solus; and that worship is worship no matter how it is conducted.  One cannot worship God and the individual; one must choose one or the other.

In Part II of this question, I will explore and compare the distinctions between the two rites in the context of Deus Solus and leave the ultimate judgment of this issue to the reader.

1.  L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

2. Joseph Gelineau, S.J., Demain la liturgie (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1979), p.10.

3.  Modern History Sourcebook: The Ottaviani Intervention, 1969, online edition.

Copyright, 2012    Gabriel Garnica

 

The Wisdom of The Wise Men Story

The recent feast of the Epiphany tells of Magi bearing gifts being led to a King by a star and, just as a star has 5 points, so too this story carries 5 points for us to keep in mind as well.

First, the Magi represent the fact that God’s loving welcome is extended to all people from all backgrounds. After all, did they not come from different lands far away to  adore the newborn King?  While the Bible makes it clear that the Jews are God’s chosen people, it often reminds us, through the work and words of St. Paul as well as this instance, that God is there for all of us, without distinction.  We must remember this when injustice, intolerance, and inclusion are terms so often thrown around for political and social convenience.  Many wishing to twist God’s Word to include various questionable behaviors often argue that God is about unity and unconditional love, which is true up to a point. While God wants us to join together on the road to salvation, He is still the ultimate Divine and Just Judge who will apply distinction, differentiation, and contrast to separate the Just from the condemned.  As often happens, those who preach a God of total unity and no distinction are merely manipulating God’s Word for their agenda.  God is about unity and unconditional love going in, but He is also about Just Distinction, Divine Justice, and tough love going on.  God is here for all of us, but that does not mean that He will not apply Divine Justice and Distinction when dealing with each of us moving forward!

Second, the Magi came bearing gifts, which is what we each must do.  Our gifts are really the interest on God’s investment in each of us. He has given each of us certain talents and missions, and it is our duty to identify and fulfill those gifts by using them to serve God, thus bearing interest which we must then return to Him when the time comes for us to present our efforts in this enterprise of serving Him in this world.  Many people use the bounty of God’s gifts only for personal or worldly gain, with no concern for their eternal salvation.  They will thus be empty-handed when asked to give an account of their time on earth.  It is not how much we have each been given since each has been given an individual and unique assortment of abilities, aptitudes, and talents. It is, rather, what each of  us does with what we are given.  The one who saves many souls with one talent is in far better position than the one who has saved a few  or no souls with many talents.

Third, Herod tried to manipulate the Magi to find out where this newborn King was, not so that he might adore Him as well but, rather, so that he might destroy him.  We are thus reminded that, not only does power corrupt but, also, that no matter how powerful you are  here on earth, you are nothing but an insecure fool smoking delusion if you think you can ultimately succeed without God!  Likewise, we are reminded that God will guide and help those who remain fixed on finding Him, as the Magi were guided away from Herod on their return home.

Fourth, speaking about going home another way, there is a beautiful song by James Taylor called “Home By Another Way” which you should find online and listen to. It is a touching recount and take on how we often have to be prepared to return home by another path than that originally planned or preferred. What matters, then, is that we do find our way back home, not so much that we take the path we would have preferred.  God  has a plan for each of us, and surely that plan may often not be exactly or even nearly what we would prefer, hope for, or even desire. However, if we remain close to Him and likewise open to His guidance, we will be able to discern the path home to Heaven that God wants us to follow.  Following the dictates of this world may often prove counterproductive to following the path God  has chosen for us.  It is only by opening ourselves to the dictates of Heaven that we will be able to discern the path God wants us to follow back home, so that we can, in fact, go home by another way.

Lastly, we must remember that God is our Star, and He will guide us to Him if we only look in the right places. In this world where we are so often bombarded by temporal, superficial, petty, and even foolish distractions, it pays to remember that, ultimately, God should be our one and only GPS, as in God’s Plan for our Salvation.

In addition to the Feast of Epiphany, the dictionary defines “Epiphany” as a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality oressential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.”  How often we see that God is found in the simple, quiet, and peaceful place away from the scrambling superficiality of this world.  How many saints embody this contented humility so foreign to the dictates and tastes of this twisted world.  How often do we hear people mock faith, religion, and the sacred as the simple hallucinations of ignorant, superstitious hicks?  Let us see the Feast of the Epiphany as a powerful reminder that God invites all of us to use our gifts to serve Him, faithful that He will guide us home one way or another, when we remain open to the insight which only being close to God can bring!

Copyright, 2011  Gabriel Garnica

God Should Be Your BFF

This is the age of Facebook where the word “friend” has been diluted to mean “anybody you might have encountered and do not want to bother ignoring or blocking out of  your life”.  Many teens have hundreds or even thousands of so-called friends, and yet we all know that very few of these multitudes of Facebook “friends” are truly friends at all. It is a fact of life that, when we use a word excessively, the meaning and depth of that word often becomes so diluted as to eventually mean nothing at all.  Tell everyone you know that you “love” them and see how much you “loving” someone will eventually mean. Call everyone from the janitor to the head of state a “genius” and you will soon discover that this word  coming from you means very little indeed. Such may be the eventual fate of the word “friend” in the age of Facebook. I assume people will resort to adding adjectives in front of the word to breathe life back into its meaning.  One person will be my “very best” friend and the other will be a “good” friend.  Despite such efforts, the bottom line will still be that the depth, meaning, and power of the word “friend” will be permanently harmed.

A very popular internet term is BFF, meaning Best Friend Forever.  This term seems to be most often used by young girls and, in the spirit of internet dilution, usually means one’s closest friend for the time being. In full disclosure, I have had about 10 real friends in my life, with about half of these the “good” variety. While I respect and appreciate the power of  having good friendships, I have never felt it necessary, wise, or even very useful to rely too much on friendships. Everyday we see examples of what foolishly relying on so-called friends can lead to. Misplaced confidence and trust, manipulation, betrayal, jealousy, resentment, and all manner of sins can ensue from blindly choosing and maintaining toxic relationships including poorly chosen friends. Ultimately, choosing friends in a flippant way is no better or any less irresponsible to our integrity and self-interest than jumping into relationships with every other person we meet.  I know people who seem to always define themselves by their friends, in number or otherwise.  Many of these people treat their friends much better than they treat their own family, often preferring and favoring their friends over parents and siblings.

At the end of the day, we will find that, while having friendships can be a healthy and positive life experience, the healthier and stronger we are, the less we will rely on and need friendships to define us. Furthermore, we should be selective and judicious in choosing and maintaining our friendships. One or two excellent friends are much more valuable than 100 flimsy, poorly chosen friendships.  Quality over quantity should always be our philosophy in this as in most areas.

The importance of using discretion in choosing friends and carefully selecting only high quality friends is one thing, but one must also develop the qualities of being a good friend as well.  Loyalty, discretion, trust, service, unselfishness, communication, and consistency from all parties involved seem to be good signs of a constructive, healthy friendship. One final sign of a good friendship is a realistic acceptance of the other and oneself.  Placing too high or unreasonable expectations on a friendship or using that friendship merely to serve one’s interests and agenda is obviously destructive to any friendship. Likewise, we must remember that our human friendships are just that, human, and therefore susceptible to all of the weaknesses which we humans can possess.  In simple terms, human friendships can only take us so far and, by definition, can never truly be our best friendships. That being said, what friendship should be our priority?

Obviously, given the title and theme of this blog, our friendship with God should be our primary and by far our most important relationship.  None of the human weaknesses and liabilities will ever be present from God’s end of the relationship. He will always have our best interests, in the form of our salvation and everything and anything that leads to that goal, first and foremost.  The main variable here will, of course, be what kind of friend we are to our Lord.  Will we be loyal, discrete, trusting, offer service in His Name, unselfish, consistent, and seeking to maintain communication with Him?  Will we be patient with ourselves and others as well as with His Will in the process? Simply put, how important is our friendship with God Almighty and do we show that importance in our daily lives?

Apart from all of the modern rhetoric and internet distortions of what true friendship means, we must develop and foster a profound friendship with God and make the Lord our Best Friend Forever simply because, whether we believe it or not, deserve it or not, and seek it or not, He is.

Copyright, 2011  Gabriel Garnica

Herod was Also Pro-Choice

By all accounts, Herod was a monster. Although no Caligula, he could commit atrocities with the worst of them.  Historians cite the murder of 45 opponents upon assuming his throne, a brother-in-law, the second of his ten wives, and three of his own sons!  According to many scholars, Herod likely suffered from some form of Paranoid Personality Disorder, and he clearly had no qualms about murdering those he found inconvenient or even threatening to his pathetic grasp of power and influence.

While a number of scholars question the historical veracity of the slaughter of the innocents by Herod, and partly base this on the absence of clear, hard historical evidence, many others find numerous plausible explanations for this lack of evidence.  Josephus, a famous historical writer of the time, did not record the slaughter, either because he was not aware of it, or because his main information source was a good friend of Herod or, tragically, because the murder of innocent infants in that period at that location paled in comparison to other atrocities committed by Herod and others.  Furthermore, Josephus wrote for a Greco-Roman audience for whom infanticide was no particular horror. Sadly, both Greeks and Romans practiced infanticide as a form of birth control, and if they were unconcerned with the murder of their own infants, the deaths of young from a conquered land would have been even less significant to say the least.

Simply put, while there is no hard, historical evidence of the slaughter of innocents in Bethlehem around the birth of Our Lord, all known historical evidence indicates that Herod murdering infants out of some paranoid fear that these innocents were a threat to his way of life is no more unusual than expecting that he ate regularly and had little respect for the institution of marriage.

To add to the “insignificance” of this atrocity in the context of that time, there is debate as to the actual number of innocent children murdered that day.  While many writers estimate the number as anywhere from 3,000 to 64,000 innocent children, Professor William F. Albright, a leading  American Holy Land scholar, estimates that the population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth was about 300 people and, based on that figure, scholars estimate the number of  males two years old or younger to be about six or seven.  Certainly the murder of even one innocent child is one too many, but one can understand that such a relatively low number would futher allow those who would downplay such an atrocity to ignore this barbaric act. Given these points, one can argue that, even if Josephus knew of the murder of Bethlehem’s innocents, he would have considered the event trivial in comparison to the winds and beliefs of the times.

When a government deems innocent human life as being disposable, justifiable and, perhaps most important, insignificant, it is short step to infanticide for increasingly superficial and trivial reasons.  Between his insecurities and paranoid nature, Herod often saw murder as the convenient way out of many difficulties.  Such a perception would only be supported and intensified by the times in which he lived.  When a society allows itself to sink deeper into evil and sin, it becomes desensitized to an increasingly sanitized, rationalized, and delusional selfishness.

Herod was pro-choice because his society was pro-choice, not according to the desires of the  majority of the population but, rather, according to the whims and facades of those in power.  Such pro-choice is always based on the choice of the more powerful or influential over the weaker, less influential with the  least voice in society.

If one extrapolates the 6 or 7 murdered innocents in a town of 300 out to the present U.S. population of 300 million or so, the slaughter of the Bethlehem innocents then would be the equivalent of murdering 6,000 to 7,000 infants in the U.S. today in one day, which is nearly twice the 3,700 children murdered daily in the U.S. by abortion.  No matter how one views this barbaric act by this monster, it was most certainly an atrocity of the highest order.  

Although abortion defenders argue that rape and the health of the mother are critical reasons for keeping abortion legal, statistics show that only 1% of women have abortions due to rape and only 6% have abortions for health reasons, with 93% having abortions for “social” reasons (unwanted or inconvenient child).  While many such defenders argue that abortion should be a legal solution for women already “burdened” by other children and heavy family responsibilities, statistics show that nearly two-thirds of abortions involve never-married women. In fact, statistics show that most abortions are obtained by either middle-class white women as a convenient end to an unwanted or inconvenient pregnancy out of wedlock or by poor, minority women out of desperation and/or confusion and fear, with most abortions being sought by the former group.

Abortions in this country are nothing more than legalized erasers by which women can eliminate inconvenient, perceived threats to their way of life resulting from negligent immorality.  History shows that Herod was simply one of many historical monsters who saw murder as nothing more than an eraser by which he could eliminate inconvenient, perceived threats to his way of life resultilng from immoral rule.

We claim to be such a developed, enlightened society but, as history shows, so-called enlightened and progressive societies have long considered innocent life including infant innocent life as nothing more than a dispensible, disposable commodity. Let history show that those societies which see innocent life as collateral damage on the road to temporal pleasures will themselves become collateral damage to the predictable cycle of ultimate justice.

Copyright, 2011  Gabriel Garnica

The Visitation as a Double Cry Against Abortion

The visitation of Our Blessed Mother to Her cousin Elizabeth is recounted in Luke 1:39-57 and stands as a powerful, double cry against abortion.  Proponents of this heinous and barbaric act pretend that the unborn child is anything but human, but the humanity of a fetus is front and center in this beautiful narrative.  First, we are told that the child within Elizabeth, St. John the Baptist, lept in joy upon feeling the presence of His Divine Savior who, according to many scholars, may have been conceived 10 days before. Likewise, Elizabeth refers to that child within Mary’s womb as “my Lord”, thereby indicating that, despite the fact that this unborn Child had just been conceived, said Child was already our Lord.

So, in effect, we have two unborn children being represented as human. One, our Savior, was already being referred to as “Lord”, and the other, John the Baptist, was reacting to the Presence of his Lord and Savior.

Anyone who has ever seen a sonagram knows that a fetus is human. Those whose agenda lies in defending the vile act of abortion go on and on about how the fetus is not human, but accompany these claims with every effort to hide evidence which indicates just the opposite. 

Abortion is genocide.  It is a holocaust against innocent life.   Abortion is infanticide.   It is arrogant  greed and hypocrisy using distortion and lies to manipulate fear and confusion at the expense of innocent blood.  Many may argue the relative ranking of evil but, from my perspective, one’s defense, rationalization, support, or even condoning of abortion is a litmus test for qualification to argue against any other evil.  Can one seriously, for example, listen to an abortionist argue that it is a sin to lie?

The Visitation, then, stands as a simple, beautiful, moving, and subtle yet clear reminder that a fetus is every bit a child of God who deserves to live as much as any of us do.  It is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy to ask or demand any right or privilege while denying this most innocent life the right to live simply because one is  somehow inconvenienced in some way by its birth. The blood of these innocents is on the hands of those who perform this vile procedure as well as any of dismiss innocent life as some disposable commodity!

Copyright, 2011 Gabriel Garnica