Lent: More Than Just a Season of Temptation

by Marianne Robison
{originally posted at UC's Newman Center blog}

I cannot remember a time when Girl Scout cookies did not arrive during Lent. Sitting smugly in their brightly colored cardboard boxes they seemed to mock my Lenten sacrifice, which, for many years, was invariably “no sweets.” In those moments I would begrudge the necessary self-denial of the Lenten season as well as all of the temptations which would inevitably ensue. It had seemed so easy to give something that I liked up on Ash Wednesday, but as the weeks progressed my resolve weakened. Growing up I wasn’t entirely certain how my sacrifice primed me for Easter besides the fact that I would be good and ready to stuff my face with chocolate when the holiday arrived.

Sometime in the last few years I realized that something was lacking in my understanding and in my approach to Lent. After all, this season is considered the pinnacle of the Catholic calendar year. It is during this time that we ought not to feel burdened (i.e. by our self-denial); rather, we ought to feel liberated as we strip ourselves of those vices which bind us more closely to the material things of the world than to a spiritual relationship with our Father in Heaven.

For, truly, that is the purpose of the Lenten season: to grow in love and appreciation of God.

We have marked 40 days of our calendar year as different from all the rest, and this is because this period of time is filled with spiritual opportunities. First and foremost, we have the opportunity to renew our appreciation of the ultimate sacrifice of love the world has ever seen. As we let the incredible significance of Jesus’ conquest over death sink in, we have the opportunity to find a new perspective on our lives and on our relationships and to remind ourselves once again that love conquers all.

Ideally, the period of Lent should be treated as a kind of extended retreat as we strip ourselves of those worldly things which may ensnare and enslave us. That being said, I know as well as any college student (or adult for that matter) that time stops for no man and that our responsibilities and obligations will not be reduced during this time period. Our to-do lists will not spontaneously shrink so as to accommodate time dedicated to prayer, since prayer is an activity which requires a definitive allotment of time to focus your energies towards God.

Or is it?

Certainly, focused contemplative prayer is extraordinarily useful in developing a deeper, more intimate bond with God, but the commitment and mental dedication for such an activity can often be so intimidating as to prevent us from engaging with God at all. We may shy away from the activity unless we are in the right mood or mindset. However, as Blessed John Henry Newman once said, “[Faith] is not a mere temporary strong act or impetuous feeling of the mind... but it is a habit, a state of mind, lasting and consistent.” (Magnificat, February 2015)

To build our relationship with God, the first step is to recognize that He exists beyond the prayer space. Once we realize that God’s spirit permeates every nook and cranny of this earth, we will also realize that every space is sacred. If every space is sacred that would mean that no matter where we are we are prompted to sanctify our actions.

So, this brings me to the meat and potatoes of my advice to my dear readers approaching this Lenten season, and which is stated most eloquently in the words of Saint Paul in the second reading on Sunday: “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31)

Life may be characterized by nonstop activity, and I say this both in the sense of working adults as well as in the sense of biology. Organisms constantly interact with one another and all of the little cells in our bodies are constantly influencing each other simply because they exist together. It is in this ebb and flow of interaction that we can recognize the glory of God’s spirit as it prompts relationship between all of the elements of our world. The tiniest element of our world—an atom—moves aimlessly around until it bumps into another atom and then voila! The two become one in an entirely new molecule!

We humans are not so different from the rest of God’s creation as it is in our constant activity that we bond with others and grow as a result of our union. Granted, spiritual bonds are different things entirely from the kind of molecular bonds which I was talking about earlier, but the illustration is still useful. The point is that God created us all to be active creatures and our activity may therefore be blessed if it is done with a sense of appreciation and love for our creator.

I am here drawing upon the spiritual practices of Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection who “resolved to make the love of God the end of all his actions.” I would try to paraphrase some of his beautiful ideas, but he speaks far more eloquently than I can in his novel published posthumously and titled, The Practice of the Presence of God:

“Men invent means and methods of coming at God’s love, they learn rules and set up devices to remind them of that love... Is it not quicker and easier just to do our common business wholly for love of him?” 

“The time of business does not with me differ from the time of prayer, and in the noise and clatter of my kitchen, while several persons are at the same time calling for different things, I possess God in as great tranquility as if I were upon my knees at the Blessed Sacrament.” (Magnificat, February 2015)

It is up for us this Lent to open ourselves to encountering God both in the quiet stillness of our hearts as well as in the business of everyday life.

Marianne is my hilarious, holy and helpful second sister (the fourth of us six kids); she is a double major in biology and English, with a minor in Spanish because we can't convince her to triple major.

#7QT: Will, Fourth Wise Man

It's Friday, Friday... Hi to Jen and y'all!

{one}

Writing is more fun than packing. I wrote The ABCs of Gift Giving for The Imaginative Conservative and hey-o! You should check it out.

More Advent posts to come too so stay tuned... I really like this one.

{two}

I've been dressing Grace all wrong...

Will (to Grace): What are you wearing?! It looks like a kitten wearing an astronaut suit! You look ridiculous!
Julie: I think that is an owl...
Will (upon inspecting more closely): Ah yes, an owl. Still looks like a kitten in an astronaut suit.

Will: How do you like not wearing pants?
Grace:
Will: I don't like your pants. They have a reindeer on the butt, and then people look at your butt.
Grace:
Will: It's all about the precedent, Grace!

Grace is not amused.

{three}

Or have I??

Practicing kicks!

Sitting on the bed, helping me pack... or distracting me, either one

{four}

Okay, I know you've all been waiting with baited breath... our Christmas decorations:

O [first] Christmas tree!

Grace is getting her stocking for Christmas from Mimi!

Yes, Jesus is already out. 

{five}

If you're on FB, I'm sure you've seen the request to share your favorite ten books (not thinking too hard, just the ones that have really stood out to you); here are mine:

DRUM ROLL. {in alphabetical order}

The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Go Down, Moses by William Faulkner
Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl
The End of the Affair by Graham Greene
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis
Anne of the Island by L.M. Montgomery
Shizuko's Daughter by Kyoko Mori
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren
The Loved One by Evelyn Waugh

{six}

December TBM Topic #36: "Feast Days and Holidays" 

Christmas is the feast day of Jesus' birth, and it's also an occasion of Santa Claus. Where does liturgical living come in - celebrating feast days as well as national holidays! How they are both important to celebrate? People do parades for Fourth of July, start playing Christmas music after Halloween -- and what about Our Lady of Guadalupe? Or the anniversary of our Baptism? Celebrating our birthday and our Confirmation saint's day! How do you see it?

Join us!

{seven}

Staring contest. Anddddd go!

Pals!

Happy days, y'all!

Because I am not a Schlarb

My sister Katie wrote a beautiful post for The Bright Maidens #LiveLent series:

They say forgiveness is a tool used not for the benefit of those who have wronged you, but by the forgiver as part of the healing process. Bitterness and anger tear at a person’s soul until there is nothing left; hatred eats away at all that was once good in you. This is not how life is meant to be.  

And so, the million dollar question: what to give up? Because if you give up nothing, you are obviously a schlarb. Giving up candy and sweets was all well and good in grade school, but does giving those up make you or I the person God intended?  

No, not really.

Read more here.

My sister and I in Berlin! 

Want to submit you own? There's still time! Post it on the Bright Maidens' FB page!

I Bet You Think This Post Is About You

The hubris of the Catholic Church is often a huge turn-off to many people. How can she, the Church, this whore (my mother), claim to know the will of God?

A Catholic Church in Munich, Germany

After all, everyone knows her reputation. Everyone knows her mistakes. Everyone believes they know all about her and her kind- those “Catholics” who “claim” to “know” about God, but really, they do dead works and worship dead people.

And yet, the Church lives and copes and, more importantly, thrives. Can that not imply the Church knows something the rest of us do not? Through her faith, she is saved. Through her works, she is sanctified.


Continue Reading at Ignitum Today >>>>>>>

The Tale of Two Know-Nothings

The basics sound pretty boring: my fiancé and I are virgins and we’re stoked about our wedding night (197 days to go!). Not in the, I-Am-Going-To-Give-You-The-Most-Awkward-Kiss-EVAH kind of wedding excitement, but more of a, Ahh!-Finally-We-Are-Officially-And-Sacramentally-One.

It is surely by the grace of God that I am still a virgin, and that my parents’ “no sex before marriage!!!!!!!” talk continues to resonate that deeply within me. I didn’t know about Theology of the Body until my senior year of college, after an almost disastrous (but certainly a wake-up call) relationship fizzled out. I tell myself, If I hadn’t been Catholic, I probably would have had sex. And that scares me. That I had considered it. Not because I am afraid of sex; but because, now that I am engaged to B., I am horrified at the idea of anyone else being that close to me.

 B., my fiancé, is a med student, and his absolute comfort with all parts man and woman have made our conversations about sex hilarious and genuine. There is nothing I can say to shock him. He’s delivered a few babies now (under his attending, during his OB/GYN rotation) and has seen more women in their real form, not a glorified one. Women do not go into the hospital looking like a super-model, and I take comfort in knowing he sees my body as it should be.

I’m slender and reasonably athletic, but I still have my problem areas, for instance. B. shrugs and says, women carry around more body fat. It’s not an insult, it’s a fact. When we started discussing NFP, he asked me about my cycle. He isn’t grossed out by blood, or easily for that matter. I keep him more-or-less updated on it, since it’s a little irregular. Moreover, since we live two hours away from each other (generally), we’re accustomed to and satisfied waiting; we know this will come in handy when he has long shifts at the hospital or we have to abstain.

The best part about being virgins is the ability to show another person how much you love them without the Trump Card. I don’t have to prove I love B., because I’ve already agreed to marry him, bear his children, and spend my life with him. I love him, so I want to do all these things with him. I want to have sex with him: but not yet. There is an order to life, as we see in the sacraments: first we are baptized and consecrated to God and the Church; then we reach an age of rationality, repent, and receive forgiveness for our sins; then, once we are purified, we receive the body and blood of Christ; this is followed by a re-dedication to the Church, to live out our faith, and a re-infusion of the Holy Spirit to set fire to our lives and souls. After that, what road will we take?

I watched an interview with Olympian Lolo Jones last night. She is a virgin and the interviewer was laughing at her as she said it was harder than training for the Olympics or finishing college. I wanted to shout AMEN SISTER!!! and tell the interviewer to stop laughing. Why would you laugh at another person’s honor and nobility? And stop with the Tim Tebow jokes: their bravery only underscores a weakness in American virtues.

What separates man from beast is reason; sex is the “natural” thing to do, but humans can choose not to do it. Just because you can have sex with anyone doesn’t mean you should, and the most reasonable thing in my mind is to continue to honor and respect my future husband by not having sex with him, just as he does to me. It may not sound very sexy, but much fruit can be born as two commit to sanctifying themselves (and consequently, the other) on their path toward a all-encompassing unity.

B. has blessed my life, and I am a better woman for it. Our shared temptations only bring us closer as we avoid decisions that will radically change our lives. Our wedding night is going to be awesome, in the awe-inspiring sense of the word. I don’t know what to expect, but I’m not too concerned. This isn’t to say I won’t get nervous jitters, but I trust B. so explicitly that I know whatever happens will only further solidify that God matched us in Heaven.

Originally posted on Kate L.'s Real Catholic Love and Sex blog, as Part II of her honeymoon series

Guest Post: North Carolina and the Great Debate

Since I'm barely keeping my head above water with work + wedding planning, blogging has taken a back seat, and I apologize. To remedy the situation, I've got the awesome North Carolinian Brittany Makley, the sister of one of my good friends, to shed some light on the recent voting down South. Brittany is a cradle Roman Catholic, married, works for a think tank, and has a pretty adorable baby. Now, without further adieu:


North Carolina and the Great Debate


by Brittany Makley

 Maybe the Mayans were right, and 2012 is the year when the great apocalypse will end all of humankind. If you listen to the Left’s handwringing after Tuesday’s primary election in North Carolina, the end of the world seems right around the corner. However, here are a few observations from the ground, along with some fun facts that have been conveniently left out of much of the debate and media coverage.

After nearly a decade of continuous efforts to get a bill through the State Legislature that would place a Marriage Amendment on the ballot, and 16 years after the Legislature reiterated that North Carolina law would only recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman, supporters and opponents of the NC Marriage Amendment engaged in a frantic eight month campaign to get out the vote. While the campaign did open many opportunities for a discussion on the nature, importance, and role of marriage and government’s recognition of it, polls indicate most voters made up their minds on this issue before the campaigning ever began. In the end, more than 1.3 million North Carolina voters and 93 of the State’s 100 counties gave a landslide 22% margin of victory to the Marriage Amendment—61% support and 39% opposed.

North Carolina is an anomaly in politics. Until 2008, we spent about 50 years as a solid red state in national matters, sending the notorious Jesse Helms to the U.S. Senate five times beginning in 1972, giving him a storied 30-year career there. At the same time, this was a solidly Blue-Dog Southern Democrat state internally. The General Assembly was controlled, almost without interruption, by Democrats from Reconstruction until 2010. In 2008, North Carolina fell into the Democrat column for president for the first time since 1976, and, in 2010, gave Republicans control of the Legislature for the first time in 140 years. That Republican legislature passed a bill in September 2011 to place a marriage amendment on the ballot for the people to decide its fate.

On May 8, supposedly “purple” North Carolina slam-dunked a marriage amendment into the State Constitution. We joined all the rest of our southern neighbors in protecting the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman in the constitution. We join 30 other states in keeping the definition of marriage squarely in the hands of the people and away from the prying activism of judges or legislators.

And, no, the apocalypse is not coming. Fiancées and boyfriends are not now allowed to beat their girlfriends. Children are not being ripped from their parents’ homes and left without health insurance on the streets. SWAT teams are not storming into unmarried couples’ bedrooms. There are two primary reasons North Carolinians (and our neighbors who wish to avoid being sucked into the black hole created when we poof into our apoplectic oblivion) can breath a sigh of relief, drink some green tea, and do their favorite yoga routine before bed without fear of waking tomorrow in a scene out of Independence Day:

1. Nothing has changed in North Carolina law. Marriage in North Carolina has always been defined, even before we were a state, as the union of one man and one woman. Additionally, in 1996, North Carolina passed a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that says same-sex “marriages” performed in other states will not be recognized here. The federal DOMA, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, protects North Carolina’s 10th Amendment right to protect marriage here from attempted redefinition by other states.

So, this long-recognized definition of marriage is now part of the State Constitution. All laws and policies tied to the definition of marriage in North Carolina will continue to be enforced the same today as they were on Monday, because all the definitions in the law remain the same. It is just that one of those definitions—marriage—now requires a super-majority of the legislature and a majority vote of the people to be changed.

2. The second—oft ignored—sentence of the Amendment protects private contracts. I know, I know … there’s a SECOND sentence? Yes. I understand this may surprise those of you who do not make a habit of trolling the North Carolina General Assembly website for exact bill language, because, well, the media and the opponents’ $2 million campaign essentially ignored its existence. Here is the actual text of the Marriage Amendment that is now a part of North Carolina’s Constitution:

“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized by this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party, nor does this section prohibit the courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.” 

Shocking, I know. North Carolina legislators managed to craft an Amendment that protects both marriage and individual rights in private contracts. Across the board, opponents of the Amendment generally ignored this second sentence because it is really inconvenient for their sky-is-falling fear-mongering (dare I say, lies) about the impact of the passage of the Amendment on adults’ abilities to love and live in peace.

 North Carolina’s Marriage Amendment is not, and never has been, about discrimination. It is about preservation. Marriage has always been defined according to the historical, natural law, and, shudder, Christian understanding of society’s foundational institution. North Carolina voters were given the exact Amendment language on their ballots, and then asked whether they were “For” or “Against” marriage. Knowing that marriage is not defined by, but rather recognized by, government, they took a bold stand not just for our State, but for the whole nation, in favor of marriage. Because, inherently, North Carolinians know that “as goes the family, so goes the nation, and so goes the whole world in which we live.” Thanks, Pope John Paul II, for that little nugget of wisdom!

I know this can be an emotionally-charged topic, so, as with all comments on this blog, please keep it civil! No haterade drinking around here. I would also like to add that archaeologists have found a new Mayan calendar, so the world is not going to end on December 21 (which is awesome, because that's the day I'm gettin' married!)

Theology on Tap

In college, the Dogwood Society (my major's academic honorary) was a little platoon of love and laughs. The handful of us would send encouraging notes during our regular all-night writing sessions, pass around humorous takes on American history and politics, and would periodically get together for "Founding Fridays" to share in fellowship over a few brews.

Though partial to wheat beers and amber ales, it is well known that I love Guinness beer. Therefore, when a dear fellow Dogwoodian suggested I read The Search for God and Guinness: A Biography of the Beer that Changed the World by Stephen Mansfield, I knew my friend had excellent taste in both beverages and books.

This book is delightful. If you, dear reader, have any interest in beer, religion, family businesses, history, marketing, science, politics, or culture, you may enjoy this good read. Written with precision, The Search for God and Guinness reads like a methodical conversation or college lecture. Mansfield immersed himself into the wide topic of "Guinness" while remaining an excellent third-party observer. It seems he, as his reader, had a lot to learn about the Guinness family and their barley business.

Continue reading at The Imaginative Conservative >>>>>>>

The Nanny Diaries

Four months ago, I started a new job as a Jack-of-all-Trades. I create and acquire art, and open galleries. I'm into urban planning, total destruction and crisis control. I have daily culinary adventures. I read dozens of books and answer even more questions.

Yes, I'm a babysitter.

There is little glamour in telling people about the 30 hours I spend each week caring for a 1 and 4 year old. I drink 3 cups of coffee in the morning. I go home physically and emotionally drained, only to tell my family how much fun the day was; or if it was not fun, how tomorrow will be better. St. Philip Neri's prayer is often on my mind: "Get me through today Lord, and I will not fear tomorrow."

For no matter how much I've grown to love these kids, some days are horrible. Tantrums. Crying. Unrepentant disobedience. The outsider may ask, "Why continue at this job? Why babysit? How can such menial labor be worth the headaches?"

Continue reading at Creative Minority Report >>>>>>>

CMR. Now with extra Julie.

Don't Buy Me Love

The little girl I babysit likes to give me her art. As it is now February, she is currently making Valentines. She asks me how to spell my name, writes the letters backwards and proudly presents it to me. I praise it, praise her and show it off. She makes sure I take it home with me, alongside the ones I made. I hang them up on my family’s fridge and in my room.

Isn't she talented?

I do not like the Valentine’s Day holiday season. I do not think the feast day of Sts. Chocolate Hearts, Red Roses and Hallmark Cards should be so elaborately celebrated. I do not like the idea of packaging Love; I do not like the commercialization of emotions. I do not like the supposed pressure couples feel to do something “special” or the unnecessary outrage of single people.

Continue Reading at  IGNITUM TODAY >>>>>>>

Et tu, Santorum?

Friends, Catholics, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury our Catholic presidential hopefuls, not praise them.

That is, not literally bury them, but submit an argument thatthose who are Catholic in faith only and not action are not fit to lead America.

I am speaking, of course, specifically about former Speaker of theHouse Newt Gingrich and Senator Rick Santorum. Both respectable men, decent men even, but not presidential material. True, they’re more Catholic than the late President Kennedy, this country’s first Catholic president, but that gives them few points in my book.

The big sticking point for many conservatives is their pro-life stance. Another is their support of marriage between a man and a woman. This is something I strongly support as well, but the way both men wish to go about it is wrong, and why I cannot endorse either for the presidency.

Thomas Peters wrote in the Washington Post,

On the question of the definition of marriage, Gingrich has distinguished himself inhaving zero patience for activist judges who attempt to redefine marriage unilaterally. He supports a federal marriage amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Santorum also supports federal mandates for marriage, and said during the October 18th Republican debate that "the 10th amendment [is] running amok":



Read more at Creative Minority Report >>>>>>>

Looking For Love in a Hope Filled World

In this season of Advent, I’d like to propose a new song to add to the usual Christmas carol repertoire: Rhianna’s latest single, “We Found Love.”

The song is catchy, but to warn the studio audience: the music video is not for PG-rated and is an excellent example of everything Christians profess love not to be. Nonetheless, it is the refrain which caught my attention: “We found love in a hopeless place” is repeated over and over again.

When I first heard the song, I immediately thought of 1 Timothy 1:1, where Paul greets Timothy “by [the] command of God our savior and of Christ Jesus our hope” (emphasis mine).

This world can seem like a hopeless place. Catholic persecution is becoming more apparent at home and abroad, the economy is hurting families, infancide is seen as a choice and not a crime, and the majority of politicians offering themselves to potentially lead our country are a joke.

It is no coincidence that the first week of Advent is hope. It’s more than a campaign slogan: hope is a theological virtue. St. Thomas, in the Summa Theologica, wrote “the object of hope is a future good which is difficult to obtain, yet possible.” This is precisely why we Christians have a whole season devoted to awaiting Christ, whose Incarnation brings joy to the world, peace to all people, and, most importantly, hope.

Continue Reading at Creative Minority Report>>>>>>>

Guest Post: Why Convert?: Invincible Ignorance vs. Knowledge of the Truth

by JFB, a friend in seminary

I recently learned from a friend about a theological problem that he had faced. Once, while talking with some of his friends, he was asked by one of them who was a Protestant whether Catholics believed that anyone not a member of the Catholic Church was destined for Hell.

My friend responded, "No, Catholics believe that if a non-Christian leads a good moral life to the best of his knowledge, Jesus will have mercy." The Protestant then asked the next logical question: “Well, if that’s the case, why would you want to evangelize? If you just let them stay in their ignorance, they’ll have a greater chance of getting into heaven, because if a person doesn’t know about Jesus, he won’t be held to the higher standard than a Christian would be.”

This is very a reasonable question, and quite wrong-headed. First, let us make some general assumptions. It is not my purpose here to prove the Catholic Church is the one, true religion. I am merely showing why a Catholic should want to convert someone and risk their rejection rather than let them serve God as best they can with the knowledge they have.

So we assume that the Catholic Church is the one, true universal church, founded by Jesus Christ approximately 2000 years ago. The Catholic Church holds the deposit of faith given to us by Jesus Christ and the surest means of acquiring salvation. The Catechism says, "The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: 'There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer'" (CCC 605).

Therefore, anyone who loves God and seeks to know and serve Him as best as they are able -- be they Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, or Pagan -- is capable of being redeemed by Jesus through his suffering and death and entering Paradise. At the very least, it is not ours to judge on the final destination of any person.

Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He "acquired" this right by his cross. The Father has given "all judgment to the Son." Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself. By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one's works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love (CCC 679).

So then, why attempt to convert anyone? Why not let them try to live their life the best that they can, shielded at the Final Judgment by Invincible Ignorance?

Let me begin with a little joke. The denominations do not matter much for the general telling of the joke. One day, a Roman Catholic Priest, a Byzantine Priest, and a Rabbi are walking along a river. The Catholic Priest sees a Coca-Cola machine on the other side of the river and, being thirsty, walks across the surface of the river, buys a coke, and then walks back.

The Byzantine Priest is also thirsty and he too walks across the river to buy a coke. The Rabbi is astounded by this and decides he wants a coke too; if these guys can walk on water, so can he! He steps out into the river and immediately falls in. He pulls himself ashore and steps out again. As he's falling in the second time, the Catholic priest turns to the other and says, "Do you think we should tell him where the rocks are?"

The Catholic Church is not just another religion. Its beliefs are not just as valid as anyone else's. Now, in terms of comparing salvation to walking across the river to get a coke, the Rabbi might have been able to swim across on his own. The current may have pulled him downstream and he would be exhausted and wet, but it is possible for him to make it. It is also possible that he could have drowned.

If, when he made it to the coke machine, he were to be met there by one of his Priest friends and told about how he could have walked on the rocks, do you think he would've thanked him? Would he not have preferred to have been told that before he nearly went off a waterfall?

True: he may have decided that he felt like a swim and forsaken the rocks, and that would be his own decision. If a person of another faith or lack thereof is truly dedicated to learning the Truth of this life and serving it to the best of their ability, they should run to conversion when they are presented with the truths of the Catholic Church. If, on the other hand, they turn you away, mock you, and/ or refuse to listen to what you have to say, then they have judged themselves already (as stated above in CCC 679).

But maybe, just maybe, what you said will touch their heart beyond their understanding and some day lead them to the truth. In short, by attempting to convert someone to Catholicism you are only doing them a favor, or at the very least you are doing them no disservice because they are not intent on living the best way that they can. A further analogy that might be made is that hoping that someone will be saved by ignorance of the truth is about as safe as hoping that by virtue not teaching someone self-defense they will never be mugged.

Now, how to go about teaching someone about the truth of the Catholic Church: I'm afraid there is no sure method. Even logic can be ignored by someone sufficiently determined to do so. But perhaps the best way to convert someone is by example. To quote (somewhat inaccurately, I'm sure) a Priest I know: "I have never converted anyone by defeating them in logical argument. Rather those I have converted did so because they saw a completeness in my life which they lacked."

Another way of saying this is to use the words of St. Francis: "Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary use words." But this doesn't mean you should not have logical arguments at the ready.

"...Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame" (1 Peter 3:15-16). 

I hope this note has been enlightening. My final thought is that if you want to achieve Heaven, you must live what you preach, and preach by how you live.

Oremus pro invicem

Guest Post: Scapulars are Distractors from What’s Really Important

TBM topic 18: Scapulars

Join the discussion!

Guest post by B.

“Take, beloved son, this scapular of thy Order as a badge of my confraternity, and for thee and for all Carmelites, a sign of grace. Whoever dies in this garment will not suffer everlasting fire. It is a sign of salvation, a safeguard in dangers, and a pledge of peace and of the covenant.” 
--The Mother of God, 1251 AD

Among many Catholic traditions, scapulars have always been a source of confusion. At first, they seemed to me a cop-out. Simply wear this piece of cloth around your neck, and get a free ticket to heaven, no matter what you did in your life! It was an amulet that shielded you from your own crimes. Who needs sacraments when you’ve got a scapular? I never wore one in high school because I decided I wanted to get into heaven based on my faith and works, not on what I was wearing when I keeled over.

However, I later learned a much deeper problem with scapulars. Driving home with a few friends of mine, salvation of non-Christians came into the conversation. One Protestant friend asked if Catholics believed if non-Christians automatically went to hell.

 “No,” I replied, “Catholics believe that if a non-Christian leads a good moral life to the best of his knowledge, Jesus will have mercy.”

 The Protestant then followed up with, “Well, if that’s the case, why would you want to evangelize? If you just let them stay in their ignorance, they’ll have a greater chance of getting into heaven, because if a person doesn’t know about Jesus, he won’t be held to the higher standard than a Christian would be.”

I was confused by this as it seemed quite reasonable. A maximal chance to get to heaven made sense to me. Another Catholic friend spoke up and said, “Life’s not about getting to heaven.”

Whoa.

Our Lady of Mt. Carmel: Jesus > scapulars

Life’s not about getting to heaven. I now embrace this idea whole-heartedly. When we’re children, all we understand is punishment/reward. We know if we don’t do our chores, we’ll be punished, but if we do our chores, nice things happen! Later, however, we find out that those chores, be it cleaning your room or washing the dishes, are actually good in of themselves, not because we receive a reward from doing them! We mature and begin to do these things because we want to, not because of a reward we’ll receive.


Life is the same way. When we are immature in our faith, we focus on our reward (heaven) and our punishment (hell). However, as we mature in our faith, we don’t do the right thing so that we can go to heaven; instead we do the right thing because it’s our purpose in this world! We do the right thing because we realize that it’s the best way to glorify God with the life and rationality He gave to us.

Heaven and hell should be the last thing on a Christian’s mind. We need to be focused on why we’re here on earth, and how we make the world a better place than how we found it. Scapulars distract from this as it focuses on what comes after instead of what is in front of us right now. Whatever comes after we die, that’s just extra. We’ll all die someday, and when we do it should be our desire to answer for what we did and what we failed to do. We should be proud to answer for whether we fulfilled our purpose. I don’t want to hide behind an amulet; I want to be exposed.

Judge me, O Lord.

Guest Post: Tattoos are Permanent….and You are an Idiot

TBM Topic 12: Tattoos

Join the discussion!

Guest post by B.

Most of my own views have already been stated by previous posters, that tattoos aren’t wrong, but they can be quite distracting and thus have important social consequences that need to be considered. I believe that the strongest argument for why one should very much consider not getting a tattoo is wonderfully summarized in this video, which also gives the title of this piece:


(warning: it has a few offensive words for the faint of ear)

A much more interesting argument than why you shouldn’t get a tattoo is why you should get one! As far as I’ve thought about it, there are two main reasons to consider a tattoo: to seal a memory, or to make a sign of commitment.

People before me posted pictures of tattoos showing devotion to God and Mary. I would like to offer a potential new tradition involving tattoos: getting inked together with your significant other after you get married! A ring can easily be removed as about a million of our nation’s married couples are demonstrating annually, but a tattoo requires a bit more effort to erase that mark. Not only would a tattoo be a permanent sign of commitment, it also would encourage choosing wisely!

Make sense? I think so. It doesn't have to be gaudy or publicly displayed, and if your partner doesn’t want one, there’s no sense in pressuring him/her to get one anyway.

Anyone else think it’s an interesting idea?

Guest Post: Individual Modesty

TBM Topic 11: Catholic Modesty

Join the discussion!

Guest post by B.

Please note that this is in particular regard to clothing. On the subject of Catholic modesty, it is written in the Catechism that:

2521. Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

I couldn't agree more. As a 20-something male exploding with youth, sex crosses my mind a bajillion times a day. When I see a young women dressed immodestly, it is much, much harder to recognize the "intimate center of the person," and rather focus on what I see in front of me: a piece of meat. I think if people want to be considered for who they really are, and not just their body, modesty is essential.

The problem, however, is identifying what exactly is modesty. The Catechism says that it means "refusing to unveil what should remain hidden." That's all good and wonderful, but it also very vague. What, exactly, should remain hidden? Staggeringly different opinions on this matter are observed through the world and history. Throughout all of our time on this planet, we've nailed it down to somewhere between this and this.

So where exactly does Catholic modesty lie? At what point does one begin taking excessive measures to preserve modesty? Can a Catholic show her shoulders? Can a Catholic man take off his shirt on the tennis court when it's 90 degrees? How about a woman? How about a woman if she's wearing a sports bra? Can a Catholic wear a bikini? These questions are impossible to answer, because it doesn't seem like there is an objective standard for quantitative modesty at all.

If an explicit objective standard besides 'be modest' doesn't exist, what is a Catholic to do? A simple test is to ask yourself why you're wearing what you're wearing. Are you wearing a particular item to inspire lust in someone else, or are you wearing it because it's hot outside, or because you need more flexibility? Since no one can definitively say what body parts are okay to display, and how much, then it would seem that everything is fair game in the proper context.

That certainly isn't a license to wear whatever you want wherever you want, but it gives a person freedom to wear what items that best handle particular situations. There doesn't seem much reason to wear a skin-tight leotard on the streets except to show off your body, but on the gymnasium floor every ounce of flexibility is needed. The former is immodest, the latter isn't.

I think it's important to note as well that while a person should be modest to avoid stirring temptation in others, it's also very fair to expect maturity from your fellow man. If this wasn't the case, everyone would be obligated to wear burqas in order to minimize lustful impulses. If you see a person with clothes you deem immodest, think about why they're wearing what they're wearing. If I do that and I still think that they could wear items more conservative while still being comfortable and not impeding their actions, I feel I have room to criticize.

It's interesting to imagine if we grew up in an environment where what scandalizes us today were commonplace, those things might not be as likely to inspire the same kind of lustful thinking as they do now. I think Victorians were prudish; they would likely think me highly immodest, at the least.

Modesty is important to protect personhood. Clothing and actions should be conservative to the point of compromising practical comfort/need. This means modest dress can cover a wide range of dress depending on a person's situation. In the situations where less clothing is required, it should be expected of your fellow man to repress his lust the best he can and deal, and eventually society will get used to it. Be aware that if you're concerned whether or not your crossing the line from modest to immodest, erring on the side of more than less is the best way to preserve your personhood in the eyes of others.

Throw some shorts over those bikini bottoms.