Re-building a Catholic Culture...

By restoring continuity with Tradition.

That, it seems to me, is what Pope Benedict's pontificate is all about.

Here at St. Stanislaus, one of the ways I'm trying to follow the pope's lead is in a program we started in our parish school last year, Liturgical Music.

In this program (which I am currently teaching) our children learn about the liturgy and learn the basic Catholic prayers, as well as the Ordinary of the Mass, in Latin. I also teach them Gregorian Chant as well as other Catholic sacred music, and we try to give them an exposure to some of the treasures of our rich tradition.

And the program is bearing fruit. You can hear that in the recording I posted last week of our children chanting the Gloria at a school Mass.

Here is another recording, this time of our fifth and sixth graders. I taught them the Regina Coeli, and this is them singing it at one of our Masses during the Easter season.


Regina Coeli

I am tremendously proud of our kids!

Music from St. Stanislaus

Here is a recording of our current Music Director, Gavin Craig, playing Dietrich Buxtehude's (1637-1707) Prelude in G.


Prelude in G

Music Director Position Announcement

Our Music Director here at St. Stanislaus is leaving us in a few weeks, in order to return to school full-time.

So, we are now searching for a new Music Director/Organist. I hope to fill the position by early July.

St. Stanislaus is a parish in the Diocese of Kalamazoo of about 250 families. We have a school whose enrollment is approximately 90 students, which I believe is one of the best little schools in our diocese.

The position is 1/2 to 3/4 time, depending on how we integrate certain aspects of the school music program. We may be able to combine this position with other responsibilities to create a full-time position.

The candidate should possess competency in organ: ability to accompany congregational singing and familiarity with simpler organ repertoire. Competency in other instruments would be a plus. He/she should also have basic knowledge of choral conducting. Knowledge of Gregorian Chant would be a plus.

The Music Director/Organist plays at the two Sunday Masses (Ordinary Form), and directs the adult choir, which rehearses once per week. The Music Director, in consultation with the pastor, also plans and provides music for the weekly school Mass.

Salary will be commensurate with education and experience.

Download the full job description.

If you are interested, or know someone who might be, please contact me! And please get the word out!

Speaking of Renewing the Culture...

Here at St. Stanislaus, I've been teaching the children in our school a regular weekly "Liturgical Music" class, designed to introduce our kids to the treasury of Catholic sacred music.

This has borne excellent fruit: our kids know the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, and have been taught some wonderful music in both Latin and English. An example of what we've accomplished can be heard here - the kids singing Gloria VIII, recorded at a school Mass earlier in the Easter season:


Gloria VIII

Gloria in excelsis, indeed!

Beauty, Subjectivism, and Liturgical Music

As the conversation has gone across the Catholic web about liturgy and music, a frequent thread or tendency of thought has surfaced repeatedly: that is, the idea that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". An example of this kind of thinking was seen in the comments of a Catholic blog a while back:

And so I think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so therefore if you consider something beautiful, that is your perorgative [sic]...

This attitude seems to me to sum up the thinking of many, if not most, Catholics, whether musicians or those in the pews. On numerous occasions, in my efforts to explain and promote the authentic vision of Vatican II regarding liturgy and music, I have heard from parishioners and others a response something like this:

Well, Father, you like all that classical music and chant, and the traditional hymns, and that's fine for you. But I [we] like [insert musical genre here], and, after all, it's all for God's praise. One kind of music is just as good as another.

Alasdair McIntyre, in his seminal book After Virtue, described this mode of thinking as emotivism, that is, the collapsing of all moral or qualitative judgments into mere expressions of personal preference. And this kind of thinking is the besetting sin of the post-modern West.

What is missing in the thinking illustrated above is any sense that the liturgy, and the music of the liturgy, has any objective quality whatsoever.

The fact is, the Church has never treated the liturgy and its music in the relativized and subjective fashion typified above. Indeed, to adopt that kind of relativism is to reject the mind of the Church. The Church has always insisted that there are norms for liturgical art and music which stem from the objective nature of the liturgy itself. The liturgy, being the re-presentation of the saving action of Christ, is the most objective thing in human experience. It is God Himself, making Himself present to us. As Pope Benedict taught earlier this week:

...[T]he liturgy is not something constructed by us, something invented to produce a religious experience during a certain period of time; it is singing with the choir of creatures and entering into the cosmic reality itself [emphasis mine].

Thus, the liturgy has an objective nature to which we more or less perfectly conform ourselves. The Church expresses her appreciation of this objectivity by holding up certain forms or expressions as models which we are urged to adopt and which have been treated as sources or starting points for development which is "organic", that is, which always respects and makes reference to the model. In the area of music, the Church has held up chant and polyphony as those models.

The post-conciliar period has seen, in many if not most sectors of the Church, a loss of a sense of the objective nature of the liturgy. With the liturgy coming to be seen, as Pope Benedict has written, as the outlet for personal "creativity", the liturgy became something expressing not that which is universal and objective, but private and subjective. As I have argued previously, the liturgy was made a vehicle for all sorts of agendas and ideologies which, in many cases, were at odds with the Faith. As a result, our understanding of, appreciation for, and ability to apprehend the liturgy have all been compromised.

There is certainly an element of truth in the sentiment "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". If someone does not "see" beauty, they don't see it. But the problem is that the person uttering the sentiment treats it as though that is all there is to be said about the matter. If the "eye of the beholder" doesn't see it, well, that's it. The sentiment treats the "eye of the beholder" as though it were an infallible and final arbiter of the matter, and it isn't.

What if the "eye of the beholder" is blind? What if the ear of the beholder is deaf? What if the eye of the beholder has been perverted and deformed by a constant exposure to disorder and ugliness? What if the ear of the beholder has been corrupted by a steady diet of noise and chaos? In such cases, the beholder's ability to apprehend beauty is severely compromised, and his judgment is not to be relied upon. What we must be willing to say, and what the Church has not shied away from saying dowm through the ages, is that sometimes the eye of the beholder is wrong.

Aristotle taught that the ability to make correct judgments was about more than simply amassing the necessary data. It involves the training and formation of the person in virtue, so that he has the kind of mind and soul that can apprehend the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. These three Transcendentals have a moral quality, and the inculcation of moral excellence and the ability to make right moral judgments requires, as the ancients taught, and as the Church continues to teach, the proper formation of the mind and soul.

The culture in which we live is formative. It both shapes and expresses our attitudes, values, and tastes. The culture can be said to be an "incarnation" of our values and priorities. The Church has always understood the power of cultural expressions - music, art, etc., and because of this has always jealously guarded the way that the Faith is "incarnated" in cultural forms, particularly in the liturgy. The Church, understanding and living the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi, wants to make sure that there are no "mixed messages" to obscure the Faith that we pray. Frequently (and no more so than today), the dominant culture which surrounds us proposes to us attitudes, values, and tastes which are inimical to the Faith. And so she has insisted that the liturgy itself, it's texts and actions, be taken as the source of our cultural expression.

So the question is, have we, as Church, been forming our Catholic people according to the mind of the Church to understand and apprehend the objective nature of the liturgy? Have we been giving them a liturgical formation which takes the texts and actions of the liturgy, as lived in continuity thorough the ages, as the primary source of our music and art in the post-conciliar period? I would have to say, "No."

No, what has happened in large part is that extra-liturgical forms and even sometimes texts, many of which come from the dominant mass culture, have been imposed on the liturgy from without. And this has obscured the meaning and nature of the liturgy. It has led to confusion and a weakening of faith. A people that has been led to believe that the liturgy is whatever Father Feelgood or Sister Liturgist make it this week is not a people who will necessarily be able to properly apprehend truth or beauty when they encounter it. The moral equipment that they need to do this has been damaged, and it needs to be repaired.

And how is this repair to be effected? Slowly, firmly, and with great patience and charity. Pope Benedict has led the way to re-building the culture. Priests, musicians, and those of us who love and treasure the Church's great liturgical patrimony must engage in the work of leading people, often one by one, to a re-appropriation of what the Church offers us. And, first and foremost, we must give an example of joy and love, so that all will see that Beauty does indeed lead to God.

The Papal Mass in Washington - It's About the Culture

So, the Pope celebrated Mass yesterday in Nationals Stadium in Washington, D.C., and he preached an inspiring homily, and moved the hearts of thousands (if not millions) of people closer to Christ in prayer. He celebrated the Mass, as we've come to expect, with dignity, reverence, and obvious devotion.

However, all was not as it could and should have been, especially with the music. Many others have commented on the poor musical choices, and how they seemed to reflect little awareness of Pope Benedict's teaching on the liturgy, or even much awareness of the Church's teaching and directives regarding liturgy and music. Fr. Richard Neuhaus, commenting during live coverage on EWTN, may have expressed the problem best when he pithily remarked "Perhaps those responsible for this are unfamiliar with Pope Benedict’s many writings on the liturgy..."

I won't rehash what others have already said at The New Liturgical Movement or Fr. Zuhlsdorf's trenchant commentary. But I will make a few observations about the reactions to the Mass, and what this Papal Mass reveals about the state of Catholic culture.

Firstly, I was taken aback by the sheer violence and passion of the reaction from the supporters of the Reform of the Reform and Traditional liturgy. I'm not here speaking so much of Shawn Tribe and the people at NLM, nor of Fr. Zuhlsdorf at "What Does the Prayer Really Say?". Their commentary has been measured and quite insightful. No, I am speaking of the many commentors at both sites (Some 300 at NLM alone!). I gathered from many of the comments on the above mentioned sites that people were shocked and surprised by what they saw and heard. I can't see why anyone should have been surprised - the music selected for the Mass was announced almost three weeks ago. I don't get the shock: the organizers of the DC Mass reveled three weeks ago that they intended to present a mish-mash, or, again in Fr. Neuhaus' inimitable words, a "liturgical stew". And that's precisely what they did. Don't get me wrong: I'm not minimizing the problems with the music for the DC Mass. But I wasn't shocked by it. Indeed, I was actually pleasantly surprised by the occasional "good" musical moments of the Mass.

I was also, alternately, both dismayed and amused by some of the commentors who spun wild conspiracy theories suggesting collusion of Msgr. Marini (the pope's Master of Ceremonies) or even of the Pope himself, in the nefarious agenda represented by the music of the DC Mass. Some tried to lay the blame on Marini, saying "he was the one sent over to approve the arrangements, he' s the one to blame." As though Msgr. Marini is supposed to have a a current and particular knowledge of the repertoire of American Catholic sacred music. Really - is Msgr. Marini supposed to know Manolo's "Come, O Spirit of God", Chepponis' "Go Up To The Altar Of God" and Hurd's setting of "Ubi Caritas", and the rest? I laughed out loud when I read one commentor's suggestion that henceforth, whenever the holy father celebrates Mass away from Rome, he should bring with him his own MC's, servers, and choir. Not exactly a practical solution. Sooner or later the holy father and his staff have to rely on the locals organizers to, well, organize. That reliance may be well or ill-placed, but there's really no alternative. If, as I believe happened in this instance, that reliance was ill-placed, chances are that reveals deeper problems that papal micro-managing won't really solve.

I also was struck by the apocalyptic tone of many comments as well. Quite a few suggested that the DC Mass indicated that the Reform movement had failed, and that we were henceforth doomed to Haugen, Haas, and the St. Louis Jesuits per omnia saecula saeculorum. Please, people, get a grip. I do believe Jesus had something to say about "the gates of Hell" prevailing, and all that. Have some faith. Since the liturgy belongs to the Church, and is the "source and summit" of our faith, it seems to me that Our Lord's promise to the Church extends to the liturgy as well. The Kingdom of God always advances in fits and starts, never in a straight line. One setback is hardly cause to abandon the field. Yes, I'm sure some will be tempted to use the DC Mass as "evidence" to perpetuate the Americanized "Spirit of Vatican II" liturgy. But really, that whole way of thinking is becoming more and more patently dated by the day. It just isn't flying anymore, because more and more people are becoming aware of what Vatican II really taught about the liturgy, and Pope Benedict's teaching in this area is having an inexorable effect. The priests ordained in the last 10 years are almost universally tradition-friendly, and that trend is only expanding. The current liturgical disorder wasn't created overnight, and it won't be undone overnight.

Furthermore, we have to recognize that, in the greater scheme of things, the music offered at the DC Mass was in many respects far better than what you'd find in a lot of American parishes. There are still many parishes (indeed, I would say a large majority) where you would never hear as much Latin, chant and polyphony as we did at that Mass. I have been acquainted with pastors who forbid the singing of a single syllable of Latin at their parishes. We have to recognize that, in spite of the widespread resurgence of tradition, in spite of the rapidly growing number of Extraordinary Form Masses being offered throughout that country, the work of authentic liturgical renewal has just barely begun. There are many, many Catholics who aren't even aware of what is happening, much less have been won over.

Which brings me to the larger point. Archbishop Wuerl, in his greeting of the Holy Father at the beginning of the Mass, stressed the different cultures and ethnicities represented at the Mass. Fr. Neuhaus observed that the spirit of "multiculturalism" pervaded the Mass. A different EWTN commentator, after the Mass, gushed about how the Mass represented the "diversity" of the Church in America. Others waxed about how the Mass was an opportunity for the Church in America to show the Holy Father who we are. The problem: That's. Not. What. Mass. Is. About.

The Mass is not an "opportunity" for me, or we, to "show" anyone anything, let alone "who we are." The Mass is not about "representing" the diversity (or anything else), of those who participate in it. The Mass is about re-presenting the eternal Sacrifice of Christ at the Last Supper and Calvary. It's about Him, not me, and not even about we.

We live in the age, as Mark Shea has coined the term, of "Generation Narcissus". Our collective motto as a society is "It's all about me." In liturgical terms, this translates to the "Self-Actualized Community Celebrating Itself in Its Okayness". In our pride and self-centeredness, we want to turn the liturgy around to focus on ourselves. As a priest I have encountered this in many ways. This attitude commonly rears its head in weddings. When, from time to time, I have had to say "no" to the unreasonable liturgical demands of some bride, I have heard the reply "but this is my wedding". To which my response is, "yes, it is, but it's not about you. At confirmation, graduation, and other special Masses, frequently the organizers try, in ways verging upon the silly, to concoct ways to "involve" all the confirmands or graduates, to give them all something to "do" in the liturgy, because it's "about" them.

This kind of thinking was evident in the DC Mass. There was a seemingly never-ending parade of cantors, musicians, and pieces of a dizzying variety of styles and ethnic origins, all aimed at trying to "include" every possible different ethnic and racial group. This process had what Amy Welborn aptly called a "frenzied" quality. It seemed frenzied because it was so obviously labored, and so obviously detracted from experiencing the liturgy as any kind of unified whole. This "multicultural" approach failed liturgically, and it also failed in it's own putative aim: rather than celebrating unity in diversity, or some such thing, it ended up exaggerating the ethnic differences and working against the communio that the liturgy is intended to bring about.

No, the problem, as I heard another priest once say, is that most Catholics "don't know anymore what the Mass is for. " And not knowing what something is for, we will tend to make it for ourselves. Part of the cause for this state of affairs is the collapse of catechesis in the 70's and 80's. I belong to the generation for whom CCD stood for "Cut, Color, and Draw." There is a whole cohort of Catholics who were never taught the rudiments of sacraments and liturgy, nor much of anything else. However, this "knowing" what the Mass is for is something that goes deeper and reaches farther than intellectual understanding. I would imagine that, if you asked the musicians and participants at that liturgy, most of them in one way or another would say that the Mass is about worshipping God. But in spite of "knowing" this in some way, most Catholics experience of liturgy in their parishes, and the experience of the DC Mass, in fact works against what we supposedly "know". In order for what we "know" to really form our lives, it must be "incarnated" in the culture in which we live. And I believe we have come perilously near a point where we cannot, in any meaningful sense, identify a coherent and unifying Catholic culture in the U.S.

No doubt there are many reasons for this, but it seems to me that at bottom the foremost cause goes back to this tendency to try to re-focus the liturgy back on ourselves. For thirty years, have been trying to impose one agenda after another on the liturgy, and all of those agendas boil down to "It's all about me." We have tried to re-make the liturgy in our own image, and in doing so have enervated the culture which makes the liturgy intelligible. The Mass, of it's nature, is, as Amy Welborn said, about Something. And that Something is objective. It is what it is, and calls us to conform ourselves to it. But once we start imposing our own agendas and on it, we create confusion, and lead people to think that it's about Whatever I Want It To Be About. That leads to fragmentation, chaos, and the breakdown of culture. As soon as the liturgy is seen as about Anything, it will be perceived by some to be about Nothing.

The liturgy, as Pope Benedict has written, should form our culture. But for the last thirty years the prevailing culture, and it's winds of trend and fashion, has been allowed to to de-form the liturgy. This is the lesson that our bishops and priests must learn. Once again, the evidence of this tendency was glaring in the music at yesterday's Mass. This process has both damaged the liturgical life of the Church, and weakened Catholic culture. The reversal of the process cannot begin with the prevailing culture that surrounds us - it contains much that is simply antithetical to the Faith. We must begin with the liturgy - as it is understood and lived in the continuity of the Church's Tradition. We must allow ourselves to be formed by the liturgy, so that we can be conformed to the Something that the liturgy is about. Then we will, almost without consciously trying, begin to rebuild and reform the culture of the Faith and of the world.

Clueless...

CHICAGO - Six Iraq war protesters disrupted an Easter Mass on Sunday, shouting and squirting fake blood on themselves and parishioners in a packed auditorium.

Kevin Clark of International Solidarity Movement told the Chicago Tribune that he attended the Mass to serve as a witness for the protesters.

"If Cardinal George is a man of peace and is walking the walk and talking the talk, he should have confronted George Bush and demanded an immediate end to the war," Clark said.

Sure. The Cardinal should have done so right in the middle of Easter Mass.


[This post was edited later to remove a couple of remarks which were less than charitable. Sorry.]

Resurrexit, Sicut Dixit, Alleluia!


Jaroslav Pelikan once wrote:

If Christ is risen from the dead, nothing else matters.
If Christ is not risen from the dead, nothing else matters.

Yesterday we sang the Easter Sequence, and may do so at all the liturgies of this week:

Christians to the Paschal Victim
Offer your thankful praises!
A Lamb the sheep redeemeth;
Christ who only is sinless,
Reconcileth sinners to the Father.

Death and life have contended in that combat stupendous:
The Prince of Life, who died, reigns immortal.

Speak, Mary, declaring what thou sawest, wayfaring
The tomb of Christ, who is living,
The glory of Jesus' resurrection:
Bright angels attesting,
The shroud and grave clothes resting.
Yea, Christ my hope is arisen:
To Galilee He goes before you.

Christ indeed from death is risen, our new life obtaining.
Have mercy, victor King, ever reigning!



Have mercy, victor King, ever reigning!

Holy See Makes It Clear: Baptism in "Non-Standard Formulae" Invalid

From the Vatican Information Service:

The first question is: "Is a Baptism valid if conferred with the words 'I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier', or 'I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer'"?

The second question is: "Must people baptised with those formulae be baptised 'in forma absoluta'?"

The responses are: "To the first question, negative; to the second question, affirmative".

Fortunately, the stupidity of using "creative" baptismal forms isn't as prevalent today as it was in the 80's and early '90s. Back then, it seemed like every wifty, self-styled "hip" priest was coming up with his own baptismal formula, marked by his own oh-so-personal style. Never mind the Lord's specific command and the universal practice of the Church for 20 centuries...

Back when I was in graduate school at Catholic University (early-mid '90's), such a baptism took place on campus. It was not conducted by a university chaplain, but by an outside priest for an alumnus in one of the University chapels. The story got out and created a bit of a stir: the Archdiocese of Washington apparently got involved and insisted the child be re-baptized using the proper formula. Why? The response of the CDF explains:

"Variations to the baptismal formula - using non-biblical designations of the Divine Persons - as considered in this reply, arise from so-called feminist theology", being an attempt "to avoid using the words Father and Son which are held to be chauvinistic, substituting them with other names. Such variants, however, undermine faith in the Trinity".

"The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constitutes an authentic doctrinal declaration, which has wide-ranging canonical and pastoral effects. Indeed, the reply implicitly affirms that people who have been baptised, or who will in the future be baptised, with the formulae in question have, in reality, not been baptised. Hence, they must them be treated for all canonical and pastoral purposes with the same juridical criteria as people whom the Code of Canon Law places in the general category of 'non-baptised'". (my emphasis)

Let's hope this declaration puts an end to such nonsense once and for all.

A New Bishop For Diocese of Lansing



The Press office of the Holy See announced this morning that Bishop Earl Boyea, auxiliary of the Archdiocese of Detroit, will be the next bishop of Lansing, succeeding the retiring Bishop Mengeling.

This is a great development for the Diocese of Lansing and for the Church in Michigan.

Bishop Boyea was my spiritual director while I was at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, and he was my professor for Church History. We have remained friends since then, and I am proud to be able to call myself such.

Bishop Boyea is a man of great learning, and is wholeheartedly loyal to the Church and to the Magisterium. He is deeply rooted in the Church's Tradition, and is committed to preserving and advancing that Tradition. While he was at Sacred Heart Seminary, he frequently celebrated Mass in Latin for the theologate on Saturday mornings. He is well known in the Detroit area for regularly celebrating Mass according to the Extraordinary Form (Traditional Latin Mass).

He was quite public in his support of the 2005 Vatican "Instruction" concerning homosexuality in the seminaries (sometimes called the "Doomsday Document"), as can be seen in my 2006 Crisis article on the subject.

On a personal note, those who know the bishop will attest to his great good humor and joyfulness. At Sacred Heart Seminary, he had the reputation of being somewhat of a prankster.

The Diocese of Lansing is getting a devoted and loyal son of the Church, and a smart and joyful man in their new bishop. Ad multos gloriosque annos!

My Blog Is Rated...

This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:

abortion (7x) death (5x) dead (3x)


It could be worse. Mark Shea's blog comes out rated NC-17.

Are You A "Not Really" Disciple?

Homily for the First Sunday of Lent

Genesis 2:7-9, 3:1-7
Romans 5:12-19
Matthew 4:1-11

In our Gospel we heard about Satan's temptation of Jesus. Notice that Satan didn't beat around the bush with Jesus. He didn't try to get into subtle arguments; he came at Jesus "head on" and offered him power, dominion, and the rest. Now usually Satan is more subtle with us - he tries to seduce us, to trick us. That's what we heard in our first reading, from Genesis. Satan says to Eve "Did God really tell you not to eat from the Tree?" And the implication is clear: "Oh, no, God didn't really mean for you not to eat of the fruit..." And it all went downhill from there.

This is what I call "not really" kind of thinking. We've all heard that sort of thing: "Surely God didn't really mean that." "Of course, nobody really believes that sort of thing anymore." Notice that when people say that sort of thing, they don't actually make an argument or give reasons why one shouldn't believe this or that. No, the trick here is to imply that such beliefs are stupid or silly, and that if you believe them, it's because you're silly or just not very bright.

A few years ago I was on airplane flying out East on vacation. I usually wear my clerics when I fly. Not that it gets me any special treatment - in fact I'm more likely to get put in the "special" security line at the airport when I am wearing my clerics than if I'm dressed in lay clothing. Go figure...

But after we took off and had been flying for a little while, the gentleman across the aisle from me leaned over and said "Excuse me, but are you a Catholic priest?" "Yes, I am", I answered. He then said "Wow, I haven't actually met a Catholic priest in years. And to meet one so young! I figured all you guys were getting old and dying out." I answered saying, "well, no, there are quite a few of us still around." We talked for a few more minutes, (it was clear he was not Catholic) and then went back to our own pursuits. After a few more minutes, he leaned over again and said "Excuse me again, I'm sorry to bother you, but I just have to ask, do you really believe all that stuff?" I was somewhat put-off by this, but I figured he wasn't trying to be offensive, so I answered him, saying "I'm not sure what you mean by "all that stuff", but yes, I believe in the Catholic faith. I wouldn't be dressed like this if I didn't." He then said "well, you know, heaven, angels, the devil, sin, all that stuff." I responded "Yes, I believe that the Catholic faith is true." We chatted for a few more minutes, and then he went back to his magazine.

As soon as I read our first reading from Genesis, I thought of that gentleman and our conversation. But the fact is, that kind of "not really" thinking has permeated, has filtered into, even our thinking as Catholics. You don't have to look very hard or very far to find it. Unfortunately, you can even find priests here and there that will talk that kind of "not really" talk. I'm sure we've all heard it, and maybe we've even said things like this ourselves: "Oh, the Church doesn't really teach that anymore". "You don't really have to do that." "You don't really have to go to confession". "We don't really have to do what the Church asks of us in the liturgy." And so on. A few weeks ago, I read that in a survey of Catholics, again, let me stress these are people who identify themselves as Catholic, that over 70% of them said that you could be a good Catholic without attending Mass regularly. There it is: "You don't really have to go to Mass on Sunday. You can stay home, or go play golf, and still be a good Catholic."

Now, that's not the thinking of a disciple. A disciple doesn't ask "how little can I get away with doing?" A disciple asks "how can I be more faithful?" And this season of Lent is the antidote to "not really" thinking. "Not really" thinking is just one more way we try to put Self in front of God. It's just one more way we try to shape the Gospel according to my priorities and desires. And Lent, and the disciplines of Lent, are given to us to get our attention off of our Selves and on to Christ.

By our Prayer, we draw closer to Christ. We learn not only to talk to Him and give ourselves to Him, but we learn to listen to Him, so that His mind and will become my mind and will. By our almsgiving we do without things for ourselves in order to serve the needs of others, in whom we serve Christ. And by our fasting we join ourselves to Christ's Passion, and train ourselves to put aside the clamor of our appetites and desires, in order to allow Him to become more truly our Lord.

The challenge before us this Lent is this: Will I put my self aside for Him? Will I refocus my heart, mind, and will, on Him? Will I be a more faithful follower of Christ?

What are we going to be? Wholehearted disciples of Christ, or "not really" disciples?

Obama Is the Light of the World

Behold, the People who walked in darkness have seen a Great Light.

Source