God's Plan...And His Garden...

Some of you know about my family some of you don't.  For those of you who do know about my family, this will make sense, for those of you who don't perhaps this will be a way to take a good look into how I look to the members of my family.

Recently, I had to run to the store to pick up some odds and ends for a group party that I was a part of.  So, off I went.  I went around the store and I picked up the things that I needed.  As I was heading to the front, I was heading up the aisle, only to be blocked by a young man who seemed to be about 15 or 16 years of age.  I wasn't in a crazy rush, so I patiently waited for him to realize I was there.  This was when he waved his hands wildly and said very loudly, "Mommy, I'm over here!!!"
 It became clear to me that he suffered from some sort of mental retardation and it startled him to see me standing behind him, waiting patiently to pass by.  His eyes got really wide and when I said, "Hey, pal...what's your name?"
"My name is Danny and I'm shopping with my mom!" He responded enthusiastically.
"Wow," I said, "My name is Andy, but having a name like Danny would be pretty cool," I repsonded.  "How old are you, Danny?"
"How old am I now, Mommy?" He asked his mother as she slowly came over from the next aisle.
"You're 15 years old Danny; now be a good boy and let the nice man pass by."  She said.
I acknowledged her and continued to talk to Danny for a few minutes more about the end of school, summer, and his plans for a fun time.  I watched as he became more and more excited about the idea that he was the center of someones attention other than his mother's.  He turned and headed away with his Mom, but not before she thanked me for taking the time to stop a moment and talk to her son.  She had a puzzled look upon her face.  She told me that many people wouldn't even look at him, let alone take the time to talk with him.  I told her that it was my pleasure and then I said something from where I have no idea it came; other than perhaps from the prompting of the Holy Ghost.
I said, "There are plenty of red, yellow, and pink roses in God's garden; however, blue roses are very rare, even for His garden and should be appreciated for their beauty and rarity.  You see, Danny is a blue rose and if someone didn't stop to smell that rose and touch that rose with the kindness of their heart, they've truly missed a blessing from God."
The mother went silent for a moment, then with a tear in her eye, she asked, "Who are you?"
Without thinking I responded, "Oh, I'm just a dandelion, but I sure love living in God's garden."
She reached out, grabbed my hand and said to me, looking directly into my face, "God Bless, you!"

If I can be so bold, the next time you see a "blue rose," don't turn and walk away.  Take the time to stop and  say hello.  Why?  Because, by the grace of God, this mother or father could be you.  In this instance, it was my cousin.  See, I have a cousin who is severely challenged and far too many people don't pay attention.  Because if they did, they would see what a wonderful young woman Rebecca really is.

I don't see much of her, because we live almost 1000 miles apart, but I know her mother and her uncle very well.  They are my cousins too.  And I know the great love that pours from Rebecca without any thought or expectation.  That is true love.  Her mother asked me once, while I was in seminary, "Why did God allow this to happen to Rebecca and me?"

I told her that God's plan for each person is His own.  We can't know the reason or the method by which He will use us, but that we must simply trust and have faith in Him Who Is.  I believe that Rebecca was made the way she was to teach us how to love unconditionally.  It is a rare thing in this world to see pure love and it is a rare thing to see such beauty.  We might not like the ease or difficulty by which God chooses to act in our lives, but in the end, it is how we view it that makes a big difference.

So, take it from a dandelion, examples of love are everywhere and in the most unlikely places.  Please keep your eyes open and know that God has a reason and a use for every person.

Properly, Proper

Thinking about that conversation I had about prudence, I continued to think, which is sometimes dangerous, I know.  For those of you who I count as friends, you REALLY know, but  I digress....

The thought that I had about it was this.  While we are to show prudence in how we act in the world, we should also show prudence when we are inside the Church as well.  Sometimes this means that we should really evaluate why we do what we do.  As laymen, should we be tramping up into the sanctuary every chance we get to do those things which are not proper to us?  Is it proper for us to lector?  Is it proper for us to handle the Blessed Sacrament?  Is it proper for us to hand off money during the offertory, as if money were of the same importance as the venerable species which will become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

When we look at being proper, what is our role, properly speaking?  It certainly isn't to do those things which Father should be doing, no.  It is to worship.  Our role as laymen is to give glory, laud and honor to God the Father, through Christ the Son, which proceeds from the Holy Spirit.  We can do this in any number of ways, but is acting as an extraordinary minister the proper way to do it?  Current liturgical theology says that it is acceptable, but that there should be a genuine need.  It is this liberal interpretation of what genuine need means which has created the conundrum.  Genuine need is not so that someone can be participatory in an external way.  No.  Genuine need is when there is such a mass of people that the priest celebrant is not able to efficiently and honestly handle the duty of celebrant in said manner.

There are a number of ways in which we can worship properly.  We can adore Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.  We can meditate upon the Life of Christ.  We can meditate specifically upon the Passion, Death and Resurrection of our Lord.  Or we can meditate upon the Sacred Mysteries.  We take our prayers, we put them at the foot of the altar so that the priest celebrant can gather them unto himself as he starts the Holy Mass and offer them on our behalf.  For it is his prayer and our uniting to that prayer to that of the priest which completes the liturgical action.

Don't get me wrong, there is a genuine need for service at the altar.  There simply are not enough acolytes to do the work which is necessary in every parish, so we should employ those volunteers which are properly disposed to serve in that capacity.  It logically follows that if service at the altar is first proper to the deacon, then to the acolyte; the extraordinary function should come from those who can aspire to be ordained to those orders.  So, it should be boys and men who serve at the altar.  The same holds true for lectors.  If there is an order of lectors, it should follow that the extraordinary function should come from those who can aspire to be ordained to the order of lector.  It is just proper.

However, the most important role for a layman is not to be an altar server or a lector, it is to be in the pew uniting his prayers to those of the priest.  Now for a shift in focus....the priest.  What is proper for the priest?  The priest is properly a celebrant.  He truly does celebrate the Sacred Mysteries.  That is his role.  He does not preside over the faithful.  That is a flawed view of the priestly role.  The faithful cannot celebrate the Mass.  They are not ordained to do so.  The proper role of the priest is that of mediator.   By celebrating the Mass, the priest enters into "persona Christi" whereby he offers the gifts on our behalf.  It is the priest who performs the Sacred action, not the faithful.  This is the greatest tragedy of the post-Conciliar age.  The idea that the priesthood of the faithful has some sort of Sacramental part to play in the celebration of the Mass is a diametric shift from the proper understanding of Sacramental theology.  And it doesn't take a learned theologian to figure this out!  It just takes proper common sense.

In our time, we need to recapture what our roles are and we need to understand that the definition of ourselves as Catholic is not bound by service, but by worship.  We most properly fulfill our liturgical role when we worship.  We may be called in extraordinary times to do extraordinary things, but those things should not be considered a right or normative.  But that is just what has happened.  We need to define ourselves as Catholics again.  We need to unite our souls to the Sacrifice of the Altar and we need to not worry so much about being of external service.  Our service comes from worshiping God the Father through the Sacrifice of his Son, by the procession of the Holy Spirit.  This is done in an unbloody way and in a way which is truly proper for the Catholic person.

Prudish or Prudent?

I was having a conversation with a friend recently and she got me to thinking a little bit about some things which are inherently Catholic in nature.  Bear with me as I flush out my brain on this one...


As Catholics (traddy or not) we're supposed to live in the world.  We don't necessarily need to be of the world, but we do need to live in it.  This idea that we are to deny ourselves the things in life which are part of our time isn't what it means to be of the world.  I know that may come as a shock to some, but there is nothing wrong with TV, there is nothing wrong with video games, there is nothing wrong with going out and spending time with friends at a bar (if you're of legal age), there is nothing wrong with dressing like others of the time in which one lives.  What CAN be wrong, is how those things are used by the person.  I'm not saying that there are not bad things on TV, in music, in video games, at the bar, in clothing lines, etc...but the human person is a rational being.  He can choose what to expose himself too.  But to deny out of some perceived fear that he might be corrupted isn't how a Catholic should think.  As a matter of fact, that is what got Decartes into so much trouble.  That kind of philosophy is flawed.


As a traddy Catholic, there is this stigma that I should dress a very conservative way and that I should abstain from TV and that I should only listen to classical music, yadda, yadda, yadda....How are we to be witnesses to the masses, if we don't engage them?  How are we supposed to live in the world, if we stay out of it?


Because we can reason, we have the opportunity to set an example to others that we can live in the world, do the things that others do and still be good Catholics.  


Question:  Do you think that prior to the Council and long before, people didn't dress, act, and live in the time in which they lived?


Ask parents and grandparents.  I think that you'll find that this leap of austerity that is being promoted by some is a direct reaction to a subjective immorality.  Does it exist?  Yes.  Should we practice prudence?  Yes, but do we have to force our young people to be prudish in order to be Catholic?  A resounding no.  I am friends with a good many people, Catholic (both traddy and non), non-Catholic, and even non-Christian.  If I can't engage them on the things they know, how can I minister to them?  Doesn't the Church demand that  we catechize, evangelize and be ecumenical?  How can I do that, if I don't live in the world in which I am a part?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't practice moderation, to the contrary, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying.  As my friend put it who I was having the conversation with said, "Where do you draw the line?"  Where is the line between Harry Potter and Narnia?  Where is the difference between Lord of the Rings and Star Wars?  Would I let a small child see that?  No, but when a child is old enough to recognize that magic is a fairy tale and not real, then it becomes something which with help, they can discern.  The inherent evil in life isn't from things, it is from people.  We need to work to convert those people.  That is what we are to do.

However how does wearing khaki's a button down with dress shoes to play baseball serve any purpose?  Or how does wearing a skirt which comes to the ankles to the park on a 90 degree day serve any purpose? There are times when it is ok to dress in moderation, not inappropriately, but there isn't anything wrong with bermuda shorts and a t-shirt for a girl or wearing a knee length skirt or dress.  Just like there is nothing wrong with a boy wearing bermuda shorts and a t-shirt or even both wearing jeans.  I'm not condoning that for Holy Mass, don't get me wrong.  I think that one should dress appropriately for Mass with all conservation and appropriateness, but in the world at large, it just doesn't make sense.  It would be like asking a person from the 1850s to wear clothing from the 1740s.  They didn't do it, why should we do it today?

This all comes down to two things for the person, first it comes to reason.  Man can reason.  He knows what is right and what is wrong.  If his reasoning is wrong, then he should be taught what is right.  Reason is objective, application is subjective.  Second is moderation.  If things are done in moderation, then it isn't so difficult to adapt and alter when necessary.


As Catholics, we need to be able to live in the world.  I'm not saying that we fall into the traps of the world, but we can't live as if we were in Brigadoon, that's not fair to the faithful, it's not fair to the Church and it certainly isn't fair to the self.  If we are devout as Catholics and accept ALL that she teaches, then there should be no problem living in the world without having to constantly fight being of the world.  Catholicism isn't about being prudish, it is about being prudent.  We all need to take a step back and think about that, in my humble opinion. 

Fr. Robert Altier...A Tribute

This is a repost from my friend John Paul Sonnen.  He blogged this over at his place Orbis Catholicus Secundus.  He is speaking about a priest which we both know.  I lived in the same rectory with him for over 2 years.  There is NO ONE I know of who strives for holiness more than this good and holy priest.  Take the time to read what JP has to say about Fr. Robert Altier:

Beacon of Light in America: Fr. Robert Altier

I have known him for twenty years.

Easily the very finest priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

And one of the very finest priests the Church in the New World has ever produced. 

A mystic.  Holiest guy I have ever come to know.  He has the diligence of prayer.  He is very good at being a priest.

In high school we saw him make his daily hour each morning in the crypt chapel of the Church of St. Agnes.  Such a witness it was to all of us high school students next door. 

He was my spiritual director and confessor.  I was his altar server.  Best confessor I ever had.  My penance was always the same: "Say one Hail Mary, VERY well." 

He taught me mental prayer.  No one else had ever explained to me how mental prayer works.

Best preacher I have ever heard anywhere on the planet earth.  And nicest guy.  He even came to my home a couple of times when I was in college to hang out with myself and some fellow seminarians.  Another time he came to bless the home. Always there for people. 

He has always been available to give counsel and this is very important for a priest withcura animarum.  And the best counsel he gave.  This is where he saved souls.  And many of the souls who came to him were more advanced in the spiritual life.  And he knew how to take this into consideration - where people were at.  

He helped me choose the right college.  He even taught a course I took in high school.  He was the most talented teacher on the staff at St. Agnes High School.  Everyone's favorite.  His daily Mass was at 6 am.  It was a comfort to know he was near.   

Can I sum him up in one word?  Yes, holy.  A second word?  Yes, wise.  I never once saw him angry, rude or mean.  He has made a lot of converts.  In fact, he has more converts under his belt than any parish priest I know. Just ask around. 

I made my first good confession as an adult to him in the mountains of Colorado in 1993 and I will forever be grateful to him.  Afterwards he shook my hand with a big smile.  He had just given one of the best sermons on Confession I have ever heard before or since and he gave me wise spiritual counsel that day.

Sadly, though, the good guys always suffer.  And they are quiet about it.  Just read the lives of the saints.  Misunderstandings come their way.  They are maligned, they are victims of calumny, they are falsely accused, blamed and lied about.  Priest AND victim.

But in this suffering lies their sanctification.  Suffering is necessary for sanctification.  Rev. and dear Father, thank you for all that you have given me.  In fact, I wish you a life of great suffering, because in that crucible you will find your sanctification.  Keep doing the Lord's work.  Your spiritual sons and daughters are many.

May God be praised for his saints!  

The Waiting Game

For those of us who are more traditional minded, we have entered into a sort of "waiting game."  We have become enamored with the idea that the SSPX are going to reconcile.  Some of us, including myself think that this can do nothing but promote healing in the Church with regard to the traddy faction and the progressive faction.  Some feel exactly the opposite.  I cannot speak for the progressives, for I am not one of them, but I can give my view as a traddy, because it is what I believe.

From time immemorial, the Church has been conservative.  Her role is not only to help Catholics live in the time in which they are a part, but also to maintain the connection between the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church.  A very big part of the Church is to conserve the Truth of Jesus Christ.  That, above all else, is what drives the SSPX and all traddies.  As traddies, we are not looking to stifle the Church, hardly, but we are looking to conserve that which transmits the truth.  We can be certain that the traditional ways of Catholicism do this, we cannot be certain that the new methods do, especially when those methods are at odds with traditional Catholic thought.

This is the conundrum which we face.  I think that it is the conundrum every age faces.  I don't think that the Church has endured such a polarizing shift as it did in the 1960s.  It's how we respond to those conundrums which define us as Catholics.

We hear all the time that the SSPX is "acting away from the Church."  We hear that the SSPX is "dangerous to the faith."  We hear that the SSPX is "disobedient."  We hear that the SSPX has "set up an alternate Magisterium."  Where has the SSPX said any of this?  Where has the SSPX done most of this?  Let me answer some of these questions, from my point of view. 

1.  How exactly is the SSPX "dangerous to the faith?"  Have they taught heresy?  No.  Have they taught apsotasy?  No.  They don't teach anything which is contrary to Catholic thought.  If they do, I would like to hear it. 

2.  How has the SSPX been "disobedient?"  Because they question the Magisterium of Vatican Council II?  How can Vatican Council II have a Magisterium if there was no dogma and no doctrine defined?  There was nothing definitively declared.  There were no Magisterial acts enjoined.  It was pastoral.  To question this isn't being disobedient, it is being intellectually honest.  Then there is the whole Econe consecration thing.  Well....last I checked that was forgiven and the excommunications were lifted.  So, to speak of that as being an act of disobedience is intellectually dishonest, because if the Church (and we are the Church) is socially aware enough to forgive, then the Church should simply forgive and not put conditions on the forgiveness.

3.  The SSPX has not set up an "alternate magisterium."  Where has the leadership of the SSPX ever said that they were anything other than Catholic?  Where has the leadership of the SSPX ever said that they were above the Pope?  They have not.  They have constantly and consistently said, since their early days that they were concerned with the authentic tradition of the Church being transmitted.

The problem lies, as I see it, with the progressives.  They have tried and tried, over and over, in many different ways to set up alternative magisteria.  Think about it...there are many different manifestations of this, the two most recent being the priests in Austria and the LCWR in America.  The progressives have altered the liturgical action through disobedience, to the point where it is unrecognizable to the wishes of the Council Fathers.  The progressives have attempted to alter the understanding of ecumenism, to the point where ecuemenism doesn't refer to the Orthodox any longer, but rather it refers to any Christian denomination.  And the progressives have expanded and perverted the notion of religious liberty to the point where secular humanism and the melding of the Protestant mind is no longer a heresy, but simply another way of looking at Christianity on an equal and respected level.

Is it disobedient to protect tradition?  I don't know.  I do know one thing though, none of this, NONE of this is infallible.  The SSPX, by all accounts will reconcile in May.  They will be "legitimate."  They will be as legitimate as Sr. Joan Chittister, they will be as legitimate as Fr. Richard McBrien, they will be as legitimate as any progressive member of the Church.  The big question is this...

What will the progressives do when they are reconciled?

The reason the progressives don't like the SSPX or any other traddy group is simple.  We stand in the way of their re-imagining of the Church.  There is no place in the Church for secular humanism and the heresy of Protestantism.  There is a place however, for those who support tradition.  Why?  Because what the traddy promotes is consistent with 2000 years of the Church, can the progressives say that, authentically?

Caveat:  This isn't about the SSPX.  This is about tradition.  This is about understanding the breakdown of what is going on in the Church today.  The SSPX is the most visible, so they are the obvious example, but this can be attributed to most any traddy. 

The truth is that the progressives wanted change.  The problem is that the Church doesn't change, she grows.  The sooner the progressives understand this, the better.

Update...SSPX

Since I'm in the fields and don't have a lot of time to post these days, I will only give a quick update, but I will address this as soon as everything is final...

 Rorate Caeli: Update on SSPX


Please refer back to my earlier post from December...I think that it bears some re-reading.  Not everything is 100% spot on, but it isn't so far off the mark.  Logic does have a place in the Church and it does work with faith.

I will post again soon on this topic.  Thank you for being patient with my spring schedule.  Working in agriculture does have advantages and a few drawbacks.

Guest Post: Tim Ferguson, JCL

From my friend, Tim Ferguson, a canon lawyer from the Archdiocese of Detroit.  What a wonderful perspective!!!!

Without further adieu, Tim:

I will not win friends with this post (not that that’s ever stopped me before).

I was reading an article earlier today which highlighted a call by Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, titular of Rusuca, for an “open dialogue on everything having to do with human sexuality” in the Church. +Rusucensis makes a plea that the Church needs to revisit the traditional teaching on every aspect of human sexuality in order to “move forward.” He questions the natural law argument and the supposition that genital expressions of sexuality are only licit within the bonds of heterosexual marriage. He – and his supporters – claim the moral high ground as they call for “openness” and “dialogue,” and castigate the mean old men of the Vatican who resist “dialogue” as reactionary and close-minded

I call “merde de taureau” (pardon my French)!

Dialogue is only truly possible when both parties are willing to admit that the other might be right. I will not enter into dialogue about objective, demonstrable reality. My couch is black. If someone wants to dialogue with me about what color my couch is, it will be fruitless for me to enter into such dialogue. At the end of the day, my couch will remain black.

Similarly, I will not enter into dialogue about subjective opinions – e.g. : whether I should like shoes. I do not like them, I am perfectly comfortable not liking them, and I sincerely doubt that anyone could say anything to me that would make me like them. I would consider entering into a dialogue about the relative value of shoes. You may have something to say. We may end up disagreeing, but we may be enriched by our mutual exchange of ideas. I am open to the possibility that shoes (despite my dislike of them) have some value. Your opinions may influence mine and mine, yours.

Thirdly, if someone were to suggest “dialogue” about something of which I am convinced but he is not, it might make for an interesting conversation, but it would hardly be considered dialogue. If someone wanted to argue that my car’s tires are square, he would be wrong. I could not admit his position to be equal to mine. Therefore, no dialogue is possible.

Robinson and his ilk, despite their claims, do not want to enter into “dialogue.” Their writings and their speeches make it clear that they in no way are open to the possibility that they might be wrong. They do not want to dialogue, they want to push their beliefs and want an open forum in which to do so. They are not being intellectually honest.

The “mean old men of the Vatican” are the ones who are being intellectually honest here: they do not want to enter into dialogue on a topic they consider to be self-evident, objective, demonstrable reality. They cannot and are not willing to admit that the antithesis of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality, which excludes the liceity of all genital sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage (and which defines marriage as a covenant by which a man and a woman, by an act of consent, establish a partnership of the whole of life) could possibly be true. It is not a subject open for dialogue.

But, but, but – the naysayers say – at least Robinson et al. are calling for dialogue! See how open and tolerant they are! The Senes Vaticani are close-minded, they won’t tolerate dialogue.

No, my friend, that’s not the reality. Neither party is willing to tolerate dialogue. Robinson is already convinced that the “Vatican party line” is wrong. He does not want dialogue, because he is not willing to admit that there is any equality between the positions. Dialogue, for Robinson, on this issue means talking and talking (preferably louder than the opponent) until the other side is willing to admit that it is wrong. That’s not dialogue. That demagogy.

That’s why those upholding the traditional Christian teaching are more intellectually honest. It’s not merely that they do not wish to dialogue on the topic of human sexuality, it’s that they recognize entering into a dialogue with Robinson, et al. is not dialogue. The Church is not going to change Her teaching. The matter is settled. You’re free to disagree, and to go elsewhere. You’re not free to pretend that an opposing viewpoint is legitimately Catholic and worthy of an equal status in a Catholic context. To admit that would be intellectual dishonesty.