The Catechism on the Immaculate Conception

The Catechism on the

Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.”  The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace.”  In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.”  The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love.”

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.”  By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

“Let it be done to me according to your word. . .”

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to “the Son of the Most High” without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that “with God nothing will be impossible:” “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.”  Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace: As St. Irenaeus says, “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”  Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.”  Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.”

2853 Victory over the “prince of this world” was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is “cast out.”  “He pursued the woman” but had no hold on her: the new Eve, “full of grace” of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring.”  Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: “Come, Lord Jesus,” since his coming will deliver us from the evil one.

The Cardinal Newman Society

The Cardinal Newman Society

          Countless Catholic families have suffered through it: They save for nearly two decades to send their child to a good, Catholic college.  They want their son or daughter to get a top-notch education, but also spiritual formation.  They want to provide an environment that will nurture the values they have worked so hard to instill.  And they want college to be a period of true growth rather than sinful regression.

          But the college they entrust their child to turns out to be less than they’d hoped.  Theology courses are taught by professors who make a name for themselves dissenting from the Church rather than supporting it.  Co-ed dorms with no curfew host entertainment like The Vagina Monologues.  And by the time their child comes home after freshman year, he or she has decided they don’t go to Mass anymore; they’re not sure whether they’re an agnostic or a Buddhist; and oh, yeah, they need a prescription for birth control.

          The preceding scenario has been all too common in America the past three decades or so.  One of the greatest scandals of our times (the consequences of which our society is suffering through) is that many Catholic colleges refuse to be authentically Catholic, and seem to work hard to be antagonistic toward the Faith.

          I don’t wish to explore any particular incidents, or discredit any specific universities.  The problem is well known.  And many professors and administrators are working hard to change the culture at these schools.  A good example is Peter Kreeft, an extraordinary, faithful theologian who is one of Boston College’s greatest treasures.  The pope is well aware of the problem and is also working hard at overcoming it, as are many faithful bishops.

          My point is not to attack anyone.  But until the reform we desperately need is accomplished, what does a Catholic parent do?  Thankfully there are some extraordinary Catholic colleges out there, like Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ave Maria University, Thomas Aquinas College, and Wyoming Catholic College, to name just a few.  There are more and more all the time, and they are true lights in the academic darkness of American higher education.

          How are parents to know if the school they intend to send their sons and daughters to, is one that will help them develop spiritually and intellectually, or if it is one as likely as not to leave them seriously disordered by graduation?

          One of the great Catholic organizations out there is the Cardinal Newman Society.  This is a group dedicated to reforming Catholic culture in higher education and promoting schools that are authentically Catholic.

          Every year it puts out its Newman Guide to choosing a Catholic college that is an invaluable resource to Catholic parents.  It includes detailed information about numerous Catholic schools and has recommendations of schools a Catholic parent can trust.  Last year it even began recommending Catholic high schools.

          Anyone preparing to send a student to a Catholic institute of higher learning would do well to give it a look.  And consider supporting the Cardinal Newman Society and the work it does to make Catholic education something we can all be proud of.

Seeking the Redeeming Value of Modern Liberalism

Seeking the 
Redeeming Value

of Modern Liberalism

          I read a particularly bad book last week.  To be honest, I actually read part of a very bad book; then I literally tore it in two (it was a thin paperback) and threw it in the trash.  It was the story of why some presumably famous media personality whom I had never heard of, is a Democrat.

          Anyone who reads this blog or knows me, knows that, for all my conservatism, I am concerned with being a faithful Catholic, not a faithful Republican, and I am interested in hearing from people on the other side of the political aisle.  Though I am at no risk of becoming a DNC member, I know and respect people that are Democrats.  And though I have no inordinate attachment to the Republican Party, I have developed a solid disdain for the Democrat Party.  So I often wonder, “What am I missing here?”

          Last year I spent some time watching MSNBC in the hopes of finding the redeeming quality of modern liberalism.  However, that only reinforced popular stereotypes.  I recognized that the world view and “morality,” not to mention the crassness, that was presented, was repugnant to me.  Of course, I don’t suspect that MSNBC is a fair portrayal of the majority of Democrats.  So the search continued.

          Last week’s book, I’m sad to say, only served to confirm the picture I’m developing.  The argument essentially went like this: Republicans want to get rid of all public services; they only care about tax cuts, for the purpose of serving the rich; and would do away with all government if they could, leaving everyone to fend for themselves in a state of general anarchy.

          On top of that, the religious positions on issues like life and marriage are disingenuous, only adopted to exercise control over the common man.  It was this last slander, along with the repeated foul language and sexual innuendo, that led to the book lying in two equal pieces in my trash can.

          The author essentially claimed that the Republican Party is the party of “the 1%,” while Democrats are for “the 99%.”  I’ve always found this argument absurd.  Elections are about numbers.  It doesn’t take a PhD to figure out that 99-1 does not make for a competitive election.

          Why would anyone pander to the richest 1%?  What would be gained on election day?  Wait, it’s the money, right?  This would give the Republicans a financial edge to be able to buy elections.  Nice theory, perhaps, but reality kills it.  First of all, Republicans don’t typically have the financial edge, not to mention they are fighting the mainstream media, who see themselves as an essential wing of the Democrat Party.  Second, records consistently show that the Republican Party gets far more donations of moderate size, under $1,000.  The largest donations regularly go disproportionately to the Democrats.

          The argument about religious issues doesn’t even deserve comment, except to say that the Democrats’ universal support for the wrong side on these most essential issues is the reason no Christian, with a truly well-formed conscience regarding politics, can support the Democrat Party.

          What about the claim about the size of government, though?  The author’s accusations against Republicans in his book were meant to be outrageous, but also to point to what he considered a reality – that the limited government position of Republicans harms people, especially the poor.  This is the most common argument in favor of the Democrats from liberal Christians.

          First, it should be noted that many people complain that we currently have two parties in the United States: the party of big government and the party of bigger government.  But what about the claim that a limited government approach is mean-spirited or lacks compassion?

          I believe quite strongly in limited government and I am also deeply concerned about the poor and vulnerable.  So this is an issue I want to consider seriously.  Are my positions inconsistent?

          For all my studies, I am not an expert on either government or moral theology, but I do not think I am being inconsistent.  We live in an age of extreme secularism, and the more power the state has, the more it imposes its will.

          As a Catholic, I believe in the principle of subsidiarity, as well as the place of the Church in building society, and the family as the primary building block of any culture.

          We have seen big governments rob people of religious liberty, direct family life according to their own wills, and destroy economic freedom.  This is happening in Asia, Africa, Europe, Canada, and now the United States.  Big government has always tried to supplant God in the lives of its citizens, from ancient Rome, through the scourge of Communism, to modern socialist “democracies.”

          The United States was founded on the principle of a limited, unobtrusive government.  I think it is very important that the government not overstep its bounds.  Of course, I think that the functions that are proper to the role of government should be exercised according to Catholic social principles, such as the dignity of the human person and the preferential option for the poor.

          What, really, is the difference between Republicans and Democrats?  With a country more polarized than ever, and our differences stemming mainly from world views rather than prudential policy matters, we could give many answers.  I think at a foundational level it comes down to the answer to this question: What is the fundamental institution on which a society is built?

          Set aside for a moment the Church.  It is true that the intimate relationship between Church and state during Christendom led to arguably the highest cultural moments of our history.  But, though the Founders would have said religion is essential to a well-ordered society, I don’t think the Church as an institution was what our nation was founded on, nor is it likely ever to be.

          Back to the question, then.  What is the fundamental institution on which a society is built?  If you are a Republican, you probably answered, the family.  If you are a Democrat, you probably answered, the government.  This characterizes the parties and not every individual member of each party, but if you disagree, you are probably in the wrong party.  That is the key difference.  Unfortunately, the Republican Party is far less devoted to the family than the Democrat Party is to the government.

          As Catholics, the answer is clear.  This is the main reason most practicing Catholics are now Republicans.  This characterization of the parties has not always been true, but the divide is widening every election.  The issues that we so passionately oppose the Democratic Party on – life, marriage, government usurpation of religious liberty, parental rights and individual freedoms – are symptoms that stem from this difference in world view.

          Every healthy society is founded on a strong family.  Societies founded on large governments become dominated by interest groups that run society into the ground morally and economically (sound familiar?) until dictatorship emerges.

          So where are we?  Without a fundamental change in our culture, we have two likely futures.  If we’re lucky, we’ll become Spain.  If we’re unlucky, we’ll become Pakistan.  Of course, Spain may also become Pakistan.  Is there time?  In natural terms, I would say, no.  This November may have proven that we have reached critical mass, and that the wrecking ball will only swing faster.  Of course, as a Christian, I don’t see things through a purely natural lens.  Supernaturally, there is always hope, even for natural institutions like nations.  With God all things are possible.  So we Catholics had better fight as hard on a spiritual level as on a political level.

          And if nothing else, we need to make our homes and families places of refuge.  Little islands of sanity in an insane world.  And may the Lord give us guidance as we traverse these treacherous times and seek to be a light in the darkness.

'Doomsday Prepping' Catholic-Style

‘Doomsday Prepping’

Catholic-Style

December 21, 2012 is right around the corner, so, according to the ancient Mayans (or at least those trying to capitalize financially on the ancient Mayans) that should mean the end of the world.  As Christians, we should know not to take such things seriously.  The world will most certainly come to an end, and that day may or may not be soon, but just a few weeks ago at Mass we heard Jesus say that “of that day or hour, no one knows” (Mk. 13:31).  No one includes the ancient Mayans.

The end of the world is a hot topic, though, there’s no doubt about it.  One of the more popular reality shows is Doomsday Preppers, about people’s preparations to survive some imminent natural, economic or military disaster.

Now I am not casting aspersions on anyone featured on the show.  We certainly live in perilous times, and threats of terrorism, tyranny and economic collapse are not unrealistic.  However, in this Sunday’s Gospel Jesus warns us about an event that we can be sure is coming, and yet our culture does very little prepping for, even though doing so should be a hallmark of our lives.

I am speaking, of course, of the Second Coming.  Jesus will return and the present world will end.  This is not fantasy or the imaginings of fanatics.  It has been promised by our Lord, and is a clear teaching of the Faith.

This event will be preceded by tribulations, which will undoubtedly include persecutions, and numerous people will likely die, many as martyrs.  Of course, try being a Christian in much of the Eastern Hemisphere today and that would simply be called daily life.  There is a much more subtle and perhaps more dangerous persecution we face in the West.  But other than telling us to pray for the strength to endure the tribulations, Jesus focuses on another warning in this week’s Gospel.

He tells us that nations will be in dismay and people will die of fright.  As St. John relates in his Gospel, the people preferred darkness to the Light.  When the Light of the World returns in majesty, those who have embraced the darkness will not be able to stand.  But to us, Jesus gives very different advice.  “Stand erect and raise your heads,” He says, “because your redemption is at hand” (Lk. 21:28). 

Even many believers don’t like to think about the end of the world, perhaps because of the tribulations preceding it, but I think mostly because we are so attached to the worldly lives we have constructed for ourselves.  But with the early Christians it was not so.  Look at the very end of the Book of Revelation.  What does it say?  “Come, Lord Jesus.”  The people were waiting with anticipation for the return of the Lord and the day of their redemption.

That day will come.  Whether it comes in our lifetimes or not, no one knows, as Jesus has made clear.  But to me, it seems that Jesus is telling us that there will be two groups of people on that day: those who, out of hatred of the Light, flee and even die of fright; and those, who belong to the Light, who stand proud, for this is the day of their victory.

Jesus wants us, and all men, to be in the latter group.  We know that God desires all to be saved, which is why He so often warns us of the things that lead to perdition.  “Beware [of] carousing and drunkenness,” He says.  But then He warns us not to let the “anxieties of daily life” make our hearts become drowsy.

For most of us, we may imagine that we are on the right path, but we had better examine how we have responded to the anxieties of daily life.  It is so easy to get wrapped up in worldly concerns, many of which are reasonable and part of the duties of our state in life.  But before long, if we have not made our spiritual life THE priority, we realize that we have stopped dedicating quality time to prayer, we no longer have time for charitable activities, and we can’t even remember the last time we fasted or went on a retreat, or even made a holy hour.  If nothing else, I know I am speaking for myself.

It is so critical to make prayer and time with God the most important part of our day.  We don’t need to spend two hours in meditation.  Not that that wouldn’t be great, but many of us do have responsibilities that might preclude it.  But what we need to do is carve out quality time to spend in prayer, and make that time non-negotiable.  Many spiritual directors recommend starting our day with that serious prayer, so that we are sure the anxieties and chaos of the day don’t rob us of it.

Either way, though, if we make that time a priority, that we do not sacrifice for any but the most critical of circumstances, we will be among those who stand erect at the Coming of the Lord.  St. Alphonsus Liguori said, “Those who pray are certainly saved.”  Whether or not we are alive at the Second Coming of Christ, we all will face the day when we stand before Him and our lives will be our judgment.

None of us know what exactly the future will bring, and there is no harm in being prepared.  But before we prepare our bunkers, or our food storage systems, or whatever, we had better prepare our souls.  Because there is no running from that day forever, and it is the Children of the Light who will prove to be truly prepared.