Wednesday 21 March 2012

The Church's Teaching on Sexuality and the Pill

Casti Cannubii, literally "Chaste Wedlock." Pope Pius XI wrote this encyclical on Christian marriage on December 31st, 1932, and in the process laid the groundwork for the Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae. If you want to understand the Church's teaching on human sexuality, read these documents.

Humanae Vitae, literally "Of Human Life." In the wake of the debates on whether or not the Catholic Church would change her teaching (as if that were possible) on the use of artificial contraceptives, on the 25th of July, 1968, Pope Paul VI didn't just say, "no, they're still evil." Far more helpfully than that, he very clearly explained why they are harmful to human life and prophesied about the results of widespread contraceptive use, practically all of which has now come true. If you want to understand why the Church refuses to endorse the contraceptive mandate of our current society, read this document.

Evangelium Vitae, literally "The Gospel of Life." The third in a trinity of papal encyclicals on the Church's position on marriage, sexuality, and God's plan for human love, on March 25th, 1995, Pope John Paul II cemented the Gospel of Life and explained why and how it is "at the heart of Jesus' message," and as such is likewise at the very heart of the Church's mission. This encyclical is longer than Casti Cannubii and Humanae Vitae combined, but there is little else that can more completely explain what is at the heart of the Church's opposition to the contraceptive culture that has lead to over 54 million American babies slaughtered and the HHS Mandate that is now threatening the very heart of American society as we've known it for over two and a quarter centuries now.

Saturday 17 March 2012

Does This Authorize What I Think It Does?

 
Apparently, President Obama likes to hide things in what many like to call "the Friday news dump," just like he did with the fact that his supposed "accomodations" on the HHS Mandate problem were nothing but hot air, because just hours after declaring them in a press junket, he published the Mandate "without change." This new executive order is particularly troubling. As far as I can tell, it says that the Federal Government may seize basically anything whatsoever from anyone at any time. It speaks very frequently of the national defence, but one provision is especially telling:
 
Section 201(b) "The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions."
 
Section 201(a) delineates which department heads have the authority to seize which assets and properties from the American people. Note the last phrase above: "under both emergency and non-emergency conditions." Meaning, even when no State of Emergency has been declared, they can cease anything "to promote the national defense."
 
Maybe I'm reading this wrong; I hope I am. But if I'm not, Obama's not settling for just taking some of our freedoms away, like the free exercise of religion, etc. No, he's setting up the chess board to take them all away. Please, someone, correct me. Tell me I'm being paranoid and extremist.
 
I considered posting this link to Facebook, and one of the images WhiteHouse.gov allowed me to tack onto the post was an Obama campaign pic with the slogan, "We can't wait." "We can't wait," indeed. But for what? For the American people to vote, because he can't afford to pass up this opportunity to claim the total dictatorship of America? Once again, I really, really, really, really hope I'm wrong here, but this sure looks a lot like the way Caesar Augustus set up the chess board before having himself declared Emperor of Rome for life...

--
Jackford R. Macarius B. Kolk
Tenui Ecclesiam Catholicam nec dimittam.

Saturday 10 March 2012

Blessings to All on This Feast of St. Macarius!

          On this day, March 10th, A.D. 2012, the Catholic Church celebrates the 1677th Anniversary of St. Macarius of Jerusalem's passage into his heavenly reward. As St. Paul taught us, we celebrate the lives of "so great a cloud of witnesses" (Heb. 12:1), the Saints Triumphant, so that we might "[b]e imitators of [them], as [they are] of Christ" (I Cor. 11:1). St. Macarius' example is one of steadfastness in Truth. When his episcopacy began, in A.D. 312, Christianity was still illegal in the Roman Empire. As a priest and before that a deacon, he constantly lived under the threat of imprisonment and death merely for believing in Christ, and no doubt witnessed not a few of his friends and acquaintances seized and slaughtered for the faith. It was only Divine Providence that preserved him from the same fate. Nevertheless, the gruesomeness of the Diocletianic Persecution was Macarius' daily life for a full decade, from A.D. 303 to 313.
          Thus, when Macarius became Archbishop of Jerusalem, he probably expected to be martyred for the Faith, yet he accepted the appointment and remained faithful to the Apostolic Teaching and to the local church in Jerusalem, as had the first Christians before him (cf. Acts 2:42). Then, a year later, the Emperors Constantine and Licinius together promulgated the Edict of Milan, once and for all making Christianity licit in the Roman Empire; there was no longer any threat of death simply for being Christian. Nevertheless, a new threat was growing: the Arian heresy. Though eventually nearly all the bishops of the East succumbed to Arius' demonic twisting of the Gospel─claiming that Jesus Christ was not co-eternal with the Father, but rather a created person, higher than us but lower than God─Macarius and only two others remained faithful to the eternal Truth passed down from the Apostles. Arius dared even to attempt to convince the Pope, Alexander, that Jesus was not "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God," as the Nicene Council would later clarify, but of course he failed, because, as St. Cyprian of Carthage would later say when other heretics tried the same thing, this was "the throne of Peter, ... the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and [they did not] consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the Apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access" (Epistle 54, §14). On returning to the East in defeat, the heresyarch wrote to his fellow Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia, complaining of his treatment:
     "[T]he bishop [of Rome, Pope Alexander I,] greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, 'God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself.' Eusebius, your brother bishop of Cæsarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of His Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, who are unlearned men, and who have embraced heretical opinions."
-Arius the Heresyarch (quoted by Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, I, §4)

Theodoret confirms that the Macarius whom Arius says has "embraced heretical opinions" (i.e. has held to the very same orthodox, Apostolic "opinions" taught since the time of Christ, confirmed by Pope Alexander and later the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, and which we all still hold to today) was St. Macarius of Jerusalem. St. Macarius, trained for firmness of faith by the Roman persecutions that preceded his episcopacy, withstood the "wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14) that carried off so many of his fellow bishops. Though only three out of all the Eastern bishops withstood Arianism at first, the Creed written by Macarius and the other Council Fathers at Nicaea eventually stemmed the tide of the heresy and the Truth of the Apostles won out. But the question we must ask ourselves is, how did he do it? What grounded him in the Truth? What made him faithful when all around him became faithless?
          In the first half of the 4th century, there was no set canon of Scripture. All of the books we all use as Scripture now, including the ones the Catholic Church retains but the Protestant traditions reject, were being used in the Christian liturgy throughout the world, but each local church used their own set of them, and many also used other books as well. The debate about which ones were authoritative wouldn't even be brought to the fore for another fifty years or so. And, even though the majority of the Scriptures were used by all throughout the Church, it was with those very Scriptures that Arius was supporting his odious doctrines. The idea of Sola Scriptura was about as effective at defending against "every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14) as it is today: not very. If you read enough of the Early Church Fathers, it becomes quite evident that the real litmus test of Truth was never the private interpretation of Scripture alone, but rather whether or not any given doctrine had been taught consistently from the days of the Apostles till the present. As St. Paul wrote, it is not the Scripture but "the Church of the Living God [that is] the pillar and bulwark of the Truth" (I Tim. 3:15). This is how St. Macarius knew how to tell the Truth of God from the lie. He refused to turn away from "that which [he had] received from [the Apostles]" (II Thess. 2:15; cf. I Cor. 11:2, Gal. 1:8-9, I Thess. 2:13, II Tim. 2:2, etc.). To be certain, the Scriptures contain the Truth, but only through the constant teaching of the Apostles and their successors throughout history can we know that we are interpreting them in keeping with that eternal Truth.
          From St. Macarius of Jerusalem, then, we can learn the importance of never giving in to the whims of our day. Like him, we are Christians first and foremost; the culture must never shape who we are or what we believe; on the contrary, we must hold to the Creed, to the timeless Truth of the Apostolic Teaching with such steadfast fortitude that nothing can shake our devotion to It─or rather, to Him, for Christ is the Truth (John 14:16)─so that the culture around us might rather be shaped by us. The Creed that St. Macarius and the Nicene Fathers, and after them St. Cyril of Jerusalem and the Constantinopolitan Fathers, wrote and handed down to us is like a massive Rock that stands amidst the raging river of history. The waters of time come roaring toward it with the same relentless force that has eroded mountains and devastated whole empires, but the Rock stands firm. When faced with that Rock upon which Christ built His Church, the water splits; the river is in the end shaped by the immovable force of the Rock. And this is how the Christian Faith, passed down from the 1st century to the 21st and on into eternity, shapes history. To be sure, some pieces of the Church-Rock chip off and fall into the stream, carried away by the currents of contemporary culture. But this Rock is itself build up by the Rock of Ages and even as it is eroded, God also renews and expands it, drawing more and more members into its bulk. "And I tell you, you are [Rock], and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against It" (Matt. 16:18, emphasis added).
          There are many fiendish winds of doctrine swirling about our heads in this current global culture of decadence and death, but the Truth is timeless and if we, like St. Macarius, buoy ourselves to that ancient (yet always new) Truth, to Christ and His Church, we alone shall weather the storm. But more than that, if we cast out the nets of Truth as we ourselves remain tethered to Him, telling all those around us how the timeless Teachings can bring them true joy and eternal safety, then as many as possible can be saved with us. St. Macarius too did not merely resolve to keep the Truth of Christ for himself, instead he joined all the bishops of his day to declare it in the Creed, and moreover he steadfastly passed it on to subsequent generations, following the admonition of St. Paul, "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (II Tim. 2:2), he entrusted it among others, I'm sure, to his deacon Cyril, who became St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a universal Doctor of the Church, whose writings are still widely read today. And so, to honor St. Macarius' evangelistic spirit, I'd like to end this meditation with a beautiful benediction from St. Cyril:
     "Now may He Himself, the God of all, who is Father of the Christ, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who came down, and ascended, and sits together with the Father, watch over your souls; keep unshaken and unchanged your hope in Him who rose again; raise you together with Him from your dead sins unto His heavenly gift; count you worthy to be 'caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air' (I Thess. 4:17), in His fitting time; and, until that time arrive of His glorious second advent, write all your names in the Book of the Living, and having written them, never blot them out (for the names of many, who fall away, are blotted out); and may He grant to all of you to believe in Him who rose again, and to look for Him who is gone up, and is to come again (to come, but not from the Earth; for be on your guard, O man, because of the deceivers who are to come); who sits on high, and is here present together with us, 'beholding the order of each, and the steadfastness of his faith' (Col. 2:5). For think not that because He is now absent in the flesh, He is therefore absent also in the Spirit. He is here present in the midst of us, listening to what is said of Him, and beholding your inward thoughts, 'and trying the reins and hearts'—who also is now ready to present those who are coming to baptism, and all of you, in the Holy Ghost to the Father, and to say, 'Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me':— To whom be glory for ever. Amen."
-St. Cyril of Jerusalem A.D. 347, Catechetical Lecture XIV, §30.

St. Macarius of Jerusalem, pray for us.

Tuesday 6 March 2012

"To Fulfil All Righteousness"

or "Mary, Born Under the Law"
 
        Now, if we are to accept that it is fitting for Mary to have been immaculately conceived and to have remained sinless, we must confront the verses that seem to suggest otherwise. First and foremost, we come upon Luke 2:22-24 where Mary brings a sin offering to the Temple after the Birth of Jesus. It is only natural, especially for non-Jewish Christians, to look at this and say that, had Mary been sinless, she would not have needed to bring a sin offering to the Temple. This seems a simple enough explanation and so we accept it without examination, forgetting that it contradicts the doctrine that was clearly taught and believed by all Christians from the very beginning. Instead, I invite you to consider the larger context, and with it to examine the underlying assumption that propels this conclusion. We assume that, because it is called a "sin offering," it is always offered in consequence of having committed some sin or another. There is, of course, a problem with this logic. By the same reasoning, because Jesus, whom nearly every Christian church and tradition says was completely sinless His entire life, went to John the Baptiser to be baptised by him─keeping in mind that John's baptism was called by Mark "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins," (1:4, emphasis added)─then Jesus must've sinned, thus proving every Christian who ever lived to believe in something soundly unbiblical. This is not only the same logic used to conclude that Mary must've sinned simply because she offered a sin offering, but it also places the person who uses it in the same position: standing in direct opposition of centuries to Christianity and millions of Christians. We live roughly 2000 years distant from the events and persons in question; we ought to trust the testimony of those closest to the time of Jesus and Mary far more than we trust our own opinions. After all, our opinions are being built on the testimony of those very people with whom we're deciding to disagree.
        So, if we accept that Jesus was sinless, despite the fact that he received "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins," because it was "fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15), then why should we not accept that Mary's offerings at the Temple might have been made for the same reason: to fulfil the requirements of righteousness? Let's take a look at the biblical passage in question, considering the larger context and noting the emphasis made by the author:
 
    "And at the end of eight days, when He was circumcised, He was called Jesus, the name given to Him by the angel before He was conceived in the womb."
-Luke 2:21
 
In verse 21, Luke first, before mentioning what Jesus' parents do, tells of Jesus' circumcision on the eighth day.
        In the twelfth chapter of Leviticus, the book of the Law of Moses, we see both the command to circumcise male Jewish children and the command that the mother do exactly as Mary did, because of ritual uncleanness. Not personal sin, mind you, but ritual uncleanness. Before we go on, therefore, I'd like you to read that chapter; it's fairly short:
 
    "The Lord said to Moses, 'Say to the people of Israel, "If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then shall she continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying; she shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.
     "And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her; then shall she be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean."'"
-Leviticus 12
 
Most of us are so divorced from our Jewish roots that the phrase "ritually unclean" has little meaning beyond the theoretical. But for Mary, a woman born under the Law of Moses, from the moment of her first menstruation, becoming ritually unclean was a constant ordeal. According to the prevailing Catholic tradition that she was a consecrated Virgin─as has been discussed previously─that constant, repeated ritual uncleanness, which, as we see in the above section of Leviticus, is one of many, many ways she can become temporarily barred from entrance into the Temple, is the very reason her marriage to Joseph was arranged. If she did not have a home outside the Temple, with a man who was either her father or her spouse, she would be homeless roughly every four weeks. This is not a matter of personal sin, but merely a fact of Jewish life as a woman.
        Again, you'll note that there's no mention of the woman having sinned in giving birth. (Indeed, how could giving birth be a sin, if God is the God of Life?) She's simply required to bring a specific burnt offering and a specific sin offering so that she shall "be clean from the flow of her blood." These things were simply related to the ritual uncleanness that we talked about in regard to the Perpetual Virginity: because Mary is a woman who has a menstrual cycle, she becomes unclean periodically. The offerings that Luke tells us she brought to the temple are simply the things that she is required to bring, according to the Law of Moses as a consequence of giving birth to a child, which, just like a woman's regular menstrual cycle, causes a flow of blood. Since this is the reason for these specific sacrifices, it should be noted that they would not have been required except that Mary gave birth to the very Son of God; I should hope that no one considers giving birth to God Himself to be a sin...
        Returning to Luke, we read,
 
     "And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, 'Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord'), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, 'a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.' ... the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the Law. ... And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth."
-Luke 2:22-24, 27, 39 (emphases added)
 
With Leviticus 12 in mind, notice how many times Luke repeats, "according to the Law," or some variation thereof. When as a Protestant I looked at this section of the Gospel of Luke with patience and an open mind, I realized that it would take a sort of tunnel vision to look past this repeated affirmation that everything that Mary and Joseph did was "according to the Law" and instead take their profound obedience to the Law of the Old Covenant as proof that Mary had somehow broken that Law. If that were the intent of the author, then surely some specific example of sinning would have been necessary to override the profound insistence by St. Luke that "they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord" (v. 39).
        All of these verses are written, not to show that Mary or anyone else was sinful, but rather the oposite: that they were perfectly obedient to the Law of Moses, under which they were all born. Jesus, whom even Paul admits was "born under the Law" (Galatians 4:4), is circumcised in accordance with that Law. Likewise, His mother, who was not only born under the Law but was also a woman, brings sacrifices to the Temple in accordance with the Law. As Leviticus 12 makes abundantly clear, the reason the sacrifices were necessary was not because of any personal sin or moral deficiency, but because she was made ritually unclean by the mere act of giving birth, because of "the flow of her blood." She offered them not to make up for sinfulness, but rather "to fulfil all righteousness," just as her Son did through His Baptism.