Lumen Fidei #3: Created by Love, for Love

From # 11: For Abraham, faith in God sheds light on the depths of his being, it enables him to acknowledge the wellspring of goodness at the origin of all things and to realize that his life is not the product of non-being or chance, but the fruit of a personal call and a personal love.

1 John 4:8 says, "Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love." We are told in the Catechism:

293      Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: “The world was made for the glory of God.”134 St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things “not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it,”135 for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: “Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand.”...

Everything was created simply because God loves. Everything from the grass, to the fish, to the duck-billed platypus, to every single individual human being. Love needs to create. Love cannot be static. It has to move, grow, and create.

We were made out of love for love.

We are all, every single one of us, without exception...

They actually sell this print on Etsy

You are not chance, you are not a product of random processes, you are handmade with love.

This is the third reflection in a series looking at Pope Francis' first encyclical, Lumen Fidei. To read the others, visit here.

Lumen Fidei #2: Jesus is My Homeboy

From #8: Faith is our response to a world which engages us personally, to a "Thou" who calls us by name.

When we pray using "thee" and "thou," we always feel so formal. I've heard people complain about certain translations of the Bible, namely the KJV, because it has so many "thee"s and "thou"s. No one speaks like that anymore.

And it is probably because no one speaks like that anymore that we've forgotten its original usage. "Thou" is actually informal. It was used in ancient times to denote familiarity, sometimes even disrespect.

So, God is a "'Thou' who calls us by name." Our relationship with God isn't supposed to be cold and formal. It's supposed to be intimate. God is our friend.

In prayer, instead of worrying about saying a memorized prayer correctly, we need to talk to God like He's our friend, like He's in the room with us.

Because God is not only a friend, He's more than a friend. He cares and loves about us more than we could ever possibly understand. He knows what is on our hearts and minds before we even tell him. But He still would like to hear it from our lips. We need to be in a relationship with Him.

And as Catholics, we have a whole host of other holy people to have a relationship with as well.

Source.

This is part 2 in a series looking at quotes that struck me in Pope Francis' first encyclical. Here is a link to the other posts.

Lumen Fidei #1: The Road to Nowhere

Here is the first installment in a series discussing Pope Francis' first encyclical, Lumen Fidei. Reading through it, there are many quotes that strike me and I want to share them with you all with a little explanation of why I like it.

Source

From #3: "Yet in the absence of light everything becomes confused; it is impossible to tell good from evil, or the road to our destination from other roads which take us in endless circles, going nowhere." 

The analogy I often use about my conversion to the Catholic Church is this:

At first I was angry at God for calling me into this church. What was a free-spirit like me doing in a Catholic Church? But I've come to realize that I'm like the raging waters. I need river banks, otherwise I'll go everywhere, not really getting anywhere.

As the title "Light of Faith" suggests, the light that the Pope is talking about in this passage is faith. Without faith, life becomes confused. Everything becomes relative and individualistic, so there is no right or wrong. And the road to our destination with God becomes lost in all of the other options in this world.

I'm not touching the middle point there about needing faith to know right from wrong. I'm a firm believer that you do not need to be religious to be moral. Morality was never a problem for me. I was pro-life, all life, long before I was a Christian.

However, without faith, I was dabbling in everything. I was changing religious views like I changed my clothes. I didn't really have any direction in life. I had no clue what I wanted to do. I had no community, no place to call home (other than the home with my parents, of course).

Source

As a Catholic, I have a structure and a community that is nearly 2000 years old. I have a wealth of information to read and digest, far more than I'll ever get to read in my lifetime. I can walk into a Catholic Church anywhere on the planet and be able to understand and participate in the Mass. I have a huge and diverse community to be a part of.

Sure, there are things that the Church teaches that I struggle with, just as there are things I completely embrace. Sure, I'm still looking for that close-knit community like I had at the Newman Center that seems to be sorely lacking in the 'real world.' But I view my initiation as a Catholic like a marriage. For better or worse, I'll be a Catholic until the day I die.

In December of 2004 I found the road to my destination. There will always be questions, there will always be doubts, there will be days when I'll almost regret my decision, but I'm always going to stay on my road.

Links to the rest of the series are here.

The Gas Chamber Returns

In other Life news: My homestate of Missouri is threatening to bring back the gas chamber since they can't get their hands on the three-drug cocktail for lethal injection and they have a court case pending on whether or not the one-drug injection is humane.

There's nothing humane about killing a human being.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2267    Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

In Ethics class, the professors explained it this way:

If we are in a village in the middle of nowhere and we have no way to keep the community safe from the aggressor, the death penalty is justified for the safety of the group. These circumstances are virtually non-existent in the industrialized world, so there is no reason for any industrialized nation to practice the death penalty.

I've had lots of discussions with people about the death penalty. Being a very active Catholic, many of my friends are politically conservative and have to justify some conservative ideas in light of their Catholic faith. They'll usually grant me that it's not a deterrent, that it costs more than keeping someone behind bars, and that it is not fairly applied in all cases. What they get stuck on is this: justice. Often, those facing the death penalty are convicted of murdering someone. My friends put themselves in the shoes of the victim's family. They know if someone in their family was killed, they'd want someone to pay.

There are a few ways for someone like me to approach this:

1. Ask them to put themselves in the murder's family's shoes. All that the death penalty will accomplish is the creation of two grieving families. It won't bring the victim back.

2. Ask them to consider the definition of the word "justice." The Catechism defines it as:

1807    Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”

They've already admitted that it is not fairly dealt out. And our judicial system isn't perfect. It's made of people, and any organization made of people is not going to be perfect. You cannot undo the execution of an innocent man.

The first part of this definition calls for the just person to respect the rights of each person. Many of my friends are against abortion; they hold that the most fundamental right is the right to life. As an unborn child has the right to life, so does everyone else.

Execution in China. China is one of only 3 countries that regularly execute more people than the US. The other three are: Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

3. A very good argument against the death penalty from a conservative perspective is this: it limits government. The death penalty is "an expression of the absolute power of the state." What gives the state the right to take life? The same people who are up in arms about death panels should be up in arms about the death penalty as well.

A fascinating article I found as I was researching for this post: http://americamagazine.org/issue/100/ten-reasons-oppose-death-penalty

Despite Ethics Committee's Recommendations...

I really hate starting a post like this. "Despite ethics committee's recommendations..." Does anyone listen to ethics committees anymore? Ethics should not be left to the politicians.

Source.

Despite Ethics Committee's recommendations, the President of France has reaffirmed that one of his political goals is to bring voluntary euthanasia to his country. He says that this proposal "will complete and improve the (current) law which was already a step in the direction of human dignity."

What is dignified about telling the handicapped that their lives are worthless? About telling those in pain that their lives are worthless?

What about equating value of life with how "wanted" it is? If a parent doesn't "want" a child, it is not a child and can be disposed of. If a sick person does not "want" to live anymore, their lives are disposable and worthless. It is turning life into a commodity to be created and destroyed at the whim of anyone who has the power and the will. 

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

before you were born I dedicated you,

a prophet to the nations I appointed you. -Jeremiah 1:5

Even to your old age I am he,

even when your hair is gray I will carry you;

I have done this, and I will lift you up,

I will carry you to safety. - Isaiah 46:4

Lawn Chair Catechism #6: Trust

Sorry this is late, my internship with Feminists for Life has been keeping me busy. This is the sixth installment of the Lawn Chair Catechism series. It's hosted by Catholicmom.com and there are a whole bunch of other bloggers participating. We're reading this awesome book called Forming Intentional Disciples by Sherry Weddell. It's never too late to join us!

So, someone did some research on people who had conversion experiences and found that they went through 5 stages:

1. Initial trust
2. Spiritual Curiosity
3. Spiritual Openness
4. Spiritual Seeking
5. Intentional Discipleship

This chapter has been about that first stage. As a convert, I can kinda relate to this list. My conversion really wasn't this straight forward though. She explains though, that like the cycle of grief, these stages aren't necessarily in order, people don't necessarily go through all of them, and we are all always bouncing around.  

Source

I'd have to say the initial bridge of trust for me with the Catholic Church was at the Catholic Newman Center in college. I saw a community of people who had been Catholic their whole lives, but they were still on fire for their faith. It was a community that I fit into, where everybody knew my name and we were all inseparable.

I think that might be part of my challenge now. Now, I have to be a Catholic without that solid bridge that I had in college. Compared to college, there isn't much of a bridge for me now. I'm used to a community that I was with 24/7 in which faith infused everything we did. Now, I have to be that bridge for others. It is hard to be a bridge for others when you don't really have one yourself. Maybe I am back at that first step in the conversion journey. The researcher says that we all bounce around all of the time.

Can't give others something I don't have myself

All of that said, I don't think trust is an issue at our parish. But this is coming from someone who has been an "insider" since day one because I married the Grand Knight for crying out loud. So, I've been intimately aware of the inner workings of the parish before I even joined, when Matt and I were just dating.

But we do publish our financial reports in the bulletin. Everyone in the offices and our priest have integrity. There isn't a single meeting in the parish that isn't advertised (because, frankly, all committees are always looking for new members).

While trust isn't an issue, maybe the "being a bridge" part is. It is the same handful of people doing almost everything. I have gotten the impression that some groups in the parish are cliquish. This has been a battle in nearly every parish I've ever seen. How can you get a group of closely knit people to open up and let others in? Or do you just create the environment for other groups to form? As it has been noted in this discussion before, bigger parishes could benefit from having smaller groups there-in. While my parish isn't large by any stretch of the imagination, maybe making more groups would be easier than getting the existing groups to open up.

Do you have any thoughts on being more open?

Some people (and this goes for all groups of people, not just churches) never got the memo that we are not in high school anymore.

One Child, Three Parents: What is Wrong with this Picture?

Scientists in the UK have found a way to make a child with three parents.

Yes, you read that correctly.

I wonder if this calls under Pope Paul VI's prophecies somewhere.

In any case, what is exactly wrong with this picture? Scientists have simply found a way for a woman who carries mitochondrial diseases to have a child who is biologically hers. We're only fixing a disease, right?

Source

Let's start at the beginning: We have here a child conceived via IVF. IVF has many serious moral and practical implications. First of all, the success rate is rather poor and it's really, really expensive.  It also creates a life at the expense of others. Life starts at conception, right? Well, more lives are being conceived during IVF than ever see the inside of the mother's womb. The main reason why the Church does not approve of IVF, however, is that it separates sex from procreation. It turns procreation into something that is done impersonally in a lab. To read more, I recommend an article by one of my fellow Ignitum Today columnists, Bernard Toutounji. 

Source

Problemo numero dos: A child's DNA is being messed with. A scholar interviewed by CNN in the original article points out: It crosses "the line that will eventually lead to a eugenic designer baby market." There are already ways for a woman to avoid passing her mitochondrial disease to her children in using a donated egg (see next problem below). The only thing this insures is that the child is genetically related to her. It is laudable to want to spare your child the pain of mitochondrial disease, but where do we draw the line? Let's say, someday scientist link being left-handed to a gene. Well, it's a right-hand world, so let's fix it. And my family needs more boys, so let's mess with the DNA to make sure I don't have any girls. And then we look at places like China with their one child policy and we see where this dystopia is heading. 

Egg donation: Directive 40:

Heterologous fertilization (that is, any technique used to achieve conception by the use of gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses) is prohibited because it is contrary to the covenant of marriage, the unity of the spouses, and the dignity proper to parents and the child.

It's a form of infidelity to use someone other than your spouse to have kids. It degrades the other person by using their gametes as a tool. It's degrading to the child who does not have the opportunity to be raised by their biological parent.

Sometimes it seems as if we forget that children are human beings. They are not commodities. They are not the property of their parents. No one has the right to have a child at all costs. Children are human beings. They are gifts from God made in His image with incalculable dignity. We have the responsibility to raise them, shelter them, feed them, and keep them free from diseases. Yes, it is our moral imperative to keep our child healthy, but not to the expense of others.