Carthusians AND Apostles

Decadence and the Fall of Rome

2009-12-11T23:19:00.006-05:00

I think the Empire is on its way out, my friends. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to be liked about America. Unfortunately, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that most of it is in the past. America is at a crossroads, and I fear we're going to veer wildly in the wrong direction and possibly careen off the edge of the cliff, if something serious does not change soon. The social and moral problems that we face are only getting worse as time goes on. American people seem to have so embraced a life of hedonism and secularism that there is nothing stopping them (us) from the complete corrosion of our moral values. That, dear friends, is always the beginning of an age of total moral decadence, and that, in turn, is usually the last phase of any great society. We need more Fulton Sheens in this country if we're going to get it turned around.

You might wonder what, exactly, I'm talking about. Well, in case you haven't heard, the economy is in something of a bad state. There are people still losing their jobs or still unemployed, people struggling to get by and put food on their families' tables. These people exist in the United States today in the highest numbers that they have in recent memory. In the midst of all this financial hardship, the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, there is a company that offers such a ridiculously opulent luxury to swanky high-income customers that I am truly appalled by its mere existence. Here's an example:

Do you know what that is? That's an Apple MacBook Pro, plated in 24-karat gold. Yes, that's right. It's one of the most expensive computers on the market today, and now there's a company out there offering to plate its external elements in 24-karat gold, just in case you have a little extra spending money at this time of year. In case you're wondering, you can also get a whole host of other electronics (iPhones, Blackberrys, other computers, TVs, etc.) plated. Gold isn't the only option, either. They also offer white gold, platinum, chrome, and a host of others.

As Jesus commanded the apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Pray!"

Disjunction of the Week #5

2009-12-11T17:57:00.005-05:00

As many of you are likely to already know (thus raising questions about why I bother to talk about it), this coming Sunday is called "Gaudete Sunday," with "gaudete" being that Latin word, "Rejoice!" This is the third Sunday of Advent, set aside to take a moment and be joyful in the midst of what was not quite a sorrowful season, but which is decked out in purple nevertheless. As with Laetare Sunday in Lent, Gaudete Sunday is one of only two occasions throughout the entire year wear priests have the option (option) to wear "rose" (more or less pink) vestments. Thus, Disjunction of the Week #5:

Rose vestments, or violet vestments?

My Answer: Rose vestments. Sure, it may not be everyday anymore when you can see a man dressed in pink, and that may have certain very unfortunate connotations in American society. Nevertheless, the Church is not about American society. The Church is not about any society. In fact, the Church is about changing American society for the better, as with any other. I think the symbolism and meaning behind the use of rose vestments is really cool, and I like to see priests taking full advantage of all the variety permitted by Holy Mother Church. Thus, I'm down with rose vestments.

That said, there are good rose vestments, and there are bad rose vestments. Basically, the difference is that between a dignified, manly "rose" and a weak, pathetic, girly "pink." A man, a priest, should never look girly or effeminate when celebrating Mass. I think the vestment at the top of this post is an example of the good kind of rose vestments (they are available here). An example of the bad kind might be something like this:

We'll leave it at that.

His Eminence

2009-06-01T11:44:00.003-04:00

Well, Angelo Cardinal Sodano left our humble town yesterday afternoon and is now safely back in Rome. I am expecting to sort through all of the video and still photography that was taken during his visit soon and post whatever comes out as the best of the best. Our photographer reportedly took around 800 pictures. There's going to be a lot of sifting...

As for personal impressions, the Cardinal was a very warm, down-to-earth man. I had the opportunity to serve a private Mass for him yesterday morning, after which he gave me a Papal rosary as a gift. It was a wonderful experience for me, one that not many minor seminarians in this world can boast of (excuse the terminal preposition). His presence among us was truly an honor, and all of the festivities were fantastic. More to come ASAP.

(Above, Father Paul McDonnell welcoming Cardinal Sodano to the seminary chapel during his Solemn Mass on the Feast of St. Joseph Marello, Saturday, May 30th.)

Disjunction of the Week #4

2009-05-22T15:25:00.004-04:00

Folks, allow me to preface this by saying that, over the course of the next week-and-a-half or so, there shall be a great many more posts of more substantive matters. After all, we are staring down the barrel of the Triduum and Feast of St. Joseph Marello, which begins this Wednesday at 7:00 PM (all are invited--it's at the seminary in Laflin). What's more, after the day's festivities on Saturday (the Feast), there is the Solemn Pontifical Mass of Thanksgiving (a mouthful that never gets old, in my humble opinion) with Cardinal Sodano. For those incapable of scrolling down, that Mass is at 3:00 PM on Sunday, May 31, at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church, in Pittston. You are deeply encouraged to attend. So, with posts of a serious nature ahead, and finals week now just behind, I feel safe and justified in dedicating the remainder of this post to the Disjunction of the Week:

Now, allow me to preface this by saying that, in my opinion, it is a very serious matter. This is no disjunction to be wantonly disregarded. If you answer it wrong, we will likely no longer be friends (I hope the sarcasm dripping off these past few sentences is thick enough for you to catch.) So, to prevent all further ado, I give you, Disjunction of the Week #4:

Nathan's Famous, or Sabrett's?

My Answer: Sabrett's. Admittedly, this is a difficult and important for every person to make as they grow out of their adolescence and flower into thriving adulthood. Also admittedly, there are merits to both choices. First, let's begin by examining the other, incorrect, choice, which is Nathan's. I do enjoy Nathan's. Don't get me wrong about that. What's more, they are single-handedly responsible for the invention of the only sporting event that I watch with any regularity, the Annual Nathan's Famous International Hot Dog Eating Contest. Who could allow the Fourth of July to pass without seeing those ten minutes (now) of glory? Nathan's has a lot going for it and, all kidding aside, I can respect the possibility that some of you may fall into the grievous error of choosing Nathan's over Sabrett's. Allow me to instruct you as to why you would be wrong:

The merits of Nathan's aside, Sabrett's does, in my opinion, have an even greater cultural impact. I know, with the Contest on the list of Nathan's achievements, this seems like a hefty and perhaps indefensible claim. Nevertheless, I would posit that Nathan's has essentially that and that only on the list of their cultural gravity. One gigantic achievement, and that is all. From what I hear, the Contest is not even all that popular outside of Coney Island, with some people preferring lesser sporting events like the "Superbowl" and "World Series." In the face of that, what does Sabrett's have? When a sane person thinks of New York (the important part, that is), they ought to have a few very certain ideas come to mind. Among them, if they meet the previous requirement of sanity, I should say would be the hot dog vendor, the guy on the street in the tin tank with that blue and yellow umbrella proudly proclaiming his purpose. The dirty-water-dog. It is part of the life and breath of that Town, and, for as much as I may pretend to deny it, I have to admit that the old Urbs (well, technically not the old Urbs) is indeed the center of at least all American civilization.

I don't really know what it is. It's one of those things for which I have an intellectual intuition without being able to find an adequate means of expression. There's just something about the experience of going up to that guy and asking for "one with chili and cheese" and cracking open a can of Coke while walking down the street to the hustle and bustle of it all, enjoying a 100% beef natural casing hot dog that you know was simmering quietly in a vat of its own delicious juices (as well as those of its companions) for hours before you picked it up. Actually, there's a hot dog vendor here in Scranton (Sabrett's, of course). I went to his stand when it was on campus a few times and witnesses will likely recount that, as I unwrapped the gleaming aluminum foil and took that first incomparable bite, I could be heard to say, dog still in mouth, "Now that's America." And so it is. Your thoughts?

Weekend Update

2009-05-15T08:10:00.002-04:00

Well, the last week of classes is about to be safely behind me. That's right, the spring semester of my third year is speeding toward the finish line, incredibly enough. Hard as I may find it to be this much further down the path of formation, I still have six years ahead. Of course, given how quickly the past three seem to have gone, I am sure the remaining six will fly by, as well. Father Paul will be sending me all over the Wyoming Valley for Masses in no time. Those ruminations aside, next week is still finals week, and so I do have a lot to do in this coming week. A few papers to write, a few exams to take, and hopefully to come out alright in the end. And then we have to prepare for the Cardinal....

Well, before I head off to eggs and sausage land (breakfast, that is), I thought I would give you the next disjunction of the week, this one is #3:

St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas

My Answer: St. Augustine. Don't get me wrong, St. Thomas Aquinas is certainly a stand-up saint and Doctor of the Church. In fact, I would not dispute the claim that his theology is the official version, fully endorsed by the Church, and that this is a claim to fame of which even our dear Augustine cannot boast. Additionally, St. Thomas definitely composed some killer music. I also have to mention that there's a certain innocent joy one gets in considering St. Thomas as the pudgy Dominican who doesn't talk a lot, but who can give a serious beat-down to any philosophical or theological opponent in writing. St. Thomas is definitely worthy of n amount of praise, n being a number approaching infinity. I'm just saying that I think St. Augustine is worthy of n+1 amount of praise.

And why? Well, I think Augustine was a cooler guy. For one thing, he has a truly inspiring conversion story. For another, you've got to give him some additional props for defending the Church so bravely and accurately when it was under attack after the fall of the Roman Empire. The way I see it, St. Augustine is the Catholic Church's James T. Kirk, the guy who forged the path, the great pioneer in whose footsteps all others must follow. St. Thomas Aquinas, by that analogy, is like Jean-Luc Picard. In many ways, he may be a more efficient, capable starship captain (theologian and philosopher), but that's only because he had the good example of that first predecessor to follow and embellish.

Your thoughts?

The Pope in the Middle East

2009-05-08T22:37:00.000-04:00

Well, for those few who read my blog...and are unaware, I just wanted to take a brief moment this evening and write up something a wee bit more serious that the disjunction of the week, which would be to briefly comment that our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, is currently on his pilgrimage in the Middle East. Since Pope Paul VI took his landmark, history-making pilgrimage there after the Second Vatican Council, this trip has become something of a Pontificate tradition. Unfortunately, the Middle East remains a place of bitter hatred and controversy, and the Holy Father's trip has is not without a certain level of security risk to it. Thus, I would only urge all of us, as he himself has done, to pray, not only for his safety and the safety of all those involved, but also for there to be some true spiritual progress made by this pilgrimage in the direction of greater peace and concord between the Middle East and the West, between Islam and Christianity.

Disjunction of the Week #2

2009-05-08T14:59:00.003-04:00

Well, I have committed myself to coming up with a new disjunction for us to discuss once weekly, and it shall always be on Friday, and so I shall do that now. Keeping in mind that these disjunctions are explicitly intended to induce humor, I give you:

Star Trek, or Star Wars?

My answer: Star Trek

For me, this is truly a tough question. Going far back into my childhood, I can actually remember staying up late on the weekend with my parents and watching The Stargazer with Jack Horkheimer, followed by reruns of the original Star Trek That's right, despite being born in 1987, I was raised on the original, the real McCoy (pun most definitely intended). The Next Generation was also there, but I always enjoyed the original more, for some reason or another. Watching Star Trek with mom and pop is one of the fondest memories that I have, and it was through that experience that I developed a life-long interest in science fiction in general. I remain very much a Trekkie.

Still, Star Wars has not been without its impact on my life. While the Trek is undoubtedly a means to examining certain germane cultural questions in a fictional setting, Star Wars is a science-fictional re-presentation of some of humanity's eternal struggles, like any good literature often will be. Star Wars explores the "big questions" of good and evil, love and hate, destiny and free will, and life after death. The films (I speak particularly of the original three, though I am not entirely averse to the CGI-laden second trilogy) also have a formidable soundtrack, fantastic battle and hand-to-hand scenes, some great jokes, and, perhaps most important to me, the archetype of the wise old sage. I love the wise old sage, and Star Wars was gracious enough to supply two of them, Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda. As the sages get older and physically more feeble, they only become wiser and their command of the Force becomes greater. It's fantastic. Still, despite the profound contribution of Star Wars, it does suffer from some stolen themes and plot devices. I fully encourage you to read the Baghavad Gita and discover that Hindu monks came up with Star Wars thousands of years before George Lucas was born.

In all, I think that Star Trek is just more perennial, more fun, a better vehicle for social commentary and exploration of new ideas, and has had a greater social impact. I think more people identify with the phrase "Live long and prosper" than they do with "The Force be with you," and I think society is justified in that.

ANNUNTIO VOBIS

2009-05-01T23:50:00.006-04:00

Gaudium Magnum! On Pentecost Sunday, 31 May, 2009, His Eminence Angelo Cardinal Sodano, Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals and former Vatican Secretary of State, will celebrate a Solemn Pontifical Mass of Thanksgiving at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Parish church here in Pittston, PA!

The occasion for the celebration is the eightieth anniversary of the presence of the Oblates of St. Joseph in the United States, their first assignment having been here in Pittston. Additionally, this celebration is planned to coincide with the celebration of the feast-day of our Founder, St. Joseph Marello, a priest of Cardinal Sodano's own home diocese. The Mass will begin promptly at 3:00 o'clock.

Local clergy and Oblates of St. Joseph will concelebrate, as well as visiting clergy from Raleigh, NC; California; and Perú. The Bishop Emeritus of Scranton, James C. Timlin, D.D., will assist in choir. The general public is invited to attend the Mass and join us in our joyful celebration. Members of the press, other bloggers, etc., are fully encouraged to advertise this event themselves in order to gain as much wide-spread attention for this celebration and the visit of Cardinal Sodano, a rare privilege for a small town in Northeast PA.

The cardinal is also seen here imposing ashes on the head of John Paul II (santo subito):

St. Joseph the Worker

2009-05-01T23:16:00.003-04:00

I would be remiss, of course, if I neglected to mention the handsome man on our left.
<---
<---
Who is he, you might ask? Well, he is St. Joseph the Worker, indeed, the very same Joseph venerated on March 19 as the Spouse of the Virgin Mary. Today, however, he is venerated on a separate feast-day and for a separate reason, and that is, precisely, his status as an entirely ordinary, common manual laborer. Tradition tells us he was a carpenter, and that is why we see him operating a laborious manual drill by the candle-light of what seems to be a young girl, but is probably supposed to be Our Lord. (Kudos to Georges de la Tour for that intensely masculine rendering.) In any case, this feast-day was decreed by Pope Pius XII on 1955 to be celebrated on May 1 each year, in order to sanctify the secular (sc., of heavily communist influence) celebration of labor in and of itself common in Europe, thus continuing an ages-old Church tradition of sanctifying a non-Christian celebration by placing a new Christian celebration over top of it.

So, the message to be drawn from this is, of course, that work is a good thing, not a necessary evil. Work is a person's way of participating in the Divine act of creation, by maintaining and sustaining the creation that God has given us to watch over. Work is a means of sanctification and of cultivating virtue, as both St. Joseph and his Foster-Child were well aware. Work, however, is not a supreme good simply in itself, as the secular celebration might have us believe. Work ought not to be venerated for its own sake, but for the sake of the fact that it is yet another way in which the Lord allows us to imitate Him in one of His most profound activities. It is another way for us to "be perfect, as...[our] heavenly Father is perfect."

Disjunction of the Week

2009-05-01T09:07:00.001-04:00

I've decided to start a new segment here on the old blog, which I am calling the Disjunction of the Week. For those who have not sat through a grueling logic course (and then, like me, had the audacity to take a second one for kicks), I will explain that a disjunction is a choice between two options. Technically, logicians will also allow for the making of a third choice, "both." However, to keep things simple, I would like to limit us to an either-or scenario. It is my hope that readers will find my weekly disjunctions entertaining enough to participate in via the comment box, and also that they will motivate me to post more regularly, since I will now have a weekly obligation. Without further ado, this week's disjunction:

Does pizza come in "pies" or "trays"?

My answer: Having been acclimated to the entire pizza realm mostly by my father's family, I say that pizza comes in "pies." For the record, my father's family is half from Miners' Mills, Wilkes-Barre, and half from Jersey City, NJ. The Miners' Mills portion (Gramps) emigrated to Jersey City after World War II, but brought the Jersey City portion (Mamu) back with him to Harvey's Lake in the 1970s, and thus I consider my father mostly a Jersey boy. Among them, pizza can never come in trays, and I have inherited their point of view. However, special mention should be made of that rectangular form of pizza that could clearly never be a "pie," either. It is my opinion, since "tray of pizza" is not a phrase in our vocabulary, that these should always be called "sheets."

Now, it is of particular note that the pizza recipe prevalent in this area is largely the Old Forge style, quite distinct from anything available in the environs of New York or, from what I understand, Chicago, the two big-name varieties sold here in the US. The fact that the local pizza recipe is distinct does, in my opinion, warrant the change in its attendant vocabulary, and so I would never dispute with someone who calls one of these a "tray" of pizza. The phrase, however, remains foreign to me and I only use it when "going local" for the sake of you townies. This is one of the ways in which it is sometimes evident that I am not so much a Pittston kid as I sometimes think.

Ecce Ancilla Domini!

2009-03-25T22:58:00.005-04:00

Buona Festa! I realize that we are more or less approaching the end of this happy feast day, but I wanted to be sure and get my two cents in before the Solemnity expires completely. For those who haven't had their breviaries handy today, March 25th is exactly nine months before December 25th, which is of course Christmas. Put two and two together. I'll wait....

Yes, indeed, Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus. What usually happens nine months before a birth? How was this event different in the particular case of Jesus Christ? Bingo. Today is the day that the Church celebrates the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the apparition of the archangel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary, and her humble acceptance of God's plan for her.

In my opinion, this feast is of particular importance to modern society, and, so say I, ought to be a major tool for re-evangelizing the West, as nearly everyone in the Church believes we must do. Why is this the case? Well, there are two dimensions in which I see this feast as one of paramount importance to contemporary Western society:

First, there is the "Fiat" dimension. In Mary's simple statement, "let it be done to me according to your word," I believe the contemporary West, if it is truly willing to engage in any degree of self-reflection, my find its true and stark antithesis. That is to say, Mary's "Fiat" (Latin for "let it be [so]") is the expression of a very important and very deeply Christian sentiment that is very nearly dead in this civilization of ours. On the contrary, the defining maxim of Western society as it now stands is "let it be done to me according to my word." The West has become spiritually paralyzed the more it has become materially wealthy. Where there is material prosperity, faith becomes a true challenge, and so it is in our society. We are at the crossroads. One path, wide and level, leads to perdition; the other, straight and narrow, leads to salvation. The "Fiat" will reveal which is which.

The second dimension, perhaps of even greater importance, is the Incarnational dimension, if you want to call it that (honestly, I'm not sure I do). Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that today is the day Catholics believe Jesus became Man, and it has been today for many centuries. I have never honestly heard anyone propose that Jesus was not human until Christmas, that Jesus had not yet become a human person until His birth. Rather, it seems to be the constant and continuous thought of the entire Church that Jesus has been a man since the moment of His conception. Consider the tremendous pro-life meaning present in that belief!

I'm not exactly sure why today is not a huge day for promoting the pro-life cause in the Church. The fact seems to be that a great many Catholics do not accept the Church's belief that human life begins at conception, and yet it is the belief of the Catholic Church that Jesus became a human being today, nine months before He was born. The two notions cannot be reconciled. Either the Incarnation happened today, or it happened at some other point between today and Christmas. That simply is not what the Church teaches. Today ought to be a day of great zeal and evangelization, to renew and re-evaluate our commitment to the cause of protecting human life. Today, the day that the most important of all human lives began, ought to be the day the entire Church commits herself to the purpose of defending human life from conception to natural death. Why it isn't, I don't know. Keep it in your prayers.

Also, consider this:

And also this:

St. Joseph's Day

2009-03-20T22:10:00.003-04:00

Well, the Feast Day may actually be over and done now, but I'm going to plead "octave" on this one, and, since I therefore have until next Friday to post something about the Feast of St. Joseph, I'm by no means late.

That said, I would like to take a very brief opportunity to say that, after a very wonderful novena preached by a Franciscan Friar from the Custody of the Holy Land (stationed in Washington, D.C.), the Solemnity of St. Joseph was celebrated with great solemnity (go figure) here at the seminary both at 10:30 in the morning with a Mass celebrated by the novena preacher and at 7:00 at night, celebrated by the auxiliary bishop of Scranton, the Most Rev. John Dougherty. Both Masses were splendid.

As you might imagine, the Feast of St. Joseph is a rather joyous occasion for the Oblate community, a day filled with wishes of "buona festa" ("happy feast-day"), laughing, singing, and so on, even if you don't happen to be of Italian descent. I can honestly say that, as has always been the case since my arrival at the seminary, St. Joseph was duly honored yesterday with those celebrations, and I pray to him that he may intercede for all of you! Happy Feast of St. Joseph! Buona Festa!

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

2009-03-17T16:45:00.003-04:00

As everyone most likely knows, this is a special day for myself and for many Irish throughout the world, not least of all the Irish diaspora here in the United States. Yes, indeed, today is the feast day of the Apostle of Ireland, that great snake-driver, St. Patrick. This is a day for all of us of Irish descent to celebrate, of course, that which is "our thing" in common, but also, in my opinion to have a few serious thoughts, if we can manage.

First, all of this drunken revelry--not a part of the actual holiday. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to alcohol, and I'm not averse to the occasional drink, myself. However, the idea that St. Patrick's day is about green beer and consuming as much of it as possible in order to get as sick as possible as early as possible is simply offensive. Does anyone know how they traditionally celebrate this day in Ireland? That's right, the same way we celebrate Thanksgiving (sans football and with different food).

Second, of course, I think this is a great time for all of the diaspora to take few moments and reflect on Ireland itself, and the sorry state that that nation is in. After centuries of oppressions and violence, several attempts at revolution, one finally successful, political turmoil, internal violence tantamount to a civil war, and the continued partition of a once-united nation, Ireland's history is full of grief and sorrow. In my opinion, the partition of Ireland contributes to that sorrow still, and it would be best for Ireland, I believe, if it were once again whole. What do you all think? Does 26+6=1? Would it be better for Ireland to be reunified? Should there be but one Irish people with one Irish culture, given that they have but one Irish history? Let me know, and happy St. Patrick's day!

Not Quite the Ides, but Still Disastrous

2009-03-09T16:39:00.002-04:00

In a monumentally terrible decision in his as-yet wet-behind-the-ears presidency, Barry O'Bama has decided to officially overturn George Bush's executive policy prohibiting the use of federal funds (in other words, your tax money) for embryonic stem cell research. Thus, I imagine that it will no doubt shortly be the case that the money the federal government has taken from you will be used to fund embryonic stem cell research, on some level, at least.

Now, what about this research? I mean, there are plenty of scientists and quasi-scientists out there claiming that it will magically lead to the cures for all of the worst diseases that afflict the human race. Supposedly, embryonic stem cell research is going to cure Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, and anything else that the current medical establishment has not yet been able to cure. Somehow, I doubt that this research will swiftly and effortlessly lead to such a fantastic revolution in medicine. However, that's not to say that it does not provide some promise. So, basically, the question on anyone's mind ought to be: Well, if it shows promise for potentially decreasing massive amounts of human suffering, what's so wrong about it?

The answer to that is actually fairly simple. Stem cells, as far as I (a far cry from a scientist, I'll have you know) understand it, are cells that form in the very beginning stages of what I believe to be life just after fertilization. When the fertilized egg (the zygote) needs to grow, it does so by dividing, splitting itself, and forming new cells. Those cells have the remarkable ability to turn into practically anything that they're needed to be on down the line--brain, heart, muscle, lung, and so on. Scientists want to tap into this remarkable stem cell ability to change into different things in order to grow things like brain cells, heart cells, liver cells, pancreas cells, and so forth in order to undo the effects of some pretty nasty diseases. The only problem with the plan, however, is that it requires them to take stem cells from a growing embryo and use them for someone else. In the process, the embryo (a person) is destroyed (i.e., killed). On that grounds, the Catholic Church and many other persons and organizations have seen through the promise of stem cell research to its underlying moral problem, and ruled it out as an unethical alternative. Sure, it could help, but people will die in the process, and that isn't acceptable.

Now that President Obama is lining himself up to be a fierce opponent of the Pro-Life movement, I think it is time to start rethinking our game plan and tackling new problems with new force.

Experience

2009-02-18T20:32:00.003-05:00

A lot of people say to me, "But, Pat, doesn't being a seminarian mean that you have to give up a lot of the experiences most people have in college?" In fact, it does. There are a whole lot of experiences that most 21-year-olds have had that I have not. There is a lot that I have not done, and, if everything goes according to plan, a lot that I will never do. Even if everything were not to go according to plan, there are certain opportunities that I have willingly passed up, and which I would not then get back. Certainly, the choice to enter the seminary, the choice to pursue what I believed and still believe to be a vocation, has involved sacrifice already, not merely in the future. Won't I miss out on a lot of the "normal" things of college life? Sure, I already have, and I did in high school as well.

But, you know what, I don't lament the fact that I never got drunk on prom night and did things that I might well regret for the rest of my life. I'm not bothered by the fact that I've never had the experience of living in a dorm, and it's okay that I will never get the chance to hang around the campus all day and "live it up" (which is rather low-key in Scranton) with my fellow college students. Why is that okay? After all, for many or most people, these years are filled with so much formative experience, so many memories that shape an entire life and make people what they will always be from now on. So, why is it okay that I have not had those formative experiences? Simply, because I've also never gone skydiving.

Hear me out. What I mean is that we each get only one life, just one. And it's just plain wrong to presume that you can use that one life to have all of the experiences possible. Sure, I've missed out on a lot, and I will continue to miss out on a lot. I am fully aware of what I have missed, but I am also fully aware of what I have chosen in its place, which is what most of the rest of the world misses. I have had experiences, different from the normal ones, to be sure, that have shaped who I am and what I will always be just as much as those other experiences, though in a different way.

A lot of people approach this question as if I were giving up the normal path and getting nothing in return. That isn't the case. I have made my choice, and I have taken a different path. I graduated from high school almost three years ago, and it wasn't like Ferris Beuller's Day Off or The Breakfast Club or Sixteen Candles or Pretty in Pink. There were times when I wanted it to be, but it wasn't. Now, it's over, and I'm in college. It isn't like Animal House or Accepted. The rest of my life will not be like When Harry met Sally or The Godfather or The Lord of the Rings. My life will be something different, something without a stereotype and a banal cultural expectation. My life will be different, and that means giving up what is commonplace. I have chosen that, and I continue to choose it every day.

The Rationale

2009-01-26T14:57:00.005-05:00

No, this is not about the rare vestment. Sorry, liturgical geeks. Not this time.

Rather, I am talking about the rationale behind a solid pro-life stance. Frankly, my experience has been that there are a good many Catholics in the Church who, rightfully enough, oppose abortion, but, sadly, are unable to defend their stance. To be a little harsh, these are the people who make the rest of us look like idiots when our beliefs are challenged. Of course, they don't do nearly so bad a job as folks like Nancy Pelosi, who knowingly give scandal by making it appear as if the Church's position were somehow debatable or unofficial. That is not the case.

That, my dear friends, is exactly the right example of what we are up against in the contemporary Church. Nancy Pelosi is an "ardent, practicing Catholic" only in the make-believe world where Catholicism is a religion without codified doctrine or morals. However, please understand that I, for one, do not believe that Nancy Pelosi is actively opposing a doctrine that she knows and understands to be true. Rather, I believe that Nancy Pelosi, like so many others, is the product of the tremendous confusion that overwhelmed the Church in the 1960s. When the Second Vatican Council closed, she was a mere 25 years old, and that was in 1965, right in the middle of social turmoil that has yet to be completely resolved.

Speaker Pelosi is one of millions of Catholics in this kind of predicament. It is our job, as Catholics, to be able to explain to her what the Church believes and why. Additionally, it is our job, as opponents of abortion, to be able to explain our case to anyone who denies it or wants it clarified. Since the latter task is more general (and often the one more necessary), I shall begin there.

Why do I believe that abortion is wrong? The answer to that question comes in two parts. First, I believe that it is always wrong to directly end an innocent human life. Second, I believe that abortion directly puts an end to innocent human life.

Now, it may seem like that first claim will probably go uncontested in any debates you may have on the matter. Do not be fooled, however. There are plenty of people who think they believe that it is wrong to directly end an innocent human life who are really not as solid on it as they may seem. Off the top of my head, I can cite the examples of people who usually oppose abortion, but advocate it or tolerate it in cases where the mother's life is at risk, where the child is the product of rape or incest, where the child is not likely to survive birth, where the mother may not be able to provide an adequate existence for the child, and where the child is known to have a high probability of mental or physical handicap.

These are often cited by what I call "soft pro-choicers" as circumstances that mitigate the severity of the act of abortion. At face value, I think we can all understand where they are coming from, here. No, it is not "fair" for a woman (probably a young girl) to have to carry, deliver, and raise a child that she never intended to have, and that she would not have were it not for a sexual crime perpetrated against her and against her will. That is by no means fair. It is not easy to raise a child with physical or mental disabilities, and to do so may well be beyond the abilities of many women. Justice is supremely denied when a mother has to work multiple jobs to cover the bills and can barely scrape together enough money to feed her child. No pregnant woman wants to die during delivery. All of the situations noted above as potential mitigating circumstances are understandably painful and difficult to handle. They do violate an inherent human understanding of justice and right.

Nevertheless, what we as opponents of abortion must always contend is that abortion does not decrease the injustice of the situation, but rather it increases the injustice. It is better to exist than not to exist. It is better to be alive than dead. Furthermore, if we truly believe that it is wrong to directly end an innocent human life, we must also acknowledge, then, that it is better to let a child be born who will die during delivery (that is, indirectly), than to kill it beforehand. Likewise, it is better to let a child be born whose birth will kill its mother (indirectly, again) than to kill the child beforehand. It is better to let a child be born into a life made difficult and risky by disability or poverty than to deny that child the possibility of any life at all. It is better for a woman to allow her brother's or father's or uncle's or anonymous rapist's child to be born than to impose on that child a death sentence for a crime committed by someone else.

We are not talking, here, about the application of principles. We are talking about the principles themselves. Thus, while some may accuse us of being harsh and our ideals too lofty for implementation, while we may come off as favoring the life of the child or as having some wicked desire to impose further suffering on a woman already going through a difficult time, we must always keep in mind that these beliefs are necessarily implied by the principle that it is morally wrong to directly end an innocent human life. Anyone who denies our claims denies that principle, and it is on that ground that these differences of opinion must be argued. Do not allow yourself to be caught up in difficult questions of application, many of which are designed to make you seem (and feel) like a heartless attempt at humanity. Rather, remember that the principle is worded in such a way that it protects as much life as possible from direct harm. To encapsulate that thought briefly: To carry the child to term is the only way that both mother and child could possibly both live good, happy lives.

The second principle is one that will be much more commonly and easily opposed, with the claim that abortion does not bring a direct end to an innocent human life, because the zygote/embryo/fetus is not a human being. This is a question entirely outside the realm of religion. Therefore, your argument cannot be based on the Bible, on Church teaching, on documents of the USCCB, or on apparitions in a slice of toast, unless you are arguing with people who accept that those things have authority. If you are not, if you are arguing with, say, an atheist (a worst-case scenario for which you ought to be prepared, as its reasoning carries over easily to discussion with other groups), then you will have to base your argument on science and common sense. Mine goes something like this:

Scientifically speaking, there is one sure-fire way to know what species even a single animal cell belongs to. All that needs to be done is to count the chromosomes in the nucleus. That is to say, no two animal species have the same number of chromosomes in the nuclei of their cells, so you could give a qualified scientific professional the skin cell (for example) of any animal, and counting the number of chromosomes in its nucleus will reveal its species of origin. For human beings, that number is 46. So, if you give a scientist a cell and ask him what species it came from, he'll count the chromosomes in its nucleus, and, if that number is 46, he'll say that it's a human cell.

Now, in species that reproduce sexually, there are two kinds of cells (for our purposes), diploid (body) cells and haploid (reproductive) cells. Diploid cells include things like skin, bone, muscle, blood, etc., and they form constitutive parts of an individual organism (an individual person). Haploid cells, on the other hand, are meant only for reproduction, and include ova (egg cells) for women and sperm cells for men. Haploid cells contain half the number of chromosomes found in diploid cells. So, a human gamete (haploid/reproductive cell) will have 23 chromosomes. Why half? Well, that question is answered in considering the process of sexual reproduction. If everything goes according to plan, what eventually happens is that the sperm, containing half the chromosomes of a body cell, and the egg, also containing half the number of chromosomes, will united, to the point that their two nuclei fuse together, and the result is a cell with a nucleus containing 46 chromosomes, a human diploid cell, called a zygote (the process of uniting them was called fertilization).

At that point, it is of paramount importance to note that the zygote has a full complement of 46 human chromosomes, thus giving it a complete set of genetic code. What does it do after that? It rapidly begins to divide, splitting in half, and then in half again, and then in half again. The number of cells keeps on doubling and doubling and doubling. Eventually, some of those cells begin to take on specialized purposes, and it is not long before scientists can identify heart, lungs, bones, skin, muscles, and a brain. In essence, once the sperm and the egg are united and their nuclei become one nucleus, the zygote can be determined as the beginning of a years-long process of unbroken, systematic growth, resulting in something that everyone identifies as a human being, given enough time. If you trace the growth of any person on earth back far enough, you cannot but arrive at the zygote where it all began. On the other hand, there is no human zygote (i.e., one with 46 chromosomes) in existence that can become anything but a human being.

This is the part where many pro-abortion contenders will claim that the zygote is indeed a human cell, complete with its 46 chromosomes, but that it is not an organism distinct from the woman in which it is found. That, really, is a claim that ought to be pretty easy to handle. All that need be done is note two simple things:

1.) If this claim is correct, then there is (or was, at fertilization) a cell inside every pregnant woman that had the ability to grow into a distinct human organism, despite being a part of her body in the first place. How can this be explained, if the zygote is indeed part of the woman? At what point does the "cellular mass" (as they call it) cease to be a part of the pregnant woman, and why?

2.) The genetic code of the zygote is distinct from that of the mother. Only half of the zygote's genetic material comes from her, the other half coming from the father. How can the zygote be a part of the woman's body if it has distinct DNA? Where did this distinct DNA come from? Is it not a bit conspicuous and coincidental that this zygote has exactly the same DNA as the "cellular mass" (as they call it) which, upon birth, we now call a child, and that that DNA never changed from the moment of fertilization?

Follow these two lines of reasoning voraciously, and it seems to me that anyone will be forced to admit that the zygote, at the very least, is not a part of the mother's body, nor of the father's body. It should not be a hard sell, given the fact of continuous traceable development from that stage forward, to argue that the zygote must, therefore, be a distinct human organism, albeit one of only a single cell. The alternative to that conclusion is to claim that a "mass of cells" that is neither a part of the mother nor a distinct organism somehow "becomes" a distinct human organism at some point in its development. If that idea comes up, I usually just ask how the "mass of cells" (as they call it) can "become" a human being without any change whatsoever in its genetic code. To get a bit philosophical, one might also ask what the cause of that "change" from non-organism to organism might be, in other words, what's different?

At this point, we've laid out that we believe that the life of a new, distinct organism begins at fertilization, and that we believe it is morally wrong to directly end an innocent human life, and so more argument should not be necessary. Those are the two pillars of the argument. The claim that the zygote (and every developmental stage thereafter, of course) is a human being may be a hard sell, but it is one that can be made to a greater number of people, since it requires no religious bias or faith, simply reason, which we all have. The claim that it is wrong to directly end an innocent human life, actually, may be the harder sell. Somehow, there are people who believe that the zygote is not a human being/organism. They should not be too hard to sway. Harder to believe, though, is that there are people who accept this and still support abortion. I suppose we'll get into that subsequently, since this rant has been rather long.

The Saddest Anniversary

2009-01-22T16:38:00.004-05:00

Well, Catholic Americans, today is a day that ought to live on in an infamy far greater than December 7 ever could. Today is the day when it was proved that the pen may indeed be mightier than the proverbial sword, because it was on this day, in 1973, that seven Supreme Court justices gave their approval in the case of Roe vs. Wade to declare that abortion was a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, and that, therefore, it could not be banned. It was that simple act, which was not itself an act of violence, that has led to the deaths of some 45 million innocent children, who never made it so far as their first breath.

As a result, this day has become the rallying point for those in the United States who recognize this grave injustice, and who are gathered in our nation's capital today to make their voices heard and to demand justice from the government that has allowed this all to happen.

In my humble opinion, the mere facts that this court decision past (let alone that is passed with a 7-2 majority), and that there were people then who fought voraciously to ensure that it did, and that there are more people today who will fight sometimes more voraciously to ensure that it is not overturned, and that the American people have just inaugurated a new president, who has declared that it is a priority of his administration to guarantee that the so-called "right" to abortion is in no way hindered with this nation's borders, are all indicators of a culture whose moral compass was accidentally dropped overboard into the vast sea of iniquity long ago. That, to me, is the real problem.

It would not be nearly so grave a situation if there were a so-called "right" to abortion that no one ever used. It would not be so terrible for us as a people if abortion were completely legal, but no abortions occurred. The truly sad fact is that abortion, legal or illegal, continues to happen, and to the tune of about one million per year. One-third of the people whom I should know and who should be roughly my age have fallen under the sword of an aggressor whom they never knew, and should never have had to fear. One-third of the young Americans never lived to see their own birth. If it were not the case that abortion were seen as a solution to a problem, then this court decision would not matter. However, the fact of the matter, to be elaborated in at least one succeeding blog post, is that the problems are there to make pregnancy a difficult and harrowing experience, and there are enough people in this country with loud enough voices to convince women in "problem pregnancies" that abortion is a way out. And that is the real injustice...

The Dream, Part II

2009-01-19T17:30:00.003-05:00

Here is the speech that the Rev. King delivered when he gathered a quarter-million people at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963. This is truly one of the greatest examples of oratory of the Twentieth Century, as well as a landmark in the civil rights movement.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."2

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

The Dream

2009-01-19T16:42:00.004-05:00

Hopefully, we are all fully cognizant of exactly what today is for us (well, for those of us in the United States, anyway). I mean, of course, that today is Martin Luther King, Jr., Day, and it is the day we observe both in honor of a great man and his high social and moral aspirations, as well as to mourn the sad fact that his life was brought to such an abrupt and unjust end. Of course, for those of us who were not alive to witness these events take place, the holiday has taken on a somewhat more symbolic nature, and has become a day for us to ponder the racial situation of the United States, the great strides that have been made since the Rev. King's time, and the amount of work left to be done.

Personally, I think that the racial climate in the United States is not all that it's often cracked up to be. America may be a land of opportunity, but it is not yet a land of milk and honey. Sadly, the existence of racism in this country is too often allowed to continue simply because of its anonymity and its covertness. That is to say that the few racists that are left in the United States (by comparison to what I consider the generally racist population of our entire past before the 1960s or so) today are allowed to persist in their ignorance and their racism largely because many people are not aware of it, or worse, because people refuse to acknowledge that there could be any racism left. Unfortunately, hatred appears to be in unlimited supply.

While I was fortunate to grow up in a nuclear family where race mattered as little as eye color (which was none, of course), I also grew up in an extended family where race was very important, and it was not uncommon for me to hear my grandparents and their brothers and sisters racial slurs that I knew, even as a child, could only be offensive. Thus, I have been shown both sides of the coin from a very young age, and I have been aware that there are people who are racists still living, and some of them are not senior citizens, as was shown in this local story of a synagogue defaced by a teenage girl. The problem persists.

On the other hand, I also routinely find myself fed up with the degree to which I believe the Rev. King's message was distorted. I don't see why the ideal of cultural diversity should be to divest each individual of his ethnic and cultural heritage in order to set everyone on equal, if equally bankrupt, ground. No, to me it is entirely important that my ancestors came from Ireland, and that fact connects me in a very profound way to a country I have never seen and to people I have never met. It helps me to identify myself, and I cannot imagine what I would be without it. I have seen that it is likewise with people whose ancestors came from Germany, Italy, Poland, Mexico, and many other places. I do, of course, understand that that is perhaps somewhat more difficult for most of the black people in America, whose ancestors were by no means immigrants, but I have seen a good number of them attempt to reconnect with the Africa from which, in one way or another and at one time or another, their ancestors came.

Still, there are those who seek a "racial blindness" from Americans, as if none of that were important. These are the people who say to me, "you're not Irish, you're American." True, I am an American, and that fact also carries a profound significance for me. Nevertheless, I cannot say that I am American by ethnicity. The only people in the United States who can accurately and honestly claim to be ethnically American are those whose ancestors lived on this continent before European explorers ever knew it was here, and I am not one of them. I am a citizen of the United States of America, naturally born within her borders, and that fact gives me a certain political and cultural identity, but it is not an ethnic or historical identity. That fact is plainly seen when I consider the great significance of the fact that, as I trace my family's history back further and further into time, I will always come to a point where my ancestors came to this country from somewhere else. That is, and, I think, should be, important.

This nonsense of racial sensitivity and political correctness has gone entirely too far, in my humble opinion, to the point where I could conceivably be called a bigot or a racist for identifying myself as Irish, and others as Italian or Polish, etc., based on their family's country of origin, historically speaking. As far as I'm concerned, it is not racism to acknowledge the ethnic diversity present in America, this land that claims to be a melting pot. Rather, it is only racism to actively disadvantage people, or wish to disadvantage people, based on their race and nothing more. Racism is refusing to hire someone because he's Jewish. Racism is not saying "shabbat shalom" to someone because you know he's Jewish. These are entirely different.

I like Italian and Indian food, Jewish wit and humor, Irish and black music, and on like that. Yes, there is such a thing as Jewish humor. Here is an example:

There is also such a thing as Italian food. Another example:

And, you know what, there is also such a thing as black music (Jazz, hip hop, etc.), and, yes, even black names. If Aidan is an Irish name, and Santiago is a Spanish name, and Mordechai is a Jewish name, and Guido is an Italian name, I don't see why we can't claim that Denzel or Roshanda are black names. These example of cultural and ethnic identity should not, I argue, be eschewed as potential sources of racial discrimination, but rather they should be embraced as elements of an ethnic heritage and identity that gives a person historical roots far deeper and more significant than this 233-year-old nation could possibly provide. Take it from kilt-wearing Patrick Kevin McLaughlin--ethnicity is a good thing.

So, that is my Martin Luther King, Jr., rant. If you have any thoughts about the matter, feel free to leave some comments. I realize that this is a touchy subject and a difficult issue, but it's one that will only get worse if we ignore it or pretend that it doesn't exist. So, may he rest in peace, and may his dream become reality.

Felix Diem Nativitatis

2008-12-26T13:52:00.002-05:00

Well, world (ha!), I hope that the first day of the Christmas season (i.e., yesterday), went wonderfully for you, and that the rest of what is in reality a season will also be joyful and holy. In other words, let's not take down the tree simply because the presents have been unwrapped. I don't really have much more to say, but, again, my kindest regards, prayers, and well-wishes to all of my supportive and helpful readership.

I think I'll go watch A Christmas Story again...

RIP Cardinal Dulles

2008-12-13T10:32:00.002-05:00

For those who do not yet know, the story seems to have broken on Whispers yesterday that one of the United States' most beloved Princes of the Church, Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ, has fallen asleep in Christ. Dulles, a world-renowned professor of theology at New York City's Fordham University, and a man who could boast of the esteem of none other than the reigning Holy Father, died yesterday (the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe) at the age of ninety. He will be laid to rest next Thursday afternoon from St. Patrick's Cathedral, and will be interred among his confreres of the Society of Jesus.

Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen.

It's That Time Again

2008-12-08T16:24:00.002-05:00

Before I even begin, allow me to explain a little something: When I mentioned, in my last post, that I wanted to hear from the readers and get a little input on my radio idea, I was referring to you, the person reading this blog. That's right, you. If you can understand the words on this screen, then I welcome and encourage your e-mails at the address previously given in the afore-mentioned post.

That aside, it's Advent. It is, in fact, the second week of Advent already. Time has simply flown. Imagine, it's already finals week at school. It's already the middle of December, and Nativity Parish in Scranton has already celebrated the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe with Bishop Martino (which went great, by the way).

Advent, for me, is a difficult liturgical season. Lent is very clear. Lent is penitential. Lent has managed to maintain a great deal of its spiritual and supernatural character. Advent, on the other hand, is not so explicitly penitential, and has been so vastly overshadowed by the so-called "Holiday Season" of Wal-Mart and Hallmark that it is truly difficult to live out any kind of Advent spirituality in contemporary American culture. That's one man's opinion, anyway.

Nevertheless, I would like to offer to you, my readers (even those who have not responded to my request for input), a chance to enter into some Advent spirit with a much-loved even if not-so-time-honored chant, "Veni, Veni, Emmanuel."

As classes wind down, I will hopefully be living up to this responsibility of blog-posting a little more, well, responsibly. Until next time...

November

2008-11-18T11:41:00.004-05:00

So, it has once again been a while. I apologize (once again). Seminary life is at times very busy, and, when I get the chance, I sometimes like to sit back and marvel at how quickly it can all creep up on you. My semester is going well. Things at the seminary are likewise going well, though there is a spot of bad news that may interest you. Fr. Buttini, the seminary's long-time front door watchdog, has decided to take a bit of a hiatus. At the age of 94, he has not relocated himself to Atlantic City nor Florida, but rather to a nursing home. Just a few days after Fr. Pavese's funeral, Fr. Buttini took a fall and landed himself in the hospital. Since then, he has been moved to a nursing home, where he is receiving round-the-clock care and is recuperating rather well. It is a cross for him to be living outside of a religious community after 76 years under vows, but he is handling it well.

On a bit of a happier note, the Provincial Superior has received written confirmation that His Eminence, Angelo Cardinal Sodano, former Secretary of State for Vatican City and currently the Dean of the College of Cardinals, will indeed be coming to Pittston, of all places. The celebration is still in its infantile planning stages, but the Cardinal is planning to come for the celebration of the Solemnity of St. Joseph Marello, founder of the Oblates of St. Joseph, which will be held as a joint celebration along with the anniversary of the Congregation's pontifical approval by the Holy See and the opening of what is now known as the Pennsylvania Province. It should be a fun, if frantic, affair.

One might wonder, of course, why Cardinal Sodano is coming here, for our feast. And rightly so. Cardinal Sodano, as I understand it, is a great friend of the Oblates and has been ever since his childhood, in Asti (the city in Piedmont, Italy, where the OSJ were founded), where he attended an Oblate-run school, and had Oblates as teachers.

So, that explains the Sodano connection.

In other news, as extensively reported by Whispers, our local diocesan prelate, Bishop Joseph Martino, has been making headlines and getting made fun and ridiculed seemingly across the entire country. While I do agree with his message, delivery seems to have conjured an effect that was not exactly intended, or so I assume. Perhaps, indeed, any press is good press.

ATTENTION: OPPORTUNITY FOR READER INVOLVEMENT:

I am currently working with a friend who has a bit more radio production experience than I to put together a recurring radio show on WQOR, the local Catholic radio station housed at none other than my very own seminary. As a supplement to the already great material presented on the station, which is mostly drawn form the EWTN satellite, we seem to have agreed to take the show in a "contemporary Catholic culture" sort of direction, with the hope of attracting a younger demographic to the station (and, of course, to the Oblates). It is in this regard that I would like to get some feedback from y'all:

1.) How long a show do you think we should have?
2.) How often should the show air?
3.) What are some suggested topics for discussion on the show?

If any of you are willing to respond to any or all of these questions, your input would be happily welcomed in the planning stages of the new techno-endeavor. Oh, by the way, we would also be putting the recordings up on the old Internets for the non-radio-having population to appreciate. If there are any suggestions that fall outside the realm of my questions three, you can also feel free to send them in. You can add your responses as comments to this post, or in e-mail form, if you like. E-mails you can send to: seminarian.patrick@oblates-stjoseph.com

Well Done, Good and Faithful Servant

2008-10-23T10:08:00.002-04:00

Well, dear friends, I have the unfortunate duty of informing you all that the Our Lady of Sorrows Province has lost a dear patriarch. Yesterday afternoon, Fr. Paul J. Pavese, OSJ, fell asleep in the Lord at Little Flower Manor in Wilkes-Barre, PA, where he had been living for the past three years. Fr. Pavese, 91 years old, had served the Oblates of St. Joseph as a religious for 73 years and a priest for 66 years.

When I was a young boy, Fr. Pavese was my pastor for a few years at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Parish in Pittston. I distinctly remember the first Mass I ever served as a new altar boy. Fr. Pavese celebrated. Even though it was my first Mass, the other altar boy never showed up, so I had to serve alone. At the end of the Mass, Fr. Pavese presented the newest parish altar boy to the congregation. I never forgot that, and neither did he. Years later, when I entered the seminary, he still remembered that, even though he could never remember my name (or anyone else's for that matter).

Fr. Pavese was a good man, a prayerful priest, and a dedicated Oblate. He will be dearly missed. Fortunately, God is merciful, and will surely be merciful to him. Now is a good time to remember my favorite Scripture passage, "To live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21). For a man like Fr. Pavese, to live certainly was Christ, and I am firm in my belief that his death was indeed a gain.

Here is Fr. Pavese's official obituary.

Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace.

This ought to serve as a fitting meditation on death and dying, for those interested.

Alright, Already

2008-10-13T15:00:00.003-04:00

I know what you're thinking. "Hey, that blog by that seminarian...what ever happened to that?" I have to admit, I've been letting it slide. Now that it's slid virtually as far as I can fathom, however, I need to rope it back in and get it under control. That shouldn't be too difficult. Life at the seminary has a remarkable tendency to adhere to a certain status quo.

So, the rector went to and returned from Rome, where he spent a few weeks discussing ad nauseum Lord knows what minutia (and perhaps even a few important topics, too). His trip went well, and not much has really changed at the seminary while he was gone. There is, however, a wee spot of news that may be worth mentioning:

The Our Lady of Sorrows Province, the one based right here in Pennsylvania, is going to merge with the Guardian of the Redeemer Province, way out in California. Both links can be found in the sidebar. This will mean, when it has happened, a new sharing of administration, buildings, funds, and personnel. It should be interesting.

Other than that, school is going well, my brother is enjoying college life (though, he has disappointed me--his favorite class is a business course), and my sister is enjoying her last year of high school. Speaking of my sister, she has some interesting plans for the period following her graduation (that is, her life): She's applying for a job with the company (evidently, the company) that staffs the National Park Service, hoping to become a ranger in Alaska's own Denali National Park. I hope that works out for her.

Lastly, some readers seem to think that it's a "big deal" that I'm turning twenty-one in a few weeks...