Why January 1 is the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God

We celebrate January 1, the start of a new year, as the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. But why is January 1 the start of a New Year, and why would we choose that day to celebrate Mary's maternity? After all, didn't her maternity begin with the conception of Christ, so shouldn't her maternity be celebrated on March 25th, the Solemnity of the Annunciation? Or, if not then, than why not celebrate Mary's maternity at Christmas, December 25th, with the birth of Christ? Of all the days in the year, why choose January 1? And why do Christians consider January 1 the start of a New Year?

Therein lies a tale...

The earliest recording of a new year celebration is believed to have been in Mesopotamia, circa 2000 B.C. That celebration – and many other ancient celebrations of the new year following it – were celebrated around the time of the vernal equinox, around March 20. Meanwhile, the ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Persians began their new year with the autumnal equinox around September 20. And the ancient Greeks celebrated on the winter solstice, around December 20....

...According to tradition, during [the reign of the Roman king Numa Pompilius]  (c. 715–673 BC), Numa revised the Roman republican calendar so that January replaced March as the first month. It was a fitting choice, since January was named after Janus, the Roman god of all beginnings; March celebrated Mars, the god of war. (Some sources claim that Numa also created the month of January.) However, there is evidence that January 1 was not made the official start of the Roman year until 153 BC....

...However, following the fall of Rome in the 5th century AD, many Christian countries altered the calendar so that it was more reflective of their religion, and March 25 (the Feast of the Annunciation) and December 25 (Christmas) became common New Year’s Days. ...  Pope Gregory XIII introduced a revised calendar in 1582. In addition to solving the issue with leap years, the Gregorian calendar restored January 1 as the start of the New Year. 

Why did the Pope choose January 1 as the start of the new year instead of retaining March 25th or December 25th as its start? Well, follow the chain of reasoning.

The ancients believed that great men left the world on the anniversary of the day they entered the world, so as to complete the circle of divine providence. So, if a great man died on March 25th, it must be due to the fact that he was conceived on some earlier March 25th. Since Christians agreed that the day of the Crucifixion was March 25th in the Julian calendar, then Jesus must have been conceived on March 25th. And, of course, if Jesus was conceived on March 25th, then He must have been born exactly nine months later, on December 25th.

But, because Jesus was born a Jew, this likewise means He was circumcised and given the name Jesus exactly eight days later, on January 1, in fulfilment of Old Testament Law.* So, it was common-place among Christians to recognize that Christ's first shedding of blood happened on January 1. But, in the most ancient times, the City of Rome also celebrated January 1 as the Feast of Mary, Mother of God [Lumen Gentium, 66]. This practice spread from Rome to other Christian locales, so that by the 7th century, the January 1st date was widely observed as a celebration of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Why that date?

In Hebrew tradition, the giving of a name is very strongly connected to the person's soul, "It is said that parents receive a glimmer of divine inspiration when they give their child a Jewish name." As Chabad.org notes, "Since Jewish identity is established maternally, it’s the mother that connects the soul to G‑d." And notice the prayer associated with the naming of the male child at his circumcision:

Opposite the standing sandek, stands the one who will be honored with naming the child (some specifically honor the mohel, the ritual circumciser, with this blessing). A goblet of wine is poured, and the person who will name the baby recites the blessing on the wine, followed by the blessing of the naming of the child:

Blessed are You, L‑rd our G‑d, King of the universe, who sanctified the beloved one from the womb, set His statute in his flesh, and sealed his descendants with the sign of the holy Covenant. Therefore, as a reward of this [circumcision], the living G‑d, our Portion, our Rock, has ordained that the beloved of our flesh be saved from the abyss, for the sake of the Covenant which He has set in our flesh. Blessed are You L‑rd, who makes the Covenant.

He then names the child...

The prayers at circumcision echo the idea of the Incarnation, where God, sanctified in the womb, takes on flesh and seals His law, His covenant in His human body. Similarly, the ancient Christians recognized that the smallest drop of Christ's blood is sufficient to save the whole world. Since the first drop of His blood is shed not at the Passion or Crucifixion, but at the Circumcision and Naming of Jesus, the circumcision is the beginning of mankind's redemption.**

Thus, we can say that Mary, Mother of God, Mother of the Person of Jesus, became fully a mother, that is, she became Mother of the Body of Christ, the Church, not at the conception or even the birth of Christ, but at the Circumcision, when the first drop of His blood was deliberately shed. It is the blood of Christ which empowers all the sacraments, so it is this first drop of blood which makes Mary the Mother of the Church. For this reason, the City of Rome and the wider ancient Christian world celebrated January 1 as the feast of Mary's maternity.

Now, this connection between Mary's maternity and the circumcision was so strong, and the first shedding of Christ's blood so important, that by the 13th century, the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ had begun to replace the feast honoring Mary's maternity. Having the Feast of the Circumcision on January 1 meant the celebration of Mary's maternity was migrated to the first Sunday of May and, by 1914, it was moved to October 11. Meanwhile, from 1568 to 1960, January 1 was celebrated in the Roman Breviary as the Feast of the Circumcision.

However, this movement of the celebration of Mary's motherhood to a day other than the Circumcision shattered the unity of the ancient understanding. In 1974, with the revision of the liturgical calendar after Vatican II, the Feast of the Circumcision was subsumed and rejoined, to again follow the ancient practice of dedicating January 1 to the Mother of God. But, this time, it would be celebrated as a universal feast, and the circumcision would clearly be the force that gifted Mary with her maternity. 

By making January 1 the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, the day truly becomes a joint feast, in which Jesus, through the deliberate shedding of His blood, bestows on Mary her full, complete, divine motherhood. To this day, the Gospel reading at the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, is Luke's description of the circumcision and naming of the child Jesus (Luke 2:16-21).

With the shedding of His blood, a new age began. Circumcision is the sign of covenant with God. At Jesus' circumcision, God enters into covenant with Himself to save all mankind. A new age, a new promise, a new covenant, born of a woman, born under the old law, but completing that same old law with this new covenant, establishing in His own flesh and blood, and celebrating the fact that this flesh and blood was a gift from His mother, within whom He incarnated, creating and connecting His human soul to His own Godhead. Christians are grafted onto the root of salvation, which is the Jews, so the ancient Jewish understanding echoes: "it's the mother that connects the soul to God." They were nearly right. It is God, incarnate in the child Jesus, Who connects Mary to her full motherhood via the shedding of His blood. 

This is why January 1 is the beginning of a New Year, celebrated as the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. Christ's first gift to humanity, Mary, our Mother, is given in the gift of a new age and a new year. 

Notes

*Note: Similarly, Mary's period of purification following the birth of Jesus was forty days, which would end on February 2, the traditional end of the Christmas season.

** Note: for those who argue that the birth and the shedding of placental blood was the first shedding of blood, keep in mind that the ancient Christians held that the birth of Christ was painless and without bloodshed. In ancient tradition, Jesus passed from Mary's womb out into the world just as a ray of light passes out through a prism. Mary experienced the pain of birth not on Christmas, but rather during the Passion of Christ, when, as Pope Benedict XV said, she nearly died from the suffering of watching her Son beaten and crucified.

Joe Biden: Catholic Transgender

When Teddy Brewster charged up the stairs in Arsenic and Old Lace, believing it was San Juan Hill, the audience laughed, as well they should. It is certainly a sign of insanity to think we are something we are not, and poor Teddy was certainly not in touch with reality. But Teddy Brewster has nothing on the 21st century.

Transgenderism is a mental illness in which a man or a woman claims to be a member of the opposite sex. At times, the illness leads the victim to not only cross-dress, but even to attempt bodily mutilation, via a combination of drugs and surgery, so as to conform the external appearance of the body to the internal mental dissonance. The attempt is the most futile form of play-acting. Transgender victims cannot, of course, change their DNA, their biological identity. All they can do is play dress-up, via either clothes or the more insidious somatic manipulations. As a mental affliction, the victims are at least as unfortunate as Teddy Brewster.

The question is, to what extent should such an affliction be humored? Should we imitate Cary Grant's example and acquiesce in Teddy's lunacy (and the emerging lunacy of his aunts) in order to keep all of them from facing their mental disorder? Or should we refuse to participate in the insanity? The Church has several centuries of example in how to handle such people which we can use as a guide.

It is a point of Christian doctrine and dogma that there is but "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5). Put succinctly, once a person has been validly baptized, that person has become Catholic. The Methodist or Lutheran or Baptists minister and the person he baptizes may both believe that the subject has been baptized into the Methodist or Lutheran or Baptist faiths, but all of them are mistaken. Since there is but one baptism, every baptism is a baptism into Catholic Faith.

A sacrament is created through proper form, matter and intention. Proper form is using the liturgical words and actions, drawn from Scripture itself, to perform the sacrament. Proper matter, in the case of baptism, is that the person be unbaptized. Proper intention, in the case of baptism, is simply the intention to join the person to Christ.  As long as these three things are present, the baptism is valid, the subject is now Catholic.

Now, there are different ways of being Catholic. One might be Franciscan, Jesuit, Dominican or a follow a host of other perfectly reasonable spiritualities, in very much the same way that a secular man might be a butcher, a baker or a candle-stick maker. All are noble and useful ways of living out one's baptismal grace. 

And living baptismal grace is a matter of being, a matter of ontology. Grace is more central to our existence than even our DNA. It is, after all, the foundation by which DNA exists. So, to deny the sacrament of baptism after having once received it is to deny something even more basic than one's own identity, one's own DNA.

When the baptized individual refuses to acknowledge that s/he is Catholic, but insists instead that s/he is Methodist or Lutheran or Baptist, they have wandered far afield from their core identity. A Franciscan or Jesuit, by living out the flavor of Catholicism which resonates with his soul, is living his core identity. A Methodist, Lutheran or Baptist is (un)knowingly distorting aspects of Catholic Faith in order to accommodate some malformed aspect of his own soul. But, even here, while such a baptized person is repudiating some logical consequence of his baptism, he certainly is not repudiating his baptism in total. 

Such a repudiation would only come from a baptized person who has become atheist or agnostic, someone who has attempted to fully embrace Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism. Only a person who attempts to step entirely out of the divine economy of grace has truly denied his own identity, in a way similar to Teddy Brewster or any garden-variety person claiming to be transgender. 

Even in these cases, however, the reality cannot be contravened. Anyone who has been validly baptized cannot be baptized again. A Lutheran or Methodist who wants to enter the Catholic Church is not baptized, for that has already been done. He is merely confirmed and given first Eucharist - the sacraments of initiation are completed. Even if that Lutheran spends a decade as an avowed Muslim or Hindu, nothing changes. The person who then desires to enter the Catholic Church is still not baptized, because he has merely denied, for a time, a reality which is greater than himself - he is baptized. He may have left the realm of the real, but the real has not left him.

The Church has used a variety of methods to deal with those who have left the realm of the real. In some cases, often the best-remembered cases, harsh punishments were imposed. But any honest study of history also demonstrates the Church engaging in decades or centuries worth of patient conversations with the people suffering these delusions and the poor souls who follow them. Indeed, entire religious orders, such as the Dominicans, were often founded simply to act as "psychologists", dialoguing with those who had gone astray.

Teddy Brewster denied his own identity in order to take on the identity of a man more powerful and renowned than himself. Transgenders deny their own sex in order to take on a sexual identity they find more powerful or beloved than their own. But what do you do with people like Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, people who affirm their Catholic baptism but insist their Catholic identity permits insanity like support for murdering children or enabling euthanasia?

Such individuals display a new level of crazy. They are like a man who acknowledges himself to be male, but insists his testes produce eggs, or his intestines allow him to carry a child to term. The Catholic transgender clothes himself in the word "Catholic" but lives the delusions of the serial ax murderer. 

But are Joe and Nancy different than many other Christians? The Catholic Church calls Lutherans, Methodists, Unitarians by the names they have chosen for themselves, even though these names forsake the baptism they received. Even the baptized who have denied their own baptism, who have joined Hinduism, Islam or Buddhism, are named by the Church with the names they have chosen for themselves. Joe and Nancy are as Catholic as any other baptized Unitarian, but they wish to be called not Lutheran or Unitarian, but "catholic." 

They aren't wrong, in the sense that every validly baptized person is certainly Catholic, but they aren't right either, because their beliefs and actions more closely conform them to some Lutherans, or most Unitarians, than to any Catholic spirituality.

Mortimer Brewster : The name Brewster is code for Roosevelt.

Teddy Brewster : Code for Roosevelt?

Mortimer Brewster : Yes. Don't you see? Take the name Brewster, take away the B, and what have you got?

Teddy Brewster : Rooster!

Mortimer Brewster : Uh-huh. And what does a rooster do?

Teddy Brewster : Crows.

Mortimer Brewster : It crows. And where do you hunt in Africa?

Teddy Brewster : On the veldt!

Mortimer Brewster : There you are: crows - veldt!

Teddy Brewster : Ingenious! My compliments to the boys in the code department.

If we are willing to call someone Anglican instead of Catholic, we are telling them the same thing Mortimer Brewster told Teddy - a just-so story meant to keep the peace. And if we call a man "she" or a woman "he", it is another just-so story meant to keep the peace. But can we call Joe or Nancy "Catholic"? If we do, we are not wrong, but there are many caveats that need to be acknowledged with a nod, a wink, and a "sure you are, bub, sure you are" smile. The easiest way to do this is, perhaps, to just acknowledge them as Transgender Catholics. 

Act Utilitarianism

 Act Utilitarianism – The justice of the individual act does not matter, what matters is that the consequence be for the greater good. 

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-i-learned-at-dartmouth.html

In the Fall of 1991, shortly after the Clarence Thomas nomination and the Anita Hill hearings, the Class of ‘95 matriculated at Dartmouth College.

One of the freshmen—or “first years”, as they were beginning to be known—was accused by another first year of sexual assault and harassment. In the hot-house political environment at the time—product of the Thomas/Hill hearings, which revolved around workplace sexual harassment—these were serious allegations.

The young woman making the claim against the freshman said that he had visited her in her dorm-room around lunchtime one day during Orientation Week, and had “forcibly tried to kiss” her. She had rebuffed him, told him he was being “selfish”, after which he had left, without further incident.

This was the sexual assault allegation.

The young woman also claimed that the freshman had then started to harass her via electronic mail, in the days and weeks after. She claimed he had sent her “obscene messages”, which she had purged from her e-mail account, as she hadn’t wanted any of that “filth” on her computer.
This was the sexual harassment allegation.

The young woman said she wanted to “protect” the Dartmouth campus—and the other women at Dartmouth College—from the danger that the freshman represented. This was why she was reporting this incident three weeks after it allegedly took place.

The accused freshman, being unsophisticated, went through the disciplinary channels of Dartmouth College without contacting attorneys or even his parents. He was confident that the allegations would be shown to be lies—because he knew they were lies.

More to the point, he could prove that they were lies.

The young woman claimed she had thrown away the obscene e-mail messages he had sent her. But the computer science department at Kiewit Hall—in charge of the e-mail servers—said that that wouldn’t be a problem. This was 1991—few people had e-mail, and fewer still realized e-mails can never really be thrown away.

The techs at Kiewit duly looked through all of the e-mails the freshman had sent—as well as all of the e-mails the first year woman had received: None were obscene. In fact, there was only one e-mail between them: From when the first year woman had taught the freshman how to use the Dartmouth e-mail system. The only word on the message was “test”.

As to the sexual assault allegation: The freshman produced witnesses—ironically all of them women—who confirmed that he could not have possibly been in the first year woman’s dorm room around lunchtime—when she claimed—because the freshman had been with them.
Nothing salacious in these encounters: One of these women the freshman had been with was a senior in charge of hiring for a dining hall job he was applying for. Another was a sophomore from down the hall in his dorm, with whom he had talked about earthquakes (she was from California) and how to use the campus computer network. Three other women also placed him in innocuous situations during the entire day of the alleged assault.

As the freshman produced unbiased witnesses who could absolutely confirm he had been elsewhere at the time of the alleged assault, the first year woman kept changing her story—until she claimed that the assault had happened after 8 o’clock at night: A time for which the freshman could not produce a witness for where he had been. (He claimed he had been at an Orientation Week event at Warner Bentley Theater—ironically, where a sexual harassment and assault awareness skit was being play-acted by seniors up on stage.)

However, the freshman was confident that it didn’t matter that he couldn’t produce witnesses who remembered him attending the performance at Bentley Theater: The first year woman had changed her version of the events so many times—and had been shown to be outright lying about the nonexistent obscene e-mails—that the freshman assumed that all the charges would be dismissed, when the disciplinary committee met.

The disciplinary committee, known as the COS, the Committee On Standards, was made up mostly of students—juniors and seniors, divided roughly equally between men and women—plus a smattering of faculty, and chaired by the Dean of the College.

When the entire set of circumstances was aired out, even the chair of the COS was openly skeptical about the first year woman’s story.

Nevertheless, the accused freshman was suspended for an entire academic year.
There was no evidence he had committed any crime or transgression—only the first year woman’s word. There was ample evidence that the first year woman was lying—she had lied about the e-mail messages, and the blatant changes in her story showed that she was lying about the alleged assault.

As the freshman said at the time: “Everything I said that could be proved true turned out to be true—and everything she said that could be proved to be a lie turned out to be a lie.”

Though she had made demonstrably false allegations, the first year woman was allowed to continue her stay at Dartmouth, without hinderance or prejudice.

The freshman had to leave Dartmouth. But since there were still four weeks left until the end of the academic term, the Committee On Standards allowed him to stay on campus until after exams were done.

So much for being a “danger” to the other women on campus.

He didn’t have family in the U.S.—or practically any money: He had spent all he had earned before arriving in Hanover on tuition, books and supplies. He didn’t even have a car—and even if he had had one, he had no place to go to.

But somehow, he talked his way into a job in Washington, D.C., where he moved to for a year, working as an office drone at a law firm. It was a scary time for him—he lived literally hand to mouth, during that year.

He returned to Dartmouth, after his suspension was over. It was not pleasant. He was actively ostracized, and on occasion, openly cat-called terrible names by some of his classmates. All sorts of insane rumors swirled around him—but fighting rumors is like fighting the tide: Impossible, not to mention pointlessly self-defeating.

He couldn’t leave Dartmouth—no school anywhere near as prestigious would accept him as a transfer student. Not even lower tiered schools would take him—he applied, and was rejected, even though he had the grades and the test scores.

So he sucked it up: He kept himself to himself—watched a hell of a lot of TV—took extra coursework to make up the time lost to the suspension, and managed to graduate with honors alongside the rest of his class, the Class of ‘95.

At the graduation ceremony, he shook Bill Clinton’s hand.
He never returned to Dartmouth College after that.
That’s a true story. It’s a story, of course, that happened to me.

Good Advice

 In 2006 a high school English teacher asked students to write a famous author and ask for advice. Kurt Vonnegut was the only one to respond - and his response is magnificent: “Dear Xavier High School, and Ms. Lockwood, and Messrs Perin, McFeely, Batten, Maurer and Congiusta:

I thank you for your friendly letters. You sure know how to cheer up a really old geezer (84) in his sunset years. I don’t make public appearances any more because I now resemble nothing so much as an iguana.

What I had to say to you, moreover, would not take long, to wit: Practice any art, music, singing, dancing, acting, drawing, painting, sculpting, poetry, fiction, essays, reportage, no matter how well or badly, not to get money and fame, but to experience becoming, to find out what’s inside you, to make your soul grow.

Seriously! I mean starting right now, do art and do it for the rest of your lives. Draw a funny or nice picture of Ms. Lockwood, and give it to her. Dance home after school, and sing in the shower and on and on. Make a face in your mashed potatoes. Pretend you’re Count Dracula.

Here’s an assignment for tonight, and I hope Ms. Lockwood will flunk you if you don’t do it: Write a six line poem, about anything, but rhymed. No fair tennis without a net. Make it as good as you possibly can. But don’t tell anybody what you’re doing. Don’t show it or recite it to anybody, not even your girlfriend or parents or whatever, or Ms. Lockwood. OK?

Tear it up into teeny-weeny pieces, and discard them into widely separated trash recepticals. You will find that you have already been gloriously rewarded for your poem. You have experienced becoming, learned a lot more about what’s inside you, and you have made your soul grow.

God bless you all!

Kurt Vonnegut

Anecdote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"When I was 15 I spent a month working on an archeological dig. I was talking to one of the archeologists one day during our lunch break and he asked those kinds of “getting to know you” questions you ask young people: Do you play sports? What’s your favorite subject? And I told him, no I don’t play any sports. I do theater, I’m in choir, I play the violin and piano, I used to take art classes.

And he went WOW. That’s amazing! And I said, “Oh no, but I’m not any good at ANY of them.”

And he said something then that I will never forget and which absolutely blew my mind because no one had ever said anything like it to me before: “I don’t think being good at things is the point of doing them. I think you’ve got all these wonderful experiences with different skills, and that all teaches you things and makes you an interesting person, no matter how well you do them.”

And that honestly changed my life. Because I went from a failure, someone who hadn’t been talented enough at anything to excel, to someone who did things because I enjoyed them. I had been raised in such an achievement-oriented environment, so inundated with the myth of Talent, that I thought it was only worth doing things if you could “Win” at them."

A Word on Papal Interviews

After every MSM kerfuffle on some amazing and innovative thing the Pope is rumored to have said, there are a sub-population of "faithful" Catholics who decide to critique (i.e., denigrate) either the papal delivery or the papal message or both.

"Why didn't he say X??!?" 
"How could he have been stupid enough to have said Y?!?"
"If he would only provide full context, explain more, stop being so opaque!"

Let me put this as simply as possible: the people who raise these objections are idiots.

I have done numerous TV, radio and newspaper interviews. The problem is not in the papal delivery, the problem is in the secular editor's hack job on the response.

I have personally had 10 and 20 minute interviews mangled down to a 15-second soundbite that even I barely recognized. When they don't like what you are saying, they abuse camera angles, set up ambush interviews, condense, cut and misrepresent you. If it's a newspaper, they literally make up stuff, put it in quotes and put it in your mouth.

And if you think the Vatican needs to offer clarifications, why do you think that would help? If the press is deliberately misrepresenting the first set of remarks, why would they suddenly stop the misrepresentations in reporting on subsequent remarks?

It is the editorial equivalent of being scourged and crucified. You started out fine, but after the editorial beating, you are barely recognizable as a living being. But that's the price of trying to get in front of a lot of people to preach the Gospel - you have to be willing to have your words crucified.

The Pope is willing to do that because he's the Vicar of Christ. It is our job to trust him and help put his message into the context of the larger Gospel message, of which it forms a part. It is NOT our job to critique his content or delivery. We need to concentrate on doing OUR job and stop critiquing how he does his. 

Stop talking like a bunch of Protestants and trust the Pope. Unlike you and me, he actually knows the Gospel and he preaches it better than either one of us ever will. He gets enough scourging every day from the jackels in the press, he doesn't need you and me piling on. 

Pope Francis and "Civil Unions"

Note from MercatorNet: 

Spanish-speakers are reporting that the Pope has been misquoted and misrepresented once again by the mainstream media — he did not even mention “civil unions”. His words were “convivencia civil”, not “unión civil”. This is best understood to mean that people with same-sex attraction should be protected legally by civil law, a protection which for the past 12 years has been in place in Australia since the radical changes made to 85 federal laws. So the Pope is talking about a civil coexistence and not the endorsement of same-sex unions.

 A friend has asked me if Pope Francis has changed Church teaching on homosexual marriage, as some news sites aver. The answer requires careful consideration.

To begin, I have read several reports on this, but haven't seen the complete transcripts so I'm not sure how accurate the report is. A Catholic news organization quotes him this way:

“I have always defended doctrine,” he said. “It is a contradiction to speak of homosexual marriage.”

But he also told the interviewer, “Homosexual persons have a right to be in the family; persons with a homosexual orientation have a right to be in the family and parents have the right to recognize a son or daughter as homosexual; you cannot throw anyone out of the family, nor make life impossible for them.”

In “A Future of Faith: The Path of Change in Politics and Society,” a book-length series of conversations with the French sociologist Dominique Wolton, the two spoke about gay marriage and civil unions in the context of a discussion about tradition, modernity and truth.

“‘Marriage’ is a historical word,” the pope said, in the book published in French in 2017. “Forever, throughout humanity and not only in the church, it’s been between a man and a woman. You can’t change it just like that. It’s the nature of things. That’s how they are. So, let’s call them ‘civil unions.'”

And here is where we can see the important distinctions being made.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman,” [Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio] said. “Secular states want to validate civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, driven by the need to regulate economic aspects between people, such as ensuring health care. These are cohabitation pacts of various kinds, of which I could not list the different forms.”

“It is necessary to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety,” he said, implying that some forms of civil unions would be acceptable.

In the early Church, St. Augustine, one of the greatest Doctors the Church ever produced, said it was permissible for the state to tolerate prostitution on the grounds that if it did not, "the whole world would be convulsed by lust." That is, we tolerate a lesser evil in order to prevent it from becoming a greater evil. 

St. Thomas Aquinas, arguably the greatest Doctor the Church ever produced, agreed with St. Augustine. Thomas used the same reasoning: "In human government . . . those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says: “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.” Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided."

Pope Francis has long opposed allowing the state to recognize homosexual marriage, arguing that this is a contradiction in terms - marriage is about the making of a mater, a mother.  By definition, homosexual marriages cannot make anyone a mother, so it is as impossible to have a homosexual marriage as it is to have a round circle. But, in order to avoid having the state call these partnerships "marriages", he was, as cardinal, willing to allow them to be called "civil unions." As Pope, it is possible he continues to follow the tradition of St. Augustine and St. Thomas by allowing the secular state to call this a "civil union" in order to keep the secular state from leading people astray by incorrectly labeling it a "marriage." But, as the note from MercatorNet points out, he didn't even mention "civil unions".

Now, some might say this is a distinction without a difference. Would it be a distinction without a difference to say that it is licit for the state to allow prostitution? Two of the greatest Doctors the Church ever produced said exactly that. Nor is this the first time the Church has faced secular society condoning homosexual unions. Ancient Rome and Greece were both debauched enough to give these unions legal status. Ancient Christians faced exactly the same issue we face today. Precisely because Catholics have failed to evangelize the culture for the last several centuries, secular society has devolved back into pre-Christian lawlessness.

But even so, "legal" does not mean "moral". There is a significant difference between those two phrases. That is what Pope Francis is emphasizing. 

He wants people legally protected, without necessarily saying that what they are doing is moral. God allows the sinner to live, He doesn't strike the sinner dead, even though we certainly deserve that punishment when we commit mortal sin. Instead, He protects us from the consequence of the sin. That's what the Pope is doing here - encouraging the state to act towards homosexuals as God acts towards all of us by encouraging the state to make sure that even mortal sinners are protected, at least in some measure, from the consequences of their sins.

Is homosexual "love" really love? Of course not.
Are homosexual relationships still intrinsically disordered? Of course.

But that doesn't change the fact that persons suffering from the intrinsic disorder of homosexual attraction (or the intrinsic disorder of lust in general), like every other person, are still human beings, deserving or respect and protection. God lets the rain fall on the just and the unjust. He lets His mercy fall on all, regardless of their sins. The Pope would like the state to emulate God in this.

UPDATE:

I have been exhorted by various friends to read the rabidly anti-Catholic commentary generated by many "Catholic" pundits attacking the Holy Father's remarks. I decline to do so because none of the commentators have the authority to question the Pope, either in what he teaches or in how it is taught. Indeed, the very existence of the screeds remind me of the Abbott and Costello comedy sketch in the Gospel of Matthew (Ch 16):

"5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?"

These pundits entirely miss the point. None of them are guides. We must instead, follow the advice of the Doctors of the Church:

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” — St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”). 

As Catholics, our job is not to critique the Pope's content and delivery, but to properly contextualize his message within the larger message of Christ's Church. This sometimes requires hard, careful thought on our part. Stop grumbling amongst yourselves and get to work. In his method of teaching Christ's Vicar is often like unto Christ Himself. If you remember, Jesus taught many hard things, some almost impossible to understand, yet Peter had the right of it, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You alone have the words of eternal life." 

So, again, our job is not to critique the Pope's delivery or message. Our job is to provide the proper context for the Pope's message, showing people where his message fits within the larger Gospel message. How about we do OUR job?

Physics and Theology

Experimental science describes the quantitative relationship between objects.
Theological science describes the qualitative relationships between persons.

Physics is non-theistic, but it is not antithetical to theology. Physics does not "equate" to an antithetical approach. It simply isn't even in the same arena.

If I use a hammer to crush a human skull, you can tell me by examining the skull about point of impact, angle, force used, damage to skull and brain, etc.

However, you cannot tell me whether the action was moral. There is no tool in the physics toolbox that can measure the morality of the action.  Does that mean that all the answers about point of impact, angle, force, etc. are "antithetical" to morality? Obviously not. It's just that none of them are RELEVANT to the morality of the act, nor is the morality of the event relevant to any of the physics calculations concerning point of impact, angle, force, etc.

In order for two discussions to be antithetical, they have to occupy the same part of the universe, and these two don't. One discusses objects, the other discusses the persons that were involved in the use of the objects.*

To discuss the morality of the act, I would need to know if one of the two was an aggressor (perhaps it was an accident?). If one was an aggressor, which one? Were they both aggressors? What caused the aggression? Were both alive at the time of the event, or was the one with the crushed skull already dead? Did the one who crushed the skull KNOW that the victim was already dead? What aspects of the moral act are known (act, circumstances, intent)? The question set is quite large, and this is just an outline.

Given what I've said, we only know the physical act. We can't judge the morality without knowing the other two aspects of the moral act.

If physics is theistic, then it HAS to possess tools that judge person-to-person relationships, because that is the ONLY way to discuss God. God is three Persons, the divine Persons are distinguished ONLY by their interpersonal relations, and our personhood is founded on our relationship with the Three Persons.

But physics has no tool to measure interpersonal relationships. It cannot distinguish, it does not even pretend to distinguish, between virtue or vice. It cannot detect the presence of grace (God) or the absence of grace (sin).

Physics is a subset of the discussion of human interaction, and it ONLY rises to the level of subset because our spirit-souls inhabit bodies. Physics has no part in the discussion of divine-angelic relationships because neither God nor angels have bodies. Physics has no part in the discussion of the disembodied human souls in hell, purgatory or heaven prior to the resurrection on the Last Day.

Physics is not an antithetical non-theistic set of propositions. Physics is, instead, an IRRELEVANT set of propositions as far as theology, the study of interpersonal relationships, is concerned.

Similarly, it is incorrect to say that physics admits teleology, a discussion of man's proper end. Sure, the PHILOSOPHY which EMPOWERS physics admits teleology. No argument there. But that is different than saying physics itself admits a teleology. Physics is a tool. The idea of "tool" is a philosophical concept, but the technique by which the tool operates in the world is not a philosophical concept, it is an act that physics describes without regard to teleology at all.

So, a hammer is an object which may drive a nail or crush a skull - two different philosophies are embodied in these two different uses of the tool, but the actual operation of the object in the world has no philosophy at all. The hammer, as it strikes an object, simply acts to concentrate force into a point. That is not philosophical. It is simply mindless action, action that can happen without any operator at all. "The hammer hit the nail" describes action, but not teleology. "The carpenter swung the hammer, hitting the nail"... now teleology begins to be described.

*Note: As an aside, this is why it is absolutely wrong to think of God as some kind of energy field. Energy and matter are interchangeable, as Einstein's famous E=mc^2 equation described. Matter is solid energy, energy is liquid matter, as it were. Energy=Matter, they occupy the same part of the universe and are, for that reason, interchangeable terms. If we think of God as some kind of energy field, like the Force in Star Wars, we ultimately claim God to be an element of the created universe, which is a directly condemned heresy. 

The Logic of the Mob

Cops exist to protect criminals from angry mobs. Cops also protect angry mobs from each other.

The Kenosha rioters don't want cops. 
They got what they wanted - no cops.
As a result, the rioters got shot by someone from the other side.

So, rioters got what they wanted - direct violence.
The guy who shot them got what he wanted - direct violence.
Both sides embrace a different viewpoint about violence than you or I do, but that's America - a melting pot of viewpoints, right? So, why aren't we celebrating diversity here? Angry mobs shooting each other looks like a win-win for anyone involved who isn't a hypocrite.

And, from that point of view, why is it wrong for the cops to get in on the game and shoot whoever they want? I mean, if the rioters TRULY don't want cops, then the cops are just another angry mob willing to go mano-a-mano with them. For people who embrace violence, what's not to like? 

If you don't want cops, then people randomly shooting each other is what you get. If some of the people doing the shooting are wearing cop uniforms, well, is it all that different from people wearing antifa uniforms? If you don't want cops, why can't people in cop uniforms operate like the looters and rioters? 

Seriously, when people in cop uniforms shoot them, why do rioters get upset?
They got what they wanted, good and hard - no cops.

Meditation On the Death of a Friend

Look up into the clear night sky and you will see a beautiful thing. 

Stars. 

Stars are born, grow for billions of years, live for billions of years, then collapse and die. And from their ashes, you and I are born. You and I, we are dead stars. And, you and I, we are more beautiful than stars, for we are not just things, we are persons. We are able to live life with joy that stars never have, we are able to burn with love no star's fire can cool, we are able to form molten memories that even a star's own sun-hot forge can never pour out.

But, in order for us, you and I, to be born, a star had to die. A beautiful thing had to die so that something, someone, even more beautiful could be born. 

And, as it is with stars, so it is with you and with me. Although you and I, and every person, has within us this unutterable beauty of joy and love and memory, we each must die so an even more beautiful being, an even better version of ourselves, can be born.

The star did not choose when it was born. It did not choose when it died. Nor do you and I. We do not choose when we are born, we do not choose when we die. Born from the ashes of a star, we simply live, carrying in our hands the life that is given to us. Each of us is born weak, but we grow strong, fiercely bright, giving light where and when we shine. 

My friend, you did not choose to leave your children. If you could have stayed, you would. You wanted for your children what all parents want for their children. And, just as none of us fully understand the death of a star, so none of us fully understand your death. But some things, we do understand.

So, my friend, for your children, this thought:  she wants you to live long, grow strong, and remember her.

And, my friend, for your children, this promise: the beauty that is to come is even greater than the beauty she gave to you.

And, my friend, for your children, this word: Live.

On Presidential Policies

 Nota bene:

Arguing for or against a policy by the current president (no matter who he is) by saying "But Obama did it!" is an atrociously bad argument.

Liberals don't care if the current White House occupant matches their man's actions, because their man can never do any wrong, while anyone NOT their man is wrong simply by the fact that he isn't their man.

Pointing out their man did something wrong doesn't convince them of anything, because that's not where their difficulty lies. Their difficulty lies in the fact that anyone who is NOT their man is, by that fact, illegitimate. For leftists, the "Obama did it!" argument falls on deaf ears.

For conservatives, anytime the president does something that matches Obama's or Clinton's moves, we should start from a position of deep, deep concern. Obama and Clinton were idiots.

Generally speaking, we never want the current White House occupant to "ditto" an Obama/Clinton policy. If he does, he better have a damned good reason, and I want to know what it is before I approve of it.

Now, sometimes he does have a good reason to continue a policy. For instance, Obama started the removal of USPS mailboxes, and Trump continued it. Given the fall-off in USPS mail, it makes good business sense, I support that activity no matter which president is involved.

But then there is Obama building and stocking cages with illegal immigrant kids, and Trump re-filling the cages. My friend, as a Catholic, nothing about that activity is acceptable to me, and I honestly don't care WHO does it. That has to stop. 

So don't roll out "Obama did it!" as a defense for any policy, ever. Either defend the policy on its merits, or admit the policy, on its merits, sucks rocks. Saying, "Obama did it!" assumes that Obama is the norm that norms all actions, and I reject that notion with lightning and fury.

Natural Born Citizen

 The question is simple. Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5 (emphasis added):

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What does the phrase "natural-born citizen" refer to? Only a natural-born citizen can be president or vice-president, but the Constitution does not define the term. The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question in reference to the eligibility of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate. 

There are different opinions on this matter, none of which are clearly correct. The basis for questioning "natural-born citizenship" is generally founded on theory that the Founding Fathers used Emerich de Vattel's Law of Nation as a basis for the terminology they employed in the Constitution'. According to Vattel, a natural born citizen differs from naturalized citizens in that the natural born citizen fulfills two necessary conditions: 

1. Born on the soil of the country (jus soli) and 
2. Born of at least one parent who is already a citizen (jus sanguinis).

An additional argument has occasionally been used that a candidate may not possess dual citizenship. None of these questions concerning the meaning of the clause have ever been completely settled.  This is, strictly speaking, a question of law, not lineage. Posing the question is not a commentary on separate issues (e.g. the question itself is independent of the candidate's race, culture or worldview).

Below is a list of candidates whose eligibility has been questioned on the basis of the Constitution's "natural-born citizen" eligibility clause. As can be seen, this question has been around for well over a century, with no resolution in sight :

Presidential or VP Candidate	Born on US soil?	Parents capable of passing on birthright citizenship?	Questioned by
Chester A. Arthur  (1881-1886)	Canada???	US mother, Irish father	Democrat opponents, including attorney Arthur Hinman, argue he was born in Canada and thus ineligible.
Christopher Schurmann	Yes	German nationals	New York Tribune
Charles Evans Hughes	Yes	British father made him dual nationality with Britain	Breckinridge Long, one of Woodrow Wilson's campaign workers, Chicago Legal News
Franklin Delano Roosevelt	Yes	US mother,  US Father	Political opponents backed rumor he was born in Canada.
George Romney	Mexico	US mother,  US Father	Various
Barry Goldwater	Arizona territory, not yet a state	US mother,  US Father	Various
Lowell P. Weicker	France	US Father, British mother born in India	Various
Marco Rubio	Yes	Neither were naturalized citizens	Alan Keyes, New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo, St. Petersburg Tmes
Bobby Jindal	Yes	Neither were  naturalized citizens	Charles Kerchner, St. Petersburg Tmes
Ted Cruz	Canada	American mother, Cuban father	CBS News, Washington Post, Mary McManamon, Widener U. Delaware Law school. Newsweek, Laurence Tribe (Harvard), Thomas Lee, (Fordham)
John McCain	??? (Canal Zone)	US mother,  US Father	Peter Williams NBC News
Barack Obama	??? Hawaii??	US Mother, but too young to impart citizenship if birth was not on US soil.	Hillary Clinton
Tammy Duckworth	Thailand	US father,  Thai mother	Joe Biden
Kamala Harris	Yes	Neither were naturalized citizens	Newsweek, John Eastman, former Dean of Chapman University, Fowler School of Law

 

BLM's Marxist Roots

BLM started July, 2013, but did not become nationally recognized until July 2014. In 2015, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said she and her fellow organizer, Alicia Garza, are “trained Marxists”. The book publisher Penguin Random House has said Garza, an author, "describes herself as a queer social justice activist and Marxist." Included on its list of beliefs is one consistent with Marxism: 

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

Marx (and Engels, the man who bankrolled him), was an avowed racist who deeply disliked black people, regularly referring to his own son-in-law and his political enemies with racial slurs. Marx and Engels repeatedly and explicitly said their goal was to destroy the family so that everyone held allegiance only to the state.

Patrisse Cullors and her BLM co-founders, were the protégé of Eric Mann, former agitator of the Weather Underground domestic terror organization, and spent years with him, absorbing the Marxist-Leninist ideology that shaped her worldview. 

In 1968, Mann was a coordinator for Students for a Democratic Society, which eventually became the terrorist organization, the Weather Underground. The Weather Underground was led by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who called for terrorism, seeking the overthrow of the US government. Ayers's close friend Terry Robbins, and Ayers's girlfriend, Diana Oughton, famously blew themselves up while making bombs to attack government buildings. Bill Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. He dedicated his autobiography to Sirhan Sirhan, the man who assassinated Robert Kennedy.

As a member of the Weather Underground, Eric Mann was himself sentenced to two years in prison for conspiracy to commit murder and assault with intent to commit murder. 

So, Marx was an avowed racist, Eric Mann was a Marxist terrorist, and Mann trained the founders of BLM in Marxist ideology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpIIiBe7Wc

Silverware as Sin

St. Peter Damian: “God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks – his fingers. Therefore it is an insult to Him to substitute artificial metallic forks for them when eating.”

Have you gone to confession for using silverware?

Augustine's Rule of Magisterial Interpretation

I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the [manuscript] is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1:350)

If you encounter an apparent error or tension in the Bible, check for textual errors or translation difficulties. But be prepared to blame your own (fallen, finite) powers of understanding before blaming the Bible or any other Magisterial document. Remember, the Bible is the foundational Magisterial document, but the saints, the popes, the Fathers and the Doctors are similarly free from error. That's why they are held up for example. 

So, it is simply impossible to take a statement from one pope, even the current pope (whoever he may be), and claim that another part of the Magisterium (another pope, a saint, a Father or Doctor) contradicts him. There are no contradictions in the Magisterium.  Augustine complains about readers who try to wriggle out from under what the Bible is saying by claiming textual corruption:

When these men are beset by clear testimonies of Scripture, and cannot escape from their grasp, they declare that the passage is spurious. The declaration only shows their aversion to the truth, and their obstinacy in error. Unable to answer these statements of Scripture, they deny their genuineness. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4:178)

Similarly, a lot of traditionalists and liberals both make the same claim about papal statements, or other Magisterial statements, they don't like. They claim, "Oh, Pope XXX is mis-teaching, because his statement doesn't match the statement of Doctor YYY. Thus, it falls upon me to correct the Pope!" So, unable to bear the idea that they may have a wrong understanding of Catholic Faith, an understanding that has to change, a lifestyle that has to change, these people deny the genuineness of papal teaching by claiming it is erroneous.

Yeah, that's not how it works. I don't look for errors in Scripture because I don't judge Scripture. Scripture judges me. In the same way, don't bother looking for errors in papal teaching because I don't judge papal teaching. Papal teaching judges me.

And it isn't just me who cannot make these judgements. Even ecumenical councils cannot make these judgements. Nobody can. Nobody judges the pope. No one has the authority to do so. 

Now, the next refuge of the scoundrel is to claim that I am advocating some kind of papal idolatry. Ironically, the same people who cheer on Pope Pius IX's statement  “I am the church! I am the tradition!” will immediately deny the principle when anyone points out that this statement applies to every single one of Pius IX's successors. 

But the very denial betrays the fact that these same Catholics, whether liberal or trad, don't actually accept the Magisterium. They aren't actually Catholics, they are actually Protestants, differing from Martin Luther only in the specific papal statement they have chosen to deny. 

Catholics need pay attention to only three people in the world: their parish priest, their diocesan bishop and the Pope. If there is a question about either of the first two, the teachings of the first two are to be weighed against papal teaching.

No priest, no bishop, no parish, no religious order can be trusted to accurately represent the Faith. Ultimately, we can trust only the saints, the Fathers, the Doctors and the popes. When faced with a doctrinal conundrum, we may not have a saint nearby to ask, we are less likely to have a Doctor on call to consult, and all the Fathers of the Church are dead, so that's done. But we always have the pope. He is the one who tells us how to steer course through current problems, how to apply, into any current situation, the principles given by the saints, the Doctors and the Fathers. 

So, in questions of doctrine and dogma, the Pope is always correct. In areas of discipline, his opinion is to be preferred over our own, for we are the children and he is the Holy Father, not the Random Stranger. While he may be wrong on discipline, we start by assuming he is correct, as any child would assume when directed by his father. Augustine had the right of it. Follow his lead.