Apology

Not apologetics this post, but an apology that I missed my monthly post. When I began this month, I began a new "month" in the daily Bible readings. I was delayed due to excessive schoolwork (which I still have so this will be a short, update, post!) And due to a relationship that I've been frantically trying to repair. I did get behind two days due to schoolwork keeping me up late... if I am up til somewhere between 2 and 5 am, then I feel justified in just getting as much sleep as I can before 9am the next morning. So, last night I caught up and did three days worth in one night! So I should be on track now! I've finished the whole Pentateuch now, and am in Joshua. Still in the psalms (hit day 100 of the year with psalm 101). Finished Acts, finished 1st Thessalonians last night and started in on 2nd Thessalonians. Which is only three chapters, so I'm on to Galatians after that. I can't believe the Pentateuch went by so quickly! Also, come to think of it, this is broken into "Hobbit months"... 30 days in each month! Hope to write more once school has stopped throwing programming projects at us aerospace engineers!

"The World's Toughest Catholic Quiz"

Would that everyone could know all 20 of the answers. I knew about 17 of them, but then again EWTN Radio is all I've listened to for a year and a half now and I've read stuff from Frank Sheed and Patrick Madrid.
So here it is:
THE WORLD'S TOUGHEST CATHOLIC QUIZ
How will you do?

You Have No Idea How Long I Tried To Think Of A Good Title For This Post

So, after all retreats I've been to, they have people who have prepared to give their "witness," or the story of their faith life. After retreats, people who feel that retreat really affected them give the story of the way the retreat changed their ideas about their faith. After all such stories, I have the great fear if I was to give a witness, what the heck would I say? Even the format of casually telling your own life like a story was new to me on my first retreat, and I wanted to be able to do it myself. And the more witnesses I listened to, the more I felt able to imitate them. And the more I felt the insignificance of my own story.
        Martyr means "witness" in Greek before it took on its current meaning. In the Church, red martyr has come into usage for Catholics who die for their faith and white martyr is used to refer to "dying to self" through sacrifices. Everyone is called to be a white martyr, it takes a special call from God (and special graces) to be a red martyr.
       In Acts 1:8 Jesus says "you will be my witnesses...to the ends of the earth."
       Through EWTN Radio, I became aware of  Seth DeMoor's website and mission to film the story of every Catholic in the world.
So how am I a witness to Jesus?

Have You Been Sufficiently Censered?

I got the idea for the title from Retreat. Censor/Censer get it? Ok, it was a bad pun. And, on second thought, it's Jesus who gets censered...

Like over the retreat. UCF puts on amazing retreats: they are really blessed in their campus ministry. They're all such wonderful people. The theme of the retreat was "Holiness Today." The patron saint of the retreat was St. Augustine (not pronounced like the city in Florida!!!). It would be incomplete to talk about St. Augustine without talking about St. Monica, his mother who prayed for her son's conversion for 17 years. That's like if I had been praying since I was four years old until now! I was definitely praying for different things when I was a four year old than I am now.

Some of the important points presented, I would like to share:

• God must teach us how to love Him back
• Is it amazing that Jesus lowered Himself to be human? How much more amazing is it then that Jesus lowered Himself to take the appearance of bread, of food?
• Have you been through this cycle? I know I have: isolation->numb pain->self loathing->shame, discouragement->hiding-> back to feelings of isolation. To know you are a whole, complete person (holiness, whole-y, get it?) is to break this evil cycle.
• Jesus is the light. We cannot be holy until we bring to light all that you hide, all that would embarrass you.
• Holiness is analog. Holiness is not something that you "arrive at" and can say "I'm here! Journey over" (this side of death, at least). In fact, everyone baptized, everyone consecrated to God has a "base level" of holiness; are a holy people. 
• We each have our own journey to holiness. Everyone has their own individual struggles. 
• We can't get "lulled to sleep" by the routine struggles. We can't become lulled to sleep by the world that says "what you felt at retreat wasn't real." For Catholics, what the world considers reality, we consider fantasy. There is no reality without God. You're walking in a dream if you spend any time unaware that God is present, walking next to you. We fall into spiritual slumber without even realizing it.
• The Bible doesn't follow the careers of politicians or the life of businesses: it follows families. And not many families, but one family: the line of Adam, the line of David, which ends with Jesus. 
• (technically not from retreat, but I was reminded of it during retreat) Hurt people hurt people and healed people heal people
• retreat should be more than a "spiritual energy drink." It should be a re-calibration to focus of Jesus.
• Jesus has conquered the world. What have we to fear?
• We are supposed to be right where we are-on a journey
• God calls you to be yourself, but "be who you are" is different from "I can do whatever I want"
• A little angel doesn't tap you on the head and say "you've been made holy, go out and play." God gives us opportunities for holiness. 
• Who were the kids in Mk 10 13-16? They got hugged by Jesus! Did they know they were being hugged by God? 
• I stand in grace. My heart is open. All is gift.

Lastly, one of the fun activities they had us do I will reprint here:
Look over the following descriptions and take a minute or so to pick out which one best describes you.

1. You are a good honest person that works hard but you don't really understand how God operates in your life. You show up more because someone else wants you to be there.
2. You are someone whose decisions in life are not always the best. You struggle with self-esteem issues and you have felt the scorn of others.
3. You are someone who has spent time mocking those who proclaim to be Christian. Your head and knowledge over-rules your heart and you make decisions according to what you can prove.
4. You are a person of great compassion, but you're skeptical and cynical. Your heart still wants to believe in miracles, but you find it difficult and draining.
5. You are someone whose mind gets the Gospel message, but your actions do not always compliment what you believe. You want to be a leader but you fall short and make mistakes.
6. You have lived a blessed life and due to your parents' wealth you have been well taken care of. You struggle when things get uncomfortable and rationalize sin. 
7. You are a faith-filled person that worries about others and tends to want God to work on your time and not His time.
8. You are someone who wants to spend more time with God and the Church but your family would rather you not get too involved. 

The number you chose refers to a saint who felt the same way: 1) St Joseph 2) St Mary Magdalene 3) St Paul 4) St. Elizabeth Ann Seton 5) St Peter 6) St Francis of Assisi 7) St. Monica 8) St Claire of Assisi

60 Days!

I've gotten through 60 days of reading the Bible and CCC in a year! I've kept going for two months!
I have learned:

• Genesis ends with the death of Joseph
• Exodus ends with the making of the Ark of the Covenant
• "Ark" means "box" so Noah literally had a box of animals
• I've started compiling a list of Engineers of the Bible: so far I have Noah (Ocean Engineering) and Bezalel and his assistant Oholiab (ok maybe they were more artisans, but I think it takes some engineering to be "experts who the Lord had endowed with skill and understanding in knowing how to execute all the work for the service of the sanctuary, just as the Lord had commanded (Ex 36:1)" 
• I haven't been bored in Leviticus yet. Yeah, it's law, but I don't mind reading about holocausts because it involves burning stuff and now that I'm on the uncleanliness laws, I'm finding parallels with the New Testament. And I didn't know your house could catch leprosy. It would be kinda hard to have acne or eczema back then... all of their medicine is "wait and see if it goes away on its own" so you get stuck in isolation until it goes away. But Jesus's words to the ten lepers are to go and show themselves to the priests. I'm not quite sure what declaring women 'unclean' after childbirth does to help anything. Unclean animals lists remind me of Acts where Peter was told to eat unclean animals in a vision, in preparation for his being sent to Cornelius. What did he see? What was listed in Leviticus: pigs, badgers, camels, rabbits (did you know Jews couldn't eat rabbit? I didn't), and non-scaly fish. It makes sense: they wouldn't know how to cook the pork & they wouldn't know when it was safe to eat shellfish. They didn't have months with Rs yet. 
• Finished the Gospel of Matthew, now reading Acts... how can anyone doubt Peter's leadership in Acts? Until it starts following Paul's journeys, and except for Stephen's martyrdom, Peter is the only one saying anything!
• There is a psalm for anything. I found Psalm 51 for before Confession and Psalm 32 for after Confession. The psalms also make me feel like I knew more of the Bible than I thought I did.
• Nothing really stands out to me as learned from the CCC other than last night in 475 where at the 6th ecumenical council, they declared that Jesus had two wills, with the human will submitting to the divine will. The passages before it didn't really clarify for me how Jesus could have both human knowledge and divine knowledge at the same time. I wonder how having two will works, as well...

ugh off to class... maybe I'll blog about retreat later

From Palestine With Love

Have you ever heard of "The Naked Archaeologist?" It's a TV show on the History Channel that tries to "expose" the truth of scripture through (guess what!) archaeology. It's not from a Catholic perspective (by a long shot) but I think if done well and honestly, no Catholic could oppose what archaeology says.

However, in the episode I saw latest (it was at our campus's Protestant Campus Ministry Bible study: my attempt at ecumenism... if all the episodes are like this one, the effort will fail), "Spies and Apostles," the show made the claims that

1. James the Just was appointed by Jesus to be the leader of the early Christians, and that Paul and Peter were plotting to try to wrest control of the early Church from him. 
2. Paul was a spy for the Roman Empire and only joined the Christians to try to subvert whatever "anti-Roman" tendencies there were
3. Peter was a spy for...the Jewish Rabbis! Yep, the denials of Jesus on Good Friday are now not out of fear of the Jewish leaders, but a proof that he was chummy with them.

Their response to there being not much in Acts about James is that "it was inter-Christian politics. Paul won and so his version of history is what was recorded."
Their only Bible verses cited were that Jesus declared Peter the rock on which He will build His church (Mt. 16:18) and that Paul was obsessed with "winning" and would give up all morals to win when he said "Run so as to win" (1 Cor 9:19-27).  I don't know what this does to prove the "spies" thing, though.

My response to all of this was a very big "This is ridiculous. What the heck are you thinking? Where in the world would you think you could get this from? How does any of this make sense to you?" For people who believe Sola Scriptura, they've definitely walked off the plantation of what the Bible says.

To discuss them in order:

1. Who was James? Is he the literal brother of Jesus? Outside of the few mentions of him in Scripture (Acts 12:17, ch 15 and 21 as well) (Gal 1:19, 2:9), most of what we know about him comes from Eusebius.In tradition, James, called the Just due to his righteousness, is the first Bishop of Jerusalem. I guess the TV show takes that to mean he was the leader of the whole early Church. But Acts gives James no leading role until chapter 12! Before that, everything clearly centered on Peter, with the help of John. When Herod kills James (brother of John, son of Zebedee), he doesn't go after James (the brother of the Lord, son of Alphaeus, son of Mary wife of Clephas) next, he arrests Peter. When Peter is released by the angel, he specifically mentions telling James specifically before Peter leaves. It is only after this that James is mentioned a lot, so this is Peter giving the authority of Jerusalem over to James. There was no competition. 
2. Their entire body of evidence for Paul's spy-ness is a) Paul was a Roman citizen, b) Paul acts differently before and after his conversion and c) Paul mostly hangs out with Gentiles. Does this seem shaky to you? It seems shaky to me. Do I really need to go through all of these? a) Yes Paul was a Roman citizen, but he was a citizen due to where he was born, not through any work of allegiance to the Roman Empire. He was a trained Pharisee!b) well, duh, he acts differently after his conversion! That's what a conversion is! Paul was a very passionate person, Jesus just hit him between the eyes with the knowledge that he was just going 100 miles an hour in the wrong direction. Paul changes course and we should be grateful because otherwise we wouldn't have half of the (non-Gospel) New Testament!  Besides, it wouldn't be worth having in the New Testament if Paul had ulterior motives for being a Christian. There are a lot of worthy books from that time that didn't make it into the Bible, because the Bible is centered around Christ's words, not Paul's or anyone else's. c) (oops I forgot and posted before I got to c... must edit!) Paul mostly hangs out with Gentiles after he is sent to go preach to them. Say this slowly with me. Paul. Got Sent. By God. To The Gentiles. If he isn't the Apostle to the Gentiles, he is nothing! That is his calling. God told Peter to send him (Gal 2:9)! Interestingly, while reading a little bit above this verse, Paul does mention "false brothers" who "slipped in to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus" in order to influence the early Church's teaching on observing the Mosaic Law. Could Paul justly accuse others of being "false brothers" if he was one himself? Why would you accept a hypocrite as a saint? And why would you accept what he wrote as the Word of God?
3. Do I really have to say anything to refute Peter being a spy for the Jewish leaders? Even if you don't believe all of the countless passages where Peter was mentioned first or given primacy in speaking mean that he was the first Pope, you should be able to figure out that saying one of the 12 Apostles (other than Judas who is roundly condemned every time his name is mentioned) is in league with the Jewish leaders is ridiculous. Acts 4:5-22, Peter very clearly says he will do what God tells him, not what the Sanhedrin tells him. Acts 12 (again):2-4 "(King Herod) had James, the brother of John, killed by the sword, and when he saw that this was pleasing to the Jews he proceeded to arrest Peter also. If Peter had ulterior motives, would he really be able to do all of the miracles in the name of Jesus? Acts 5:15, there were so many miracles happening around him, that people hoped that even his shadow might be a cause for God to see their faith and heal them. In fact, in 5:27-32, Peter and the Apostles get chewed out by the Sanhedrin, and they have to repeat again that they will serve God first. And the Apostles "left the presence of the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name.(Acts 5:41)"
   

Truth or Tolerance?

After a quick google search of the title, this seems like a question that is predominantly asked by Catholics about religion and by Christians in general about homosexuality. I would like to discuss the former.

So, this began with curiosity over whether there was any... historical... logical... proof that Buddha reached Nirvana. The point of Nirvana is that you never come back. This is on top of the fact that reincarnation through "karmic energy" at con. I wonder how abortion works in karma? If you die before you're born, then get reincarnated in someone else's womb, get aborted again...

Anyway, just searching for 'Buddhism' led me to an interesting site: www.religioustolerance.org
So naturally, it would be fair to see what they believe truth to be:
"Absolute Truth"
"One True Religion?"

The main points being:

• Unless God were to take the initiative, it appears that there is no way for humans to determine which religion is "true."
• If one set of theological beliefs is absolutely, objectively, universally true, then its corresponding set of moral truths would also be absolute. But there is no way in which we can currently know which set, if any, is true...Until we can all reach a consensus on a common set of theological beliefs, we will never achieve agreement on moral questions.

It then goes on into a  discussion over how if people lessened their grip on truth, they could increase their tolerance of other religions.

I personally don't want truth and tolerance to be mutually exclusive like this. We need to hold to the absolute truth, otherwise we are living in a fantasy we created, not the world as it is, or I could say, not the world God created. But it is impractical to completely reject other faiths because they only agree with the truth for X%, and not 100%. Catholics are not either-or people, we are both-and people.

There's also the problems of imperfect people and demonic influence. People grow up in a particular religion and just accept the practices without much questioning of the doctrine, sometimes. Thus, even if their religion held the truth, they are not able to defend it. For the second, should Satanism and Voodoo really be tolerated, even if its proponents aren't killing people en masse? Religions come from three sources: worship of God, worship of Satan or demons, or worship of yourself. Only God is worthy of worship. Does it jeopardize tolerance to tell someone they're worshiping a creature rather than the creator? If you force them to accept God, then you hurt their dignity and free will, then that is the real intolerance. 

Should tolerance be viewed from and Enlightenment perspective (which is the foundation of most of the secular, atheist culture we live in). Is democracy really the way to solve religious law, and thus, moral issues? What about "gender equality" or "sexual orientation equality?" To the Enlightenment, (after reading a lot of Buddhist explanations, the name 'enlightenment' now sounds anti-Christian to me, interestingly) the physical differences between women and men are superficial and do not indicate an underlying complementarity. Sadly, I believe feminism in this country has stopped being about doing what's best for women, as God made them, and has become more about promoting abortions and making men feel bad.

Is being tolerant really tolerant? In our country we've had a epidemic of vocal "tolerant" people who do nothing other than attack the "intolerant" people. Nobody can be "tolerant" of everything: no human society could hold together if we were (along the same line, if atheism really practiced what it preached, no moral law would hold and thus no human society could hold together). Thus to be tolerant, you must be tolerant of intolerance. If you tell both a Buddhist and a Catholic "you're right" then both will be insulted  at your misuse of tolerance and truth. If you stand on the ground of a Catholic and say to a Buddhist "you have some things right", then the neither is insulted, and the truth is not jeopardized, it is applauded. 

Besides, who controls truth? God. To try to deny truth in the name of tolerance is a injustice to tolerance, and it holds the arrogance and pride of saying you know better than God.

CCC

2104  "All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it."²⁶ This duty derives from "the very dignity of the human person."²⁷ It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for different religions which frequently "reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,"²⁸ nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians "to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith."²⁹

2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."³⁰ By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."³¹ The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.³² Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.³³

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."³⁴ This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."³⁵

2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."³⁶

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,³⁷ but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.³⁸

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.³⁹ The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."⁴⁰ 

^{(Emphasis is mine: if the CCC had emphasized parts it would ALL be bolded... each word and sentence were selected with that much care and meaning)}