No, climate change is not just for the scientists

Published: 

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum thinks that the pope should just leave climate change to the scientists.

Let’s ignore for the moment the fact that Pope Francis actually has a scientific background—he has a certificate in chemistry and worked as a chemist before he joined the priesthood. Even if the pope had no knowledge of science whatsoever, would he be wrong to be talking so much about caring for the planet?

No. Caring for the earth is more than just a scientific problem; it’s a moral and theological one as well. We’ve heard this argument over and over again from the Vatican, and we’ll see it again in the upcoming encyclical, which we’ve recently learned is going to be titled “Laudato Sii” (Praised be), after a line from St. Francis’ Canticle of Creatures.

But what does this mean? What does it mean that caring for the earth is the same as caring for the “least of these”? What does that have to do with us?

It means that the poor are often the most affected by climate change. They are the ones who can’t afford food when it gets more expensive. Who can’t afford to take off work when the temperatures are too hot or too cold, or to have air conditioning or central heating in their homes. And it’s not just the poor, it’s children. Children are more likely to be affected by environmental toxins, even before they’re born. And children are less able to cope with high levels of pollution in the air and water.

If you’re in doubt, just look at the stories in the news lately. Almost 2,500 people have died in India this summer because of one of the worst heat waves the world has ever seen. The people who are dying are not the people who can afford cars or who work in air conditioned offices. They are the poor farm laborers, who earn less than $3 a day and have to go to work, no matter what the weather. Their deaths could have been preventable. “All they need to do is follow basic precautions like avoiding working in the sun,” one doctor says. “What can we do? It's a problem of poverty.”

In the New York Times last Sunday, one reporter writes about his son’s struggle with severe asthma while they were living in New Delhi and his eventual decision to leave the country because of the high levels of air pollution. “Pollution can lower children’s I.Q., hurt their test scores and increase the risks of autism, epilepsy, diabetes and even adult-onset diseases like multiple sclerosis,” he says.

But the news isn’t all doom and gloom. Other organizations are showing how tackling these issues can make a huge difference in the lives of the poor, even within individual communities. Take, for example, the Archdiocese of San Francisco, who recently started an urban gardening program that hires local people who have no other source of income. Titled NanoFarms, this program has allowed many to stay in their homes and neighborhoods in an area where prices are rising rapidly due to gentrification. Brendon Ford, the regional manager for the area, describes the program’s importance by saying: “We have to take care of the poorest among us. And (one way) to do that is to tackle the issue: Why do people not have money? Why are they not having the jobs that they need? And I think what NanoFarms is doing, it’s finding a solution to people without jobs.”

There are similar environmental programs around the country that work to empower those who need it the most. The Urban Resources Initiative, in New Haven, CT, hires urban high-schoolers and ex-offenders to plant trees. St. Mary’s Nutrition Center, in Lewiston, ME, works within its community by offering community gardens for low-income families and programs that teach people nutrition, cooking, and leadership skills. Alternatives for Community and Environment, in Boston, works to educate people in communities of color and low-income neighborhoods about activism and environmental justice. Members have joined together to improve waste disposal regulations in the area, clean up dump sites, and stop the development of a diesel power plant next to a public elementary school. And these are only a few examples: Programs around the country are linking saving the environment to ending hunger and empowering those without a voice in their communities.

So, no, Mr. Santorum, climate change is not just for the scientists. It’s for the children affected by air pollution. The farmers dying of heat stroke. The ex-offenders and immigrants and young adults who are learning to have a voice (and an income!) through caring for the planet. They are who we work for—and with—when we seek to end climate change

- See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201506/no-climate-change-not-just-scientists-30162?utm_source=June+9%2C+2015&utm_campaign=ebulletin+June+9%2C+2015&utm_medium=email#sthash.DEP6XcSC.dpuf

Pentecost Sunday

Click here for scripture readings

May 24, 2015

In the Gospel for the feast of the Ascension, the Church is given the great commission of making disciples of all the nations.
It was Jesus' work. It now becomes the Church's work.
In the Gospel for Pentecost, the Church is given the power of forgiving sins and making people right before God.
It was the Lord's work.
It now becomes the Church's work.
In other words, forgiveness is our work

Indeed, the whole ministry of the Lord is turned over to the Church.
But, of course, the ministry remains the Lord's ministry, for he and the Church make up one and the same body.
Jesus once said, "I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing!" (Luke 12:49).
He began the task so well!
Now, we must continue it!
It was not interrupted by his death: it is further empowered by his death.
His return to glory only adds immeasurable strength and grace to the effort.
It is up to us to catch the new Spirit and to cast the fire.

I always tire of politicians who want us to elect them so that our children and grandchildren will have a better future.
I always suspect their motives.
I'm a firm believer in making our leaders take care of our generation, our time and its challenges, and that we should not allow them to deflect our minds to some vague future.
It lets them off the hook; they don’t have to be accountable.

I suspect that there are Church leaders who likewise "cast their anchor" into the future rather than taking care of the present.
They write off the present generation and look instead, like politicians, to the future.
They say things are bad now, what with the scarcity of vocations, the departures from the priesthood, the scandals, the affluence, the false values, the hedonism, the violence, the egotism, and the lack of a generous heart.

But the future will be different! They say.
So, we must look to the future, side-stepping the present.
They are wrong.
They are appointed to be the shepherds of the present, and not of some vague future.
The future is someone else's responsibility.

We must take care of our own time and our own place in salvation history.
The great commission means we must
—and Pentecost means we can.
We tend to see Pentecost as a mighty rush of the Spirit energizing all things with wonder and light and multiple conversions.
And that, surely, is part of it.
But Pentecost is also the quiet breath of the Spirit, speaking calmly within us about our un-moored time,
keeping us strong in faith and anchored in the present as we wonder about the next step,
informing our minds with possible solutions and new pastoral approaches,
and assuring our hearts that personal holiness is the most effective catechesis of all
. No generation—the present one included—is able to withstand the witness of saints.
Does the present generation see holiness and sanctity in the present set of shepherds?
Or does it see shepherds looking to the future, side-stepping the present?

Is that what we are called to in our own time and place?
Is that the challenge of this generation to us—to be saints—to witness to them by our holiness?
If it is, and if we achieve it with God's grace, then—and then only—may we happily write off this generation for a spiritual poverty of its own making.
But, until we are well on the way to holiness, write off nothing
– and don't expect too much!

Papal authority and climate change: Preparing for Pope Francis' encyclical

Published: 

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Sometime in the near future, Pope Francis will publish the first encyclical of his papacy. Of all the possible topics, he has chosen to highlight ecology, shining a light on this pressing issue and highlighting the importance of immediate action among people of faith.

While for many this is an exciting and unprecedented move, others have already started criticizing the pope. Among the strongest critics are people who argue that Catholics do not have to take this document seriously—that it is not infallible teaching and therefore can be ignored.

Pope Francis’ office and popularity means that his encyclical will probably raise human-caused climate change to a level of global consciousness that has never before been seen. However, when preparing to read and understand this upcoming document, it is important to also keep in mind levels of papal teaching. Only when Francis’ upcoming encyclical is correctly placed within this framework can it truly be understood and taken seriously. The following essay attempts to till the Catholic land ahead of the pope’s encyclical, in order that the document might grow to its full potential and help produce the fruit of a stable, habitable climate in which justice and peace can flourish.

Catholic Teaching on Climate Change

Before looking at how Pope Francis’s encyclical fits in the Church’s levels of teaching authority, let’s first review how the Catholic Church understands climate change. In 1981, the U.S. bishops published a statement titled Reflections on the Energy Crisis. This document explicitly recognized the reality and severity of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change, and called for people of faith to address this challenge as a moral issue. The bishops recognized the widespread scientific consensus regarding climate change. (NASA points out that 97% of active climate scientists agree that the current climate change is “very likely” the result of human actions.)

In addition, the Church’s is aware that the adverse consequences of climate change—including food and water stresses, rising sea levels, more frequent severe weather events, and widespread human fatalities—undermine core commitments of Catholic social teaching. In other words, there is a connection between what happens to our environment and what happens to the poor and vulnerable around the world. The Church is dedicated to protecting human life and dignity, exercising a preferential option for the poor, caring for Creation, and promoting the common good in solidarity with all persons. Since 1981, this teaching of the Church has been affirmed by, among others: Saint John Paul II, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), German Bishops’ Conference, Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference, and dozens of individual bishops around the world. As the USCCB declared in its pastoral letter Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good:

In facing climate change, what we already know requires a response; it cannot be easily dismissed. Significant levels of scientific consensus—even in a situation with less than full certainty, where the consequences of not acting are serious—justifies, indeed can obligate, our taking action intended to avert potential dangers. In other words, if enough evidence indicates that the present course of action could jeopardize humankind's well-being, prudence dictates taking mitigating or preventative action.

Church Teaching Authority and the Response of the Faithful

The Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, reminds us that Jesus formed the apostles into a college with authority over the whole Church and placed Peter at its head (nos. 19-22). Additionally, the Church asserts that, as Peter’s successor, the pope has a distinct vocation as “supreme teacher of the universal Church” (Lumen Gentium 25). The Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, repeatedly emphasizes that part of the Church’s fundamental vocation is to share its teachings with the world in order to help shape public discourse and policy in ways that protect the common good and promote the flourishing of all persons—especially the poorest and most vulnerable (see especially Chapter IV: “The Role of the Church in the Modern World”).

In several of his works, theologian Richard R. Gaillardetz summarizes the four categories of teaching authority and corresponding levels of assent that have been outlined in post-conciliar Catholic ecclesiology. Drawing especially on Lumen Gentium, Ad Tuendam Fidem, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and commentary by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Gaillardetz describes the following descending levels of ecclesial authority and assent:

• Dogma: Infallible expressions of divine revelation. Catholics owe these pronouncements the most serious response and consideration, what we refer to as “obedience of faith.” When it comes to ethics, dogma includes the most fundamental aspects of Christian morality (including those that Church has never had occasion to explicitly define as such). An example is the basic responsibility of Christians to act as stewards towards God’s gift of Creation.
• Definitive Doctrine: Teachings that are not divinely revealed but are still essential to the protection of divine revelation. These teachings are also exercised with the charism of infallibility, and the faithful properly owe them “firm acceptance.” One example is the canon of Sacred Scripture.
• Authoritative Doctrine: Teachings that are connected to divine revelation, but which are neither recognized as divinely revealed nor considered to be infallible. To these, Catholics owe “religious assent,” i.e., “religious submission of mind and will” (Lumen Gentium, no. 25). An example in theological ethics is the “universal destination of goods” which insists that “God destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples” (Gaudium et Spes, no. 69; cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, nos. 171-175).
• Prudential Judgments: Instructions through which the pope and/or bishops employ dogma, doctrine, and authoritative secular information to provide guidance on particular issues/circumstances. These instructions do not have the charism of infallibility, but the faithful are called to openly, thoughtfully, and prayerfully consider these teachings as they form their consciences. An example would be a papal judgment about whether a specific structure, institution, or practice upholds or damages the dignity of Creation—especially of human persons and particularly of the poorest and most vulnerable.

Given his office as head of the college of bishops, the pope is able to exercise all four levels of ecclesial teaching authority. To this end, popes typically use encyclical letters to reiterate dogma, address doctrine, and offer judgments. As such, the solemnity of an encyclical is surpassed only by apostolic constitutions (papal bulls), which popes typically use to define dogma.

Authority and Pope Francis’ Encyclical

Presuming that Pope Francis addresses human climate change in his forthcoming encyclical, he will likely do so with an unprecedented level of papal authority. Saint John Paul II repeatedly addressed climate change as a moral issue, but never did so in a papal encyclical (1990 and 1999 World Day of Peace Messages). Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI spoke about climate change in his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate (no. 50), but this reference was part of a much larger reflection on integral human development.

Pope Francis, on the other hand, has already confirmed that the encyclical will center on ecology. Given that this is the case, and that Francis has already showed an emphasis on anthropogenic climate change, it is likely that he will go further to addressing this issue than Benedict ever did.

Given the Church’s framework of ecclesial authority and assent, any teaching that Pope Francis makes in his encyclical will constitute a prudential judgment (the fourth level of Church teaching) made in light of Catholic dogma and doctrine about the Christian vocation to care for every person and all Creation. As such, Catholics will be called to receive any such teaching with thoughtful consideration marked by sincere openness, humble deliberation and deep prayer. Only after reading the encyclical with this disposition would Catholics be able to morally dispute any teaching that the pope makes about climate change.

Some people have raised questions about whether the pope can speak with ecclesial authority about climate change and the extent to which the faithful would have to adhere to any such teachings. In particular, some of these voices have attempted to minimize the authority proper to prudential papal teaching and are under the impression that Catholics would be free to quickly dismiss any such teachings in good conscience. In light of Church teaching about ecclesial authority, however, this opinion clearly fails to satisfy the Church’s criteria for faithful reception of papal teaching. As such, these people are at odds with Church teaching about ecclesial authority and assent, and their opinions should not be listened to.

Conclusion

Pope Francis has already built on the precedent of Saint John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. He has used less authoritative venues to exercise the ordinary papal magisterium and affirm a “definitive and ineluctable ethical impetrative to act” on anthropogenic climate change. All these previous actions suggest that his upcoming encyclical on ecology will continue to recognize climate change as a moral issue. When done in this forum, he will be speaking with a groundbreaking level of papal authority on the subject, calling people of faith and goodwill to address this challenge.

This encyclical will have the ability to inspire faith-based environmental action and make a positive change in the world. However, this will only happen if Catholics recognize the authority of the document and receive its teaching accordingly. Some commentators have already mischaracterized the authority with which various papal teachings are imbued, arguing that Catholics are not responsible for receiving these messages thoughtfully and carefully.

If Pope Francis does use the upcoming encyclical to address human climate change, I hope that Catholics will be inspired to receive it appropriately, taking into account their responsibilities when it comes to Church authority and assent. Only then can this encyclical reach its potential to inspire a unified, faith-filled response to one of the world’s most urgent and pressing problems.

- See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201505/papal-authority-and-climate-change-preparing-pope-francis-encyclical-30117?utm_source=May+26%2C+2015&utm_campaign=ebulletin+May+19%2C+2015&utm_medium=email#sthash.bOUCwvba.dpuf

What would Oscar Romero say today about El Salvador?

By Timothy Kesicki| 

Published: 

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

c. 2015 Religion News Service

(RNS) Two years ago I was in El Salvador and asked a fellow Jesuit priest if he thought that Archbishop Oscar Romero—famously slain while celebrating Mass in 1980—would ever be beatified. The Salvadoran Jesuit’s answer: only when all of the people who loved Romero and all of the people who hated him were dead.

Fortunately, that prediction turned out to be grossly off the mark, as Pope Francis will beatify Oscar Romero on Saturday (May 23), putting him one step shy of formal sainthood.

At the height of El Salvador’s civil war, Romero was a lightning rod with enemies. One of the most prominent Salvadorans to call out the country’s government and military leaders to end their bloody and oppressive human rights violations, he was also an outspoken advocate for the poor.

Shot to death by an unknown assassin said to be acting on the orders of the Salvadoran army, Romero used his last homily to call on soldiers to listen to their consciences and disregard orders to kill fellow Salvadorans.

If he were alive today, what would Romero say from the pulpit?

El Salvador’s civil war is long over, but the violence and inequality haunting the nation is as real as it was back in the 1980s. Children and families continue to flee El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras because the region is the deadliest nonwar zone in the world. Jesuits working in ministries throughout North America and Central America encounter these faces of human suffering daily.

While last year’s media spotlight on the Central American children and families crossing the U.S. border has faded, the humanitarian emergency gripping the region continues. The number of children and families reaching the U.S. may have dropped, but it is not because the violence has diminished or people have stopped fleeing.

Instead, our government, which already spends nearly $18 billion on immigration enforcement in the U.S., has now leveraged funding, training and diplomatic pressure to impel Mexico and Central America to intercept desperate people, some fleeing violence and persecution, from journeying beyond borders to find safety. The U.S. has invested heavily in border security and immigration control, despite grave and troubling human rights violations. Meanwhile, we have failed to publicly and persistently convey the message that asylum seekers, victims of human trafficking and refugees must be screened and not returned to the hands of their persecutors.

The Obama administration’s FY2016 budget request includes $1 billion for Central American assistance, some of which would be allocated for development and poverty reduction projects. However, it also proposes pumping hundreds of millions more into the militarization of Central American societies and borders, a plan that would further deteriorate the human rights situation. Absent is a vision of how to address the urgent humanitarian needs of people displaced by violence.

Instead of funding the militarization of the borders between the U.S. and Central America and intercepting refugees before they reach our country, we must address the root causes of migration and provide direct assistance that builds the capacity to address humanitarian needs. Central America needs help expanding education opportunities, building child welfare systems and sheltering victims of violence and witnesses to crime. But none of these reforms can be sustained unless Central American governments also work to eradicate corruption and reform their judicial systems.

As Romero said during a time of similar urgency, “On this point there is no possible neutrality. We either serve the life of Salvadorans or we are accomplices in their death. … We either believe in a God of life or we serve the idols of death.”

Finding a viable solution to Central America’s problems while offering appropriate protection to those fleeing violence may be an uncomfortable conversation, but the U.S. will face an even more uncomfortable result if we continue our out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude toward Central America’s desperate and dispossessed victims of violence.

The Rev. Timothy Kesicki is president of the Jesuit Conference, the organization that represents the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in Canada and the United States.

- See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/news/201505/what-would-oscar-romero-say-today-about-el-salvador-30122?utm_source=May+26%2C+2015&utm_campaign=ebulletin+May+19%2C+2015&utm_medium=email#sthash.gVEC2Wtx.dpuf

How does the church choose its cardinals?

By John Switzer

When Pope Francis announced his new crop of cardinals earlier this year, it did not go unnoticed that no Americans were on the list. There was no red hat for Chicago’s new archbishop, Blase Cupich, although this wasn’t really a surprise since his predecessor, Cardinal Francis George, was at the time still alive and eligible to vote in a papal conclave. Neither did Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles receive the honor, but previous L.A. archbishop Cardinal Roger Mahony is also still of voting age. Bishops are required to submit their resignation at age 75, but cardinals are still able to vote in a conclave until they turn 80. And tradition dictates that no diocese will have more than one cardinal of voting age, an unwritten rule that Pope Francis followed in his most recent round of appointments. (With the recent passing of Chicago's Cardinal George, Cupich may end up on Francis' next list of appointments, but there's still no guarantee.)

Francis certainly did, however, shake up many traditions surrounding who becomes a cardinal. Dioceses that normally have cardinals are finding that they no longer do. And red hats (birettas) and capes are being distributed in some unexpected places. Appointments for men in Tonga, Myanmar, and Santiago de Cabo Verde confirm the pope’s interest in building a genuinely global church where ecclesiastical power is not concentrated so mightily in Europe.

Most people probably already know that cardinals elect the pope, but that job is actually one that they are rarely called upon to perform. Their primary responsibility is to serve as advisors and assistants to the pope as he completes his duties as supreme pastor. Whatever else a cardinal may be doing (as head of a diocese or as chief of a Vatican congregation), he is always available to the pontiff. According to the Code of Canon Law, a cardinal remains at the service of the pope both personally and as a member of the College of Cardinals, which may be summoned by the pope for particular needs.

Like Chicago, there are archdioceses throughout the world whose archbishops are traditionally appointed cardinals, but the pope has final authority in this regard. A pope may make changes because he believes that there are too many cardinals in one country when compared to another, or he may wish to recognize the work of a particular cleric or theologian. Popes send important signals about their values and hopes for the church when they make—or withhold—appointments.

Since 1917 the code has required that a man must be a priest to be eligible for appointment to the College of Cardinals. An appointee who is not a bishop must be consecrated a bishop, but the pope can make exceptions, as John Paul II did for Jesuit theologian Avery Dulles in 2001. The first cardinals were probably senior clerics of some of Rome’s most important churches, now known as titular churches; others were bishops from nearby dioceses known as suburbicarian sees.

Since its work is centered on service to the pope in governing the church, some theologians have argued that the College of Cardinals should contain laypeople of both sexes. It is said that Paul VI considered giving a red hat to the Catholic philosopher and layman Jacques Maritain. There have been so-called lay cardinals in the past, but they were men in minor orders. Given his openness to new possibilities, Pope Francis might someday consider lay cardinals, both men and women.

- See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201504/how-does-church-choose-its-cardinals-30005?utm_source=May+19%2C+2015&utm_campaign=ebulletin+May+19%2C+2015&utm_medium=email#sthash.vR20BjIR.dpuf

10 Things Catholics are tired of hearing

1.“Catholics worship statues.”This stereotype is painful to hear. Not only is this completely false, but it is ludicrous. Despite the fact that there are 801 millions Protestants world-wide, according to the Pew Research Center, my rant will be geared towards our brothers and sisters in the United States. In this country, approximately 51.5% of people are Protestant Christians. Realistically, most of these families have pictures in their home, which is completely normal, right? Right. They have pictures of their loved ones, both living and deceased. Is it not hypocritical then to say that Catholics are idol worshipers, when these families have portraits of their loved ones on the walls? If these Protestant families can have pictures of Uncle Bernie and Mawmaw hanging on the wall, then most certainly the Church can present pictures of our beloved Jesus, his disciples, and the saints.

2.“Catholics pray to Mary instead of God.”
This is a very common misconception throughout the Protestant community, and while I can understand why it is, I am also disheartened that many jump to such a harsh conclusion of the Catholic faith. We don’t pray to Mary, we ask her to pray for us, just as a Protestant asks their deceased grandparent/parent to watch over them.

3. “The saints can’t hear your prayers, because they are dead.”
I beg to differ. Since when is anyone who is in Heaven considered dead? We call it the afterLIFE for a reason. In fact, there is biblical proof that the saints can hear our prays:
-Revelation 5:8 “And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.”
-Revelation 8:3-4 “Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God’s people, on the golden altar in front of the throne. The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of God’s people, went up before God from the angel’s hand.”

4. “Mother Mary isn’t important; she’s just like anyone else.”
If our Blessed Mother isn’t important, then every female would have had an immaculate conception. For this reason, that is why the declarative statement above doesn’t make sense. Of course Mother Mary is important, she gave birth to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. What is so amazing about the Catholic faith is the fact that we recognize the importance of Mary, and we honor her accordingly. She is a role model and saint for all Christians to look up to, because she submitted to God completely. Until the day another woman gives birth to Jesus, no one will ever be just like Mary. She is a very special, holy woman.

5. “Catholics made up all their rules.”
Every single tradition we have in the Catholic Church, namely during Mass, has biblical roots. Not to mention the fact that Jesus was the founder of our Church. I don’t know about you, but Jesus doesn’t make mistakes.

6. “God said to confess sins to Him, not a priest.”
This one is a personal favorite of mine. Drum roll please.
-James 5:16 “Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.”
It is true that we pray directly to God, and ask Him to forgiveness, however for sins (mortal) we do as Jesus commands and confess it to one another (our priests). Jesus said this directly to his disciples, so through Him, they were able to forgive sins. This power passed down to every priest, and so on and so forth. That felt good.

7. “Catholicism is a cult.”Jesus Christ founded this Church more than 2,000 years ago, I would hardly call it a cult.

8. “Catholics aren’t Christians.”
The word Christian is associated with anyone who follows Christ’s teachings, and since the Catholic Church does just that then we are to be called Christians. Not to mention Catholics were actually the first Christians.

9. “Catholics added books to the Holy Bible.”
This one is so hilarious it hurts. For 300 years there was no Bible, only random writings from the prophets like St.Peter etc, until the Catholic monks compiled and canonized what is now known today as the Holy Bible. (That is until the Protestant Reformation occurred, in which one man *Martin Luther* removed 7 books). Ouch.

10. “Catholics believe you can pay your way into Heaven.”
We definitely do not. That is a huge misconception which occurred during the Protestant Reformation.

Despite the many stereotypes that hang over our faith, the important thing to remember is our Church has stood the test of time and remained for more than 2,000 years. Whether you are Catholic or Protestant-- we are all followers of Christ, and He is the ultimate goal.

“The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it, let it loose, and it will defend itself.”
-St. Augustine of Hippo

Traits of a Perfect Priest

The other day I was talking with my friend, Father McGillicuddy, the pastor of a local parish. He likes to confide in me, because he knows I’ll never tell anyone what he shared with me—unless, of course, I can’t think of anything to write about in my weekly essay. And since I have writer’s block at the moment, all I can say is: sorry, Father, I hope none of your parishioners are reading this.

Anyway, what Fr. Mac and I discussed was the most difficult aspect of being a parish priest. Surprisingly, it’s not the fact that priests have no money, nor is it the fact priests are constantly being awakened from a sound sleep to rush to the bedside of someone critically ill. The most difficult aspect of being a priest is the realization that no matter what you say or do, some parishioners will be upset. And these upset parishioners rarely keep it to themselves, as they apparently interpret St. Paul’s teachings against gossip to mean it’s perfectly okay to gossip as long as you’re complaining about the clergy.

So Fr. Mac and I made a list of the traits of the perfect parish priest, the attributes needed by the pastor so everyone in the parish will be happy all the time.

First, the perfect parish priest must schedule at least four vigil Masses on Saturday, and at least seven Masses during the day on Sunday, so all parishioners can attend a Mass that is most convenient to their schedules. And if the priest is also the pastor of a linked parish in a neighboring town, it doesn’t matter. He must offer four Masses on Saturday and seven on Sunday at that parish, too.

Every Mass the priest says must be the most inspirational liturgy anyone has ever witnessed. But it can’t last more than 45 minutes, because that’s when people start to get fidgety. Every homily must cause the parishioners to laugh a little, cry a little, and ultimately feel very good about themselves. And it must take less than five minutes. And the priest must never repeat himself. And he must memorize his homilies, as reading from notes tells the congregation he did not invest enough hours preparing the sermon.

The perfect parish priest must have a Ph.D. in psychology, so he always will say the exact right words to anyone with a personal problem. He must have a Master’s Degree in music, so the hymns and other music at Mass will be the exact correct selections to make everyone happy. He must have a Bachelor’s Degree in interior design, so the flower arrangements and other decorations in the church are pleasing to all visitors. He must be a licensed Professional Civil Engineer, so there are never any problems with the parking lot, traffic flows, and snow removal. And he must be a licensed plumbing, heating, and electrical contractor, so that no one is ever uncomfortable in church.

Finally, the perfect parish priest must never eat or sleep, as these are very selfish activities which reduce the number of hours the priest is available to serve the parishioners. And while we’re on the subject of selfish activities, the priest also must never brush his teeth, bathe, or go to the bathroom, since these, too, are time-wasters. But it goes without saying, the priest always must be clean-shaven, smell nice, and have a perfect smile, because we don’t want anyone to think our parish priest is a lazy bum.

So that’s really all that is required for a parish priest to be perfect and make everyone happy. Father McGillicuddy said he will get right to it—as soon as Satan starts wearing ice skates.