Jubilee or Economic Depression?

This is an interetsting biblical perspective on the current economic situation from Steve Wood's Dads.org newsletter
___________________________
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:47:40 -0500

Editor's Note: The article below entitled, "Jubilee or Depression," is a slightly revised article that appeared in the November 1999 issue of this newsletter. Within two years of publishing this article the NASDAQ lost 80% of its value and the S&P500 lost 50%. I don't claim to be a stock picker or financial forecaster, but I think it is time to re-visit the timeless principles described in this article.

Jubilee or Depression?

The best way to prevent depressions is to follow the Jubilee pattern in the Old Testament. The Jewish jubilee occurred every 50 years. Most people are aware that the Jews were to take one day off every week for rest and worship: the Sabbath day. Many are unaware of the ancient Jewish practice of allowing the land to rest one complete year every seven years. The seventh year was regarded as a Sabbath year (Leviticus 25:4). Since ancient Israel was mostly an agricultural economy, the Sabbath year had strong economic overtones as the land, the workers, and the economy were able to rest.

A special blessing for the poor every seventh year was the requirement that Israelites were to be released from all debts (Deuteronomy 15:1-11). In ancient Israel debt was not the economic lifestyle it has become in the modern world. Debt was regarded as a form of economic servitude. As Proverbs 22:7 says, "The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender." Debt was avoided by all, except by those whose extreme poverty drove them into it.

The seventh year cancellation of all debts put a brake on any tendency for ancient Israel to become a permanently indebted economy. Things such as thirty-year loans were prohibited. There was no long-term incentive for lenders to promote debt. It was impossible for the nation to slip into a lifestyle of debt.

After 49 years, expressed as "seven weeks of years" in Leviticus 25:8, there was to be a super Sabbath year called the Jubilee. In addition to the economy being allowed a Sabbath year's rest and debts being released, the Jubilee laws in Leviticus had two more economic provisions.

The first provision was that family land that had been sold because of economic necessity was to be returned. The Jubilee prevented conglomerates from permanently gobbling up the land and extinguishing the small family farm. God wanted each family in ancient Israel to be able to provide for its own needs. Having land as a family inheritance was the pathway to economic freedom for generation after generation of Israelite families.

The second Jubilee law provided freedom from servitude (Leviticus 25:39-41). If an Israelite fell into dire economic straits, frequently stemming from the inability to repay debts, he could indenture himself as a hired servant. The Jubilee freed all Israelites from this servitude. God's Jubilee provision meant that none of his people were to be permanently trapped in economic bondage.

While the exact application of the Old Testament Jubilee legislation is not binding in the New Covenant, the principles of economic justice are certainly timeless. Violating these principles brings servitude to the poor, debt lifestyles, and depressions instead of jubilees.

In his Apostolic Letter, As the Third Millennium Draws Near, Pope John Paul II said that "The custom of jubilees, which began in the Old Testament … continues in the church."

God's laws and the principles deriving from them are ordered in reality. Release from debt will eventually occur, either through the pains of a depression, or through the joys of a jubilee. The Liberty Bell in Philadelphia is inscribed with, "Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land," a quotation from Leviticus 25:10 announcing the Year of Jubilee. But we live in a land that wants freedom, while ignoring the true source of liberty: God's Word.

Modern economies seem bent on violating the Sabbath (Lord's Day), the Sabbath year, and the Jubilee year principles. An endless 24/7 treadmill of activity in the world of business and commerce has displaced God's pattern of work and rest. Family businesses are gobbled up by the latest chain of superstores, while the family farm disappears and the ability of a working man to earn a wage sufficient to support his family is a distant memory. Instead of breaking the cycle of poverty, we have managed to create a welfare system that perpetuates trans-generational poverty in the world's most prosperous nation. Rather than minimizing indebtedness, we have pumped personal, corporate, and government debt into the largest "bubble economy" in human history. When the bubble finally pops - and it will - we will realize that our addiction to debt has brought us a depression instead of a jubilee.

Your Family Finances in an Age of Economic Jihad

There is a way to prevent boom-bust cycles and debt-driven depressions. Yet our national and state governments, our corporate leaders, and the vast majority of American families have chosen the option of plunging headlong into debt instead of economic freedom. Our debt-ridden banking and financial system resembles a pyramid scheme.

Consequences will inevitably follow. I can't say if it will take 10 weeks, 10 months, or 10 years, but there will be consequences. A Sabbath-breaking and increasingly debt-bloated economy is going to end up in a depressing mess. Some think that the Federal Reserve's tinkering with interest rates, or Washington's giving out $150 billion for Americans to buy consumer items like big screen TVs from China will save the economy. Who knows? Maybe these steps will turn things around. Then again such steps may just make matters worse in the long run.

No matter what the President, Congress, or the Federal Reserve does, I encourage you fathers to take steps, even radical ones, to protect the financial welfare of your family. Debt is always an albatross, but during a recession debt can completely ruin a family's finances. Whenever the debt bomb explodes, so many families will be affected that any available assistance will be minimal -unless our country accepts permanent federal intrusion into domestic finances.

In a recent survey by the Barna Organization (http://www.barna.org/), 79% of American Christians said that indebtedness was their major concern.

Unfortunately, just having a concern about indebtedness and really doing something about it are worlds apart. Most people have a good general idea about what they should do about debt, but they don't do it. The root problem isn't information as much as motivation.

The best motivator I've seen in the twenty-eight years I've been studying no-debt/low-debt Christian teaching is Dave Ramsey. I found what I considered the most motivating of his materials and offered it to our donors as a premium and also offered it in our catalog. Both of my attempts to distribute his material met with "okay" success. Yet given our nation's economic condition, they should be flying off the shelves.

Last fall, I also produced a couple of CDs to assist families with their finances. One of the CDs was entitled "Economic Jihad: Vital Information for Protecting Your Family." Describing this CD in a letter to members of our Family Life Team (our donors), we warned that a major economic terrorist assault against the U.S. economy is well underway.

Few people remember that the United States actually created the Taliban by giving the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan arms and $4 billion to bleed the Soviet Union to death financially during the Soviet occupation.

Well, it worked. So well, in fact, that these same Islamic fanatics are now using the tactics they learned from the American C.I.A. - and with the same devastating effect.

Osama Bin Laden publicly declared, "We are continuing in the same policy [we used against the Soviets], to make America bleed profusely to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing. And that is not too difficult for Allah." Osama Bin Laden has declared a financial Jihad (Holy War) against the United States. And he brags that he spent a mere $500,000 to pull off the 9-11 attacks, which caused America to spend $500 billion in response.

This is how Osama summarizes the devastating result of his economic Jihad: "Each of Al Qaeda's dollars defeated one million American dollars, thanks to Allah's grace. This is in addition to the fact that America lost a large number of jobs. And as for the deficit, it lost a record number estimated at a trillion dollars."

Osama Bin Laden is evil. But he's not stupid. He is watching our federal deficits, our trade deficits, and the sinking dollar. Osama's strategy is to defeat America by drowning us in debt, while urging his fellow Moslems to avoid debt. In fact, a fatwa (religious edict) has been issued forbidding Moslems to go into debt. And for the first time in 77 years the Moslems have now resumed minting the Dinar - an actual gold coin - so that Moslems can exchange money and build wealth debt-free.

Meanwhile, Dubai (a Muslim country and financial center) investors recently purchased 20% of the NASDAQ. Dubai investors have also purchased a $7.5 billion stake in Citigroup to assist with its sub-prime debt mess.

The Federal Reserve has just lowered the federal fund rate by .75%, the President and Congress are working on a stimulus package, and the usual election year stimulus/spending strategies are underway. What does this mean for you? It means that you may have a window of opportunity to move your family finances away from the epicenter of the debt implosion.

I'm sticking my neck out sending you this warning letter. You'll probably not read too many Catholic periodicals warning about this financial mess until its way too late to do anything. My advice is not to wait until everyone agrees it's time to do something. Take action now.

For some of you this will mean taking major steps like selling your home and moving to a more affordable one. Sound radical? It is. Just remember that it is infinitely less painful to move into a smaller home than to lose your home to the mortgage company.

I urge you to get moving with a lower debt and economically sound footing for your family's finances in these uncertain times. Whatever the economic future holds, you'll never regret living beneath your means, saving, and maintaining a low-debt profile.


Recommended Resources:
Economic Jihad: Vital Information for the Protection of Your Family Economic Jihad ComboFamily Finances 101The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey7 Steps to Becoming Financially Free by Phil Lenahan (These materials by Phil Lenahan have been designed for parish-based small groups. Phil's small group materials are a superb way for parishes to offer practical assistance to families.) .

Sound Economic Advice from Scripture:
Do not become a beggar by feasting with borrowed money. Sirach 18:33

From the Wall Street Journal: 1993"History shows that once nominal growth slows in a heavily indebted economy, there can be no recovery until the excess debt is eliminated. Political efforts to expand debt do nothing to lift the burden of debt service, which is the cause of slow growth and faltering incomes in the first place." (Source: John Mauldin's "Outside the Box" [frontlinethoughts.com])

Family Life Team
Shaunti Feldhahn, a former Federal Reserve financial analyst, warns that previous recessions with only a 5% dip in the overall economy resulted in a 20% drop in charitable giving.

Therefore, I ask those of you who profit spiritually and financially from our resources to remember us in your giving, especially if the recession deepens. In addition to praying for our donor's spiritual welfare, we also pray for your marriage and family, and your job and business.

Radio broadcast schedule
Faith & Family Radio: 2:00 PM [ET] on Thursdays on the EWTN Global Catholic Network. Visit the homepage of www.familylifecenter.net to view listener resources and to listen to the most recent show. Sirius Satellite Radio (channel 160) This Thursday (January 24th) will be an important broadcast. The show will be about a bold constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. This isn't a project decades away. It is something that is being planned now. I invite you to tune in and call with your questions and comments.

Yours in His Majesty’s Service, Steve Wood

Family Life Center International - 2130 Wade Hampton Blvd. Greenville, SC 29615
enews@dads.org

More than half of the births in France are out-of-wedlock

The Daily Eudemon [http://www.ericscheske.com/blog/] directed me to this story:

France surpasses 50% out-of-wedlock births
Paris, Jan. 16, 2008 (CWNews.com) -

In 2006, for the first time in the nation's history, most of the infants born in France were born out of wedlock.

The proportion of births to unmarried women, which had been creeping upward for years, reached 51% last year, statistics show.

In Sweden, the latest figures show that 55% of children are born out of wedlock. In Great Britain the figure is 42%; in Poland, 15%.

From:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/
viewstory.cfm?recnum=56001

By the way, I did some checking and found that the rate is 37% here in the U.S.:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/21/ap/
national/mainD8LHNMSG0.shtml

This is yet another indication that the institution of marriage is underthreat both within the Church and the wider culture.

Go see "Bella"!

I received this via email and decided to post it here rather than forwarding it...
Go see Bella! It is a fine movie with a strong family, pro-life message. When studios produce quality movies that do not rely on the typical Hollywood gutter conventions, we have to go out an support them. This is a way of "voting" for the kind of media culture that you want--a culture of love and life, or one of lust/sin/death. I will post a review of Bella (saw it last Sat.) shortly...

check out the film's website (and locate theatres that are showing the film):
www.bellathemovie.com
___________________________________
From Eduardo Verastegui,
lead actor and Producer of film "Bella"

URGENT!!---- Bella is the #1 Top Rated Movie in the US but If the movie "Bella" does not have high box office scores this weekend
IT WILL BE TAKEN OUT OF THEATRES

Because of your help the distributor is doubling the number of theaters showing Bella
We can do it again and make it to the #1 busiest box office weekend of the year....Thanksgiving weekend.

It is "do or die" for this film to succeed.
We need to mobilize everyone we know to watch this film Fri-Sunday (Nov 16-18). Why?
THIS IS OUR CHANCE.
This is what we need from you to do today, in the next 48 hours.
How You Can Help Bella:
Email this to everyone you know!

Click on the link below to see all the ways you can helphttp://www.bellathemovie.com/
emails/Bella_111507.php
Together we can make a difference!-Eduardo Verastegui

an interesting film: saints counsel a young boy on how to deal with found money

Just watched an interesting British movie entitled "Millions" (2005) available on Netflix:

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Millions/
70011208?trkid=90529

Netflix description:

Acclaimed director Danny Boyle posits a tantalizing question in this engaging film: What happens when two boys stumble upon a cache of cash? Damian (Alex Etel) and his brother, Anthony (Lewis McGibbon), find a satchel filled with British pounds, but with the country just days away from switching to the Euro, they must quickly find a way to spend and share the wealth. Trouble is, Damian wants to give to the poor, while Anthony aims to live it up. Rated PG; 1 hr, 38 min., 2005

Watch the Preview

My remarks:

This is a decent film with an interesting premise: saints appear to a boy to give him advice in what to do with a moral problem (how to spend found money). The youngest son, Damian, who knows and loves the saints the same way many boys can spit out the stats off of the baseball cards of their favorite players (Damian identifies the saints who appears to them and states the years they lived or their patronage). St. Clare of Assisi, St. Francis, St. Joseph, and St. Nicholas all appear to Damian in some funny scenes (though it is odd to here St. Clare with a British accent, just as it is odd to see her casually smoking a cigarette--in heaven, would such run-of-the-mill vices be the mark of our joy, peace, and freedom?).

Actually, I think that the scenes with the saints could have been more developed--there is a lot of clever things they could have done.

Still, this is an interesting take on how money can seem at first like the answer to prayers only to cause greed, division, and further conflict. Damian's character finds the money (bound to be destroyed by the government as they make the switch to Euro) when a burglar throws the bag of British pounds off of a train. The money falls into Damian's play fort and he assumes that it came from God. Damian feels that his mission is to give the money to the poor--which, as he finds out, is not as easy to do as one would think. Damian's brother Anthony uses the money to buy expesive gifts and impress his school friends. Finally, the father finds the money and must conquer his own demons, and decide between greed or doing the right thing.

One caveat: St. Peter has a conversation with Damian about how much of an impact one person's well-intentioned actions can cause. He then recounted the story of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. He actually spewed out the tired old historical-critical interpretation: Jesus did not ACTUALLY multiply the loaves. Rather, he encouraged all those around him to shed their selfish hoarding and share the bread they had hidden under their cloaks. THAT, he pleads, was the REAL miracle. And I roll my eyes.

All in all, some good themes, and, if select highlight scenes are shown, could be good for classroom catechesis.

The movie is PG and is free from foul language (to my recollection), and excessive violence. There is one short scene where the boys see a coumputer add for bras that makes visible a woman's breast. Lastly, there is a scene where the widower father is in bed with a woman that he meets who befriends him and the boys (no visible nudity, just the implication of a pre-marital fornication).

Time Magazine and Christianity Today Rethink the Bible on Divorce, Separation, and Remarriage

The American Papist blog has an interesting review of an article in the recent issue of Time magazine regarding a growing flexibility among evangelicals when it comes to interpreting the Bible on the subject of divorce. Check it out:

Time Magazine Rethinks Scripture on Divorce, Separation and Remarriage

The fact-pattern: Christianity Today publishes an article entitled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce" which attempted to revise the biblical teaching on these questions so that it could be reconciled to the modern prevalence of divorce in secular societies well as Evangelical circles.

David Van Biema covers the story for Time magazine, and it has become one of the most popular articles being read on the Internet.My take:A false assumption plagues this piece from the outset (all underlining mine):

Last month, the cover story of the monthly Christianity Today was titled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce." The heated controversy provoked by the story showed how Biblically flexible some Evangelicals can be — especially when God's word seems at odds not just with modern American behavior, but also with simple human kindness. Catch that? Jesus' teaching on marriage doesn't seem to square even with "simple human kindness." Jesus' historical teaching that husbands cannot put away their wives and thereby marginalize their subsistence was actually contrary not only to "modern American behavior" (the new normative guide to morality?), but also to "simple human kindness." You know, the stuff that's just darn evident to everyone. Cruel Jesus, making husbands keep their wives.

From the beginning the author operated upon the false premise that Jesus' teaching on marriage required all spouses to remain with their husbands no matter what. This false premise appears again in the second paragraph:
Finally, Instone-Brewer tallies four grounds for divorce he finds affirmed in both Old and New Testaments: adultery, emotional and sexual neglect, abandonment (by anyone) and abuse.

What is in fact allowed in these cases is separation (which no one would argue, if the grounds for separation are legitimate). Remarriage is an entirely different question, but don't expect Van Biema to present that consideration.Errors quickly compound as Van Biema's inability to distinguish separation from "divorce" play-out:

... the Instone-Brewer essay appeared to be its editors' attempt to offer Evangelicals an escape from a classic dilemma. The "plain sense" of Jesus's words without quotes seems clear enough, but also inhumane: how could a loving God forbid divorce, even by omission, in cases of wife-beating, or of abandonment by a Christian spouse?

See above. Jesus isn't teaching that women should stay in an abusive marriage. Perhaps the "plain sense" of scripture mentioned here isn't enough. That's no surprise. But it's wrong to conclude that a holistic reading of the biblical accounts contradicts the "plain sense" teaching of Jesus against divorce, when accurately understood.

Next it really gets good (by which I mean, of course, bad):

Each branch of Christianity deals with divorce in its own way: Catholicism bans it entirely, but many divorced and remarried couples nonetheless find that their conscience permits them to take Communion.

Error count rising. "Catholicism bans [divorce] entirely." False. Legal divorce which results in the de facto separation of spouses is allowed, and even suggested to spouses in an abusive relationship. Van Biema happily constructs a straw-man of the Church's teaching. And it's easy to destroy a straw-man. And it's rare to find anything but straw-men in this treatment.

Second error: "Many divorced and remarried couples nonetheless find that their conscience permits them to take Communion." Well, receiving Communion isn't only a matter of "finding oneself permitted." If one has remarried after a divorce, and has not received an annulment from their marriage, the Church presumes that they are committing fornication, which as a mortal sin, bars the communicant from receiving until they have confessed.

Amazingly, the article even quotes someone who brings up the significance of remarriage:

If a split itself is inescapable, notes Christianity Today editor Andy Crouch, "remarriage is where the rubber meets the road," and many remarried couples find themselves denied church membership.

It remains inextricable to me why Van Biema didn't claim something along the lines of "nonetheless, many Evangelicals find that their conscience permits them to remain part of their church." Such flawed ecclesiology evidently applies to Catholics - why don't Evangelicals get the same (false) primacy of conscience option?

Van Biema seems to have encountered at least one person who realized that he wasn't going to understand the problem, but incredibly, Van Biema takes this reticence to discuss the issue as some sort of "gotcha!":

Asked if he does [believe that an abused woman should leave the marriage], Moore demurred: "Let me think about that for a little bit. I could answer in a way that would be very easily misunderstood."

I don't think the interviewee was demurring because he thought his answer was incorrect, I think it is more likely the case that he didn't want his words twisted. Well, they were anyway.

Van Biema wraps it all up for us:

Still, the controversy suggests that even the country's most rule-bound Christians will search for a fresh understanding of scripture when it seems unjust to them. The implications? Flexibility on divorce may mean that evangelicals could also rethink their position on such things as gay marriage, as a generation of Christians far more accepting of homosexuality begins to move into power....It could also give heart to a certain twice-divorced former New York mayor who is running for President and seeking the conservative vote. But that may be pushing things a bit.

The message: when scripture doesn't square with a) your pre-conceived categories of justice, or b) the practice of individuals or c) could get in the way of your presidential-hopefuls candidacy then...Rethink scripture.

Oh! And hey, while we're at it, we can revise what the scriptures teach about homosexuality and "gay marriage". Isn't it amazing what new vistas of human self-fulfillment are available to those who ...Revise scripture.

(A note to Christianity Today: when Time Magazine starts agreeing with you, that's a warning sign.)

Update: And of course, if we want to be cynical about it (not saying we don't), this article is handily presented by Time just as Rudy Giuliani begins to take increasing flack for his multiple remarriages (this claim is supported by the fact that the Christianity Today article is evidently over a month old already) . And who, you might ask, is dishing out the Giuliani criticism? *drum roll* ... that's right: evangelicals and social conservatives! So what better time than the present to paint them as hypocrites? And hey, if we can call into doubt the teaching of Scripture on homosexuality, then all the better. Forget rethinking or revising, let's just forget it."

http://www.americanpapist.com/2007/11/
time-magazine-rethinks-scripture-on.html

____________________________________

Some more background to the question of DIVORE & REMARRIAGE:

Jesus revealed that Moses allowed divorce in Dueteronomy 24:1-4 as a temporary provision because of "hardness of... heart" (Matt 19:7-9). But Jesus restored God's original plan of indissoluble marriage (Matt 19:3-9); therefore, the Catholic Church continues to teach that a valid marriage between a baptized man and woman cannot be dissolved for any reason except death. It can't be ended by a civil divorce (or even by an annulment, which is not "Catholic divorce" but rather the determination a marriage was not valid in the first place.) Some Protestants claim that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 allow exceptions to Jesus' teaching on indissolubility: 'whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity [porneia in original Greek], and marries another, commits adultery" [Revised Standard Version]. Here, porneia is used in a technical senes to forbid incestuous marriages among close relatives (as in Acts 15:20 and 1 Cor 5:1). Those illicit unions are not valid marriages in the first place. Note that not a single Greek-speaking Church Father ever saw in Matthew 5 and 19 exceptions to Christ's law of indissolubility. Until Martin Luther declared that marriage was only a civil union in 1520, all Christians unanimously held that marriage is indissoluble and that divorce from a legitimate marriage cannot be followed by remarriage.

-Taken from The Bible Thumper - Vol. 2: Sacrament, Morality, Afterlife [pamphlet on the Scriptural basis for Catholic beliefs; Jim Burnham, Brian Butler, and Matthew Pinto authors; Ascension Press; www.TheBibleThumper.com - www.AscensionPress.com ]

When Catholics Fight the Church

This is a follow-up article about the resignation of Tom Girsch (pictured to the left with wife Molly--picture is from the DesMoines Register's article on the web), the former football coach of Columbus High School, a Catholic school in Waterloo. Mr. Girsch was forced to submit his resignation because he, while representing the Church as a teacher in a Catholic school, was not living in conformity with Catholic moral teaching and the Precepts of the Church. This article is from the Sept. 3rd issue of the DesMoines Register, I will post the article in its entirety and also will add my own comments (which appear in blue). You can read the article (and the lively and the scathing reader comments) on-line at:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps
/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709030340

'Fighting church is difficult for us'
Former Waterloo teacher pursues lawsuit over job he lost after Catholic Church declined to annul his first marriage
By SHIRLEY RAGSDALE sragsdale@dmreg.com

REGISTER RELIGION EDITOR
September 3, 2007

Tom and Molly Girsch had less than a week of wedded bliss before their lives were thrown into a turmoil that tested their marriage, faith and livelihood.

OK, right off the bat this article sounds like it has a bias towards the couple (who the reader can see in a lovely picture)--you may note that as you read the rest of the article the humanity of the Girsch couple is clear--while the position of "the Church" is not explained well, and is left to appear as a heartless institution.

The simple civil ceremony performed before a handful of friends and family members in their backyard Aug. 4, 2006, launched the Waterloo couple's new life together.

Let us give the technical description of what has happened here. By this action Mr. Girsch publicly initiated what amounts only to an adulterous affair with a woman who is not his wife. That is to say, Mr. Girsch remains validly/sacramentally married to his first civil-marriage wife (a civil divorce does nothing to dissolve the bond established in a sacramental marriage). This second civil marriage is not a sacramental marriage for many reasons. This is what the universal Code of Canon Law has to say about this issue: "A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage." (Can. 1085.1) "Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity of dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly." (Can. 1085.2)

It also began the end of Tom Girsch's three-decade career as a teacher and coach at Columbus High School, a Catholic school in Waterloo.

Over the next year, Girsch would negotiate a revised contract, the Cedar Valley Catholic Schools' board would take two votes on whether he could stay, and the archbishop would weigh in on the controversy. In the end, for lack of a church annulment, the social studies teacher would be forced to resign.

"The wedding was supposed to be a happy thing," said Molly Girsch. "We had been lucky (in love) once before, and we were overjoyed we could be lucky again."

Molly, 52, was a widow and a substitute teacher at Cedar Valley Catholic Schools. Tom, 59, divorced in 1997. They met through a mutual friend about 10 years ago and were friends before they began dating."

We didn't think the marriage was going to cause trouble," said Tom Girsch. "But a few days after the ceremony, I got called to the office. When I walked in, (school officials) offered congratulations on my marriage and said they were happy for me. Then they asked if I ever got an annulment. I said I hadn't. Then they asked if I was aware that they could terminate me."

After teaching in a Catholic school for some 30 years did Mr. Girsch not realize that by his actions he was violating one of the precepts of the Church and was contracting an invalid marriage? Did he care? Did he bother to ask a priest or fellow Catholic friends for counsel? Did he bother to bring the issue up to the school BEFORE he contracted this second marriage? What did his teacher's manual and contract (which is signed each year by every teacher) say about the need to live in conformity with Catholic moral law and canon law? If I was in the position of the school officials, I would have told Mr. Girsch that I was glad that he found someone he loved, but that I was disappointed that he chose to marry outside of the Church and deny himself the benefits of a possible sacramental marriage.

Church sees teachers as examples of faith.

About half of U.S. Catholics, by the 20th anniversary of their first marriage, have divorced, according a 2002 study. The church does not make public the number of annulments granted.

I am not sure about this. I have read figures before... and they are large. The Church in the U.S. surpasses, by far, all other nations in declarations of nullity. I do not know the percentage of cases that receive a declaration of nullity, but I know that it certainly is not rare! In other words, if I hear that a marriage case, once heard, was not declared null, I would be apt to suspect that the court really could find NO legitimate grounds to recognize the marriage as invalid.

While the Catholic Church recognizes that some marriages fail despite the best efforts of the couple, it views marriage as a sacred covenant that cannot be broken by civil divorce. While parishes give support to divorced Catholics, they may not remarry with church blessing unless they receive an annulment - a determination by church officials that their first marriage was invalid.

This is not some wacko Catholic rule. The Catholic Church received this straight from Our Lord Jesus Christ. Read Matthew 19:1-9: "They are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no man must separate... I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery." I know that this is a sensitive issue... and divorce is a painful experience. The Church is sympathetic (which is why it offers pastoral support to those who deal with divorce and separation)... but the Church is also duty-bound to hold fast to the teaching of Christ on marriage as exclusive and indissoluble.

Annulments do not nullify the first marriage, but are granted under the criteria that some element of the marital bond, while presumed to be present, actually was lacking when the parties married, according to the Metropolitan Tribunal for the Archdiocese of Dubuque.

The statement that "annulments do not nullify the first marriage" can be a bit confusing. An annulment is precisely a declaration of nullity. That is, an annulment is an official recognition by the authoritative Church, upon examination of the facts, that a certain marriage was invalid from the very moment it was contracted. Perhaps the Tribunal meant that the annulment does not annul the original civil marriage--i.e., it does not deem the children of that union as "illegitimate" (that is a chief concern of many Catholics who approach the annulment process.

It might also be good to explain what circumstances could render a sacramental marriage as invalid and null. I am no canon lawyer, but by consulting my copy of the Code, I can mention some of the specific impediments to marriage can include: a man not being of the age of 16, a woman not being of the age of 14 (Can. 1083.1), antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse on the part of the man or the woman (Can. 1084.1), a person bound by the bond of a prior marriage (Can. 1085.1), the marriage of a baptized Catholic and an unbaptized person (Can. 1086.1), those in sacred orders [diaconate, priesthood, etc.] (Can. 1087), those bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute (Can. 1088), those who are held captive against their will for the purpose of marriage (Can. 1089), in a direct line of consanguinity (Can. 1091), those who do not give free consent of the will to the marriage [i.e. no shot-gun weddings] (Can. 1095), and ignorance of the purpose of marriage as a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation (Can. 1096), etc., etc.

When school officials suggested that if Girsch sought an annulment he might be allowed to continue to teach, he said he told them he'd have to check with his former wife, current wife and his family. He asked for some time, but by the end of the day, school officials notified him that he had 48 hours to resign or be terminated. The difference between the expectations for Catholic teachers and teachers of other faiths centers around the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs concerning the sacraments and supporting the precepts of the church, according to Jeff Henderson, Dubuque Archdiocese superintendent of schools.

"In the Catholic Church, teachers are referred to as witnesses and examples of faith," Henderson said. "By contract, a teacher also agrees to conduct himself as a moral person, ... to be a community leader and faithful citizen of the church and state, and act accordingly at all times."

Do we have any denial of this by Mr. Girsch?--surely someone who has been teaching in a Catholic school for so long must have been aware of this contractual obligation?

Again, from the Code of Canon Law: "The instruction and education in a Catholic school must be grounded in the principles of Catholic doctrine; teachers are to be outstanding in correct doctrine and integrity of life." (Can. 803.2, my emphasis in bold) [by the way, while you should not read certain canons of the Code out of the context of the entire Code, the canons of the Code that deal with Catholic education in schools consist of only 3 pages--they can be read in one sitting, they are available in book form and on the Vatican website http://www.vatican.va/ ]

"So relieved people stood up for us"

News of the school board's ultimatum spread quickly.

"It was like a tidal wave of e-mail in the Catholic community," said Kathy McCoy, a friend of the Girsch family. "Tom got thousands of supportive e-mail messages from students, current and past, from all over the world."

Cedar Valley officials were also hearing from people, according to George Scully, a Waterloo Catholic. Scully said he believes that uproar led the school and archdiocese to negotiate a revised contract with Tom Girsch.

Their support, while touching, was sadly not informed by the facts about what the Catholic teaching is regarding marriage and what the Catholic school's expectations of its Catholic teachers were.

The agreement, signed Sept. 7, 2006, specified that Tom would immediately seek an annulment through the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Dubuque. If the annulment wasn't granted, he would submit his resignation, which the school board could accept or reject. He also agreed to work with the school board to "heal the wounds that may have been created by the situation."

Although many Catholics receive annulments, Girsch's request was denied. The annulment proceedings are secret.

Interesting how the reporter describes the annulment proceedings as "secret" rather than "confidential." Would you describe the medical records that your health providers keep or your employee files as "secret" or as confidential? The proceedings and documentation of an marriage case are extremely detailed and personal. Would Mr. Girsch or his first wife want those details opened to investigation and publication by the DesMoines Register? Do we need to have every case decided by a marriage tribunal reviewed and confirmed by a newspaper reporter? "Secret" is a useful word because it invokes the culture of corruption that the Church is constantly flogged with due to the clergy sexual abuse scandal (don't get me wrong, there were true acts of administrative corruption in some cases--but does that mean that everything the Church does is sinister? This is where anti-Catholics can have a field day. Give me a break).

Girsch submitted his resignation to the Cedar Valley school board July 12. He told the board that his resignation was extremely painful, but that he was meeting all the stipulations in the revised contract. Six of Girsch's supporters and his attorney asked the board to reject his resignation.Brendan Quann, attorney for the archdiocese, told board members that it was an unfortunate situation, but that they had to vote not out of sympathy but in favor of the laws of the church, according to the meeting minutes.

"This situation is not about Tom and his performance, but about the precepts of the church and Tom knowing these when he signed the contract," [my emphasis in bold here] said Quann, who went on to warn the board that not accepting the resignation would set a precedent for future special requests.

Right on Mr. Quann. He is right! Does anyone not see the problem here? As a Catholic school one of the school's mission is to pass on the Gospel and the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. One of those teachings would be regarding the nature of the sacrament of marriage (that it is permanent, ordered to the creation and education of children, and exclusive between 1 man and 1 woman). Now, it is a pretty important task for the Catholic school to educate the students in the meaning of the sacrament of marriage seeing as how the vast majority of its graduates will end up entering into marriage (you hope a valid sacramental marriage--but this is becoming less common). What happens when a student in theology class learns what a true Catholic marriage is and then cynically scoffs at his teacher and says, 'no one believes this, even my social studies teacher Mr. Girsch does not live by that, he is divorced and remarried and he is teaching here!'??? That is an example of hypocrisy (teaching one thing and doing another) and scandal. If Mr. Girsch is as noble as he claims to be, he should recognize this fact and just resign with dignity (instead of adding scandal to scandal).

When the board returned from executive session, the Rev. Lou Jaeger, pastor of Sacred Heart Parish, made a motion to regretfully accept the resignation. In a show of hands, Girsch's resignation was rejected, 8-6. The room erupted in applause."

I thought it was over," said Tom Girsch. "I was so relieved that people stood up for us and that everybody was honorable."

Sorry, but I do not see this as an example of honor. Loyalty, certainly, but where is the honor in betraying the mission of a Catholic school, knowingly violating the terms of your contract, and then attacking the Church because they uphold the principles upon which a Catholic school is founded.

His sense of relief evaporated soon after, when Dubuque Archbishop Jerome Hanus sent a letter to the school board insisting that the board follow church law and archdiocesan policy.

Bravo Archbishop Hanus! This is the tough job that bishops are called to do--defend the Faith when it is under attack.

A special board meeting was called for Aug. 6 to reconsider the vote. On Aug. 2, Girsch sued the school and archdiocese, asking the court to bar the second vote and force the board to issue him a contract.

On Aug. 6, Black Hawk County District Judge George Stigler refused to act, stating he didn't want to get involved with church business.

Good decision Judge, it is called the 1st amendment--we don't need the government coercing the Church to act against its conscience.

That evening, the board reversed itself, voting unanimously to accept Girsch's resignation.

Most people in the room interpreted the archbishop's letter as a threat to remove church funding from Cedar Valley schools. They could not survive as a private school, people agreed.

How sad. Do they want to be a "private school" or a "Catholic school"--because that is what they were founded as? "Dumb old bishop ruining our wonderful private school with his fuddy duddy Catholic beliefs."

Girsch left the meeting without a job, and without benefits.

"It's difficult not to be bitter"

"Tom was the face of Columbus High School in this community, and after 32 years, they threw him away without a pension or retirement," said McCoy. "That's great thanks for all the students he's helped. It's difficult not to be bitter."

What is the pension that Catholic teachers ordinarily receive?

When it comes to church matters, the archbishop holds the cards, according to Waterloo attorney Tim Luce, a former Cedar Valley board president. "The archbishop is the president of every corporation in the church. It's a tough deal. This would have been easier if Tom hadn't been such a good teacher," said Luce.

Mr. Luce must have read his Code of Canon Law:

"The Catholic religious instruction and education which are imparted in any school whatsoever or are provided through the various instruments of social communication are subject to the authority of the Church. It is for the conference of bishops to issue general norms about this field of action and for the diocesan bishop to regulate and watch over it." (Can. 804.1 my emphasis in bold)

"The local ordinary [=in this case, the presiding Diocesan bishop] is to be concerned that those who are designated teachers of religious instruction in schools, even in non-Catholic ones, are outstanding in correct doctrine, the witness of a Christian life, and teaching skill." (Can. 804.2 my emphasis in bold)

"For his own diocese, the local ordinary has the right to appoint or approve teachers of religion and even to remove them or demand that they be removed if a reason of religion or morals requires it." (Can. 805, my emphasis in bold)

Thank goodness that the archbishop "holds the cards" because, in this case, HE IS RIGHT and the emotionally-invested school board and personal friends of Mr. Girsch, Mr. Girsch himself, and his lawyer ARE ALL WRONG.

Tom and Molly Girsch have stopped attending St. Edward Catholic Church - where Tom attended as a child and where his children were reared - after their parish priest, the Rev. Jerry Kopacek, spoke about Tom's case from the pulpit.

"Tom was used as an example by name, and I thought it was in poor taste," said Patricia Connell of Waterloo, who attended the Saturday evening service."

Father Kopacek spoke about Tom's divorce and remarriage, that he didn't get an annulment. He said the local school board was given the job of accepting Tom's resignation, and when it did not, the archdiocese had to remind them to follow Catholic doctrine. He used it as a springboard to review church rules on marriage and annulment."

Kopacek denies "giving any details about the nature of the case."

"I would never do that," Kopacek said. "It would be totally inappropriate. I spoke on the general process, what annulment is about. There are a lot of misconceptions."

Fr. Kopacek is right about there being a lot of ignorance and misconceptions about the nature of the annulment process (and, I would add, of the nature of the sacrament of matrimony itself). You can certainly observe that by reading this article and the interview comments. However, one could certainly question his prudence in bringing up the issue, mentioning names, etc. at a time when passions were aflame. (And, having not heard his homily, it is hard to know what he really said.) He was probably trying to address head on an issue that man of his parishoners were obviously preoccupied with. He also probably wanted to defend the teaching of the church and the position that the Archbishop has to take in such a situation. Still, there is a time and manner in which to take on the subject. But again, I was not there so I cannot judge.

Girsch's breach-of-contract lawsuit is pending.

"Fighting the church is difficult for us," he said. "They never want to talk about the legal part of this, they want to push the church part. They wrote a contract stating if I fulfilled it I could teach. I fulfilled it. I won the vote, and it should have been over."

Religion Editor Shirley Ragsdale can be reached at (515) 284-8208 or sragsdale@dmreg.com

Yeah, leave it to the Catholic Church to worry about "the church part" when considering who they allow to teach in their schools (in this case, "the church part" refers to the universal Code of Canon Law, the evanglizing and catechizing mission of a Catholic High School, the integrity of the Catholic teaching that is being passed down, the authority of a bishop, etc.). I also have not seen the contract, but I would need to see it with my own eyes to believe it. Did his contract actually say that if Mr. Girsch simply filed his case for an annulment with the marriage tribunal REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME than his contract would be automatically extended? I just cannot believe that the school would draw up a contract that is so obviously counterintuitive and in violation of Canon Law on a number of counts. If they did--then shame on them--but I would have to see that to believe it.

A Catholic school should be Catholic first... a Catholic school does exist to be simply a "private" school with a good football program. A Catholic school's mission is to educate students

not merely in math, history, and science,... but to hand down the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church. If you want something else, sign your kid up at a "private school."

By the way, I do not mean any of this to be a personal attack on Mr. Girsch. His very public actions, and his legislative action against the Church, has brought up some interesting issues such as the popular understanding of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony among some of the laity and, more importantly, the issues of the mission of a Catholic school, teaching with integrity, and the authority of the bishop. Very few people attempt to present the position of the Church which is why I have attempted to do so here.

By the way, immediately after finishing this LONG post, I went over to "In the Light of the Law", a blog run by Canon Law expert Ed Peters. Peters, unlike myself, actually knows what he is talking about regarding the issue of canon law. Check out his post, with the headline: "NEWS FLASH: Catholic Church expects faithful to follow her rules!":

http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/09/
news-flash-catholic-church-expects.html

Out of the Blue: same-sex unions in Iowa

Here is some coverage of the recent events:

From the Chicago Trib:
Iowa judge OKs gay marriages
Ruling, limited to 1 county, soon delayed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/
nationworld/chi-gaymarriage_websep01,0,3460116.
story?coll=chi-technologylocal-hed

KCCI Chanel 8 - Des Moines:
http://www.kcci.com/family/14020652/detail.html

Des Moines Register:
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
article?AID=/20070830/NEWS/70830044/
1001&lead=1

Discussion on Catholic Answers Forum:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=180474

__________________________________

The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject of marriage:
[text in bold is my empshasis]

337. What is the plan of God regarding man and woman?
see CCC 1601-1605

God who is love and who created man and woman for love has called them to love. By creating man and woman he called them to an intimate communion of life and of love in marriage: “So that they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matthew 19:6). God said to them in blessing “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).


338. For what ends has God instituted Matrimony?
see 1659-1660

The marital union of man and woman, which is founded and endowed with its own proper laws by the Creator, is by its very nature ordered to the communion and good of the couple and to the generation and education of children. According to the original divine plan this conjugal union is indissoluble, as Jesus Christ affirmed: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mark 10:9).

344. What is matrimonial consent?
See 1625-16321662-1663

Matrimonial consent is given when a man and a woman manifest the will to give themselves to each other irrevocably in order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love. ...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Chastity and Homosexuality:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.


2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.


2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Waterloo, IA Catholic School Coach Resigns Because Married Outside of the Church

I know that divorce and remarriage outside of the Church is a sensitive topic, but the Church's stance on the indissolubility of a valid sacramental marriage is a basic and fundamental teaching.
The following is an article about a Catholic school coach in Waterloo who was forced to resign for his failure to live in accord with the Catholic principles that the Catholic school is founded on. Kudos to the school for standing up for what is right... and for not backing down to the Sports-idolators who will sacrifice any aspect of the truth in order to keep a coach they like. Of course, the coverage on this event has brought out your typical anti-Catholic vitriol in the local blogosphere. That is always a good sign... it means that the Gospel truth is being upheld.

From the DesMoines Register

Catholic board accepts schoolteacher's resignation
The decision reversed an earlier vote retaining Tom Girsch after his divorce.

By SHIRLEY RAGSDALE REGISTER RELIGION EDITOR

August 7, 2007

Waterloo, Ia. - By a unanimous vote, the Waterloo Cedar Valley Catholic Schools Board on Monday accepted the resignation of Tom Girsch, 59, a longtime Catholic schoolteacher and coach at Columbus High School.

The vote concerning Girsch's employment was the second in less than a month and came at the request of Archbishop Jerome Hanus and the Dubuque Archdiocese superintendent of schools.

In July, the board voted 6 to 8 to reject Girsch's resignation.

"On July 12, we voted with our heart," said Tim Kneeland of Waterloo, a member of the board. "We're concerned about the viability of our local school if it did not remain part of the Catholic Church.

"Girsch, who divorced in 1997, was asked to resign when school officials found out he had remarried in August 2006. In an attempt to save his job, Girsch sought an annulment of his first marriage through the church. When the annulment was denied, he submitted his resignation, which was rejected. However, the board had not offered him a teaching contract for the coming school year.

Girsch failed earlier in the day to block the second vote when Black Hawk District Judge George Stigler said he was not inclined to interfere with the right of the church to conduct its business, "even if an individual does suffer injury.

""We are extremely disappointed," said Mark Zaiger, Girsch's attorney.

Archdiocese officials argued that Cedar Valley had acted contrary to archdiocese policy and Catholic Church law. "It is unacceptable and requires correction," said Jeff Henderson, archdiocese superintendent of schools. "The catholicity of the school system hangs in the balance."

The crowd of about 30 Girsch supporters waited about an hour for the board to conclude its deliberations and vote. Some expressed their displeasure with the outcome and said it was likely to affect an upcoming capital campaign to build a new junior high school.

"You will not find a better person, teacher, or role model than Tom Girsch in any school in the state of Iowa," said Mark Conway of Cedar Falls, whose children attended Columbus High School.
_____________________________________
My thoughts:
" 'On July 12, we voted with our heart,' said Tim Kneeland of Waterloo, a member of the board. 'We're concerned about the viability of our local school if it did not remain part of the Catholic Church.'

Yes indeed, they voted with their hearts but not with their heads... that is, they voted from sentimentality and loyalty and WITHOUT an INFORMED CONSCIENCE. Sometimes standing up for the truth requires hard and painful decisions... but they must be made. It is also sad that this Kneeland gentleman seems to express that they only sided with the Archbishop and clergy because they were 'concerned about the viability of [the] local school if it did not remain part of the Catholic Church.' The Archbishop and priests were concerned about the vitality of the Catholic high school if it abandoned its Catholic principles and teachings! Besides, how many years did this coach have his teacher handbook that clearly stated the need to live in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Where is his integrity? It is not the Church that ruined his life (as one commentor to the article wrote). The Church merely enforced the contract that this man signed of his own free will.

"Some expressed their displeasure with the outcome and said it was likely to affect an upcoming capital campaign to build a new junior high school.

'You will not find a better person, teacher, or role model than Tom Girsch in any school in the state of Iowa,' said Mark Conway of Cedar Falls, whose children attended Columbus High School."

Some of the Catholic-in-name-only laity know where their power lies: in the pocket book. If we do not like the truth that the Church seeks to live by, we will just withhold our money from future Catholic school building projects. To that I say--fine. I would rather not build a new Catholic school then let existing catholic schools loose their ability to defend the truth of the teachings of Christ. I would rather have fewer catholic schools that are fully catholic than schools that are catholic-in-name-only. I would not want to pass judgment on Tom Girsch, however, I would not classify a man who violates Church teaching on the sacrament of holy matrimony as a role model for my Catholic children. If I had children, I would want them to have role models that lived lives that were consistent with the moral teachings of the Church that they served (remember--a Catholic school is supposed to serve the MISSION of the CATHOLIC CHURCH... and not the sports fanaticism of private school parents). I would want them to have role models that humbly obeyed the teachings of Jesus and the Church. I would not want role models that sought to justify disobedience and fought the Church with frivolous lawsuits.

"The instruction and education in a Catholic school must be grounded in the principles of Catholic doctrine; teachers are to be outstanding in correct doctrine and integrity of life." Code of Canon Law, canon 803.2

From the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"346. What are the effects of the sacrament of Matrimony? [CCC 1638-1642]

The sacrament of Matrimony establishes a perpetual and exclusive bond between the spouses. God himself seals the consent of the spouses. Therefore, a marriage which is ratified and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. Furthermore, this sacrament bestows upon the spouses the grace necessary to attain holiness in their married life and to accept responsibly the gift of children and provide for their education.

348. When does the Church allow the physical separation of spouses? [CCC 1629,
1649]

The Church permits the physical separation of spouses when for serious reasons their living together becomes practically impossible, even though there may be hope for their reconciliation. As long as one’s spouse lives, however, one is not free to contract a new union, except if the marriage be null and be declared so by ecclesiastical authority.

349. What is the attitude of the Church toward those people who are divorced and then remarried? [CCC 1650-1651, 1665 ]

The Church, since she is faithful to her Lord, cannot recognize the union of people who are civilly divorced and remarried. “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11-12). The Church manifests an attentive solicitude toward such people and encourages them to a life of faith, prayer, works of charity and the Christian education of their children. However, they cannot receive sacramental absolution, take Holy Communion, or exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities as long as their situation, which objectively contravenes God's law, persists."

U.K. Schoolgirl Loses Court Case Over Chastity Ring

Good for her, standing up for chastity and the true and beautiful purpose of sexual love:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
id/19806312/?GT1=10150

This is evangelization, folks.

Other articles and comments to follow...

40 Days to consider your freedom!

The following is from the March newsletter produced by Kevin Feyen, director of the Office of Youth / Young Adult Ministry for the Archdiocese of Dubuque, IA. It is a nice little article on the connection between penance and personal freedom (a good reflection from Lent):

Four days ago, my wife caught our 1 1/2 year old son balancing himself on the top railing of his crib. Four feet above the ground, he was teetering. Of course, my wife, being a paranoid mother, is certain that if she did not come in at just that moment, he would have fallen to his death. Our son now has climbing abilities that would humble any Navy Seal, and we had no idea what to do.

So, we began the whole process of trying to teach him to sleep without four walls to contain him. We took the mattress out of the crib and placed it on the floor. We placed all his favorite stuffed animals and blankets on the mattress and told him he could be a big boy and sleep on a bed. We did not realize how he would take this freedom. He went on a "sleep strike". If nothing was holding him back, actually physically restraining him, he was going to play! For the next two days, every time we tried to get him to sleep, he resisted and insisted instead on demolishing his room and singing to his animal friends.

Finally, we gave in. I "modified" his crib so the walls could be higher and contain him. Now, with his new walls, he sleeps much better and has found a new comfort in the loss of his freedom.

Aren’t we all the same way? Do we think that because we can do something that we should do something? Just because Iowa has the possibility of somatic cell nuclear transfer, does not mean it is something we must do. Just because we can harbor hateful feelings and gossip about others, does not make it essential or good for us. Just because we can live a life where we constantly forget about God’s overwhelming love, does not me that we should not bask in it.

God has given us the blessing and curse of free will. Lent is a time to remind ourselves of the value of freely choosing Him.

In this way, we select personal disciplines that both remind us of our imperfections and, in doing so, benefit our church family as well. Lent helps us to provide a structure to keep us active in giving to the poor, praying daily, and ridding ourselves of greedy temptations. While these structures can feel oppressive, they exist to protect us and remind us of our human condition.

Let us all embrace this Lent as a way to take forty days to consider our freedom. Don’t give to the poor, pray, or fast because somebody says you have to. Instead, do all the more because you can. Make this Lent your expression of true freedom.

social justice and the family

This is an interesting post about the connection between material poverty and family structure (that is, the lack thereof). Written by a member of the St. Vincent De Paul society:
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2007/
02/social_justice_and_the_family.html

Breaking the Bread (Oct. 8): Marriage and Divorce

Breaking the Bread: Biblical Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings. copyright St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology (www.salvationhistory.com)

"What God Has Joined" October 8, 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Readings: (go to http://www.usccb.org/nab/100806.shtml )
Genesis 2:18-24; Psalm 128:1-6; Hebrews 2:9-11; Mark 10:2-16

In today's Gospel, the Pharisees try to trap Jesus with a trick question.

The "lawfulness" of divorce in Israel was never at issue. Moses had long ago allowed it (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4). But Jesus points His enemies back before Moses, to "the beginning," interpreting the text we hear in today's First Reading.

Divorce violates the order of creation, He says. Moses permitted it only as a concession to the people's "hardness of heart"--their inability to live by God's covenant Law. But Jesus comes to fulifll the Law, to reveal its true meaning and purpose, and to give people the grace to keep God's commands.

Marriage, he reveals, is a sacrament, a divine, life-giving sign. Through the union of husband and wife, God intended to bestow His blessings on the human family--making it fruitful, multiplying it until it filled the earth (see Genesis 1:28).

That's why today's Gospel moves so easily from a debate about marriage to Jesus' blessing of children. Children are blessings the Father bestows on couples who walk in His ways, as we sing in today's Psalm.

Marriage also is a sign of God's new covenant. As today's Epistle hints, Jesus is the new Adam--made a little lower than the angels, born of a human family (see Romans 5:14; Psalm 8:5-7). The Church is the new Eve, the "woman" born of Christ's pierced side as He hung in the sleep of death on the cross (see John 19:34; Revelation 12:1-7).

Through the union of Christ and the Church as "one flesh," God's plan for the world is fulfilled (see Ephesians 5:21-32). Eve was "mother of all the living" (see Genesis 3:20). And in baptism, we are made sons and daughters of the Church, children of the Father, heirs of the eternal glory He intended for the human family in the beginning.

The challenge for us is to live as children of the kingdom, growing up ever more faithful in our love and devotion to the ways of Christ and the teachings of His Church.