The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
What were they thinking? Would critics really take delight in seeing the President murdered? On the left and right there is continuing evidence of a sickness of the American spirit and of individual souls. Politics has replaced statesmanship and governance. A patriotic love of country and our highest ideals have been supplanted on one side by a callous nationalism and on the other by inflammatory class, gender, orientation and ethnic warfare. How did we go from “one nation, under God” to the attitude that “I am the real American and you are the enemy”?
I do not know what to do or how to think about my sister coming out as trans-gendered. I never suspected her of identifying as a male, given that she was never much of a tomboy. She always preferred art to sports. My sister will be undergoing hormone treatment. What will she face now as a Catholic? Will she still be able to participate in the sacraments?
Since gender within the Catholic Church is considered a gift, I would be most interested in your response. I am very confused, as well as concerned, about any discrimination my sister might face in the future.
Response
First, it is wrong to say as many do that God made a mistake. We live in a broken world wounded by sin. The Church teaches that disharmony, suffering and death entered the world because of the fall. Second, identity should not be utterly defined by disorientation or disabilities. You are much more than your sexual orientation and your physical abilities. Third, it is wrong to equate a disorientation or disability with normalcy or as a value that must be affirmed with the whole person. This third element is often debated because many people with gender confusion and/or same-sex attraction demand affirmation and do not view their status as either a defect or mental illness.
I need to insert that orientation cannot be determined simply by occupations or activities. There are men and women who like art, cooking, sports, music, dancing, camping, science, teaching, etc. I suspect that many activities that we associate with one gender over another are simply the result of social stereotyping. Even playing with dolls finds correlation in both boys and girls, although as a boy my plastic army men were constantly burying my sister’s girlish dolls as the casualties of pretend wars. She would dig them up— zombies!
In all seriousness, what you mention is a dilemma that has only arisen as an issue in recent days. Gender confusion in the past was ether regarded as a perversion or as the subject for comedy. I am unsure as to whether the increased numbers of such disorientations are entirely due to genetic predisposition or whether there are factors in modern culture and society that have precipitated such awareness and the accompanying public revelation.
Frankly, priests and seminarians were never prepared to deal with gender dysphoria. I cannot recall the topic ever coming up in discussions of moral theology. We figured that it was very rare or else just a remote category of the homosexual question. The Church does not accept the transition so a trans-gendered person could worship and pray as a Catholic, but the sacraments become more problematical. I suppose, after the fact, a person might enter the Church and receive Holy Communion and absolution for other sins— however, such a person could not marry in the Church, would have to live a celibate life, and would not be a candidate for the religious life. Despite hormonal treatment and surgery, the Church would regard them as their birth sex. The prohibitions against same-sex intimacy would apply.
The Church values persons but not disorientations. We have a commitment to what we believe is the truth. Just as the Church opposes amputations for those who suffer a disassociation with the body and want legs and arms removed to fit their image of themselves as handicapped; the Church would similarly oppose those who want hormonal treatment and possibly surgery to more closely identify their external physical gender with how they psychologically view themselves.
Answering your question is difficult. We must sometimes make the best of situations that are not ideal. We do not want to needlessly hurt people or make trans-gendered persons feel as if they have been rejected by the Church and orphaned by God. We want them to find Christ in us as well as to witness the Lord in their own lives. The story of Jesus includes sadness, suffering, companionship and joy. Even if disagreement should remain, we should nevertheless listen to the stories of trans-gendered persons. They relate serious struggles with an alternation or lack of correspondence with their natural body gender to their interior sense of sexual identity. Their testimonies are often so powerful that you want to weep with them. When they have pursued hormonal treatment and/or surgery, we might sometimes be too quick to condemn without fully hearing them out. Further, I am told that once synthetic hormones are taken, there is no turning back. Surgical removal of healthy genitalia would traditionally be condemned as mutilation of the body. But I suspect it would be interpreted as final and irreversible. Withholding immediate judgment, believers among trans-gendered persons often speak of this process as a journey of spiritual awakening. They feel that they are embracing a more authentic life for themselves. We might feel just as strongly that it is wrong. We might further believe that they are seeking to flee some measure of the Cross. However, we must grant a certain degree of appreciation or empathy as to how they see themselves within this transition if we desire to make room for them in the Church. Otherwise, we will be showing them to the door. Christ was all about opening doors to conversion, healing and acceptance. He reached out to sinners, the poor, the marginalized, etc. The measure here is love. We might not agree. We might not understand what they are feeling. We might feel hurt and grieving ourselves over the person who was and the person who is emerging. All the same, we have to love them as persons with infinite value— the measure assigned to them by divine love. Life is messy. This is an element to Pope Francis and his notion of accompaniment. There are some matters that cannot be immediately fixed. There are some messes that must even wait for the life-to-come in order to be cleaned up.
I am not a Catholic but my great grandfather was an active practicing Catholic until he suffered a stroke which left him incapacitated and unable to communicate for over twenty years. He died many years ago but I have always felt bad that his caretakers did not request a Catholic funeral. I know Catholics believe in Purgatory and I ponder how I might help him there. Do I need to be a Catholic to request a Mass and offer a stipend for his soul? Should I have a Catholic friend request this instead of me? I do not want to offend God or make things any worse for my relative.
Response
You do not need to be a Catholic to request of a priest (or a parish) that a Mass be said for an intention (in this case for the dead). We frequently pray for the dead by name (prospective souls in Purgatory). If he should already be in heaven then the fruits of the Mass (graces) would be applied to some poor soul who has no one to pray for him or her. Nothing is wasted in the Lord. Stipends for Masses vary, but in the Archdiocese of Washington, the usual donation is $10. You are not paying for the intention but offering a gift-stipend to the priest who will offer the Mass. Mass intentions are usually published in the Parish bulletin. You can also get a Mass card, either for yourself or to send to someone else.
I thought it was a joke or exaggeration, but when I visited the website for the Catholic diocese of Hallam in the UK under Bishop Ralph Hesket I was shocked to see that charges of religious relativism or indifferentism might have merit. As part of a national interfaith outreach, Christian believers were encouraged to visit and honor pagan shrines. I fail to fathom how this is either genuine dialogue or true ecumenism. Despite the directions given, Catholics should not bow to pagan images or eat the food that has been offered to idols. Christians were persecuted and even martyred in the early days of the faith for refusing such acts that compromised the true faith and pampered superstition.
Indeed, the early apologists argued that despite the generosity of the pagans toward the poor, Christians should not eat the food of pagan sacrifices because the pagan deities were actually demons.
Moses was commanded to remove his sandals when he encountered God in the burning bush. But what we have here is an image of Buddha and a pagan shrine. While these locations may hold anthropological interest for learned Christians, most would best avoid such places. As Christians we may honor persons and give deference to religious liberty that also protects our rights in a multicultural society, but we should not underestimate the general ignorance and tottering faith of many Christians. Already many are adopting Eastern ideas about the yin and yang of the Tao, the transmigration of the souls, the spirituality associated with yoga, and a pantheistic view of creation.
The removal of shoes may be a small concession but the added flower presentation and material sacrifice of money, mimics or parallels the offertory at Mass. Christ and the Church he instituted is the one way that God has established for our salvation. No one comes to the Father apart from Jesus Christ. A confession of faith can be made both in words and with gestures. We must be wary of making a wholesale compromise of the truth. Buddhism is incompatible with the Christian kerygma. Pope John Paul II was criticized for his assessment in CROSSING THE THRESHOLD OF HOPE.
Do we draw near to God in this way? This is not mentioned in the “enlightenment” conveyed by Buddha. Buddhism is in large measure an “atheistic” system. We do not free ourselves from evil through the good which comes from God; we liberate ourselves only through detachment from the world, which is bad. The fullness of such a detachment is not union with God, but what is called nirvana, a state of perfect indifference with regard to the world. To save oneself means, above all, to free oneself from evil by becoming indifferent to the world, which is the source of evil. This is the culmination of the spiritual process.
While some might note Buddhism as more a philosophy of negation than a deistic religion, the diocesan guidelines also threaten to taint the faith of believers under an effort to show respect to the adherents of Hinduism.
The early Christians were put to death for refusing to throw the smallest fleck of incense into the fire for an idol of Rome and its emperor. Just as we would not expect Hindus to bend the knee and cross themselves in our churches; neither should Hindu shrines be honored by Christians with bowing before the idols of false deities. This act impugns the heroic sacrifices of the early martyrs. Such concession signifies a cowardice to accusations of intolerance where there should be a brave act of witness that promotes the missionary spirit within the scope of both understanding and charity.
Christians need to respect the Eastern effort to discern truth while not abandoning our own rich inheritance. The missionary effort, going back to the days of St. Francis Xavier, had many successes. But we must admit that the faith also suffered from the stigma of being Western and foreign. Right or wrong, the saint regarded all the Hindus as devil worshipers. This is part of our historical faith inheritance. Doors were closed where the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes might have opened them. There is said to be an evolution in Hinduism toward monotheism; but this truth is already realized in Christianity. We must be careful that weak Christians do not embrace Eastern religion due to an attraction to the strange or exotic.
Pope Paul VI stated in NOSTRA AETATE the following:
Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.
We would not deny any elements that are true in such religions, but there are also wrong turns and false understandings (error). All salvation truth subsists in the Catholic Church. We do not have to look elsewhere. People who are largely ignorant of their own rich Christian faith inheritance might be lost if we are passive to their involvement in other religions.
Catholics should bow or genuflect before the Christian altar, or the Crucifix or the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle but NOT before the image of alien gods. Definitely they should not eat the food given to them, demons or not.
1 Corinthians 10:18-22 – Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than he?
At a time when exorcisms are on the rise, this is the height of idiocy. We can respect persons and work together for a more civil and caring society; however, we should not do so at the cost of our immortal souls. Ignorance of the truth may save some from the full weight of judgment. However, our Catholic and Christian community will be judged according to our understanding and fidelity to the revelation of Christ that is passed down to us in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Catholics and other Christians might visit such sites for educational purposes. They should do nothing that suggests worship. Pope John Paul II argued that the Allah of the Muslims is the same Father God of the Christians. This may be, but there remains much that divides us, particularly the role of Jesus as Lord and Redeemer. The Pope states:
Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.
A gesture for peace is also fine, as long as we do nothing to undermine or apologize for our identity as Christians. We should also insist that the Islamic community become more pro-active against discrimination and violence against Christians throughout the world. Otherwise, gestures of human respect (not divine worship) become empty.
While we can respect others, we should not be giving directions to Christian believers on how to commit idolatry.
The Sikh religion is inherently pantheistic. We believe that God maintains creation but he cannot be identified with it. While its tenets include reincarnation and various Hindu teachings; it is monotheistic, rejects the caste system and the use of idols. It also espouses a syncretism where it tries to unite various beliefs from disjointed sources. Christianity might adopt elements of culture and even the symbols of others (as it did in the Roman and Greek world) but the content is always that of the Gospel. The blunt matter is that, no matter how interesting, this still constitutes a false religion for Catholics. Ours is a jealous God. He will not share us with others.
While certain traditionalists would attack overtures toward the Jews, we must always acknowledge that Judaism is a true, albeit natural religion. While they have yet to embrace the revelation of the Trinity, the Jewish faith was called into existence by Almighty God. Pope John Paul II insisted:
The New Covenant serves to fulfill all that is rooted in the vocation of Abraham, in God’s covenant with Israel at Sinai, and in the whole rich heritage of the inspired Prophets who, hundreds of years before that fulfillment, pointed in the Sacred Scriptures to the One whom God would send in the “fullness of time” (cf. Gal 4:4).
We have a genuine historical and faith relationship with the Jews that we do not share with other religions. Interfaith efforts should not be so diffusive that we lose sight of this fact. The Jews are our elder brothers and sisters in faith. Their story is part of our story. The truths of the faith preserved and passed down by the Hebrews made possible the coming of Christ and his kingdom. While we believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah and the fulfillment of the covenant, God has not forsaken his first people. God keeps his promises. There are NOT two covenants. Both Pope Benedict XVI and the late Cardinal-priest Dulles clarified that there is ONLY one covenant. The covenant of old now embraces (in Jesus Christ) both the first and the new People of God. We pray and hope that those first called will one day come to a full awareness of the fulfillment in Christ.
This was probably the most important interview that Arroyo ever presented on World Over. CARDINAL MÜLLER says that the “moral” is the “pastoral”… there can be no conflict… no polygamy… no sacramental spouse and another civil law spouse… the Holy Father’s document must be interpreted within the Catholic tradition. Anything else is heresy! He spells out that any accommodation that would permit the restoration of the sacramental life (without an annulment) would be a “brother” to “sister” relationship. He also said that women deacons are impossible. The biblical title was not a reference to Holy Orders. The ongoing commission is being misinterpreted. Nevertheless, he did say that we may find new non-sacramental charges for women.
The Imams “expressed ‘shock and utter disgust’ at Saturday’s ‘cold-blooded murders,’ and said the actions of the attackers ‘alienates them from any association with our community for whom the inviolability of every human life is the founding principle'” (Q.5:32).
They are certainly sending a strong message. Maybe the Church should also refuse public funeral services for Catholics who violate our basic principles about the dignity of persons and the sanctity of life? Ah, but then there are those challenging and annoying teachings about loving those who hate you, forgiving those who hurt you and giving to those who would take from you.
Suppose a person masturbates even though he fully knows that it is regarded by the Church as a grave matter of sin. Is it still a mortal sin if he were unaware as to the reason why masturbation is a sin? Would it be reduced to a venial sin?
Response
First, the definition of what constitutes “full consent” must be drawn out.
Second, culpability can never omit the subjective elements that impede free consent.
Fully understanding an act implies that (1) the person knows what he is doing, (2) he knows from moral authority that the action is right or wrong and (3) that he appreciates in conscience the moral or immoral nature of the act.
Free consent can be damaged by coercive factors like vice (bad habit), passion, external enticement or manipulation, emotional states, immaturity, fear, etc.
We can know from just moral authority (like the Church) or from divine positive law (Scripture) or from philosophical reflection (Natural Law) that certain activities are good and that others are bad. However, there is a difference between knowing something is wrong from a stark precept (as we often render to children) and from a truth that is explained and accepted in detail.
Your question seems to be asking the following: are we fully culpable for a sin if we do not understand WHY it is wrong?
We are obliged as believers to follow just authority, both civil and religious. This is a basic given of Catholic social teaching. A child may not know why he or she is obliged to do some things and to avoid others, but the obligation or duty remains. Our obedience honors parents and it honors God. The backdrop to all this is that the parents and God are legitimately communicating what is good and true. No parent or teacher can demand that a child do an immoral act. They would forfeit their overall authority. The danger here is that a child may be innocent and not know what is right or wrong apart from the parent. Similarly, religious people can be deceived by their clergy about the rightness or wrongness of acts. That is why the Catholic Church maintains exclusive claims since we feel that the Holy Spirit has preserved the Church in the truth. Other churches or ecclesial communities do not have such protection. This is also why the Church is often counter-cultural and argues that truth is objective and lasting, not capricious and vulnerable to the fads of the day and/or the accompanying legislation of politicians and rulings from the courts.
Returning to the immediacy of your question, full knowledge would also imply for adults a certain awareness of why masturbation is wrong. As to the gravity of the sin, that can only be known in conscience and between the person and almighty God. Mortal sin implies a lack of love or giving God and his Church their due— not just the benefit of a doubt but that of belief. If it stands to reason that God is right, even if we do not fully understand, then we are still obliged to obey. This is under pain of mortal sin. As we mature, our appreciation of our faith and values should also expand. This is what best fits the human condition.
Why is masturbation regarded as wrong and as a sin? Here is what the universal catechism says about the sin:
[CCC 2352] By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.” / To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
Intentional sexual self-gratification (sometimes termed as self-pollution) is contrary to the natural purpose for the human sexual power or act. The Church contends that sexual activity must always be in terms of congress between a man and woman within the holy covenant of matrimony. Outside of marriage— in masturbation, heterosexual fornication (according to nature) and homosexual acts (contrary to nature)— the activity is wrong and sinful. Sexual expression is directed toward marital intimacy and the act of propagation (non-contraceptive vaginal intercourse). Masturbation short-circuits the whole meaning of human sexuality. Instead of expressing love and unity with another person, a narcissistic self-absorption is pursued instead. Pleasure or gratification is targeted for its own sake instead of as an enticement to be shared in furthering the fidelity and unity of spouses. In contrast to the donation of self to another, masturbation or Onanism is inherently selfish. Masturbation can become an addictive behavior, turning one increasing in on oneself and away from healthy relationships and prospects for marriage and family. This is the very opposite of what true love is about. Young people, given immaturity and the changing hormones or body chemistry, frequently fall into masturbation in their teen years. Here it is most probably a venial sin. However, if left unchecked it can become habitual and/or mortal. What the body does has an effect upon the soul. Given how it feeds selfishness and self-absorption, this wrongful activity has an intrinsic gravity toward mortal sin. The heart becomes hardened. What should be good and wholesome becomes something bad and sordid. It can become a sickness of the soul.
Masturbation and sexual addiction has often been compared to alcoholism. It becomes difficult to stop. There is a sense of being evacuated of grace. The person will frequently feel a terrible weight of shame. This profound sense of guilt will either bring one to the sacrament of Penance (so that the work of healing can begin) or there will be a further turning away from virtue toward vice. The man or woman will rationalize actions and seek to justify his or her immoral and sexual license. The person denies to himself that he is doing anything wrong. This leads to the handmaid of masturbation, the use of pornography to fuel lustful fantasies. Our society has made this jump very easy and the media has attempted to make pornography mainstream on television and the internet. The high of sexual gratification in masturbation and pornography can poison relationships and create seeds for destruction in subsequent marriages. Not only is the sin of coveting another’s spouse violated, but pornography and sexual fantasies encourage virtual adultery. The bodies of others, most often those of women, are dehumanized and treated as meat for hungry dogs. There is a general loss of respect for persons and their bodies. Some have even noted correlations to physical and sexual abuse of others. Every man and woman is someone’s son or daughter. We are all children of God— not nameless flesh to appease the beast.
Finally, the marital act (the use of the sexual faculties in marriage) is rightly directed to the unity in the sacrament. Both fidelity of the spouses and the generation of new human life are at the heart of this wonderful gift of sexuality given by God to men and women. Masturbation by comparison is not life-giving. This should be the clearest natural indication that there is something wrong with it. As spiritual-corporeal composites, we are our bodies. The human body was never intended as a plaything. Indeed, it is so precious that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity took to himself a full human nature and body in order to redeem us. As Catholics and Christians, we should never overlook this fact that with the incarnation our humanity is raised to a higher dignity. We should always honor this truth by how we treat our bodies and those of others.
Chastity is real and possible, both within and outside marriage. Modesty and purity should again be encouraged for teens and adults, men and women alike. It is no wonder that at a time when marriage as an institution is in trouble, that both virginity and celibacy find themselves ridiculed. If we are to reclaim our culture for Christ then we must not neglect the issue of human sexuality. We must also address the sense of alienation that growing numbers of modern men and women feel. Many fall prey to the sin discussed here because of loneliness. But like drinking, you cannot appease your thirst by drinking polluted water. We need the clean and refreshing water that Jesus offers from beside the well. If any should struggle with such sins, please do not despair. Invite God’s mercy and grace into your lives through frequent Confession and the reception of the Eucharist.
President Trump renewed his call for the courts to approve his revised executive order, which would temporarily bar nationals from six predominately Muslim countries from entering the U.S. The Justice Department reported:
“The president is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States.”
(MSN used a photo with Cardinal Wuerl looking on in the back. Was it taken from the White House Prayer Breakfast?)
I have mixed feelings. The war against terror is a real conflict. I do not believe in singling out people as dangerous based on religion but it must be admitted that there are countries that harbor terrorists.
It is interesting that many will attack the President for wanting a better manner of vetting immigrants and visitors from other countries while the late F.D. Roosevelt remains beloved by the same critics even though he imposed Japanese-American internment on Jan. 14, 1942 against our own citizens.
I am troubled all around. How do we respect persons, protect rights and remain secure? I do not know the answer. In any case, injustice is not something new.
The stuff going on now is not the face of true conservatism… it is rather an angry populism. Back in the 1950’s Quintin Hogg gave an excellent definition of this perspective on the right: “Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself.”
More palatable after he detached himself from the taint of anti-Catholicism, Barry Goldwater wrote: “Conservatism, we are told, is out of date. The charge is preposterous, and we ought boldly to say no. The laws of God, and of nature, have no deadline. The principles on which the conservative political position is based…are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation.”
I would recommend Russell Kirk’s book THE CONSERVATIVE MIND which I read as a young man. It discusses Conservatism as an important facet of our intellectual patrimony going back to the American founding father, John Adams. He warned us that Conservatism must not simply lament and shake fists at the distortion of values and rights by liberalism; rather, we have to respond to the need for a spiritual and moral rebirth of our identity and ideals in every age.
The necessity is finding the thread of continuity. It is in the context of this hermeneutic that the Catholic Church is inherently a conservative institution, passing down revealed and immutable truths to each generation. Doctrine develops and grows, but always in an organic way.
Today, a big problem is finding the proper leadership. President Reagan was a genuine Conservative who understood the needs and hopes of people. Leaders like him are few and far between. During his administration Bill Bennett served as the Secretary of Education, a department of the executive branch of government that the President thought about eradicating but later sought to reform. It is within this light that Bennett’s THE BOOK OF VIRTUES was an effort to restore values to learning.
The Conservative voice should never fail to respond to the needs of all men and women with a message that both safeguards human rights and grants hope to those struggling to survive and to find happiness. People naturally want to feel secure and to have their basic needs met, hence the constant emphasis upon property and prosperity. While charity was rightly listed as an ingredient under G.W. Bush’s “compassionate Conservatism” such can become intolerable when distanced from genuine love and corrupted into a pattern of orchestrated political overtures to insure dependence and manipulation.
The late William Buckley, who angered Ayn Rand and distanced himself from the so-called Conservatives of our time, stated: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” Hear all sides out— yes, even the voices you might not want to hear. There is too much name-calling, hate and polarization. We see this both in our country and the Church. Preserve what is good and lasting. Acknowledge that human nature does not change, although grace can summon us to holiness. Be open to new ideas that do not contradict who we are and what we are about as a people. Peace!
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
Question
I would recommend Russell Kirk’s book THE CONSERVATIVE MIND which I read as a young man. It discusses Conservatism as an important facet of our intellectual patrimony going back to the American founding father, John Adams. He warned us that Conservatism must not simply lament and shake fists at the distortion of values and rights by liberalism; rather, we have to respond to the need for a spiritual and moral rebirth of our identity and ideals in every age.
Blogger Priest 