R. J. Grigaitis

You can now take a virtual tour of the Vatican:

• St. Peter’s
• Sistine Chapel
• St. John Lateran
• St. Paul’s Outside the Walls

Fr. Thomas J. Loya devoted the Daughters of St. Paul’s USTREAM.TV Theology of the Body class this month to the Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal. He put the whole thing in the correct context. It’s well worth watching:

The rest of the classes are also very interesting.

Fr. Loya also talked about this on his radio show, A Body of Truth:

In my last blog entry, I suggested people to “Seek out reliable news sources that are not intent on slandering Christ’s Church.” Some wonder where to find these “reliable news sources.” Well it seems that yesterday Catholic San Francisco published a letter by Cardinal William J. Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I doubt the New York Times would publish such a letter.

This is the headline: “Cardinal Levada to NY Times: Reconsider ‘attack mode’ against Pope Benedict.” The subtitle is: “The New York Times and Pope Benedict XVI:
how it looks to an American in the Vatican.” The caption under the photo reads, “The New York Times lacks fairness in its coverage of Pope Benedict, Cardinal William J. Levada writes in a lengthy letter from Rome.”

The online edition of the letter can be read here:
http://www.catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=&id=57030

If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. (John 15:18-19)

The sex abuse scandal the pope has found himself in does not surprise me; in fact, I’ve come to expect things like this. This is a satanic attack, but not against the pope. It is an attack against at least 70% of Catholics, and more likely, more than 80% of Catholics, not to mention the many people that knowingly or unknowingly wish to be Catholic.

Very few people get their news from reliable sources. Most put their trust in the mass media, which is unapologetically  anti-Catholic. Even the majority of people in the mass media that claim to be Catholic give an anti-Catholic slant to the news. An example of this is the use of the terms Anti-Choice, or Anti-Abortion, or the new one, Abortion Rights Opponent for the correct term Pro-Life. Another example is who they choose to quote as authentic Catholic experts, who usually turn out to be major Catholic dissenters like Fr. Richard McBrien. Since this is where most people get their news, including the vast majority of Catholics, they’re quite likely to believe this anti-Catholic propaganda.

It’s also no coincidence  that the mass media is bringing this story out at this particular time of year. It’s that time of year when some, among the 70% of Catholic that do not regularly attend Mass, are deciding if they’re going to go to Mass for Easter. With the recent reports in the news about the pope, maybe they won’t go to Mass this year, maybe never again.

What about the 30% that do regularly attend Mass? Well, it seems that less than 20% of Catholics practice the Faith in its entirety, most notably on the major issue of contraception (Remember the term intrinsically evil?). This means that at least a third of Catholics that regularly attend Mass don’t actually believe everything the Church teaches. With the recent reports in the news about the pope, maybe they’ll stop believing more of what the Church teaches.

The Catholic Church is the voice of God in the world. The only way to God is through the Catholic Church. Hence, everyone knowingly or unknowingly wants to be Catholic. The majority of people are not Catholic. With the recent reports in the news about the pope, maybe they’ll never become Catholic. (Note: you don’t have to be Catholic to go to heaven, but once you’re in heaven, you’ll be Catholic.)

What about the pope? He’s probably not the least bit concerned about his good reputation, which is extremely good. His biggest concern is likely the three groups of people mentioned above.

What about the mass media? They’ve succeeded! When the truth becomes too obvious, they’ll simply quit reporting on this issue. They will offer no apology, and they will not run stories that contradict what they are now reporting. They will leave the general public to continue to doubt the pope’s character, and since the majority of the general public only gets its news from the mass media, the truth will likely never reach the majority of the general public.

What am I going to do? I’m going to go back to only reading reliable news sources. A while ago, I started reading news from the mass media, but I’m too disgusted with it now. When a major event happens that I need to pray about, the pope will publicly pray about it. When he does, reliable new sources will report on it, and when they do, I’ll hear about it.

What do I suggest you do? Seek out reliable news sources that are not intent on slandering Christ’s Church. I also recommend going to Mass this Easter whether you’re Catholic or not.

“I never lose an argument; even when I’m wrong.”

I’ve heard the above saying many times. I even had the same attitude myself; although, I was never so bold to  state it out load. Over many years of reflection, I now have a different attitude, which I sum up with the following words:

“I always lose an argument; even when I’m right. I never lose a discussion, unless it turns into an argument.”

I should clarify. I’m not using the word argument in the philosophical sense, but in the worldly sense of a confrontation. Disagreements and corrections can be discussed, and a solution where there are no losers can be reached, but when a discussion turns into an argument (confrontation), even the party that is right loses because of bad feelings.

I don’t mind being wrong in a discussion because I can become a better person once I am corrected. In an argument, however, the confrontation makes me feel ill, and I feel like the loser regarudless of if I am right or wrong. I find no consolation in being right when an issue cannot be calmly discussed.

Sometimes one has to engage in confrontation. I dread the very thought. Nevertheless, when it’s necessary, I pray that any arguments turn in to discussions. An argument that turns into a discussion really isn’t an argument anymore.

When I first heard about the movie No Greater Love, I thought, “Great, another good movie teaching Christian values.”

When I saw the trailer, I thought, “Oh No! They know nothing about Christian marriage and make Christians look like a bunch of nuts.”

I was planning on watching No Greater Love as soon as it came out so I could write a review to warn everyone to stay away from this movie, but I couldn’t find the time. Fortunately, Sr. Helena Burns, who is an actual movie critic, has written a really good review of the movie, which, unfortunately, confirms my concerns raised by the trailer. I’m not going to waist my money on this movie now that Sr. Helena has taken the time to warn us of its major problems.

If you’re considering watching No Greater Love, read Sr. Helena’s review first:
http://hellburns.blogspot.com/2010/02/movies-no-greater-love-dvd.html

There are some men that have “left” the priesthood so they could marry, only to be later confronted with news of married clergy from other churches entering the Roman Catholic Church and being ordained to the priesthood. They feel they have been done an injustice because they had to “give up” the priesthood to marry, and here married men have become priests without giving up their marriage. To some, this looks like a double standard.

The first mistake these men make is that they never left or gave up the priesthood. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, like Baptism and Confirmation, is unrepeatable and permanent. What they did leave or give up was their vow of celibacy. Being released from this vow came with the serious consequence of not being allowed to normally exercise their priesthood. I’ve explained this in a previous post (http://blog.grigaitis.net/2009/04/married-clergy/).

The second mistake these men make is in seeing a similarity between their situation and the situation of married men coming into the Roman Catholic Church and being ordained as priests. The main difference is that celibate clergy have taken a vow of celibacy, and married clergy have not. If the wife of a married priest dies, the priest must remain celibate. He would be in the same situation as a priest that took a vow of celibacy before ordination. A widowed priest can also petition the Church to release him from his vow of celibacy and allow him to remarry, in which case he would suffer the same consequence of not being allowed to normally exercise his priesthood.

This is not a matter of a double standard but an example of compassion on the part of the Church towards those coming from a different tradition in which mandatory clerical celibacy is not the norm. It must be remembered that it is a norm and not a doctrine. It is possible, although very unlikely, that the Church return to the original norm of clerical celibacy being optional. However, all bishops, priests, and deacons that took a vow of celibacy before ordination will be expected to keep that vow. As well, widowed clerics would also be expected to remain celibate.

Celibate priests that give up their vow of celibacy and marry are not allowed to normally exercise their priesthood. Married men that become priests and have not taken a vow of celibacy are obviously not in the same situation.

or if you’re Eastern Rite, Happy Theophany
or if you’re on the Julian calendar, Merry Christmas
or if your bishop thinks Epiphany shouldn’t be on a weekday, Happy Wednesday After Epiphany

I celebrated Epiphany twice this year, both times in the Roman Rite, and both times in my home diocese. On the 3rd I assisted at Sunday Epiphany Mass at my local parish, and today I assisted at an FSSP Epiphany Mass. FSSP is for Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri (Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter). If you want to know more about the FSSP, visit their website: http://fssp.org

Why do some Roman Catholics celebrate Epiphany on the Sunday between January 2nd and 8th, and some Roman Catholics celebrate Epiphany on the actual feast of Epiphany? I guess you’ll have to ask the men who made this option available to Roman bishops in 1969.

What if they did the same thing for Christmas? Would more people come to Christmas Eve Mass if it were on the Saturday night between December 20th and 26th? Would Santa Clause know which house to go to on the Sunday and which house to go to on the 25th? What if the family isn’t Catholic, or even Christian? Which day should Santa visit? What if a family does on Christmas what I did this Epiphany? Would Santa visit their house twice?

These are some deep theological questions that make my head hurt. I wonder if their heads hurt in 1969?