David Ancell's Virtual Home

Truthfully, I watch very little television and very few movies. However, going to the Defending the Faith conference in Steubenville made it hard to resist purchasing Steve Ray’s video in his Footprints of God series entitled Mary, Mother of God. Steve Ray’s talk at the conference was outstanding, and so was this video. It has footage of the places where various biblical events occurred. In fact, there are churches built over most of them. In addition, he includes some nice apologetics to help you explain Marian dogmas to non-Catholics. I want to go out and buy the video on St. Peter.

Finally, I made my first posting to the forum on the Catechism of the Catholic Church Internet Study Group. We’re discussing Scripture and Tradition. Some time in the future, I plan to write an article for my main site on why I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. Here’s an excerpt from my post:

I am a convert who has been Catholic for 11 years. I had never belonged to any church before. Perhaps it was because of this that the idea that revelation does not come from Scripture alone was one of the easiest things for me to accept as a Catholic. The idea of there being a Tradition made perfect sense.

I knew well that the Bible did not drop from Heaven, nor was it written by Jesus himself. Further, many Christians lived and died before the Bible was even completely written, and more lived and died before it was compiled.

Either an outside authority (the Magisterium) affirms the inspiration of the Bible, or the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it’s the Word of God. In the latter case, every book that says it’s the Word of God would then become the Word of God. It was the Church who declared which books went in the Bible. Even if a book in the Bible stated which books are inspired, how would you know that book is inspired?

Tradition and Scripture form the Deposit of Faith. I understand Tradition as that within which the Scripture must be understood (do correct me if I’m wrong). We have a body of teaching, and therefore we know that anyone whose interpretation of that Bible contradicts that teaching has an erroneous interpretation.

I have grown much in my understand of Scripture through reading, praying, thinking about the Scripture, and listening to some talks when available. God blessed me with a desire to read the Scriptures more often before I even started the RCIA process. All of the aforementioned must be done in light of the Tradition of the Church.

I found this label on a loaf of IronKids brand bread:

Parents: The name “IronKids” is in reference only to a children’s fitness program and has no reference to either extra iron in this bread or to the bread resulting in superior strength or performance.

This reminds me of the sun shade designed for a car windshield that says “Remove from windshield before driving.” or the stroller that says on the label “Remove child from stroller before folding for storage.”

We get this stuff in the pharmacy world:

A guy who graduated a year ahead of me told me that they have a label on some head-lice shampoo (key word: shampoo) that says “For external use only.” Apparently, some parents were giving it to their kids orally.

When I was in my first semester of pharmacy school, a professor told us to always put “Unwrap and insert . . .” on the label of a suppository. Otherwise, we’d have a patient come back and say “That foil really hurts!!”

I finally got some links to other blogs posted on my template. I put the names of the people instead of the blog titles because I was afraid it would be too hard to read on my template. One of these days, I’ll make my own template.

Any suggestions of other blogs that I should link to? The ones I’ve picked are the ones I most often read.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I read stuff like yesterday’s New York Times article about September 11 lesson plans. Someone please explain the meaning of this one:

Among what Mr. Newberry called “100 gentle lessons” in the N.E.A. curriculum is one where middle school students make color wheels to relate color to how they feel.

Um . . . okay . . . so what color are you feeling today? If some teacher made me do this when I was in middle school, there would be smoke coming out of my nostrils. Then, I’d be dismissed as the school crank.

Here’s the response of Jerald Newberry, Director of the Health Information Network for the NEA, to critics of their suggestions:

The criticism to the lessons on tolerance, Mr. Newberry said, is thinly veiled bigotry. “If you boil down the concerns of the opposition, what I would call the far right, ultimately it boils down to is: `I am not comfortable with my child being in school with someone who’s different. I want to keep my child surrounded by people who are identical to me. The world is getting too diverse, and I’m scared.’ “

I must wonder if it ever occurred to the folks at the NEA that the problem with their lessons is that we don’t see the need to use this time to rehash every wrong done at the hands of an American. Our country is not perfect. However, regardless of the black marks on American history, what these guys did on September 11 was wrong. I agree that we shouldn’t tell our children that Islam is to blame, but we don’t need to hide the fact that the terrorists were Muslims. I wonder when the NEA will develop a lesson plan that says that we shouldn’t blame Catholicism for the sexual abuse of children by clergy. The principle is the same.

Really, I see a much broader problem involved. The NEA lesson plans are based on the principles of secularism and moral relativism in which tolerance is the only virtue and intolerance (i.e. declaring that some action is a sin) is the only sin. Therefore, considerations of good and evil were ruled about before September 11 ever happened. Along comes September 11, and a deed is done that can hardly be described as anything less than horrific evil. One would think that this would be enough to make someone believe that real evil exists, but for some this is not the case. In fact, they are attributing the terrorist act to the only evil they know . . . INTOLERANCE.

Sadly, secularists cannot see the whole picture. We as Catholics can. We know that evil is a reality. While we are horrified by September 11, we are not driven to despair. We have hope in a time that seems beyond hope. Our gracious and loving God will win in the end. The hope that we have enables us to see the day when we are united in Heaven, and none of this evil will ever happen again.

If you haven’t read this little classic on Catholic Exchange, you are missing out. It’s the best article I know that points out the absurdity of calling yourself Catholic and pro-“choice” at the same time.

Gosh, I was so busy yesterday that I didn’t get around to blogging. I’m not going to do much better tonight. If you want something to feast on, read this piece by Mark Shea.

There’s another piece available if that wasn’t enough, but this one isn’t too nice. It’s about how HMOs may encourage assisted suicide to save money. In pharmacy school, we had a lot of classes that dealt with the idea that the health care system was going to have to find ways to save money. It scares the living daylights out of me to think of what could happen if assisted suicide becomes legal. Insurance companies may refuse to cover palliative care, stating that euthanasia is available at a much lower price. Given the greed in today’s society, I would not rule this out as a possibility.

If you haven’t read Fr. Johansen’s viewpoint on the practice of greeting one another before Mass, it’s long, but well worth reading. I’m going to print a copy when I get a chance. We need more priests like him.

There’s another blog by Fr. Jeffrey Keyes, C.PP.S. related to the subject. He also mentions the practice of priests saying “Good morning” at the beginning of Mass, which I find irritating. I feel a much greater sense of reverence when the Mass begins with nothing more than a reverent Sign of the Cross and the sacred greeting.

Once again, I’m throwing in my two cents on a St. Blog’s discussion. This time, it’s on Fr. Rob Johansen’s blog. His pastor has introduced the practice of turning and greeting one another before Mass starts. Supposedly, he wants to foster a “sense of community.”

However, well-intentioned people may be in implementing the practice, I just can’t find a cuss word bad enough to describe how I feel about it. If we want to make the Church more friendly, having people greet one another for no other reason that they are told to do so won’t work. It’s fine to greet people as they walk into the church. By all means, acknowledge the people you see around you in the pews as you walk in (but please take your long conversation outside the church). These things are more genuine. However, the Mass is not the time or place for meet and greet. We gather together to pray and to worship. In a meet and greet before Mass, we either already know the person, or we will likely quickly forget the name of the person.

The sense of community in the Mass should come from the praying and singing as a body, the silent prayers said in preparation, and most of all from the Eucharist. A community must be built around a cause. We are not together just because we feel like getting together, but because God has called us. We get together at other times to share meals, study Christ’s teaching, and to work for the poor or the protection of the unborn. We get to know each other by standing together for Christ. We share common belief and have a common destiny. In so doing, we build a real community. If we stink at hospitality, it’s likely because we don’t believe all of this. Getting people together to learn the faith and strengthening belief in the Real Presence will work must better than a “meet and greet” before Mass. Besides, if a person won’t participate in the ministry of the Church, what makes one think that he/she will become more cordial by shaking hands with a person before Mass.

I have a greater concern about all of this emphasis on “seeing Christ in one another.” I realize we are supposed to see Christ in one another, but I think it has been carried to an extreme. In our current atmosphere, one could be forgiven for thinking that the only real God is the God “in our hearts” (by our own design) or that the “Spirit” is what we create when we get together. Not everyone will go this far, but some probably have. This may be why a lot of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. Some of you may feel that I’m exaggerating, but remember that the Devil never asks that our first step be a big one.

Some other good reading on this subject:
On Mark Shea’s website
This blog by Emily Stimpson
This other blog by Emily Stimpson

I’m sure you’ve all been eagerly awaiting what this poor sinner has to say about the Rod Dreher article that has been the talk of St. Blog’s. Let me assure you, dear readers, that I do not claim to know exactly how the Church should be run. I will also admit that I have had little contact with anyone involved in the recent scandal. While I agree that this scandal is horrific, my concern is also with the loss of the authentic Catholic moral teaching that led to this.

My reading of the Dreher article suggests that his thesis is that since that the Pope, by failing to use his governing authority when his directives have ignored, has failed to govern the Church and seems to care little for our Church. From what I gather, he seems to have seen a lot of the hurt that the scandal has generated. I will not doubt his sincerity in wanting something done. I do not know him, and I do not intend to judge him.

I have been Catholic for 11 years. I have, in various ways, often wondered just what the heck was going on in the Church. My memory of my college years is one in which the basic message of the Church was “All these laws and doctrine don’t really matter. We’re all just one big happy family. Just do what is ‘most loving.'” Somehow I sensed that this wasn’t right. I had both an anger and a sense of lukewarmness that I never began to address until my last semester of pharmacy school in 1999. I never stopped believing or going to Mass, but I do think my prayer-life suffered greatly. I did stop praying the Rosary for years. I have been striving to overcome my former state of faith, only to have this scandal hit and be reminded of everything that’s going wrong. I can’t help but think that something should have been done about this a long time ago.

Here in America, we live in a fast-paced society. We expect swift, sure solutions. Just look at how popular the “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality is when it comes to criminal justice. It is understandable that some would want the Pope to just come in here and kick some Bishops square in the tail. Whether or not this is prudent, even now, is a judgment that I’m not qualified to make. However, I will offer my humble opinion.

At some point, I think it may be necessary to remove a Bishop (or a few Bishops). I don’t think that removing Bishops will necessarily cause schism, as others have suggested. The Bishops who have been charged with doing nothing to prevent this scandal aren’t likely to attract a following.

However, I do think that removing them from office would give them the easy way out. The problems would then be dumped in someone else’s lap. I think that the Pope is expecting them to do their duties (in accordance with the Final Communique) and holding their feet to the fire. I hope that the Bishops will be given at least one last chance (but not too many more chances) to do this.

The other problem with forcibly removing many Bishops is that it could create more confusion than it would solve. Due to the very lack of authentic teaching that helped lead to this problem, many people would only perceive this as a power struggle. I’m not against doing things that may anger people, but prudence should be used. Remember that we are seeking to convert people’s hearts, not just kick their rear ends. Forcing merely external conversion will not save souls. A conversion of hearts takes much longer and involves serious risks, but remember that this is exactly how God treats us. God didn’t even strike Hitler or Stalin dead immediately despite the evil that they did.

So, what’s my bottom line? The Pope does appear to be moving slowly, and the time has come (and possibly past) for stronger action. However, the Pope may have done so because of his desire for authentic conversion. Only time will tell whether or not his actions were in the best interest of the Church, but I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt.