A thought-provoking Catholic response to "Jesus>religion"

If you've seen the video "Jesus>religion" (aka "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus"), you probably nodded your head in agreement with some of the, thoughts... er, lyrics. It has a strong emotional appeal (not to mention great video editing). But is it all true?

Bad Catholic has a thought-provoking response to the video that's burning up the ether around the net:

It’s worth beginning with this: I agree with this guy on a lot of points. He reminds us Catholics of a striking truth; that without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, religion is a joke. He speaks the truth that Christ died for our sins, once and for all. I can’t help but think, in the midst of all this, that this hating-religion-loving-Jesus thing is the logical consequence of Protestantism. For a 21st-century Protestant looking at a thousand-something churches, I imagine there is an immense temptation to say “It’s all a wash. I will follow Christ, not a religion,” and be done with it. I empathize with him, knowing that if I were a Protestant I would be in full agreement: There is either one, true religion or there is no religion at all. 

But nevertheless, there are two main problems with this video. 1. Jesus Christ would strongly disagree with it. That is to say, the creator of this video is very, very wrong. 2. He’s very, very wrong with some great video editing, good background music, a strong emotional appeal, catchy rhyme, and all in relatively well-timed YouTube moment. He’s wrong in style. When a man gains immense popularity by making blanket statements stylistically, how likely is it that his followers will read a rebuttal making specific statements prosaically? I don’t know, but rebut I must, for it is the duty of the Catholic to resist fashion and fads, no matter how unfashionable he looks doing it.

Catholicism: Taking the long, boring route to Truth since 37 A.D.

So onto the first bit of silliness — the idea that Jesus came to abolish religion. Unforgivable. He literally said the opposite: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” What were the Law and the Prophets? Judaism. What is Judaism? A religion. What did Jesus specifically say he was NOT going to abolish? That’s right. A religion. (Aaand you just got Kris Kringled.)

This is made apparent not only in the words, but in the actions of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe in the sacraments or not, there is no doubt that Christ established ritual. It’s one thing to ignore Christ’s statement to “eat my body.” It’s another to ignore his command to “do this in memory of me.”

Christ commanded that we have ritual. The early church followed this ritual, they obeyed his command to “do this in memory of me.” We know this because Paul says: “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” Does the mere Christ-follower-religion-hater obey Christ’s command to eat his body and drink his blood, and to do it in memory of Him? I do not mean ask whether they believe in the True Presence of Christ in the bread and wine, I simply mean to ask whether they follow the ritual Christ established at all? If not, it would seem that to be a Christ-follower is to ignore the commands Christ bids you follow. And there’s more of this Christ guy being ridiculously religious. 

He established a priesthood in the Apostles. If that word freaks you out, I’ll rephrase: He gave certain men very distinct roles. 

Christ gave them the power to forgive sins: ”If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (John 20:23)
He gave men power to make decisions concerning doctrine: ”I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18) 

He built a Church: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
He called men to the sacrament of Baptism. These are not things available to the mere Christ-follower, unless he truly believes that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and all the rest. So knowing that Christ so clearly established a Church, with rituals, with priests, and with sacraments, our man’s statement “What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion?” can only be answered with, “What if He told you you were wrong?” 

“If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars?” says he. And honestly, thisseems to be his only real charge against religion, all else is mere personal experience. While it is true that a war may be fought over an excess of hatred, it is equally true that a war may be fought for an excess love of freedom. A man may strike another man because he is filled to bursting with bitter, archaic beliefs. He may also strike a man to stop him from killing a baby. The fact that religion starts wars could equally be held as evidence that religion is good as evidence that it is bad. For men desire good and will fight for it far more often than they will fight for bad. Did Christ not say “I have not come to bring peace, but the Sword?” And of course this is true, I know it on a personal level: I would not be tempted to fight the man who slanders me. I would be tempted fight the man who slanders my God. Christ brings me the Sword. Would I be morally justified in my desire to fight? Probably not. The point is simply that it is Iwho am accountable the fight, not my religion. If it is a bad thing to fight, my religion is the good for which I would forget myself and be bad. That is no more reason for rejecting religion than for rejecting your wife, who — when threatened — might very well lead you to kill.

Do not take away the ennoblement of the poor. 

He goes on: “Why does [religion] build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor.” I’m getting serious ‘by-religion-I-mean-Catholicism’ vibes from our man. First of all, religion does not fail to feed the poor. What — if you don’t mind me asking — is the number-one most charitable organization in the universe? The Red Cross? Nope. The Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort? Hahahahaha, but no. It’s the Roman Catholic Church. As for the building big churches bit, I could give an entire post on how silly of an attack that is, and how insulting it is to the poor man,but I already did. For now I’ll just say this: Go to a man in poverty who attends a beautiful church and offer to tear down the beauty that surrounds him, to melt down the gold so he can buy more food. You will never see a man more insulted. 

He then gives himself away. “[Religion] tells single Moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve had a divorce.” Alright. This is one of those few times I actually get annoyed. First of all, unless you’re the WBC, there is not a single Christian denomination that says that there is any possible way you could get God not to love you. This is a basic premise of Christianity. We are never unloved. We may reject God, but He never, ever, ever rejects us. So I’ll take his “God doesn’t love…” bit to actually mean religion is against divorce. But there is only one major Christian denomination that is opposed to divorce: The Roman Catholic Church. So when this man says ‘religion’ — in this case — he means The Roman Catholic Church. And it’s true, we have the terrible habit of believing Christ meant what he said: 

“They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”‘ 

So once again, I must ask, why is it that following Christ while disdaining religion leads to the direct contradiction of Christ’s teachings? It’s a silliness of modern Christianity, to love Christ partially — “Ah yes, he saved me, died for me, opened the gates of Heaven for me, and I accept him as my personal Lord and Savior, but not what he said about that whole no divorce thing. That was just whack and unloving.” 

A common theme throughout the video is our man’s complaint that religion is just behavior modification, a list of rules to follow, and thus doesn’t get to the core of the matter — the call to love Christ as a response to his sacrifice on the cross. First of all, this is an absolutely valid critique of what religion should not be. If it is just a set of rules and not a love affair, it is dead. You can’t have works without faith any more than you can have faith without works. But the idea that following rules is inherently contradictory to loving Christ flies in the face — yet again — not of religion, but of Christ. He says, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Love of Christ requires obedience to his commands. You cannot have one without the other. 

Our man then clarifies — He loves the Bible. This is interesting. Did Christ hand out Bibles before he ascended into Heaven? No. The Bible is the product of a religion. A religion is called Catholicism.“If Jesus came to your church, would they let him in?”
Um, yes. We actually snagged a picture.

So this is awkward. 

But in all seriousness, the last part of the video is awesome. It’s a darn good explanation of how Christ died for our sins, how we are saved not by our own merits, but by his Grace. I’m not sure why it goes against Christ to be a religion that teaches exactly what our man is teaching in this video. 

“Because I believe that when Jesus said ‘It is Finished’, he meant it.” When Jesus said it is finished he died, and yes, without a doubt, his sacrifice was found acceptable to God. It truly is finished — nothing can take away the fact that we have been redeemed. But we can choose to reject this redemption. That’s why after the Resurrection, Christ appeared to Peter — upon whom he had said he would build His Church — and told him “feed my lambs.” Christ knew we would need instruction, guidance and example. Jesus established a Church to proclaim to the end’s of the earth that “It is Finished.” He established a religion to make known his salvation. I reject the video’s message, not simply because it wades in the shallows of theology, forever fearing to plunge into the depths of what Christ actually did here on Earth, but because it is lonely. It is a call to figure out the mysteries of God on one’s own, with nothing but a book one must deny was given to him by religion. No, this is silly. God gave us a Church to aid us on the journey, so that we might be one. To love Jesus and hate religion is equivalent to calling upon a doctor and smashing all his instruments when he arrives. 

This my basic critique. It is not a true defense of the concept of religion, which I defend not so much as something good or bad, but as an urge as primordial and wonderful as sex and song. It isn’t a small thing that we seek to understand, it is the framework of our universe, by which we understand everything else. But as usual, the Internet isn’t big enough for all that. Still, it’s only fair that if we started with a stylized, anti-religion video, we can end with a stylized pro-religion video: 

Popular Catechetics Lied To Me, pt 122

James Joyce used an ipatch to do his writing. Haha...

January 13th is the anniversary of the death of novelist, James Joyce (d. 1941). Joyce was an Irish writer, poet and, to make this about us, an influence on William Faulkner by introducing the "stream-of-consciousness" style of writing. Later known as "blogging".

During my days in seminary, there was this cute thing hip-young priests, short-haired sisters in Birkenstocks, and poofy haired housewives-cum-theologians known as DRE's, would say: "As the writer James Joyce said, 'Catholic means '"here comes everybody"''" or the even bolder, "As James Joyce wrote in his work Finnegan's Wake, 'Catholic means "here comes everybody"".



Not willing to admit that I haven't read any of Joyce's works nor familiar with Ulysses, I would laugh knowingly and puff my pipe in the drawing room along with the other lads. In my smoking jacket and slippers.

Today, thinking of Joyce's quote, I decided to check it out on the internet. The only thing that is said about him defining "Catholicism" as "Here Comes Everybody" comes from people saying he said it. Religious people. DRE kind of people. Jesuits who wear turtlenecks and use clay chalices. Holy smart people. Who wear stonewear around their neck. Smart.

But no Joyce scholar has said it and it comes up nowhere in Joyce's quotations. There's even a discussion on a dead Amy Welborn site that argues the invalidity of the statement and THE PLOT TO CORRUPT THE CHURCH by using it. But, then again, the Open Tabernacle (sic) uses it for their theme. Themes. Muhahaha. How DRE'y!

A catechetical (sic) book named for a quote that wasn't about the Church

A book on Catholic education (sic) named for the quote not meant about Catholicism.

Turns out, on the Welborn link, someone had the presence of mind to READ JOYCE and find the quote. Nothing. So the blame goes to Flannery O' Connor (I've read her stuff, by the way) who also said no such thing.

Much to my suspicions, it was untrue. And Joyce? Far from being portrayed as a struggling Catholic, was sort of comfortable with non-belief or at least a belief in a benign God who was not really invested in humanity. Or that's what the internet says.

LOL CATZ NOES MOAR THEN CATUKISTS!

Internet, Internet. You shatter again the illusions of my neo-Catholic upbringing. What's the next veil to drop? Gonna tell me that Tai-Chi isn't a Catholic form of bodily expression like the Spiritual Formation director told me in seminary? Women were not deacons in the Church like the seminars on vocations say?  I guess you'll tell me that liturgists aren't building up the city of God with glad tambourine!

Touch me with your truth, Google. I shall be healed.

Baptism: POWER!

We celebrate the Feast of Our Lord's Baptism today. This completes the trifecta of Epiphanies: Saturday commemorated the Wedding at Cana (it was the gospel reading anyway), yesterday featured the visit of the Magi and today is the Baptism of Christ.

The Second Vatican Council instructed:
The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in holy orders and those in the state of religious life specially approved by the Church. These faithful are by baptism made one body with Christ and are constituted among the People of God; they are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly functions of Christ; and they carry out for their own part the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world. (Lumen Gentium, V.31).

I highlighted the buzz words in the document because those words, sadly, have become fighting words. People see baptism as conferring POWER on them instead of functions that serve. POWER hunger has been a downfall of the Church from the beginning. Remember those boys in Jesus' company wanting authority? Spoiler alert: They didn't get it. When anyone thinks he or she should be given POWER and doesn't get it, it creates division and unhappiness. Jesus only promises service, not POWER. Unless it's the power to serve.

When you think you have to fight for POWER, then you're not happy to serve. When you're happy to serve, you see you gain power.

Wow, I just said something Kung-Fu like.

"Master Po, many candles make much light. And provides romantic ambiance for relaxing bath."

For some reason this morning I was reminded of something a speaker said at one of the Diocesan education conferences I was made to happy to attend in the 90's. His name escapes me but what he said was: "People say they are 'called by baptism' and they talk about joy in being Christian. How come we have so many people talking about joyful praise and joyful music and joyful communities but when you see the way they treat their neighbor or the way they talk about other people, you would think they weren't baptized by water but by lemon juice!"

He then made this really sour face and talked in a nasally affected way.

Christians, be happy and baptized! Serve someone. Serve your neighbor. Call your momma. Do something selfless. Thank someone who you admire.

Chant this mantra that I just made up:
Don't be sour and seek power, serve and know how to..umm...lurve.

I'm more religious than spiritual. I just don't like disorganized spirituality.

His name is Janus..haha

January! The great two-faced god Janus looks wistfully at the past while facing the future which may inspire many of us mere mortals to make resolutions for the new year. We have seen our past and want to change for the future. So we resolve.
We resolve to exercise. We resolve to go to church. We resolve to lose weight. We resolve to not drink. We resolve to give up cigarettes. We resolve to not butter the monkey. Resolve. Resolve. Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeesolve.

Now some of us follow through. I'd suspect a small percentage but some actually do what we resolved to do.
Some actually try and decide, for whatever reason, it's not for us or just not working out. Off goes the spanx and on with the sweatpants. Done. Pass the mayonnaise.
Some....and this is to my point...some of us decide that if we were to keep our resolution, something must change. And what must change is EVERYTHING BUT THE PERSON HIMSELF!

Be free of all possession. Shop now.

And so, every turn of the year, I get a visit. From a seeker. One making A JOURNEY. One who wants to get back into Church BUT...the Church isn't making it easy on them. Y'see, the journeyer is more SPIRITUAL! They don't care for ORGANIZED RELIGION! They don't like the RULES! They just want to COEXIST! And have a bumper sticker to prove it.

So let me go over my SPIRITUALITY FOR THOSE WHO ARE MORE SPIRITUAL talk:
1. We're all spiritual. Spirit is raw, untapped and untamed. Like the mind and body without discipline. As the mind must be trained by reading, thinking, logic, and problem solving and the body corrected through diet, exercise and training, the spirit has to be trained as well. It has it's own innate talent but needs training. It's like...well, let's say...it's like Dexter.

Nunanannananananaah (Bionic man noise)

Ecce homo!* You see the sinewy determination, the primal strength and if you gaze long enough can even see the vapor trails emanating from his swift form.

Spirit.

But all that talent in the rough needs to be trained and honed. Tempered and tested. Tugged on by a big moustachioed man.

Owies!

2. Religion is the trainer and proving ground of spirituality. It's the goal posts and the sidelines. It's the 2 minute warning and the call under further review. It takes that native energy and makes it fit for cooperation, corporation, selflessness and pursuant to a goal. It puts it on a team and sets boundaries which in turn draws admiration from others. Because to see talent exercised within the parameters of order is what packs stadiums. It is organized. It's organized spirits. It's a franchise!**

I believe a man can fly

To just watch a guy run unbridled, probably not gonna make the ESPN lineup. However, those who prefer their spirits to run free don't care who watches. So let those spirits run free. Stride with abandon.  Let the wind carry your feet! Text and drive! Rock on!

Spirituality without religion is this guy. Maybe EXACTLY like this guy. Nice speedos, Aquababy!

*which means "behold the man". Just wanted to clarify.
**Ok, so the whole excellence analogy fails with the Chiefs but you get the message.

The liturgy is to blow the mind

Hogwarts liturgy?

From the New York Daily News online:
The 84-year-old Benedict looked tired during Mass, but his voice was strong, and he smiled and chatted briefly with families and young children who carried gifts to him during the ceremony. He seemed amused by one pacifier-sucking infant as the parents kneeled before the pope.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-benedict-xvi-young-people-builders-peace-article-1.999439#ixzz1iPUP9rtl

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? Womyn children dressed as the magi? And the pope CHATTING with the gift bearers?

Oh, Roman Liturgy, I love you. I just do.

Turns out, hipsters kinda like us.

The Local Voice

I picked up the local hipster paper, The Local Voice, while buying some last minute Christmas gifts (ie: liquor). Like most privately published weekly papers in cities or college towns, it highlights bands, entertainment, harps on sports and beats up politicans, and is highly inbred with in-jokes and referencing the groovy crowd in a if-you-don't-know-this-person-then-you're-not-cool way (like the Jackson Free Press or Mississippi Catholic..ha!).

Strangely, for the otherwise leftist stance, the Local Voice is VERY pro-Colonel Reb. Odd that a symbol retired due to it's implied insensitivity to race and culture is the unofficial mascot of the paper. He's fun to draw, I guess.

Just the same, the year end issue is the one I grabbed and yesterday, while looking it over, I noticed that the LV had a LOCAL FAVORITES of the year section. I was surprised by some of the results:

Wiggum gotta gun!

 In the FAVORITE Clergy member, turns out, I'm like #11 in Honorable Mention. WOOO HOOO! Considering the Public Servant Category has "None of Them" as their third, that's saying something. I'm like the Chief Wiggum of clergy!







But even better, there was a CHURCH category!

Next to the Liquor Stores and over the Tattoo Parlor, FAVORITE CHURCH in the Number 3 position is
ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST!
AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW YEAH!

Next year, let's get number one. Imma grow a soul patch and make ironic references to My Little Pony and joke about something that happened at Main Squeeze that you had to be there to know. The choir will wear flannel shirts and moustaches and what was once donuts and coffee on Sunday morning is now tofu and PBR.

LET'S DO THIS!

The Liturgy as P.F. Chang's

The Hispanic Mass. The multicultural liturgy for Pentecost. The diversity of song and dance for the contemporary Mass. Catholics in America have become used to "festive" liturgies and other ways that highlight the global family we are.

Danza! Danza! Danza!

When I was in seminary, it seemed that monthly we'd have a cultural Mass with afterwards, no kidding, a dinner highlighting the central culture's food..Among the kultur-Masses was an African Mass (which is a continent, by the way), a German Mass, a Chinese Mass, and a very ill-advised African-American Mass which had our rector intoning the Mass parts in a vaudeville baritone.

Hip young priest celebrates Mass in Kinte Cloth reflecting his heritage...emm...broadmindedness.

I'm not a fan of multicultural. It's silly. But I usually don't say much about the silliness because it's sort of the thing to do and I may come off as sort of a xenophobe. Which I may be. But the silly?

I'm more confident in the silliness now after reading this article Sunday.

Professor Haley's book

This USM professor, Andrew Haley, provokes the reader to think of how all this multicultural food appeared and what does it say about our tastes (pun intended) as a culture? Well, it says we're middle class! Which is not a bad thing to be culturally. But awful as THE BRIDE OF CHRIST! The Church should not be reflective of any social  "taste" or "trend" nor should she  be "middle" anything. But I am afraid we have become very middle (and slipping).

The love of all things diverse is obvious. Just look at the excitement "anglos" have over the Guadalupe Fiestas of last week. That's not about our faith. It's about being entertained culturally. Or feeling very cosmopolitan but not having to travel. Haley says this in the article that has some good value to the way we think of our Liturgies and Mass:

"I would argue that in the 19th century American culture is shaped by upper class elite taste, whereas in the 20th century the middle class has come to define how we eat, the music we listen to, the way we dress," Haley said.It's also changed the food landscape of places like our very own Hattiesburg. Ever wonder why you have your pick of Thai, Middle Eastern, Japanese, Chinese and Italian restaurants in the heart of a Southern city?"

Haley goes on to say that the restaurants don't exist for the cultures that produced the food but for the middle class, largely white people, who desire the exotic tastes. Sound familiar?

The book is called "Turning the Tables". Interesting title in context. Maybe our tables need to be turned..back and our culture as Catholics be put in the class we deserve.

Fungus Among Us

Ew. Looks likes something you'd see in a restroom off 55-S

" A communion wafer that fell to the floor at a South St. Paul church and turned blood red is not a miracle. Twin Cities archdiocese officials said Wednesday that the discoloration was instead caused by a fungus.

While the Catholic Church fully recognizes the possibility of miracles and remains open to their possibility, it does so with extreme scrutiny, investigation and care. This incident was the result of natural biological causes and should not be considered in any other way."http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/135632408.html

In seminary, a professor of Biblical studies told us to be cautious against Eucharistic miracles. He said that even though they may be compelling, he didn't see them as his Risen Lord. The Church herself warns the faithful to not make miracles a reason for believing. Jesus even said, "Blest are those who have not seen yet believe  (Jn 20:29)."

Yikes.

My life has been virtually miracle free. Well, as far as seeing anything miracle-y. I consider that to be a favor from God and not some kind of diss. At Our Lady of Lourdes, the nuns would tell the most gory tales of Eucharistic miracles and, personally, it creeped me out. I prayed God not send any apparitions, bleeding statues, hosts or walls or have anything burning yelling at me. I'll just pray, listen and obey. He, at least, held up his end of the bargain.

Happy Christmas (War is Over)

Rarely do I go full out all hippy-dippy but I am very thrilled that the US Troops are coming home from Iraq. It's been too long and there's plenty of living to do over here.

This NY Times photo shows a soldier packing up in Iraq

So, Happy Christmas, vets. War is Over. Welcome Home. Here's a hit of John Lennon:

NO CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS!!!

It was sort of a non-issue growing up. When my mom was ready, she'd go up in the attic and we'd pull out the Christmas decorations; tree ornaments, garlands, plastic elves (my favorite!), felt reindeer, and so on and put them up. Just did it. Maybe a week or two before Christmas. We'd get our tree from the high school's Christmas tree sale where old Mr. Radigan would take our money and offer us coffee. That was about 2 weeks before Christmas. All was calm, all was bright.

Then it seemed that priests and sisters and lay minsters began to say with the DOGMATIC AUTHORITY OF STUFF THAT THEY HEARD IN A WORKSHOP: "NO CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS BEFORE CHRISTMAS!" The offense they'd take when they'd see a creche or a reindeer in a church office would throw them into a liturgical rant unlike (seriously) any they have at any other time of year! Even some priests said, "NO CHRISTMAS PARTIES! WE CALL THEM 'ADVENT PARTIES'". When you take the "Christmas" out of "Christmas" party, even though it's all the same thing, it still sucks a little bit more.

So anyway, I saw this picture today of the Pope. Today. The Pope.

 
  Pope Benedict XVI leads his general audience in Paul VI hall at the Vatican Dec. 14. The hall's Nativity scene was handcrafted in Mexico. The Christmas tree is from Ukraine. (CNS/Paul Haring)

 So, there.

Rose on the Third Week

In the 8th century, the papal laundry mixed the whites with reds thus starting the tradition of rose vestments. Nah, kidding. But kinda funny.

Tomorrow is the 3rd Sunday in Advent. Because of the entrance antiphon's opening lines "Rejoice in the Lord always" (Phil 4:4), this Sunday is known as "Gaudete" Sunday. For the slow on the uptake, "gaudete" means "rejoice".

This Advent, I've been using the thematic of the "Four Last Things" or "novissima" to direct my homilies. Those things are "Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell". Advent is not just the waiting period before Christmas but is a season that anticipates Christ's Second Coming. Although it may be coincidental with the shopping days left til Christmas, Advent isn't about rushing to get things done but we are told over and over to make haste, that is, to be quick in preparing for Jesus. So what better way than thinking of the GREAT BEYOND!

The first week, I spoke about "Death". Not really the kind of thing that inspires thoughts of candycanes and sparklies but as it's been said, "None of us gets out of here alive". Jim Morrison said that. And he's dead. So he was right.

The second week, last week, was about Judgment. I don't really know what I said but it brought over a hundred folks to confession. A psychologist in town said one of his clients had mentioned my homily during therapy. Which was weird but kinda awesome.

Everything looks good through rose colored glasses. Except the wearer.

Tomorrow, the third week, we look at Heaven. And lo! It is a bright cheery rose candle! Out of the gloom comes the hope for Heaven. In the early church, the color signified the fast during Advent could be broken temporarily.  A little taste of Heaven? The priest is allowed to wear rose as well (and, as many have said, it's not "pink") during Mass.

I know nothing of the dress code in Heaven but I don't know of anyone who can be sad while wearing rose. So maybe dig up something of that hue for tomorrow's Mass and "Rejoice"!

VESTMENT WATCH: What color did you priest wear this weekend? Did he call it pink? I bet at least one priest calls it pink.

SBC?

The bucket now known as KFC

"What if Southern Baptists were no longer called Southern Baptists? Would more people walk through church doors? Some leaders in the nation's largest Protestant denomination say it's an idea that needs to be considered for an evangelistic faith with declining membership.A task force asked to study that question made its recommendation to Southern Baptist Convention President Bryant Wright on Wednesday...."
http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20111209/NEWS01/112090312/Southern-Baptists-study-possible-name-change?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Seems the Southern Baptist Convention is having a tough time with gaining members. Part of the reason, I'd surmise, is the hardline teachings concerning issues that run afoul of current leanings in civil rights. It looks like although the name will change, the substance will stay the same.Like KFC!

This isn't just a Baptist issue. It's not like Catholics haven't had to go through some name changes. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that is charge of promulgating and promoting Catholicism throughout the world used to be called "The Holy Office of the Inquisition".

Then there's the whole "let's put Catholic in our titles lest people think we're too liberal" movement that jumped up in the '90's in response partly to Catholic conservatives withdrawing support for initiatives they thought to be off the mark of Catholic principles. Thus we have the  CATHOLIC Campaign for Human Development (formerly Campaign for Human Development) on the national level and in our diocese, the Bishop's paper changed to the Mississippi CATHOLIC (formerly Mississippi Today).

Some would argue they still use the same herbs and spices.