Here is a quick line from an article by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal, an article definitely worth the read:

Oh, you miss that old man when you are here! You feel the presence of his absence. The souvenir shops know. They sell framed pictures and ceramic plates of the pope: John Paul. Is there no Benedict? There is. A photo of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger being embraced by . . . John Paul. It’s now on my desk in New York. They have their hands on each other’s shoulders and look in each other’s eyes. A joyful image. They loved each other and were comrades.When I was writing a book about John Paul, I’d ask those who’d met him or saw him go by: What did you think, or say? And they’d be startled and say, “I don’t know, I was crying.”John Paul made you burst into tears. Benedict makes you think. It is more pleasurable to weep, but at the moment, perhaps it is more important to think.A Vatican reporter last week said John Paul was the perfect pope for the television age, “a man of images.” Think of the pictures of him storm-tossed, tempest-tossed, standing somewhere and leaning into a heavy wind, his robes whipping behind him, holding on to his crosier, the staff bearing the image of a crucified Christ, with both hands, for dear life, as if consciously giving Christians a picture of what it is to be alive.Benedict, the reporter noted, is the perfect pope for the Internet age. He is a man of the word. You download the text of what he said, print it, ponder it.

Here’s an update on that post about that website “Catholics Come Home”
, with those stunning videos. As you recall, the two most popular ads were “Epic” and “Movie”, where different people sit alone in a hanger and watch the movie of their lives, seeing all the bad things they did, and the good. The Catholic News Agency has just published an article about the extraordinary results of these ads. Here are a few quotes from that article:

-In less than three weeks, 3,000 Catholics returned to the Church in the Diocese of Phoenix due to the effort of a new lay apostolate, CatholicsComeHome.org

-In Phoenix, the commercials were aired on all major television networks and also ESPN, Lifetime, FOX News and others. After the first commercial campaign, not only did the diocese report a marked increase in Mass attendance, but over “31,000 unique visitors came to the website from Phoenix and other US cities plus 60 foreign countries, with questions, to look up Mass times, to read information on marriage issues, to watch testimonies or to order Matthew Kelly’s book, ‘Rediscovering Catholicism.’”

-The feedback received from the group was outstanding. Seventy-eight of the 100 participants had positive responses to the ads. In another assessment, the organization found that before watching the videos, 90% of the participants had negative impressions of the Catholic Church. After viewing ads one time, 54% had a much more favorable impression. Hearts and minds were changed after viewing these creative and inspired ads.

-The reaction to the video has been overwhelmingly positive. Viewers commented, “After seeing ‘Epic’, it made me proud to be Catholic.” Priests have noted that the video made them feel “re-invigorated about their vocation.” The video also has touched former Catholics who have said that the video showed the truth about the Church – “truth that they haven’t seen in decades.” The second commercial, “Movie” has a different effect. Peterson described the ad as mirroring the Book of Revelation which states that we will give an account of our lives at the end of time. “Most people are brought to tears when they watch “Movie,” said Peterson. It shows that though Jesus’ divine mercy, “no matter what we’ve done, we can accept the mercy of Jesus who will help us create the perfect ending to each of our lives.”

Plus the Pope has sent a video message to Americans, now on You Tube, in which he tells them about how eager he is to be with them, thanking them for the preparations and inviting them to pray, since without prayer, all that organisation ends up being pretty useless. The theme: Christ our Hope. Very exciting! This visit will be something to watch and read about.

Doesn’t being A Christian mean somehow that we have met the risen Christ, that we live now not just for him, but with Him?

Every Easter season we read the passage of Luke’s Gospel about two disciples on their way to Emmaus, a town outside Jerusalem. This Gospel account is about a journey that often reflects our own lives. On this journey a man joins the two disciples of Jesus as they walk and discuss the terrible events that had just happened to Jesus in Jerusalem. They do not recognize this man but they welcome him. The stranger inquires of them why they seem so sad. And they ask ‘have you not heard what they did to Jesus the Nazarene? A prophet mighty in in deeds and word!’

And then this stranger explains the Scriptures to them starting with Moses and all the prophets.

He asks: “Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his Glory?”
So well did this man interpret the scriptures for them that their hearts were burning within them, yet they still did not recognize that this man who joined them was Jesus, their Lord and Messiah.

Isn’t our faith sometimes like this? We try living with Christian values, with Christian ideals, and yet we often live our lives without recognizing that Christ is with us on our journey.

Unfortunately we as Christians often do not know our sacred story, our holy past, because of this we do not know who we are.

Questions of who I am, where do I come from, why am I the way I am, are fundamental and existential questions!
We need to ask this about our Christian identity too. We must not be cut off from our sacred past. Cardinal Ouellete of Quebec has often spoken to the youth telling them that they should know their heritage, know who they are, and who they are called to be.

This Easter, during the Saturday night vigil, after reading many passages of sacred scripture, (our sacred story of salvation), 11 people became Catholic, four were Baptized, then confirmed with five others, and two made a profession of Catholic faith. It was a beautiful celebration, it was a celebration of the light of the risen Christ we had come to encounter.

To get to this point of entering the Church each of these people had to discover the sacred story of the faith, and thus discover too who they were before God; they were called to encounter Christ who was calling them to be disciples.

Jesus gives us complete freedom however to invite him into our lives, to be Children in the Risen Son. Like the disciple at Emmaus, we must not miss our chance to invite him to stay with us. When the the three travelers arrived in Emmaus, Jesus seems to take his leave of them, but the two Disciples ask him to stay and eat supper with them. Lucky for us Jesus hesitates long enough for them to call out to him. Jesus is always waiting for us to call out to him. It is only when Jesus breaks bread with the two that they recognize him.

What does it mean to have the name of Christian? It means that our hearts should be burning within at our encounter with the risen Lord. This can only happen if we come to recognize him. Like the disciples of Emmaus we will recognize him at the breaking of the bread.

Christ is risen and he is among us. Our sacred story, the history that gives us our identity, is celebrated and given full significance at the breaking of the bread, at the Eucharistic Table, where we know that Christ is manifesting himself. Christ is coming to our encounter.

The whole episode of this Gospel passage of Emmaus is a foreshadowing of our Eucharistic liturgy, of the way we are called to allow Christ to assure us of his continued work of grace in our lives. We celebrate his word and then we renew ourselves at his divine supper. Only then can we too go out and proclaim truly ‘the Lord is risen indeed, and has shown himself to us; we have encountered him, we have celebrated him together. We know who we are, we are his brothers and sisters, disciples and Children of God.

“SQPN : Leading the Way in Catholic New Media“.

SQPN is the website host of– among other things– That Catholic Show. A lot of good stuff there, including quality podcasts.

Looking for a soulmate? Perhaps you know someone who has been on the lookout. Many people are desperately looking for someone they can love and give themselves to completely, for life. Indeed, it is not infrequent to find some good Catholics who would love to settle down and get married, but they just don’t find the person that shares their most basic principles. Lifelong fidelity in marriage is one of the beautiful fruits of a holy matrimony, so it is logical that one would want to facilitate that fidelity as much as possible. How do you find someone who shares the same basic principles of what is truly important in life, like faith, openness to life, work, etc? Some people have looked long and hard, but are just not ready to settle for someone who is nice, kind, enjoyable, but does not have an active or vibrant faith. Websites have gone a long way to match people up. Some of them charge considerable fees and are not always successful. And what is the point of finding Mr. or Ms. Right when they live half way across the globe? So there here is an initiative in Montreal for people who live here or around here and would like to meet other practicing Catholics and see if they can connect. It is just in its beginnings, but may prove successful in bringing about those lifelong connections. The site is called The Montreal & South Shore Catholic Meetup. Clearly, the name says it all. It is totally free; all you have to do is register and participate in any of the events you prefer. It is not the most traditional way to meet people, but if works, why not?

Just so Adventus readers know, I’m off on retreat for a week. I’ll be back to continue our lively debates on April 1. Happy Easter, and God bless!

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the duty of Christians to promote the dignity of the human person, given that we are created in the image and likeness of God. Modern society typically codifies the practical dimension of this dignity in the forms of legal charters, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In such charters, there is usually an operational equivalence principle, in that the legal text does not elevate one right or freedom over another (i.e. they are held in a legal balance with each other). While this works as a legal principle, however, it makes for poor philosophy: certain rights DO necessarily govern others, or else the system itself does not make sense. For example, the right to life is often quoted as an ontologically supreme right, for if a person’s life is terminated all other rights disappear at the same time.

In reflecting on this situation, however, I am increasingly convinced that the right to life is not actually the supreme human right, but rather a particular package of religious rights. This is because the supreme human duty is to live according to one’s conscience: to do otherwise is to be a hypocrite, and a certain measure of moral honesty is one of the foundations of a stable society. Corresponding to the living according to one’s conscience, however, is the duty to inform one’s conscience by the sincere seeking of Truth: after all, if we must adhere to our conscience as a supreme duty, we owe it to ourselves to make sure that the specific duties and interdictions our conscience imposes upon us are actually founded on more that just habit or socialization.

This duty to live according to our conscience gives rise to a corresponding right: the right to live according to our conscience, especially the right to be free of coercion with regards to the specific duties and interdictions discerned by our conscience. This does not mean that we can claim the right to behave however we choose, simply because our inner voice of conscience says something is ok; but it does mean that, while society may have the right to proscribe certain *actions* on our part, if they affect the common good, that same society does not have the right to regulate our *beliefs*.

It is the consequences arising from this set of duties that elevates religious rights beyond even the right to life: because while the right to life concerns our physical life, the right to freedom of conscience concerns our eternal life. Within the Christian understanding, for example, a Christian has the *duty* to accept martyrdom for his faith in Jesus Christ, were it to come to that, rather than deny Christ and continue to live. From God’s point of view, then, the right to life (in this case) is trumped by the duty of fidelity to the Son of God. The reward, of course, is immediate entry into Heaven, while the penalty for the opposite (if left unrepented) is damnation. The stakes could not be higher, and so Christians *must* struggle to see religious rights secured throughout the world, even for non-Christians.

In practical terms, though, what are these religious rights? UNESCO has an excellent page on the Internet devoted to exactly this question, and in particular I’d draw your attention to the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief as a good starting point for the study of the question.

Finally, I’d like to suggest that the acceptance of the supremacy of conscience as arising from the positive duty to seek the Truth is the basis for the civic acceptance of religious beliefs. A religion or sect that claims that it is possible to “get to heaven” simply by following outward forms, without living a corresponding inner sincerity, is a religion that is basically promoting a sort of tyranny. Since “getting to heaven” is the supreme good, such a religion would be able to justify the worst forms of barbarism (such as torture) in the supposed promotion of salvation. There can be no genuine dialogue of faith with a group that does not believe in the freedom of conscience, because the duty to pursue Truth has no real value either. It would be interesting to see how the different religions of the world view the issue of salvation and the relationship between salvation, conscience and truth. I suspect we would discover some surprising viewpoints, which in turn would help us navigate the waters of the religious pluralism we see today.

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa recently made quite a stir when he stated that, in certain situations, he might be compelled to refuse communion to Catholic politicians who fail to uphold Catholic moral teaching in the exercise of their functions (in particular, in the question of abortion). In addition to print media commentary on the issue, you can also listen to a radio interview he did on the topic.

Many people were quite upset by this, of course, and gave many of the usual arguments, including the issue of the separation of Church and State. In such a view, a politician may have his own personal views on a particular matter, but must represent all his constituents including those who are not Catholics. Therefore, he can somehow be a good Catholic and still support a non-Catholic moral viewpoint at the same time.

In my view, the Catholic faith has no problem with the separation of Church and State, especially since Jesus himself told us to give to Caesar what belong to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God. The issue is not separation, but superiority. Simply put, God is superior to Caesar. If a politician dies and comes before God’s throne of judgement, the Lord is going to judge him based on the whole of his life. The fact that he was an elected official for a particular point of time does not exempt him from moral judgement — as far as I know, the simple fact of being elected does not exempt anyone from the moral law.

Now some people will argue that this means Catholic politicians will therefore never get elected, because the people themselves are not all Catholic. There are two responses to this argument.

First of all, we need to recognize that a politician is a representative, not a mouthpiece. In other words, do we elect politicians to represent our views, or our best interests? If the former, a politician is then reduced to becoming a mere mouthpiece of the mob, and we go looking for the person best able to parrot our point of view. If the latter, on the other hand, a politician is a thinker and a leader, someone able to come to grips with the complexities of modern society and to best be able to promote the common good within it. In my opinion, we should not be picking people who blow with whatever wind happens to prevail within a constituency; we should be picking people with the spine to stand tall even if the wind is blowing at hurricane force.

Secondly, I would like to point out that a politician is called to be a leader, not a follower. If he or she has a particular idea that s/he believes is the best course of action for society, he must promote that idea and *get people to see its wisdom*. A good politician is an instrument of positive social transformation, even if that transformation is not (at the moment) popular with the crowd — by transforming the people themselves.

I remember I once was chatting with a political candidate in a national election. I asked him how he might vote on a question like abortion. He replied that, if the issue came up, he would hold “town hall” meetings in his riding, and then vote in Parliament according to the consensus that emerged. His answer disgusted me, and I told him so. He was startled at my reaction, and I explained to him that if the issue was slavery (for example), we might be still be cursed with that particular form of social cancer today. The point was not lost on him — as he was black.

Politics is the art of the possible, of course, so sometimes there is only so much a politician can do in a particular time and place — but no matter what, he or she can and must work to make justice a little more possible. One may disagree with the Catholic understanding of justice and the common good, of course, and in that respect a lively debate can then emerge. But one cannot claim to believe that the Catholic Church is the carrier of the authentic teaching of the Son of God and then fail to uphold that teaching. Either we do not really believe it, or we don’t love our neighbours enough to promote a position that, in theory, is best for them and for society. The issue of taking communion is really besides the point, in some ways. What it really comes down to is having the inner integrity to hold fast to Christ no matter what, and to love our neighbour with a Christ-like love. To profess faith in Christ and yet do otherwise is like kissing Christ in the Garden of Gethsemene — and hopefully none of us want to turn out like the guy who did *that*.

From a comment on my personal blog, 2000 Stories, a reader makes the following suggestion:

Have you heard of Marriage Encounter?
The Worldwide Marriage Encounter weekend is a positive and personal experience offering married couples an opportunity to learn a technique of loving communication that they can use for the rest of their lives. It’s a chance to look deeply into their relationship with each other and with God. It’s a time to share their feelings, hopes and dreams with each other.

Can you add a link to your website?

Just did. Thank you!