I am currently reading through the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and I thought these paragraphs quite appropriate concerning the HHS mandate.

398. Authority must enact just laws, that is, laws that correspond to the dignity of the human person and to what is required by right reason. “Human law is law insofar as it corresponds to right reason and therefore is derived from the eternal law. When, however, a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; in such a case it ceases to be law and becomes instead an act of violence”.[816] Authority that governs according to reason places citizens in a relationship not so much of subjection to another person as of obedience to the moral order and, therefore, to God himself who is its ultimate source.[817] Whoever refuses to obey an authority that is acting in accordance with the moral order “resists what God has appointed” (Rom 13:2).[818] Analogously, whenever public authority — which has its foundation in human nature and belongs to the order pre-ordained by God [819] — fails to seek the common good, it abandons its proper purpose and so delegitimizes itself.

c. The right to conscientious objection

399. Citizens are not obligated in conscience to follow the prescriptions of civil authorities if their precepts are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or to the teachings of the Gospel.[820] Unjust laws pose dramatic problems of conscience for morally upright people: when they are called to cooperate in morally evil acts they must refuse.[821] Besides being a moral duty, such a refusal is also a basic human right which, precisely as such, civil law itself is obliged to recognize and protect. “Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane”.[822]

It is a grave duty of conscience not to cooperate, not even formally, in practices which, although permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to the Law of God. Such cooperation in fact can never be justified, not by invoking respect for the freedom of others nor by appealing to the fact that it is foreseen and required by civil law. No one can escape the moral responsibility for actions taken, and all will be judged by God himself based on this responsibility (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).

The whole HHS mandate thing just gets more and more depressing.  They have successfully framed the debate to go into every rabbit hole but the one concerning the free exercise of religion which the Constitution recognizes (not creates) as a right.  The Goebbelization of telling a lie long enough and often enough has formed the vapid substance of the opposition.  Avoiding talking about freedom of religion and talking about contraception ad nauseam.

• When they talk about the cost of contraception.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• Some Catholic institutions take federal money so should have to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• That forced contraceptive coverage will not cost anybody more. Even if you accept that nonsense:

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• That the birth control pill is sometimes used for other things besides contraception.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• That the Catholic laity are unfortunately lax in regards to the truth of Church teaching.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• No matter what pragmatic or utilitarian argument you make relating to this.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

The thing is either we have freedom of religion or we don’t.  If I am forced to do something against my conscience with the bully weight of government threatening me with fines or imprisonment they have violated the first amendment to the Constitution and ultimately the natural law rights that we have.

There is no right that a person has that insurance must be paid for by their employer.  This arose historically as a way for companies to attract people.  Companies should be totally free to choose what kind of coverage they have or no coverage at all and really it would be better for employers to get out of providing insurance instead raising salaries and letting individual buy their own coverage.  The medical insurance field would be much more competitive if this were to happen.

You just can’t compromise between an actual right and something that is not a right at all.  There is no suitable compromise when you start trading of your rights for some pottage of government programs.

I find it quite despicable this obvious assault on our freedom and those who try to deny that this is a violation.  I know there are men of good will, they just don’t seem to run for office and instead we have partisans on both sides who will shred the Constitution as long as they get something they want out of if.

“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”

Right now the conservatives are working very hard to prevent this mistake from being corrected by nominating a guy that shilled for the mandate at a federal level and forced Catholic hospitals to use Plan B. Four more years of President Obama and exactly what rights and freedoms will we have left?

This issue should be an all hands on deck reaction and not just an issue for faithful Catholics.

Considering all the attention on contraception and cost of birth control pills I started to wonder whatever happened to so-called “safe-sex”?  For years liberals have been lecturing us on condoms and their many wonders in making things safe.  They have charged popes with murder for not allowing them and even have legislated porn stars to wear them.

I guess they don’t believe their own propaganda regarding condoms.  After all they are much cheaper than birth control pills and no side effects other than sin.  There are certainly some using both condoms and the birth control pill as a backup, but even this shows they don’t trust condoms.  Here they are worried about a “unintended” pregnancy which can occur during a narrow windows yet an STD could be contacted at any time during the month.

Maybe some of the demonstrators from the Occupy Wall Street movement who threw condoms on Catholic schoolgirls could throw some Ms. Fluke’s way. Somehow I don’t think those who are crying about birth control pill costs would much like the suggestion to buy condoms instead.  I guess condoms are good enough to preach to school age kids, but not good enough for them.

In the Office of Readings from the Liturgy of the Hours the readings for Lent are from the book of Exodus with the obvious parallels of the Passover leading up to the celebration of Easter.  It seems every time I read through this section of the scriptures I am always amazed at the actions of the future Israelites.  Here were all these amazing miracles and yet they responded by whining and complaining at every turn.   They were taken so far and yet they had little hope or trust in God that he would continue to guide them.  Come on they went from the miracle of Passover, through the parting of the Red Sea, to erecting a Golden Calf. To paraphrase Bugs Bunny “What a bunch of maroons!”

I get to thinking how they could receive so much and acted so badly in return?  Though then I started to think about my own attitudes.  As a Catholic I get to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ every time I go to Mass.  Yet really how thankful am I for this.  The miracle of the Eucharist transcends all the miracles of the Old Testament where we saw all the prefigurements. The Incarnation is such a wonder and a mystery we can never fully plumb, yet I will spend more effort thinking how disturbing a drum kit is at Mass.  All the graces we are given and yet how often is their any kind of acknowledgment of this.  Jesus cured ten lepers yet only one returned to give thanks.  It is quite annoying to realize that I am walking off with the nine lepers that were cured.  Sure sometimes I am truly thankful, but most days I go on wondering what God was going to do for me next.  No matter how much God has worked in my life and cured me of some very serious sins, like the Israelites I forget the past and want the next thing now with hardly the trust I should have.

“Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” (Luke 7:47)

Well I have been forgiven much that is for sure, loving much – well not so much.

So I look in the mirror and resort back to Bugs Bunny “What a maroon!”

Humorlectics is a portmanteau I have coined roughly combining humor and homiletics. Humorlectics is a field I think gets short shrift in seminary. Though I also get the feeling that homiletics is an area that gets short shrift in the seminary.

I bring this up concerning the use of humor during a homily. Being a Jester and all I of course believe that humor can be used to make serious points and can certainly be prudently used in a homily. From my limited experience as a convert I have seen humor used both well and not so well.

So here are some of my general reflections on the subject:

• Starting with a joke: All homilies do not need to start off with a joke.  Some priests seem to do exactly this as kind of a crowd-breaker.  This view sees the laity as an audience that must be softened up first before you get to the meat.  This approach really goes downhill when the joke makes notpoint that is part of the theme of the homily.  Starting off a homily with a joke can be very effective when the punchline feeds the theme and emphasizes the points made later on. Trying to do this every time might work for some, but I haven’t seen it all that effective.
• The stand-up-priest or priest as entertainer: There are some that think the whole homily is a vehicle for a stand-up act.  I remember one priest in particular that had a great stand-up act that was hilarious and delivered with perfect comedic timing.  Walking out I had no idea what the spiritual points were, but I remembered how funny he was.  There is certainly a skill-set in speaking that helps to deliver a homily and emphasize the themes.  Protestants are sometimes very effective at this skill-set while Catholic priests seldom are. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was an perfect example of this ability.   Priests though should play to their own abilities and not try to shoe-horn on some style that is alien to them.  If you have some good humor skills and timing this might be usefully used.
• When it comes to humor, know your abilities and limitations: It is very awkward when you hear a priest deliver a joke rather badly or delivered in such a deadpan way with little or no comedic timing.  Homilies don’t require any level of humor.  My late-pastor and his assistant never used humor in their homilies.  This was simply not their style and they were comfortable in the homilies they delivered and I thought those homilies to be quite effective.  I never walked away thinking “Now if only that homily started out with a joke.”  I’ve also heard some homilies from priests who certainly had a sense of humor and used it well as a natural extension of themselves.  Priests like Fr. Groeschel can use a nice dry-wit tinged with irony to make their points.  Again, each person has their abilities and they should take advantage of them in communication their homily. Cardinal Dolan also knows how to use humor well without trampling over the actual message.

Now if only we had a “Humorlectics and Pastoral Review” magazine to help in this area.

I often like Deacon Greg Kandra blog The Deacon’s Bench with his general link coverage of a lot of what is going on. Though sometimes he can really annoy me. Sometimes I want the blog of The Deacon’s Bench to be benched, though really I just want a little more accuracy.

Case in point today with the headline “New call for divorced and remarried Catholics to be able to receive communion” and his post starting with:

It’s something the pope himself has said needs a closer look.

Immediately my theological spidey-sense when a-tingling. Sorry, but that is just totally mistaken as being connected with that headline. The idea that the Church will ever change the basic premise that those in objectively grave sin can received Communion is just plain ignorant. Before I did any research to check what the Pope has actually said on the subject I forecasted that the Pope was speaking in regards to pastoral considerations in how we deal with this situation, and not about receiving Holy Communion in this state.

Thankfully Canonist Ed Peters did the heavy lifting already on what the Pope has actually said or written and it was as I suspected.

If you are going to make claims such like what Deacon Greg Kandra wrote, he should have made some attempt to back it up. His later update was to an article in the Vatican Insider that had the same sloppiness with no recourse to what the Pope has actually written. As Ed Peters sums up:

But in the meantime, those who claim Benedict XVI as a proponent of formally admitting Catholics in irregular marriages to holy Communion need, I suggest, to parse more carefully what the pope actually said about this matter on various occasions, and to identify more carefully what he actually holds regarding this important question.

The Pope indeed has written on the subject and he wrote in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacrementum Caritatis under “The Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage”:

29. If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God’s love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires. (91) There was good reason for the pastoral attention that the Synod gave to the painful situations experienced by some of the faithful who, having celebrated the sacrament of Matrimony, then divorced and remarried. This represents a complex and troubling pastoral problem, a real scourge for contemporary society, and one which increasingly affects the Catholic community as well. The Church’s pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved.(92) The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion, listening to the word of God, eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in the life of the community, honest dialogue with a priest or spiritual director, dedication to the life of charity, works of penance, and commitment to the education of their children.

Sure I realize that blog posts are not intended for theological depths, but they shouldn’t lead you to believe something totally in error. Judging by the 84 comments so far I believe I am not the only one annoyed.