WYD 2011

BadCatholic blogger Marc Barnes recently posted this video that includes interviews with some brainwashed sheep impressive young Catholics who were among the 1.5 million pilgrims who attended World Youth Day in Madrid earlier this month:

This Is Why I Heart Thrift Stores

Where else can you part with four bucks and get a portrait of the only pope to be canonized in the last 439 years?

"Protest the Pope" = Epic Fail

The Daily Telegraph's Damian Thompson:

Consider the failure of the “Protest the Pope” stunt yesterday. On a sunny afternoon, in a city of 10 million people, a crowd of fewer than 10,000 protestors followed the anti-Catholic bandwagon. Richard Dawkins, Johann Hari, Stephen Fry et al may regard that as a good result, but if (at most) one Londoner in a thousand takes to the streets to register disapproval at the use of their taxes to host the Pope, then I’d say the secularists have misjudged the public mood, wouldn’t you? And look at what a thin demographic sliver of the population they represented: mostly white, middle-class, metropolitan. (Needless to say, none of them could be bothered to make the trek up to Birmingham: the Pope may be the atheists’ Antichrist, but you mustn’t let your principles get in the way of a lazy Sunday morning cappuccino.)

Compare the protestors to the Catholics in Hyde Park: old Polish ladies, tweedy gents from the shires, African hospital cleaners, self-consciously cool teenagers, Filipino checkout assistants and, as one of my friends put it, “some rather tarty-looking traveller women who’d obviously had a glass or two”. They don’t call it the Catholic Church for nothing: if not a universal cross-section of humanity, it was a damn sight closer to it than the humanist smugfest.

Reading this, I couldn't help but recall Oscar Wilde's quip that the Catholic Church is "for saints and sinners alone — for respectable people, the Anglican Church will do."

The Pope, St. Hildegard, and Authentic Supernatural Gifts

Starting last week, and continuing this week, Pope Benedict XVI focused in his Wednesday audience on what he referred to as the "Exemplary Ministry of Authority" of the ever fascinating St. Hildegard of Bingen (whose story, like that of so many others, really throws a spanner in the works of the tired old narrative that the medieval Catholic Church was oppressive to women or something).

Anyhow, what particularly caught my attention were these words from the Pope's address last week:

The sign of an authentic experience of the Holy Spirit, the source of all charisms, is that the individual possessing supernatural gifts never boasts of them, never shows them off and, above all, demonstrates complete obedience to ecclesiastical authority. All gifts distributed by the Holy Spirit are, in fact, intended for the edification of the Church and it is the Church, through her pastors, who recognises their authenticity.

The converse, of course, is also true. Namely: if an individual who supposedly possesses supernatural gifts does boast of them, or shows them off, or, above all, fails to demonstrate complete obedience to ecclesiastical authority, then sure as shootin', he's a fraud.

Some All Too Often Ignored Points about Church History

...from Mark Shea:

What simple-minded believers in this simple minded “Evil Empire Clerics vs. Plucky Rebel Alliance Laity” myth never seem to understand is that it was just as often the laity who were eagerly tanking up on the Blood Libel and chucking Jews down wells for the supposed crime of drinking the blood of Christian children while it was the clerics who were telling everybody to cool off and stop believing urban legends.

So, for instance, the simple tale of slavery turns out to be fraught with complexity, not least because it was not all laypeople opposing it (lots of laity got stinking rich off it) and it was not all clerics supporting it.  Slavery, it turns out, was an immemorial institution throughout all of human civilization and the way in which the Church engaged it simply cannot be boiled down to laity good/cleric bad.  Lots and lots and lots of laity had as little patience for the Church’s nuanced arguments for the dignity of the slave as readers like the one above have for the Church’s nuanced arguments for the distinction between the dignity of the homosexual person and the sin of homosexual intercourse.

Indeed, one of the ironies of the Church’s history is that, for most of it, the main charge brought against the Church is not that it is too conservative, but that it is too liberal.  It is the laity that, again and again, rushes off all agog for some form of extremist rigorism.  Had the Church listened to the “opinions and wisdom of the rest of the body of Christ” during the Donatist enthusiasm, we would have excommunicated large portions of the Body of Christ because they did not measure up to the hyper-rigorism of the Donatists, who held that any priest who did not measure up under persecution could not validly consecrate the Eucharist and any bishop who did not measure up could not validly ordain.  We would have caved in to Lollards who insisted that anybody not in a state of grace could not function as an agent of the state and need not be obeyed by citizens of that state.  Asking whether the cop who is arresting a mugger is in a state of grace may seem spiritual to some of our more ethereal members of the Body of Christ, but for most of us it is, as Chesterton noted, “wanting in actuality.”  Most Catholic heresies down through the ages have been attempts to keep as many people away from the grace of God as possible, urging the faithful to stay away from the Eucharist, shut up, and give up the hope of salvation.  The “wisdom” of the first antipope in history was that the Pope was a wuss who welcomed people back to communion far too easily, when what they needed was merciless rejection by the pure.

Indeed, the reason for the Church’s creation of a system of Inquisitions was precisely that laypeople were, in their profound wisdom that needed no guidance from celibate old men, already running around doing it on their own as vigilantes and lynch mobs.  Turns out the Church thought that having a system whereby the facts were obtained and evaluated in an orderly way was better than something like this.

Of course, most people get their history from Monty Python and therefore could not tell you five intelligent words from a primary source about what actually took place in an Inquisition (and yeah, there were more than one and they weren’t all in Spain).  Similarly, most people don’t seem to know that though God does indeed sometimes raise up “ordinary pwople to challenge the istitutional church of the time”, He also raises up clergy to challenge the easy assumptions of fat, dumb, and happy ordinary people, who are quite certain that, whatever Gregory X says, Jews are drinking the blood of Christian children; or that whatever out-of-touch Dominicans may say, Indians are natural slaves; or that whatever pantywaists like the pope and bishops say, the nuclear murder of thousands of Japanese or the torture of prisoners in the War on Terror is the glorious work of God; or that whatever the Church says about the value of human life, abortion is a beautiful right and the sole core value of the Democratic party.  Looking around at our violent, selfish and sex-besotted culture, I’m not immediately persuaded that we glorious laity are a civilization of St. Catherines who are prevented from flourishing in sanctity by the evil machinations of Benedict XVI.  This optimistic self-assessment, while quite in keeping with the enormously high self-regard of the Baby Boomers, fails to premise itself on much resembling “reality”.  One forms, rather, the impression that Benedict is a thoughtful, gentle, and holy man who is doing his best to speak the Church’s beautiful teaching to a braying horde of crazies compact of talk radio lackeys, cokeheads, horndogs, warmongers, sex maniacs and addicts of therapeutic moralistic deism who let Oprah or FoxNews do all their thinking for them.  That he maintains his gentle and thoughtful composure in the midst of such a TV-addled culture with the attention span of fruit flies is astounding to me.

Read the whole thing.

The Third Secret - Did The Pope Lie?

Asks Pat Archbold in the NCR.

The answer:

Um, no.

I have exactly no patience for those who believe that Pope John Paul II was part of some nefarious cover-up of what was supposedly really contained in the Third Secret of Fatima given to Sr. Lucia.

If you're going to cantankerously oppose what the Vatican says regarding Marian apparitions, you'd probably be better off paying no attention to them at all.

[HT: Creative Minority Report]

Heh

Some might argue that this is offensive inasmuch as it makes light of an important Catholic dogma. Indeed, The Onion does go too far at times — but I don't think this is one of them. As is typical of my reaction to most of the content therein, I couldn't help but laugh.

Regardless, it illustrates the widespread popular misunderstanding of what the Church really teaches about papal infallibility.

The American Papist comments, "Of course, no one besides Catholics ever seems to understand what infallibility really means when it is applied to the pope."

I disagree. While it is, of course, very common for non-Catholics to misunderstand of the doctrine of papal infallibility, I would say that many Catholics themselves — due primarily to poor catechesis, and to no fault of their own — don't understand it either.

For them that don't know, here's a concise explanation of what it means (and what it doesn't mean).

The 30th Anniversary of the Murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero

On this day in 1980, Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated while celebrating Mass in San Salvador, El Salvador.

I've had a special admiration for Archbishop Romero ever since I first saw the eponymous film about his life (and death). My admiration for him grew significantly when Jocelyn and I visited his tomb and the chapel where he was murdered during a trip to El Salvador 10 years ago.

When questioned about Romero by Italian journalists 3 years ago prior to his trip to South America, I was heartened to learn that Pope Benedict XVI remarked, "I have no doubt he will be beatified."

Here's the trailer for the movie:



As you can tell, this is no feel-good movie, but as far as showing the ugly reality of man’s inhumanity to man, and the insane brutality that so typified life in Central America in the last quarter of the last century, it’s amazing.

The closing scene, and a few others, too, are absolutely stunning — all the more so because despite some artistic license, the movie is depicting events that really happened.

Slandering Pope Pius XII

There is perhaps no historical canard for which I have less patience than the charge that Pope Pius XII was a feckless coward who "didn't do enough" to help Jews during the Holocaust.

There is no shortage of well-documented defenses of Pius, and if you've never read anything on this subject before, this article by Professor Ronald Rychlak is surely a good start.

More Questions Than Answers

Regarding my post on Bishop-elect Sirba earlier this week, Anonymous commented thusly:

I hope that Bishop-elect Sirba is an inclusive leader, and not exclusive, as so many of the church hierarchy seem to be leaning. What is his position on Vatican II, and is he a forward thinking bishop, not backward, as in this world of changing demographics, a leader in the Catholic church must be to be effective, not living with his head in the sand, and moving towards excluding parishioners who do not fit the stereotype of a 1965 Catholic.

I'd have to say that Anonymous' comment has me asking more questions than giving answers.

First, I'm not sure what is meant by the hope that Bishop-elect Sirba is "an inclusive leader, and not exclusive". And what recent specific actions or remarks by what individuals in the American episcopate are supposedly "exclusive"?

What is Father Sirba's position on Vatican II? I'd venture to say that he, like most other priests ordained during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II — who, as a bishop, was himself so instrumental in the Council, and whose papal writings are thoroughly imbued with the 16 documents of same — is firmly committed to upholding the truths articulated by the Council Fathers therein.

What's more, I can't think of a single American bishop who believes Vatican II to be anything other than "a great gift to the Church", as John Paul II himself rightly called it. (As an aside, I'd also recommend this fine article by George Sim Johnston titled "Open Windows: Why Vatican II Was Necessary".)

I'm also not sure what is meant by the hope that Bishop-elect Sirba "is a forward thinking bishop, not backward". Taken at face value, by itself, this is a sentiment that I (and, one hopes, every Catholic) would share. But I'm not sure what exactly this comment is getting at.

Finally, at the risk of sounding obtuse, I must admit that I'm not sure what are the stereotypical features of a 1965 Catholic. If Anonymous had said a 1955 Catholic, I think I would have had a pretty good idea of what he/she meant.

But as it is, I'm left scratching my head.

Bishop-elect Paul Sirba

I learned last week that Father Paul Sirba has been named the Bishop of Duluth by Pope Benedict XVI.

Father Sirba officiated at the wedding of some good friends of ours ten years ago, and later served as the pastor of Maternity of Mary Parish in St. Paul, MN, where my parents were married, and where one of my aunts currently serves on the Parish Council. I have heard nothing but good things about him. All indications are that he is a holy priest who will be a holy bishop.

Apropos of this, we had Mass offered at our office's St. Joseph Chapel today, and one of the intentions the celebrant offered was for our bishops, "who have such a difficult job".

And how.

It's so perilously easy to complain about "the bishops" — especially when it's to say they're not doing "enough" (whatever that means).

But how often do we pray for them?

[HT: Michelle at made for JOY]

Baby Steps in the Right Direction

China steps back from one child policy

China is taking the first step towards ending its one-child policy with the authorities in Shanghai encouraging thousands of couples to have a second baby.

For the first time in 30 years, officials in the country’s economic capital have urged eligible parents to plan for a second child. The move was prompted by the growing demographic imbalance in the city and fears that the younger generation will not be able to support the ageing population. [emphasis added]

Did you catch that, overpopulation fear mongers?

Interestingly, this article was posted on July 25, the same date in 1968 that Pope Paul VI, of happy memory, issued the astonishingly prescient Humanae Vitae.

Fr. Anthony Brankin on Americanism

"'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" —G.K. Chesterton

About two years ago, not long after the indomitable Fr. Anthony Brankin became pastor at our geographical parish (St. Odilo in Berwyn), his homily from the preceding Sunday started appearing in the church bulletin.

I'm very glad of this, because even if we go to our other parish (St. John Cantius), we're still able to read his homilies.

Two things in particular strike me about Fr. Brankin's preaching:

(1) His homilies are always relatively short (which, for various reasons, methinks is a very good thing).

(2) He is never afraid to address controversial topics, and, in so doing, lovingly challenge his parishioners to become more faithful to Holy Mother Church's teaching.

Which leads me to his humdinger of a homily from Sunday, July 5, which appeared in this past week's bulletin. I present it herein for your edification—as well as my own:

As Catholics we often hear of heresies. Basically a heresy is a false teaching. Say for instance a priest were to say that Jesus did not rise from the dead. That would be a heresy.

Suppose a theologian was teaching that we need not believe that there are three Persons in One God — that would be a heresy.

Recently I read where a German Bishop was preaching in his cathedral that Jesus did not die as a sacrifice for our sins. That would be a heresy.

It stands to reason if there is something that the Church proposes for our belief, and says very clearly that to believe this is what it means to be a Catholic, then to say, preach, or believe differently is a heresy. To be in heresy is to be wrong. It doesn’t mean that we are going to lynch heretics or burn them at the stake. But it does mean there is something wrong about heretical believing and thinking—and it needs to be corrected before we go on.

It is important that the Church perform the function of judging certain statements for us so that we can develop our own belief filters. When we hear something through that filter, we can judge whether some statement or belief is heresy or not.

On this Fourth of July weekend I thought we might discuss for a moment a very unique modern heresy that is not very well known, but is pretty common. It is called the heresy of “Americanism”.

Now usually when we use the word “Americanism” we are talking about patriotism—but that is not what this word means this time. Actually it was coined by Pope Leo XIII at the end of the Nineteenth Century and he condemned it as something he saw in many American bishops’ teaching. He intended by “Americanism” to mean an attitude that says that America was founded by God and that because of that we Americans need not follow the rules that all the other nations and peoples must follow.

In other words, “Americanism” is the heresy that teaches that whatever we do—because we are Americans or American Catholics - is therefore right. The rules and moral laws that other people must observe do not apply to us because we are exceptional.

Now this “Americanism” is shown in two ways. First—and this is the specific problem that Pope Leo saw is that American bishops, were saying that because we are Americans in America, not all Church teachings apply to all of us. Because we are in a special country in a special position, whenever Rome decrees something we do not have to observe those Church rules or teachings.

I saw this in the seminary a dozen times. I remember when the American Bishops were trying to get American children to make their First Confessions after First Communion. Nobody else in the world was doing this—but our Bishops were. And the Bishops confused it enough for about ten years that there is a whole generation of people—adults now—who made their First Communion—but never made their First Confession. And every time the Pope from the 70’s on would tell the American Bishops to go back to the traditional practice, they would pretend they didn’t hear it and say—“Oh he is talking about Italy.” It took twenty years to straighten out that mess!

Sometimes “Americanism” refers as well to our response to what the government does. An Americanist would say that whatever America does is right—because by definition America does not do wrong.

Now this stems from America’s religious origins—and the notion that came from the Puritans and Pilgrims that God gave them America as refuge—ultimately—from the Pope in Rome. So America is the new Promised land—the new Israel—the new manifestation of God’s will in earth and certainly not the Catholic Church.

So therefore what ever America does is approved by God. If we invade Mexico, or Cuba or the Philippines—as we did in the 19th Century—or invade Iraq, Afghanistan, or if we drop an atom bomb or invent nerve gas, or develop germs to conduct germ warfare or if we torture prisoners and have a good reason for it, then it’s OK. That’s “Americanism”.

You will notice that there is no heresy called Mexicanism or Peruvianism.

“Americanism” can snag most of us. Rather than examine some governmental policy in the light of Catholic moral teaching—or weigh this or that action in the scale of papal teaching—or church tradition, we simply go along with it all—agreeing that whatever America does must be moral—because it is America.

I used to do this all the time—particularly when the issues came down along the lines of liberal and conservative as defined by the media or party politics.

For example, I would to think that when Church teaching and the Pope came in conflict with what we were about as America, I would say, “Well, as the Pope he is a wonderful and holy man, but he doesn’t know as much about it as our president. So unless he is talking about the Nicene Creed or the 6th Commandment we don’t have to listen to the Pope.”

Well that’s “Americanism” plain and simple. As Catholics, it was easy to fall prey to Americanism because as a nation of immigrants we always wanted to be accepted. We didn’t want the Protestants who were running this country to think we were somehow unpatriotic and disloyal and un-American. God forbid that they should think that Catholics were loyal to foreign power from overseas! Why that would be treason on its face.

Indeed, it was never easy to be a Catholic in America. When they put up the Help Wanted signs on factories and stores that specified, “Irish need not apply” it wasn’t because the Irish had freckles and red hair—it was because they were Catholic. There were riots in the streets. Convents, churches and rectories were burnt down to try to send these Catholics back home.

My brother Pat was pastor of a parish in Oklahoma where as late the 1920’s the people in the town burned down the church and scattered the Catholics as far as they could. And that parish was so afraid of the outside world, that they didn’t do Ash Wednesday for the next 60 years. They didn’t want to mark themselves out as Catholics any more than necessary.

Do you remember when John F. Kennedy was running for President and he spoke before the Baptist ministers and promised them he would never let his Catholic beliefs interfere with his being President? We bent over backwards—and still do— to prove to the reigning culture that we were true blue Americans. And we went along with the idea that somehow America was connected more closely with God than any other country — and that what we do — no matter what— has God’s blessing. That is not only heresy — it is also idolatry.

As Catholics we must understand that all countries and all peoples are equal in the sight of God and are equally loved by God and equally judged by God. Pope Leo said that!

Our standard of reference for all of life even as Americans is the Catholic Faith; and we must listen to what our traditions and our popes teach. We must never ever think that just because some politician has decided to get our country involved in something immoral—like abortion or unjust wars — that the case is closed and we cannot object. We must never think that loyalty to our country means we cannot speak out.

We should never be under the impression that the Catholic Church must be silent once the politicians start talking.

And when we have learned to use the beautiful teachings of our faith to guide the policies and programs of our country we will be better Americans — precisely because we have become better Catholics.

The 29th Anniversary of the Murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero

On this day in 1980, Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated while celebrating Mass in San Salvador, El Salvador.

I've had a special admiration for Archbishop Romero ever since I first saw the eponymous film about his life (and death). My admiration for him grew significantly when Jocelyn and I visited his tomb and the chapel where he was murdered during a trip to El Salvador nine years ago.

When questioned about Romero by Italian journalists two years ago prior to his trip to South America, I was heartened to learn that Pope Benedict XVI remarked, "I have no doubt he will be beatified."

Here's the trailer for the movie:



As you can tell, this is no feel-good movie, but as far as showing the ugly reality of man’s inhumanity to man, and the insane brutality that so typified life in Central America in the last quarter of the last century, it’s amazing.

The closing scene, and a few others, too, are absolutely stunning — all the more so because despite some artistic license, the movie is depicting events that really happened.

Excommunicated No More, But...

The eminently-qualified-to-comment-on-these-sorts-of-issues Fr. John Zuhlsdorf clears up some misconceptions surrounding the lifting of the excommunications of the Society of St. Pius X's bishops.

Mark Shea throws in his $.02 on the matter:

One of the thorny difficulties of trying to heal schism in the Church is that schismatics aren't always brave and plucky rebels whose noble purity of heart led them to bravely oppose grave evil in a Church that Just Didn't Understand Them.

Sometimes, the schismatics are dim-witted, self-aggrandizing, anti-semitic jerks like Bp. Richard Williamson.

So why would the Pope want reunion with them? Well, because the excommunication was never about Williamson's dim-witted, self-aggrandizing, anti-semitic jerkness, but about the consecration of bishops in defiance of communion with the Catholic Church. Likewise, the goal of reunion is not to bless the jerkness of Williamson, but to make it possible for people in need of salvation to return to union with Christ's saving Church. Naturally, the Andrew Sullivans and Little Green Footballs types of the world are, for the sake of various agendas, painting this as "the Nazi Pope returns to his Hitler Youth roots", but it's nothing of the kind. Indeed, no small part of Williamson's agenda is to hold onto his little fiefdom by embarrassing the Church with his antics and keeping his SSPX followers with him and not with Rome. But the sooner sane Trads can get out of the hothose of baleful influence, the better off they will be.

Some Jews are, naturally, upset by Williamson's loony ravings. But I think the Pope is basically operating on the principle that it is the sick that needeth the physician, not the healthy. He can let the SSPX go on being a hothouse presided over by a nut like Williamson, or he can do what he can to bring them into full communion with the Church and hope that the blood of Christ will wash away the toxins of Jew-hatred that have been building up in the system. I will not be at all surprised to hear a) that Williamson takes a retirement after a short interval or B) that Williamson hives off into schism again, but only manages to take a small nucleus of embittered Jew-hating malcontents with him, while most of the rest of the SSPX people stay in communion with Rome.

And, on a related note, the Society of St. Pius I still remains, uh, just as far from full communion with Rome as ever.

Humanae Vitae at 40

I was going to try to say something new and insightful about Humanae Vitae, the 40th anniversary of which we commemorate today. But I'm not feeling poignant just now.

Instead, I'll take the lazy way out and link to this post, also on HV, which I wrote two years ago today.

Considering how much Paul VI has been pilloried for HV, it's interesting to note that he issued it on July 25, the feast of St. James—the first Apostle to be martyred.

I'd also encourage the reading of a smashingly good (and yea, insightful) essay in the current issue of First Things titled, "The Vindication of Humanae Vitae". Said essay is most notable for demonstrating that some of the clearest confirmations of Paul VI's predictions HV have come from secular circles.

Check thou it out.

Viva il Papa!

On the occasion of our Holy Father's visit to our country, it's worth taking some time to consider the three simple yet deeply profound words he has chosen for the theme of his journey:

Christ Our Hope

It is through Our Lord Jesus Christ that we hope to become saints. Indeed, one of the best metaphors I've ever heard used to describe His Catholic Church is that of a great big Saint-Making Machine.

On this occasion, I can't help but recall a powerfully moving video called "Movie", produced by Catholics Come Home — the same apostolate that produced another amazingly cool video called "Epic", which I first mentioned a few months ago. (Scroll down at the above link to view either video.)

The 28th Anniversary of the Murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero

On this day in 1980, Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated while celebrating Mass in San Salvador, El Salvador.

I've had a special admiration for Romero ever since I first saw the eponymous film about his life (and death) — an admiration that was strengthened greatly when Jocelyn and I visited his tomb and the chapel where he was murdered during a trip to El Salvador eight years ago.

When questioned about Romero by Italian journalists last year prior to his trip to South America, I was heartened to learn that Pope Benedict XVI remarked, "I have no doubt he will be beatified."

If you haven't seen the movie, run, don't walk, to the nearest Blockbuster and rent it. Or, better yet, stay where you are and get it from Netflix.

This is hardly an “I’m gonna make me some popcorn and take it easy tonight” type of movie, but as far as showing the ugly reality of man’s inhumanity to man, and the insane brutality that so typified life in Central America in the last quarter of the last century, it’s amazing.

The closing scene, and a few others, too, are absolutely stunning — all the more so, because despite some artistic license, the movie is depicting events that really happened.

Massive Creation

From The New Liturgical Movement, via Sean Dailey:

The music in New York and at Vespers in Washington at the Shrine is forward looking and impressive. It seems impossible that at the Pope's April 17th Mass in Wasington, D.C., that anyone could possibly schedule The Mass of Creation by Marty Haugen,: the Sanctus, the "Great Amen," and Agnus Dei. Composed in 1984 (I think), with obvious Broadway influence and overdone melodrama, it has been an unrelenting presence in parishes all over the country. In fact, it is legendarily over used, in every season, again and again and again, so much so that these parts of the Mass sometimes seems like the movie Groundhog Day.

In all honesty, I can't bring myself to get worked up about this.

Although it might scandalize some St. Blog's hangers-on, I actually don't mind some of Marty Haugen's music—including "Mass of Creation".

There. I said it.

One thing I will say, though, is that this reference prompted me to recall my favorite "Mass of Creation" anecdote:

My college choir director once told me about a wedding he attended, the music for which included "Mass of Creation" — only in the program it was rendered "Massive Creation by Marty Haugen".

Apparently they had only hitherto heard "Mass of Creation" spoken and never seen it in print.

Now, whenever I hear or see the words "Mass of Creation", I can't help but chuckle.

Why We Need the Theology of the Body

When I read articles like this one ("Albania's sworn 'virgins': Women give up sex to live as men"), I realize for the 985371983725913275th time how badly our world needs the Theology of the Body.