Questionable Values?

My family just found out that Starbucks, creator of excellent coffee and fancy frappacinos, financially supports Planned Parenthood and gay marriage rights. Now I've been telling some friends of mine that I am not surprised in the slightest- it suits Starbucks. And they don't seem to know what I'm talking about and tell me things like "it's a coffee shop. How could it suit Starbucks? That doesn't make sense." And then I get all tongue tied and feel kind of stupid. So let me try to explain on this here blog.  Because my parents agree with me, so just maybe I'm not completely off my rocker.

Starbucks is a cool coffee shop that has spread all over the place, and it seems fitting to me that it would try to support much of what is considered politically correct. It isn't just me who thinks so. They do not just stick to selling coffee but have opinons on things, like a lot of other big companies. For example, supporting the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage, as the executive vice president of Starbucks said, "is core to who we are and what we value as a company". They really believe in the idea of accepting all types of people, and one can see a lot of eccentric people working in Starbucks shops. That's not a bad thing. Being tolerant and accepting of all people is very important. However, when they say they accept all types of people no matter what their sexual orientation, skin colour, race, etc,what they are also doing is promoting  certain behaviors which the Catholic Church considers disordered. They want people to believe that we all determine the morality of our own actions, and we don't have the right to point the finger at anyone else. Which I guess is true, if you don't have the Church to guide you. As Catholics, we are called to love the sinner, but hate the sin.

Most people say that it's fine to go to Starbucks even if you disagree with Starbucks' financial support of certain political movements. It's not directly supporting them, after all. But then again, would you buy something from a store that supports abortion services? Even if it was just a couple of cents going to the cause? Or anti-Jewish groups? Or maybe the hatred-of-homosexual groups! Get my point? Maybe it's not such a good idea to go there if we can help it. Would it not be better to support your local coffee shop rather than Starbucks, and if you can't get to one, perhaps sacrifice that mocha? Anyone feel like giving me their opinion? And by the way, I still own a Starbucks card. Is it hypocritical for me to go there on my birthday and get a free drink? If you think about it, it's actually taking advantage of them and wasting their money. ;)

Happy Easter!

Christ is Risen, Alleluia!!

I had a truly wonderful Easter Triduum, did you?

And one of my little cousins got baptized yesterday!

Here is a poem that I like. It doesn't really have to do with Easter but I thought I'd share it before I forget. I'm quite an expert at forgetting things.

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years.
People grow old only by deserting their ideals.
Years wrinkle the skin but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul.
Worry, doubt, self-distrust, fear and despair . . .
these are the quick equivalents of the
long years that bow the head and turn
the growing spirit back to dust.
Whether 70 or 16, there is, in every being’s heart the love of
wonder, the sweet amazement of the stars, and the star-like
things and thoughts, the undaunted challenge of events,
the unfailing childlike appetite for “What Next?”
You are as young as your faith, as old as your doubt,
as young as your self-confidence, as old as your fear,
as young as your hope, as old as your despair.
So long as your heart receives messages of
beauty, cheer, courage, grandeur and power from
the earth, from man and from the Infinite, so long are you young.
When all the wires are down, and all the
central places of your heart are covered with
the snows of pessimism and the ice of cynicism,
then, and only then, are you grown old indeed,
and may God have mercy on your soul.

By Samuel Ullman

The Male Priesthood

A little while ago I wrote a research essay on a controversial but interesting and important topic. A lot of the ideas in the essay come from notes that a friend (N) and I took for something else, so half the credit goes to N for gathering the information.

Can Women be Catholic Priests?

“I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) (Brom 2012). Despite these words stated by Pope John Paul II in 1994, there are groups of “Roman Catholic women-priests” who still preside. They insist that they are “loyal members of the church who stand in the prophetic tradition of holy obedience to the Spirit's call to change an unjust law that discriminates against women” (Womenpriests 2012). The question that will be addressed is whether grounds exist for a female priesthood. Women are clearly different from men, a fact which the Church has always recognized in her understanding of the roles men and women hold in her service. Christ's ultimate authority, the Church He established, and the early Church Fathers leads us to the understanding that the priesthood is not meant for women. Catholic theologians loyal to the Magisterium- the teaching body of the Church- agree that the case of women priests is settled for the moral and ecclesiastical good of all mankind.

Men and women have different roles to play as they are quite distinguishable from each other both physically and mentally. Rebelling against this fact, as many feminists do, is “rebelling against our human nature” (Kreeft 2012). Can't a women preside over mass just as well as a man, asks the feminist? Why are men favored over women in the priestly role? It does not follow, however, that men are “favored” just because they alone can be priests. For this is confusing personal worth with function. This is most clearly seen in the example and role of Jesus' mother, Mary, who was not made an apostle or priestess. It is clear in the Bible that Jesus held Mary very close to his heart, and she was anything but insignificant or invaluable. In fact, she is the most honored saint in the Catholic Church. Thus the Catholic Church is clearly not denigrating the personal worth of women. Women just have a different role to play than men (Kreeft 2012).

One could give an opposite argument to defend the male priesthood. Men cannot have babies, so does this make men more inferior to women (Michelle paragraph 2)? Any sane person would say that of course it does not. As well, if an exclusive male priesthood is an act of discrimination in the Catholic Church, then likewise, each act of creation is an act of discrimination, stated by Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft in his lecture on priestesses. One could say that it is discriminating to light when darkness is present, or unfair to the land wherever there is sea, or unfair to plants that they cannot be animals. The truth is that not even most males are called to the priesthood. One could ask themselves, is this also then an insult to all men who are not priests (Kreeft 2012)?

Most Christians would say that God invented the priesthood. Catholics believe that the Church received this priesthood, and when it did, it was composed of only males (Brom par 2). The Church does not have the power to change the nature of the priesthood as she is not the author (Kreeft 2012). God authorized this nature of the male priesthood from far back in the Old Testament and the Jewish tradition with the priesthood of Melchizedek of Old. In fact, all other ancient religions, except for Jews and Catholics, have/had priestesses (Oddie p 48). Some modern Catholics want to change this ancient tradition of the male priesthood without fully understanding the reasons behind it. Kreeft points out, however, that “if we don't understand the reason for an ancient tradition or rule or institution, that should be a good reason for not abolishing it until we do understand it”. An analogy to this would be something such as knocking down a building when you do not know why it is there (Kreeft 2012).

History shows that the early Church Fathers and early councils in the Church clearly denied the ordination of women. St. Augustine defended the Church against priestesses when he said, [The Quintillians are heretics who] give women predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla [two Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman" (Heresies 1:17 [A.D. 428]) (Brom 2012). In the Council of Nicaea, it was stated that “Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity” (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]) (Brom 2012). These are just two of numerous examples that prove the early Church withheld women from being priests.

If the early church was clear in its rejection of women priests, it was also clear, as it is today, that to be Catholic is to surrender entirely to the Church's moral doctrines including the doctrine on the male priesthood, for the ecclesiastical common good of society. The group of “Catholic women-priests” states on their website that “Yes, we have challenged and broken the Church's Canon Law 1024, an unjust law that discriminates against women. Despite what some bishops may lead the faithful to believe, our ordinations are valid because we are ordained in apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church” (Womenpriests, par 6). This does not make sense, however, because if one adheres to some doctrines within the Roman Catholic church, but then disregards others as false, they cannot call themselves true Roman Catholics (Blackburn par 8). A true Catholic is obedient to the Magisterium. Thus these women priests are lying about their identity, a fact which in itself discredits their claim to be valid priestesses.

Jesus himself started the Church by choosing only men to be His apostles. If Jesus had wanted females to be priests, he would have chosen females as some of his twelve apostles as well (Oddie 61). Some say that in choosing exclusively males, “Christ bowed to cultural limitations”. “If Christ bowed down to this male chauvinism, this is a clear denial of the incarnation, which is the very essence of the Christian faith” (Kreeft 2012). Christ would not bow to the culture of His time, in fact, he very often did the opposite. As well, orthodox Christianity has always maintained that the priest represents Christ and the Church represents the people: the Church has always been thought of as feminine. If women are allowed to be priests, this amounts to a morally unacceptable lesbian relationship (Kreeft 2012). Priests act “in persona Christi”, and since Jesus was a man, it is reasonable to assume his priests should be men (Michelle paragraph 1).

All in all, “Christ's sheep follow Him, not lead Him” (Kreeft 2012). If one believes Jesus started the Church, it is clear in the Gospels that Jesus wanted men to be the priests. This is not because women are less important than men, but because they have a different role in this life. However, women are a part of the common priesthood of the faithful. The common priesthood of the faithful, as described in Scripture, is distinguishable from priestly ordination, which is also described in Scripture in John 20: 22-23- “...he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven...”. Peter Kreeft says, “God ordained two sexes, not one, to be equal in value, different in nature, and complementary in function. He created women to be a kind of priest that men cannot be; for motherhood is a kind of priesthood and mediation between God and the world. Every mother brings a new image of God into this world as the Blessed Mother brought God Himself into this world” (368)

Works Cited

Oddie, William. What Will Happen to God? London: Photobooks (Bristol) Limited, 1984.

Kreeft, Peter J. Catholic Christianity. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001.

Kreeft, Peter. “Women and the Priesthood”. Online lecture. Franciscan University of Steubenville, 1994. http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm. 2012.

Blackburn, Jim. Is it a Doctrine or a Discipline? Catholic Answers. http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-it-a-doctrine-or-a-discipline. 2012.

Arnold, Michelle. What is it that keeps women from being priests? Catholic Answers. http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-it-that-keeps-women-from-being-priests

Brom, Robert. Women and the Priesthood. San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2004. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

Roman Catholic Womenpriests. California: Roman Catholic Womenpriests- USA, Inc, 2012. http://romancatholicwomenpriests.org/

No Lent, No Easter!

People who celebrate Easter without knowing about Lent are sure missing out! While we are beautiful creations made in the image of God, we have a strong tendency to want to do things our own way, and even rebel against God. Lent is a time of fasting, penance, and giving oneself to others as a way of showing sorrow for our rebellious behavior. Not that we shouldn't do and think these things throughout the year, but in the Church, there is a special place for them during Lent. Unfortunately many do not seem to see the significance of Lent anymore and rather just skip to the joyous part: Easter Sunday! Where everyone is happy!

Wait a second. Without knowing what it is like to be truly hungry, can one really experience the joy of eating a good meal? In other words, without any fasting, almsgiving, giving up something you truly enjoy, or reflecting on the reasons for the 40 days before Easter, how can one really celebrate the true meaning of Easter and partake in the celebration at a deeper level?  The Church has, for centuries, encouraged the practice of Lent. And it makes sense!

During the 40 days before Easter, Jesus fasted in the desert. He was tempted, wounded, and scorned. During Lent, Catholics as well as some other Christians really reflect on this. We take something away from ourselves, such as a food we really love, to help us remember Jesus' suffering. Or we do something extra special for someone else that kind of makes us go out of our way. Fasting and other ways of abstaining from things important to ourselves also helps us remember to always be on guard from temptations to sin. As well, it is a reminder to us that we do not need everything we want in the here and now. We live in a society that teaches one to live in the moment, but we are called to look beyond the present moment, to what we would like to become after death.

And hey, crucifixes are great reminders of Lent.  Isn't that focusing on the sad part?  Of course!  No sadness, no joy, no death, no resurrection!

Successful Lent, everyone... ;)