Pray for London

British Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament from its vacation to deal with the severe rioting in London.

Let's pray hard for the people of England today and for peace in the streets there.

Pray for London

British Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament from its vacation to deal with the severe rioting in London.

Let's pray hard for the people of England today and for peace in the streets there.

Modern Culture--The Narcissistic Legacy

I read an article this morning which quoted Peter Hitchens, brother of the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens.  The quote is from his book, The Rage Against God.  In this quote he explains a bit about the mentality of the Baby Boomer 60's generation (of which I confess to being a member) who rebelled against their World War II era parents, and, who continue to shape politics and culture in the U.K. and the U.S. today.

We were differentiating ourselves from our parents--the denizens of a worn-down, seemingly defeated post-war generation, a crumbling empire, burdened with ancient and unexamined premises, weighed down by old songs and bored with ancient psalms, eager to cast off the dreary dross we associated with the glum burdens of adulthood. By rejecting our parents' half-hearted beliefs, and refusing ourselves to be parents, we were staving off in our own minds the march of time, the fact of aging, the grim biological fact of our own mortality. By remaining forever rebellious adolescents, we imagined that we need never grow old and die. Having children in itself is in some sense an admission that we must replace ourselves--because we were replaceable. And that is something our narcissistic generation could not admit. And so we didn't.

The entire culture today, with its in-your-face sex and its crude and aggressive stance against Christianity and especially Catholicism is in part, a result of the Baby Boomer generation's obsession with rebelling as a way to avoid the inevitable decline and death that comes for all of us.

This mind-set is ubiquitous; for years, the 60's generation have been making our movies, writing our songs, and filtering our news.  We are surrounded by one generation's sad attempts at living forever in this flawed and sinful world.

Today, there are few "stars" in their own right in the U.S.  People are famous for being famous.  Being on a reality show has become a goal and an aspiration.  Much baggage accompanies this new career.

We mustn't look old.  We mustn't let our children, if we have them, get in the way of our "lifestyle".  The many alternate "lifestyles" so aggressively advocated by today's media  are, in part, a response to and a defense of the lives already being lead by many who followed the Greatest Generation.

We must consciously avoid buying the lie that happiness and fulfillment exist in this life.  We must stop focusing on our own personal feelings and begin to live out the Gospel and spread the Good News to all.

Modern Culture--The Narcissistic Legacy

I read an article this morning which quoted Peter Hitchens, brother of the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens.  The quote is from his book, The Rage Against God.  In this quote he explains a bit about the mentality of the Baby Boomer 60's generation (of which I confess to being a member) who rebelled against their World War II era parents, and, who continue to shape politics and culture in the U.K. and the U.S. today.

We were differentiating ourselves from our parents--the denizens of a worn-down, seemingly defeated post-war generation, a crumbling empire, burdened with ancient and unexamined premises, weighed down by old songs and bored with ancient psalms, eager to cast off the dreary dross we associated with the glum burdens of adulthood. By rejecting our parents' half-hearted beliefs, and refusing ourselves to be parents, we were staving off in our own minds the march of time, the fact of aging, the grim biological fact of our own mortality. By remaining forever rebellious adolescents, we imagined that we need never grow old and die. Having children in itself is in some sense an admission that we must replace ourselves--because we were replaceable. And that is something our narcissistic generation could not admit. And so we didn't.

The entire culture today, with its in-your-face sex and its crude and aggressive stance against Christianity and especially Catholicism is in part, a result of the Baby Boomer generation's obsession with rebelling as a way to avoid the inevitable decline and death that comes for all of us.

This mind-set is ubiquitous; for years, the 60's generation have been making our movies, writing our songs, and filtering our news.  We are surrounded by one generation's sad attempts at living forever in this flawed and sinful world.

Today, there are few "stars" in their own right in the U.S.  People are famous for being famous.  Being on a reality show has become a goal and an aspiration.  Much baggage accompanies this new career.

We mustn't look old.  We mustn't let our children, if we have them, get in the way of our "lifestyle".  The many alternate "lifestyles" so aggressively advocated by today's media  are, in part, a response to and a defense of the lives already being lead by many who followed the Greatest Generation.

We must consciously avoid buying the lie that happiness and fulfillment exist in this life.  We must stop focusing on our own personal feelings and begin to live out the Gospel and spread the Good News to all.

Jesus Calls us Anyway

In yesterday's gospel, (Jn 21:1-19 ) Jesus appears to the disciples and tells them to cast their nets off the right side of the boat after a night of catching no fish. They catch so many fish (157) they can't pull  up the nets.

Then Jesus asks Simon Peter if he loves Him with an all consuming (Agape) love. (This meaning is lost in the English translation but preserved in the Greek.)

 Peter, in effect, says, No, Lord, I love you like a brother or a very good friend (Philios).

Perhaps a bit oddly, Jesus then says, "Feed my sheep."

Jesus asks Peter again, Do you love me with an all consuming love?  Peter says, I love you like a brother.  Jesus again says, "Feed my lambs."

Only then does Jesus meet Peter where he is and ask, Simon, do you love me like a brother? Peter is insulted and hurt at this change and says, "Lord, you know that I love you like a brother!"  Jesus again says, "Feed my sheep."

First of all, Peter readily admits to Christ that he is just  not "there" yet.  (How many of us could do the same?)  He doesn't love Jesus with an all consuming love and he admits it.  Jesus, surprisingly enough, nevertheless keeps His promise to appoint him as shepherd of His flock.  Perhaps that is what humbles Peter the most.

Peter is taken back to his early days with Christ--to another time when Jesus caused a miraculous number of fish to be caught. (Luke 5:1-11) It was the time of Peter's own calling.  When Peter (then Simon) saw the miracle Jesus performed, he said, "Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!"

This time, Jesus again calls Peter by his birth name, Simon, as a reminder to him of his original calling.  Once again, Peter is hit with the enormity of his sinfulness.

Jesus calls him anyway.

How humbling this is!  Perhaps we are being asked, by Christ, to remember Who is in charge of the Church.  Not us.  Not the priests.  Not the bishops.  Not even the Pope.  Peter, the first pope, admitted to Christ, after witnessing countless miracles, including the resurrection itself, that he was only capable of loving Jesus like a brother.  Nevertheless, Jesus commanded Him, "Feed My sheep."  

The only One we can and should rely on in this life, is Our Lord.  It is He who is the head of the Church and we are continually reminded of that fact every time we read a news story of the enormity of our own failings.

Jesus Calls us Anyway

In yesterday's gospel, (Jn 21:1-19 ) Jesus appears to the disciples and tells them to cast their nets off the right side of the boat after a night of catching no fish. They catch so many fish (157) they can't pull  up the nets.

Then Jesus asks Simon Peter if he loves Him with an all consuming (Agape) love. (This meaning is lost in the English translation but preserved in the Greek.)

 Peter, in effect, says, No, Lord, I love you like a brother or a very good friend (Philios).

Perhaps a bit oddly, Jesus then says, "Feed my sheep."

Jesus asks Peter again, Do you love me with an all consuming love?  Peter says, I love you like a brother.  Jesus again says, "Feed my lambs."

Only then does Jesus meet Peter where he is and ask, Simon, do you love me like a brother? Peter is insulted and hurt at this change and says, "Lord, you know that I love you like a brother!"  Jesus again says, "Feed my sheep."

First of all, Peter readily admits to Christ that he is just  not "there" yet.  (How many of us could do the same?)  He doesn't love Jesus with an all consuming love and he admits it.  Jesus, surprisingly enough, nevertheless keeps His promise to appoint him as shepherd of His flock.  Perhaps that is what humbles Peter the most.

Peter is taken back to his early days with Christ--to another time when Jesus caused a miraculous number of fish to be caught. (Luke 5:1-11) It was the time of Peter's own calling.  When Peter (then Simon) saw the miracle Jesus performed, he said, "Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!"

This time, Jesus again calls Peter by his birth name, Simon, as a reminder to him of his original calling.  Once again, Peter is hit with the enormity of his sinfulness.

Jesus calls him anyway.

How humbling this is!  Perhaps we are being asked, by Christ, to remember Who is in charge of the Church.  Not us.  Not the priests.  Not the bishops.  Not even the Pope.  Peter, the first pope, admitted to Christ, after witnessing countless miracles, including the resurrection itself, that he was only capable of loving Jesus like a brother.  Nevertheless, Jesus commanded Him, "Feed My sheep."  

The only One we can and should rely on in this life, is Our Lord.  It is He who is the head of the Church and we are continually reminded of that fact every time we read a news story of the enormity of our own failings.

What were you thinkin'?

One hundred college presidents are calling on lawmakers to lower the drinking age in the United States from 21 to 18. Their reason? Too much binge drinking on campus.

Soooo, having alcohol both available and legal for newly graduated high schoolers will change that?! I was in college the last time the drinking age was 18, and, believe me, allowing 18 year olds to purchase alcohol is by no means a panacea for solving problems caused by irresponsible behavior and lack of supervision. Why21.org gives statistics on the affect of lowering the drinking age:

In states where the drinking age was 18, those under 21 drank more than youth in states where the minimum drinking age was 21 and they continued to drink more as adults in their early 20s.

When colleges decided to forgo their responsibilities to act in loco parentis, it opened up a pandora's box in terms of safety on college campuses. In this litigious society, college presidents are doubtless afraid of law suits. If the drinking age were lowered, colleges could deny any responsibility for deaths from alcohol poisoning and automobile fatalities of young college students involved because they were partaking in a substance purchased legally.

And, there is always the added bonus of not having to police the alcohol use on campus.

There! Problem solved!

What were you thinkin'?

One hundred college presidents are calling on lawmakers to lower the drinking age in the United States from 21 to 18. Their reason? Too much binge drinking on campus.

Soooo, having alcohol both available and legal for newly graduated high schoolers will change that?! I was in college the last time the drinking age was 18, and, believe me, allowing 18 year olds to purchase alcohol is by no means a panacea for solving problems caused by irresponsible behavior and lack of supervision. Why21.org gives statistics on the affect of lowering the drinking age:

In states where the drinking age was 18, those under 21 drank more than youth in states where the minimum drinking age was 21 and they continued to drink more as adults in their early 20s.

When colleges decided to forgo their responsibilities to act in loco parentis, it opened up a pandora's box in terms of safety on college campuses. In this litigious society, college presidents are doubtless afraid of law suits. If the drinking age were lowered, colleges could deny any responsibility for deaths from alcohol poisoning and automobile fatalities of young college students involved because they were partaking in a substance purchased legally.

And, there is always the added bonus of not having to police the alcohol use on campus.

There! Problem solved!