Vatican II: A Case of Selective Hearing

Songwriter Paul Simon of Simon and Garfunkel wrote a song in the 1960's called "The Boxer", which has some great lines it.  For purposes of this posting, I point out the following line:

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.  

As far as being a Catholic is concerned, this statement is never truer than when discussing the Second Vatican Council and the ramifications therefrom.  Father John Zuhlsdorf recently linked to an article from almost five years ago concerning a letter from Bishop R. Walker Nickless.  The article was originally posted on Lifesitenews.com and is entitled "Sioux City Bishop Calls for 'Exorcism' of  'Spirit of Vatican II'".  You can read Father Z's post here.  The article refers to the 17-page letter written by Bishop Nickless in 2009.  He was the then-newly appointed bishop of that diocese, and this was his first letter as bishop.

Father Z's readers saw this and read it as a bishop condemning Vatican II and all that came from it, despite the fact that this was not in any way the intention of Bishop Nickless.  Here is the first part of the article as posted by Father Z (the comments in red are his):

Bp. Nickless (D. Sioux City): we must “exorcize” the “spirit of Vatican II”

Posted on 31 May 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have mentioned Bishop Nickless of Sioux City before.

This is from LifeSite:

Sioux City Bishop Calls for “Exorcism” of “Spirit of Vatican II”

By Kathleen Gilbert

SIOUX CITY, Iowa, October 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Catholics must learn to “exorcise” the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” to end the secularization that has “wreaked havoc” on the Church since the Council, says Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

Notice that this very clearly says that the Bishop feels "the spirit of Vatican II" needs to be exorcised, which is not Vatican II itself.  Yet the comments left by readers make it very clear that they completely disregard the words of the Bishop and equate the "spirit" of Vatican II with the Council.  Even the few excerpts from the article made it clear that this was not what His Excellency was saying.  The next two paragraphs as quoted by Father Z make that very plain.   The words in bold are from Father Z's post:

In a pastoral letter issued Thursday to the lay and religious of his diocese, Nickless wrote that he has “no other desire” than to see the reforms of Vatican II implemented properly. However, he said, “It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council.”

The “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” under the guise of the “spirit of Vatican II,” sees “the Second Vatican Council as a radical break with the past,” explained the bishop. However, “There can be no split … between the Church and her faith before and after the Council.”

This makes it very plain that the Bishop does not believe that Vatican II constitutes a break with the past or a "rupture" in Church teaching. He plainly says that those who teach such are teaching falsehoods. The LifesiteNews article continues, and unless the reader is careful, he can continue to read this as Bishop Nickless condemning the Vatican II council:

This “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” said Nickless, “emphasizes the ‘engagement with the world’ to the exclusion of the deposit of faith.”

“This has wreaked havoc on the Church, systematically dismantling the Catholic Faith to please the world, watering down what is distinctively Catholic, and ironically becoming completely irrelevant and impotent for the mission of the Church in the world,” he said.  “The Church that seeks simply what works or is ‘useful’ in the end becomes useless.”

It is important to note that Bishop Nickless is not condemning Vatican II as "systematically dismantling that Catholic Faith", but blames the false "hermeneutic of discontinuity." As quoted above, His Excellency believes that "There can be no split … between the Church and her faith before and after the Council."

The article was so old that the link to the Bishop's original letter was broken.  Fortunately, one of Father Z's readers provided a working link, and therefore we are able to read the Bishop's entire letter, which is here.  Other than the one reader posting a working link, none of Father's Z's readers seem to question the broken link and are presumably not interested in reading the actual letter.  Father Z originally posted about this letter in 2009, and he quoted from the letter at that time, so I don't understand why he did not correct his readers who got it so wrong, as can be seen from their comments.

Here are some of the comments to Father Z's blog:

1. Gratias says:

   31 May 2013 at 10:45 am

   The Church has been taken over by the outside world and they still are not pleased with us. V2 was a rupture and a mistake.

   
2. Bob B. says:

   31 May 2013 at 12:48 pm

   I’ll bet Fishwrap is having a fit right about now.
3. backtothefuture says:

   31 May 2013 at 2:42 pm

   We need to exorcise the whole council on the whole.
4. Catholic Johnny says:
5. 31 May 2013 at 3:59 pm

   Your Excellence, this may be a little more difficult than you think. We have an obstacle in the way of your much needed suggestion: Pope John Paul “the great”:

   “Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council…”

   This, Bishop Nickless is THE ‘spirit of Vatican II’.
   Kyrie Eleison!
6. 
7. Nancy D. says:

   2 June 2013 at 10:51 am

   Vatican II is a rupture because it made the erroneous claim that the Jews and the Moslems worship the same God as we do, when the fact is, we, who are Catholic, worship The True God, The God of our Salvation, Who desires we overcome our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, so that we are not led into temptation, but rather, sin no more. The Sacrifice of The Cross, Is The Sacrifice of The Holy Trinity, for “God so Loved us, that He sent His Only Son…”.

   God Is Love. Love exists in relationship. There Is only One Spirit of Love Between The Father and The Son.

I find all of these comments to be very disconcerting. Unlike Bishop Nickless, who is attacking the false "Spirit of Vatican II", these comments are attacking the Council itself. None of these readers seem to understand Bishop Nicklass' message. I won't accuse Father Z of encouraging these kind of comments, but I do question why he let these comments stand without some response or correction.

The 17-page letter from Bishop Nickless is actually a wonderful teaching tool as to the real meaning of Vatican II and why it has not borne the anticipated fruit of its founding fathers.

Would Bishop Nickless agree that "V2 was a rupture and a mistake"? Hardly. This is what he wrote in his letter:

I studied and was ordained a deacon and priest during the exciting, almost intoxicating, time of the Second Vatican Council. I am thoroughly a product of that momentous time, the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries. It has formed the context and culture of my entire ministerial life. Like Pope John Paul the Great, I have no other desire for my ministry than seeing the hopes and reforms of the Second Vatican Council fully implemented and brought to fruition.

Portions of this excerpt were included in the Lifesite news article, but Father Z did not use these quotes. If he had used these quotes, would Father Z's readers still make such comments as: "Wow, what a great Bishop!" or "Please, dear papal nuncio, Cardinal Ouellet and Pope Francis, we need a few more bishops like this guy!"  Something tells me that their sentiments would be very different if they realized that this is how His Excellency actually views Vatican II.  

As can also be seen from the above quote, Bishop Nickless has great admiration and respect for Blessed John Paul II (who was not a Blessed at the time this letter was written), even calling him "Pope John Paul the Great."  Unlike "Catholic Johnny" above, Bishop Nickless sees Blessed John Paul as anything but an "obstacle."

Bishop Nickless quoted from Blessed John XXIII's opening sermon at the Council:

In opening the Council, Blessed John stated that the “greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council” was twofold: “that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be [both] guarded and taught more efficaciously.” Later in the speech, he elaborated on this: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.” The teachings of the Church, our identity and culture as Catholics, must be loved and guarded, yet brought forth and taught in a way understandable to the modern world. 

Bishop Nickless goes on to explain how this is what the "New Evangelization" is all about.  The substance of the Church's teaching is not new, but the way in which it is presented to a changing world is new.  This is the heart and soul of the meaning of Vatican II, and this was the driving force of the pontificate of Blessed John Paul II:

Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul the Great constantly preached the same thing in calling for a “New Evangelization” of the faithful, our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, and all those who do not know Jesus Christ or the Church. This New Evangelization was to be “new not in content but in ardor, methods, and expression.”  It is readily apparent from his teaching and ministry that for Pope John Paul the Great, the New Evangelization was the true fruit of the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, the Council was the beginning and blueprint for evangelization in the modern world. He explicitly stated this as his particular mission at the time of his election, and he lived it to the end.  He spent his entire pontificate interpreting and implementing the Council’s documents according to the light of the Holy Spirit, given in virtue of his office, amid the changing circumstances of the Church and the world.

Bishop Nickless readily admits that something has gone terribly wrong since Vatican II.   He quotes from Pope Benedict XVI:

The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult? Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or—as we would say today—on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarreled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

Bishop Nickless is telling us that the false "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture" has been the root of the crisis in the Church and has presented a false interpretation of Vatican II:

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform,” of renewal in the continuity of the one subject – Church – which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God. The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the postconciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council.

Bishop Nickless quotes extensively from Pope Benedict XVI and says:

the “spirit of Vatican II” must be found only in the letter of the documents themselves. The so-called “spirit” of the Council has no authoritative interpretation. It is a ghost or demon that must be exorcised if we are to proceed with the Lord’s work.

Coincidentally, Michael Voris just released a Vortex video, which you can watch here, regarding comments made by Cardinal Walter Kaspar who has suddenly come to the conclusion that the Vatican II documents were purposely made ambiguous as a result of "compromise forumlas" which "open the door to a selective reception in either direction."  Michael Voris finds this "admission" by Cardinal Kaspar to be "stunning, absolutely stunning" . . . "that the (Vatican II) documents were deliberately written in such a way to please everyone and cause confusion and conflict."  Hmmmm.  That is not what Bishop Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa said, nor is it what Pope Benedict XVI has said, or even our current Holy Father, Pope Francis, who called the Council "a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit" in a homily on April 16 of this year (you can read an article about this homily here).

Quote from Cardinal Kaspar

Michael Voris, to bolster his position, goes on to quote from Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan. From the Vortex video:

About two years ago – a very well respected bishop .. Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan was addressing a large group of bishops and cardinals in Rome. He suggested that the time has come for a Syllabus of Errors to be published by the Holy Father clearing up the misinterpretations of the documents of the Second Vatican Council which have become so rampant.

Bishop Schneider

You can read the address by Bishop Schneider here.  You will see that he quotes extensively from Vatican II documents and in a very positive light.  Bishop Schneider give us basically the same argument as that of Bishop Nickless:  Vatican II has been grossly misinterpreted, and that has been the cause of the crisis in the Church.  Bishop Schneider has only praise for the true intentions of Vatican II, as can be seen in the following quotes:

According to an expression of Blessed Pope John XXIII in the speech given at the final general congregation of the first session of the Council, December 7, 1962, the one purpose of the Council and the one hope and confidence of the Pope and the Council Fathers consists in this: “To make ever more known to the men of our time the Gospel of Christ, that it be practiced willingly and that it penetrate deeply into every aspect of society.” (loc. cit., pp. 881-882). Can there be a more authentic and more Catholic pastoral principle and method than this?

Bishop Schneider explains what he feels are the reasons we have not seen greater fruit from Vatican II:

In substance, there were two impediments against the true intention of the Council and its Magisterium bearing abundant and lasting fruits. One was found outside the Church, in the violent process of cultural and social revolution in the 1960s, which, like every powerful social phenomenon, penetrated within the Church, contaminating vast ranges of people and institutions with its spirit of rupture. The other impediment showed itself in the lack of wise and intrepid Pastors of the Church who would be ready to defend the purity and integrity of the faith and of the liturgical and pastoral life, not letting themselves be influenced either by praise or by fear (“nec laudibus, nec timore”).

Bishop Schneider sums up his position on Vatican II in his final statement:

Thus there truly is the need for a conciliar Syllabus with doctrinal value, and moreover there is need to increase the number of holy, courageous pastors, profoundly rooted in the tradition of the Church, free from any type of mentality of rupture whether in the field of doctrine or of liturgy. In fact, these two elements constitute the indispensable condition so that doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral confusion may diminish notably and the pastoral work of the Second Vatican Council may bear many and lasting fruits in the spirit of tradition, which joins us with the spirit that reigns at all times, everywhere, and in all true children of the Catholic Church, which is the one and the true Church of God on the earth.

I have shown in previous posts that Michael Voris tends to make very misleading statements, but I think he has outdone himself this time when he invokes Bishop Schneider to back up his argument that Vatican II has been the source of the crisis in the Church.  Bishop Schneider would be the first disagree with Voris.

Interestingly, Father Z posted in regard to the Vortex video about the Vatican II documents.  Father Z starts out his post by writing, "I will remind the readership that in the greater arc of the Church’s history, Vatican II wasn’t all that important."  He writes further, "Vatican II has taken on a kind of mythic importance in the identity of many Catholics of a certain age."  These statements would seem to indicate that Father Z is not in step in his view of Vatican II with Bishop Nickless, whom he had praised just a few days prior, or with any of our recent Popes, including Pope Francis, or with Bishop Schneider, to name just a few good and holy men of the Church, all of whom defend Vatican II and place great importance on it.

Father Z offers his take on Vatican II: "During Vatican II, after many of the working drafts and schemata were junked, committees and subcommittees, working under pressure and time constraints, cobbled the documents together.  Is it any wonder that the documents have some problems?"  I guess Father Z doesn't give much importance to the influence of the Holy Spirit.

So Father Z agrees with Voris that there are problems with the documents in Vatican II.  Again, he would not seem to be in step with any of the post-conciliar Popes or with Bishop R. Walker Nickless or with Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  It should be noted that in January 2011, Father Z praised Bishop Schneider and even did a podcast on the aforementioned speech, which can be found here.  Yet, Father Z's statements in this last post would seem to be at odds with those of Bishop Schneider.  It all gets quite confusing.

Again, the comments to Father Z's post are more enlightening than the actual post.  The following comment is typical of many that were posted, and to which Father Z made no response:

Johnno says:

4 June 2013 at 3:43 pm

There’s a false equivalence here between Vatican II and previous councils.

Previous Councils sought to clarify and nail down certain things and reduce ambguity as much as possible.

Vatican II’s purpose, according to the testimony of those who were involved, seemed primarily set on the objective to purposely further ambiguity and water down the Catholic faith so as to somehow trick Protestants and the world into imagining that they could find common ground with us and therefore join in… An idea so ill-conceivably and amazingly stupid that it makes far more sense to reach the conclusion that the architects of Vatican II didn’t seek to clarify Catholicism or explain ambguities and answer divisive topics like other councils, but rather to destroy tenets of the Catholic Church itself so that it would join the modern world in all its glorious progress.

Regardless of however you want to see it, Vatican II’s supposed goals were never met and are colossal failures, and the only reason we continue to try and find some light in its darkness is to avoid responsibility for it. That and stubborn pride. Whatever good we do salvage from it is likely God making lemonade from the lemons we fostered upon His Church.

The bottom line is this:  All of the Holy Fathers in the last half of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century have told us that Vatican II was an important council and a good and holy council.  The purpose of this council was to aid in spreading the saving message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a changing world.  Many have tried to hijack this council and make it into something it was never meant to be:  a reform of the Church.  If we try to belittle the council or worse, condemn it, we have fallen into the trap of Satan himself.  

Pope Francis

Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholicculture.org wrote a brilliant post in regard to the previously mentioned April 16 address by Pope Francis in which he said that the Council "is a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit."  From Dr. Mirus:

Just as the Modernists ignore the Magisterium as a relic of the past, replacing it with the spirit of the current age, the Traditionalists ignore the contemporary Magisterium, replacing it with the spirit of some previous age. But please note that these descriptions are not perfect, and that one can have a fairly liberal or a fairly conservative outlook without really crossing the line into either camp. If we agree that the actual Conciliar texts are a great gift of the Holy Spirit for authentic Catholic renewal, it is safe to say we are in neither group. But in any case, the Pope rebukes both groups, insisting that the Council was a wholly legitimate and continuous growth or development of the Church, which everyone is bound to accept and act upon:

Everybody seems happy about the presence of the Holy Spirit but it’s not really the case and there is still that temptation to resist it…. The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit…. But after 50 years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit said to us in the Council? In the continuity of the growth of the Church which was the Council?

Pope Francis, in other words, has the same view of the Council as his predecessors, which is really the only properly Catholic view. The same points were made by Paul VI; and by John Paul II; and by Benedict XVI. Every pope since the Council has insisted upon its faithful implementation. And yet too many of us still find ourselves either in one camp or the other, or else we are all too willing to accept things as they are, and to make a comfortable ecclesiastical place for ourselves in the status quo. Indeed, how many churchmen themselves fall into this more universal third category?

We need to turn off all of the chaos and clamor around us and even our own deceptive voices and open our minds and hearts to the Holy Spirit, allowing Him to guide us into all truth.

Credit:  thesestonewalls.com

First Saturday Meditation: The First Luminous Mystery-The Baptism of Jesus

Today, June 1, is the First Saturday of the Month. The First Saturday Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was first mentioned by Our Lady of Fatima on July 13, 1917. After showing the three children a vision of hell she said, "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace... I shall come to ask for... the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays..." The First Saturday devotion is as follows:

It consists in going to Confession, receiving Communion, reciting five decades of the Rosary and meditating for a quarter of an hour on the mysteries of the Rosary on the first Saturday of five consecutive months. The Confession may be made during the eight days preceding or following the first Saturday of each month, provided that Holy Communion be received in the state of grace. Should one forget to form the intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it may be formed at the next Confession, occasion to go to confession being taken at the first opportunity.

Today I wish to meditate upon the First Luminous Mystery, which is the baptism of our Blessed Lord in the River Jordan by his cousin, John. John and Jesus were born approximately six months apart. When the angel, Gabriel, announced to the Virgin Mary that she was to be the Mother of God, he told her that her cousin, Elizabeth, who was past child bearing age, had also miraculously conceived and was now in her sixth month. Mary immediately went to be at Elizabeth's side. Elizabeth was carrying John the Baptist.  The meeting of Elizabeth and her unborn child and Mary and her unborn child involved the three holiest people who have ever lived:  Jesus, because He was God; Mary, the Mother of God who was conceived without sin; and John the Baptist, who was sanctified by Jesus while still in his mother's womb and about whom Jesus said, "among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist." 

John could easily have followed in the footsteps of his father, Zachariah, and become a priest in the temple, but he eschewed that easy lifestyle and instead started what could be called a "rogue" ministry, going into the wilderness to announce the coming of the Messiah. He had, in effect, started this ministry while still in his mother's womb when he leaped at the presence of the Lord who was in His mother's womb.  Just as an aside, this meeting of the pre-born John and Jesus is surely one of the strongest arguments that can be had against abortion.

Luke 3:1-3 tells us this concerning John's ministry:

 "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.  He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Tiberius Caesar reigned from 14 AD to 37 AD, so this was approximately 29 AD. John 3:3 tells us that the role of John the Baptist was described in the prophecy of Isaiah:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”

As a central part of preparing the way of the Lord, John began a ministry of baptism, as he explained: "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."  (Matthew 3:3) Like Mary, the mother of Christ, everything John said and did was to point away from himself and to Christ. As John said, "He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:30) It is no accident that the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist is June 24, a time in the Northern Hemisphere when daylight hours begins to decrease. Six months later, when we celebrate the birth of Jesus, daylight hours begin to increase.

John the Baptist had completely separated himself from the established religious leaders of that time, and in fact called them out when they came to see him:  "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"  (Matt. 3:7). John, to use the vernacular, "called 'em as he saw 'em." He showed no fear of anyone or anything but just total dedication to his ministry of preparing the way for the Lord. The people were drawn to him no doubt because of the sincerity and forcefulness with which he preached.

Our Lord, who had kept a low, private profile up to this time, came from Galilee to the River Jordan where John was preaching and baptizing. As soon as John saw his cousin walking towards him, the words poured out of his mouth:

Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

These words are used in the Mass to this very day when the priest holds up the consecrated Host for us to adore and worship.

No one had to tell John who Jesus was. He knew, and he shouted it for all the world to hear. Jesus then asked John to baptize him. John was completely taken aback by this request:  "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"  (Matt. 3:14).  Why would Jesus, who was and is the Son of God, completely without sin, need to be baptized? The same question could be asked of His entire life: why did He have to be born as a helpless babe; why did he have to be purified at the temple after being born; why was He subject to the authority of Mary and Joseph; why wasn't he born as an earthly king with all the privileges that come with such earthly rank?

Our Lord did all of this in order to become one with mankind. While losing none of His Divinity, he became as human as we are, and humbled and subjected himself as completely as possible to the human experience. As Hebrews 5:8 tells us, "Even though Jesus was God's Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered."  He knows firsthand what it means to be a human being in our fallen world and face the trials and obstacles that we endure. Hebrews 4:15-16 says: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."

Jesus was also our trailblazer, cutting out and showing the path to Heaven. Jesus received the sacrament of Baptism to show us that this is the path we also must walk. As Jesus said in answer to John's question, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness."  (Matt. 3:15).  Our Lord did not leave us in the dark, trying to figure out on our own the way to salvation. He showed the way by putting Himself literally into each step. As Jesus told the Pharisee, Nicodemus, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."  (John 3:5-6)

We must be born of water, which is baptism, as shown by our Lord. Jesus also showed us what it means to be born of the Spirit when the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove at his baptism, as John the Baptist told us: "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him."  (John 1:32)  We saw something similar to this when, after Jesus ascended to Heaven, the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of fire descended upon Mary and the Apostles at Pentecost.

The concept of baptism did not start with John the Baptist. St. Peter tells us that the Great Flood in the time of Noah was a baptism (I Peter 3:20-21):

. . . to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

St. Paul tells us that baptism was also seen when the Israelites passed through the Red Sea while escaping from the Egyptians (I Cor. 10:1-2):

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

Baptism is the way in which our sins are washed away and we are made clean before God.  Our Lord subjected Himself to baptism, leaving us with no excuses.  As Jesus said, we must be born of water and the Spirit, and He showed us exactly how it is done.

When Christ came up out of the waters of baptism, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him, and a voice was heard: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt. 3:17). The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - have placed themselves in the Sacrament of Baptism. This is where Our Lord started His ministry, and this is where we start our Christian walk, cleansed from our sins and born of the Spirit.

 

Pentecost is For All Time

Tomorrow is Pentecost Sunday. It is the birthday of the Church, a most glorious day when the apostles received the Holy Spirit while praying in the upper room with Mary, Christ's Blessed Mother. This happened exactly 50 days after our Lord's resurrection from the dead. The disciples of Jesus Christ had experienced 40 days in the physical presence of our Glorified Lord talking with and being taught by Him. The Book of Acts says that Christ spoke about the Kingdom of God during these 40 days. Acts 1:4-5 also says that "On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.  For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”  At this point we can be sure that the apostles had barely a clue as to the meaning of Christ's words.

On the 40th day after the resurrection, Our Lord ascended to heaven in the presence of the disciples. Just before His Ascension, our Lord told the disciples:  "you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."  (Acts 1:8) Again, we can be fairly certain that these words had little meaning to the apostles. They were still hiding out from the Jews, afraid for their own lives, and certainly in no frame of mind to go out among the outside world which was so hostile to them.

In the days following the Ascension, they stayed in Jerusalem as our Lord instructed them. They were in the same upper room where our Lord had conducted the Last Supper the night He was arrested.  "They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."  At this time they also chose a replacement for Judas, who had betrayed Christ and hung himself, so there were once again 12 apostles. It is only right that our Blessed Mother would be present at the birth of the Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, just as she was the one who gave physical birth to our Lord. Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and she is never separated from Him.

On the 10th day after the Ascension, they were gathered together to celebrate Pentecost, a Holy Day among the Jews. "Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.  They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."  (Acts 2:2-4).

All of the groundwork laid by Jesus Christ, all of His teaching and exhortation, suddenly came alive for them. It was like lights had been turned on in a darkened house, and what had seemed so incomprehensible before was now clear and unambiguous. Much as Mary conceived our Lord through the Power of the Holy Spirit, so now the apostles of Christ were filled with Jesus Christ through the Power of the Holy Spirit. The fear which had crippled them was replaced with the Love of God. As the Apostle John later wrote, "Perfect love casts out fear." (I John 4:18). The men who had run away the night of our Lord's arrest, the men who had cowered behind closed doors after the death of our Lord, had now become the strong and fearless witnesses of whom Christ spoke, and not even the fear of death could stop them now.

There were many others in the area who were also in Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost (Acts 2:5-12). The sound of hearing their own languages drew them:

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.  Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans?  Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language?  Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

Everyone in Jerusalem knew the story of Jesus Christ. They knew He had been crucified as a common criminal and all of His followers seemed to have just dropped off the face of the earth. Nothing had been seen or heard from them after the crucifixion. Now, without any warning, here were these same men speaking perfectly in a multitude of different tongues and preaching "the wonders of God." They showed no fear, no hesitation whatsoever. The Apostle Peter spoke of the prophecies concerning Christ, how he was to come to earth as a Man to be crucified and be resurrected after three days. Peter concluded with, "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah."

The words poured out of Peter and the other Apostles and so affected those who heard them that "When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?"  The apostles baptized 3000 people that day. The beginning of the Church could be compared to the Big Bang that many say started the universe. The Big Bang theory, which is actually very consistent with Scripture, says that there was nothing until - BANG! - the universe was born, and it has been expanding and growing ever since. One moment on the morning of Pentecost, the Church did not exist. Then the Holy Spirit descended, filled the Apostles and - BANG! - the Church was born and, like the Universe, has been expanding ever since then with no end in sight.

There are many lessons associated with Pentecost, but one big lesson is that we are all completely powerless without the Holy Spirit. The Apostles spent 3 years with Christ during His earthly ministry and 40 days with the Risen, Glorified Christ, and yet they were just as carnal and unconverted in their thinking as the day they were born. The Apostles were as unable to grasp the spiritual as an ant is unable to grasp the Laws of Physics. The Holy Spirit, sent by Jesus and the Father, is the One who enlightens our minds and gives us power to be the children of God and do His Work. As Zechariah 4:6 says, "Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty."  Galatians 3:3 says, "Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?"  Our Lord said plainly, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."  (John 3:5-6).

When we start "stalling out", either individually or as a Church, that means we are not allowing the Holy Spirit to work in our lives. We are trying to live our lives under our own power, and that is a sure recipe for disaster. We will be as powerless as the apostles were prior to Pentecost. We each need our own individual Pentecost when we receive and are empowered by the Holy Spirit.

When Pope Benedict XVI was in New York City in 2008, he gave a sermon calling for a New Pentecost in the Church (you can read the full sermon here):

As we give thanks for past blessings, and look to the challenges of the future, let us implore from God the grace of a new Pentecost for the Church in America. May tongues of fire, combining burning love of God and neighbor with zeal for the spread of Christ’s Kingdom, descend on all present!

Stained glass window from outside

In this sermon, Pope Benedict compared the Church to stained glass windows, which look dark from the outside. Their beauty can be seen only from the inside. The same is true of the Church, which can look dark and incomprehensible to those who are not a part of it. It is our duty as Christians to draw people to the light and glory which can be seen only from inside the Church:

It is only from the inside, from the experience of faith and ecclesial life, that we see the Church as she truly is: flooded with grace, resplendent in beauty, adorned by the manifold gifts of the Spirit. It follows that we, who live the life of grace within the Church’s communion, are called to draw all people into this mystery of light.

Light streaming through stained glass window

If the Holy Spirit is acting in our lives, we won't be able to sit back and watch the world go by, no matter what our station in life is. Pope Benedict in his sermon at St. Patrick's Cathedral:

All of you, who fill this cathedral today, as well as you retired, elderly and infirm brothers and sisters, who unite their prayers and sacrifices to your labors, are called to be forces of unity within Christ’s Body. By your personal witness, and your fidelity to the ministry or apostolate entrusted to you, you prepare a path for the Spirit. For the Spirit never ceases to pour out his abundant gifts, to awaken new vocations and missions, and to guide the Church, as our Lord promised in this morning’s Gospel, into the fullness of truth (cf. Jn 16:13).

The Holy Spirit is the Life Force of the Church collectively and in each one of us individually. But the Holy Spirit will never force us to follow Him. Christ told the Apostles, "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth."  (John 16:13) We have to make ourselves available to Him, just as the Apostles did. They received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost because they followed the words of Christ and stayed in Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit was coming to Jerusalem, and if they had not remained in Jerusalem, they would not have received the Holy Spirit.

We must do the same. Today the Holy Spirit resides in the New Jerusalem, which is the Catholic Church, the Church which began on the Day of Pentecost. Our current Holy Father, Pope Francis, said on April 23 of this year that Christ cannot be found outside of the Catholic Church. You can read his full sermon here.

[I]t is not possible to find Jesus outside the Church. The great Paul VI said: "Wanting to live with Jesus without the Church, following Jesus outside of the Church, loving Jesus without the Church is an absurd dichotomy." And the Mother Church that gives us Jesus gives us our identity that is not only a seal, it is a belonging. Identity means belonging. This belonging to the Church is beautiful.

The Catholic Church is where the Holy Trinity resides. The Catholic Church is the only place where the fullness of Truth can be found. Jesus Christ is Life. There is no life outside of Him. Since, as Pope Francis has told us, Jesus cannot be found outside of the Church, there is no life outside of the Church.

We have been given a beautiful gift in the Holy Spirit, who is our Guide, Comforter and Teacher. But like our Blessed Mother, we must say yes to the Holy Spirit or He cannot work in us. The choice is ours.

The Question in the Gosnell Case: Can We Handle The Truth

#Gosnell jury is done for the day. They return tomorrow for Day 9 of deliberations. KEEP PRAYING!!!
— Stand True(@StandTrue) May 9, 2013

Most of the media has ignored it, but there has been a trial in Philadelphia regarding Dr. Kermit Gosnell and the house of horrors he ran which is otherwise known as an abortion clinic. He specialized in late term abortions, past the first trimester, which are very difficult to do because the baby is so large and well developed. It got to a point where he basically had the mothers deliver the babies alive and whole and he would then cut the spinal cord to kill the baby. That, of course, is illegal. American law allows a baby to be killed as long as he or she is still in the womb. That is not murder under the law. But if that same baby takes a breath outside the womb, it is then no longer called abortion. The law considers that to be murder. I would submit that it makes no difference to the baby, but American law doesn't care about that.

The current charges which the jury is considering against Gosnell are the murders of four children and one woman who died as a result of a botched abortion, and over 200 additional charges. Most pro lifers are praying for a guilty plea in this matter. But what would this mean to the pro life movement?

Credit:  www.tldm.org

If Gosnell is found guilty, that will actually make abortion more legitimate in the eyes of the public and the law. A guilty verdict will say that what Gosnell did in his killing field is somehow different than what the "average" abortion clinic does. A guilty verdict in the Gosnell case will enforce the idea that abortion - the killing of a baby inside the womb - is not murder. Granted, most abortion clinics are run in a more "hygienic" manner in that they dispose of the dead babies in a "proper" manner, treating these little human beings as medical waste and not putting their dead bodies in the freezer as Gosnell did or keeping their body parts in jars. Most clinics don't have blood, feces and urine on their walls. Women don't generally deliver their babies into a toilet where the baby is then killed. The abortion tools in most clinics are usually cleaned after each use and venereal diseases are not normally spread between women as happened in Gosnell's office. But the end result is exactly the same: dead babies.

Why are pro abortion proponents trying as hard as they can to run away from Gosnell, telling us that this is not what "reproductive healthcare clinics" are about? Those who support abortion want a guilty verdict. Nancy Pelosi, a strong supporter of abortion, said this in regard to Gosnell:

“I think that whatever went on there — I only know what you all report on it — is really disgusting,” Pelosi replied. “It is really disgusting, and when we talk about reproductive health for women, that’s not what we’re talking about.”

In debating a resolution in the Senate calling for hearings on the Gosnell matter, Senator Barbara Boxer, according to a lifenews.com article, said:  "the problems at the Gosnell abortion clinic were really no different than problems at any other medical clinic."  She actually may be telling the truth, at least in regard to abortion clinics.

Planned Parenthood, which makes its money by killing unborn babies, strongly condemned Gosnell. This is from christianpost.com:

"Planned Parenthood strongly condemns the alleged actions of Kermit Gosnell, and we would condemn any physician or health-care provider who did not follow the law or recklessly endangered the health of others," stated Dayle Steinberg, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania, in an article posted on philly.com.

Planned Parenthood somehow doesn't see the irony of that statement. Every abortion "recklessly endangers the health of others" in that every abortion is about killing a baby. This may be a news flash to Planned Parenthood, but killing is basically the definition of "recklessly endangers health."

The public consensus is that Kermit Gosnell is guilty of every single charge against him and is a mass murderer. I most certainly agree with that. However, we need to remember that every abortionist is a mass murderer. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, an abortionist who repented and became actively pro life and converted to Catholicism, estimates he presided over 60,000 deaths. And he was just one abortionist. (You can read about Dr. Nathanson here.) There have been 55+ million abortions in the United States. That would easily average out to tens of thousands of abortions for each abortionist. Dr. Nathanson died in 2011 (his funeral Mass was in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City), but if he were still alive, he would be the first to tell you that there is virtually no difference between what he did and the actions of Kermit Gosnell. As I mentioned earlier, the result was exactly the same: dead babies.

The State of Pennsylvania purposely did not inspect Gosnell's clinic for 17 years. Why? Businessinsider.com gives us the answer:

Pennsylvania's health department stopped routine inspections of abortion facilities in the state after Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, became governor in 1995.

Health department lawyers "changed their legal opinions and advice to suit the policy preferences of different governors," health department official Janet Staloski said in grand jury testimony. In this case, she said the state didn't want to be "putting a barrier up to women" who wanted abortions.

In 1999, high-level Pennsylvania officials met to consider starting up regular inspections again but decided not to, state lawyer Kenneth Brody testified, according to the grand jury report. He told the grand jury that officials were concerned that abortion clinics wouldn't meet inspection standards and then there "would be less abortion facilities."

The state's politics-driven policy continued until the gruesome allegations regarding Gosnell came to light.

Abortion clinics were purposely not inspected because officials did not want to take a chance that some would not meet "standards" and as a result, have to be closed down, The only reason the authorities became aware of the nightmare occurring in Gosnell's clinic is because the Feds suspected he was involved in illegal drug trafficking. They raided his clinic and only then discovered the terrible conditions. According to the businessinsider.com article, "They found moaning women covered in blood-stained blankets and jars with severed fetus feet, according to the 281-page grand jury report." This is despite the fact that many women had gone to Planned Parenthood clinics and complained to them about Gosnell. Planned Parenthood, despite their public condemnation of Gosnell, did nothing to follow up on the complaints.

We really shouldn't be shocked at the callousness shown by both the government and Planned Parenthood. They are in the business of killing babies. Do we really think that people who can casually and on a routine basis kill innocent and defenseless unborn babies would have compassion on anyone?

Kathryn Lopez of National Review wrote about a report done by Fox News last week regarding Gosnell. She described the closing arguments which were discussed in the Fox News report as follows:

Bret Baier hosted a special Friday night on Fox News Channel about the Kermit Gosnell trial. (I tweeted some about it, @kathrynlopez.) During it FNC’s Peter Boyer, formerly of The New Yorker, described Gosnell’s defense: He was doing his job. Boyer was in the courtroom and described the defense attorney as having a “Jack Nicholson” “you can’t handle the truth moment.” Essentially: Abortion is ugly, he provided abortions, deal with it. 

Thehill.com gives a further report on the closing argument from Gosnell's attorney.

It will be downright unfair if Dr. Kermit Gosnell is found guilty of murder this week at his abortion-infanticide trial in Philadelphia. His defense attorney made a convincing case in closing arguments that abortion doctors end pregnancies every day, so why single out Gosnell? Perhaps he operated under particularly unsanitary conditions, was singularly incompetent, and committed medical malpractice, but, really, murder?

. . .

Baby killed inside the mother – legal abortion. Very same baby killed seconds later on the other side of the birth canal – murder. In abortion, as in real estate, it’s location, location, location.

Dr. Gosnell tried the legal methods, but he failed at pinpointing the baby’s heart – it requires skill he doesn’t have to delicately guide the needle through a pregnant woman’s belly into the stubbornly beating heart of the unborn baby.

. . .

Oh, the injustice of it all. Doctor in Pennsylvania is charged with a crime for aborting a 25-week baby; doctor in New Jersey gets a good fee for aborting a 25-week fetus. Location, location, location.

. . .

Turns out Gosnell is not alone in the live-birth abortion-infanticides either. A sting operation from LiveAction has shown several other women’s health clinics are willing to let babies die if they accidentally come out alive. Former employees at other clinics have come forward to say they witnessed Gosnell-like practices where they worked, and no one is investigating or prosecuting them.

Credit:  www.parents.com

Gosnell's defense attorney is absolutely right. Gosnell was providing a service that is completely lawful in the United States: killing unborn babies. Yes, he often actually delivered the babies before killing them, but does it really make a difference to the baby whether he is inside or outside his mother's womb when he is killed? Pro abortionists want us to believe there is a vast difference, and a guilty verdict will play right into their hands.

Those who are involved in or supportive of abortion desperately want a guilty verdict in the Gosnell case. A guilty verdict will enable them to point at Gosnell and distance themselves from him, claiming that what they do is not the same. They terminate pregnancies. Gosnell kills babies. A guilty verdict will, in effect, legitimize abortion in the eyes of the public because it will say that abortion and murder are not the same. A guilty verdict will do major damage to the pro life movement.

A not guilty verdict will force Americans to face up to the ugly reality of abortion. If we say that Gosnell's actions - the killing of viable babies - are lawful, then we are admitting that abortion is legally sanctioned murder.

Unless we convict all abortionists - and I do pray for that day - Kermit Gosnell is not guilty under American law. That is the truth we all must handle.

Credit:  www.gospelgifs.com