My Sow is no Longer a Gilt

9 Pigs delivered last week. I have yet to decide what the plans will be for all of them, but I do know some will be in my freezer. You thought puppies were cute, pigs are on par in cuteness with puppies.

Update From The Homestead

I haven't posted in a looong while due to moving to a farm, changing jobs, having a baby and many more adventures. Here is a picture update:

Not much of pic of the house, but It's pretty far out in the country. Great sunsets! 

Frame of a chicken coop I built, which I now use for chicks. I use chicken tractors for the adult birds now. 

Had to buy some needed items for land and livestock maintenance.

100 chicks from a local poultry farm. I butchered half of them already, lost a few to natural causes, and the rest are now laying deliciousness farm fresh eggs. This is one of my adult roosters. 

I bought 3 pigs in hopes to butcher and breed them, breeding isn't going as planed, so I will be butchering the lot of them soon. I slaughtered one a few months ago and have the last two to do soon. Meat on the Large Black is awesome. 

Here I am about t butcher. 

The end product:

This is Hope the Jersey cow. We will be milking her as soon as the neighbors bull services her. 

This guy stung my finger. Ouch! 

Before and after pic of my tractor I reconditioned. 

Found this guy near my shop. Had to change my pants after I lopped its head off. Kidding

That about sums up the highlights of the first few months at the homestead.

Pax 

Disorientation During New-Hire Orientation

A brief update: I have finished all of my work for my bachelors degree this December, so that is one good thing accomplished and one less thing to worry about. Secondly, I am still in the middle of selling my home and purchasing a new one. The deals are moving forward and looking positive, but my family and I relocated with most of my things in storage. That includes my books, so my posts wont be as well researched. I have also started a new job this week and that is going very well. With all this going on, I still feel compelled to write, simply because I enjoy it. Now on to other matters:

As I mentioned, I have started a new job this week. It is an improvement from my previous employer for various reasons, which I will not get into, but with starting any new job, you must go through an orientation process. During my current orientation process, I surprisingly noticed a change in content which was very disappointing, but not entirely inconsistent with the culture today. 

We were having a lecture on multiculturalism on the first day of orientation and learning the typical info about America as a melting pot and how we must adapt to other cultures and languages, when the speaker, mentioned the LGBT community and juxtaposed them with other races. 

I couldn't believe they were trying to  pass homosexuals off as another race, as if a behavior, a disordered sexual preference could be thrown into this multiculturalism box. The ignorance of these people is just embarrassing. Race, Color, and the distinguishing physical traits are obviously something that everyone should accommodate and accept, but to associate a disordered behavior with a persons race is just asinine and more importantly an acquiescence to moral relativism.  

What made this whole scenario all the more disgusting was the fact that this company continually touted that it was a "faith based organization". The faith mentioned is one of the protestant flavors, so it is not surprising the stance they are taking on this. 

I know and understand that our culture is moving in a southward direction, but i cant help be disappointed when even so called "faith based organizations" tank to the pressure of the LGBT community. I am literally watching the moral fiber of our country crumble away, piece by piece. 

To sum up, if your going to have sensitivity training for the acceptance of gays: fine, teach that we need not discriminate or be mean to them for their sinful lifestyles, but dont make the mistake of associating it with a congenital hereditary trait like race; that is erroneous. Look, I know we are all sinners and some worse than others. I accept gays as human beings, respect their eternal souls, and will love them as best I can. But loving them does not entail me approving of their sin nor as something to be celebrated and respected. Its just not going to happen. 

I just pray that I wont have to sign or fill out some sort of statement or affirmation approving of their lifestyle; otherwise, I am hosed. 

What Should Our Children Learn in School

I have not posted in a while, because I am in the process of selling my home, finishing up school, having a baby, changing jobs etc. But here is a short essay I did on Texas education. The audience is my instructor, and covers questions in regard to the State Board of Education and educational issues in Texas. 

What Should Our Children Learn in School

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) is an elected body by voters in each district who determines what curriculum is to be learned and how money is allocated. This system replaced the preexisting SBOE which consisted of nine appointed representatives. (Collier, Galatas and Harrelson-Stephens)

Periodically the SBOE formulates new curriculum, textbooks and their content. It is at these times which political agendas are pushed, especially in the social studies curriculum. One example of this is a post by Liberty Institute recommending citizens to contact their local representative to prevent “the Liberal takeover of Texas Education!” Here is an excerpt from one of their blogs decrying the removal of Thomas Jefferson from the social studies curriculum and accusing the ACLU as an antagonist:

Do you want to take a stand for accurate history and the future of Texas school children? We want to help you make a difference.

Fringe liberal groups and media are working overtime to spread misinformation, hoping to convince Texans that the Board has completely removed Thomas Jefferson from the social studies standards (Jefferson is actually more prominent in the U.S. History standards than anyone else except George Washington) and not fairly representing minorities (approved standards actually contain more minority representation than ever before).

The ACLU and others are using misinformation to force their ideology into the curriculum and force the State Board of Education (SBOE) to delay the final vote on the social studies standards until after the November elections, hoping there will be more liberal representation on the Board. The Board has been working on social studies for over 14 months now, and it’s time to vote! (Texas Values)

A more recent issue is the revision of Textbooks to include Moses as an influence of the Founding Fathers. Some critics question the validity of this statement and say it is an exaggeration — an underhanded attempt to inculcate Judeo-Christian thought into the curriculum. (The Associated Press) These changes fall in the wake of a 2010 ruling of a then new conservative curriculum that allowed Republicans to retain long held ideas of Moses’ influence on the systems of law. (The Associated Press) Other issues with texts include the impetuses of the Civil War, as well as racial, slavery, and climate change omissions in the texts. (Isensee)

Even more controversial is the problem of evolution as the standard theory of explaining life to be taught in public schools. This is a problem in a state in which the majority: 51% doubt the theory of evolution. (Terkel) In 2013 the SBOE approved new science textbooks that teach evolution. (Klein) This begs the question, why is evolution —which is not the majority opinion — being taught in public schools? Texas Freedom Network mentioned that the changes were a result of “last minute [hijacking]” of special interest groups. (Klein)

Without going into great detail about the controversial topic of evolution, I feel that it’s necessary to briefly state that there are grave weaknesses to the theory of evolution which are enumerated well by the Kolbe Center, who also show that it is a bad/non-reproducible science. (Kolbe Center) In addition to this, in no way is evolution nor theistic evolution compatible with the Genesis account of creation, thus prohibiting Christians to adopt it. (Franklin) In essence most theories of evolution presuppose Adam as representing a group of first parents (polygenism). If this assumption is granted, then:

[N]ot everyone would be tainted by original sin. [Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…(Romans 5:11)] There would be millions of other people without the taint of original sin. I know this goes without saying, but original sin must be believed or you have no need for sacrifice or a savior and our faith is truncated. There are few evolutionists who believe in monogenism, they adhere to a group theory of evolution. If they didn't, they would be positing a theory which by happenstance, one woman appeared on the evolutionary pathway and one man, they happen to find each other and then reproduce; the chances of this are unbelievable. Few if any evolutionary theories are compatible with this orthodox belief and primarily Genesis. (Franklin)

While liberals may decry the inaccuracy of Moses as an early influence to democracy as bad science; they negate to notice the wobbly foundation of evolution and natural selection as sound science. The evidence for Creationism requires a modicum of faith and likewise so does the theory of evolution, both have marvelous claims: special creation of species from an omnipotent God and contrarily, atoms against all odds, come together form molecules, which in turn form proteins; those in turn under perfect conditions form microorganisms, etc. Although I officially don’t recommend it, but for inclusions sake, a solution is to include both in the curriculum.

Although the Texas SBOE have been involved in many controversial actions, Common Core hasn’t been one of them; in fact, “the state legislature in 2013 prohibited Texas from adopting Common Core or using Common Core standards in its classrooms. (Collier, Galatas and Harrelson-Stephens 457) Critics of Common Core attack the instructional material that must be aligned with Common Core. (Weiss) 132 Catholic college professors, enumerated their issues with Common Core in a signed letter to their Bishops in order to curtail its adoption in private Catholic Schools across the country. (Bradley) They say, “[W]e are convinced that Common Core is so deeply flawed that it should not be adopted by Catholic schools which have yet to approve it, and that those schools which have already endorsed it should seek an orderly withdrawal now.” (Bradley) They quote educational experts who have studied it closely and say it is a “step backward”, and students “will not be prepared for authentic college work;” notwithstanding the fact that supporters of Common Core admit “it is geared to prepare children only for community-college-level studies.” (Bradley) Supporters claim that it will prepare students for college and careers, but Bradley et al. judge Common Core to be a recipe for standardized workforce preparation as opposed to preparing students for “a life of the imagination, of the spirit, and of deep appreciation for beauty, goodness, truth, and faith.” (Bradley) I understand that Bradley et al. represent only a small portion of the opposition to Common Core, but I believe they capture the heart of the problem.

With all the issues mentioned above it is not surprising that parents have opted for alternatives to their children’s education. One of those options that has become very popular is homeschooling. From 2003 -2013, the number of children being homeschooled has increased by 61.8%. (Jeffrey) Certain patterns were also noted by the Department of Education: The more educated the parent, the more likely they are to homeschool (I can’t help mention here, that my wife and I homeschool our 6 children) and the majority are middle class families. (Jeffrey) Homeschooling has become a refuge for parents who want to avoid opposing ideas and even unnatural influences to their children. Especially when, in the small town of Lumberton, Texas, a male teacher — who signs his name as Mrs. Klug and wears woman’s clothing —is allowed to teach young impressionable children. (The Other McCain)

Aside from mentally confused teachers, Homeschoolers can protect their children from a milieu of other problem curricula ranging from explicit sex education classes, evolutionary theory, climate change, and gender studies; and potential behavioral temptations such as drugs and premature sexual relations. But right along with these protections, homeschooling provides superior education with homeschoolers performing in the top percentiles on standardized tests. (Rorate Caeli) Homeschooling is not for everyone, but it does afford one-on-one education with children and parents are able to be more involved relationally with their children —accommodating to their specific needs more easily than a teacher with 20 something other kids. Lastly, the socialization complaint from naysayers of homeschoolers is simply founded upon absolutely zero data.

I am a product of public education in Texas and although some come out of it doing very well, I feel that I could have gotten a better education. This is not entirely due to the curriculum or the teachers, but primarily because my parents did not push me hard and hanging with the wrong crowd; this is the case for most kids. It is rare to find a child who is interested in hitting the books; they would rather play games and goof off; this is natural. If we can figure out how to motivate parents as well as kids to take a more active role in their education, then I believe scores would greatly increase. Funding and having resources are very important, but I think too much emphasis is put on underfunded school districts and even curricula. Having laptops and new books do not make you smarter, love of truth and proper motivations do.

Works Cited

Bradley, Gerard V. "Letter to Catholic Bishops to Oppose Common Core." Notre Dame : University of Notre Dame School of Law, 16 October 2013. Letter. <http://files.meetup.com/1387375/Letter%20to%20Catholic%20Bishops%20on%20the%20Common%20Core%20F.pdf>.

Collier, Ken, Steven Galatas and Julie Harrelson-Stephens. Lone Star Politics: Tradition and Transformation in Texas. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2015. Print.

Franklin, Jeremy. Theistic Evolution: A Contradiction to The Genesis Account. 23 August 2015. Web. 22 November 2015. <http://thetripletiara.blogspot.com/2015/08/theistic-evolution-contradiction-to.html>.

Isensee, Laura. How Textbooks Can Teach Different Versions of History. 13 July 2015. Web. 22 November 2015. <http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/07/13/421744763/how-textbooks-can-teach-different-versions-of-history>.

Jeffrey, Terence P. 1,773,000: Homeschooled Children Up 61.8% in 10 Years. 19 May 2015. Web. 22 November 2015. <http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/1773000-homeschooled-children-618-10-years>.

Klein, Rebecca. Texas Oks Controversial Environmental Science Textbook. 22 November 2013. Web. 22 November 2015. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/texas-environmental-science-textbook_n_4326160.html>.

Kolbe Center. The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. 2015. Web. 22 November 2015. <http://kolbecenter.org/>.

Rorate Caeli. Homeschooling Growing Seven Times Faster Than Public School Enrollment. 8 June 2013. Web. 22 November 2015. <http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/homeschooling-growing-seven-times.html>.

Terkel, Amanda. Poll: Large Number of Texans Doubt the Theory of Evolution, Believe in Human Dinosaur Coexistance. 19 February 2010. Web. 22 November 2015. <http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/02/19/82946/texas-evolution/>.

Texas Values. Stop the Liberal Takeover of Texas Education! Take Action! 5 May 2010. Web. 22 November 2015. <https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/contact-state-board-of-education-for-improved-curricula/>.

The Associated Press. Texas Approves Disputed History Texts for School. 22 Novermber 2014. Web. 22 November 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/us/texas-approves-disputed-history-texts-for-schools.html?_r=1>.

The Other McCain. Texas Tranny Teacher. 9 April 2014. Web. 22 November 2015. <http://theothermccain.com/2014/04/09/texas-tranny-teacher/>.

Weiss, Jeffrey. What Texans Need to Know About Common Core Education Standards. 23 June 2014. Web. 22 November 2015. <http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20140623-what-texans-need-to-know-about-common-core-education-standards.ece>.

The Importance of the Rosary and Divine Office

The Importance of the Rosary and Divine Office

I have just come back from spending a few days at Our Lady of the Annunciation of Clear Creek Abbey, a beautiful Abbey situated in the Ozark Mountains. It was a well overdue sabbatical from my busy life to refocus myself in the Benedictine Spirituality that I love. In July of last year I became a Benedictine Oblate and have spent the last year in a novitiate in preparation to give my Promises to the Order. Yesterday, I wrote out my Oblation Charter and the ceremony was performed for my entry in to the Order of St. Benedict as a Lay Oblate. This does not make me a monk; however, it does entail a resolution to reform my life in accord with the Rule of St. Benedict and in relation to Clear Creek Abbey. Needless to say, I am very proud to be officially associated with the Abbey, the Benedictine Order and the Spirituality which has done so much for Western Civilization.

The main purpose of this post is to briefly compare the importance of the Rosary and the Divine Office. I have been praying both prayers ever since my conversion in 2004, but I had always wondered which takes precedence.

Once I became an Oblate last year, the drive to pray the Benedictine Office had increased; although, I have no specific charge to pray this as a Oblate or a layman, its centrality to the Benedictine charism is paramount. This brought up the question which prayer in my busy schedule takes precedence? Great arguments can be had on how important both are.

One the one hand, the Divine Office is the public, universal and official prayer of the Church and is chiefly comprised of Divinely Inspired Scripture. An acquaintance of mine from Mater Dei Parish just gave talk on the importance of the Office and how to pray it, which I am referencing a little from. It isn't published, therefore I will not cite it. He however pulled most of his material from the book, "The Divine Office. How to Say it Devoutly. How to Make it A Pleasure." by E.D.M. (Rev. Father Paul O'Sullivan). Here a few excerpts from his presentation:

The public, universal, official prayer of the Church.

The prayer of loving adoration, praise and thanksgiving to God in which Earth and Heaven form         one great choir.

Prayers of the Holy Ghost Himself being that the great bulk of the Office is taken from Sacred             Scriptures.

A prayer that can be united in intention with the Masses being celebrated all over the world. 

A prayer that also increases in efficacy when recited in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

We are uniting our voices with the voices of hundreds of thousands of bishops and priests, monks       and nuns, all over the world.

He states a handful more items that are associated with the office, but these I feel have the most weight. 

On the other hand you have the Holy Rosary, a.k.a. the poor mans Psalter. This post is nowhere near adequate to give due praise to the benefits of the Rosary. Numerous books have been written about the Rosary; Saints and Doctors of the Church praise it, many miracles have been wrought by it and Popes have written encyclicals about it.The Rosary has been given to us by the Blessed Virgin herself through St. Dominic. She says;

"Realize the power in your hand with the Rosary, for in your hands you hold the power of God. If you do not recognize the Rosary, can you expect to be recognized by My Son? How much can you expect? Why do you hide My Rosary? It was with a Mother's loving heart that I chose to give you these pearls of Heaven that you reject.
"Woe to all dedicated who seek to remove these from the little ones' hands, for their punishment will be metered in accordance to it!
"Why has sophisticated man cast aside these tokens of My love? Those who remain true to My Rosary will not be touched by the fires. Gather these treasures, My children, for the time will come that you will not find them on the counters of your stores." - Our Lady of the Roses, October 6, 1970

The Rosary is completely scriptural, it is the layman's Divine Office, and it has indulgences attached to it, The promises given to St. Dominic for those who pray it:

1. Whosoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary shall receive signal graces.

2. I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.

3. The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin and defeat heresies.

4. It will cause good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of men from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire for Eternal Things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means.

5. The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary shall not perish.

6. Whosoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying himself to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of Eternal Life.

7. Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church.

8. Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the Light of God and the plenitude of His Graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the Merits of the Saints in Paradise.

9. I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.

10. The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of Glory in Heaven.

11. You shall obtain all you ask of me by recitation of the Rosary.

12. All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.

13. I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire Celestial Court during their life and at the hour of death.

14. All who recite the Rosary are my Sons, and brothers of my Only Son Jesus Christ.

15. Devotion to my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.

Cool fact: Some Catholics say if you fall asleep while praying the Rosary, the Angels finish it for you.

That was quite a list and with all that said, both prayers are the nuclear missiles of intercession — you cant go wrong praying either. That brings us back to square one. Which prayer takes priority? I asked a good priest from my parish this same question and he clearly said the Rosary is better for layman since we do have an obligation to pray the Divine Office. Just this weekend I asked one of the Monks at Clear Creek and without hesitation he said the Rosary. Another diocesan priest who was present for the conversation added that, he has never known anyone who has fallen away from the faith that prayed the Rosary. The answer to this question may have been apparent to some from the start, but for me it wasn't. I don't know if the Church has officially placed the Rosary anywhere in a hierarchy, but my guess is the Sacrifice of the Mass takes the cake and close behind is the Rosary. 

Does Liberty trump Local Control

This post is simply a short term paper I wrote for a political science class comparing two views, one for and the other against local-control, i.e. subsidiarity in Catholic terms. The main sources are an article from a Texas politician and the other from an organization in favor of maintaining sovereignty at the city level. Both sources are not bad reads and pertinent to any Texan concerned for politics. This is not overtly Catholic in content, but I do get a little philosophical truth in towards the end; it is what it is.

Local Control in Texas

Local-government is a proven model for cities who fear outside control and unnecessary change from the big guys in the capitol with their lack of insight and understanding of its local needs. However, what happens when the local sovereignty abuses its power, is influenced by special interest groups, and infringes upon liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Rep. Matt Rinaldi would argue that civil liberties trump the authority of local control, which is in contrast to Local Control Texas’ argument that local-control is itself a right given by the Home Rule Amendment of 1912 and is a Texas tradition. The arguments presented are apparent contradictions because both tout to be licit. Which argument takes precedence or can they be reconciled?

ABSOLUTE LOCAL CONTROL

Local Control Texas’ (LCT) main argument is that federal control is in contrast to local tradition and more specifically the Home Rule Amendment which grants cities of over 5000 citizens to pass their own charters and laws. (Local Control Texas) This would seem to be a closed case since this right is granted to the cities by law. Although both parties agree that local control is best for communities, LCT could have done a better job in strengthening their point. They have proven that local control is licit, but they failed to stress the benefits of local-control in their main write up. LCT provides many examples of how the state government has infringed upon their sovereignty and values in the legislation section, but it takes some sifting, cutting, and pasting from other sections of their website to bolster their argument. Some of the more weighty arguments that were unearthed were: The state would “have to pass hundreds of laws dealing with local quality of life issues.” and “Local governments have the insight to preserve trees, natural areas and wildlife” that hold special value to the residence that otherwise could be demolished for advertising. (Local Control Texas) It goes without saying that local residents know more about their history and heritage, which serves them in the transmission of their traditions to later generations.

LIBERTY TRUMPS LOCAL CONTROL

On the other hand, Governor Abbot claims that we are being “Californianized” (increased bans on liberties), by local governments infringing upon individual rights. (Rinaldi) What’s more, Rinaldi’s defends local-government by quoting President Ronald Raegan saying, “government is best which remains closest to the people." He continues to praise local-government by adding, “Local governments are far superior to state governments in their ability to communicate with, aggregate feedback from and respond to issues raised by local constituents in areas like public education, zoning, fire codes and traffic regulations. State micromanagement of these areas is unnecessary and more likely to be out of line with local needs.” (Rinaldi) I believe LCT would have been better served by adding credible quotations similar to Raegan’s to its arsenal.

Despite Rinaldi’s praise of local government, he does find areas in which local-government is lacking, especially when local government overreaches its bounds. Some of those boundaries include: “warrantless searches, restricting political speech, and seizure of private property without just compensation.” (Rinaldi) He even makes reference to the fact that any law that is enacted statewide impinges upon local control; while Rinaldi respects the control of local governments on some issues, he maintains that it is subordinate to a higher authority. The higher authorities stated by Rinaldi are: the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the 1st amendment while citing Gitlow v. New York, which voided state and local laws abridging freedom of speech. (Rinaldi) Lastly, Rinaldi claims that supporters of local government, are inconsistent or rather hypocritical on some issues, especially ones to which they are inclined.

CONCLUSION

In hindsight, Rinaldi’s arguments are more cogently presented than TLCs, yet granting place on some issues to the antagonists. By granting their authority on those issues, it results in a partial loss of power at the local level, and serves as a middle position —avoiding unpalatable extremes. He recognizes the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over state constitutions, further validating the hierarchy of the Federal Government over state government. I propose specifying areas in which state governments cannot infringe upon local governments in order to maintain proper checks and balances on both sides.

A current example between local and state government includes the use of hydraulic fracking; a method of extracting natural gas which poses an inconvenience to residents by potential contamination of water, noise pollution, and backflows possibly resulting in earthquakes. (Collier, Galatas and Harrelson-Stephens 396) Local city councils were able to prohibit fracking by using zoning and planning ordinances to restrict its use to areas far removed from residents. However, opposition from state lawmakers who are in favor of fracking, reflect different interest for those who wish to benefit monetarily from their mineral rights. (Collier, Galatas and Harrelson-Stephens 397) Consequently, some state lawmakers advocate for the few individuals who benefit from fracking, despite the zoning and planning ordinances cities have been using to undermine state law.

Rinaldis stance on personal-liberties superseding local-control is an idea which is very popular today among the masses. More often now than ever do we see personal liberties being granted by the courts over local-laws which were placed there for the common good despite their infringement on the personal liberties of a few. What higher authority have these courts appealed to; their interpretation of the Constitution, the common good, natural-law, divine-law, or liberty in and of itself? I think this line of thinking is dangerous, because it presupposes that laws preventing personal-liberties are erroneous simply because they don’t align with modern thinking. Objectivity should always be the goal when determining the pragmatic end to which the law was promulgated; if that good end is no longer applicable, there should be progress; if not, it should be defended as such. TLC believes just as Rinaldi does, that local-control is the optimal method of governance of communities; however, there are more questions to be answered, such as, “Under what grounds can the state check local authorities and by what means will this be executed?” Does it merit a complete revocation of power?

Works Cited

Collier, Ken, Steven E. Galatas and Julie D. Harrelson-Stephens. Lone Star Politics. Los Angeles: Sage, 2015. Book.

Local Control Texas. What is "Local Control?". 2015. Web. 7 September 2015. <http://www.localcontroltexas.org/#!about/cjg9>.

Rinaldi, Matt. Liberty trumps local control. Trib. Austin: The Texas Tribune, 12 March 2015. web. 7 September 2015. <http://www.tribtalk.org/2015/03/15/in-defense-of-straight-ticket-voting/>.

Communion in the Hand: An Ecumenical Gesture of a Defiant Symbol

Communion in the Hand: An Ecumenical Gesture of a Defiant Symbol

For Catholics who attend the Traditional Mass of the Roman Rite religiously, communion in the hand is generally not a concern; for receiving on the tongue is the norm. However, if you are like me and periodically attend the Novus Ordo Mass during the week because your FSSP parish is not as close as you prefer or don't offer Mass at a manageable time, then you may find yourself faced with an important decision: do I receive in the hand or not? If you are standing in a line for Holy Communion and no one is kneeling and few are receiving on the tongue —I admit I used to hesitate, as not to be the odd man out. Do you conform to what everyone else is doing so as not to draw attention to yourself, even though your conscience may be telling you otherwise? Some may argue that it is good etiquette to, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do," so as not to offend the "presiding" priest of that parish or appear holier than thou. The most important question you should ask is, "In what way can I best Glorify Jesus?" Pope Paul's New Mass by Michael Davies —from which I will be paraphrasing primarily, I hope to give some history and context regarding why the practice of receiving communion in the hand (CIH) is steeped in controversy. 

SUBVERSION OF THE FAITH BY PRIMITIVE PRACTICE

The primary argument that proponents of CIH give is that the Apostles received CIH by Jesus at the Last Supper. This is true, yet we must realize that peter was first consecrated as bishops prior to the supper when Jesus by the giving of the Keys to Peter and again to the others later at the Ascension. CIH was a common practice in the early church; however, it is accepted that the pastoral practice and our understanding of truths can develop over time.

We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. There is no mechanical identity, but an organic identity. And we go further and say that thousands of years hence Catholicism will probably be even richer, more luxuriant, more manifold in dogma, morals, law, and worship than the Catholicism of the present day. (Adam 2)

This spirit of reversion to primitive practice is something characteristic of Protestantism and heresy. Many a denomination has been formed on singular beliefs and practices that are used as banners and slogans to support their own schism. Pope Pious the XII warns of the practice of reviving obsolete practices, "[it is] a wicked movement that tends to paralyze the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their Father." He more fully explains:

The liturgy of early ages is worthy of veneration; but an ancient custom is not to be considered better, either in itself or in relation to later times and circumstances, just because it has the flavor of antiquity. More recent liturgical rites are also worthy of reverence and respect, because they too have been introduced under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, who is with the Church in all ages even to the consummation of the world . . .the desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of a table; to want black excluded from the liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches [all of which have been done in the modern parish]... This attitude is an attempt to revive the ‘archaeologism’ to which the pseudo synod of Pistoia gave rise; it seeks also to re-introduce the many pernicious errors which led to that synod and resulted from it and which the Church, in her capacity of watchful guardian of ‘the deposit of faith’ entrusted to her by her Divine Founder has rightly condemned. (Pious XII) [Emphasis mine]

As is seen, a reintroduction of primitive practices has the occasion of letting in old errors which the improved practices had been successful in squelching. Furthermore, we can see informal evidence of this by the lack of Eucharistic Adoration in Novus Ordo parishes as well as widespread abuse and lack of reverence in the distribution of the Holy Eucharist. The occasion for abuse is much more difficult in the Tridentine Mass while receiving our Lord in the kneeling position at an alter rail and on the tongue.

EARLY PRACTICES AND CHANGES

Receiving on the tongue was not officially prescribed until The Synod of Rouen in the year 650 and we see it in the Roman Ordo in the ninth century, but Davies presupposes that the practice had been long-established in the region. Whatever the reason for the change, it was for the better and must have stemmed from a blossoming in understanding and respect for the Eucharist in addition to possible abuses. 

Early customs of receiving communion by women included a cloth called a dominical which was placed over their hands and the Host placed inside of it. This practice was mention by St. Cyril of Jerusalem and the text is edited to be used to propagandize CIH as the preferred method for receiving. Here is the text by the Saint: 

Approaching therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding “Amen”. Then carefully sanctifying the eyes by touching them with the holy Body, partake of it, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it. For if you mislay any, you would clearly suffer a loss, as it were, from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it or sustain any loss? So will you not be much more cautious to ensure that not a crumb falls away from that which is more precious than gold or precious stones? 

Then, after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, come forward only for the cup of the Blood. Do not stretch out your hands but bow low as if making an act of obeisance and a profound act of veneration. Say “Amen”, and sanctify yourself by partaking of Christ’s Blood also. While the moisture is still on your lips, touch them with your hands and sanctify your eyes, your forehead, and all your other sensory organs. Finally, wait for the prayer and give thanks to God, who has deemed you worthy of such mysteries. (Cyril of Jerusalem)

The practices of touching sensory organs and kissing the Host were extravagant ways of showing reverence; the inherent dangers are apparent. This practice is later recorded by Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus in Syria and St. John Damascus.

ONLY WHAT IS CONSECRATED SHOULD CONTACT THE BLESSED SACRAMENT

Not until the mid thirteenth century was the tradition of only the priests touching the Host recorded. Thomas Aquinas gives us the reasons: 

The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above, he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the Supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency. (Aquinas P.III,Q.82,A.13)[Emphasis mine]

Although objectively speaking something that is consecrated is set apart from things that are profane, some do not accept that the priest has special privileges to handle the Eucharist. This is made manifest in certain pamphlets distributed at the era in which this change was being made —yet we read contrariwise from Aquinas. More evidence can be read in the Roman Pontifical, where the traditional ordination rite attests, "Realize what you are doing, model yourselves on what you handle, and as you celebrate the mystery of the Lord’s death, see that your  bodies are wholly dead to every vice and carnal pleasure." [Emphasis mine] It is clear that the expectation was that the newly ordained would be handling Christ primarily otherwise it would not specifically mention it. 

Saint John Paul II also indicates an understanding that the priests’ consecrated hands are for the purpose of contacting that which is sacred as is written in the encyclical Dominicae Cenae:

    Over and above our commitment to the evangelical mission, our greatest commitment consists in exercising this mysterious power over the body of the Redeemer, and all that is within us should be decisively ordered to this. We should also always remember that to this ministerial power we have been sacramentally consecrated, that we have been chosen from among men "for the good of men."We especially, the priests of the Latin Church, whose ordination rite added in the curse of the centuries the custom of anointing the priest's hands, should think about this.

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual Episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist…

    But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine; they consecrate it and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!

    To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation. (John Paul II) [Emphasis in the original]

The connection between the consecrated hand and the distribution of communion is clear and its clarity and emphasis is indicative of its preference. Although it is true that a form of communion in the hand was practiced in the early Church, communion on the tongue is recorded as early as the sixth century and became a widespread practice in the Middle Ages — a practice which blossomed from a healthy fear of the Lord.  Davies makes an interesting realization regarding Satan’s work in these liturgical changes, “Indeed, it is impossible not to see the destruction of the Roman Rite as the greatest triumph of Satan since the Protestant Reformation —and it appears that the Father of Lies is running out of ideas as he is making precisely the same changes now as he did then.” (Davies)

A SYMBOL OF DISBELIEF IN THE REAL PRESENCE

Satan’s unoriginality with the scandal of CIH (and to Protestants, its practice is intended as a scandal indeed) was originally manifested by Cranmer and his ilk by his own liturgical reform prescribed in his 1552 Prayer Book. This practice —a specific symbol reflecting an outright denial of transubstantiation — is unacceptable in Catholic Liturgy; there is no apparent benefit for devolving back to this practice. This reversion, although meant as a concession to protestant ecumenism —has done more to profane the Body of Christ, than its intent to draw the heretics in. It is utterly laughable to think that any protestant would change their liturgy to accommodate Catholics.

HOW IT CAME TO PASS

            Our story begins in Holland soon after Vatican II, where communion in the hand was re-instituted by progressive clergy, despite it not being approved —and like many other abuses that take place today —remain unchecked by bishops. These abuses spread to other European countries; left unchecked they became established norms in those churches, which later became a prerequisite for Episcopal conferences to petition Rome to legalize it.

            As a result of this abuse Pope St. Paul VI consulted Episcopal conferences around the world in a letter on October 28, 1968, to express their thoughts on the matter. The response of the bishops was overwhelmingly against it: they encouraged retention of the traditional practice, that it does not detract from the dignity of the communicant, and that the innovation will lead to a decline in Eucharistic understanding and reverence. Consequently, Memorale Domini, a letter of instruction and reiteration of the traditional form of distribution, was disseminated out to Church for its common good. There was a caveat however, that those places in which the practice had been “established” may continue in that practice, with the proviso that two thirds of the Episcopal conference approves it, another prerequisite before the Holy See would sanction it; this was all the progressives needed to manipulate their situation elsewhere —albeit their adoption of the change is ex post facto, making it a disobedient and subversive strategy.

            Regretfully, thanks to the seeds of CIH propaganda that were sown via pamphlet form in the minds of the faithful (who did not ask for the change to begin with), bad fruits were ripening. As we know this change is now the norm in most parishes, it has never been the preferred method —which is visible in Rome today because it is forbidden throughout Italy.

CONCLUSION

As is shown, the early practices of receiving communion —although similar, was quite different than the irreverent buffet of today. The faithful used dominical and revered the Eucharist with kissing and physical application to their bodies to receive blessings. As time progressed, this practice died off — probably due to abuses and the increased understanding of the theology of the true presence in the Host. This development and blossoming of understanding of the dogmas serves as an advancement in worshiping the Lord in an appropriate way and to regress into and archaic form of worship is as Pope Leo XII warns a “pernicious error”. Furthermore we must also realize and revere our priests’ fingers which are consecrated for the express purpose of confecting and handling our Lord —a liturgical practice that would otherwise serve no purpose. Communion in the hand —which is a practice Protestants have adopted as a blatant symbol of disbelief in the real presence —does not give proper adoration to what we handle; it is licit, but is not optimal. With all that said, if you are in that communion line, receive on the tongue in confidence, for it is a practice that reflects the theology of the real presence.

Work Cited

Adam, Karl. Spirity of Catholocism. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1954.

Aquinas, Saint Thomas. Summa Theologiae. n.d.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint. Catechetical Lecture 23: On the Mysteries. V.;On the Sacred Liturgy and Communion. 10 September 2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm>.

Davies, Michael. "Communion in the Hand and Similar Frauds." 1998. Catholic Tradition. 9 September 2015 <http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion.htm>.

 Pope Pauls New Mass. Angelus Press, 2009.

John Paul II, Pope Saint. Dominicae Cenae. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 February 1980.

Pious XII, Pope. Mediator Dei. 20 November 1947. 10 September 2015 <http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html>.