Restoring Cathedral-icity to a Cathedral

I was alerted to an interesting article at New Liturgical Movement: “Cathedral: Home for Liturgy of the Hours” by Matthew Alderman. 

Mr. Alderman suggests that a question that should be asked in designing a cathedral is, “What makes a church a cathedral?”

Of course, there is the obvious answer that the presence of the bishop’s cathedra makes a cathedral, but there’s more to it than that. Mr. Alderman points to Westminster Cathedral as an example (my emphases throughout):

It is instructive to compare the liturgical milieu that informed Westminster Cathedral’s establishment in 1895, with that of a typical large American diocese. Part of the problem is of course a diminished sense of the differences between Mass as celebrated by a bishop (though it is still laid out in the Ordinary Form’s Ceremonial of Bishops) and a priest’s mass, but these are ultimately matters of degree rather than quality. The most significant difference, in my mind, lies in the inclusion or exclusion of the Liturgy of the Hours as prayed by a community.

…Cardinal Vaughn saw the Office as essential to the efficacy of “a live Cathedral,” a missionary presence at the heart of a very secular city, “functioning […] on behalf of others and winning them graces.” …[H]e argued that this public prayer was “the highest function of the apostolic calling.” In this regard, Westminster Cathedral started out not much different than our own standard American cathedral. Being a mission territory, America got out of the habit of having cathedral chapters capable of singing the Office…

Choir stalls: ideal configuration
for singing the Divine Office

I am not a historian by any means, but I think Mr. Alderman has made a very important point here regarding the Church in the US: “America got out of the habit of having cathedral chapters capable of singing the Office”. I have thought for some time that America got out of the habit of singing any Liturgy – especially the Mass! This would be understandable, especially in the history of the Westward expansion. 

For instance, consider the history of theDiocese of Baker. Long distances still separate parishes within the diocese; how much more those distances must have contributed to deterioration of the liturgy in times when travel was much more restricted! In sparsely populated Eastern Oregon, I’m sure there weren’t too many of the faithful who were trained to sing Gregorian chant propers at Mass. In addition, the Protestant churches springing up probably accomplished two things: pulling people away from their Catholic faith, and encouraging Catholics to substitutes hymns for the chants at Mass.

But the singing of the Divine Office in the cathedral parish could be of great benefit to the community. Mr. Alderman notes:

…besides the spiritual graces attendant on placing the full Office at the heart of a diocesan community, there is also considerable evangelical and apostolic merit to the practice…[S]uch a living, breathing exemplar of the movement of sanctified time could be a lightning-rod for an explosion of religious revival. It would also represent a tangible way of fulfilling the Second Vatican Council's goal of encouraging the faithful to regularly participate in the Liturgy of the Hours…The Council recommended:

Pastors of souls should see to it that the chief hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and the more solemn feasts. And the laity, too, are encouraged to recite the Divine Office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually. (Par. 100)

If this is true of parish churches, how much more it should be of the cathedral church of every diocese!

I can’t speak for other dioceses, but the role of the cathedral church is something that seems to be severely neglected in the Diocese of Baker. I’ve touched on that here and here; St. Francis de Sales Cathedral seems to be more of a historic church than the active and “living” center of the Diocese. The last priestly ordination did not take place at the Cathedral. As for episcopal ordinations…hmph! As noted elsewhere, Bishop Robert F. Vasa’s ordination took place in a rodeo arena, and Bishop-elect Liam Cary’s will take place in an Aztec handball court a mere parish church, which, though large, was never designed with any kind of ordination in mind. And the anniversary of the dedication of our cathedral is probably only celebrated in the cathedral parish, and then only sporadically and without a bishop present.

Wouldn’t it be nice to see some semblance of cathedral-icity restored to St. Francis de Sales Cathedral?

Related:

Bishops, Cathedrals, and the Diocese of Baker

Will Fr. Liam Cary's Ordination Be Different?

Why  a Bishop Should Be Ordained in His Cathedral

For related posts, click on the “Bishop Liam Cary Posts” tab at the top of the page.

Give Peas a Chance!

Okay…this is a little over the top. Go to the links for more.

From LifeNews.com, in an opinion piece by Wesley J. Smith, JD:

I decided to expand my thoughts, first expressed here, about the NYT column by Professor Michael Marder claiming that it is unethical to eat peas because pea plants can communicate chemically. I took to the Daily Caller, first describing the article in question, and then noting that others have pushed similar idiocy. See “Good Grief: Now It’s Pea Personhood.”

…[T]his isn’t just talk or op/ed fodder. Switzerland has the “dignity” of plants in its Federal Constitution:

No one knew exactly what “plant dignity” meant, so the government asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, “The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants,” is enough to short circuit the brain:

A “clear majority” of the panel adopted what it called a “biocentric” moral view, meaning that “living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive.” Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim “absolute ownership” over plants and, moreover, that “individual plants have an inherent worth.” This means that “we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily.”

The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field — apparently an acceptable action, the report doesn’t say why. But then, while walking home, he casually “decapitates” some wildflowers with his scythe; a callous act the bioethicists “condemned” as “immoral.” What should happen to the heinous plant decapitator, the report does not say.

Plant “community!” Unbelievable. I conclude:

The Times’ columns (and other advocacy pieces I could quote), along with Switzerland’s actually enshrining “plant dignity” into law, and other similar radical proposals such as “nature rights,” are symptoms of a societally enervating relativism that is causing us to lose the ability to think critically and distinguish serious from frivolous ethical concerns. They also reflect the advance of a radical misanthropy that elevates elements of the natural world to the moral status of humans, or perhaps better stated, devalues us to the level of flora and fauna.

Here’s the bottom line: When you eschew human exceptionalism, you go flat out nuts. (Oops. I just insulted a whole family of plants. But it’s okay. Peanut bushes and almond trees are perennials, so they probably have good senses of humor.)

Yes, sometimes I can be snarky.

LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. He writes at his blog, Secondhand Smoke.

The best part is this short video, “Give Peas a Chance”, which one commenter suggested was written by John Lemon. Oh...and pray for whirled peas.

Georgetown Commencement Speaker: Sebelius?!

Can you believe this? I received this email from the Cardinal Newman Society:

Kathleen Sebelius to Speak at Georgetown Commencement Ceremony

In what can only be interpreted as a direct challenge to America’s Catholic bishops, Georgetown University has announced that “pro-choice” Catholic Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and lead architect of the Obama administration’s assault on religious freedom through the HHS contraception mandate, has been invited to speak at one of Georgetown’s several commencement ceremonies.

The Cardinal Newman Society has posted a petition to protest this outrage here: GeorgetownScandal.com. It has also alerted Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl and sent a letter to Georgetown President John DeGioia urging him to immediately withdraw the invitation.

Last week The Cardinal Newman Society released a list of 11 scandalous commencement speakers at Catholic colleges and universities, as well as a report on homosexual “lavender graduations” including one at Georgetown.

The nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university has chosen to honor Sebelius by granting her a prestigious platform at its Public Policy Institute commencement ceremony, despite her role as the lead architect of a healthcare mandate that will force Catholic institutions to pay for contraception, abortifacients and sterilization against their religious beliefs. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has termed the mandate “an unwarranted government definition of religion” that is “alien both to our Catholic tradition and to federal law,” “a violation of personal civil rights” and “a mandate to act against our teachings.”

But Secretary Sebelius’ record on abortion is at least as troubling as the mandate. When Governor of Kansas, Sebelius supported abortion rights and vetoed pro-life legislation. In 2008, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City reportedly told Sebelius, a Roman Catholic, to stop receiving the Eucharist until she publicly recants her position on abortion and makes a “worthy sacramental confession.”

PLEASE SHARE THIS EMAIL!

There was also this recent post regarding the 11 scandalous commencement speakers at Catholic colleges and universities:

Special report: Catholic college commencement scandals in 2012

The spring 2012 commencement season comes nearly eight years since the U.S. Catholic bishops banned Catholic honors and platforms for public opponents of Catholic teaching — and still The Cardinal Newman Society finds at least 11 scandalous speakers and honorees at Catholic colleges, with possibly more to be announced in the coming weeks.

Go to the link above to see the full list of schools and their scandalous speakers.

The good news is in this post, about faithful Catholic schools that have chosen faithful Catholic speakers. Still other Catholic schools on the right track with speakers are featured here. 

Related:

"Bishops and Catholic Politicians...Again"

 "Liberal Catholics: The Enemy of My Enemy?"


"Religious Liberty: Some Limericks and Commentary"

“Freedom? Conscience? Truth!”

Obama Catholics - Vortex

As usual, many good points are made by Michael Voris in this May 3rd episode of The Vortex (follow the link to sign up for a premium subscription to RealCatholicTV). I've included the script below, with just a slight bit of editing.

…For Catholics, election fever doesn’t seem like it could get any hotter. The Obama health mandate requiring Catholic institutions to chuck their consciences and pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for their workers has already engaged a good portion of Catholics.

...

But what’s surprising is that it seems like, despite all the uproar in the Catholic blogs and media, MOST Catholics in America are somehow either blissfully unaware OR simply don’t care about Obama’s conscience incursion.

In a recent Gallup Poll, Catholic voters nationwide remarkably still somehow favor Obama 51-45%... This poll and others which agree with it would seem to indicate that faithful Catholic still have a yeoman’s worth of work to do in informing fellow Catholics about Obama.

When you stop to consider ALL that has been written and said about this issue – including in the secular press – it seems astonishing that the needle has barely moved among Catholic voters who support Obama. In the ’08 election, the Obama margin among Catholics was 54 to 46%. While the number supporting Obama has shrunk a little bit, from 54 down to 51, it’s certainly not clear that this can be attributed to the Obama attacking Catholic principles and religious liberty factor.

Obama has seen his numbers decline among almost EVERY group across the board. But alarmingly from a Catholic point of view, his numbers among Catholics still remain some of his strongest support compared to other groups and THAT suggests that the message of Obama’s campaign against the Church just hasn’t gotten out to Catholics in the street – or if it has, even more disturbing is the possibility that they HAVE heard it...and simply dismissed it.

What IS certain is that the vast majority of Catholics in America are simply disengaged from the Church in any meaningful manner. 75% don’t go to Mass on Sunday…and that’s on a GOOD day.

Most – huge numbers – disagree with and reject Church teaching on practically every area regarding sexual morality, which is perhaps why Obama decided to strike at the issue of contraception.

This was a battle he did not need to engage in. A majority of states already required that Catholic employers – as well as all other employers - provide birth control to workers through health insurance plans. So – it makes sense that the average Catholic – who remember, doesn’t go to Mass and rejects Church teaching – would say – what’s the big deal, who cares? I’m not gonna decide my vote based on this issue – which seems like a tempest in a teapot.

Obama has chosen an issue which he knows MOST Catholics simply do not care about – contraception – which is why the bishops have chosen to fight this as a religious liberty issue as opposed to what it really is: a violation of natural law, imposed by the state on all of its subjects.

Perhaps the destruction of Catholic moral teaching over the past 40 plus years – as

Cardinal Timothy Dolan openly admitted a few weeks back – has been so widespread that there is no hope that this can be fought any other way other THAN as a First Amendment issue. If that’s true, it’s hard to see that a massive Catholic vote could be mobilized against Obama based on this issue. Bottom line is this: most Catholics don’t agree with the Church teaching on birth control. So they aren’t gonna rally around the issue come November.

In principle – in a poll or when talking with friends – sure some might say AND agree – that they think it’s wrong for Obama to try and pull this. But don’t count on that being anything top of mind with them when they walk into the voting booth.

Faithful Catholics in the blog and on the internet in general can tend to get a very myopic vision of the world – as can any group that hangs out with just its own members.

The very real danger of Obama is the man pushes laws that violate the natural law, not just the Constitution. This battle needs to be fought in that arena – not the religious liberty arena. The religious liberty issue is a loser…sure fire loser. People won’t remember it all come November.

Catholics in general have already largely dismissed it right now, in the heat of intense media coverage. They certainly won’t care about it 6 months from now.

This is a perfect opportunity for the Church to open up the much more important discussion of natural law and evil. Let’s just hope that it happens.

Why Are We Pushing NFP?

Yes, I know, NFP is a licit means of spacing births (and that is the only use I'm addressing here).

However, while NFP is licit, it is not virtuous (as Fr. Gardner has explained). There are limits, and virtue demands that we consider the limits. And the magisterial documents contain these Truths, nuances and all. In fact, the Church is very clear in her teaching that NFP, while licit, should be only used for “serious” or “just” reasons (“justae causae” or “just cause”).

Unfortunately, "just reason" has come to mean "just about any reason" to "space births." To trust in God has become presumptuous. The Church does, indeed, "permit" NFP for "just causes," just as it "permits" capital punishment. Pius XII made it pretty clear that we aren't just "having babies"; we are creating souls with an eternal destiny, a reality which should strike us with awe. If we take someone's life through capital punishment, we are also in the presence of something which should strike us with awe.

Nevertheless, there can be "just reasons" for "spacing births" and there can be "just reasons" to execute a criminal. These "just reasons" should be judged, however, in light of the awesome realities before us. "I want to finish working on my degree" doesn't cut it as a "just reason" for "spacing births," i.e., choosing when to procreate with God a potential new citizen of Heaven. Nor should we execute someone just because it has not been defined as "intrinsically evil" to do so. There must be "just reasons" judged in light of true justice.

Yes, NFP is licit. But it is certainly not required: the Church does not teach that couples must use NFP as a matter of “responsible parenthood”.  Nevertheless, the USCCB has a detailed document concerning standards for diocesan NFP ministry. Apart from mentioning in a very general way that everyone should be educated as to “Catholic morality”, the document does not address the very important statement that “serious” or “just” reasons are required for the use of NFP.

Does this mean that the USCCB thinks that every couple who gets married will have serious reasons for using NFP?! Every couple?! Statistically, that is unlikely, unless of course, your definition of “just reason” is, in fact, “just any reason”. I think that failing to address “serious reasons” or “just cause” is simply acquiescing to the pressures of secular society to limit family size (“overpopulation”, you know) and enjoy sex all the while (because “it’s our right”).

By not spelling out some examples of “just reasons”, and by failing to emphasize the importance of those reasons in choosing to use NFP, the USCCB does the faithful a disservice: it becomes all too easy to condone and even encourage NFP for a reason that basically fits into the category of “I'm not ready for a child right now, but I'm ready for sex". Why don't we just blush and move on rather than try to make this sound responsible, even holy.

When there are "serious reasons" to not conceive a child at a particular point in time, there is the obvious option of abstinence. With one noteworthy exception, no one has ever been pregnant from abstinence. I don't know why anyone shouldn't be embarrassed, or at least humbled, at the need to figure out a way to have sex and avoid pregnancy. We shouldn't be proud of our concupiscence, but since we are all "infected" with original sin, concupiscence is a fact of life. But it’s not something we should encourage! In the life of what saint was "a great sex life" a priority?

Many couples have stories about how using NFP changed their marriage, helped them grow in holiness, saved the woman’s health, etc. I don’t doubt their stories or their sincerity. But there are also stories about trusting God’s providence that are equally inspiring. Michael Malone, in The Case Concerning Catholic Contraception, relates these facts:

On a personal note, one godson of mine was the fifth consecutive Caesarian delivery of his mother in a day when such was deemed obstetrically suicidal…I also happen to have seven healthy and happy siblings from a mother whose doctors warned her explicitly, with each and every pregnancy, that she and every one of her offspring would certainly suffer death because of a serious blood disorder (Rh incompatibility).

Do you suppose the Almighty does not know what He was doing, allowing such souls to be born and to live in such “dangerous” and “intolerable” conditions? Thank God my mother didn’t listen!

In a 2003 article called “Is Natural Family Planning a ‘Heresy’?” in Fr. Brian W. Harrison defends the liceity of NFP, but acknowledges also the lack of proper catechesis on “serious reasons” (emphases in original):

…[A]mong those promoting NFP, there is sometimes a one-sidedness or lack of balance. Married or engaged couples are often taught the legitimacy and the technique…of NFP, but with little or no mention of that other part of the Church's teaching which insists that couples need "just reasons" (Humanae Vitae, 16; Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], #2368) for using NFP if they wish to be free from blame before God. (Indeed, quite frankly, I think we really need now from the Magisterium some less vague and more specific guidelines as to what actually constitutes a "just reason".) Very often, such couples hear nothing at all of the fact that "Sacred Scripture and the Church's teaching see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity" (CCC no. 2373). Still less frequently are they informed that, according to the Magisterium, merely temporal or worldly considerations are in themselves inadequate criteria for deciding when NFP can be justified: "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny" (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 51, cited in CCC no. 2371). Taking into account the whole spectrum of biblical and Church teaching in this area, I personally think that we need to bring back the word "grave" into the discourse about family planning. That is, we should be teaching that the temporal or worldly problems to be anticipated by another pregnancy and birth (mainly of health or poverty) need to be really grave in character before a married couple is entitled to conclude that they have a "just reason" for them to use NFP. (I said "bring back" above, because, as I shall show in this article, that key adjective, "grave", has in fact been used by the Magisterium in this context, in certain decisions that have been generally forgotten, but by no means repudiated.)

I think Fr. Harrison has a very good point there.

Could be a recursive pattern, eh?!

I am not judging anyone’s else’s story; I’m speaking to you from mine. If you assume I’m being “judgmental”, then you yourself have become the same. Let each judge his own story according to a properly formed conscience. And let each of us realize that our consciences are continually being perfected…if we are willing to cooperate.

Please keep comments civil and charitable; responsive rather than reactive. Thanks.



Related:
On Clarifying the Licit Use of NFP
What's Wrong with NFP?
Abuses of NFP and the Duty of Motherhood
Marital Chastity, Fruitful Multiplication...and NFP?

Liturgical Abuse at First Holy Communion

My post on Good Shepherd Sunday: Cute Trumps All elicited this guest commentary from a friend, who attended her granddaughter's First Holy Communion. I'll let her speak for herself! 

Attending a First Communion event in the Archdiocese of Portland never promised to be a walk in the park, but what it turned out to be was a “Catholic” fiasco of the stuff of nightmares.  The presence of Buddhist prayer wheels could not have made it more alien to my understanding of the Church’s worship.

The preparation for my granddaughter’s reception of the Eucharist proceeded well. A princess by temperament, she chose a tiara to wear with her veil. Her dress was a lacy confection previously worn by her mom and her cousin. How sweet, right?  Until the big day actually dawned…

The parish in question shall remain nameless, but it is representative of many in Oregon’s largest city. The priest, appropriately named Father “Pete,” is in his 50’s, tall and imposing, but obviously a marshmallow inside, whose primary reading material must consist entirely of the least challenging juvenile literature.

The day began with the obligatory picture taking – which went on for the better part of an hour, inside and outside the sanctuary. Well, parents and grandparents can be excused for this bit of sentimentality, even if it celebrates the fancy clothes and nervous smiles more than it acknowledges the momentous fact of initiation into the reception of Christ Himself.

During the photo shoot, however, a full church of early attendees – hoping to be seated where they could take yet more pictures of Johnny and Susie in the very act of Eucharistic reception – visited freely and loudly. After a lifetime in the Catholic Church, I have never seen a crowd act more like they were at cocktail party, instead of in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament – conveniently assigned to a side altar, and apparently ignored.  And on this occasion, a first was achieved for me: watching the godparents of my granddaughter bring their cups of Starbucks’ designer coffee into the church – and drink  in the aisles and in the pew before Mass. The smell of latte lingered long after they had stopped consuming the brew – barely in time for the processional.

I breathed a sigh of relief when the choir finally assembled – a dozen people of all ages and both sexes, who found a place ten feet from the altar in the sanctuary – so that at least the noise subsided to a dull roar. The singers looked harmless enough with their OCP books, but the bongos some of them held make me cringe. Shortly after the tuning up ended, the lector admonished us to “introduce yourselves to your neighbors.” My hope was that this pre-liturgical action would replace the “sign of peace” glad-handing. No such luck; that took another five minutes later in the long event.

Then we all rose and gawked at the 30-some kids in their finery, as the procession started. I didn’t count the verses of the “gathering song” (at least seven) as the first communicants led an army of servers of both sexes, lectors (although the youngsters did all the readings except the Gospel), extraordinary ministers (mostly women), and, finally, Father Pete, attired in a fairly standard chasuble,  but adorned with colors not listed in the rubrics. I had never laid eyes on him before and was to soon wish I never would again. 

Once the choir finally shut up, Father proceeded to poll the crowd about who came the farthest for the occasion. Connecticut won up front, but he continued to acknowledge folks from Illinois, Utah, and even The Dalles. Then he launched into the new translation prayers, many of which received the wrong responses and were punctuated by his ad-libbing, but then the Mass had already begun to seem irrelevant in the face of all the personal “sharing.”

After more insights inserted by the celebrant, who didn’t seem to want to stop talking long enough to actually say the Mass, the sung Gloria began. Father then proceeded to go up and down the church aisles, sprinkling everyone heavily with holy water. As the time for the readings approached, several youngsters in white and black lined up to render Scripture – three in turn on a reading, lest anyone be too taxed – and sing the Responsorial Psalm. After that painful interlude – soon to be followed by many more – the celebrant hoisted the book of Scripture, marched to the back of the church, unattended by his phalanx of servers and candle bearers, and told us all to turn around for the Gospel.  Huh?!

The homily gave the best intimation of how much worse it would get. After gathering all the children to sit with him at the base of the altar, our celebrant took out a basket and held up “bread,” in this case hamburger and hot dog buns, and asked the children what they were and what made them special. Well, of course, he finally summarized, it was the “fixin’s” – meat and ketchup or mustard – that were important.  Then he reached to the bottom of the basket for some hosts. These too were bread, he elicited from the eight-year-olds, but in this case, the “fixin’s” came from the Holy Spirit. I finally shut out the rest of the pre-school catechesis and prayed I could hang on and not make a scene.

It got worse. After the Creed, which took less time than the comments about our Baptismal promises leading up to it, we got to the Offertory, which evoked a procession of a dozen youngsters carrying nothing, and a line of more to say the prayers of the faithful.  All this time the choir was singing the contemporary version of Ubi Caritas, while women filled the numerous chalices on the altar, and Father relaxed after his efforts at setting up an atmosphere of conviviality.  Father then took a huge beaker of wine and some glass chalices into the congregation and had the children pour the wine into them.

When time for the Preface arrived, Father once again invited the entire group of first communicants to stand around him at the altar and hold hands. This lasted through the consecration, which seemed to be taking place as the celebrant held the host and then the chalice down at the children’s level, turning in a circle, while saying the words of transubstantiation! I resolved at that point to abstain from the sacrament, since its validity appeared in question.

I lasted until the children’s Communion, which took place with Father seated on the lowest step; Communion was given  only in the hand, followed by a drink from  the chalice held by – who else? – a woman. It had been explained to me earlier that it was fine for the children to drink the Precious Blood from the chalice because they had been given a taste of the unconsecrated wine days before, so “they wouldn’t spit it out in disgust during Mass.” Oh, well, that’s okay, then.

Although I had to tread on a few feet, I managed to get out of there as the congregation began to line up for Communion, pleading my bad hip, which had indeed begun to throb agonizingly.  I hid out in the car until I heard, to my surprise, an organ play the recessional. Yes, the church has a beautiful organ and evidently someone who can play it. But flutes, tambourines, and pianos are so much more relevant, don’tcha know?

After Mass, one person in our party from out-of-town, whom I had been told  attended a Latin Mass regularly and loved it – said to me, “That was the most beautiful First Communion I have ever seen!” I tried not to wince, went on auto pilot, and figured I would be able to leave soon. I managed to get to an exit point without meeting Father “Pete” formally (my hip did not allow me to walk all the way across the church hall to where he was), thus avoiding the sin of striking – or at the very least, cussing out – a priest.

If this is business as usual for the “Oregon Church,” God help us all. Pray a new prelate soon arrives in Portland and stops this obscene use of the liturgy as an occasion to glorify man (oops!) persons.

The Plight of Orphans

Here’s a little change-up from the topics I usually pursue here...

My friend-whom-I’ve-never-met, Leila Miller, has two great blogs. The first is “Little Catholic Bubble”; this is a wonderful blog with lots of great pro-life stuff and more – check it out.

Leila’s second blog, Orphan Report, was born of her discovery of Reece’sRainbow, an organization that promotes adoption of Down syndrome children – and any other orphans needing new families. She highlights children from the Reece’s Rainbow site, advocating for their cause, and engaging in a little fundraising here and there.

A daily dose of Orphan Report will make you very much aware of your blessings. These are some of the saddest stories around – there are some really awful orphanages out there! – but there is so much hope, too, because people are responding to the need and are adopting these little ones from all over the world.

Today, I’m highlighting “Declan”, whose “guardian angel” is promoting his cause and trying to raise funds for his adoption (it’s very expensive to adopt internationally!). The angel, Jennie, makes this offer at her blog:

Help Declan and Win a Kindle Fire!

What do a Kindle Fire and a 2-year-old orphan have in common? They both have a lot of spark! (Bad joke, I know).

This week and next I'll be raffling off a Kindle Fire to help Declan find his family!

Little Declan is almost three years old (just a little older than Hannah) and is looking for a Mama of his own. He is described as “lively" and "cheerful,” with a "calm and kind personality." Just look at what a cutie he is!

He lives in an orphanage in Russia and apparently no one visits him. How can that be?

Together we can help bring Declan home! By donating to Declan’s Reece’s Rainbow fund here or mentioning him on Facebook, you have a chance at winning a brand new Kindle Fire. [See Jennie's blog for the details on entering the drawing. And yes, I would love to win the Kindle Fire - but I would love even more to see this little guy find a family.]

Add caption