Why do Catholics Make the Sign of the Cross?

As social beings, we often use signs and symbols to communicate with each other. For example, a simple hand shake can imply trust, friendship, and gratitude. Additionally, the "thumbs up" can convey both sarcasm and/or approval. Even sports like Baseball, Rugby, and Football use symbols that convey strategies and suggestions. However, symbols and gestures are also important for our relationship with God.

You see, God speaks to us through what we can see, touch, taste, and hear. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the thirteenth century, “grace builds on nature.” That is, the action and presence of God often has a very practical way of communicating to and blessing us. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that “perceptible realities can become means of expressing the action of God” who makes us holy, and we, in turn, offer worship and praise to God through our actions and gestures (“Catechism,” art. #1148).

The Sign of the Cross as we know it today is both a symbol and a form of prayer that has been used as early as the seventh century. Through it we bless God, adore him, and ask for his assistance. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that the Sign of the Cross should be made frequently and reverently by beginning each day, each prayer, and each activity “with the Sign of the Cross: ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen’” (art. #2157).

As Baptized persons, we have been marked with the “imprint of Christ,” who has redeemed us by his suffering and death (art. #1235). We are called to be holy, and his cross gives us the grace--the strength--to overcome the many temptations we face. The grace won for us by Christ’s cross enables us to be what we are called to be: saints. We are called to transform the world; we are called to “set the world ablaze with Christ’s love” (St. Catherine of Sienna), and the Sign of the Cross reminds us of this.

That is why we make the Sign of the Cross: it reminds of our Redemption, our Sanctification, and our Mission as baptized Christians. When we make the Sign of the Cross we are reminded of Christ’s death and resurrection; we pray that he would continue to strengthen us against temptation; and we proclaim with our gestures the healing power of God’s love. The Sign of the Cross is a means through which God chooses to speak to us, and through which we choose to speak to others about our Catholic faith.

Recommended Reading:

The Catholic Encyclopedia

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Catholic Educator’s Resource Centre

Fr. Maciel, The Legionaries, and Regnum Christi

"If you want your sins 'covered' by the Lord (cf. Ps. 32:1), do not display your virtues to others. For whatever we do with our virtues, God will also do with our sins." - St. Mark the Ascetic

It is no secret that the Legion and, necessarily, Regnum Christi have quailed at reporting the failings, or rumoured failings, of their altruistic founder. From an outsider's perspective, Maciel was practically deified by the members of the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi.


They weren't allowed to speak, lest entertain, anything negative about him. Anyone who did bring up some dirt was affectively vilified as slanderous gossipmongers. Additionally, there were official policies that made sure no one spoke ill of Maciel by way of quasi-secretive vows or promises; furthermore, these policies were vehemently denied and labeled as--here is comes again--slanderous lies propounded by jealous orders and disgruntled former members. That is, of course, until Pope Benedict XVI told them not to have such secrets among themselves. Only then were they able to mention that these oaths may have existed, but this was only ever mentioned in passing.


Why couldn't they say anything bad about their Benevolent Founder? What's more, why all the secrets and denials of policies and practices? I can only assume that fear was the basis.


Their entire spirituality and mission was founded on the person and writings of Maciel, but this foundation was so shaky that they had to pretend it was infallible, lest the foundation crumble. They went so far as to shun dissenters--family members or long-time friends who may have "bought into" the so-called lies and rumours propounded by jealous orders (some even named the Jesuits) and former members, who were "obviously bitter"--people who had been blinded by the lure of the devil and unwittingly or not became his tools in the destruction of the Kingdom of God, or so saith the Legion.


That is why St. Mark's above quote, in light of the recent scandal, fits so well--and why the scandal is of no surprise for those of us who have been following the "rumours and lies" for quite some time.


Virtues Extolled; Truth Exposed


For years both Regnum Christi and the Legion tried so hard to keep his reputation spotless that they lost any sense of humanity along the way. They presented a view of sanctity that was based on the person of Maciel but remained shallow, at best--particularly since his antics have become more widely known. They did this by touting his flawless writings and insisting that he was a great man--without hard evidence, only verbal testimony. They extolled his writings and sanctified his character at the same time as they made it impossible to speak--and to think--of his faults.


What we need to remember is that a saint, while on earth, is far from perfect. While holy card depictions may inspire zeal, they often miss the humanity of the person painted. Such was the portrayal of Maciel and the Legionary culture: crisp, pious, spotless men in absolute perfect imitation of The Man, Maciel. However, by focussing so much on outward piety, and making it impossible to even think Maciel could be anything less than flawless, they seemed to have missed the necessity--and countless opportunities--for an internal cleansing.


The Legion was perfect, then, because of the outward piety, the countless vocations, the many apostolates, and the infallible writings and immaculate character of Maciel. In other words, the Legion was holy because of what it did, not because of what it was.


Such a spirituality infers that at long as the outside of the cup is kept clean, there is no need to scrub the grime that became caked onto its inner bowl. It gives this false air which claims that as long as we do stuff in the name of Jesus, he will remember us on the day of judgement (Matthew 7, anyone?).


Look at the bulk of their defence: they insist that we look at the "fruit" of more vocations and countless apostolates (countless, at times, because their members deny having any affiliation with Regnum Christi). While more vocations are superficially a good thing, coupled with this major error in the treatment of Maciel, and his very own lifestyle, one needs to question whether the formation offered to the numerous vocations and countless apostolates bears any substance or genuine conversion. In an exterior conversion, such as what is propounded by the Legion's lack of introspection, there is no Via Crucis, there is no nitty-gritty in this gospel, only outward piety and starched linens.


However, the message of the real Gospel is that Christ came to save the lost--the ones with grass-stains on their jeans, with their left thumb over their right, who bow awkwardly, and who come across as crass or callous. He came for the prostitute, the thief, and the disgraced. He came for you and me in the midst of our human frailty, as we wrestle with our lusts, our greed, and our pride. Ironically, Christ came to save the disgraced Maciel and not the impeccable, deified Maciel.

"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost" (Luke 19:10).

I understand that the Legion and Regnum Christi would disagree with my characterization of their Gospel message. And I understand that there are a lot of very good, holy people who are members of the Legion and its affiliates. Nonetheless, in their deliberate portrayal of Maciel as a spotless virgin or an unblemished lamb--an inviolate victim--their spirituality became akin to that of the Pharisees and Sadducees during the time of Christ. Yes, an examination of conscience is encouraged, and practiced by most--if not all--of its members, but what use is it if their Founder and the upper echelons of the Order, the primary witnesses of their charism, are nothing more than whitewashed tombs? Of what use is an examination of conscience that is incapable of real self-reflection and genuine immolation?


Accepimus Crucem? Sure, but of what value is a spotless cross to our role in Christ's Redemptive Mission?

St. Mark the Ascetic

An Orthodox saint who is also known as a wonder-worker. Here's a short bio on him from orthodoxwiki.org:

St. Mark was an ascetic and miracle-worker, sometimes known as Mark the Faster. In his 40th year he was tonsured a monk by his teacher, St.John Chrysostom. Mark then spent 60 more years in the wilderness of Nitria (a desert in Lower Egypt) in fasting and prayer, and in writing many spiritual works concerning the salvation of souls. He knew all the Holy Scriptures by heart. He was very merciful and kind, and wept much for the misfortunes that had befallen all of God's creation.

On one occasion, when weeping over a hyena's blind whelp, he prayed to God and the whelp received its sight. In thanksgiving the mother hyena brought him a sheepskin. The saint forbade the hyena in the future to kill any more sheep belonging to poor people. He received Communion at the hands of angels. His homilies concerned such topics as the spiritual law, repentance, sobriety, and are ranked among the preeminent literature of the Church. These works were praised by the Patriarch Photius the Great himself.

A New Baby on the Way

My wife is pregnant with our second kid. With our first, it seemed pretty surreal. We were always struggling to figure out how to discipline, or how much TV to watch, or which time is the best to send her to bed, what should we feed her, and just normal, new-parent kind of stuff.  Now that we are having a new baby in the family, I feel like I am mourning something: a phase that has come to an end. Our daughter will no longer be our only child--she will no longer be an only child. There will soon be another baby in the family, and I feel like I am mourning the loss of a phase. But everything passes; everything will either change or develop into something new and wondrous, a new thing to be discovered. Anyway, to run the risk of becoming melancholic and sentimental, I must stop here, and just add this: it is very exciting to have children. 

A Broken World, A New Springtime

We must be confident that this time of trial will bring a purification of the entire Catholic community, a purification that is urgently needed if the Church is to preach more effectively the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its liberating force. Now you must ensure that where sin increased, grace will all the more abound (cf. Romans 5:20). So much pain, so much sorrow must lead to a holier priesthood, a holier episcopate, and a holier Church" (Pope John Paul II, Homily, April 23, 2002). 

A new missionary age will arise [out of] a new springtime for the Church" (Pope John Paul II, Homily, May 11, 1991).

The troubling reports of Fr. Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries, and the even more disturbing silence from the heads of that uber-pious order, coupled with the numerous reports of the sexual abuse of minors at the hands of the ministers of Christ shows a Church in crisis.

The current economic crisis, spurred by the insatiable longings of greed, along with a newly-elected American President who is a proponent of infanticide, plus the deafening silence on infanticide among the wealthy nations, shows us that the world is in trouble. 

We have Catholics abandoning their faith for more "freer" philosophies; we have even more Catholics dissenting from the Church's ancient teachings in droves; we have Bishops and Clergy refusing to address controversial issues for fear of arousing bitterness amongst the laity; and we have widespread confusion among the numerous agnostic Catholics who have neither a clue about what the Church teaches, nor a will to find out. 

The many orthodox Catholics who love the Church and her wisdom are frustrated, some are turning to apocalyptic prophecies that signal a sudden end to all this, while others are silently seething as their world quickly comes undone. Some blame Vatican II, others blame the clergy and the world's religious, and still more blame modernity for our current plight. 

In short, it looks bad.

Nonetheless, today, only a few days before Lent, we have this as the first reading:

"Behold, I am doing something new! Now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? In the desert I make a way, in the wasteland, rivers ... I put water in the desert and rivers in the wasteland for my chosen people to drink, the people whom I formed for myself, that they might announce my praise" (Isaiah 43:19-21). 

Listen to those words: "Behold, I am doing something new!" Pope John Paul II, a man widely considered a prophet and one of history's greatest Popes, declared that we are on the verge of a new springtime in the Church. What we need to remember, however, is that we cannot get to the spring without first surviving the winter. 

Blizzards Thaw

"When you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials ... for in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation" (Sirach 2:1,5). 

On May 25, 1999, Pope Leo XIII wrote Annum Sacrum and inaugurated a global consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He did this in response to the "abundance of evils which have now for a long time settled upon the world." Now, we see that further evils have "settled upon the world," and we are being called by the Church to enter into a holy period of fasting and penance, united with the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, in order to be more fully united with the power and glory of his Resurrection. 

Now, we are being called to return to the Sacred Heart. We are being called to pass through the living flames of love that encircle the summit of the Heart and allow them to purify us like gold, in order to enter into a true and intimate dialogue with Jesus Christ. We are being called to enter this dialogue with our hearts pierced to allow rivers of living water to flow from our hearts (cf. John 7:37-39). We must be set ablaze with the fires of Pentecost if we expect to weather the current storms of dissent, disorder, and disgrace.

This Lent, through your acts of penance, ask the Lord to take your world apart. Ask him to show you how he will make all things new; ask him to fill you with the fire of the Holy Spirit; and ask him to make you a part of this new springtime, this new Pentecost, and this new evangelization which will transform humanity into a new dialogue with the crucified Redeemer. 

"The only true dialogue is one between two crucified persons" (Servant of God, Catherine Doherty). 

This is going to be my last post for a while, but I will take it up again after Lent. Pray for me, though, that this Lent might be a profound one. Pray for the Church, that this Lent may be a profound awakening, a sincere return to the Sacred Heart of Christ, and that our hearts may be pierced so that the living waters of Pentecost may flood the earth. Praised be Jesus Christ! 

Accepimus Crucem!

God's Uncommitted, Omniscient Plan

"When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it" (Jonah 3:10).

The idea that God has repented of an evil "which he thought to do to his people" (Exodus 32:14) raises a lot of issues and sparks some intriguing discussions regarding the omniscience and benevolence of God. Taken at face value, it tells us that our "man with the plan" isn't very decisive at all. It implies that he might not know everything, or, that he might know all things, but he likes to play with our fears in order to get us to repent--that he is, essentially, a fundamentalist preacher threatening us with hell and damnation lest we repent from our thoroughly evil ways. However, I was thinking about all this and I finally came to an understanding about this idea that I can be satisfied with: his dithering is due, neither to indecisiveness nor cruel omniscience, but to love. 

Let's think about it for a second and ask ourselves one question: How can we believe in a benevolent being who loves us beyond our understanding, whom we are destined to spend not just a lifetime with but an eternity, and who, at the same time, takes delight in teasing us with suffering or in inflicting pain upon his "good" creation (Genesis 1:31)? Something doesn't quite add up here. Either God wants the best for us (Jeremiah 29:11) and wants us to respond to him freely, or he delights in the suffering and angst "of the living" (Wisdom 1:13). 

We know that there are consequences to all of our actions: often negative consequences from our negative actions, and positive from the positive. I'll give you an example.When my wife and I were still dating, I went out one night and had ten too many Guinnesses and three too many shots of Jamesons. Needless to say, I wasn't feeling too well the next day. The problem was, though, I ended up missing out on a date we had planned for the following day, which she was really looking forward to.  

Since our individual sins can have negative effects on the people and circumstances in our lives, as the above anecdote shows us, then what about corporate or even global sins? I don't think that we need to look much further than the Global Warming issue to see how our corporate sins (that is, sins committed by members of a group or community) effect the natural world. The consequences, by the way, are speculated to range from slight climate changes to a second ice age. So, we can see, at least in theory, how our sins (or negative choices) can have a global effect. 

Hmm ... sin, global effects ... does this remind us of anything?

When people talk about how God is going to punish us for our sins, they usually refer to three events from the Old Testament, all of which were quoted above, namely: Noah's Ark (Genesis 6-8ish); the disobedience of Israel during their exodus (Exodus 30-33ish); and the story of Ninevah (Jonah). However, almost every time they miss one key passage from each of these stories. Here's a quote from the story of Noah and the ark, for example:

"... the Lord said in his heart, 'I will never again curse the ground because of man ... neither will I ever again destroy every living creature ..." (Genesis 8:21).

So, when we read in Jonah, and elsewhere, that God repented from wanting to cull the sickly human race, it is implying one of two things: one, that our benevolent Father shamefully plays with our aversion to pain, or, two, that there is something more going on here--especially if we realize that our sins have far-reaching effects.

Instead of portraying a Dithering God or a sadist, I think that we are getting a glimpse of a God who is aware of the just recompense of our sin, but who is willing to do something about it which would diminish or banish its necessary punishment. This premise is particularly evident when we consider the example of our redemption won by Christ's suffering and death (Isaiah 53:5). The question then becomes about why a loving and all-knowing God would allow evil to exist (by evil here, I mean the deprivation of good). The answer is that he allows evil to exist simply because he loves us. 

That is, to remove evil from the world he would also have to get rid of our free will--the freedom to choose good and evil. As I said in another post, such an action would be antithetical to what he is calling us to do: to freely choose to be with him, in spite of the ritz, glamour, and lure of sin. 

What about his dithering? Let's look at Global Warming for example. What we have is a series of events, instigated by human sin and negligence. Global Warming, then, becomes a necessary consequence of both our corporate action and inaction. If God were to "change his mind" like he did in the story of Ninevah, for example, then through some sort of Divine Intervention, the ensuing storm of Global Warming would be quelled. Now, since God is omniscient, by virtue of what it means to be "god," the Biblical language for such an action is that God "changed his mind." Whereas the reality is that he intervened and stopped an event which was actuated by our freedom to choose good and evil. This is, of course, different from saying that God created Global Warming as a consequence of (pick one): abortion, euthanasia, and genocide; embryonic stem cell research; the exploitation of people and the environment; neglect of the elderly, the sick, and the marginalized; and last but not least, corrupt politicians and community (and church) leaders.

The thing is, and here's the irony in all of this, it is anti-christian to claim that God is out to get us. Instead, he never ceases to call us back to him, despite our negative choices. In fact, it doesn't even matter how many positive choices we make throughout the day, he will unceasingly call us back to him regardless of which choice we are inclined to act on. He calls us back to him because of who we are as human persons, made in his image and likeness, and not because of what we do or don't do. 

It doesn't matter what we have done or what we continue to do, he will never stop loving us; he will never stop giving you and me the freedom to choose good or evil, because to do so would diminish the value and dignity inherent to us as human beings. 

"... I set before you life and death ... Now choose life ..." (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Padre Pio

I don't really know a lot about Padre Pio. The video above is of him celebrating mass, and if you look carefully, you will notice one black band on each of his hands. St. Pio had the stigmata, a highly misunderstood, and often misrepresented, gift given by God. The Oxford dictionary defines it as "marks corresponding to those left of Jesus' body by the Crucifixion." The Catholic Encyclopedia elaborates further:

the substance of this grace consists of pity for Christ, participation in His sufferings, and for the same end: the expiation of the sins unceasingly committed in the world. If the sufferings were absent, however, the wounds would be an empty symbol, a theatrical representation, conducing to pride.

There are quite a few saints throughout the history of the Church who have received this gift. In fact, one of my favourite pictures is of St. Catherine of Sienna receiving the stigmata while in prayer in front of the blessed sacrament (pictured on the right). 

In this picture I see contentment, ecstasy, love, and adoration. It inspires me to be more holy, more devoted to my relationship with Christ, and to want to fall in love with him with all of my being. Striving for a perfect union with Christ, here on earth, may seem like a daunting task. I realize that I may be pretty far away from attaining this level of intimacy with God, but instead of feeling discouraged, I feel encouraged to press on, to move forward in spite of my weakness and inclination to sin. 

You know what's at the heart of the lofty levels of holiness? Consistency. Consistency is the key to growth in the spiritual life. It doesn't matter how many times we fall asleep during adoration or while praying the rosary, for example, what matters is that we show up and try to show up on a regular basis. All it takes is one little step after another, done with the intention of wanting to know and love Jesus more and more each day. 

Christ has called the whole human race to the lofty heights of sanctity ... Let no one believe that sanctity belongs to a few chosen people, while the rest of humanity can limit itself to a lesser degree of virtue.

- Pope Pius XI

Obama's Wall

I was just listening to Pink Floyd's "The Wall," and I was suddenly struck by how much it reminded me of Obama's Freedom of Choice Act. You see, "The Wall" is about isolation. Although it is a depiction of Roger Water's own experiences of isolation, we can derive from it Orwellian inferences of thought policing and such things that 1984's Ministry of Truth would consider, well, truth.

Totalitarian regimes seek protectionist isolation in two ways. They seek to conserve their way of life by shunning outside influences. They can accomplish this by limiting the media, controlling the information taught in various educational sectors, and by defaming their opponents.


However, such regimes also guard their rule by isolating dissidents. In Orwell's dystopian Oceania, thought and choice are controlled to such a degree that a dissident would find himself intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically alone. This loneliness, this type of isolation is insidiously used to further the party's rule and promote their seemingly omniscient ideology. To be isolated in this way dehumanizes an individual, since he is unable to embrace his social environment with his whole being. Thus, the isolated individual finds that he must become void of thought, void of passion, and void of freedom in order to be accepted as a valued and respected citizen.


Obama's autocratic Freedom of Choice Act is just as conniving. What it affectively accomplishes is isolating dissident doctors from their human community. It demands that one tow the party line or face isolation. It is dehumanizing in the sense that one's intellect has no more value within the public market. The only choice for doctors and health practitioners to make is to have no choice, no critical thought that may dispute Obama's freedom machine. In this sense, then, labeling the restriction of intellectual and religious liberty as the essence of freedom, subverts what it means to be free and, ultimately, to be human.


Furthermore, Obama's neo-freedom policy destabilizes the meaning and value of "fundamental human rights." What it effectively says is that we no longer have the right to certain things, but that we have the might to seize them. That is, things like conscience and religion, or thought and expression, no longer belong to the essence of humanity, but by equating such inalienable rights with the subjective whims of the ruling majority, we, in effect, subvert the value and worth of such freedoms within the polis. Peter Kreeft's "Apple Argument Against Abortion" touches on this tyranny of the majority in section eight, but I highly recommend reading his argument in full. Nevertheless, here is section eight:

All these examples so far are controversial. How to apply moral principles to these issues is controversial. What is not controversial, I hope, is the principle itself that human rights are possessed by human beings because of what they are, because of their being—and not because some other human beings have the power to enforce their will. That would be, literally, "might makes right." Instead of putting might into the hands of right, that would be pinning the label of "right" on the face of might: justifying force instead of fortifying justice. But that is the only alternative, no matter what the political power structure, no matter who or how many hold the power, whether a single tyrant, or an aristocracy, or a majority of the freely voting public, or the vague sentiment of what Rousseau called "the general will." The political form does not change the principle. A constitutional monarchy, in which the king and the people are subject to the same law, is a rule of law, not of power; a lawless democracy, in which the will of the majority is unchecked, is a rule of power, not of law.

It must be remembered, however, that Obama's tyranny isn't all that new. As I said in another post, despite his engaging speeches, his charismatic personality, and his appeal to the heart-strings of the public, on the issue of human life and social conservatism, in general, Obama is merely a product of a political machine.

Homophobe!!!!

I may not fully understand the whole story here, but I am pretty annoyed with gay activists who claim that any opposition to things like same-sex marriage is seen as homophobic. Here in Canada, it's been a real annoyance since we've sanctioned same-sex marriage. It seems that you can't say anything that may be seen as contradictory to these activists without it being labeled as homophobic. It seems like a trump card, really. You know, when you're playing Hearts and you just laid down that Ace of spades to take the Queen of spades and what you think to be the round's last remaining heart and some yahoo throws down his 2 of hearts, takes your Queen and you get stuck with a bunch of points against your impeccable record--if you've never played hearts, then, simply put, the trump card takes all.

Unlike a game of cards, however, playing the homophobic trump is pretty insidious. It is used in place of critical thought, and it is used to intimidate all in opposition to the activists' cause. What it functions as is, essentially, a way to control how people express their ideas and thoughts. It makes everyone express thought the same way as the dominant ideology expresses its thoughts. Has anyone ever read George Orwell's 1984? In the book, this kind of ideological oppression is known as newspeak. The almighty Wikipedia has a lovely description of newspeak:

"Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking — 'thoughtcrime,' or 'crimethink' in the newest edition of Newspeak — or speech impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: 'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.

Orwell's 1984 is a very interesting and timely read; I think everyone should be reading this book, especially in light of Barack "The Saviour" Obama's Freedom of Choice Act--which is so erroneously and misleadingly (again, the term "insidious" comes to mind) titled that it is sure to sway people to its agenda. Another great example of why Orwell's book is timely is Canada's Kangaroo Court. Unless things have changed since I've last read about it, the laws of this court state that if someone feels that they might be offended by something you've said, they can take you to this idyllic court and have you fined for saying something that hurt their feelings. Sure, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal probably does play an important role in protecting the well-being of Canadians, but it is too subjective to be of any real benefit for us all. Additionally, homophobia is a real problem that we must all be aware of, but objecting to the whims of gay activists does not imply that one is homophobic. Furthermore, it is ignoble to use it as a type of trump card to silence the opposition--particularly if these activists in question are truly concerned with the well-being of all Canadian citizens.

For a great resource on some problems with same-sex marriage, check out this link from the Catholic Education Resource Centre.

Polygamy, here we come!

So good ol' Winston Blackmore is experiencing some religious persecution. He claims that because he is a Mormon--a Fundamentalist Mormon, no less--he was recently arrested and charged with, according to the Globe and Mail, "'practising a form of polygamy or practising a kind of conjugal union' with 19 women." These charges have been 20 years in the making, however, and it was only recently that the RCMP felt they had enough evidence to actually enforce Canada's polygamy laws. Nonetheless, despite having put "vulnerable children at risk" of sexual and emotional abuse, Mr. Blackmore is claiming that, his arrest is "not about polygamy," but an affront to both Mormonism, specifically Fundamentalist Mormonism, and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, he goes further and, in an appeal to our emotions, claims that the RCMP, and Canadians in general, ought to be ashamed of the lack of "sensitivity when it comes to dealing with our children." Further still, he tugs at our hardened hearts by emphasizing that his children "hated the police all day long" because of his arrest. Remember, he uses this appeal, despite having put his children at risk of abuse by himself and other husbands whose love is too big for one bride.

Before we all get blinded by Blackmore's fallacious appeal to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, let's recall some of this abuse that the police are concerned about, and that Blackmore seems to want us to easily forget.

Tapestry Against Polygamy is a Utah-based web site run by women and children who were once involved in polygamous relationships. They remind us that some of the forms of abuse rampant in these relationships include the following: "incest, statutory rape, underage marriage ... lack of education, trafficking of minors across borders for the purpose of sex, medical neglect, and extreme forms of domestic abuse & mental torture." Despite the attempts by shows like Big Love to normalize polygamy, and despite Blackmore's appeal to his "right" to religious freedom, we cannot become desensitized to the plight of the women and children who are sexually, psychologically, and emotionally devastated by all of the "loving" going on in their bedrooms and homes.

So that we could get an idea of what goes on, here's a list of warning signs that Tapestry published on their site:

Danger Signs of Abuse within a Polygamous Relationship

- Control over private lives: telling people where they should work; expecting attendance at multiple church services and activities, dictating decisions that should be made by the entire family.
- Manipulation of marriages: arranging for people to get married; telling women to stay in abusive home situations and accept the abuse as "correction from the Lord".
- Sexual demands: pressures to perform sexual acts through coercion.
- Threats or intimidation: threats to "take away" the husband’s attention for "wrong behavior."
- The group seems perfect: everyone agrees and follows orders cheerfully.
- The group claims to have "all the answers" to your problems.
- You begin to feel guilty and ashamed, unworthy as a person.
- The group speaks in a derogatory way about those outside the religious affiliation.
- Outsiders are defined as unable to understand and help you with religious matters.
- Males are believed to have more rights and abilities than females.
- Leadership is never shared.
- Someone frequently prefaces his or her remarks with things like "The Lord has told me."
- An authoritarian leadership that claims exclusive access to God’s will.
- Total control over members' daily lives.
- Exclusivity and isolation.
- Development of unhealthy emotional dependence.
- Prohibition of critical analysis and independent thinking.
- Practices methods of ego destruction and mind control.
- Discouragement of free and independent pursuit of education.



Postscript:

You know, the guy's pretty smart. By claiming that polygamy is enshrined by the Canadian Charter's list of Fundamental Freedoms, he is almost guaranteed success in court, or at least in Canada's official Kangaroo Court. If not resulting from his court proceedings, then certainly a few years down the road--and you can be assured that we will hear this plea to freedom within the next couple of years--polygamy will be legalized in Canada, much the same as same-sex marriage was. Sure, you can claim that same-sex marriage is different, but what both of them have in common is that they contribute to the erosion of the value and contribution that marriage adds to our society--or at least our awareness of its contribution. Furthermore, and you don't hear that much of this since same-sex marriage was rammed down our throats, but both same-sex marriage and polygamy have a detrimental affect on our children and, correspondingly, on our society. Here's a quote from a book titled, Marriage on Trial by Stanton and Maier:

While "Nathanson and Young don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with gay relationships ... they contend that same-sex marriage will harm society because 'marriage between men and women must be publicly fostered by culture and supported by law.' Nathanson and Young contend that the advocates of same-sex marriage ignore all of the societal loads natural marriage must carry ... because, for the most part, gay activists are radical individualists who show little concern for the greater culture."

Evangelism

Ya gotta love Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, the Preacher to the Papal Household. Here is a snippit from one of Fr. Raniero's homilies to the Papal House, recently delivered on December 19:

"Those who hear the word without putting it into practice, those who have one spiritual abortion after another, making plans for conversion that they systematically abandon when they get halfway down the road, conceive Jesus but do not give birth to him. They are impatient observers of the word, they look at their face in a mirror and then go away forgetting what they looked like (cf. James 1:23). In sum, they are those who have faith but no works."

He doesn't stop there:

" ... there are also those who, on the contrary, give birth to Christ without having conceived him. They do many works, even good ones, that do not come from the heart, from love of God and right intention, but rather from habit, hypocrisy, the pursuit of their own glory and their own interests, or simply from the gratification of doing them. In sum, they are those who have works but no faith."

And he concludes this part of his homily with a sweet quote from St. Francis of Assisi:

"'We are mothers of Christ,' he says, 'when we carry him in our heart and in our body by divine love and with a pure and sincere conscience; we give birth to him through holy works, which should shine forth as an example for others. ... How holy and dear, pleasant, humble, peaceful, lovable and desirable above all things it is to have such a brother and such a son, our Lord Jesus Christ!' The saint is telling us that we conceive Christ when we love him with a sincere heart and with rectitude of conscience, and we give birth to him when we accomplish holy deeds that manifest him to the world."

You may remember St Francis. He was the one who reminded us to "preach the gospel at all times, and, when necessary, use words." He's also the lovey-dovey saint who is a favourite of animal lovers and people who don't like to preach and use the above quote to justify their mantra of "no pushy-pushy the gospy-gospy." What they forget is that St. Francis was a preacher. Not just an ordinary preacher, mind you, but an itinerant one who shared the gospel with his words and actions. St. Francis shared the gospel without compromise, and Fr. Cantalamessa is exhorting us to do likewise.

How do we preach, then? Certainly, neither St. Francis nor Cantalamessa would have us force the gospel's message of unconditional love into the lives, minds, and hearts of our families, friends, and co-workers, but they would have us share it with our families, friends, and co-workers, "at all times."

I think that Catherine Doherty provides us with a good model on how we ought to approach evangelization. In a talk addressed to seminarians and priests she suggested that "the only true dialogue is the one between two crucified persons." If we take a moment to break that down, I think that we can come to a profound understanding of what it means to preach. For instance, when we think of a crucified person, what comes to our minds? We immediately think of the naked, humbled, and wounded Christ, nailed to a tree on our behalf. If the only way for us to enter into a true dialogue is to be like this crucified Christ, what would this image of a naked, humbled, and wounded Christ imply? It implies that we meet every pilgrim, every person yearning for this unconditional love, with an empty heart, naked of judgement, selfishness, and arrogance; we meet them with a heart that acknowledges its brokenness and has removed all masks that seek to hide such limitations. We meet these pilgrims as beggars, with our actions and our words leading them to the Bread of Life. We allow ourselves to become vulnerable, naked, and empty, unassuming and uncompromising in our delivery of the gospel message. That is how we become crucified, and this is how we evangelize: we acknowledge our frailty and our shortcomings as valiant Christian Soldiers. We acknowledge that were it not for the grace of God, we would be the ones searching, unfulfilled in our quest for true happiness.

So, we must preach, lest we become guilty of "spiritual abortion," but we do it from the base of Christ's cross.