Is your faith worth suffering for?

A half-million Vietnamese gathered in various cities in Vietnam to protest the vicious beating of two Catholic priests by police. Zenit reports the story here, and Asia News tells the story here.
In a second story, Asia News reports death threats against believers in Dong Hoi following the arrest of a Catholic who allowed his home to be used for services. (story here)
It is also reported that "...the police and groups of thugs are roaming the streets and attacking those who visibly wear Catholic religious symbols."
Meanwhile in the United States, 75% of Catholics find that going to Mass on Sunday is just too inconvenient and most would be reluctant to be seen saying grace with their family before a meal in a restaurant.
The same faith that is worth suffering and dying for in Vietnam is too often approached with indifference in the United States. Curious isn't it?

A "two-track" faith?

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams indicates that the worldwide Anglican Communion will have to accept "...the possibility ... of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value system." (story here) This is in an attempt to maintain unity by allowing individual churches to hold different opinions about gay clergy and same-sex unions.
Perhaps taking a page from Solomon, the archbishop seems to be willing to sacrifice the child so that each group can have a piece of what they want. Though I note that Solomon never did actually cut the baby in two.
The Archbishop presented his reflections on his website (link here) on Monday. Archbishop Williams notes that a key question is "...whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage," and he also recognizes that a positive answer to that requires a rethinking of the way the church has read the bible for the past two thousand years.
I am led to wonder that if, in an effort to be all inclusive by having a tent that is open on all sides with no regard for scripture or tradition, we find ourselves completely outside any tent and merely wandering in the wilderness.

Thoughts on a Wedding Dance

With well over 8 million viewings on YouTube, most have been exposed to the video of the dancing procession at the wedding of Kevin Heinz and Jill Peterson. The exuberance of the dance is truly contagious and is the main reason why this video went viral (some puns are too easy).

Maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy, but I am uncomfortable with this entrance to a church wedding. I do note that this was not a Catholic church and am willing to cut a lot of slack, but I am a believer that certain places and certain events demand a greater degree of reverence.
This dance would have been wonderful at a reception, but had it taken place in a Catholic church where we believe that Christ is truly present in eucharist reserved in the tabernacle, and as prelude to the sacrament of a couple entering into a lifetime commitment of marriage, I would have been greatly upset.
After reading many comments regarding this video, I recognize this places me in the great minority but -- stealing from the Byrds, who stole from Ecclesiastes -- there is a time and a place for everything. A sacramental wedding at a Catholic church is neither the time or place.
This distinction is also innately recognized at a New Orleans jazz funeral. The mourners there also dance in celebration, but not at the solemn ceremonies at church nor at the graveside, but as they go forth from those places.
Alas, I fear that this wedding procession will now be copied incessantly and I am going to irritate some bridezilla when I tell her it will not be allowed if I am involved in the ceremony. Then again, in those instances in which I am involved with marriage preparation, I try to explain that our concern is not for the wedding, but for the marriage.

Well this is refreshing...

Heisman Trophy winner and star quarterback of the National Champion University of Florida apparently stunned his interviewers when he acknowledged that he is saving himself for marriage. From Mike Bianchi and the Orlando Sentinel:

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- You no longer need to wonder if the devoutly spiritual Tim Tebow is a virgin.

Now you know.

Responding to a question from radio reporters at SEC Media Days Thursday about whether he is saving himself for marriage, Tebow laughed initially and then said seriously, "Yes, I am."

When another reporter stumbled through and couldn't finish a follow-up question, the 21-year-old University of Florida quarterback laughed and said, "I think you're stunned right now. You can't even ask a question. ... I was ready for that question, but I don't think ya'll were."

I don't know about you, but this just makes me respect Tebow even more. In a sports world where far too many young athletes are having children out of wedlock, the most popular player in America proudly admits he is saving himself for marriage.

I'm not much of a Gators fan, but I certainly respect this young man.

Set for the baptism? Why not get married too?

As one who in the course of baptismal preparation classes routinely meets couples who have been married in a civil ceremony (if at all) and who are looking to have their child baptized, this article about an initiative undertaken by the Church of England offering a two-for-one service of wedding for the couple and baptism for their child caught my attention.
I often try to take advantage of the occasion of the baptism as an opportunity to bring up the possibility having the couple enter into a sacramental union, but question whether this approach is wise. However, I believe that there is something of value to the initiative itself.

Twisting and turning

Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Ph.D. is Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia and author of a column "Making Sense out of Bioethics" published in many Catholic diocesan newspapers as well as on the NCBC website.
His latest column explores the contortion the pro-abortion lobby goes through to justify their position and their readiness to twist logic to do so. In the end he portrays abortion as the "insurance" which allows people the freedom to engage in the unrestrained, uncommitted, unlimited couplings which are the fruit of the sexual revolution.

In the final analysis, this stands as probably the single greatest tragedy of our time, that the unordered and inordinate sexual desires of men and women have been allowed to twist the most rudimentary moral logic to the point of death for so many of our children.

I find this a fairly accurate indictment of our culture in which one person values the other person based solely upon how and to what degree that person enables one to fulfill his/her own desires.

Ah, fame is a fickle thing...

The votes are in and the fans of the "King of Pop" were unable to churn up enough interest to have their idol's image cast in butter. This from the Iowa State Fair web site:

After a week of voting, the results of the Iowa State Fair online poll are in. With a margin of 65.24% “no” to 34.76% “yes,” fairgoers have voted down the inclusion of Michael Jackson in the moonwalk butter sculpture planned for the 2009 Iowa State Fair.

More than 100,000 votes were cast in the unscientific online poll conducted from July 9 to July 16.

In addition to the butter Jersey cow, a separate sculpture will celebrate the 40th anniversary of Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk on July 20, 1969. In honor of Armstrong’s “giant leap for mankind,” this year’s sculpture will include an astronaut, an American flag and a buttery rendition of the surface of the moon. The butter sculptures will be on display in a 40-degree cooler in the Fair’s Agriculture Building.