Today there will be a groundbreaking ceremony for a nuclear weapons plant in the Kansas City area. Bishop Robert Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph issued the following statement in response to this development:

"On September 8, 2010 ground will be broken to begin construction of a new facility for the production of non-nuclear parts for nuclear weapons in South Kansas City. In the Catholic Church September 8th is the feast of the Birth of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The confluence of the groundbreaking with the feast of Mary’s nativity provides the opportunity to pause at the irony of the situation: Mary, mother of the Prince of Peace, and the construction of a facility whose main purpose is the construction of weapons for warfare. More...

Bishops and priests by virtue of their office are our spiritual fathers in the Church. Honoring them in a spirit of charity, obedience, and filial respect usually poses no problem when things are going well. However, when our pastor seems to be "part of the problem," we tend to wonder to what extent we are to honor them.

Throughout the Bible there are many important lessons on how to relate to those in authority, especially during times of crises. From the example of Noah’s faithful sons, who covered their father’s nakedness (Gen. 9:23), to David's refusal to lay a hand on Saul (1 Sam. 24), to Our Lord’s pithy command to do as the Pharisees and scribes say but not as they do (Mt. 23:1-3), a clear picture develops. This picture is reflected in the constant teaching of the Church, including in our time the documents of Vatican II, the Catechism, and the Code of Canon Law.

The "anatomy" of a godly response to Church authority requires not only backbone but also heart--in other words, strength and tenderness rooted in the truth. This is charity in action, which the Catechism calls "the often narrow path between the cowardice which gives in to evil, and the violence which under the illusion of fighting evil only makes it worse" (no. 1889).

All this might sound good in theory, but what about Bishop So and So? What about my pastor, who allows--or even mandates--that X, Y, or Z go on in our parish? Here are some general principles that usually apply: More...

Tomorrow we will be taking my daughter Mary Kate to the airport, as she embarks on her new life with the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist community in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

We've seen this coming for awhile, but I'm not sure anyone is ever quite ready to have their teenage daughter do something like this. But make no mistake: Mary Kate is ready. As for my readiness, I haven't been so sure!

Speaking of readiness, check out this recent interview given by one of the "oldtimers" entering the Dominican community this weekend--a 2010 summa cum laude Harvard graduate! 

Anyway, last Sunday at Mass many emotions were running through my head. While I honestly can't think of anything better she can do with her life--and I'm so proud of who she is and of her generous response to Our Lord's call--I was still feeling a sense of loss.

Fr. Anthony chose Eucharistic Prayer III. I really like this particular Eucharistic Prayer. One phrase that has had rich meaning for me through the years is, "Father, hear the prayers of the family you have gathered here . . ." as I've written frequently on the image of the Church as the "family of God," as well as on the "parish family."

But last Sunday it was the next line that really struck me:

"In mercy and love unite all your children wherever they may be."

Even though Mary Kate will be in a cloister nearly a thousand miles away, we will still be united in God's mercy and love, particularly through our participation in the Eucharist and in the life of the Church in general (a "communion of saints" thing). This is another one of those teachings to which we give notional assent, but every now and then we have moments in which a truth of the faith penetrates us in a more real, experiential way. I'm not really "losing" my dear Mary Kate at all!

Now, I'm the Dick Vermeil of Catholic fathers (I've cried all 23 times I've seen It's a Wonderful Life, if that's any indication), so I'm sure I'm going to shed some more tears. But they will be tears of joy and thanksgiving. 

It's all right here in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 2232-33):

"Family ties are important but not absolute. Just as the child grows to maturity and human and spiritual autonomy, so his unique vocation which comes from God asserts itself more clearly and forcefully. Parents should respect this call and encourage their children to follow it. They must be convinced that the first vocation of the Christian is to follow Jesus: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37). . . .

"Parents should welcome and respect with joy and thanksgiving the Lord's call to one of their children to follow him in virginity for the sake of the Kingdom in the consecrated life or in priestly ministry."

At the heart of the proclamation of the Gospel is the call to conversion. This call goes out to all of us, to turn to Christ and to continually deepen our relationship with Him. This is to a large extent a matter of the heart, but sometimes we need to critically examine our thought processes. Discovering flaws in one's logic does not of itself produce faith, but it does level the playing field so that the call to conversion may be heard anew.

Today, I thought I would offer a "top ten" list of non sequiturs ("it-doesn't-follows") that I've run into, with a brief explanation as to why they involve logical fallacies.

(1) "I don't always feel like going to Mass on Sunday, especially if I'm out late on Saturday or there's a good football game on."

Therefore: "It's okay [i.e., not a mortal sin] if I occasionally miss Mass on Sunday."

We don't always feel like doing the right thing. In fact, feelings are not a reliable guide to making good decisions (Catechism, no. 1768). What would even be the point of morality if whatever we felt like doing always happened to be the right thing to do? We know from personal experience as well as from the teaching of the Church that that's not the case. Also, this thought process makes Sunday Mass appear as merely an obligation, and not as the source and summit of our lives as Christians.

(2) "Fr. X sexually abused a minor."

Therefore: "The Catholic Church is evil. (And all priests are perverts.)"

If Fr. X sexually abused a minor, then he is a pervert and a criminal, and he should be prosecuted to the same extent as anyone else who commits such acts. But to judge all priests and the Church as a whole based on the bad acts of individuals is an illogical (and at times malicious) leap--and one that our society would not tolerate with respect to any other demographic group.

As a matter of pastoral governance, mistakes have been made in the past regarding the handling of priest abusers, but even that doesn't lead to the conclusion that all priests are sex offenders (the overwhelming majority aren't) or that the Church countenances the behavior of the Fr. Xes of the world. The Church, following Our Lord's teaching, especially in Matthew 18, has always considered the sexual abuse of minors a gravely sinful act (see for example Catechism, nos. 2353 and 2356). 

(3) "Annulments are just Catholic divorces."

Therefore: "I should be able to divorce and remarry in the Church without the hassle and delay of the annulment process."

This is the one clearly false premise in this list, as annulments, or "decrees of nullity," are distinct from divorces. So here we need more teaching on marriage, especially on the indissolubility of marriage. As Our Lord said, "What therefore God has joined, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6).

But even accepting this perception, there is a double standard at work here. Virtually nobody would attempt a second civil marriage (with the first spouse still alive) without first obtaining a civil divorce. Otherwise, they'd be committing the crime of bigamy. When it comes to a Christian marriage, the ultimate arbiter is the Church, not the state. Yet, many people act as if the permissive divorce laws of the state should exclusively govern realities that "God has joined." For more on this topic, check out this article.

(4) "It's legal."

Therefore: "It's morally acceptable."

Not all actions that are legal are morally good, and not all illegal activities necessary entail an action that is morally evil in itself. In legal terminology, which one would get in a cursory viewing of Legally Blonde, some acts are malum in se (bad in themselves) and others are malum prohibitum (bad because they're prohibited, such as various regulatory laws, etc.).

Even in our jurisprudence, then, some actions are bad, or evil, in themselves. This badness doesn't come from the law, but from something that existed before the penal codes were written. Here of course we're talking about the natural law, which is not dependent on the "democratic process" or having a majority of favorably disposed judges. So, the fact that abortion may be "legal" in the eyes of the state does not mean that it has ceased to be an abomination in the sight of God (see Catechism, nos. 2070-73).  

(5) "Catholics are not 'single issue' voters."

Therefore, "I can vote for the pro-abortion candidate because there are many issues and surely on some issues he or she is preferable to the pro-life alternative."

The fact that Catholics are not "single issue" voters does not lead to the conclusion that all issues are more/less equal. Abortion is a distinctive issue for three reasons. First, it involves the fundamental right to life itself, which is a prerequisite for any and all other rights we possess. Second, if that weren't enough, the victims are the most vulnerable in our midst and unable to speak for themselves. And third, unlike most political issues, this is a black and white moral issue where there is a right side and a wrong side to be on as Christians and as men and women of goodwill. So a certain prioritization of issues is certainly called for. On this, I refer readers to a joint pastoral letter issued during the last election cycle by Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Finn of the greater Kansas City area.

(6) "Everyone has the right to be happy."

Therefore, "Homosexual activity and even homosexual relationships should be approved by society, and the Chuch will have to come around on this issue."

When this person says "happy," he or she doesn't mean happy in the deepest sense. Basically, this person is saying that a person, or in this instance, "consenting adults," have the right to do whatever they want to do. What he or she is really talking about is "license," which is human freedom disconnected from the truth. One cannot be happy apart from God and apart from striving to do what is pleasing in His eyes. If human happiness resides in God alone, as all the saints have attested, must we give legal recognition to his or her disordered attempts at happiness (to the detriment of the moral fabric of our society), or do we lovingly offer them another way? 

(7) "The Church's teaching on birth control is not infallible."

Therefore, "The Church's teaching is wrong."

Here we get into all sorts of futile arguments as to whether the Church has made an "infallible" ex cathedra statement on the subject, or at least has taught on this subject in such a way that it partakes of the "ordinary Magisterium" of the Church. Basically, people are looking for loopholes. They want the Church to be wrong about this, so they need to lay the foundation that such an error is possible (without bailing on the Church altogether).

The fact of the matter is that the Church teaches the truth in matters of faith and morals. When it comes to moral evils, the Church typically does not issue infallible pronouncements. Does that mean that the Church's moral teaching is up for grabs? Of course not. And the Church has noted that the sinfulness of contraception is also a precept of the natural law (cf. Humanae Vitae, no. 14), and the natural law does not change (Catechism, no. 1958).

(8) "Things seemed to go haywire in the Church after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65)."

Therefore, "Vatican II is the problem, and its so-called 'reforms' must be reversed immediately."

Maxwell Smart might say, "This is the old post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy." Literally this means, "After this therefore because of this." In other words, it's bad logic to conclude that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was the cause of the second event. Now Vatican II did bring about some significant changes in the Church's life, but most things people point to as the bad fruits of Vatican II are things that (a) would likely have happened even without Vatican II and/or (b) reflect a mistaken (or mischievous) interpretation of the Council's provisions. Taken to the extreme, this fallacy has led some who are "more Catholic than the Pope"--or at least "more Catholic than Vatican II"--to walk away from the Church. "Pre-Vatican II" and "Post-Vatican II" are not two different churches, people!

(9) "All human beings are born with God-given dignity and value."

Therefore, "Illegal immigrants have the right to citizenship and to free healthcare insurance coverage."

Obviously this is a complex, divisive issue that requires a new way of thinking that can break through partisan divisions.

The Church, more than any other body, affirms the God-given dignity, value, and rights of all people. There are many people in this country who are "undocumented" or "illegal," oftentimes because their family is unable to survive harsh living conditions in Mexico. Treating these people as mere criminals or worse doesn't resonate with the Christian perspective.

Yet, automatic citizenship and health insurance for those who have fled to our country (notwithstanding our immigration laws, such as they are) is not a necessary conclusion to be drawn from our premise. Even more so when we imprudently and unjustly burden the next generation with paying for our inability to manage this immigration crisis in a way that is both compassionate and respectful of the rule of law.  

(10) "God is merciful."

Therefore, "All people [with perhaps noteworthy exceptions, such as Adolph Hitler or Osama bin Laden] will be saved.

This is the error of presumption, or perhaps universalism. Just as we can choose to accept Christ, we can also set our will against Him. If none of that mattered, then "human freedom" would simply be a mirage.

Can you think of any other faith-related non sequiturs?

A student once asked me: When did the term “Catholic” come into play? How did we become “Catholic” from our Jewish roots? I thought these were very good questions, so I thought I would share my brief response with the readers of Catholic Hour.
 
The first recorded use of the word “catholic” (from the Greek word for “universal”) in reference to the Church is found in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop and disciple of St. John who was martyred by the Emperor Trajan in 107. Shortly before his martyrdom, he wrote several letters to various Church communities. These letters have been preserved by the Church ever since. One such letter was the Letter to the Smyrneans, where he wrote in chapter 8:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

Interestingly, Antioch is also the place where the followers of Christ were called “Christians” for the first time (Acts 11:26).

As for the second question, really the goal of all of salvation history, from the time of the fall and surely from the scattering of the nations at Babel, has been to reunite the divided, sinful family of man into the Family of God, the Church. The Church indeed is universal, as it’s the means of salvation for the whole world, Jew and Gentile alike. Surely the Jewish people played a unique role as God’s chosen people, from whom would come Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. In a real sense the Church became “Catholic” at Pentecost, when God reversed the scattering of peoples at Babel (see Catechism, no. 830).

The covenants made to the patriarchs, to Moses, and to King David all find their fulfillment in the salvation Christ brings to the world. As was promised way back in Genesis, through Abraham and his descendants all the families of the earth will find blessing (Gen. 12:3). This blessing is universal. This blessing is Catholic.

One argument offered in support of same-sex marriage is the assertion that children raised by same-sex couples have no more problems than children raised by their married biological parents. Aware that a major impediment to their agenda is public concern about the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples, gay activists have encouraged researchers to “prove” that their thesis. They offer these "findings" to the courts in marriage cases.

The majority of these studies do not compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by married biological parents, but with children raised by single mothers or in other less-than-ideal circumstances. Further, many of these studies have been shown to be externally or internally invalid. And in some cases, researchers simply ignored their own findings and skewed their conclusions to fit their agenda.

Persons with same-sex attractions (SSA) are human beings. It’s natural for them to want to experience the joy of having children: to love, to nurture, to leave a legacy. There’s nothing wrong with a woman wanting to become pregnant and bear a child, or a man wanting to experience the joy of seeing his son grow into manhood or his daughter develop into a beautiful woman.

Yet children are not trophies, or a way to meet one’s personal needs, or props to help forward an ideology. More...

When my daughter Virginia was younger, she and I had a conversation concerning girls’ names, during which time she commented that Virginia is a very common name. I said, “No, it isn’t honey,” to which she replied, “Yes it is, I hear it all the time.”

Obviously our viewpoint, on matters of greater or lesser signifance, is shaped by our personal perspective and the information that is available to us. When it comes to homosexuality, we find ourselves frequently surrounded by propaganda, societal pressures, and misinformation. We're being pushed to lighten up on a weighty matter, to tolerate the intolerable, to accept the unacceptable. We naturally want to push back, but how we do so matters greatly. More...

Through His sacrifice on the Cross, Christ conquered sin and death once and for all. So why do Catholics seemingly sacrifice Christ over and over again at Mass?

I'm sure many of us have heard this question at one time or another. The key is to understand that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass are the same, single sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross brought about “objective” redemption—in other words, the possibility of salvation for all people of all time. No other sacrifice is needed.

The sacrifice of the Eucharist, commonly called “the Mass,” does not repeat or multiply this sacrifice, then, but rather makes present this one, definitive sacrifice of Christ here and now in our local parish church. This brings about what we call “subjective” redemption—in other words, the application of the merits of Christ’s sacrifice to individual men and women.

In continually offering the sacrifice of the Mass (cf. Mal. 1:11), the Church fulfills the command of the Lord Jesus to “do this in memory of me” (Lk. 22:19). Through the sacrifice of the Mass, we are able to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, without which we have no life in us (cf. Jn. 6:53-56).

For more information on this topic, see Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 1362-72. I also highly recommend my friend Thomas Nash’s book, Worthy is the Lamb, on the biblical roots of the Mass.

This past weekend I was considering my own mortality. You see, yesterday was the 32nd anniversary of the death of my second-oldest brother, Ray. Also, a couple days ago was the birthday of my oldest brother, Bob, who passed away just a few weeks ago.  It really struck me that the 32-year gap between their deaths really isn't that big, even though during that time I've gone from being a teenager to a middle-aged grandfather. How, in practical terms, do I understand God's involvement in the relentless progression of time?

So, I really connected with the familiar readings at Mass yesterday. One was from Ecclesiastes ("For what profit comes to man from all the toil and anxiety of heart with which he has labored under the sun"), Colossians ("seek what is above"), and Luke ("You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you . . .")

There were so many things in these readings that really spoke to me. I guess I can sum up my thoughts this way: Life can really beat us up if we lose track of our heavenly prize (cf. Phil. 3:12-15; Mt. 6:25-34; 1 Cor. 9:24-27).  Without Christ, life is a cross without resurrection. And further, I'd say that part of life that beats us up is time itself. I may not have understood that when Ray died 32 years ago, but I understand it now.

And the answer? Well, yes, the daily crosses in our lives are real. Suffering is a given. Are we going allow our suffering to be an absurdity, a waste, or "vanity"?  Or are we going to truly abandon ourselves to Christ and unite everything in our lives to Him--not just in theory but in the way we live from day to day, even moment to moment?

I think that part of the "renewal of the mind" (Rom. 12:2) that St. Paul is talking about is exactly that--we need to change our way of looking at things that bring us down. Why live as slaves, when Christ came to set us free? When we commit ourselves to daily meditative prayer and frequent recourse to the sacraments, when we seek what is above, then our perspective down here is changed for the better. 

Joy comes with the experience of attaining that which we hope for. As Christians, our daily struggles can be a cause of great joy for us. After all, they bring us a foretaste of the fullness of life for which we're striving.

So join with me this day and every day: Dare to rejoice!      

As Catholics, we try to balance in our lives of faith the active Martha and the contemplative Mary. Sometimes in the process Martha gets a bad rap. She’s anxious and worried about many things (Lk. 10:41), so at times we might picture her as a frantic busybody flitting around doing 101 things, while the serene Mary sits at the feet of Jesus.

But today (in two hours) is the feast of Saint Martha. She is a full-fledged saint, with all the rights and privileges that go with it! While activism without prayer can quickly turn into mere workaholism, prayer without active apostolate also lacks authenticity. 

At this exciting time in the Church, lay people are specifically called to roll up our sleeves and actively participate in the great work of the new evangelization. There’s plenty to do to keep all of us Martha’s busy.

May we imitate the faith of St. Martha, who said, “I have come to believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God” (Jn. 11:27). And, like St. Martha, may we express this faith in active works of charity.

As we do so, we must keep in mind the clear teaching of Scripture. Our Lord said that Mary chose the better part, the one necessary thing (Lk. 10:42). Our Lord is truly present at every Mass and in every tabernacle throughout the world. If we truly desire to be saints, we do well--frequently and with much love and devotion--to return to the Source: Jesus, Our Eucharistic Lord.

I think St. Martha would wholeheartedly agree. 

It's good to be back! I didn't have a chance to post here at Catholic Hour most of last week. I was attending a catechetical conference at Franciscan University of Steubenville, where I was letting people know about our new online courses here at My Catholic Faith Delivered. Besides being on the short list of excellent Catholic colleges and universities, Franciscan University also hosts some fantastic conferences during the summer. For more information, click here.

Speaking of catechesis, last week I likened the deposit of faith--all that Christ has revealed to us through His Church--to a bank deposit, with the Church being the bank and the apostles and bishops having special authority to safeguard this deposit so that it might bear interest for the kingdom of God.

Another way of approaching this reality is to think of the Church’s Magisterium, or teaching office, as a fence or wall. If the deposit of faith is understood as a body of teachings regarding what we are to believe and how we are to live as Christians in the world, one important role of the Magisterium is to give this body definition and shape. More...

Dear readers,

I will be out of town next week, so there will be no new posts until the week of July 5th.

We will be heading first to Michigan, where my daughter will be doing a one-week pre-aspirancy (kinda like an orientation) with the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist. She is one of I believe 28 girls who plan to enter the community later this summer on August 28th (feast of St. Augustine). It will be cool for the rest of the family to check out the place! Here's their website.

Please pray for these beautiful young women, and also for the safety of all travelers next Fourth of July weekend!

I recently received this interesting question via email:

"A relative of mine entered a hot dog eating contest. You know, the kind where one competes with others to see who can eat the most hot dogs in 10 minutes.

"What do you think about the morality of this?"
 
To be perfectly "frank," I don't "relish" having to come down on hot dog eating contests. I was an obese child, and as a youth my eating exploits were legendary. And beyond my own personal struggles, gluttony is seen by most people as not being a big deal.
 
Fr. Hardon gives the standard definition of gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins: “Gluttony is an inordinate love of eating and drinking. It means eating or drinking to excess, taking more than is needed or healthy, or indulging the appetite merely for pleasure, or beyond one’s means. . . .”

St. John Vianney, who is especially on our radar screen during the final days of this “Year for Priests,” affirms this teaching and writes about the negative spiritual ramifications of gluttony.
 
I don’t know how one could take seriously the definition of gluttony and still find hot dog eating contests morally acceptable. It surely entails “eating . . . to excess, taking more than is needed or healthy.” It goes even beyond eating “for pleasure,” making it a quasi-sport/entertainment, completely detached from the satisfaction of one’s hunger. I think some analogy could be made to various “games” or “sports” that play on our lustful inclinations, such as wet T-shirt competitions, mud wrestling, and worse.
 
We discuss overcoming the vice of gluttony and growing in the opposing virtue of temperance in our online Faith Foundations course. Visit the My Catholic Faith Delivered homepage for more information.

Some interesting Catholic news items:

(1) Cardinal DiNardo, chairman of the United States Bishops' Pro-Life Committee, voices grave concern over the FDA's plan to approve new abortion drug for "emergency contraception" purposes.

(2) Bishop Morlino of Madison is criticized for bringing in more priests. Why? Because the new priests are "too conservative."

(3) At the recent U.S. bishops' meeting, USCCB president Cardinal George blames the Catholic Health Association for the passage of the health-care reform bill. In essence, Sr. Keehan chose President Obama over the U.S. bishops . . .

(4) On a lighter note, the Vatican newspaper recently paid tribute to the movie Blues Brothers, in honor of the 30th anniversary of its release, calling it a "Catholic" movie. (That's not my recollection, but it's been awhile. And hey, wasn't John Belushi a "soul man"?) For the Reuters account, see "Vatican beatifies Blues Brothers . . . well almost."

(5) Massachussetts bishops oppose casino gambling. I applaud this move, in keeping with my recent series on gambling. The effects of legalized gambling may on the surface seem minimal, but we can't overstate the corrosive effects of this sort of thing on our culture.

(6) U.S. bishops announce new book on theology of the body. Here at My Catholic Faith Delivered, we will soon be offering theology of the body courses in an online, interactive format. 

(7) Carl Olson's trenchant commentary on the legacy of Fr. Charles Curran, who led the opposition against the Church's teaching on contraception in the 60's and 70's. Also at My Catholic Faith Delivered, we have a new course on Humanae Vitae, the little encyclical that got Fr. Curran and his colleagues so worked up.

(8) This item from the Catholic Culture site claiming that nearly 50 beneficiaries of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) are opposed to Church teaching. Then this week there was the report that Bishop Hebda of Gaylord, Michigan temporarily suspended the funding of the CCHD within his diocese while a review of CCHD takes place.

(9) I wish I had commented on yesterday's saint, St. Aloysius Gonzaga. He is a patron saint of youth. I don't know that it's universally true that "only the good die young," but this 16th-century saint died at the tender age of 23 of the plague, after courageously giving compassionate care to many plague victims himself. He was a saintly Jesuit, and that's saying something!  And it's good to know that Gonzaga is not merely a basketball school in the Pacific Northwest!

(10) One of today's saints is St. Thomas More, the chancellor to King Henry VIII of England. There are many great books and articles about this popular saint. Very few saints have movies made about them, and fewer still win Academy Awards. So, whether you've never seen it, or whether you've already seen it ten times, I heartily recommend renting A Man for All Seasons tonight! Here are ten reasons why!

I originally wrote the following article for Lay Witness magazine in 2002, shortly after the adoption of our son Samuel. Since today marks the eighth anniversary of his adoption, and also because we're now on the threshold of Father's Day weekend, I thought I would reprint it here, with some minor updates.

Maureen and I were married on February 2, 1991, during the Gulf War. At that time, people were tying yellow ribbons everywhere as a reminder of our loved ones who were away at war. We all needed reassurance during this time of conflict and uncertainty.

The homilist at our wedding told us that our marriage needed to be a yellow ribbon, a witness to life and love amidst the hatred, despair, and death we saw around us. We were newlyweds when the Gulf War ended, and of course now nation is still at war in that region, as well as embroiled in the ongoing, complex war against international terrorism.

Meanwhile, Maureen and I have quietly lived our marriage vows for over 19 years. We remember Pope John Paul II telling us over and over again that civilization passes by way of the family. We are far from perfect, but we have taken seriously the challenge we received at our wedding--a challenge issued to all Christian families--to be joyful witnesses to Christ in the midst of the world.

The Lord has abundantly blessed our marriage with children. We have six beautiful children (they take after their mother) and 14 godchildren. [And now one grandchild.] We’ve welcomed at different times many others into our home, including our elderly parents, siblings, and college students. I thank the Lord every day for the singular gift of our family, our little domestic Church.

Yet we’ve also endured times of sorrow. Maureen has had several pregnancies end in miscarriage. Many families have experienced miscarriages and know what a silent, difficult cross they can be. After all, here we are in a contraceptive society, in a “culture of death,” willing to accept new life, only to have the child taken from us before we can even hold him or her. We’ve entrusted these little ones to our merciful Father, trusting amidst the tears that these tragedies are part of a larger, more glorious plan.

Family life isn’t a contest in which the players with the most children at the end of the game win. Yet Maureen and I wanted to be as open as possible to the Lord’s blessing. We have always considered adoption at some point, and after some of the pain from the miscarriages subsided, we realized in 2001 that we had room in our hearts and our home for another child. So we took the next step . . . 

We didn’t have the money to go through an expensive agency. Further, we weren’t looking for a “designer baby” with all the “right” qualities. We simply wanted to be open to accept whatever gift the Lord would want for us.

We decided in February 2001 to receive 36 hours of “training” through the county to become certified as foster/adoptive parents. We also obtained a home study, a comprehensive report prepared by a social worker concerning the suitability of an adoptive family. We figured that by going through these at times onerous steps, we would be ready to act quickly should a child become available.

We had our home study sent to various Catholic Charities offices in our region. We expressed a willingness to consider any age, race, gender, or special needs, but we hoped for a younger child so that there would be a better chance of forming good attachments. We made ourselves available, and then we had to wait. More...