Five kinds of priests that are killing vocations to the priesthood:

The Uninviting Priest

Not everyone is called to the priesthood, but the seminary is not simply the place where men are formed into priests. The seminary is the place where young men determine whether or not they are called to the priesthood.

Statistics have shown us that the majority of seminarians were invited by a priest they respect to enter priestly discernment. There are two categories of priests that hinder men from discerning their call to the priesthood, namely those who do not invite and those who are not respected. 

The priest who does not take the time to invite young men to discern their vocation are priests that are contributing to the shortage of priests. All priests should be inviting high school and college aged men to discernment. Furthermore, this is probably the easiest way to increase vocations. 

Then there are the priests who are not respected by young men who might be called to the priesthood. The problem with these priests is that they are effectively discouraging vocations by the way they act and the things they do. Secondly, when they do invite, they are more likely to get a, "No thanks!"

The Effeminate Priest

Priests are called to be living icons of Christ. "The priest is a living and transparent image of Christ the priest (John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, 12.4)." Men who display characteristically feminine idiosyncrasies often project a lack of self-identity and a further lack of identification with Christ.

The priest, who is called to be a "living image" of Jesus Christ, head and shepherd of the Church, should seek to reflect in himself, as far as possible, the human perfection which shines forth in the incarnate Son of God and which is reflected with particular liveliness in his attitudes toward others as we see narrated in the Gospels (JPII, PDV, 43.1).

This reflection extends far beyond idiosyncrasies and penetrates deep into the priests personality, his affections, his values, and his virtues.

Young men are drawn to the priesthood when their encounters with priests are real encounters with Christ. A priest who projects a virtuous manliness draws virtuous men to the priesthood.

The Angry Priest

Blessed is the person who has never met a priest who holds a grudge against the Church or his bishop. There are a lot of rules in the Church, and there are a lot of priests who, like adolescents with 'teen angst,' are perpetually upset  at the directions the Church or their bishop give. It is like a teen whose "mother knows what's best" and makes up some rule for the teen's own good, but the teen rebels because it cramps his style.

The angry priest makes his priesthood seem like employment by a mean boss. This would turn off just about anyone from applying to any job. The priesthood should reflect less of a bad job and more of a loving relationship. The Church needs priests who love the Church like their mother and love their bishop like their father.  This humble obedience and submission of the will reflects Christ's obedience to the Father. 

The priest who loves the Church and is willing to obey out of trust in Her love will win over the hearts of young men who are willing to give their lives in obedience to the Church. The trusting priest encourages vocations.

The Unorthodox Priest

The priest, who is configured to Christ in a special way as priest, is called to make his life a living sacrifice. The orthodox priest teaches the doctrines of the Church in their fullness. The unorthodox priest alters the teachings of the Church or omits key pieces out of their own disagreement with the Church. The problem is that when someone encounters Truth in its fulness, they are willing to die for it.  

Young men are hungry for truth. Priests who unabashedly preach the doctrines of the Church draw men to Christ who is the Truth. Bl. John Paul II tells us:

Deeply rooted in the truth and charity of Christ, and impelled by the desire and imperative to proclaim Christ's salvation to all, the priest is called to witness in all his relationships to fraternity, service and a common quest for the truth, as well as a concern for the promotion of justice and peace. (JPII, PDV, 18.2)

The unorthodox priest lacks charity by the very fact that he lacks truth. His service and fraternity is defective when he lacks truth. The priest who loves truth and the teachings of the Church will inevitably win the respect of young men and thereby encourage them to discern priesthood.

The Recluse Priest

The same Truth that impels priests to preach the doctrines of the Church in their fulness, impels them to be men of communion. Priests are called to bear witness to Truth, which necessarily means having relationships with people.

The priest who seeks to be alone effectively tells others that what he has is not worth sharing let alone worth laying down one's life for. The priest who seeks to be with people lives a life that says just the opposite. The life lived in community is a life of love, it is not self-serving. It constantly gives of itself. Communion The Second Vatican Council teaches:

Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.

The life of community, when rooted in truth and charity, shares a certain likeness with the union of the divine Persons. In the same way that the orthodox priest is drawn into community, the priest who lives a life for others draws other to truth. Priests who seek to be with their flocks will draw men to discerning the priesthood.

21st Sunday after Pentecost (ExForm) and its relation to the Sacrament of Confirmation...

Breaking down the Lesson...

This Sunday's readings are taken from Eph 6:10-17 and Mt 18:23-35.

The Lesson reads as follows:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the Gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Any good Sacramental Theologian, should be able to read this text and understand immediately its import with regard to the Sacrament of Confirmation. Let me render the translation a little more directly of just the first line:

Finally, be [strengthened or confirmed] in the Lord and in the [potency] of His [virtue]. 

and so you know that I am not taken advantage of you, here it is in the Latin, which is the Universal Norm for the Latin Rite (Roman Catholic) Church:

De cetero confortamini in Domino et in potentia virtutis eius.

The word 'confortamini' is a pretty uncommon word meaning, "with-fortify-you-all." The English word confirm has a similar meaning, "with-make-firm." The difference is 'firm' vs. 'fort' both referring to strength. So, it is appropriate to render the line, "Finally, be strengthened..."

I only rendered the other two words differently to show that the second of the two, 'virtutis,' is related to the English word virtue. The root of "virtue" is "vir," which means man/male. The word "virtus" literally translated means, "manliness." Strength was seen as the predominant 'virtue' that distinguished men from women, and so often times, the word means nothing more than strength, as it does in this case. For, surely we cannot expect that St. Paul is referring to the quality in God that makes Him manly.

The other word, which I rendered as 'potency,' is related to the English word omnipotent, which has its roots in the Latin word, "omnipotens," meaning 'almighty' or 'all-powerful.' So, it is appropriate to substitute either English word, 'might' or 'power,' for 'potentia' I would recommend you do not use 'potency.' That was purely for pedagogical purposes.

So, read it again this way:

Finally, be strengthened in the Lord and in the power of His strength. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the Gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Or again this way:

Finally, be confirmed in the Lord and in the might of His virtue. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the Gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 

Nice, huh!? I think so. So... what does this have to do with the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Confirmation and Strength...

It is likely, especially if you have not grasped the relation at this point, that you were taught in your own Confirmation preparation classes that Confirmation is all about receiving the "Gift of the Holy Spirit" and the "gifts of the Holy Spirit." You may have even heard, if you were lucky, that it is the perfection of the Grace that you received at Baptism. Even luckier if you were taught that the Sacrament is about 'Strength.' There is a tendency to shy away from the language of 'Strength' because it implies that there is something against which we need to be strong.

If you read Pope Paul VI's words when he revised the rite of Confirmation after the Second Vatican Council, he says:

The sharing of the divine nature which is granted to men through the grace of Christ has a certain likeness to the origin, development, and nourishing of natural life. The faithful are born anew by baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of confirmation, and finally are sustained by the food of eternal life in the eucharist... the body is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the body is signed, that the soul too may be fortified... Through the sacrament of confirmation, those who have been born anew in baptism receive the inexpressible Gift, the Holy Spirit himself, by which ‘they are endowed... with special strength’. (Pope Paul VI. Divinae Consortium Naturae; 1975)

The Divine Mathematics behind the sacraments...

The sacrament has at its core the reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, but every sacrament has at its core the reception of grace which is a share in the Divine Life. As the Holy Father says "The sharing of the divine nature which is granted to men through the grace of Christ." In Confirmation, one receives the Holy Spirit, but that reception is still only a participation in the Divine Life of the Holy Spirit.

As finite beings, our share in the infinite must necessarily be finite, or it would mean the annihilation of the finite thing, the human person. For, ∞ + x = ∞. That is to say,  an infinitude plus any finite is equal to the infinitude. The finite thing ceases to exist. As a finite thing, we receive a share in the infinite each according to our individual nature.

What I am trying to say is that in the sacraments we do not cease to be ourselves. We do not become the Holy Spirit, in the simplest of terms. We receive some share in the life of the Holy Spirit, and by way of concomitance, we receive a share in the life of the Son and of the Father. For, where there is one, the other two must also be. In this way, all the sacraments are alike.

Distinguishing between their purposes...

That being said, every sacrament is for the same purpose, namely to receive some share in the Divine Life. That being the case, if there are different sacraments we must necessarily distinguish them by some other purpose. Pope Paul VI gives us an example of these distinctions quoting from Tertullian:

The body is washed, that the soul may be cleansed; the body is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the body is signed, that the soul too may be fortified; the body is overshadowed by the laying on of hands, that the soul too may be  enlightened by the Spirit; the body is fed on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul too should be nourished by God (Tertullian. De resurrectione mortuorum.VIII, 3: CCL, 2, 931).

When Tertullian says, "the body is washed..." he is referring to baptism. When he says, "the body is anointed..." It is unclear to which sacrament he is referring for both Baptism and Confirmation make use of holy oils. He may be referring to both, but Confirmation requires the Sacred Chrism in order to be valid, when Baptism can be performed validly without the Oil of Catechumens. So, it follows that he is speaking of Confirmation. Likewise, when he says, "the body is signed..." and "body is overshadowed..." he is also referring to Confirmation. When he says, "the body is fed..." He is clearly speaking of the Eucharist.

From this, we can say that in the Sacrament of Confirmation these signs are used for the consecration, strengthening, and enlightening of the confimand. It is also important to point out that in Confirmation, these three signs take place at the same time. The most important aspect of this sacrament seems to be strengthening. The confirmand is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, so that he might be firm in his conviction. The confirmand is consecrated, that is to say set apart for a special purpose, and strengthened to perform that purpose.

So, what is that purpose?

The importance of a good offense and defense...

Every great team defeats other great teams by having both a great offense and a great defense. The the offenses are equally matched, but one team has the stronger defense, a scoring attempt will be thwarted by the stronger defense leading that team to victory. Likewise, if both defenses are equally matched, the stronger offense will score leading that team to victory. 

The Catholic Church has an offense and a defense. Evangelization is the way in which the Church scores points. The defense of the Church is likened to apologetics. The goal of the Catholic Church is to win souls for Christ, to draw more sheep into His flock so that they too may feed on verdant pastures. By extension, every Christian has the obligation to evangelize and defend the faith. 

The Christian person, however, primarily evangelizes by the example of his life. So many are turned away from the Church by the hypocritical way in which we live our lives. This should not be the case. For, if we recognize that we are hypocrites, then we also should recognize that the Church is for hypocrites. The Church is for sinners striving to be better. The Hospital is for the sick who want to be healthy. 

Our lives need to reflect this. We need to draw people into the Church by acknowledging our own shortcomings. If we recognize our own faults and live our lives accordingly, our actions speak volumes about the grace of God. Whereas if we act superior and judge others by our actions, we will never score points.

The interior struggle...

St. Paul's words are clear, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." This is not simply a worldly battle. We should not so much concern ourselves with 'fighting the powers that be,' the injustices of government, the oppression of poor by the wealthy. Rather we should defend ourselves against the temptations, against our own lusts, against our own passions, and the interior assaults of the devil.

We need to rid ourselves of discord and the desire for wealth, power, pleasure, and fame. When we turn our focus inward, our outward actions follow and in a much more persuasive manner. When our heart is properly ordered, we draw others into a relationship that leads to their hearts being properly ordered. When the majority of people's hearts are properly ordered, we can change the world, but it starts inside us.

We have to be strong enough to fight this interior battle. Our evangelization begins within and moves outward from a properly ordered life. The outward battle requires that we put on certain armor:

Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the Gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

We must be true and honest to ourselves first, if we are to be true and honest to others. We have to just to whom we are indebted and merciful toward those indebted to us. We have to prepare ourselves to understand the Gospel with reason and faith. We must receive the forgiveness of our sins and repent. And we must have the word of God always on our mind, and ready to speak it if necessary.

This is the strength that Confirmation offers us. The strength to be true and honest, just and merciful, reasonable and believing, and firm in our reliance on God.

All this being said, this Sunday's Gospel seems to interpret itself:  

For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, "Have patience with me and I will repay you everything." And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, "Pay back what you owe." So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, "Have patience with me and I will repay you." But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened."Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?" And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.

ExForm Reflections on the Readings for the 19th Sunday After Pentecost...

In previous weeks I would write reflections on the upcoming Sunday readings. I have to admit that my intention was to prepare myself for Mass on Sunday. The problem was every time I would write a reflection, I would end up going to Mass in the Extraordinary Form (ExForm). The thing is that the ExForm does not make use of the same set of readings as the Ordinary Form (OForm).

I also noticed that even though there are quite a few reflections on the upcoming readings, there are not that many for the ExForm. So, I am going to start doing reflections for the ExForm. For those who have not been to Mass in the ExForm, there are only two readings, Epistle and Gospel. The Epistle reading is called the Lesson and is separated from the Gospel by the Gradual and the Alleluia Verse. The Gradual is the origin of the Responsorial Psalm in the OForm.

So here is my reflection for the Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost:

Putting on Christ...

The Lesson comes from Eph 4:23-28. It opens with:

Brethren: Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which has been created according to God in justice and holiness of truth.

What does it mean to "be renewed in the spirit of your mind?" The word that St. Paul uses here is, "ananeousthai." It literally translates as "again-new-the-act-of" or "the-act-of-making-new-again," which we translate as "renew." What about the "spirit of your mind?" It, I believe, can only be properly interpreted by the following phrase, "put on the new man." This sort of terminology can be found elsewhere in St. Paul's writings. In 1 Cor 15:45, 47 St. Paul says:

"So also it is written, 'The first man, Adam, became a living soul.' The last Adam [Christ] became a life-giving spirit... The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven."

The idea is that Christ is the New Adam. Adam was a sort of prefigurement of Christ. Adam's sin was in his disobedience, so Christ's justification is in His obedience (cf. Rom 5:19). So, the new spirit of the mind is not our own mind simply. It is our mind informed by the spirit of the mind of Christ. It is in this sense Christ's mind. We put on the mind of Christ. We put on the New Adam.

All this is to say that in order to put on the new man, we have to adopt the mind of Christ. The mind of Christ is instructive; it informs our actions (cf. 1 Cor 2:16). What is the mind of Christ? What is it in the mind of Christ that informs our actions?

The Greatest Commandments...

We know Christ's mind because we know that His obedience means our justification. His obedience is summarized in the Gospel of Matthew (22:37-40):

And He said to him,  "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

These two commands are mutually dependent. Love of God depends on love of neighbor and vice versa. This "Love" (Charity) is the mind of Christ.

It is ultimately Charity that gives life and Charity that informs all of our actions. Faith with out Charity is dead (cf. Jm 2). Charity is necessary for a Faith that saves.

The Wedding Feast of Charity...

The Gospel Matt 22:1-14, which is one with which most of us are familiar, describes a wedding feast being thrown. Some are invited and reject the invitation. Then, strangers are invited. One shows up wearing inappropriate attire, and he is cast out into the outer darkness.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great asks, "What ought we to understand by the wedding garment, but charity? For this the Lord had upon Him, when He came to espouse the Church to Himself. He then enters in to the wedding feast, but without the wedding garment, who has faith in the Church, but not charity" (Hom. in Ev. xxxviii, 2).

All baptized Christians are truly in the wedding hall. Some of us have showed up, however, without truly putting on the mind of Christ, the garment of charity. It is the garment that unites us to Christ Himself. Without this garment, we have no life within us. By donning this garment we put off our old ways of deceit, anger, theft, envy, greed, etc... We put on truth, kindness, gentleness, chastity, etc... We put on Love, and we forgive as He has forgiven us.

The HHS Mandate: Formal Cooperation?

There is a hot debate over whether or not compliance with the HHS mandate is "formal" or "material" cooperation. A lot depends on this distinction, because if compliance with the law is formal cooperation, it is to be avoided. If, however, it is material a case can be made that compliance is justifiable.

For a more thorough orientation on the debate check out this link: Is it Moral to Comply with the HHS Mandate? In her article, Prof. Janet Smith, references a couple other articles. Two stand out, those of Dr. Michael Pakaluk and Dr. Steven Long, both of whom are professors at Ave Maria University, my alma mater, and both of whom agree that compliance is formal.

I have a great deal of respect for Profs. Pakaluk and Long. The reason I think these two articles stand out is because Prof. Smith avoids arguing with them in favor of the material cooperation stance. She specifically says, "In a future column I will respond to Pakaluk's and Long's arguments that the cooperation is formal."


I am disappointed that she would respond at another time. If they are wrong and worth mentioning, why not refute them at the same time? Because of her avoidance, I would like to take a closer look at the situation that arises from the HHS mandate, and submit my own understanding. I concede that each of the aforementioned are smarter than I, but nevertheless, it is worth pondering.

Pakaluk explains the difference between formal and material cooperation by saying:

A clear example is the difference between the stagehands who set up the music stands and chairs on stage before a concert, and the musicians of the orchestra who follow next upon the stage and actually play the music.  Although the performance could not go on without the work of the stagehands, the stagehands cooperate only materially with it, whereas, say, the triangle player who just sits there and has no notes to strike in a piece nonetheless is cooperating formally with the orchestra’s performance, since he is a member and participant.  

If Dr. Pakaluk is wrong, his analogy should fail. So, I would like to play with his analogy a bit and see what comes of it.

I agree with this analogy, but it seems that business administrations who purchase insurance in compliance with the HHS mandate are more like the stagehands than the musicians. They set the stage for the participants, right? The problem is that business administrators have more participation than that. Maybe we can put it this way: The administrators are more like the owner of the opera house who commissions a piece of music to be written for the orchestra. The insurance company is like the composer who chooses what to write. The stagehands are like employees who work for the company but receive no benefits (they contribute to the mission of the company and its profit). The musicians are like employees who receive benefits.

If the owner of the opera house commissions a bad piece of music, the musician ultimately has the choice of playing the music or not. They stagehands contribute to the conditions that provide for bad music to be played, but have no actual participation in the performance of bad music. Both the composer and the owner have direct participation in the performance of the music, therefore their participation is formal. In which case, it should be fairly easy to agree with Drs. Pakuluk and Long, but the situation is still more complex than that.

Now, lets say that the state issues a law that says that all opera house owners if they choose to employ musicians and not just stagehands, must commission musical pieces that have at least several instances of  complete gut-wrenching discordance. The opera house owner may disagree with that idea. He believes that such discordance hurts people. He needs to provide music for his musicians, but if he does he will either harm people or break the law which results in him paying a fine. He is coerced. Ultimately, however, he can still choose whether or not to comply. Even if all composers start writing discordant pieces, he can choose to write his own or refuse to supply his musicians with music. He does have options. This seems to further imply that his cooperation with the musicians is formal. Even if the opera house owner desire for the composer to write good music and his musicians to play good music, but the composer does not in order to comply with the law and the owner knows this, his participation is still formal cooperation.

Does this make sense? Am I totally off? What are your thoughts? Set up your own scenarios with this analogy and we can talk about them.

What we can learn from the NFL referee fiasco...

So, I, like many, am a fan of professional football. That is not to say that I do not also appreciate college football (and I do think NFL is a better sport, which I will have to discuss some other time), but after this weekend's blown calls, I had to rethink my position.

I am going to make a quick analogy between Protestantism vs. Catholicism and football. Here it is, college football is like Protestantism, simply in as much as it is simply an attempt to 'play the game' at its best but coming up short. Where that analogy fails is the same place I want to focus my attention: the referees. There is no real difference between the NFL refs and college refs, at least until recently. By now anyone who watches NFL football knows that our favorite refs have been replaced [I miss you Ed Hochuli and your exploding biceps!].

There have been some pretty minor missed calls in previous games this year, but until last night, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. There was one major blown call in last night's Monday Night Football game between the Green Bay Packers and the Seattle Seahawks. The call was so obvious in replay and affected the outcome of the game. To top it off, it took place in the last seconds of the game.

After listening to all the hubbub and rants since the game last night, I came to a certain insight. Referees are important to the game. Without them, the game would be nothing but bickering. The rules are there, we may not agree with all the rules, but they are there and we have to follow them if we want to play the game. This is what the refs give us. With the right refs we have certainty, clarity, and better game. Regardless of the rules, when a referee makes a call on the field, unless it is a reviewable call (which happens immediately) the call stands even if it is the wrong call. Even if it is reviewed, under certain circumstances the call cannot be overturned. In most circumstances the call on the field determines the outcome of the game. For this reason, it is all the more important to have good refs.

People get it. It does not take a genius to figure this out. So, when people complain about what we need, no says, "We need a different kind of ref." They say, "Give us our refs back." Similarly, when it comes to our Church, we recently went through a terrible turmoil with the sex-abuse scandal. In fact, the turmoil is still lingering. Faithful Catholics, in general, did not go running around screaming, "We need a new and different kind of priesthood." Many Catholics were so saddened and infuriated by the scandal that they left the Church. I doubt that the situation with the NFL is viewed as seriously as the priesthood, so I would not expect NFL fans to start flocking to college football or stop watching football altogether.

Rather, football fans have called for their old priests back. In the Church we have done something similar. We want the priests that we all remember. Many of us have been influenced in our lives by great priests. When we encounter an awful priest, we do not start demanding a new priesthood, but instead, we want priests like we used to have. We need refs/priests that are devoted to their occupation, who love the game but remain impartial. We need ref/priests who understand the rules, judge rightly and prudently, and enforce the rules. We need refs/priests who do no not give in to pressure. We need them to be well-trained and well-vetted.

Why don't we have enough priests?

I heard it again this last Sunday. In Father's homily, he made reference to the recent closure of 100+ parishes in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, due to a so-called "lack of vocations." This raises the question: Is there a lack of vocations?

Surely we have to say this if there are not enough priests to serve in those communities, but we have to stop and think about what is meant when we say, "vocations." Just about all of us, if not explicitly, implicitly know that 'vocations' derives from the Latin root 'vocare' meaning to call. We call use the term generically to refer to our 'callings' in life.

The question we should answer first is: Who does the calling? I think most of us would immediately respond, "God." If we do that, then we ought to also ask, "How does God call us to any given 'calling?'" Let us assume for the moment that God does not wake us from our sleep to speak with us the way he did Samuel. Or let us assume that we are not exactly on the same face-to-face speaking terms with the Almighty that Moses was. Or let us assume that God does not lead us through our lives as a pillar of fire and smoke as He did with Israel.

I am not going to deny that God speaks to us through the stirrings of our hearts, but God is not the only one/thing that stirs our hearts. So, if we want to hear God speaking to us in our innermost amidst the upheaval of emotions, the excitement of our passions, and the distractions of our desires, we are going to need first to order our desires, quell our passions, and keep a sober mind. Even after we have done this, there is still the risk that the stirring we feel, the restlessness that moves us is not from God. We still run the risk of confusing our own misguidings as God's call.

Lucky for us, we do not live in a vacuum. And if we are truly lucky, we know one or two others who work hard at living lives that are properly ordered toward God, people that rely whole-heartedly on the Sacraments and Scripture. These people are great resources for us. They can help us determine God's calling for us. One of the most dangerous things we can do is to determine our vocation on our own.

Now that we have some sense of how God calls us and how we hear God's call, we can ask: What kind of vocation shortage to we really have? What is the cause of the shortage of vocations? If there is a shortage of vocations, we have to attribute this shortage to one of two causes. There is either a lack of being called, or a failure to respond to that call (for any number of reasons). Has God stopped calling young men to the priesthood or have young men stopped responding to God's call?

I do not know the mind of God well enough to know which is the case. I do know that there are some pretty serious implications in saying that God is not calling as many. There is not much we can do if this is the case. If, however, God is still calling many, but they are not responding in the numbers that they once did, then we know that there is something that we can do. We can help others to hear that call.

Here is my final thought on the matter: If God's not calling men to the priesthood in the same numbers that he once did and we strive to help young men find their vocation anyway, or we help them to test a vocation to the priesthood,  we do no harm (as long as we are not 'pushing' these men into priesthood). Shame on us if we ever discourage anyone from testing a vocation to the priesthood. Shame on us if we ever discourage any young man from applying to study for the priesthood.

We should be thankful for the vocations that we have. We should encourage every young, single Catholic male to apply for priestly studies.

Pray for vocations. Pray for our priests, deacons, and bishops. Support those in formation, and the Religious Orders who pray for vocations.

A Catholic Apology Even Atheists Should Be Able to Appreciate:

Is faith opposed to reason?

Atheists like to try and take the philosophical high ground with Christians making claims like, "the Catholic Church abhors reason," but anyone who has dared to study history knows how important of a role the Catholic Church has played in two specific areas, namely Philosophy and Science.

With so many Catholics making some of the greatest advancements in science, it would be dishonest, or neglectful at best, to omit their achievements, achievements of persons such as Gregor Mendel (the father of modern genetics) or Georges Lemaître (the Catholic priest who penned the Big Bang Theory).  We should not forget about the numerous other non-Catholic Christians who see no conflict between their faith and science, e.g. Lutheran Werner Heisenberg (theoretical physicist) or Mormon Henry Eyring (American chemist and author of the Eyring equation).

Furthermore, we should not fail to mention the fact that every seminarian studying for Catholic priesthood, in normal situations, studies philosophy (as the basis for their liberal arts education) for four years in minor seminary. The philosophical studies are thorough, ranging from chronological studies, e.g. Ancient, Medieval, Modern, and Contemporary/Post-Modern Philosophy, to topical studies, e.g. Logic, Epistemology, Natural Theology (proofs for the existence of God using reason alone), Human Nature, et al.

It should be obvious by this point that the Catholic Church and most Christians do not 'abhor reason.' To drive this point home, I want to suggest that you read, if you have not already, Fides et Ratio a papal encyclical written by Pope John Paul II. The encyclical explains the mutual relationship between faith and reason. It promotes the study of philosophy and science, and encourages those who study them to remember the limits of both and to allow both to be further illuminated by the light of faith.

Can reason alone prove the existence of God?

Simply speaking, no, but nothing is ever that simple. What reason-alone arguments can do is prove that it is more reasonable than not that there is a God. What we generally consider a proof in today's day and age is physical (meaning that can be proven using the physical sciences). Philosophy is not a physical science, so philosophical proofs are logical not physical. Logical proofs come in two kinds: 1) coherent and 2) correspondent. A coherent proof is one that makes sense within a system.  A correspondent proof is only a proof if it corresponds to reality. Moreover, proofs are not proofs unless they are true. 

Today, unfortunately, many college professors are teaching unadulterated skepticism. We could sit down and fruitfully argue with some philosophers about whether or not there is truth, but these professors side step the entire argument by simply saying that we cannot know whether or not there is truth. So, let us for one moment take time to rebut both. We have all heard the logical argument that to say, "there is not truth," implies that it is in fact true that there is no truth. Here is the thing, saying either "there is truth" or "there is no truth" does not necessarily denote a correspondence to reality. So, I am not going to use that argument because I am more concerned about correspondence. Furthermore, correspondence truth means nothing if it does not affect the way we live.  So, for the sake of making my point we will only concern ourselves with reality and the way we act. 

We act as if there is truth and as if we can know it. So, we will concern ourselves with truth, both correspondent and coherent. We will assume that there is truth and we can know because that is how we live our lives. The truths that we claim to know change, e.g. we thought we knew that Santa Claus was real and so we asked a red-suited, bearded man for presents. Then, when we knew he was not real, we stopped asking strange men for presents. No one, however, doubts that gravity exists, and we all act accordingly. No one on earth holds an anvil above their head and lets go expecting it to float away. 

Next, I would like to make some big leaps into my argument. What is true is good. If something is good it actually exists.  Therefore, truth is convertible with good and being. 

Is it unreasonable to believe in God?

This is where we butt heads with most atheists. Most atheists would be fine with what I have said above. They might even say, "I think it's great that Catholics and other Christians have contributed to science and philosophy, but now it's time for them to recognize that the sooner they stop believing in God, the sooner we all can make major scientific headway." This sort of thinking is usually rooted in misunderstandings about evolution, history, scandals, et al. There is very little or no correlation between what the misunderstanding is whether or not God exists. In fact, it would be in some ways easier if God did not exist. There would certainly be fewer moral restrictions and obligations. 

The question is whether or not it would be easier, or if there would be fewer wars or less corruption. The question is not is not why does God allow so much evil. The question is simply whether or not God exists. Arguing that a good God would not allow evil is convincing, but fortunately for our sake, has little import to our argument. Our concern it not the source of evil. 

In order to argue the existence of anything, we have to know what it is we are looking for. We have to know what we mean when we say, "God."  In this sense, we have to admit that our argument contains the conclusion in the premise. This is how all arguments for the existence of anything work. Does a violin exist? That depends on what I mean by violin. If by violin I mean: pink and purple spotted water dwelling mammal that sings Italian operas on Mars, then no. So, when we say, "Does God exist?" We have to know what we mean by God. We have to avoid misunderstandings. 

It is not unreasonable to believe that truth exists. It is not unreasonable that good exists. It is not unreasonable that being exists. If this is the case, it is not unreasonable that God exists.

What is meant when Catholics say, "God?"

Catholic theology can be done in three ways. The first way that we tend to do theology is what is known as the Via Positiva (the positive way) or the cataphatic way. It is the way in which we make affirmative claims about who or what God is. Generally, as Catholics we say that God is good. If God is good, and good is convertible with being and truth, then it is also true that God is true and exists. This is not the proof mind you. This is merely part of defining what Catholics mean by "God." God is; God is Good; and God is True.

The second way that we do theology might appeal more to atheists. It is the Via Negativa (the negative way) or the apophatic way. It is the way in which we make negative claims about who God is. That is to say, we say who/what God is not. For example, "God is not good," is a perfectly Catholic claim. When Catholics say it, however, what we mean is God is not good in the way what we know good. If God is good it is in a way that surpasses what we know good to be. So, God is not good, true, or being, at least not in the way we know good, true, and being. For, the way we know these things is limited. God is not limited.

The third way does not have a cool Greek name like cataphatic or apophatic. It is known as the superlative way or the supereminent way. I would like to suggest a Greek equivalent, the "hyperphatic" way. This is the way we make the affirmative claim that God is good but in a way that transcends limits. It goes like this, "If God is, then God is good but not how we know good. So, God must transcend all good." So, as Catholics we say that God is beyond good, beyond true, and beyond being. That is to say, that God is infinite goodness, infinite truth, and infinite being. 

God does not exist in this world. Everything in this world is limited/finite. If it is finite, it is not God. If it is limited, it is not God. So, what do Catholics mean when we say "God?" Nothing. God is not some thing. God is no-thing. God is beyond everything. Things are finite. So, God cannot be a thing. So, mental pictures of the Old-Bearded Man in the sky, fuh-ged-abaü-dit. 

But we go further. If God is infinite, everything must exist in God in some way. Infinite does not apply to nothingness. It only applies to being. If something exists, it must therefore exist in God in some way. If something is good or true, it must exist in God in some way. The way it exist in God is in an infinite way. If man is a person, therefore, personality must exist in God in some supereminent way. So, it is appropriate to call God a personal God, but we have to remember that He is not personal in the way we know personality.

Conclusion?

Is it reasonable to believe in goodness, truth, and being? Yes. Life as we know it is founded on these ideas. We rely, on truth and its existence. We rely on scientific truth every time we get on an airplane. We rely on our own being every time we go to sleep. We rely on goodness every time we give a gift. Do these things have a source? Undeniably. Is it unreasonable that that source is a transcendent infinitude of goodness, truth, being, and personality? No. That transcendent source is what we call God. 

Is it more reasonable to believe that there is a single source of every existing thing in the universe than to believe that the universe perpetuates itself with infinite regress? Yes. In light of the Big Bang theory, it is particularly more reasonable to believe that there is a single source of everything in the universe. In "The Grand Design," by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking claims that it is because of gravity that we do not need to rely on God for spontaneous creation. Rightly, philosophers and scientist all over have asked the question, "Where did gravity come from?" If the universe is created spontaneously on account of gravity, but the universe does not exist, how is it possible to say that gravity exists? This is the current popular scientific opinion, and yet it points more than ever towards a spontaneous creation in time of the entire universe from a single source. The question is whether or not that source is gravity or some transcendent infinitude, which would even be the source of gravity.  

Once we establish that there is a God. We can try to explain the problem of evil. We can try to look for the true worship. We can talk about what that means for every other problem that arises when we claim that there is a God.