Lenten Curiosities: Unusual Foods from Days of Abstinence

Hey everyone,

As we inch closer to Lent this year, with Ash Wednesday landing on February 14, it strikes me how this season not only unites us in spiritual practices but also in some rather unique culinary traditions. Today, let’s take a delightful detour and explore the quirky and sometimes downright strange foods people have consumed during days of abstinence in Lent.

1. Pretzels: A Twist of Faith

Starting with something familiar, did you know that pretzels were traditionally associated with Lent? Originating in Europe, these twisted breads were made simply with flour, water, and salt - aligning perfectly with the fasting rules. Their shape, believed to represent arms crossed in prayer, makes them a staple with a deep spiritual significance.

2. Fasting Bread of the Middle Ages

In medieval times, particularly in Europe, a special 'fasting bread' was often consumed. This bread, far from our usual loaves, was made with unusual ingredients like peas and beans, adhering to the strict Lenten prohibitions against certain foods.

3. Capybara: Swimming through a Loophole

In parts of South America, there's a fascinating history of eating capybara during Lent. Due to a peculiar classification by the Church centuries ago, this large rodent was considered fish, thus making it acceptable for consumption on days of abstinence. It’s a quirky example of how cultural and geographical factors influenced Lenten practices.

4. Barnacle Geese: A Fowl Fish?

Similarly, in medieval Europe, the barnacle goose was classified as a fish by some Christian scholars. This bizarre classification stemmed from a belief that these geese developed from barnacles - a theory that, while scientifically inaccurate, allowed people to eat them during Lent.

5. Ale and Beer: Liquid Bread

In some monastic communities, particularly in Germany, monks brewed special beers for Lent. These were nutritious, hearty brews, often referred to as 'liquid bread.' They provided sustenance during fasting and were a creative adaptation of Lenten restrictions.

6. Vegetable Lamb: A Botanical Oddity

Lastly, there's the curious tale of the 'vegetable lamb,' a mythical plant believed in medieval times to grow sheep as its fruit. While it never made it to the Lenten table (for obvious reasons), it’s a whimsical example of the lengths to which people went to reconcile dietary restrictions with their need for sustenance.

As we embark on our Lenten journey this year, these historical tidbits remind us of the rich and diverse tapestry of our faith. Lent is not just a time for spiritual reflection but also a period that has inspired creativity and adaptability in various cultures around the world. Whether you're sticking to traditional Lenten fare or exploring new culinary avenues, let's embrace this season with the joy and curiosity it deserves.

Until next time, keep the faith and maybe experiment a bit with your Lenten menu - who knows what interesting traditions you might discover!

funny

 

God make me like my daddy, big strong, and smart

 

Where in the Holy Scriptures can we find the foundations for the Lenten practice of fasting and penance?

With Lent soon approaching – starting in less than three weeks on February 14 – it's a great opportunity to reflect on the scriptural underpinnings of our Lenten traditions, particularly fasting and penance. It's like piecing together a beautiful mosaic from the Scriptures that illuminates our path to Easter.

The practice of fasting is deeply rooted in the Bible, with Christ Himself setting the precedent. In the Gospel of Matthew, we read about Jesus fasting for 40 days and nights in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-2). This period of Jesus’ fasting, a time of solitude and deep communion with the Father, forms the bedrock of our Lenten practice. It's as if each year, through our Lenten fast, we join Christ in the desert, seeking to deepen our own spiritual communion.

Then there's the profound teaching of Jesus on fasting in the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 6:16-18, Christ instructs us on how to fast – not as a public display of piety, but as a private act of devotion. His words guide our Lenten observance, reminding us that our fasting is a personal journey of faith, seen not by others, but by our Father in heaven.

The concept of penance, too, finds its scriptural roots in the calls for repentance throughout the Bible. The Book of Joel, for example, implores us to "return to the Lord with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning" (Joel 2:12). This heartfelt return to God, marked by fasting and sorrow for sins, echoes the very essence of Lent.

As we count down the days to Easter, let’s remember these scriptural foundations of fasting and penance. They’re not just ancient texts; they're living words that guide us each Lenten season as we prepare our hearts for the glory of the Resurrection. It's a journey we take together, supported by the wisdom of the Scriptures.

History of Lent in the Church

As we find ourselves here on January 25, 2024, with the Lenten season just around the corner, beginning on February 14 this year, I thought it would be a fitting time to embark on a historical exploration. Let's take a stroll down the memory lanes of our Church's past to uncover the origins of Lent. This journey is not just about tracing our roots; it's about deepening our understanding and appreciation as we prepare to enter this sacred season. So, gather around, and let's travel back to the earliest days of our Lenten traditions, connecting our present with the rich tapestry of our faith's history.

Our first stop is in the era of the Didache, one of the earliest Christian documents, dating back to the late first or early second century. It's like a window into the practices of the earliest Christians, showing us their dedication to fasting, though it doesn't explicitly mention a 40-day Lenten period (Didache 8:1). It's fascinating to think how these early believers, much like us, sought to live out their faith through such disciplines.

Moving forward to around 180-190 AD, we encounter St. Irenaeus of Lyons. In his correspondence with Pope St. Victor I, he discusses the variations in the fasting period before Easter (Eusebius, 'Church History', V.24). This shows us that while the practice was widespread, there wasn't yet a uniform way of observing it. Imagine being part of those early discussions, shaping a tradition that we continue today.

The pivotal moment comes with the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. This council, which was crucial in defining key aspects of our faith, also sheds light on the Lenten practice. While the council's main focus wasn't on Lent, subsequent canons, like those from the Synod of Laodicea around 363-364 AD, reference a 40-day period of preparation for Easter, echoing Jesus' 40 days in the desert.

And in the early fourth century, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, in his Easter letters (Letter 4, 330 AD), urges his flock to observe a 40-day fast. It’s moments like these that connect us directly to the traditions we uphold today.

Isn't it amazing to think about how our Lenten journey ties us back to these early Christians? Each year, as we embark on our 40 days of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, we're participating in a practice that's been a cornerstone of Christian life for centuries. It's a beautiful reminder of our shared faith and heritage.

A Sunrise and Belief in God

A Sunrise and Belief in God

Recently I was on my morning walk and I saw a beautiful sunrise, a veritable palette of magnificent colors. Red, peach, yellow. The red was especially intense between two hills, where in their trough was the ocean. This is a place in my city where one can best view this daily event.

I was in awe of the natural beauty before me, more spectacular than any manmade painting. Then an idea dawned on me (excuse the pun!): This is just one of the many ways God reveals himself to us. He could have created any kind of world, but just look how much he went above and beyond in creating absolute beauty and wonderment.

I thought of the idea presented by some that goes something like this: If God is real, why doesn't he make it extremely obvious. Various examples of how he could achieve this have been brought forth.

• He could create a massive structure in space, perhaps the size of the moon or even larger that conveys some kind of message such as "I am God, worship me".
• God could appear, perhaps taking on human proportions, again as a giant entity, in a way that he would be visible to all of humanity on the planet, again expressing something about himself and asking us to follow him.

There are surely countless other ways people have proposed for God to reveal himself. We can overlook the idea that we are demanding God "perform" in this way to serve us and satisfy our curiosity for the moment while we consider this argument.

I could respond to this line of reasoning in a way that many others have by stating that if God were to make his presence too obvious then our refusal to accept it would be impossible and thus we would not be freely choosing to love and trust him. However, I feel like this line of reasoning has been thoroughly explained by many people ancient and modern. I would like to take a slightly different approach.

For one thing, as I already mentioned with the sunrise, it seems to anybody who's paying attention that God is making his presence known in many ways all over the place. I've already discussed all of the natural beauty that surrounds us. We look at this as God's handiwork. Also look at all of the things that he has created right before our very eyes. Another angle to look at is the fact that God came to Earth in the form of a man. Yet despite fulfilling prophecy and performing miracles, he was rejected by many. I don't really know how God could make his presence any more obvious than he already has.

There's also an element of fallacy in the line of reasoning that if God were to make himself more obvious then people would automatically believe. Just imagine for example if God appeared as a giant being in the sky. If this were to happen now, in our current day and age, we would say that is very unusual and unbelievable but perhaps we would say this because it is not our current situation. If, however, since the dawn of humanity there were a giant being in the sky, many people would perhaps attribute his existence to the same things to which they attribute our own. They would say things like perhaps he evolved or he is just another, albeit a rather impressive, being in our universe. We have to understand that the Christian idea of God is not just one being among many. For example, our being is contingent whereas God's being is not contingent but necessary. All things that are in the universe ultimately stem from God and his creation. So he is fundamentally different than we are. But if a giant being was simply appearing in the sky, there's no reason to think that people would not simply think of him as another species just like we are.

Ultimately I think we all have that spark given to us by God to come to love and trust in Him and it's a choice whether we accept that spark. A quote attributed to St. Augustine sums it up: "To those who have faith, no explanation is necessary; to those without faith, no explanation is possible".

Did Pope Francis authorize same-sex blessings?

This is a very scary development. The pope has issued a statement paving the way for blessing of same-sex couples. Of course, it's not stated as plainly as that and in the details it seems that homosexual relationships continue to be deemed as sinful. However, that's not the impression everyone has and this decision can only lead to yet more confusion. To see the original document, go here.

Technically speaking, it seems there was a question presented to the Church asking whether or not a priest could bless a same-sex couple and the reply was that it's not possible to bless such a union. However, of course, the Church can bless individuals. Behind this blessing is the presupposition that the person in question, even if they are leading a sinful life in some aspect, affirms the Church's teaching and at least desires to follow the Church.

So technically a priest could bless a same-sex couple with the implicit understanding that they recognized the problem with their union and that they would struggle to live according to the Church's doctrines. This is what the pope has been promoting and announcing.

Of course, anyone can see the problem with this. It's very difficult to separate out specifically what is being prayed for. In Germany they are already having lay-led same-sex blessings done in Catholic Churches. Most lay Catholics are not very familiar with Church law and morality to begin with. Many live outside the dictates of the Church. Yet we're supposed to believe that these same people will grasp the subtleties of these particular blessings and understand the nuances: i.e. "We're blessing each member of this union separately to pray that they lead a holy life, and even though they are doing it next to each other and are seemingly being blessed at the same time, this union is not endorsed by the Church, etc."

At this point, it may be best to just ignore Pope Francis. He seems to enjoy causing disorder, division and chaos. I can't tell you his motivations as he hasn't shared them with me. However, the role of the pope is to be a unifying force, someone who is clear on doctrine.

This is something I've thought about recently. Different people within the Church have different roles. Not everyone is meant to be the same. Some people are hard manual laborers, like St. Joseph. Others are intellectuals like St. Thomas Aquinas. Still others are more charismatic, and others are contemplative. You can't say any of these particular gifts or charisms are bad. But I feel that certain roles in the Church need some charisms or qualities more than others.

The pope's primary role is to be a "Rock", like Peter was the Rock upon which Christ built the Church. It's not the job of the "Rock" to question things, throw in monkey wrenches, stretch the limits of acceptability, etc. He has to be a strong unifying force. The pope should also be very clear and solid, not ambiguous and confusing like the current pope.

A good article on this situation can be found here.

The English version of the document issued by the CDF can be found here.

Catholics: Don't do this if you want to be welcoming!

How can we be more welcoming to people in the Catholic community? This is something I've thought about more recently because I think in a lot of ways, people with potentially good intentions can veer off into become unwelcoming to outsiders or even people who have been part of a group.

I've been involved in a group / groups of Catholics for quite some times with varying levels of involvement. I'm kind of known for not making frequent appearances and I'm at the point where those infrequent showings may become non-existent. I just don't feel I belong to the group.

In my experience, what ended up happening is that people have progressed in their lives and there is an implicit underlying idea that to really be part of the group you have to have certain qualifications. The group I am familiar with in my area is composed mainly of people in their 20s and 40s, so they are relatively young when it comes to Catholic groups. Many of those who are involved in a lot of activities and have a lot of friends share many things in common. One is having a large number of children. Others include women having a very traditional role, being involved in conversions of others, prayer life, etc. They seem to appear to have everything under control.

These things are amazing and beautiful and I would never discourage anyone from seeking those things. Our society needs them more than ever. But many people do not fit the mold.

People come from all kinds of different situations and all kinds of different lives. Nobody is a cookie cutter of the other person. We don't know where somebody might be in their spiritual journey or their journey of Catholicism. For example, someone may become interested in joining the church in their 60s. Other people have led lives of licentiousness for many years and perhaps don't have things together very well. Others may be very interested in Catholicism but perhaps struggle with many different vices and addictions and find it difficult to live a virtuous life. There are yet others who, although they are attracted in some way to the Catholic faith, have a great deal of difficulty in accepting many of the teachings. It could be that they're steeped in modern-day thinking and they find it hard to reconcile Catholic beliefs to some of the modernism that they have been exposed to their entire lives.

A lot of these people would not easily be accepted. There's an implicit idea that in order to be a part of the "real group" a person must implicitly accept all of these things without question and must go 100% in their pursuit of these things. But even beyond that there are many people who are in situations which perhaps they do not want to be in but because of various life circumstances it has been forced upon them. Yet I believe that many people see these things and immediately start to judge them.

Something that my wife and I have thought of and I've heard others say as well is that sometimes this judgment is masked in a pseudo-compassion or understanding. For example they will point out a major flaw or issue that somebody has or is undergoing and they will either tell that person or the group that we should pray for them. A lot of times it would not be appropriate for a random person to just tell you that they will pray for you unless you ask them to. It's kind of an implicit way of saying "I'm pointing out your flaws right now but I'm going to present it under the guise of me caring about you and trying to help you". Not too many people are open to unsolicited help from others like that.

Another issue that can occur is when members of the group speak theoretically about things that other people might be doing. For example they might derisively talk about people who are divorced or struggle with various sins or other such issues. It could even be things that are not necessarily sinful in and of themselves such as a couple that is childless. Sometimes people in the group will speak about these things in a theoretical way not realizing that perhaps somebody in the vicinity falls in one of those categories. That person would feel extremely judged and uncomfortable and perhaps would not say anything and so it would be assumed that nobody is in those categories and that it would be fine to talk about them.

This is a realization I had myself. I was helping lead a course and before we had begun I started talking about other people and how they may lead lives of immorality in some ways and how they may not be well-versed in Christianity and so on. However after I had said these, someone mentioned something about people waiting beyond their early twenties to marry and how people should marry young and things like that. But I myself wasn't in this category and so I felt like I was being somewhat rejected.  Obviously the person talking about this didn't mean to target me in any way and didn't know when I married but the feeling was still there.

One of the reasons I don't like to be around many of the people in these groups is because of the feeling that you have to be almost perfect in order to be accepted. You have to check a lot of boxes in order to be a part of that group. They seem to forget that the church is a place that sinners go to be purified and made holy.  One of the marks of the church is that it is Holy and the reason it is Holy is because it is the bride of Christ and that Christ is the head of the church and we are the body of Christ. The church is not holy because of us, it's holy because of Christ. Therefore we should not boast or feel that we are superior in some way.

I cannot confirm for certain but I know that many of the people who would not fall into the traditional categories I mentioned no longer attend any group meetings or events. Although sometimes these people are invited, in some cases there isn't even an invitation. Again I think much of it has to do with the idea that people who happen to not be living completely outwardly virtuous lives are seen as evil rather than as people who may be struggling with certain things or facing issues. There's also a great deal of unearned judgment that occurs. People who may know absolutely nothing about a particular situation will still judge the people as perhaps wanting those scenarios. Again, for example, if there is a childless couple they will assume that they have rejected children and and that they are violating tenets of the Catholic faith. But in actuality it's quite possible that despite their attempts they have not been able to conceive and give birth to a child.

I realized that I may have been doing much of the same things myself in many ways. I will now try to make more of an effort to be careful about the things that I say. If I ever feel the need to condemn or be negative about a particular aspect of things that people do I will always try to come at it from the perspective of being compassionate and actually caring about that person rather than seeing them as some part of an evil force that's trying to attack us and that I must condemn. There could be many ways to accomplish this.

Here are some ideas when speaking to others:

• Speak not just of the sin, but of the opposite virtue
• Speak as though people are "struggling" with various things as opposed to just talking about them as though they are evil individuals.
• Perhaps admit your own failings to show you are not coming from a place of pride.
• Don't offer to pray for an issue you may perceive someone as having unless they explicitly as you to.
• Have patience and listen to people, get to know them. Don't use various litmus test to determine their level of orthodoxy.

These are just ideas I thought of. If you have more, please feel free to share in the comments.

Michael Voris Resigns! Shocking News from Church Militant

In news that has come as a shock to me (and I'm guessing anyone who has followed Church Militant over the years), Michael Voris has been asked to resign. I have no idea why. Below this post you will see the official statement issued by Church Militant regarding his resignation.

They say he violated the "morality clause". Other than that it is not clear why Voris has been asked to resign. One of the reasons this is shocking is that Voris isn't just one person working at Church Militant. In my perspective, he IS Church Militant. I mean, how can you separate Church Militant from Michael Voris and him spiraling his pencil declaring that it is the place where "lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed". In fact, I remember back in 2012 and prior when it was called Real Catholic TV. He was forced to remove the word "Catholic" from the title. There is hardly a Catholic out there, especially those who are media-aware, that are not familiar with Michael Voris. Some like him more than others obviously.

The released memo claims that the show will go on with Michael unabated, but this seems implausible. I can't even imagine what Voris must have done to cause this. Those who made this decision must have seen his breach as being rather egregious. As a Catholic organization, they would strongly believe in the Sacrament of Confession. So, whatever it was that Michael Voris is guilty of, they must think it is of such consequence that it would impede or destroy the reputation of the entire organization.

I remember a few years back, Voris came out and publicly gave details of his wayward past life because the Archdiocese of New York was going to expose him. So he decided to take the bull by the horns and come clean publicly himself. This was a very brave move on his part. However, he was obviously not asked to resign over this. So if even these admissions did not cause a resignation, what could have? I suppose in this older case, the sins were of the past and he rejected them, while perhaps these current violations were ongoing? I cannot say.

Let's all pray for Michael Voris and the organization that he founded. I cannot say if those responsible for his resignation are in the right or not in this case, but prayers never go to waste.

Here is the news release issued by Church Militant today:

Fellow Catholics,

Church Militant/St. Michael's Media was founded as a bastion of Catholic truth and a light to the faithful in hard times. This is why we are being fully transparent with you all.

Michael Voris has been asked to resign for breaching the Church Militant morality clause. The board has accepted his resignation.

We understand this is a shock to you all, but our founder and former CEO is stepping aside and focusing on his personal health.

The Board of Directors has chosen not to disclose Michael's private matters to the public. The apostolate will be praying for him, and we kindly ask you to do the same.

Church Militant/St. Michael's Media is just as positioned to save souls as it ever has been. There are more than 40 full-time employees on the cutting edge of Catholic truth moving forward with renewed fervor.

The apostolate will remain unwavering in its reporting and its commentary — defending Holy Mother Church from errors both inside and out.

We appreciate your continued support and prayers.

God love you,

Church Militant

Slovakia to declare Jesus Christ as King of the Country

In a move similar to what Poland has already done in 2016, the Culture Ministry in Slovakia wants to declare Jesus Christ as King of their country. I really love to see this! Kind of like how Christ is the head of the Catholic Church, it would be great to declare Him the King of every country on Earth. Also just as the pope is still the head of the earthly Church, these countries can also have an earthly leader. Makes sense to me!

Here's more information: https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-make-jesus-christ-king-of-slovakia/

"Good person": Self-proclamation by modern-day moralists

Something I've noticed a lot more recently is people unilaterally declaring themselves to be good. They make no nuance about it or ever proclaim that they themselves have any issues or problems. They then proceed to name somebody else who they say is not a good person. I guess I just find this interesting because they seem to have made this absolute moral standard for other people and they compare them to themselves to decide if that person is good or bad.

I was listening to a talk by a priest named Fr Chad Ripperger recently in which he said something along the lines of if he was speaking to a room full of people he could say that nobody there was a saint and that nobody would object to that because the people who are far from being saints and are actually immoral in many ways would not consider themselves to be saints. And at the same time people who are in fact close to being saints would also not consider themselves to be saints because they know how sinful they have been in the past and how much they rely on God for their sanctity.

However this doesn't seem to be the case for how a lot of non-religious people speak nowadays.

A major example of this is what has been deemed "cancel culture". People will dredge up 20-year-old videos of somebody who said something a certain way, misspoke, or what have you and they will be lambasted and perhaps even lose their career because what they said is deemed to be inappropriate by today's standards. The people exposing them will then go on to declare that this is not a good person and that this person deserves everything they get. It doesn't matter if it was a minor foible or small error in judgment even for that time. The mob will be relentless and unforgiving of this person.

I just wonder where the people making these declarations have such gall to be able to declare themselves perfect while pointing out even the most minor flaws of other people.

Some people may listen to what I'm saying and respond by asking isn't that what religious people do all the time? In my experience, truly religious and spiritual people generally are not overly judgmental and they also acknowledge their own sins and failings. I rarely meet any religious person who declares themselves to be a good person as such and that they do everything perfectly. They admit their need for God's grace.

One last thing is the irony of some of these people being self-appointed moral authorities. You will often see this in some of the most wicked people around. People who commit all forms of evil. Yet they will not hesitate to pronounce their innocence while condemning others. Often they criticize people for things which are actually morally good.

Bottom line is pay no attention to modern-day moralists. They don't seem to have any knowledge or understanding of good morality no matter how much they puff our their chests.

Being Good is the worst thing you can be nowadays

In today's world, especially in a place like Canada, being good or holy is the worst possible thing you can be in secular eyes, especially if it involves traditional forms of piety and worship. Also, how bad it is varies by province.

Where I'm from if someone is under the age of 60 and professes any sort of Catholic religious belief, the average person will immediately attack them. The strange part is they won't attack them for being holy or a "goodie-goodie" like in the old days. No, they will attack them as being positively bad or evil. This is the big difference nowadays.

Being a devout Catholic is considered very evil in this society. It's such a weird concept that it perhaps needs a little elaboration. People actually think it's bad to be holy. It's not that they think you are a hypocrite or that you are boastful, it's that they believe that being religious is evil in itself. In the past they may have made fun of religiously devout people, kind of mocked them, etc. This came from a place of pride and they may say something like "oh you think you're so good, you think you're better than us? well guess what, we are also good, just because we don't follow all your strict rules, doesn't make you better than us."

However, now they say something different. They will say "we, the people who just follow our base instincts and do whatever we please, we the people who seek revenge and act against God in so many ways, we are really the good people, but the evil people are the Christians, especially Catholics. They are so bad. They are intolerant, bigoted, hateful, nasty, etc. They are the worst people."

It's really super risky to proclaim your status as a believing Catholic in my society. You might as well say you abuse elderly people, you get the same reaction. Probably about 90% of my society is non-religious. They live by their own rules. "Do what feels good".

The new morality is kind of hard to piece together actually. It's built on a very flimsy and weak foundation. It seems your actions are irrelevant (unless your action is to worship God in a traditional way). Instead, this new morality relies on vacuous "acts of kindness".

"What's that? You have committed dozens of mortal sins? No worries because you also gave a child a cookie, so you're all good. You are a "kind" human being."

"What's that? You live an extremely selfish life and never consider anyone else? That's okay, you also pet a stray dog on the head. That makes you a decent human being."

This modern-day "morality" is really just a form of Satanism. People think Satanism is worshiping the devil, but it's not, it's really worshipping oneself. That's the basic premise of Satanism. Do what feels good, hurt people who hurt you. They throw in a few worthless "gestures" and have their newfound modernist religion.

It's a crazy world we're living in. If you choose to be Catholic, you will not be praised by people of this world, you will be hated. I know people reading this will say this is obvious. In fact, Jesus himself said we'd be hated. But I think the difference is that in the past, the evildoers implicitly acknowledged that Christians were good and accused them of other things because of what they represented. Now, on the other hand, Christianity is considered bad in and of itself to modern self-worshippers.

One of the ways they hate Catholics is by thinking "I'm open-minded and accepting. Christianity is intolerant therefore if I hate Christians I am really hating intolerance." They are only "tolerant" because they want their own sin to be tolerated. They want to be able to do whatever they want without any consequences.

Christians are hated because of what they represent to evildoers. Evildoers want to be accepted not despite but because of their sins. They proclaim their evil wherever they go, and they do not like people who bring this to their attention. They think if they eliminate or marginalize anyone who disagrees with them, then their sin will become acceptable. So the existence of any Christian who could bring their sin into view is considered a threat.

Now, more than ever, we must realize that being a good Christian takes a great deal of courage and strength, especially the more we participate in society.

Why is finding out whether Mass is going ahead so hard?

I have a major pet peeve and I know I'm not the only one. It really annoys me how most Catholic churches that I am aware of seem to care nothing about communicating information to parishioners. I live in Newfoundland and we get a great deal of poor weather during the winter. Yet, most churches will make no effort to inform people as to whether or not they are open. This is very frustrating. Most of the time, you have to show up in person to find out personally. They have to do better.

This article stems from the fact that I sought out confession today. I checked websites, phone numbers, etc. but nothing was mentioned about whether or not confession would go ahead. I drove all the way there and tried to enter as it was scheduled to commence at 3:00pm. I tried all the doors but everything was locked. Then at almost exactly 3pm I get an email from the church informing me they would be closed for Mass at 5pm. There was never any mention of confession. How would anyone have known if it was going ahead or not?

The fact that they even have an email makes them very unique and on the cutting edge of technology when it comes to informing parishioners of whether or not they are open. Yet they failed to employ it when it came to confession.

At my main church, on a stormy day, I go to their fancy, modern website which has a section for "announcements". To say it's outdated is an understatement. The latest "update" is from 1.5 years ago. This is not atypical. It's so weird to me that a church would go out of its way to develop an ultra-modern and possibly expensive website only to never use it to convey any actual information.

You would think that they would have at least mastered the telephone, but you'd be wrong. Here's a question: why would someone call a Catholic church phone number? There could be several reasons, however it seems logical to me that the vast majority of calls would be to find out Mass times and whether or not Mass is going ahead (plus confession). Yet you will rarely if ever find such information. They don't even say when Mass times are. This is particularly annoying in smaller communities where they have complicated schedules. For example, some weeks Mass doesn't even take place in a particular church. When you go online to get information, you're lucky if it's less than 5 years old, if there's anything to begin with. Normally the recorded message will simply say "Sorry we're unavailable, our office hours are ---". Thanks for your office hours, but again, 90% of calls are to find out Mass and confession times, not the office hours.

Literally if there was a new Catholic or someone from away, and they were absolutely desperate to go to Mass, they would find it difficult or impossible to find any information.

I believe this behavior conveys the idea that they don't care. They don't care if 90% of Catholics attend Mass or if 9% do. To them it seems like it's all the same. Why would anyone bother going to a church which doesn't seem to take itself seriously? This is even more true of sacraments like confession. To not even bother contacting people via email or other means about the cancelation of confession gives the impression they don't care whether or not people go. It gives an impression of how they feel about confession.

The solution is quite simple. If you have a website, update it to indicate if the church is open or closed when there is inclement weather. If there's no website, at least use Facebook or some other well-known social media. If you have none of those, at least update the telephone recording with the up-to-date information. This is not difficult at all. It would take mere minutes.

I'm not saying Catholic churches have to operate like businesses selling products, putting out television commercials, etc. but at least do the minimum to keep people informed with regards to times of sacraments and whether or not you are open. It's a pet peeve and I really hope churches start to take this seriously.

What is the Catholic Church's position on the ordination of women?

The Catholic Church holds that the ordination of women is not possible. This teaching is based on the Church's belief that the priesthood is a participation in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, who was a man and that only a baptized man can be validly ordained to the priesthood. Additionally, the Church teaches that the ministerial priesthood has a sacramental character that cannot be shared by women, as they cannot represent Christ in the same way that a man can. This teaching is rooted in the Church's understanding of the nature of the priesthood and the role of the priest in the sacraments, and it is considered an unchangeable part of Church's tradition.

The role of women in the Church is multifaceted and valuable. Women, like men, are called to participate in the life and mission of the Church in various ways. Women can serve as lay leaders, religious sisters, and lay ministers, among other roles.

In the Church, women can participate in the sacraments, such as receiving the Eucharist, and can receive the sacrament of Confirmation. They can also participate in the Church's liturgical and devotional life and can serve in various roles such as lectors, altar servers, catechists, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

Women have also played vital roles in the Church's history and continue to do so today. Many women have been recognized for their contributions to the Church as mystics, theologians, and saints. Women have also played important roles in the formation of religious orders and have been instrumental in the establishment of schools, hospitals, and other institutions that serve the Church's mission.

January 18: Feast Day of St. Marguerite Bourgeoys

Saint Marguerite Bourgeoys was a French-Canadian religious leader and educator who lived in the 17th century. She is venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church and is considered to be one of the founders of the colony of Montreal. Born in Troyes, France in 1620, she was drawn to the religious life from a young age, and at the age of 22, she decided to dedicate her life to the service of God.

She founded the Congregation of Notre Dame of Montreal, which was a religious community of women dedicated to the education of young girls. This was particularly important at the time, as the colony of Montreal was still in its infancy and there were very few educational institutions for young women. Her work in education was motivated by her belief in the importance of providing young women with the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe and nurturing environment.

She also played a pivotal role in the establishment of the colony of Montreal, as she helped to establish the first school and hospital in the city. She also worked tirelessly to promote the welfare of the colony's inhabitants, particularly the poor and marginalized. Through her tireless efforts, she helped to establish a sense of community and social cohesion in the colony.

Saint Marguerite Bourgeoys was known for her deep spirituality, humility, and compassion. She was also known for her ability to connect with people from all walks of life, and for her ability to inspire others to work for the betterment of society. She passed away on January 12, 1700, and was canonized on April 3, 1982 by Pope John Paul II, as the first Canadian-born saint. Her feast day is celebrated on January 18th, in honor of her devotion to God, her contributions to education, and her tireless work on behalf of the poor and marginalized.

Saint of the Day: January 17, 2023: St. Anthony the Great

Saint Anthony, also known as Anthony of Egypt, Anthony the Great, or Anthony the Abbot, is a Christian saint and a prominent leader among the Desert Fathers. He is celebrated on January 17th in the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. He is also honored as a saint in the Anglican Communion and in some other Christian denominations. He is known for his deep spirituality and asceticism, and is considered to be the founder of Christian monasticism. He is also known for his many miracles and for his ability to communicate with animals. He lived in the 3rd century and was born in Egypt and died in 356 AD. He is the patron saint of gravediggers, travelers, and butchers, among others.

St. Augustine Commentary on Gospel for Today (Mark 2: 23-28)

Today's Gospel is from Mark 2:23-28 and is as follows:

23 One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24And the Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?" 25And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 26how he entered the house of God, when Abi'athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?" 27And he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; 28so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath."

One commentary on this passage from a Catholic Church Father is from St. Augustine of Hippo, who lived in the 4th and 5th centuries. He wrote:

"The Lord, therefore, who is the Lord of the Sabbath, and who made man, and not the Sabbath for man, has power to do what He will with His own, and to dispense with the observance of the Sabbath, in order to do good to man. For He Himself is the true rest of the faithful, in whom we cease from our own works, as the Apostle says (Heb. 4:10), and are refreshed by the works of God."

In this commentary, St. Augustine emphasizes that Jesus, as the Son of Man and Lord of the Sabbath, has the authority to disregard the Sabbath laws in order to help people. He also references Hebrews 4:10, which states that the faithful will find rest in Jesus, rather than in the observance of the Sabbath.

Five Young Catholic Saints

These are not necessarily the youngest Catholic saints but they are saints who were very young when they died. Please let me know in the comments if there are any you believe should be included.

St. Maria Goretti: Maria Goretti was born in Italy in 1890 and was canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church in 1950. She is one of the youngest saints in the Catholic Church, having died at the age of 11. Maria was murdered by a neighbor who attempted to rape her, and her story of forgiveness and mercy toward her attacker moved many people. Her canonization was largely due to her remarkable forgiveness and her unwavering faith in the face of death.

St. Francisco Marto: Francisco Marto was born in Portugal in 1908, and was canonized by the Catholic Church in 2017. He was one of the three children who received the Marian apparitions of Our Lady of Fátima in 1917. Francisco Marto passed away on April 4, 1919, at the age of 10. He died from pneumonia which he contracted after his health had been weakened by the harsh conditions of the apparitions and by the prolonged fasting that he and his siblings had undertaken at the request of Our Lady of Fatima. Francisco is remembered for his devotion to the Virgin Mary and his willingness to suffer in union with Jesus.

St. Jacinta Marto: Jacinta Marto was born in Portugal in 1910, and was canonized by the Catholic Church in 2017. She was also one of the three children who received the Marian apparitions of Our Lady of Fátima in 1917. The canonization process for Jacinta Marto began many years after her death, specifically it began in the 1940s. The Diocese of Leiria-Fátima opened the Cause for canonization of Jacinta Marto and her brother Francisco Marto in 1946, and it was later transferred to the Holy See in 1952. Jacinta Marto was beatified on 13 May 2000, and canonized on 13 May 2017 by Pope Francis.

Saint Agnes: Saint Agnes was a young Christian martyr who lived during the 4th century in Rome. According to tradition, she was martyred at the age of 12 or 13 for refusing to renounce her faith in Jesus Christ. She is considered one of the youngest saints in the Catholic Church and is a patron saint of young girls.

Saint Tarcisius: Saint Tarcisius was a young Roman martyr who lived during the 3rd century. He was a deacon and was martyred at the age of 12 or 13 while protecting the Eucharist from being desecrated by a group of Roman pagans. He is considered one of the youngest saints in the Catholic Church and is a patron saint of altar servers.

Here are some AI Images of St. Tarcisius:

I hope you enjoyed this article! I would love to hear your comments!