David Ancell / Thursday, June 13, 2024 / Comments(0)
Now that the dust has settled a bit, and Harrison Butker’s graduation speech (full text here) is old news, let’s take a look at it and what some have been taking offense at. The thing that really gets me is that it seems that the vast majority of the people who made comments either act like he should be tarred and feathered or like this was the direct word of God that is above any criticism. Both are way off here, but the former, some of whom have gone so far as to call for his dismissal from the Kansas City Chiefs, are just outrageous. My question is this: Can there be room to recognize the good things he has said even as we acknowledge that the speech was not perfect?
You can probably guess that I have absolutely no sympathy towards those that are all bent out of shape by what he said. Their reactions are just sheer insanity. However, there are still problems with people acting like this was just the ultimate in speeches. One person said on X that making a criticism just because the speech wasn’t perfect would be like petty infighting among Catholics. I have some sympathy for his view, and I agree we should support those who try to proclaim the Catholic faith. However, I also find it imprudent to cling to anything that attempts to defend the faith, especially if there’s something being said that is not correct.
Butker truly did try to convey the importance of family over career. He spoke of the importance of speaking up about and standing up for the faith. He reminded people about the importance of “doing the small things well” and about surrounding yourself with people who share in our Catholic faith to help build us up. We can tell that he took a strong stance just from the sheer number of feathers he ruffled.
A lot of people took offense to his comments about his wife and women as homemakers in general. While his choice of words in saying that his wife’s life “truly started” when she was married and had children was probably not the best, what he said otherwise about both his wife and himself leaning into their vocations and their family was actually very good if properly understood. He specifically mentions that his wife makes sure that he doesn’t let football and his business take him away from his vocation as husband and father.
I saw people online accusing him of relegating women to being considered inferior to men. I’ve long found this thinking to be ridiculous. Is there really anything inferior about spending your life raising souls who will one day spend eternity in Heaven or Hell rather than working for a corporation? Why is the modern workplace considered the ideal place that we need to be? I am all in favor of women having opportunities to work and make money. I am not in favor of treating economic opportunities as the most important ones or as a test of whose life is really fulfilling. Besides, just listen to Butker’s words describing the title of homemaker.
Others took offense because they felt that the life he described was just not possible for them. This is kind of a strange unwritten rule I’ve seen online that says it is not permitted to make a suggestion unless absolutely everyone is able to follow it the exact way you suggest. Look, it’s perfectly fine for someone make a suggestion that may not be possible for everyone. If circumstances don’t allow a family to have a stay at home mom, this doesn’t mean that Butker’s proclamation is wrong. Some women will have reason for working outside the home.
Like I said before, the speech isn’t perfect. Butker spends quite a lot of time talking about lack of leadership in the Catholic Church. I see where he’s coming from because, when I was his age, it was a huge concern of mine. Just go look at my earliest blogs on this site. With that being said, I think he devoted too much of his speech to this, kind of like I devoted too much of my time and energy to it when I was his age. The problems still exist, but we are in an era now where solid Catholic materials are much easier to find than they were back then.
The other major criticism that I have of his speech is that he takes a shot at natural family planning saying “there is nothing natural about Catholic birth control.” This is permitted by the Church, and so I really believe what he said was an error. NFP can definitely be abused, and it would be fine for him to give his opinion that more should consider allowing God to give as many children as he will. However, he needs to state that as his opinion. Natural family planning is permitted by the Church, so he can’t consider it “heterodox teaching.” One could also argue that he over-promoted the Latin Mass, but I don’t think what he said was really wrong.
Then, there were a couple of other things he said that are open to interpretation. So, I’ll share how I interpreted them. He uses the term “stay in your lane.” I took this to be a complaint about a trend we see in the Church that is a kind of “clericalization of the laity and laicization of the clergy.” The former part of this can be seen by the many lay people you have in the sanctuary today, especially the number of lay people distributing the Eucharist. This is really supposed to be the function of a priest or deacon. The former part is a bit more tricky. One example from over a decade ago was when the USCCB had a position on reducing the level of mercury in thermometers. Yes, I really saw that. It’s not a matter of faith, and I don’t think that’s the “lane” of the USCCB.
He also made a controversial comment about Congress passing a law making it illegal to state biblical teaching on who killed Jesus. This was taken by some as at least a potentially anti-Semitic comment. Let me make clear that I am completely opposed to anti-Semitism. While it’s possible that he meant what he said in an anti-Semitic matter, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. That proposed bill he was alluding to could have easily wandered into dangerous territory. Who interprets what is and isn’t anti-Semitism? What is to stop some anti-Christian prosecutor from going after the Gospels? It may not reach that extreme, but these kind of bills are far too open to being interpreted too broadly, and that may be what Butker was getting at.
The world is greatly in need of people who will truly proclaim the Catholic faith and who will not back down. We need these people in all walks of life, whether it’s sports, medicine, show business, manufacturing, retail, or anywhere else. While I do have some genuine concerns about some things he said, I would definitely be more likely to call this a bold proclamation of faith than I would a disaster. Let’s at least give him credit for being willing to say what he believed needed to be said.
Category: Response, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Thursday, May 02, 2024 / Comments(0)
If you follow much social media, I’m sure you’ve seen news of a lot of high profile conversions lately. I mean, they’ve been happening over the years, but recently I’ve noticed a group of them. They range from people converting from a life of serious sin to famous news personalities. Of course, like everything on social media, there are a lot of different reactions. For some of these people making comments, I just can’t fathom how they can think the way that they do.
Some people get too excited and put them on a pedestal. It’s like they figure these famous people are now members of the Super Saints simply because of who they are. Truthfully, some of these conversions are heroic. There are people who sacrificed, or at least risked, a lot by becoming Catholic. However, it’s too easy to forget that they are at the beginning of their journey and will still need to grow like we all do.
Even worse are the ones who are more disparaging. You can find comments in which people have said that someone who was such a sinner could not possibly have undergone such a conversion. Worse yet, in the case of someone who turned from a seriously sinful life, there are those who seem to say that God won’t forgive them. I hope there aren’t Christians saying that, but I’m afraid there are some that are. How can a true Christian really doubt the amazing mercy of God like that!
With that being said, I’m not saying that we should throw out our common sense and ignore obvious problems that we find out about. It’s quite possible that some of the conversions that we learn about will turn out to be phony. However, we really should assume sincerity, or at least hold out hope, as long as we can. I’d much rather stand before God and hear about how I welcomed someone who was an absolute hypocrite that hear about how my snarky comments regarding someone’s sincere, even if weak, conversion contributed to him having fallen away.
Even a sincere conversion can have its weak points. Some people just experienced an emotional high and then could not keep going when it wore off. Some were not well formed and therefore had a poor understanding of what it means to be Catholic. Others may have fallen into their old sins (or other sins), and instead of hurrying back to God and going to Confession right away, they became discouraged. Just think of what reading hateful comments will do to these people. People fall away, and we don’t want to contribute to the fall.
When you add to this the public nature of the life of someone who is famous, it becomes easy to make judgements that we shouldn’t make. New converts are, well, new to the faith. There are things they don’t know yet. Maybe in their formation they learned about chastity and modesty, but it can take time to sort out the particulars of how to live it out and therefore, genuine mistakes are made. Maybe the person has lived for years, if not decades, with a worldly mindset. Chipping away at that mindset can take a really long time. We probably all have aspects of a worldly mindset that we adopted without realizing it. It may be okay to post charitable comments correcting the error, but be careful!
So, what should be our attitude towards famous converts? We have every right to be cautious and acknowledge things (but not necessarily post our opinion about them) that are not quite right. However, let’s welcome them with open arms and encourage them if we are in a position to do so. We want to pray that they will be shining lights that bring people to conversion. They’ve got the ability to reach many people. We can be excited about their conversion and also be charitable and understanding about how they, like those of us who have been in the Church a while, still have work to do.
Category: Response
David Ancell / Saturday, September 30, 2023 / Comments(0)
In my last post, I wrote about how we needed to consider the practical aspects of how one will learn to practice his or her chosen profession and make a living while receiving a classical education. There’s another side of the coin that I want to present here. If I have a choice between my kids studying advanced calculus in high school or studying philosophy, I want them to study philosophy. I don’t want them to waste time with asinine questions like “How do you know the sky is blue?” Rather, I want them to learn to think. I want them to gain wisdom.
Many people accuse religious believers of just believing what they are told and not really thinking. If they weren’t serious, it would be hilarious! Such people should see the ridiculous groupthink that nonbelievers seem to accept without question these days. I grew in my critical thinking skills by leaps and bounds when I took more time to study my Catholic faith, especially in the field of apologetics.
The groupthink is precisely what I don’t want my kids to fall for. I want them to have at least a basic understanding of the aims of their life and why they should attain them. I don’t want them to settle for the superficial. As for how I know the sky is blue, my answer would be “I don’t, and I do not care that I don’t.”
David Ancell / Saturday, September 30, 2023 / Comments(0)
Let me start by saying that I am very much opposed to utilitarian education. In fact, I would even go so far to say that, if you think that the purpose of getting an education is to learn how to make a living, then you don’t have a proper Catholic view of education. I definitely don’t think that we should be educating people with the end of college, which may land in the trash bin of irrelevance at the rate we are going. We should be forming the person.
I’ve been interested in writings that advocate for a return to Catholic education. I read with interest the book entitled Renewing Catholic Schools: How to Regain a Catholic Vision in a Secular Age. The book clearly advocates using a classical model of education, forming a community, and making God the center of everything. These are all aims that I would support.
However, whenever I encounter someone writing about this, there is one thing I find missing. At some point, people need to learn a skill that they can use to earn a living. They need a skill that makes a contribution to society. At what point is this taught, and how? While I’m no fan of the career mentality of our society, the fact is that many of the professions that are practiced in the world are needed. Where would we be without doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers, etc? So, while I am in total agreement that education should not be utilitarian, I think it’s important that advocates of classical education address the practical questions that arise from their writings.
David Ancell / Tuesday, August 22, 2023 / Comments(0)
Sometimes I like to poke fun at something while also asking a question. You see, it has long been my decision not to buy music that is labeled as explicit lyrics. I might buy a non-explicit song off an album that was “stickered,” as I used to call it, but I would avoid the actual songs with the label. However, in looking through some recent music, I’m not so sure what to make of it anymore.
Now, I have to wonder what constitutes explicit lyrics and if I can even use that standard. Take the song, for example, named I’m Offended by John Rich. It’s labeled as having explicit lyrics. The only line that I can find in it that contains profanity is when he talks about how he prays to God and says to the atheist something like “You don’t believe he exists, so why are you so p*****?” I hear that word from people who don’t use other cuss words on a number of occasions.
Another curious example is the now-famous song “Try That In a Small Town” by Jason Aldean. He starts talking about how one day “they” are going to round up all the guns and says “That s*** might fly in he city . . .” Well, maybe you could argue that one shouldn’t play that for one’s kids, but that’s hardly explicit lyrics in my mind. In any event, I found that there is a clean version from Jimmy Levy that says “That stunt might fly in the city.” It has a little different sound to it, but it’s obviously the same song.
What makes the labeling of “Try That in a Small Town” more interesting is Oliver Anthony’s now famous “Rich Men North of Richmond.” I counted four uses of the “s” word, and it’s not labeled as containing explicit lyrics. Honestly, I have a bigger issue with the way he uses the words “Lord” and “God” in the song than the profanity itself. It just goes to show that there may not be a standard that is being applied here.
The funniest thing I saw on an online store was this album being labeled as explicit: Benedicta: Marian Chant from Norcia. No, I am absolutely not joking.! This album is literally Gregorian Chant, but one of the songs was listed on two different music services as having one song with explicit lyrics. The name is “Sequence Ave Maria . . . Virgo Serena.” Search for it if you don’t believe me. I really don’t think the Benedictine Monks are dropping F bombs in Latin.
As a disclaimer, I’ll add that this info is accurate at the time of this writing as I know that sometimes the labels get changed. However, my point is that, while there is a lot of music labeled as explicit that is clearly garbage, the label itself might not be much of an indicator of anything in particular anymore. It’s worth checking out the lyrics online to see if they really are or aren’t offensive and making the decision from there.
Category: Response
David Ancell / Friday, March 31, 2023 / Comments(0)
I’ve seen on the news lately that the House of Representatives passed a parents rights bill concerning our schools. It passed with all Democrats opposing the bill. Some Republicans also oppose it, but I saw that at least one of them did so, not because he opposed parental rights, but because he opposed additional federal regulations in education. For the people who did oppose parental rights, and I believe a lot of the naysayers do, one must ask why someone would oppose this?
There are many important concerns about what is being taught in public schools these days. However, I would say there is a deeper issue that I haven’t heard much about. If parents are not competent to know the educations needs of children, who is? How is it determined? To answer these, or similar questions, we need to first answer this – who is education for, and what is it’s purpose?
In order to know what a child needs to know, we need to know the fundamental purpose of the knowledge. Otherwise, we are aimlessly shoving academics at our kids with no real end in mind. This is something we really need to think about.
With this being said, I can’t think of anyone who would be better suited to direct the purpose of education than the people who love the kids the most. They certainly will know and understand their kids better than education system bureaucrats. Besides, if a set of parents messes it up, they mess up only their own children. The bureaucrats have the potential to cause an entire town, state, or maybe even the whole country to be poorly educated.
And besides, is there really an objective standard of what needs to be taught in a school? How is it determined? Are there things better taught by other means (I’ll say absolutely there are.)?
We’ve really got to think about these things.
David Ancell / Tuesday, February 28, 2023 / Comments(0)
Lent is here, and with it, I’d like to help clear up a misunderstanding. Giving up something for Lent has value in itself. I remember reading an article years ago from someone who had a priest get on the pulpit and tell people that giving something up for Lent is useless unless you donate the money saved to the poor.
Now, it’s a great thing if you donate the money saved to the poor. You may feel the need to do this in order to ensure you make a true sacrifice and don’t gain anything from it. However, making an offering to God that has no tangible value is perfectly acceptable. It can even help you avoid falling into the sin of pride for having benefited a charity, if you are inclined to this vice.
Giving up something is simply a way of offering something to God. It’s a way of reminding yourself that this world and its pleasures are passing. It’s also a way to detach yourself from something you enjoy. I remember a priest talking about how they get used to being without what they gave up. He seemed to think it made the penance useless. I’d say it made the penance successful, but if you are no longer feeling the sacrifice you made, then you can choose to make an additional sacrifice.
Also, giving up something is a good, natural means of strengthening the will. Think of it this way. . . someone learning to defuse bombs would not practice on a real bomb. They will use some kind of practice model. Likewise, if we are learning to resist sin, we can practice with something we can legitimately engage in whether than with something that would result in us having offended God if we did.
Also, if, for whatever reason, you aren’t donating money saved from your penance, you can always offer it up for someone who needs it. Maybe you can help someone get out of purgatory. There’s a lot of good to be done with it. So, give something up, but do it with intention.
One final note . . . if you do choose to give something up that isn’t sinful and then break your fast, you didn’t sin. You took on a voluntary penance, and you are free to modify it or even set it aside. However, Lent is a penitential season, so I would suggest ensuring you do some kind of penance.
David Ancell / Saturday, December 31, 2022 / Comments(0)
The death of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI definitely makes for a sad ending to 2022. He was one of my biggest heroes in the Catholic Church. I have the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club mug from before he was elected pope, which says “putting the smackdown on heresy since 1981.” I think I have the t-shirt also. When I was a new Catholic in the 1990s, I thought of him as some kind of theological fuddy-duddy. As I learned more of the fullness of the faith, I realized he was really one of the true defenders of the Faith.
By the early 2000s, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, I really thought it would be great if he became the next pope. However, I figured he wouldn’t because of his age. Just before the conclave, I remember that he gave a speech warning about the “Dictatorship of Relativism,” and some media person remarked that he just disqualified himself from the papacy. Then, I was waiting, and occasionally refreshing the webpage on a news site. Finally, much to my surprise, a bar with a red background appeared at the top of my screen saying that “Cardinal Ratzinger is the new pope.” It was a dream come true!
I very much loved his emphasis on focusing on God himself. The Church is not a social work institution, though we do that kind of work, but the Body of Christ. It is ultimately Jesus Christ himself whom we must seek and whom we must serve. From what I remember, he wrote his Introduction to Christianity to help correct the errors of some theologians who were leaning towards some kind of socialist understanding of Christianity.
One great example of his focus was his book entitled The Spirit of the Liturgy. It was one of the best books on the Mass I have ever read. Solid formation on what the Mass is and how it should be celebrated is still probably the most difficult thing to come by. I dare say there are people with advanced degrees in liturgy who have things completely wrong. There were people spouting off stuff like how the churches needed to be that semi-circle shape so that we see each other and see Christ in one another. This essentially de-emphasized God himself and made the focus more on “the community.”
Before I read the book, I found it strange that he advocated the priest turning around and facing the same direction of the people (often called “having his back to the people,” but this is a misunderstanding). However, when I read what he wrote, I became completely convinced that this is how Mass should be celebrated. We, the priest and the people, are moving together towards God.
There is a lot that could be said about this holy man whom we had as pope for eight years. Now, he has gone to be with the Lord whom he served so well. Eternal rest, grant to him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace.
David Ancell / Tuesday, December 13, 2022 / Comments(0)
Here we are in Advent. For those of you who aren’t Catholic, Advent is a season in our Church calendar which we are preparing for Christmas. The Church never just lets a major feast day happen. Days that are as holy as Christmas and Easter require preparation. Like everything else in life, our celebration is much better when we have taken time to prepare.
The thing about Advent is that the way in which we prepare for Christmas can be hard to figure out. When I was new to the Church, I saw my pastor in the purple vestments that signify penance, and I asked him if Advent were a penitential season. He told me it was “half-penitential.”
I can see why he said this. Just like in Lent, the priest wears purple vestments. The Gloria is omitted from Mass, but the Alleluia is still sung before the Gospel. There are some prescribed penances in Lent, but in Advent, there is no particular penance prescribed.
It makes sense that it is this way when one thinks about it. Lent is a preparation for Easter. However, in order to get to Easter, there is the Passion and death of Our Lord on the cross. There is no such death that we must commemorate before the birth of Our Lord. We are simply waiting for him to come. There is, however, a deep longing in the world, and many don’t realize that longing.
Maybe the best preparation is to do our very best to focus on the Lord and remember that he is the reason, not only for the season, but our whole lives. This can be difficult in the midst of our lives this time of year. We are in a pretty bad flu season, and I’m sure there are a lot of people who are either sick or caring for sick kids. If you are a student, you are likely either preparing for or taking final exams. Of course, it can also be crunch time in many jobs as well. There are plenty of parties to attend as well.
Combine this with the secular celebration of Christmas that we see in the world. On the one hand, we have retailers that don’t really want to mention the word Christmas despite making money from people buying presents for the holiday whose name they “forgot.” I’m not going to call it so much a war on Christmas as stupid secular political correctness but also unwillingness to not make the money. You can also listen to songs on the radio that speak of the such a wonderful time of year with marshmallows, caroling, mistletoe, and hearts glowing with loved ones near. However, such songs will say nary a word about why this is (or should be) so. Those are just a couple of examples.
I’m certainly not saying that we shouldn’t get gifts for people. I definitely wouldn’t suggest not doing the work that you have to do at this time. Don’t flunk your exams if you are a student! I don’t even want to suggest not going to people’s Christmas parties. We won’t bring people back to focus on Jesus Christ by offending them in this manner. The one kind of activity that I would suggest skipping out on is the ugly sweater contest. How does an ugly sweater give honor to the God who became man and came to die for our sins?
In some way, we need to take time to pray and think about how we are awaiting the coming of Our Lord. We need to prepare the way by making a good Confession. Take some time to show the love of Christ to someone less fortunate (who could even be your family members who have the flu). All we need to do is take a bit of time to think more on how we can keep the coming of Christ in our minds and hearts and act on it. Then, we can tell the world what we are celebration and the awesome reality that it is.
Category: Response
David Ancell / Saturday, November 05, 2022 / Comments(0)
During this month of November, I wanted to write about something that I’ve been seeing pop up in a number of parishes – the building and maintenance of a columbarium for the interment of cremated remains. I first saw these when I lived in North Carolina, and now there are several in Tennessee (but only one in a Catholic parish in the Nashville area). I want to highlight why this is a bad practice.
I’m not so much against the building of a columbarium as part of a Catholic cemetery, even a parish cemetery. The Church requires the interment of cremated remains in a sacred place such as a cemetery. To make this possible for Catholics who choose cremation for legitimate reasons, it makes sense to have them available. My main concern here is with a columbarium located on parish property that has no cemetery associated with it. I’ll explain why . . .
To get a greater understanding of the Church’s teachings on cremation, please check out this 2016 Document from the CDF regarding the practice. The Catholic Church once prohibited cremation as it was often done as a way to show opposition to the resurrection of the dead. In 1963, a new instruction named Piam et Constatem was issued that did allow for cremation. It’s important to note that, once cremated, the ashes are required to be buried like a body would be.
However, this instruction said that the ordinaries (eg bishops) were to ensure, through proper instruction, that “the faithful refrain from cremation and not discontinue the practice of burial except when forced to do so by necessity” and that “the Church’s adverse attitude toward cremation must be clearly evident.” In other words, the practice is not something the Church wanted to encourage but only to permit when necessary. Cremation is to be the exception rather than the rule. Burial remains the preferred practice of the Church. In fact, the need to encourage burial instead of cremation when possible is more pressing today in light of the false ideas regarding the human body that are presented by today’s society.
However, when a parish builds a columbarium, they are, by means of a bad example, essentially encouraging the practice of cremation. After all, they are allowing people to be laid to rest on the grounds of their church, but only if they are cremated. People who can and wish to conform themselves fully to the mind of the Church on this matter have to be buried elsewhere. This really sends the wrong message to people regarding the respect and reverence that is due to the body of the deceased, which was and will be again a Temple of the Holy Spirit.
In one diocese where I lived, there was a rule that, if a columbarium were built, it must be accompanied by instruction that burial is really the preferred practice. However, this is unlikely to be effective. At the same time this instruction is being provided, people are being told that they can choose to be cremated so that their remains can be interred at their church. This also communicates to people that they can feel free to disregard the customs of the Church and do whatever they prefer, which is way too common among American Catholics.
Someone once told me in (sort of) defense of the practice is that a parish was noticing that people were choosing cremation and then doing things prohibited by the Church such as scattering ashes or keeping them in their home. The columbarium was being built so that people would at least bury the ashes properly. This was a well-meaning argument, but I don’t agree. I believe it provides too much accommodation for people’s attitudes to be formed by the surrounding culture rather than by Christ and his Church when really, the truth needs to be preached.
In fact, I remember a priest, preaching at the funeral of one of my family members, tell us that what was in the casket was not our family member. I now know that is not a correct statement. It is a pagan/gnostic attitude that I’ve also heard repeated by a Protestant, though I don’t think the priest realized this. As human beings, we are made to be body and soul. When the soul separates from the body, neither are complete. The body that will decay is not the complete person, but guess what – neither is the soul! The souls in Heaven are longing for their bodily resurrection. Our bodies are not some costume or machine that we inhabit and need to be free from. They are an integral part of who we are.
There may be some people who need to choose cremation, and they need not feel as though they are incurring guilt for doing what the Church permits. However, the local parishes should not be building something that has such a potential to encourage that which is not what the Church prefers. We would be much better served by better catechesis about the body and reverence it required, not to mention our hope of the resurrection.
Category: Response