Contemplations of a Cradle Catholic

Hanging on Every Word

mchudson — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:22:36 +0000

I've never been the best pray-er. I get distracted easily, and I can't say that I put forth the necessary effort. But today, after hearing of a friend's car accident I was thrust into deep prayer for him and his family.

I think I now understand the concept that C.S. Lewis talks about several times, mostly in the three books Problem of Pain, A Grief Observed, and Till We Have Faces, the idea of truly seeing, and really understanding. Today, when I prayed for my friends, the need was dire, the situation desperate, and God used that situation to pull me into better relationship with Him. Every word that I spoke had such weight to it, because it mattered so much. I cannot remember a time when I have quite literally spoken with God, Face-to-Face, like I did this morning. Don't get me wrong, I've spent hours in front of the Blessed Sacrament, but it wasn't Him who wasn't there, it was me.

I am quite grateful that God has shown Himself to me, and has helped me better understand Him and His ways, but I wish that I could have gotten it sooner or by another route, I wish that this accident didn't occur and that all was well, but God took this terrible thing and opened my eyes, and I hope that mine are not the only eyes opened.

Please, pray strenuously for my friends, they are going through the most difficult time of their lives right now and remember that even though you may not, God is hanging on every word you speak to Him.

God Bless You, and God Love You

Letting go

mchudson — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:39:09 +0000

I can't tell you how many times I've told someone else that all you have to do is let go and give everything to Christ, and He'll take care of everything that matters. The hardest part about that is the "all you have to do…" part. I can't help but recognize the truth in that statement, but, looking back, I can't remember too many times when I have taken my own advise.

Tonight was, what I hope, a turning point for me. As of late, I haven't been doing all that well with many of the vices that have made their home in me. It's really hard when you realize that you're responsible for many people besides yourself in spiritual direction and you're having trouble with the very things that you tell them to stay away from. One can always look in the mirror and see a hypocrite, but I guess that's why I am where I am, because I know who calls me to it.

It's funny how many of those who don't accept religion (and most especially Christianity) will give the excuse like, "it's just a bunch of hypocrites". And if I'm any proof, then that statement is 100% true. The beauty of it all is that Christ came for the hypocrites, not those who are perfect, but for the imperfect, so that they may enter into Him and be perfect.

And what's the only way to enter into Him? Well, you guessed it, letting go. Giving everything to Him and joining Him on the Cross, so that we may also be raised with Him on the last day.

God Bless You and God Love You.

So I Carry My Cross

mchudson — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:40:34 +0000

This past week or so I've been extremely focused on the Stations of the Cross, mainly because my Youth Group is preforming a living portrayal of the Stations, and I re-wrote the script to, hopefully, make the portrayal more meaningful.

The whole process started when I was just going to re-type the script so that I would have a copy of it saved on my computer. But as I read each station I felt the script didn't express the point properly, and in some cases inaccurately. So, my task was before me, and after a day and a half, the new script was complete.

My biggest worry was that I would write a script that was too heady; that it would go over the heads of most of the audience. I had a few of my co-workers look over it, and give me their opinion. I was reassured that what was written was meaningful and worth trying.

Looking back, I see God working through me to bring a better focus on His saving work to those who will be participating in the Living Stations this Sunday and next Friday. But I also see how He helped me to refocus myself to Him. I have been involved with Living Stations now for several years and I think that the portrayal became more of a performance than a prayer. And this re-write brought me back to the meaning of this prayer.

Lord, continue to guide us to You, and when our worship or prayers or even our lives become mundane show us Yourself and renew in us the love that brought us to You to begin with.

God bless you and God love you.

A Thought about Tolerance

mchudson — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:47:01 +0000

Tolerance is a word that is thrown around a lot today. Whether it be regarding lifestyles, religious views, or even racial issues. Tolerance seems to be our society’s new ultimate good. As a matter of fact, it seems that the only thing one should not tolerate is intolerance. How intolerant of us.

No doubt, one should always tolerate a person regardless of what the person does, but one does not have to tolerate sinful actions that a person participates in, it’s all summed up in the old adage: “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Some may say that this very adage is what is so offensive, and they ask “how can you love somebody, and hate what they do?”

Think about that question carefully. Did Christ not come to save sinners? Is the Church not here to bring Christ to the world so that He may save sinners? Is this not the Church’s mission?

So, obviously, Christ was able to love others although they were sinners and He most especially hates sin, for sin is a turning away from Him and a denial of His graces. So if there is such a thing as sin, then we must hate the sin that we participate in, for the very sake of the one participating in the sin. Is that not a more powerful love than simply allowing a person to participate in sin without repremand?

Being a person who still needs a lot of conversion and grace to become the man who God made me to be, I ask everyone to tolerate me until I get there, and I promise that I will make a great effort to do the same for you.

God bless you and God love you.

Show me this “NEW WAY”

mchudson — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:25:30 +0000

Recently I’ve been reading a lot about Oprah and Marianne Williamson and their “New Age” Religion and their presentation of A Course in Miracles over Oprah’s XM radio broadcast. If you’re not familiar with “New Age” thought then let me enlighten you.

“New Age” is more of a feel good philosophy, which in itself wouldn’t be wrong or bad in any way, but it puts so much emphasis on self approval that it disregards that all selves are sinners. One of the more radical teachings of “New Age” is that “there is no sin” and The Cross is worthless.

And now 0ur final nominee for Best “New” Post-Modern Heresy is Oprah and Marianne Williamson with A Course on Miracles. Oprah with her broad sphere of influence and her public role as a mentor to the masses is able to communicate and distribute this “New Age” Heresy. Marianne Williamson steps in as the “expert” on this NEW WAY which obviously means that it is a valid and sound philosophy. Together they are bringing many lost souls out of what little light they may have and pitching them right into the darkness, Screwtape would be so proud.

DUN-DUN-DAHHHH!! And the winner for Best “New” Post-Modern Heresy is… Oprah and Marianne Williamson with A Course on Miracles.
The fact of the matter is, as Chesterton put it, “a new philosophy means, in practice, the praise of some old vice.”

Christ, we never saw Him coming

mchudson — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:42:44 +0000

To put it into better words than my own, “He [God] is the great iconoclast” (C.S. Lewis from A Grief Observed). For several centuries now we have become accustom to an idea, this idea of a “historical Jesus”. Now what do I mean when I say “historical Jesus”, I mean an idea that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels is not what the man Jesus of Nazareth was like. If you wanted to be more specific, then you would see that my first mention of the “historical Jesus” was fallacious, because I said “an idea” not several ideas. The fact of the matter is that the only consistent depiction of Jesus is that of the Gospels. For there have been several different ideas based not on facts or reputable sources, but on the person who was searching for this “historical Jesus”, everything from a simpleton that got caught up on the wrong side of persecution as a scapegoat to a lavish traveler who didn’t really die on the cross. This ladies and gentlemen is what people refer to as having an agenda.
Now I know that this idea is not original in any way, shape, form, or fashion, but I wanted to put my spin on it; to give a go at writing down what my wandering mind is fixed on for this particular moment… oooo, birdie… sorry let me focus again.

The greatest consistency to the several ideas about a “historical Jesus” is that they are so inconsistent. I find myself wondering what people think of when they come up with these false pictures of Jesus. Anywhere from shady sources to even spirit guides, if nothing else they are extremely creative and if they would have changed the name of the main character of their stories to almost any other name they may have quite a good novel in their hands, but instead they are search of the “truth”, or so they say. The sad fact is that most of these authors or historians or psychics are much like teenage girls, always seeking to be shocking never caring if what they have to say is true or relevant. And the saddest fact of all is that we, the populous, eat it up and grant them the attention that they so ceaselessly crave.
The amazing thing about the Gospel is that it is something that we would never expect (shout out to Kierkegaard), we couldn’t possibly have seen Jesus coming, at least in the way that He did. What is so amazing about all of the “historical Jesus’s” that are out there is that they are so obviously conjured up by a human mind. They have Jesus as a grandiose prince who traveled the known world gathering methods of teaching and prayer from all the various religions of the day, and brought these methods back to Israel so that we can all know the greatest gospel of all, the gospel of this modern age, “I’m okay, you’re okay.” Or even, Jesus did come to save Israel, and he was a great moral teacher, but certainly not a miracle maker for after all there are no such things as miracles; he saved Israel by dying so that Jerusalem wouldn’t go to war with the Romans; he sacrificed himself so that Rome would think that the threat of war was dead with Jesus, and all that about dying on a cross is bull honky, he was stabbed in a home, but when he fell his arms were stretched out at his side and that is how Christians get the symbol of the Cross. It makes so much sense, wap, wap, whaaaaaaaa….
These are just two of the “historical Jesus” ideas that I have heard in the past year. Each one fails to use what God has given us to reveal Himself. And they fail to recognize that they are not only talking about a person in the past, but a person who is and will be forever. If they were to only encounter the Living God then He would avail them of all the misrepresentations that have befallen them and destroy any and all ideas that hang like sacred idols of a false god, the god that they themselves have made, but in order for that to happen we must step up to the plate and show them who He is. For this is our mission, and we are called by Christ to be His presence to the world, we are the Church, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ and we are called to be obedient to His command, to be who He made us to be.
Enough of the sad facts, let us remember the glorious fact: God, you know the One, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who brought Israel out of Egypt, the God of my ancestors, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the Creator, the Giver of the Law, the God of the Living came down from heaven to take on our human nature in the glorious mystery of the Incarnation and was most perfectly who He Is, because He is the great, the powerful, the simply “I AM”.

Call it what it is

mchudson — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:27:11 +0000

In the light of the March for Life, I have always found the language used in the abortion debate as a bit ambiguous. First off we have the titles of the two sides of the debate, “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”

The funny thing about the titles of each side is that both are very pro-life and pro-choice. For instance “pro-lifers” do not condone choices, they just want people to make the right choice. Just as “pro-choicers” are “pro-choice” because they believe that they are improving the quality of life of those whom they stand by. So from now on I will refer to those commonly understood to be “pro-life” as anti-abortion, and those commonly referred to “pro-choice” as pro-abortion, these terms seem to be more clearly and specifically defined.

Of course, I am a Catholic and this is a Catholic network so I feel it is important to be clear as to where I stand on the issue, I am most emphatically anti-abortion. And this post will look more toward the misrepresentation and misuse of language in the pro-abortionist’s argument. I also feel that the anti-abortion side uses terms and language that is much more clear and specific, if not blunt (no duh, it’s the side I agree with).

The most ambiguous term that I find in the pro-abortionist argument is reproductive freedom. This is the right that all pro-abortionsists find so essential, so lets look closer to what this term means, and what they think it means.

So here it is: reproductive freedom. Let’s start by looking at the two words separately. Reproductive, to reproduce; to produce again; to make a copy of; etc. Second word, freedom, the state of being free; exemption from external control. Now take a gander at the unspoken assumption of the phrase; this phrase implies not just any type of reproductive freedom but sexual reproductive freedom. So now let’s put all this together. Looking at the term without any preconceived notions we an deduce a conclusion that one should have the right to sexually reproduce freely, that a person should have the right to reproduce through the act of sex without constraint or external control.

But what do the pro-abortionists mean when they say that they demand the right to reproductive freedom? Basically they mean that they demand sex without babies. So riddle me this Batman, where is the freedom of reproduction in this demand? Would not a less ambiguous term be reproductive constraint? For if you want the action or the means without the deductive end then you place external control over the act to determine the end, whether through birth control or abortion, both of which constrain the act of sex for reaching it’s end, reproduction.

Say, Say!

mchudson — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:44:11 +0000

How is everybody doing? This is my official first post on this particular blog, I stole my intro from my previous one so it’s not as original as it was back then. But I’m here now at THE DESTINATION writin’ stuff.

I figured to give some Cradle Catholics a shout out. I’ve noticed most blogs are written by converts to Catholicism, not to hate on any converts, you all are certainly Feakin’ Sweet, but I would just like to give us Cradles a piece of the pie.

That’s my M/O, hope you all (assuming that I won’t be the only person looking at my blog) will enjoy my thoughts.

Thanks for coming out.