Spiritual Warfare

•February 27, 2013 • Leave a Comment

temptation-2Happy Lent! Having just left the joyous season of Christmas, the Church, in her wisdom, gives us a time for refocusing and rejuvenation.

What causes us to lose focus in the first place? How, at certain times, do we find ourselves acting so differently from the people we aspire to be? How often do we leave an interaction wishing that we were more attentive, more loving, less angry or full of gossip?

A spiritual battle as old as mankind is being waged all around us. It has been said that the devil’s greatest trick was convincing the world that he didn’t exist.  What a brilliant tactic!

If Satan doesn’t exist, then why be on our guard?  If there is no tempter, is there really any temptation or even sin? If there is no sin, why bother with the Church’s redemptive sacrament of reconciliation or Eucharistic abandonment to God’s will? We may live as we please because the Church is really just holding up repressive human constructs as God’s law.

Satan has been practicing this line of attack since he approached our first parents in the Garden of Eden.  He worked to convince Adam and Eve that sin did not exist, and attempted to argue that God was not the supreme lawgiver and creator of all things.  Instead, with forked tongue and malice in his heart, he portrayed God as arbitrary, a being striving to keep man from reaching full potential.

Pope Benedict XVI reminds us that Satan works constantly against us, and did so even with our Lord.  In the Pope’s Angelus remarks from February 17, he takes us through Satan’s temptations of Jesus in the wilderness.

Sts. Matthew and Luke present us with nearly identical accounts (Mt 4:1-11, Lk 4:1-13).  Satan tries to tempt Jesus, who had fasted for forty days, to turn stones into bread.  Satan then takes Jesus to the top of the temple and says he should throw himself down, because scripture says the angels will support him and keep him from harm. Finally, Satan shows Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world, indicating that these are his to give, if Jesus will only worship him.

Satan clearly knows and quotes scripture to his own ends, but Jesus, himself, is the Word.  Each of Jesus’ responses stifles the attack of the enemy in dramatic fashion.  Yet, Jesus does not directly refute the claim about Satan’s power in this world.  God surely didn’t hand over this power, but we, in our free will, often give Satan the dominion over our souls that he seeks.

Pope Benedict continues:  “Yet these temptations are also false images of man that threaten to ensnare our conscience, in the guise of suitable, effective and even good proposals. . . .The tempter is cunning. He does not directly impel us towards evil but rather towards a false good, making us believe that the true realities are power and everything that satisfies our primary needs. In this way God becomes secondary, he is reduced to a means; in short, he becomes unreal, he no longer counts, he disappears. Ultimately, in temptation faith is at stake because God is at stake.”

We often view sin as a bold and active rejection of God.  In some rare cases, people reject God outright.  For most of us, though, we habituate ourselves into elevating lower created goods above the very thing for which we were created – God.  We listen to the voice of Satan that echoed in the ears of Adam and Eve so long ago, a voice whispering that God’s law is unimportant and that we have nothing to worry about if we violate it in small ways.  The ruinous effect is evident in the evil man has committed on the Earth throughout human history.

This Lent, then, let us mind the entire house of our soul.  The front door may be guarded, but have we left a window open for Satan to enter?  Where does the tempter’s voice reach us?  Satan, a student of human nature, knows where to apply pressure against us.  Together, let us examine our lives in a quiet, prayerful way to see where we must be on guard.

Even though we must be watchful, take comfort that God is with us.  Pope Benedict puts it beautifully, “let us not be afraid either of facing the battle against the spirit of evil: the important thing is to fight it with him, with Christ, the Conqueror. And to be with him let us turn to his Mother, Mary; let us call on her with filial trust in the hour of trial and she will make us feel the powerful presence of her divine Son, so that we can reject temptations with Christ’s word and thus put God back at the center of our life.”

*This article by Mark Rohlena, Esq., first appeared in The Colorado Catholic Herald on March 1,2013.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Mark C. Rohlena, Esq.

Mark is the CEO of Catholic Charities of Central Colorado.  He is a monthly columnist with the Colorado Catholic Herald and His blog, The Charity of Christ has received national acclaim.

Vincent Carroll: An Excellent Piece on Civil Unions and the Need for a Religious Exemption

•February 13, 2013 • Leave a Comment

Vincent Carroll of the Denver Post came out with an excellent opinion piece today about the need to include conscience protections in the proposed civil unions bill.  Notable is the fact that Carroll has supported civil unions for 10 years, long before there was a chance of them passing in Colorado.  He sees no threat from including conscience protections in the civil unions bill, and takes bill sponsor Senator Steadman to task for very inflammatory language regarding those organizations standing on religious principle.

The full piece can be found at the Denver Post by CLICKING HERE.  Please read his very reasonable comments.

Some key quotes:

And so we witnessed last week the spectacle of the Colorado Senate passing a civil unions bill while refusing to include a serious religious exemption to protect freedom of conscience. Senate Bill 11 exempts only a “priest, minister, rabbi or other official of a religious institution” from having to certify a civil union — as if this were even necessary. There isn’t a court in the land that would allow this state to define a religious sacrament, and the bill’s sponsors know it.

Meanwhile, left in legal jeopardy are organizations of even explicitly religious orientation such as Catholic Charities and other ministries involved in social services. Last year, the bill’s sponsors were willing to shield such groups with an exemption, but that was when they were clawing for votes. Now that victory is assured, such civilized tolerance has gone by the boards.

On Senator Steadman’s shocking comments regarding religious organizations:

To defenders of traditional marriage, however, Steadman had stern words. “So, what to say to those who say religion requires them to discriminate. I’ll tell you what I’d say. Get thee to a nunnery and live there then. Go live a monastic life away from modern society, away from people you can’t see as equal to yourself, away from the stream of commerce where you may have to serve them.”

In a single outburst, Steadman thus confirmed the worst fears of orthodox believers — that militant secularists are intent on punishing any belief or behavior that conflicts with gay-rights goals.

Vincent Carroll finishes his thoughts by summing up the issues nicely:

We heard a great deal Friday about religious intolerance, with historically muddled references to the Spanish Inquisition, Taliban, Holocaust, and slavery (nothing about how the anti-slavery movement was galvanized by religious sentiment, of course, but never mind). “Some very awkward things” have been done in the name of religion, one senator reminded us.

Yes, indeed. And some very awkward things have been done in the name of government, too. Yet what does either have to do, here and now, with the question of whether a mother can freely take her infant to a private agency that will find an adoptive family that reflects the values she ardently desires?

Let’s hope that more civil minds prevail as the civil unions bill winds it way through the Colorado State House.

Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, to Resign

•February 11, 2013 • Leave a Comment

Pope Benedict XVI In dramatic news for the life of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI has announced that he is resigning as the Supreme Pontiff on February 28, 2013 at 8:00 p.m.  His primary reasons are his declining health and the weight of the office relative to that.  Needless to say, this news is amazing, though not unprecedented.

A former classmate of mine, Professor Donald S. Prudlo, puts the historical context around Pope Benedict’s decision. You can read what he wrote at Crisis Magazine online by CLICKING HERE

Professor Prudlo points out that the last Pope to resign was Pope Gregory XII, who resigned to bring an end to the Great Western Schism in 1415. 

The conclave to select the new Holy Father will likely take place in March.

The Holy Father’s statement about his resignation, made at a canonization consistory, where the Church named three new saints, is reproduced in its entirety below.  You can find it on the Vatican website:

Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.  I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.  And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

From the Vatican, 10 February 2013

BENEDICTUS PP XVI

Interview on Local ABC Affliate, KRDO re: Religious Freedom

•February 9, 2013 • Leave a Comment

I was interviewed by the local ABC affliate, KRDO, concerning religous freedom and the Colorado Civil Unions Bill this evening:

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO

Bishops Speak Out On Newest HHS Proposal That Falls Short

•February 8, 2013 • Leave a Comment

DolanPic   As I mentioned last Friday, the Obama Administration has proposed yet another compromise on the HHS contraception and sterilization mandate. As you may recall, this mandate required nearly all employers to provide coverage for contraception (including some abortion-inducing drugs) and sterilization procedures. The Obama administration had provided an “accomodation” last year, and has again attempted to parse the conscience obligations and religious freedom of Americans with its newest proposal.

Cardinal Dolan has issued a statement concerning the apparent lack of understanding on the part of the Obama Administration regarding conscience and religious freedom, and he stressed that the newest proposal still falls short of adequately protecting these foundational principles.  That statement can be read on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop’s website and is reproduced below:

Statement of Cardinal Timothy Dolan Responding to Feb. 1 Proposal from HHS

For almost a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have worked hard to support the right of every person to affordable, accessible, comprehensive, life-affirming healthcare. As we continue to do so, our changeless values remain the same.We promote the protection of the dignity of all human life and the innate rights that flow from it, including the right to life from conception to natural death; care for the poorest among us and the undocumented; the right of the Church to define itself, its ministries, and its ministers; and freedom of conscience.

Last Friday, the Administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the HHS mandate that requires coverage for sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortions.The Administration indicates that it has heard some previously expressed concerns and that it is open to dialogue.With release of the NPRM, the Administration seeks to offer a response to serious matters which have been raised throughout the past year.We look forward to engaging with the Administration, and all branches and levels of government, to continue to address serious issues that remain. Our efforts will require additional, careful study.Only in this way can we best assure that healthcare for every woman, man and child is achieved without harm to our first, most cherished freedom.

In evaluating Friday’s action regarding the HHS mandate, our reference remains the statement of our Administrative Committee made last March, United for Religious Freedom, and affirmed by the entire body of bishops in June 2012.

In that statement, we first expressed concern over the mandate’s “exceedingly narrow” four-part definition of “religious employer,” one that exempted our houses of worship, but left “our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need” subject to the mandate.This created “a ‘second class’ of citizenship within our religious community,” “weakening [federal law's] healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity.”And the exemption effectuated this distinction by requiring “among other things, [that employers] must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith.”

On Friday, the Administration proposed to drop the first three parts of the four-part test.This might address the last of the concerns above, but it seems not to address the rest.The Administration’s proposal maintains its inaccurate distinction among religious ministries. It appears to offer second-class status to our first-class institutions in Catholic health care, Catholic education, and Catholic charities. HHS offers what it calls an “accommodation,” rather than accepting the fact that these ministries are integral to our Church and worthy of the same exemption as our Catholic churches. And finally, it seems to take away something that we had previously—the ability of an exempt employer (such as a diocese) to extend its coverage to the employees of a ministry outside the exemption.

Second, United for Religious Freedom explained that the religious ministries not deemed “religious employers” would suffer the severe consequence of “be[ing] forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions.”After Friday, it appears that the government would require all employees in our “accommodated” ministries to have the illicit coverage—they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children—under a separate policy.In part because of gaps in the proposed regulations, it is still unclear how directly these separate policies would be funded by objecting ministries, and what precise role those ministries would have in arranging for these separate policies.Thus, there remains the possibility that ministries may yet be forced to fund and facilitate such morally illicit activities. Here, too, we will continue to analyze the proposal and to advocate for changes to the final rule that reflect these concerns.

Third, the bishops explained that the “HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all:individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values.”This includes employers sponsoring and subsidizing the coverage, insurers writing it, and beneficiaries paying individual premiums for it.Friday’s action confirms that HHS has no intention to provide any exemption or accommodation at all to this “third class.”In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath.We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.

Because the stakes are so high, we will not cease from our effort to assure that healthcare for all does not mean freedom for few.Throughout the past year, we have been assured by the Administration that we will not have to refer, pay for, or negotiate for the mandated coverage.We remain eager for the Administration to fulfill that pledge and to find acceptable solutions—we will affirm any genuine progress that is made, and we will redouble our efforts to overcome obstacles or setbacks.Thus, we welcome and will take seriously the Administration’s invitation to submit our concerns through formal comments, and we will do so in the hope that an acceptable solution can be found that respects the consciences of all.At the same time, we will continue to stand united with brother bishops, religious institutions, and individual citizens who seek redress in the courts for as long as this is necessary.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York
February 7, 2013

Developments on the HHS Mandate Front

•February 1, 2013 • Leave a Comment

The Obama Administration has proposed some modifications to the much litigated HHS contraceptive mandate (which required nearly every employer to provide contraceptive and sterilization coverage to employees even if providing such coverage violated the conscience of the employer).

A link to the proposed changes can be found HERE

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has put out the following STATEMENT :

February 1, 2013

WASHINGTON—In response to today’s release of revised regulations for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, provided the following statement on behalf of the USCCB.

“Today, the Administration issued proposed regulations regarding the HHS mandate. We welcome the opportunity to study the proposed regulations closely. We look forward to issuing a more detailed statement later.”

We should all do the same before coming to conclusions, more to come!!

Important Testimony on the Colorado Civil Unions Bill

•January 26, 2013 • Leave a Comment

shutterstock_114548935   How does discriminating against religious institutions and people of faith advance the cause of proponents of the Colorado Civil Unions Bill? 

On January 23rd, I provided testimony in opposition to the current version of the Colorado Civil Unions bill, Senate Bill 11, specifially concerning the lack of religious freedom and conscience protections (some of these protections were included in the amended version of this same bill considered last year, but are now omitted). 

The lack of such protections in other jurisdictions have been devestating for the public adoption and foster care services provided by Catholic Charities.  The audio of my testimony, as exerpted from the Colorado General Assembly website archives, is below:

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO MY TESTIMONY

Of course, as a Catholic agency — the primary vehicle through which the Diocese of Colorado Springs provides its material charitable service — we must uphold the Church’s teaching on marriage.  Our policies reflect this belief and we assist in placing children with loving families with a married mother and father.  Many birth parents come to us because they want to place their child in that very setting, consistent with their beliefs.  Those who come to us to seek a placement often do so precisely because we offer services in the religious framework we do.  Why are proponents of the civil unions bill trying to take away choice in Colorado?

To be clear, same sex couples are already able to adopt currently, as can single people.  With the passage of the civil unions bill, there will be scores of adoptive agencies that can provide parties to a civil union with adoptive services. Our agency’s adherence to religious principles will do nothing to change that. 

It is unfortunate and troubling that the proponents of the civil unions bill would try to force Catholic Charities to violate its religious principles when there are other options for people to place and adopt according to their beliefs, whatever they may be.  And this is not a concern we are making up — proponents of the bill, in the testimony below, expressed that they would rather see us go out of business (even with private adoption work apparently) if we stood on principle:

Here is an exchange between main bill sponsor Senator Pat Steadman (D) and Senator Kevin Lundberg (R):

CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO

Here is another troubling exchange between Senator Lundberg and Denver Mayor Michael Hancock (D):

CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO

Our call, if this bill will be passed, to put conscience protections into its provisions is a threat to no one.  To refuse to include these protections is to use the civil unions bill as a possible tool to discriminate against those who operate based on religious principle.  And there seems to be no discomfort among the civil union bill proponents if we are forced out.

Please pray for this circumstance, and please contact your state senators and representatives and let them know what you think!

The full testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee from January 23 is found  HERE.

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.