3rd Sunday of Lent: Mass Suspension of Faith

Today's reading for the Third Sunday of Lent have one main thing in common: Water. However, this theme is based on Faith.  As I write this, the world is in a pandemic that it has never experienced before. Covid19 or Coronavirus has spread throughout the world taking hundreds of thousands of lives and effecting billions more.  In response, many Catholic dioceses decided to suspend Mass, other Sacraments. Some have decided to close churches altogether. This decision has been praised by some, but frowned upon by many, including myself.

Our religion is at a precipice now. In a world that is slowly becoming more and more secular and atheistic, displays of spiritual cowardice is not the way to go.  To suggest that the Mass will become a conduit for the spread of disease is an overreaction. In fact, there is no study that suggests this nor has there been any recorded event in history that we can recall. Moreover, to ban reception of Holy Communion by the tongue, hand or both is also ridiculous. Would Jesus allow His body, blood, soul and divinity to become a conduit for contagion?  We read in 1 Corinthians 11:30-31 that the Holy Eucharist did make people sick and even brought death. However, this happened to people who received unworthily either by being in a state of sin or by treating the Sacred Species as another meal to eat alongside the offerings presented to the deities of the Greek-Roman era.

That being clarified, there is no way the Blessed Sacrament can become means to spread disease. This is just irrational and blasphemous to think. We are talking about Jesus' true presence here.  Already atheists and even protestants have started to mock the idea of transubstantiation due to the whining of bishops and others in the Church during this crisis. Suspending Holy Communion reception in any form and/or the Mass is just spiritual cowardice. It is a demonstration of lack of faith. In other words, it is implicit atheism. How can we believe God to be all powerful, yet not be able to protect His people from a microscopic organism?  How can we believe Jesus is truly present in the Holy Eucharist and can spread disease?  How can we believe that God would allow the Mass to become a place of contagion?  Catholicism has become a mockery, a faith lacking faith.  The first reading touches on lack of faith.

The first reading comes from Exodus. In it, we read about Moses' struggle with the stubborn Hebrews who whined about being taken out of captivity. Go figure right?  They complain to Moses about being brought out into the desert to die of thirst.

The Hebrews actually preferred being in Egypt as slaves than in the desert.  Here we see a lack of faith. Despite all the wonders God performed, they still doubted and whined. Think about this for a minute.  They saw God send down plagues upon Egypt, one of them which transformed the waters to blood (Exodus 7:14-10:29). However, they still believe that they were taken to the desert to die of thirst.  How can they even think this after seeing how God had complete control over the molecules and atoms that make up water?

Again, the issue here is lack of faith. Humanity has not changed much since this time. I began with the Coronavirus and suspension of the Mass as an example in this reflection.   We still

whine, complain and believe man's tangible methods are best. For the pope, bishops and others to think man's ways make more sense than God's is just blasphemous. To suspend the Mass and instead trust in men defeats the purpose of Catholicism. We already saw how science, government and even suspending events or engaging in social distancing has failed.  The virus is still spreading!  Suspending the Mass is the dumbest attempt at a solution possible.  We reject the most powerful prayer on Earth all for nothing.  This is a lack of faith and it hurts our spiritual life.  We begin to doubt God. When God doesn't answer our prayers or answers them differently, we get upset. Some of us even lose faith altogether despite witnessing God work in our lives in the past. 

Moses himself becomes a bit stressed out and asks God for help fearing that the people will stone him. God calmly tells him to go with his staff and strike a rock and water will flow from it. Gods asks Moses to do this to show that He can do anything. Usually water comes from rain, but God wanted Moses to tap on a rock for it. I see this as an innuendo of sorts. The Hebrews then and us today are "hard-headed." God must sometimes tap on our rocky heads to get water to flow, so to speak.

This first reading should remind us of faith and how delicate it is. We can be the most zealous Christians on Earth jumping around shouting alleluia like the charismatics, but it takes just one disappointment in life to bring all that down. In an instant we can lose faith in God. This is dangerous. Moreover, the first reading can be connected to our own spiritual journey during Lent and the rest of the year. We are "in the desert" trusting God. The desert is not a comfortable place.  In fact, it is so uncomfortable that even being a slave in Egypt sounds better.The desert is a common theme in the Sacred Scriptures.  It is not only a real place on Earth, but a symbol of hardship and loneliness.

The Psalm response is linked to the first reading. It comes from Psalm 95 and mentions the incident of the lack of trust the Hebrews had at Meribah and Massah. The psalm calls God the "rock of our salvation."  This is a connection to the rock Moses tapped for water. Water is the "salvation" of a thirty individual.

It is no surprise that to each refrain we respond, "If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts." This "hardening" is another connection to the rock in the desert and why I wrote a few paragraphs above that it is an innuendo. We often become "hard-headed" and harden our hearts as well.  The psalm reminds us that God is the one who made us and we should trust in Him. We must not repeat what our ancestors did where they did not trust Him and tested Him. The psalm ends in this manner.

The second reading speaks to us about faith. Again, it is all connected with the previous readings.  St. Paul reminds us that faith is what connects us with God. God gives grace to all freely, but we must respond with faith to it otherwise we will miss the grace.

This faith must then be put into practice for it to be truly valid because we must love God and have faith in Him not just because of commands, but because we choose it (James 2:14-26).  When we freely choose something instead of being forced to do something, it becomes more valuable and authentic. The reading continues speaking about hope that doesn't disappoint. No matter what hardships we face, God is still there.  Again, we must not repeat the mistakes of our ancestors in the desert who knew God was there but still doubted.

Lastly, the Gospel tells us about the Samaritan woman's encounter with Jesus. The Samaritans are a group of people who the Jews did not like. In about 700 BC, the Assyrians came to Israel and took over the north. They brought strangers to that area who would be called "Samaritans" later on. These people were Pagans but as they lived among the Jews in the land, they adopted some of their ideas and incorporated them into their own religion. Nevertheless, the Jews saw them as a pariah.

Jesus comes to a town called "Sychar." He is tired and sits down. Imagine that?  God is tired. This shows the humanity of Christ.

I digress..

As Jesus rests, a woman comes by and He asks her for a drink.  The woman is shocked because He asks her for a drink.  She does this because of the tension between the Jews and her people. Moreover, women at the time were not seen as full persons in those times due to culture. Jesus is showing He is a "feminist" per se. Moreover, Jesus then responds to her that if she knew who was asking her for water she would have been given the "living water" which is God's grace that comes from the Holy Spirit.

He continues telling her that the water He asks of her does not quench thirst but that the water He
gives will. Here He is saying that only God can satisfy us fully. Things of this world, including water, satiate. They do not satisfy us forever. The woman becomes interested and asks Jesus for this water.  Jesus then shows her that He knows her life by revealing that she had five husbands. The rest of the Gospel (if the longer version is read) continues with Jesus speaking about true religion in spirit and truth that comes from what He gives. The disciples also make an appearance and show their disapproval of the woman and Jesus communicating.

The Gospel is very long, but has deep and simple themes to reflect on.  First let us focus on faith. Here we see that it is God who comes to us, not the other way around. Jesus comes to the woman and asks for water. This is His way of saying that we have to respond back to God's grace with our faith and why He says, "I thirst" on the cross (John 19:28). He approaches us and asks for us to give Him water (our faith response).

Second, the woman belonged to a group of people that the Jews did not like.  Christ shows us that we must go to everyone with the Good News, not only our own. We must not be greedy and keep the truth for ourselves, but must share it with the "Samaritans" of the world today: non-believers, lukewarm believers, those who believe in other faith traditions, etc. We must not judge those who are not in our Catholic Church - the Mystical Body of Christ. Instead, we must approach them, be friends with them and reach out to them. We must also listen to them and learn from them just like Jesus listened to the woman.

The Gospel reminds us of "water." Water is the ultimate source of physical life.  Without water, there would be no life on this planet. Water is the engine of life. Jesus reminds us that He has the living water that gives us meaning and true life unlike the common H2o on Earth that we need to live on, physically speaking.

Ironically, in a desert that thing that is lacking the most and is the most desirable is water. When our

lives become dry, painful under the heat; the discomforts of the desert of life hit us hard, it is Christ who gives us the living water who keeps us going. In this time of Lent, we are walking in the desert with Christ. We are tempted to break our fast just like Jesus was tempted by Satan.

We naturally suffer spiritual dryness when we feel God is not there like the Hebrews who felt they were tricked into going to the desert to die. Our response is to trust in God even in bad times. We must not become hard headed and doubt God like those in Meribah and Massah. We know God is there. We have encountered Him in our lives. Our daily struggles should not push us to think God is not there in our lives. Faith is key. We must ask ourselves during Lent as we walk in the deserts of life: “Is the LORD in our midst or not?”

The answer is YES!  He is there with a nice clean cup of fresh living water to quench our thirst.

Today's readings of Meribah and Massah are being repeated today.  Despite seeing God's works, man is doubting again. Our very own leaders in the Church included!  To suspend the Mass, close Churches and trust in the suggestions of doctors and others who are as clueless on this pandemic as everyone else is a slap to the face of God.  Pope Francis loves to paraphrase St. John Chrysostom who said the Church is a field hospital. What field hospital disappears and shuts down service during war and when there are many who are sick?  Does that make sense?  Pope Francis, the bishops and others who are encouraging mundane methods to dealing with this pandemic are doing a great disservice to our Catholic faith.  I usually do not criticize the pope and bishops, but this time they went too far and hit me hard in the heart.  Everyone has failed during this crisis.  My mom bought 5 lysol containers for $9.99 each!  Stores a price gouging, people are panic buying everything forgetting that others need supplies as well. I find humanity's response more horrific than the Coronavirus itself.

Overreaction is what kills everything. When a non-human animal on a road overreacts, it runs into a car and gets killed.  When people overreact, they become like savages.  In fact, viruses themselves are not what kill people. What kills people is the overreaction of the immune system to the presence of the foreign body.  We must stop and have faith. We must not be like the Jews at Meribah and Massah who despite seeing God's works, doubted Him and wanted to do things their way (Psalm 95:5).   Pray and pray!  Repent and have faith!  This is what the pope and bishops should be calling us to, not to become timid and hide.  The Spirit God gave us is not a cowardly one (2 Timothy 1:7).  The pope must recall another quote by St. John Chrysostom and remind the bishops of it, it says: "The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path."  Our shepherds need to wake up to what is going on. This is all a cosmic test.  Let us keep the faith!


READINGS: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/031520.cfm

God's Investment - 33th Sunday of Ordinary Time

Today's readings tell us about the importance of the wife who is a symbol of the Church as well as the putting our faith to work.

In the first reading from the Book of Proverbs, we read about what an ideal wife should be.  Her value is greater than that of pearls. She is the prize of her husband and brings him good, not evil.  This wife is a hard worker and is also concerned for others.  She is righteous.  Most importantly, she "fears" the Lord or has great respect for God. Because she is a hard worker, she deserves a reward for her work which will praise her.  Here we see how the Book of Proverbs tells us what the "perfect" wife should be. She is not the property of man, nor his slave. This woman is the treasure of her husband; meaning, that she should be all that matters to him.  As his wife, she not only takes care of the household, but also works. Some people use the Bible to put down women.  They claim that the woman should be "submissive" to the man (1 Peter 3:1). However, these words are often misinterpreted to have a misogynistic meaning. Men and women are equal. Woman is described as coming from the side of man showing that both stand side by side (Genesis 2:21-24). Men should never be seen or treated as better or superior to women. Both should be treated equally even in regards to pay or salary as the first reading states in regards to giving her a reward for her work. This reading is connected to the Gospel.

In the responsorial psalm, we read how those who "fear" the Lord or have great reverence for Him will prosper. They will have food, work, a home, strong children etc. This Psalm responds to the first reading in regards to the "woman who fears the Lord."  The woman is the Church (Revelation 19:7-10). We are this woman who must be faithful to the man (Christ). If we are faithful, loving and hard working then we shall prosper in the Lord.

The second reading from Thessalonians reminds us that God can come at any moment.  He will surprise us just like a thief who comes out of nowhere when we think all is calm. We might think things are "peaceful" and "secure," and live off-guard.  However, then out of nowhere the end comes; God returns to judge us all.  St. Paul reminds us that we should know this if we are in God. We should know that our time is short and that we must live in God like children in light.  Those of us who are baptized, in grace and in full union with the Church are in Christ's light.  In today's world we see many Catholics only come to Mass twice a year.  They are usually called the "A&P" Catholics, or "Ash Wednesday" & "Palm Sunday" Catholics.  Instead of coming every Sunday and Holy Days of obligation, they show up on these days. Churches are packed from pew to pew.  St. Paul advises us against this.  "Let us not sleep as the rest do, but let us stay alert and sober" is what he tells each one of us.

Finally in the Gospel we read of Jesus telling another one of His attention grabbing parables. In this story, a man or owner of land is about to go on a journey and calls his servants.  He entrusts them with his valuables according to what they are capable of. To each he gives a different amount of talents.  However, as he leaves on his journey, one of the servants traded with another and made more talents.  Similarly, the second man did the same and made two more. But, the last one went away and dug a hole burying this talent or money. When the master of those servants returned he inquired about the talents.  The first two shared what they had made and he was joyous of the interest that came in from their investment.  The master congratulated them calling them good and faithful servants.  However, the last man told the master that he saved the talents claiming that the master harvested in areas he did not plant and gathered where there was nothing. In other words, he was insulting the master as being wasteful or incompetent of running his own land.  Because of this, the servant felt it was wise to save the money.  The master obviously did not take lightly to his words and banished him.

This Gospel tells us how God entrusts us with certain gifts. We are to make use of these gifts to bring more gifts in, so to speak. Each one of us is called to spread the Gospel around and must use the "talents" or gifts God has given us (1 Peter 4:10). Like the wife in the first reading, we must work and show the husband we are competent (1 Corinthians 3:9).  We will receive our reward for being faithful and putting our gifts into action in the world.  The last servant was distrusting of the master. We must not be like that. We must not be like Moses in the desert who felt God delayed in bringing water from the rock and tapped it again as if God does not know what He was doing (Numbers 20:9-12). Instead, we must trust God and go to work using the gifts He has given us.  Each one of us will have different gifts, so we must know when and how to use them.  Some of us are called to be priests and have certain gifts to use as a priest.  Others are called to be religious sisters or brothers and each one of them has different gifts to use. Many more are called to be priests by baptism or laity and each have their own gifts which they must.  All of us must use our gifts in God's investment and bring in the interest to Him. Let's not be like that last servant who felt the master did not know how to run Hus own business and hid the money.  If so. God will tell us like Donald Trump said in his reality show, "YOU'RE FIRED!"  We all know what this "fire" is.  We do not want to be there gnashing our teeth as Jesus described.  









Readings: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/111614.cfm

Third Sunday of Lent Reflection

Today's reading for the Third Sunday of Lent have one main thing in common: Water.

The first reading comes from Exodus. In it, we read about Moses' struggle with the stubborn Hebrews who whined about being taken out of captivity. Go figure right?  They complain to Moses about being brought out into the desert to die of thirst.

The Hebrews actually preferred being in Egypt as slaves than in the desert.  Here we see a lack of faith. Despite all the wonders God performed, they still doubted and whined. Think about this for a minute.  They saw God send down plagues upon Egypt, one of them which transformed the waters to blood (Exodus 7:14-10:29). However, they still believe that they were taken to the desert to die of thirst.  How can they even think this after seeing how God had complete control over the molecules and atoms that make up water?

Again, the issue here is lack of faith. Humanity has not changed much since this time.  We still

whine and complain. When God doesn't answer our prayers or answers them differently, we get upset. Some of us even lose faith altogether despite witnessing God work in our lives in the past.

Moses himself becomes a bit stressed out and asks God for help fearing that the people will stone him.
God calmly tells him to go with his staff and strike a rock and water will flow from it. Gods asks Moses to do this to show that He can do anything. Usually water comes from rain, but God wanted Moses to tap on a rock for it. I see this as an innuendo of sorts. The Hebrews then and us today are "hard-headed." God must sometimes tap on our rocky heads to get water to flow, so to speak.

This first reading should remind us of faith and how delicate it is. We can be the most zealous Christians on Earth jumping around shouting alleluia like the charismatics, but it takes just one disappointment in life to bring all that down. In an instant we can lose faith in God. This is dangerous. Moreover, the first reading can be connected to our own spiritual journey during Lent and the rest of the year. We are "in the desert" trusting God. The desert is not a comfortable place.  In fact, it is so uncomfortable that even being a slave in Egypt sounds better.The desert is a common theme in the Sacred Scriptures.  It is not only a real place on Earth, but a symbol of hardship and loneliness.

The Psalm response is linked to the first reading. It comes from Psalm 95 and mentions the incident of the lack of trust the Hebrews had at Meribah and Massah. The psalm calls God the "rock of our salvation."  This is a connection to the rock Moses tapped for water. Water is the "salvation" of a thirty individual.

It is no surprise that to each refrain we respond, "If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts." This "hardening" is another connection to the rock in the desert and why I wrote a few paragraphs above that it is an innuendo. We often become "hard-headed" and harden our hearts as well.  The psalm reminds us that God is the one who made us and we should trust in Him. We must not repeat what our ancestors did where they did not trust Him and tested Him. The psalm ends in this manner.

The second reading speaks to us about faith. Again, it is all connected with the previous readings.  St. Paul reminds us that faith is what connects us with God. God gives grace to all freely, but we must respond with faith to it otherwise we will miss the grace.

This faith must then be put into practice for it to be truly valid because we must love God and have faith in Him not just because of commands, but because we choose it (James 2:14-26).  When we freely choose something instead of being forced to do something, it becomes more valuable and authentic. The reading continues speaking about hope that doesn't disappoint. No matter what hardships we face, God is still there.  Again, we must not repeat the mistakes of our ancestors in the desert who knew God was there but still doubted.

Lastly, the Gospel tells us about the Samaritan woman's encounter with Jesus. The Samaritans are a group of people who the Jews did not like. In about 700 BC, the Assyrians came to Israel and took over the north. They brought strangers to that area who would be called "Samaritans" later on. These people were Pagans but as they lived among the Jews in the land, they adopted some of their ideas and incorporated them into their own religion. Nevertheless, the Jews saw them as a pariah.

Jesus comes to a town called "Sychar." He is tired and sits down. Imagine that?  God is tired. This shows the humanity of Christ.

I digress..

As Jesus rests, a woman comes by and He asks her for a drink.  The woman is shocked because He asks her for a drink.  She does this because of the tension between the Jews and her people. Moreover, women at the time were not seen as full persons in those times due to culture. Jesus is showing He is a "feminist" per se. Moreover, Jesus then responds to her that if she knew who was asking her for water she would have been given the "living water" which is God's grace that comes from the Holy Spirit.

He continues telling her that the water He asks of her does not quench thirst but that the water He
gives will. Here He is saying that only God can satisfy us fully. Things of this world, including water, satiate. They do not satisfy us forever. The woman becomes interested and asks Jesus for this water.  Jesus then shows her that He knows her life by revealing that she had five husbands. The rest of the Gospel (if the longer version is read) continues with Jesus speaking about true religion in spirit and truth that comes from what He gives. The disciples also make an appearance and show their disapproval of the woman and Jesus communicating.

The Gospel is very long, but has deep and simple themes to reflect on.  First let us focus on faith. Here we see that it is God who comes to us, not the other way around. Jesus comes to the woman and asks for water. This is His way of saying that we have to respond back to God's grace with our faith and why He says, "I thirst" on the cross (John 19:28). He approaches us and asks for us to give Him water (our faith response).

Second, the woman belonged to a group of people that the Jews did not like.  Christ shows us that we must go to everyone with the Good News, not only our own. We must not be greedy and keep the truth for ourselves, but must share it with the "Samaritans" of the world today: non-believers, lukewarm believers, those who believe in other faith traditions, etc. We must not judge those who are not in our Catholic Church - the Mystical Body of Christ. Instead, we must approach them, be friends with them and reach out to them. We must also listen to them and learn from them just like Jesus listened to the woman.

The Gospel reminds us of "water." Water is the ultimate source of physical life.  Without water, there would be no life on this planet. Water is the engine of life. Jesus reminds us that He has the living water that gives us meaning and true life unlike the common H2o on Earth that we need to live on, physically speaking.

Ironically, in a desert that thing that is lacking the most and is the most desirable is water. When our

lives become dry, painful under the heat; the discomforts of the desert of life hit us hard, it is Christ who gives us the living water who keeps us going. In this time of Lent, we are walking in the desert with Christ. We are tempted to break our fast just like Jesus was tempted by Satan.

We naturally suffer spiritual dryness when we feel God is not there like the Hebrews who felt they were tricked into going to the desert to die. Our response is to trust in God even in bad times. We must not become hard headed and doubt God like those in Meribah and Massah. We know God is there. We have encountered Him in our lives. Our daily struggles should not push us to think God is not there in our lives. Faith is key. We must ask ourselves during Lent as we walk in the deserts of life: “Is the LORD in our midst or not?”

The answer is YES!  He is there with a nice clean cup of fresh living water to quench our thirst.





READINGS:

Third Sunday of Lent
Lectionary: 28
http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/032314.cfm

Reading 1EX 17:3-7
In those days, in their thirst for water,
the people grumbled against Moses,
saying, “Why did you ever make us leave Egypt?
Was it just to have us die here of thirst
with our children and our livestock?”
So Moses cried out to the LORD,
“What shall I do with this people?
a little more and they will stone me!”
The LORD answered Moses,
“Go over there in front of the people,
along with some of the elders of Israel,
holding in your hand, as you go,
the staff with which you struck the river.
I will be standing there in front of you on the rock in Horeb.
Strike the rock, and the water will flow from it
for the people to drink.”
This Moses did, in the presence of the elders of Israel.
The place was called Massah and Meribah,
because the Israelites quarreled there
and tested the LORD, saying,
“Is the LORD in our midst or not?”


Responsorial Psalm PS 95:1-2, 6-7, 8-9

R/ (8) If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
Come, let us sing joyfully to the LORD;
let us acclaim the Rock of our salvation.
Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving;
let us joyfully sing psalms to him.
R/ If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
Come, let us bow down in worship;
let us kneel before the LORD who made us.
For he is our God,
and we are the people he shepherds, the flock he guides.
R/ If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
Oh, that today you would hear his voice:
“Harden not your hearts as at Meribah,
as in the day of Massah in the desert,
Where your fathers tempted me;
they tested me though they had seen my works.”
R/ If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.


Reading 2 ROM 5:1-2, 5-8

Brothers and sisters:
Since we have been justified by faith,
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom we have gained access by faith
to this grace in which we stand,
and we boast in hope of the glory of God.

And hope does not disappoint,
because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts
through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
For Christ, while we were still helpless,
died at the appointed time for the ungodly.
Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person,
though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die.
But God proves his love for us
in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

Gospel JN 4:5-42
Jesus came to a town of Samaria called Sychar,
near the plot of land that Jacob had given to his son Joseph.
Jacob’s well was there.
Jesus, tired from his journey, sat down there at the well.
It was about noon.

A woman of Samaria came to draw water.
Jesus said to her,
“Give me a drink.”
His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.
The Samaritan woman said to him,
“How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?”
—For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans.—
Jesus answered and said to her,
“If you knew the gift of God
and who is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink, ‘
you would have asked him
and he would have given you living water.”
The woman said to him,
“Sir, you do not even have a bucket and the cistern is deep;
where then can you get this living water?
Are you greater than our father Jacob,
who gave us this cistern and drank from it himself
with his children and his flocks?”
Jesus answered and said to her,
“Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again;
but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst;
the water I shall give will become in him
a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
The woman said to him,
“Sir, give me this water, so that I may not be thirsty
or have to keep coming here to draw water.”

Jesus said to her,
“Go call your husband and come back.”
The woman answered and said to him,
“I do not have a husband.”
Jesus answered her,
“You are right in saying, ‘I do not have a husband.’
For you have had five husbands,
and the one you have now is not your husband.
What you have said is true.”
The woman said to him,
“Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.
Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain;
but you people say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem.”
Jesus said to her,
“Believe me, woman, the hour is coming
when you will worship the Father
neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.
You people worship what you do not understand;
we worship what we understand,
because salvation is from the Jews.
But the hour is coming, and is now here,
when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth;
and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him.
God is Spirit, and those who worship him
must worship in Spirit and truth.”
The woman said to him,
“I know that the Messiah is coming, the one called the Christ;
when he comes, he will tell us everything.”
Jesus said to her,
“I am he, the one speaking with you.”

At that moment his disciples returned,
and were amazed that he was talking with a woman,
but still no one said, “What are you looking for?”
or “Why are you talking with her?”
The woman left her water jar
and went into the town and said to the people,
“Come see a man who told me everything I have done.
Could he possibly be the Christ?”
They went out of the town and came to him.
Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.”
But he said to them,
“I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
So the disciples said to one another,
“Could someone have brought him something to eat?”
Jesus said to them,
“My food is to do the will of the one who sent me
and to finish his work.
Do you not say, ‘In four months the harvest will be here’?
I tell you, look up and see the fields ripe for the harvest.
The reaper is already receiving payment
and gathering crops for eternal life,
so that the sower and reaper can rejoice together.
For here the saying is verified that ‘One sows and another reaps.’
I sent you to reap what you have not worked for;
others have done the work,
and you are sharing the fruits of their work.”

Many of the Samaritans of that town began to believe in him
because of the word of the woman who testified,
“He told me everything I have done.”
When the Samaritans came to him,
they invited him to stay with them;
and he stayed there two days.
Many more began to believe in him because of his word,
and they said to the woman,
“We no longer believe because of your word;
for we have heard for ourselves,
and we know that this is truly the savior of the world.”

Or JN 4:5-15, 19B-26, 39A, 40-42
Jesus came to a town of Samaria called Sychar,
near the plot of land that Jacob had given to his son Joseph.
Jacob’s well was there.
Jesus, tired from his journey, sat down there at the well.
It was about noon.

A woman of Samaria came to draw water.
Jesus said to her,
“Give me a drink.”
His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.
The Samaritan woman said to him,
“How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?”
—For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans.—
Jesus answered and said to her,
“If you knew the gift of God
and who is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink, ‘
you would have asked him
and he would have given you living water.”
The woman said to him,
“Sir, you do not even have a bucket and the cistern is deep;
where then can you get this living water?
Are you greater than our father Jacob,
who gave us this cistern and drank from it himself
with his children and his flocks?”
Jesus answered and said to her,
“Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again;
but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst;
the water I shall give will become in him
a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
The woman said to him,
“Sir, give me this water, so that I may not be thirsty
or have to keep coming here to draw water.

“I can see that you are a prophet.
Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain;
but you people say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem.”
Jesus said to her,
“Believe me, woman, the hour is coming
when you will worship the Father
neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.
You people worship what you do not understand;
we worship what we understand,
because salvation is from the Jews.
But the hour is coming, and is now here,
when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth;
and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him.
God is Spirit, and those who worship him
must worship in Spirit and truth.”
The woman said to him,
“I know that the Messiah is coming, the one called the Christ;
when he comes, he will tell us everything.”
Jesus said to her,
“I am he, the one who is speaking with you.”

Many of the Samaritans of that town began to believe in him.
When the Samaritans came to him,
they invited him to stay with them;
and he stayed there two days.
Many more began to believe in him because of his word,
and they said to the woman,
“We no longer believe because of your word;
for we have heard for ourselves,
and we know that this is truly the savior of the world.”





Lectionary for Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States, second typical edition, Copyright © 2001, 1998, 1997, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine; Psalm refrain © 1968, 1981, 1997, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. All rights reserved. Neither this work nor any part of it may be reproduced, distributed, performed or displayed in any medium, including electronic or digital, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

          

"Brain Dead" and Pregnant

A news story about a pregnant woman who is brain dead has nearly taken the media by storm almost as much as Terri Schiavo.

Marlise Munoz was found by her husband Erick Munoz when she was 14 weeks pregnant unconscious on November 26. Hospital officials believed it was due to a blood clot.  Marlise became brain dead and this has brought up a big debate.  Since she was pregnant and the unborn child is still alive, the hospital left her on life support despite wishes from her husband to remove her.

Many supporters on both the pro-life and pro-abortion movements have voice their opinions on the story. The pro-life side says the unborn child is still alive and a patient and should not be killed.  Moreover, the pro-abortion side claims that this is an affront on bodily autonomy.

The issue is extremely complicated because it brings to questoin what death is exactly and what can be and should be done if a brain dead woman is pregnant. Priests For Life director, Fr. Frank Pavone made a statement on the issue:

“The lawsuit launched by Erick Munoz is nothing less than an attempt to kill his wife and #unborn child. It’s a sad mockery of the meaning of fatherhood and of love, life and law.”

This statement brought outrage from pro-abortion supporters and media personalities on Fox New and elsewhere who considered them to be harsh and out of touch with reality. Erick Munoz claims that his wife is dead and is literally decaying before his eyes.  A judge recently ordered that the life support be removed after doctors stated that the unborn child had severe defects and would not survive outside of the womb.

This story is tragic and I feel for everyone. The Catholic ethics teach that the normal essentials (food/drink) be provided in order to allow a natural death and that no one should be kept alive by extraordinary means or artifical means if there is no chance of recovery. It acknowledges that brain dead people are in fact dead.

Source:


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-hospital-end-care-brain-dead-woman-22029041

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/01/24/marlise_munoz_texas_judge_orders_brain_dead_pregnant_woman_to_be_taken_off.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/health/pregnant-brain-dead-woman-texas/

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/24/22433012-texas-judge-orders-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-off-life-support?lite

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-24/news/chi-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-life-support_1_life-support-texas-judge-brain-dead-pregnant-woman

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/texas-fetus-abnormalities-mother-brain-dead/story?id=21639616

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/08/newser-pregnant-life-support/4370971/

http://healthland.time.com/2014/01/10/why-the-dad-has-no-say-in-dismal-texas-brain-death-case/

http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/43951?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400137.htm

http://ncronline.org/news/people/ethicists-criticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ethicist-texas-end-of-life-debate-must-consider-unborn-child/

Renewal not Reform

During the period of Sede Vecante/interregnum and conclave, the media was constantly bringing up the "r" word - reform.  CNN in particular would invite the hypocritical ex-priest Alberto Cutie to comment where he would voice his diatribe against the Church and call for "reform."  The once orthodox Catholic priest who appeared on EWTN and other Catholic media is now this "change the Church" charlatan projecting his failures as a priest.  I don't understand why CNN would invite this guy to comment on Catholic things.  I applaud Fr. Edward Beck for calling Albert out on his stupidity and blanket statements.

It is not news that the "news" is slanted.  They take on a liberal/progressive tone in most of their stories, especially when dealing with politics and religion.  During the interregnum, they would bring up issues such as women priests, abortion, contraception, the role of women, etc.  They seem to think that the Church has the authority to change doctrine.  The Church does not.  The only thing the Pope and the Church can do with doctrine is expound on it.

Women priests are as possible in the Church as men giving birth is possible.  This is not because women are inferior, they are not; rather, because Christ wanted it that way just like the things of nature are ordered in a particular manner.  Abortion cannot be defined as moral anymore than slapping your mother in the face is moral.  Approving contraception would be like approving the use of a mattress outside on a sidewalk for suicidal people to use whenever they get the urge to kill themselves.  As for the role of women, well it has been my experience that a parish cannot fully function without women.  Women help priests in so many ways.  I have seen women prepare the altar, make altar cloths, clean vestments, decorate, work in parish councils, lead retreats, serve as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist and lectors, even altar girls.  Moreover, about 70% of chancery positions in dioceses are staffed by women.  Women are even teaching our seminarians!  What more can feminists ask for?  Women are extremely important in the Church.  I cannot see the Catholic Church function normally without women.  

The correct "R" word is renew, not reform.  It is no surprise that the new Pope chose Francis as his name.  He wishes to bring about a renewal like that which St. Francis of Assisi brought.  Many people do not know this, but at the time of St. Francis, there were many sects within Catholicism attempting to live the Gospel.  This was why the Church at first did not approve St. Francis' rule.  There were already small groups of mendicants who were doing their own thing similar to Francis.  St. Francis' group was different because his group was obedient to the Church.  St. Francis called for renewal, not reform.  He was not a Martin Luther.

The Catholic Church is the bride of Christ.  After so many centuries, her wedding dress got dirty from the dirt and garbage the world around her has.  St. Francis took that dress and bleached it in the Holy Spirit.  He did not alter the dress, or had it redesigned.  St. Francis with his spirituality renewed or cleaned the dress.

Once again, our Church due to its human factor has gotten dirty again.  Perhaps God was giving us a hint that the new Pope would be "Francis."  During the conclave, a seagull landed on the chimney that would release the white smoke indicating, "Habemus Papam."  This is significant because the Holy Spirit is depicted as a bird/dove, and St. Francis of Assisi preached to the birds.  

It seems that Pope Francis is already showing this renewal by opting to take the bus with the Cardinals instead of his security detailed Papal car.  This is truly a humble gesture.  I wonder how long Vatican security will allow him to do this.  He also wanted the Cardinal to enter the elevator with him.  The staff had stopped the Cardinals to allow only the Pope.  Pope Francis, said "no no no, we can all get in."

He is already demonstrating a renewal with his humility.  This is important because people leave the Church or stop believing in God, not because of dogmas, but because of the lack of behavior among Christians.  Who wants to belong to a group of misfits?  People want to be in a religion that lives what it preaches.

Moreover, if this was not enough; Pope Francis even went to the hotel he was staying in to pick up his things and pay his bill!  This is just unheard of.  He is obviously sending the message that he does not want to be treated like a special human being who is untouchable.

Our Church is in need of renewal, not reform.  No human being has the right to change what God has ordained.  The Church belongs to God, not us.  Only God can change the Church.  Let us pray for this renewal to take effect throughout the Church and for our new Pope Francis.  

Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/14/pope-francis-ushers-in-new-style-papacy-picks-up-luggage-thanks-hotel-staff/

http://www.necn.com/03/14/13/Pope-Francis-a-humble-man-took-bus-rathe/landing.html?blockID=834699&feedID=11106

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/world/europe/pope-francis.html?_r=0

"Letter from Soraya Chemaly" - my critique

I wish people would inform me quickly when they write on a particular blog post of mine or even a comment of mine.

Dominican "feminist" Patricia is at it again.

My post worked!  It was purposely worded to trigger a response from her that would draw attention (thanks psychology degree).  After a while, you know what buttons to push in order to steer people where you want.

My only intention is to bring about a discussion that will lead all those involved to the truth.

Sorry, I'm Pro-Choice! Be sure to read Letter from Soraya Chemaly, who was also harassed by @sacerdotus patriciavaloy.blogspot.ru #Latina
— SaraJoyM (@Tempibones) March 8, 2013

Anyhow, Patricia decided to comment on her blog regarding our engagement via Twitter and the blogosphere. She then sends her friend Sara to link me to the post nearly 2 months later.  I do
not understand why she could not do it herself.  I am only a male, nothing to fear right?  After all this time, I am now made aware of this post and of course am responding to it here.    

As stated above, this was my intention.  Via twitter, my tweets are specifically worded in order to trigger a response from my audience.  Patricia fell for the bait and replied to one of my
tweets.  I had no prior knowledge of this young girl until I received her mention.  In any event, now there is a dialog going on where hopefully young women will realize the nonsense that is radical feminism.  I respond to each claim and let radical feminists destroy their ideology on their own at the same time.

In her post, Patricia highlights exactly what I mentioned via my critique of her post.  Radical feminists feel the need to "compete" with males.  These ideas come from the Radical
feminism developed by White women and which unfortunately is brainwashing Black and Latina women.  This fallacious gender essentialism counters the very goal of feminists.  I will
explain this in more detail in another post which I am working on for March, the month of women.  In short, women try to be free by standing within set parameters created by another.

I will critique this post now section by section.  Her words will be in blue and mine will be in black.



<<About a week ago I chimed into a twitter conversation with @Tempibones on twitter. She was having a discussion with a homophobic "priest" (or whatever he is) and I made a comment in 
jest about "hating when people pray on my behalf." It was a joke, thought I would prefer someone ask me before praying for me. Soon after this "priest" that goes by the name of @Sacerdotus seemed extremely agitated that I was a Latina, and [gasp] a feminist. He continued sending me messages about how I was brainwashed by White women. Hilarious! I obviously am just a 
weak Latina who cannot formulate decisions for myself. He went on my blog and read every single one of my posts and commented on pretty much every one of them. He seems very invested in teaching me the history of his Church, which makes me wonder why he even cares. It's not as if I, a mere woman on twitter will dismantle the institution he holds so dear. Eventually I blocked 
him because his rants were getting really ridiculous and I really did not care...I started responding with sillyness because what else am I to do with a man hell-bent on making me 
feel like a daughter he's trying to punish? It was mostly very paternalistic and creepy. He seemed to have an obsession with the fact that I was a Latina, so I blocked him, but he continued 
to read my tweets and take screenshots of them. Eventually he wrote a dissertation, I mean, blog post about me. It was the ultimate "I'm not done being mad at you!" >>




It is funny how the term "homophobic" is tossed around without validity.  Calling someone that term solely for exercising free speech is like calling Patricia "Phallus Envy" just because she
voices concerns regarding women and equality.  I will excuse her remark on the grounds of her being a young girl just learning how to take her first steps in the real world of prose and academia.

Anyone who has issue with someone else praying for them is mentally ill.  A "good" when perceived as a "bad" is something a shrink needs to evaluate.  Person A may not like apples, but if person B offers one, this offer is not meant to be offensive.  Moreover, Patricia messaged me first and based on her semantics, obviously wanted a reply to them.  I never message anyone on Twitter unless it is to reply.  Again, I tweet and people respond.

Out of curiosity I read her posts and commented.. I mean, that's what blogs are for right???  I did not know my comments would cause apprehension and worry in a supposed intellectually secure young girl.  I merely commented on the posts and corrected the misrepresentations of Catholicism.  They were not meant to ignite a blog or twitter war.

In my original post regarding Patricia, I wrote:

'If you notice as you read the tweets, you will see an individual who is angry at the world - particularly men.  Misandry is not uncommon among radical feminists.  They seem to
think they exist solely to compete with the  male.  They measure their lives and success against the male to the point of becoming so sensitive that any mere comment that may seem masculine offends them and puts them on the defensive.  They become overly sensitive and interpret any little thing as a male condescending the "inferior female."

Patricia is exhibiting these exact words in her post!

She writes:

"...man hell-bent on making me feel like a daughter he's tryingto punish? It was mostly very paternalistic and creepy. Heseemed to have an obsession with the fact that I was a Latina..."

Do you notice her tone?  Do you notice her anger and persistence in making this a female fighting off a male thing?  Can you clearly see the defensiveness and sensitivity when critiqued by
a male?  This is unfortunate indeed.  A true feminist is secure in her womanhood.  She is so secure that she can engage a male intellectually without feeling the need to be defensive or feel
as if the male is a condescending figure.


<<Funnily enough, it was the Church he holds so dear that led me to feminism. It was seeing the machismo and sexual shaming (of women) in my culture, led by the Catholic church that drove me 
to feminism. I won't post his blog post here, the blog post with the picture of me that he never asked permission to use, because it won't make any difference. I read it and it reminded me 
exactly the reasons I left the Catholic church, and all religions for that matter. It wasn't feminism that drove me away from a paternalistic, misogynist, sexist, and racist institution...it was that institution the drove me to feminism. 
>>



The Catholic Church is the only religion that has been outspoken in the equal rights of women.  Women have always held a prominent role in the Church even in its infancy.  Here are some
documents of the Church regarding the dignity of women:

On The Dignity And Vocation of Women - Mulieris Dignitatem
The Role of The Christian Family in The Modern World - Familliaris Consortio
Mother of the Redeemer - Redemptoris Mater

I cannot comment on this "machismo and sexual shaming" Patricia speaks of because I did not grow up in a Dominican household.  I would hope that she would elaborate on this.  However, I will comment that the Catholic Church does not engage in the aforementioned.  Patricia claims that the institution drove her to feminism, but does not explain how.  More women join the Church as religious sisters than men join the priesthood.  I do not see how the Catholic Church pushes women away.  

In regards to her photo; I placed it up in order to identify the person named "Patricia."  It was not placed on my blog to shame her or ridicule here.  The photo is one she uses on Twitter and
one does not need permission to post one's photo when the photo is already made public and its existence is solely for that reason.  Legally speaking, photos posted on social sites become
the property of the site.  If the photo is an issue, I can kindly delete it.  However, her tweets which are embedded in the post will still show whatever photo she uses as an avatar.


<<Below is a letter I received from Soraya Chemaly, one of the most inspiring women I have ever met. I often chat with her because I feel that she understands where I came from and how I 
got here. I'm not sure why I knew that, we have never talked about our relationship with religion, but life has a way of putting the right people in your path, and the wrong ones to remind you of the amazing people in your life.  Thank God I'm a feminist!>>


Moreover, Patricia posts a letter she supposedly received from a "Soraya Chemaly."
https://twitter.com/schemaly
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/
http://sorayachemaly.tumblr.com/
https://www.facebook.com/soraya.chemaly

I will critique the letter by segments as well.  Chemaly's words will be in blue and mine will be in
black.

<<Dear Patricia, I too am a “naïve,” “radical” feminist. Although, at 46, no longer young. I’m also a Georgetown University grad, ex Divinity school aspirant, mother, wife, daughter and in all things “colorful.” I “go by the name” that was given to me, Soraya Chemaly.  Feminism has helped me 
understand, per your writing, “freedom.” Recently, I saw that you were involved in an exchange with a priest named Sacerdotus, who suggested kindly and with paternalistic concern that women 
like you and I, as a result of our feminism, will hurt ourselves…by crashing into things.>>


I never said that feminists will crash into things, nor that they will hurt themselves. This is an utter distortion of my points.  What I did say is that feminists such as Patricia become prisoner to the feminist rhetoric of others.  Moreover, women become prisoner to the set parameters of gender
essentialism as seen by the radical feminist movement.  Your womanhood is not free if you imitate the ideas of what womanhood is from others.


<<As a young woman, the building that I most often crashed into, apparently disoriented by “all kinds of sophism and relativism” was most always a Catholic church.  Like you I entered a 
university and was “brainwashed with ideas” – you know, classes taught by Jesuits about humanity, compassion, social justice, equality, liberty - Enlightmenty things.  It’s strange how they 
“seem to make sense and give hope,” even to women. So, it irks when the Church that professes to love us does everything within its power to make sure that we cannot achieve our hopes in these 
capacities.  When women do, it is only commensurate with the degree to which we accede to the demands of unilaterally male-defined gender roles of Church doctrine.  I'm not being flip and 
do not doubt in the least that this priest, or say, Cardinal Dolan and assorted bishops take their work with the utmost seriousness and compassion. But, their norms, ethics and deliberations are informed by their experience and millennia of misogyny.  No governing body that excludes women, but makes decisions on their behalves unilaterally has moral legitimacy.  As such, their conclusions and the consequences of those conclusions will remain fatally flawed and, literally fatally 
for women, unjust.>>


Universities, even if Catholic are not representative of the Church.  Just because a Jesuit, Franciscan, or Dominican teaches liberal ideas does not mean that these ideas stem from the
Catholic Church.  Unfortunately, there are professors in both Catholic and secular universities that pontificate to their students.  Rather than teach them the truth and engage their
students in a healthy appreciation of facts and critical thinking; they instead impose their personal views and politics on the curriculum.  Students who are not intellectually solid in
regards to critical thinking fall for this imposition.

Chemaly is obviously a victim of this indoctrination.  Notice the diatribe against the Church.  She believes that the Catholic Church "does everything within its power to make sure that we[women] cannot achieve our hopes..."  This is an absolute falsehood.  The Catholic Church does everything in her power to empower women, educate them and help them define their distinct role as given by God in society.

Radical feminism imprisions women into thinking that they are defined by the ideas of White women.  They are presented as the sum of their reproductive organs.  This is not freedom, this is a false promise to women who see a land of "milk and honey" and as they approach it, they fall into a pit of propaganda and fallacious rhetoric that defies even the sciences.  Chemaly seems to think that the Church's norms, ethics and deliberations come from men such as Cardinal Dolan and the like.  This is again another falsehood.  The Catholic Church preaches Christ.  The doctrines, ethics, moral teachings of the Church reflect the teachings of Christ and His Disciples.


<< While I do not measure my life against men’s, I do measure it against the standards that people, led almost entirely by all-male bodies, use to assess humanity and distribute rights.  In this way, I have found many men, women and institutions, wanting for the simple reason that they reject as fundamentally equally human female bodies, desires, experiences, insights and authority.  I, for example, do become  “overly sensitive” when the messages the Church sends about where I am to derive my sense of dignity are intertwined with sexually convoluted ideas about reproduction, purity, motherhood and restricted roles for women.  Ideas that find their origins in rifely sexist concepts of female baseness and moral incompetence.  I become “overly  sensitive” when men I don’t know profess to do things I don’t like or want in the name of protecting me from other men I don’t know who would hurt me or others of my gender, largely as a result of our not being male.  His post on you and your experience in life is the finest example of mansplaining, to use a rapidly being overused word, blather I have come across in a long time.>>



Ironically, you demonstrate in this paragraph your need to measure your life against a man's.  Look at your words, in particular your use of "mansplaining."  You become defensive instead of
engaging the concepts that you have issue with and attempting to understand why they are.  Naturally speaking, we all have roles in life determined by our genotype and phenotype.  There is no way around this.

Men cannot give birth, women can.  Nothing will change this biologically determined fact.  It is irrational to attempt to reduce women or even males to a "Tabula raza" state in which there exists no roles, no gender, not even identity in general.  The Church's teachings are meant to restore that which existed prior to the fall of Adam and Eve.  There is nothing convoluted in the teachings of
the Church.  Granted, they are difficult to follow some times, but this is because we have been conditioned to behave in a manner contrary to the law of God.

Calling the teachings convoluted is like calling a stop smoking program by the same idea merely because it is difficult for a nicotine addict to quit smoking.  This is where the Church liberates us in Jesus' name.  Like an addict, we slowly ween off the constructions of man which appear to be a good, but do harm.  Radical feminism instills tokophobia in women.  Pregnancy and child birth become something to be feared when biologically speaking, this is a normal function in the female gender of any animal species.

Radical feminism makes the woman the slave of man by introducing pills and other means to supposedly prevent pregnancy and STD infection, but in reality set up the woman to be the sex toy of the man.  Radical feminism instills a false sense of freedom by demanding that a woman have her unborn child killed in order to be a "true woman."  It presents woman as a prisoner to her own
natural biological make up.  The rhetoric is anti-science and irrational.      




<<But, it goes beyond that.  He explains that the Church “built the Dominican Republic,” but while he does this to highlight why you should be grateful to the Church he fails to note that it 
did this on the backs of people of color  – that includes, btw, women.  After the Church participated in the colonizing holocaust of an indigenous population.  The Church’s role in 
slavery is well documented.  “Our” “Western” “Civilization” is the basis for untold oppressions.  You should be ashamed of yourself for holding up this particular example of its success. 
Until the mid 20th century the Church accepted most kinds of slavery as simply the result of the human condition. That and a consequence of original sin. Sound familiar?  But, small things. 
He goes on to say that you should acknowledge that the Church built “Western Civilization.” There is no denying that there is a lot of good in Western ideas and ideals. But, the Church did 
this while it burnt women at the stake, deprived the vast majority of them of education, consigned them to early death through compulsory pregnancy and childbirth, relegated them to third class status by the billions.  The ideas and ideals of his admiration have long excluded, as the Church continues to, women. >>



The claim that the Church built the Dominican Republic on the backs of people of color is a silly one.  The people ARE the Church!  The other claims that the Church committed a holocaust of indigenous people is unfounded. Yes, the Church did play a role in slavery; namely fighting against it.  You are being intellectually dishonest by distorting history in order to fit your prejudice against the Catholic Church.  Without the Catholic Church, Western civilization would not exist as it does today.  The Church has never endorsed slavery or illiteracy among women.  Chemaly provides many claims without substance.  The Church has always promoted the education woman. St. Jerome stated:

"Parents should educate their daughters as well as their sons."  

Early death resulted not from pregnancy, but the lack of medical training at the time.  Chemaly falls into presentism by attempting to judge the past with the present.  




<<As for “radical feminism” not contributing anything to the Dominican Republic he himself proves this to be false: it has contributed you and I think you’re terrific! While he lauds your mother’s ability to struggle, and positively notes her not identifying as a feminist, he does absolutely nothing to reflect on how her life might have been less of a struggle if her access to work, money, food, control, or authority had not been necessarily mediated in every single meaningful dimension by men - economics, politics and, yes, faith. Good fathers in his terms.  It might interest him to know, by the way, that while you and I have both come to feminism,  my father is alive, well, married to my mother, loves and is proud of me. Oh, and he’s Catholic.  Some fathers are alive and maybe better fathers than others.  But, no father knows best just by virtue of being a man, which is the foundational premise of his argument and of the Church’s entire hierarchy. >>




I invite you to name the accomplishments of radical feminism in the Dominican Republic.  Please name feminists who built schools, built hospitals, cared for the poor.  I dare you to show us the evidence.  In reality, it was and is the Catholic Church who has and is ministering to the Dominican people even today.  Furthermore, I do not understand where Chemaly gets the idea that I did not reflect on Valoy's mom's situation.  I clearly wrote:

"Dominican women like other Latina women face many hardships.  They deal with poverty, men who leave them either for other women or when children are born; there are children to care for, etc."  

I never stated that fathers know best just by virtue of being male, Chemaly is falling into a straw man argument.  



<<Women like you and I, both women of color, educated in the “West” of multi-ethnic heritage and, by happenstance, in possession of functioning brains, are not living in “ideological prisons created by white women.” We are living with actual constraints created by arrogant and entitled and condescending men like Sacerdotus.  That is the “shadow” we are living with.   I’m glad he thinks feminism, with his approved limits, is a good thing.  But, his commentary on feminism and its historical evolution demonstrates the degree to which he fails to understand two basic facts: 1) feminism is a planetary struggle to end sexism and the exploitation of women and, unfortunately, 
for all of the real good that the Church does, it is a sexist institution that exploits and bodily endangers women in vastly unequal measure to men and 2) men and women who are engaged as 
feminists understand that the divisions we encounter within the feminist movement only make us stronger.  His portrayal of feminism as simple a rich, white woman’s pet project is shallow 
at best and disingenuous at worst.  As a weary, age old, divide and conquer strategy, it fails. >>


Chemaly, you need to be honest with yourself and stop living in denial.  Every moment you adopt radical feminism as your own, you're adopting the "ideological prison" that was created by and for White women.  There is no getting around this fact.  If you want to take my attempt to educate you and Valoy as arrogant and condescending, so be it; however, what I state is verifiable and is a heavily debated issue among feminists of color.  I guess your instructors failed to teach you this.  Having studied women's history and feminism in college, I am very much aware of the reality of feminism and what it entails.  The ideas I presented in my post are not something new.  They have been in discussion for decades now.  I can see why your instructors would keep this from you.  Had you learned this, perhaps you would have questioned the radical feminist movement just as I have while I studied it.




<<As for your “obsession” with his “masculinity and genitalia.”  Sorry to say, but no, I’m not obsessed and, tweets aside, neither I suspect, are you.   The Church, however, is and this is the frame for a lot of the debate about women and the Church. I do not hate him or other men, I just abhor systems that entitle him to power so arbitrarily.  Systems that allow him to think it is his god-given right and job for you tell women what to do – because, in the end, they have a penises and one less x chromosome.  Every child comes to understand this exceedingly simple truth.  As we grow up it is layered, one sexist blanket after another sexist blanket of, as he says, “all kinds of 
sophism and relativism.” But, it’s really not more complicated than that.  Women can and do think for themselves and are perfectly capable of participating fully, if they chose, in ministerial leadership. >>



Well it seems to all of us who read my timeline that there is indeed an obsession with my masculinity and genitalia.  I provided the tweets as evidence.  Why mention them?

The rest of your paragraph once again proves my original post.  You are demonstrating to us all the competition against men.  This woman against man is not healthy feminism.  I and other males can voice our views without women having to feel that those views are oppressive or meant to oppress.  Why present women as weaklings?   Every word that comes out of a man's mouth does not victimize women.  You need to get over the gender complex.



<<Does all of this make me angry?  Yes.  If it didn’t I’d worry that I’d died and didn’t know it.  The question is, why doesn't it make him angry.   
>>

Why does it make you angry?  This is something you need to reflect on.  Why not be happy that you are a female?  Why create a fantasy world where women are caged while men are free?  Men and women are equal but not identical.  This is something radical feminists need to realize.  These differences do not show weakness, but rather, uniqueness.  I am not angry at all. I just take different opportunities to educate.



<<By the way, cute photo! Which I’m assuming, despite all of his web pages disclaimers about getting his permission to use or cite text, he didn't ask if it was ok to use. >> 


Once you post photos on a social site, you pretty much lose claim to them.  They are up for grabs for whatever reason.  Unfortunately, many people do not read terms of services as they sign up for a particular social networking site.  The photo I used originates from Valoy's twitter avatar.  I did not post it for any other reason than to put a face on the twitter personality that mentioned me.

I am assuming that both Valoy and Chemaly are engaging me in order to garner attention to their social network presence.  However, I would prefer that more facts are presented in place of ad hominem, straw man, and arguments from ignorance.