Catholic Answer Series: What is a miracle? What is the purpose of miracles?

Traditionally understood, a miracle is a supernatural sign or wonder, brought about by God, signifying His glory and the salvation of mankind. As a sign, a miracle is perceived by the senses and makes present the supernatural order, God's governance of nature, and His loving plan of salvation. Miracles are a call to faith. The word "miracle" is used broadly in common speech to signify the wondrous, the improbable, or the newly discovered. When speaking of miracles, people often refer to natural events such as the sunrise, seasons, birth, and coincidence. People perform "miracles" in circus acts and magic shows. People refer to the miracle of modern medicine, science, or technology. People sell miracles: nutritional supplements, fitness machines, hearing aids, and sundry "miracle drugs." Many of these items are in some way wondrous. Some even point to God and His plan of salvation. To apply the term "miracle" to any of these, however, is to omit the most distinctive feature of a miracle: God's direct intervention in the world.

Nature and Supernature. Nature is the created universe, both corporeal (man, animals, plants, earth) and incorporeal (spirits). Throughout the ages, man has observed the normal movements of corporeal nature such as thought, time, cycles, and bodily motion. From these observations man has learned about the causes of natural events and has derived laws describing what should always happen. Sometimes, however, man observes an event that cannot be explained by science because the normal powers of nature have been exceeded. The occurrence cannot be attributed to natural causes nor can the laws of nature explain the outcome. Miracles occur in nature but are also truly supernatural because the normal powers of nature have been surpassed.

- Sometimes miracles surpass natural processes. Miraculous cures, for example, are affected in harmony with the body's potential for health. While the powers of nature could not have brought about such a restoration, divine power influenced the natural forces beyond normal capacity. This is also what happened in the case of Jesus' first miracle. Water naturally and with man's agency can become wine — from moisture in the clouds absorbed by grapes, pressed and fermented — but God's power bypassed that process at Cana.
- Sometimes miracles exceed nature's normal capacity. The plagues that befell Pharaoh and Egypt have been explained according to this supercharging of the natural with the supernatural. A number of scholars look at the plagues as natural phenomena, albeit with intensified or new effects, brought about by supernatural means.1 Simple pestilence, drought, famine, and general hardship were not unknown to the Egyptians (Genesis 41). The miracle of the plagues was that God exercised control over nature and the very creatures that the pagan Egyptians worshipped. At the movement of the rod (known to the Egyptians as an instrument of magicians) of Moses, God caused these phenomena to occur, demonstrating His authority. Thus, the purpose of the plagues was not to bring on horrifying, grotesque, heretofore unthinkable afflictions, but to convince Pharaoh of God's authority.
- Sometimes miracles counter nature. At Fatima, following the miracle of the sun, the crowd and ground that were soaked by the rain were dried instantaneously. In Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego survived the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:15-23). In both cases God countered the effects of nature much like a protective shelter might protect its inhabitants.

As supernatural wonders, miracles can be authenticated only by those who have a grasp of nature and her normal workings. Scientists can verify that a wondrous event has "no known natural cause." Scientists can also see that miracles do not annul or abolish the laws of nature, but instead go beyond them. Most people have a better grasp of gravity than of aerodynamics. They can see better how a passenger jet might fall from the sky than how it can fly. A physicist knows that the flight of a passenger jet does not abolish or annul the laws of gravity. The power of aerodynamics can surpass, as it were, the power of gravity. In a similar way, the power of the Lord surpasses the powers of nature. Mankind survives in this world by countering or controlling the tendencies of nature. Water reservoirs counter the natural movement of streams. Agriculture brings a quantity of food that far surpasses what the earth would otherwise yield. Shelter counters wind, precipitation, and temperature. A caesarian section can save two lives where nature may have taken two lives. In these efforts we do not say that mankind is annulling or abolishing the laws of nature. Miracles are different in that they draw upon God's omnipotence, but they are similar in that they do not annul or abolish the laws of nature.

Seeing Is Believing. The word "miracle" comes from the Latin word for wonder and, literally means "a sight to behold." Miracles require divine intervention. The merely remarkable, improbable, or in today's parlance "awesome" is not enough to qualify. A true miracle by definition is a supernatural phenomenon. Most miracles are evident to the senses. As signs of God's presence, they must in some sense be perceptible. In Isaiah 7:14, we hear that God promises a sign to indicate the birth of the Messiah: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel." The explicit fulfillment of this prophecy is the miracle of the virgin birth (Matthew 1:18-25), a singularly clear indication that the "fullness of time" (Galatians 4:4) was upon us.

Theologians have identified three categories of divine interactions under the general heading of miracle: (1) physical (the traditional notion), (2) moral, and (3) intellectual. Moral and intellectual miracles are no less wondrous, but they do not occur in a physical way. The fact that they are miracles only becomes known after people perceive that what has been accomplished is beyond human capability. Moral miracles occur in the areas of virtue and right conduct, and enable people to overcome obstacles that would otherwise stunt their moral or spiritual growth.

The Church is an example of a moral miracle. A religious society, convention, or congregation of like-minded people is a natural, human occurrence. However, the Bride of Christ, the Church, has persevered as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in a way that goes well beyond human experience and understanding. The ongoing conduct of the Church according to these four principles indicates to the observer that only God could have brought about this success — by His intervention. An intellectual miracle takes place when the mind has received from God knowledge or foreknowledge. Prophecy is an example of an intellectual miracle, the words being given to the prophet's intellect prior to being heard by the intended audience.

Christ Is the Center. Miracles are learning experiences for us. They point to something that God wants us to know or believe about Himself and His loving plan of salvation. Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, is Himself God's revelation. The most fundamental miracle is the Incarnation. It is the fundamental example of God's love for us and His glory (John. 1:14, 3:16). Further, as the Holy Father teaches, all of salvation is rooted in the Incarnation, and so it is with miracles: "This reality-mystery embraces and surpasses all the miraculous happenings connected with Christ's messianic mission. It may be said that the Incarnation is the "miracle of miracles," the radical and permanent "miracle" of the new order of creation. God's entrance into the dimension of creation is effected in the reality of the Incarnation in a unique way. To the eyes of faith it becomes a sign incomparably superior to all the other miraculous signs of the divine presence and action in the world..."

Signs of Faith. While the Incarnation is the root miracle of salvation, the Resurrection is the definitive and ultimate sign. "The empty tomb and the linen cloths lying there signify in themselves that by God's power Christ's body had escaped the bonds of death and corruption" (CCC 657). The Resurrection is "the definitive proof" of Christ's divine authority (CCC 651). However, as with all signs, some people are able to understand and some are not. Christ used the three years of His public ministry to teach people of His kingship and prepare them for the Resurrection. He used miracles to teach and to touch people with the gift of faith. Through His miracles Jesus called people to faith, bringing before their eyes a meeting of nature and supernature. St. Augustine wrote, "The miracles worked by our Lord Jesus Christ are divine works which raise the human mind above visible things to understand what is divine."

Miracles will always have as their primary purpose the glorification of God and the calling of people to salvation. The signs worked by Jesus attest to His divine authority and invite belief in Him (CCC 548). After His Ascension and Pentecost, Christ's disciples worked miracles in the name of Christ, thus giving the people signs of His divinity and proofs that He is who they said He is. In the same way later saints worked miracles to testify to a higher authority and that people are called to His kingdom. Miracles can also have secondary purposes. They can attest to the divine authority of a mission. The miracles Moses performed not only showed that God wanted Pharaoh to release His people; they also showed that Moses was from God. Further, these miracles, indelibly inscribed in the memory of the Jews, prepared them to understand the signs given to show them that Jesus was sent by the Father. The miracle of the sun at Fatima was a sign to the people that the messages given through the children were of divine origin.

Miracles submitted in the process of canonization are an excellent example of primary and secondary ends of miracles. A miracle of healing associated with the intercession of one of God's servants gives glory to God and manifests His saving mercy. These are primary ends. The beneficiary is given a temporal grace (secondary to eternal salvation) of better health. The miracle testifies to the sanctity of the intercessor and provides a clear sign of God's intercession. Miracles are supernatural signs that occur in the natural world. God's miracles teach us about what is beyond creation. Some people invoke science in opposition to miracles. Yet, science allows us to know what is natural so that we can also know what is supernatural. While miracles communicate a specific message, they are essentially a sign of God's glory and His loving plan of salvation.

My Phone is Having an Out-of-Body Experience

My phone on my desk is blinking some sort of strange alien Morse code at me. It has been doing that since I sat down this morning…approximately 45 minutes ago. Incidentally, I can’t use the phone (inbound or outbound) because it thinks it is the Electric Light Orchestra (ELO for short). There have been brief relapses where it seemed to regain its composure and actually showed the time and date on its little screen. Since I have graduated college I have been working with phones similar, if not identical, to the one sitting on the desk next to me and I have never seen one have a nervous breakdown like this one seems to be having. Oh wait…its seizures have stopped, but the time is incorrect. Perhaps it thinks it was in a time warp or something of that nature while it sat there blinking all over the place. Hmm, I now find myself slightly obsessed with whether it will relapse back into its terrible blinking fits or whether it has made a full recovery (well, almost full, the time is still wrong).

…

I apologize. I just took some time out to text message someone who is about to start their end of term exams and may or may not have needed a little cheering up. In that time, the phone on my desk flipped out for a brief while and then just returned to the state it was in before. Maybe it took a subconscious journey or had an out of body experience that took it to Colorado. And on this magnificent journey to Colorado it changed its clock to adjust to Mountain Time. Upon returning from this mind trip (can you say mind or do you have to say something else like circuit or processor) it forgot it was just a dream and left the time as it would be in another state.

Speaking of mind trips and out of body experiences…ok, maybe not, but it was a good segue. Last night we finally celebrated my birthday as a family by going out to eat together. I am increasingly reminded by my friend Fernando and my brother that I need to find someone (i.e. a close friend of the opposite sex, a significant other, a lady friend, etc.). Nothing makes that more apparent than when we do family dinners and there are an odd number of people. To me, sometimes, five is the loneliest number. Not that I feel alone with my family or that I feel like a fifth wheel…far from it. But it does remind me that I don’t have someone. Not to mention the fact that it is my 25th birthday, after all, and the last relationship I was in put me on a timeline to be married this summer. I now find that I don’t have anyone and I don’t really have prospects and I am getting older, more tired, and sadly bigger (fatter) every day. Of course I can change the fat thing, which is on my list of things to do, and I can change the tired thing, which I have already begun working on, but I can’t change the getting older thing.

Don’t get me wrong…25 is still very young and I have a lot of life left to live (at least I hope so), but I am not getting anything accomplished in my current position. I know I have said this before and complaining about it isn’t going to change anything, so I won’t. It’s just hard to find an “ideal” woman with what society gives people to work with. Bars and clubs are a joke. Built more to foster the one night stand than the long term relationship, modern bars are just the epitome of the base culture we live in. I am not saying that I won’t go to bars/clubs because I have and will and do enjoy going from time to time. But for a guy in his mid twenties it can be dangerous due to the abundant amount of money chasing skanks and of course the “cougar” phenomenon. Call me old fashioned…but what ever happened to the ice cream social or the block party? What happened to meeting that special someone at church or in the grocery store?

I feel like the woman of my dreams may be just like me…sitting at home enjoying her own company or the company of close friends, not going out because it is expensive and often uncomfortable.

Catholic Answer Series: A Debate Over Christ's Meaning of Righteousness

In Matthew 5:20 Christ instructs his followers, "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is an important, though often misunderstood verse when employed in Protestant-Catholic discussions of justification.

Some Catholics cite the passage, but leave the impression that the Catholic Church teaches we must attain righteousness by our own efforts: God gives us a certain amount of grace to make of it, by our own power, what we will. To Protestants, this sounds (understandably) like semi-Pelagianism [the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid].

Most Protestants misunderstand the passage, in my opinion, because they try to rob it of its moral force. Jesus, they claim, is revealing the futility of trying to achieve righteousness through good deeds. They say he's really contrasting the false righteousness of good works with the true, merely imputed, declaratory righteousness that comes through faith alone.

Both interpretations of the passage miss something. The pseudo-Catholic view is wrong because the Catholic Church rejects semi- Pelagianism…the belief God does half and we do half…as forcefully as any Protestant church.

The great Thomist Garrigou-Lagrange (quoted in Louis Bouyer's The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, p. 53) summarized the Catholic position when he observed that "in the work of salvation all is from God, including our own co-operation, in the sense that we cannot distinguish a part as exclusively ours, which does not come from the author of all good." From the Catholic point of view, God initiates our salvation by his grace, but he doesn't stop there. Our works of obedience which follow the start of God's salvific action in us are also the work of grace. This is what Paul means in Philippians 2:12-13 when he says we're to work out our salvation and yet reminds us that "it is God who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work." Or as Augustine put it, when God rewards our merits or works, he crowns his own gifts to us.

The common Fundamentalist use of Matthew 5:20 also misses the mark. Jesus isn't contrasting imputed righteousness with the righteousness of good works. He's contrasting the external righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees with the interior righteousness that proceeds from the heart and which is to characterize his followers. Jesus is telling his disciples how to be righteous…not how to look righteous. This is illustrated in Matthew 5 in Christ's teaching about anger and murder (Matt. 5:21-26), lust and adultery (Matt. 5:27-32), oaths and truth telling (Matt. 5:33-37), retaliation (Matt. 5:38-42), and the love of enemies (Matt. 5:43-48). In each of these areas, the concern is for internal righteousness and sanctity surpassing external performance.

The same principle applies to Christ's treatment of the three characteristic forms of Jewish piety in Matthew 6:1-18: almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. Jesus doesn't deny these are righteous deeds or good works. His concern is that such acts be done authentically--that is, because of the love of God, not merely "that people may see them" (Matt. 6:1). Although Christ is interested in heartfelt obedience rather than mere external performance, nowhere does he say external performance is unimportant or that genuine works of obedience shouldn't be considered righteous deeds before God.

In fact, his warning to "take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see" suggests just the opposite, as do his admonition in Matthew 6:33 to "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness" and his teaching that we must do the will of the Father to enter the kingdom (Matt. 7:21).

How, then, does Jesus teach his followers to surpass the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees? By obeying God from the heart, not simply with the lips. This is not some sort of imputed, extrinsic, "looking-at-the-believer-through-Jesus-colored-glasses" righteousness. No, it's the result of a grace-created interior transformation in which believers can grow through authentic obedience (1 John 3:7) as true children of God (Matt. 5:45).

Catholic Answer Series: The Real Presence: An Apologetic Defense

Non-Catholic attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church, mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.

Again and Again
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52). His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).

No Corrections
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63). But he knew some did not believe. "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66). This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he corrected himself. But he did not correct himself in light of the actions of these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

Non-Catholic’s Main Argument
For Anti-Catholic writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense? Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, and then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else in the world. In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true. And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Anti-Catholic position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

Paul Confirms This
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Corinthians 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ. Think about it…

What Did the First Christians Say?
Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians. Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1). Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20). Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3). Why would such care and worry be needed if we are just partaking in mere bread and wine?

Unanimous Testimony
Whatever else might be said, written testaments confirm that the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted. For most Anti-Catholics, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality, grace, being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Anti-Catholics, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided. In my opinion, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Anti-Catholics would have advised him to adopt a different approach. But, I believe, God approves of matter…he approves of it because he created it…and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.

The Liberal Media Machine Claims Another Victim

As I was driving back from the camp that will be our retreat site for our Confirmation retreat this morning with Steve, I kept searching and searching my mind for something to write about today. Of course, I could just write about what I did with my weekend and point out the fact that I feel like I have nothing going on in my life, but I have written two or three pages to the contrary. Or I could write about the Rangers winning their past two games or the Mavericks losing their first playoff game or the Stars forcing a game seven, but I really don’t like writing about sports all the time. I have written so much about the Rangers lately that I probably should be getting a check from their publicity department. I have finished the outline for my bible study with the junior high kids tonight and double checked both email accounts. Still couldn’t think of anything to write about when…oh look, another story about the Virginia Tech shootings. But this one was different. Don’t get me wrong, it was a horrible tragedy and the victims, students, and families are all in my prayers, but are we being too sensationalist about this. I wrote a while back about the Don Imus’ assumed racial comments and chimed in on the sensationalism about that. Then the Va. Tech thing happens and the focus moves from that to this. Why such hoopla? These are real people with real lives and real problems who deserve to be respected and not flaunted or haunted by media coverage. Geez, when will we stop making such a big deal out of these things? When will we be able to face it, accept it, embrace it, and move on?

The article I just came across was only indirectly related to the Va. Tech shootings, but the reaction was close to the same. An adjunct professor at Emmanuel College in Boston was fired for having a discussion about topics that parallel the Va. Tech shootings. Nicholas Winset taught financial accounting at the college where the administration had asked the faculty to engage students on the issue. What exactly did he do or say that warranted his firing? The five-minute demonstration on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood." During the demonstration, Winset pointed a marker at some students and said "pow," pretending to shoot them. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that the gunman might have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed. Oh no…they were pointing markers at each other! What’s next? Pillow fights? Give me a break, people, this is college and involving demonstrations such as this into lecturing is the only way to keep students from dozing off. Young people are becoming more and more desensitized as the years go by, so in order to get their attention and hold it for any given about of time you have to be edgy and controversial. Often times when the high school youth leaders won’t pay attention to me during a meeting I will throw something or break something to get their attention, and then they are fixated.

Plus, classrooms are meant to be places where you expand your mind and your horizons. The classroom is where you leave naivety at the door and come to learn about the truth in the world. All Winset was trying to do is illustrate a true situation and alternatives to the outcome that was achieved by the gunmen at Va. Tech. But on Friday, he got a letter saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus. Winset argued that the liberal arts school was stifling free discussion by firing him, and he said the move would have a "chilling effect" on open debate. He posted an 18-minute video on the online site YouTube defending his action. I’ve watched the video and this is obviously an intelligent man who was trying to get his students to think outside the norm and fully understand the topics he was presenting. This is not a malicious, violent, or irreverent man getting his jollies off by spoofing the original shooting. He is not unlike any other idealistic college professor I have ever met, full of zeal for what he believes.

What I find fascinating about this whole thing is that during this demonstration Winset had discussed the “celebration of victimhood” that has been prevalent during the past week where the media has looked for anyone and everyone at Va. Tech to make a statement about what happened. Some of them who weren’t even on campus at the time were paraded in front of glinting camera lenses to give a statement. Everyone is a victim and the people just eat that up. And if you aren’t broken up enough about what happened, you are a cold heartless asshole (i.e. see Simon Cowl incident on American Idol). Even I had to write at the beginning of the blog who sad I was just so no one would misunderstand my following rant as irreverence for the dead. The irony is that Winset was introducing this idea to students and it was ultimately the reason he was fired.

I am going to leave this blog with a shocking statement for everyone to think about. What do the victims really want? The girls on the Rutgers' basketball team were offended by Don Imus’ comments, but once they met him and he apologized to them they said they liked him. But the media (and media hogs like Al Sharpton) forced the issue before the real victims had anything to say and fired Don Imus. He lost his livelihood over this sensationalism. The real victims of the Va. Tech shootings are dead or have buried someone important to them in the past week. These people don’t want the cameras around anymore; they want to be able to deal with their loss on their own. Lives were lost and the pain is only compounded by this sensationalism. If there was a victim of Nicholas Winset’s classroom demonstration, it was the students in the classroom. What did one of those students have to say? Student Junny Lee, 19, told The Boston Globe that most students didn't appear to find Winset's demonstration offensive. He lost his livelihood as a result of media sensationalism.

2-4 in 6 Games on the Road...What the Hell, Man?!?!

You know you really care about someone when you do something for them and just them saying thank you is all the reward you need.

I realized this last night when a little something I did to brighten someone’s day came to completion. I’ve never felt so satisfied by something so simple. It was the type of reward that you dream of really. When you hear people say that their job is really rewarding, you imagine that they have this type of feeling every day. And sitting at home, watching TV and having a beer, I got this great voicemail from someone miles away and it just warmed my heart a little. Or maybe it was the alcohol kicking in. Soulful satisfaction like that should last forever…but, alas, it does not.

I wanted to talk today about something of great importance to me. To talk about something that has been weighing heavily on my mind for several days now. To discuss something which threatens to throw my life into oblivion. But, there really isn’t anything like that going on in my live. So let’s talk about…The Rangers. For you readers outside the Metroplex (DFW, Dallas/Ft. Worth), those are The Texas Rangers of baseball. Having dropped two on the road to those pail-hosers from the windy city, the Chicago White Sox, the Rangers are threatening to get on my bad side. Last night’s loss was a little irritating for me to say the least. Sammy Sosa hit his 592nd career home run in the second inning, but the Rangers still lost for the fifth time in their last seven games. They finished 2-4 on the current road trip, and they are heading into a five-game homestand. Rangers starter Vicente Padilla, who gave up a three-run home run to A.J. Pierzynski in the fourth, is still looking for his first victory. He went 6 1/3 innings and only allowed four hits, but he tied a career high with six walks. Rangers pitchers walked 10 on the night, including Jim Thome five times. Thome and Paul Konerko both walked to start the fourth, and that set up Pierzynski's three-run home run. That gave the White Sox a 3-1 lead, but Michael Young, snapping an 0-for-18 skid, drove in a run with a double in the sixth. Texas then tied it in the seventh as Sosa doubled, went to third on Hank Blalock's blooper that fell into left field and scored on Kinsler's sacrifice fly. Feldman then kept it that way in the bottom of the seventh when he came in and struck out Konerko with the bases loaded for the third out. Instead, Feldman fell behind with two quick balls to Dye. Then he came in with a fastball, and Dye lined it into the right-center-field gap for a leadoff double. Pierzynski lined out to center, but Crede smacked a 1-2 pitch up the middle for a hit that scored Dye with the go-ahead run. That brought up Rob Mackowiak, a left-handed hitter, and Washington had left-handed reliever C.J. Wilson ready in the bullpen. But he stayed with Feldman, and Mackowiak hit a 1-2 pitch into the seats in right to break the game open. Rangers manager Ron Washington blamed one person for this one. Himself. Washington was the one second-guessing the manager for the way he used his bullpen. Scott Feldman may have been the losing pitcher, but Washington made it clear that he could have done a better job managing his bullpen in that eighth inning. Leaving Feldman in to face Mackowiak was what bothered Washington the most when it was all over. The Rangers only made him feel worse when they scratched out a run against White Sox closer Bobby Jenks in the ninth. It just bothers me that we actually woke the bats up last night to get some hits and it was all for not because the pitching took a huge nosedive.

Is this what we have to look forward to in the next 150 games or can the Rangers actually knock off the dust and make something happen? I know I speak for a lot of Rangers fans out there who aren’t ready to hang up there jerseys in mothballs just yet, but are skeptical of what the Rangers will do. They are a team in flux, so to speak. New management was supposed to bring new life to this team, but now it just seems like they are up to their old tricks again. I’ve got some advice for them, games are not won on good offense or good defense alone. It takes the perfect mix of offense and defense to win in baseball (and maybe some luck). Let’s see what this five game homestand will do to these boys.

Catholic Answer Series: Transubstantiation – The Doctrine by Which the Real Presence is Experienced

The American Heritage Dictionary defines transubstantiation as the conversion of one substance into another.

Last week we discussed idea of The Real Presence and how the Catholic Church sees the reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Besides the Real Presence which faith accepts and delights in, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation, from which we may at least get a glimpse of what happens when the priest consecrates bread and wine, so that they become Christ's body and Christ's blood. At this stage, we must be content with only the simplest statement of the meaning of, and distinction between substance and accidents, without which we should make nothing at all of transubstantiation. We shall concentrate upon bread, reminding ourselves once again that what is said applies in principle to wine as well.

We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes…the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate. In other words, whatever the senses perceive, even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses, is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.

The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance. The accidents remain in their totality…for example, that which was wine and is now Christ's blood still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine. One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. If our scientist had announced that he had found a change, that would be really startling and upsetting. The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ's body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God's will to maintain them.

In short and put simply, the presence of Christ in the bread and wine achieved through consecration does not change what we perceive as the characteristics of bread and wine. Consecration changes what we cannot see, but what we know in heart and soul, the substance of the bread and wine that cannot be revealed by mere sense alone. Faith, which is the sense of the soul, reveals the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And what of Christ's body, now sacramentally present? All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though not (so St. Thomas among others tells us) extended in space. One further element in the doctrine of the Real Presence needs to be stated: Christ's body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ's own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body. This very sketchy outline of the doctrine of transubstantiation is almost pathetic. But like so much in faith, what is here is only a beginning; you have the rest of life before you.

It's Race Time in Texas...and You Might Want Some Sunscreen

First and foremost, I would like to apologize for some off color comments I made in Friday's post. I realize that the word "queer" is offensive and the preferred nomenclature is "homosexual." These remarks were made toward one of the drivers in NASCAR's Nextel Cup. Many people may think that I was just throwing these words around because I don't like this driver, hence making them unfounded accusations. But, I tend to disagree and if you found what I said on Friday offensive, you better skip the next few sentences. Jeff Gordon sucks dick. There are only two types of people in the world who do that: women and queers. Though I am not sure whether or not Gordon is a woman, I am most definitely sure that he is a peter-puffing queer. Hence, since we don't let queers win NASCAR races in Texas, the "Rainbow Warrior" (Rainbow Splashed Queer) didn't win yesterday's Samsung 500 Nextel Cup race.

Now for a race recap: Jeff Burton became the first repeat winner in 13 Texas Motor Speedway races when he passed Matt Kenseth on the last lap for the win. Burton put his Chevrolet Monte Carlo alongside Kenseth's Ford heading to the white flag and made the winning pass in the second turn. It was Burton's 19th career Cup victory as he defeated Kenseth by 0.041 seconds. He scored his first career Cup victory here in 1997. Burton commended Kenseth for being a great driver, but felt that luck came on his side when there was a long run to the finish. Coming off a two-race layoff, Mark Martin finished third in a Chevrolet. Jeff Gordon (queer), who dominated the race leading four times for 173 laps (luck over skill), saw his chance at his first Texas victory ruined when he brushed the wall on lap 311 (queers like brushing up against hard objects). He was able to finish fourth (if you ain't first, you're last). Jamie McMurray was fifth in a Ford to give Roush Fenway Racing two cars in the top five. Kenseth appeared on his way to a weekend sweep after Saturday's Busch race winner passed Gordon for the lead with 13 laps to go. But he couldn't hold off Burton, whose car only got better on the long runs. Kenseth was disappointed in the loss considering he felt he had a great setup going into the final laps, but was happy for his friend's win. Dale Earnhardt Jr. had another dominant car, leading three times for 96 laps before he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It started on lap 239 when Juan Pablo Montoya (asshole) ran into Tony Stewart's car as the two drivers were racing side-by-side. Jimmie Johnson also was involved in that crash and was knocked out of the race while Stewart and Montoya remained. But Stewart spun out again in the fourth turn on lap 252 while racing for a position he didn't have (he was 3 laps back and was jockeying for a position in front of someone on the lead lap) and Earnhardt slowed down. But Kyle Busch (dickhead) did not let off the accelerator and plowed into the back of Earnhardt's car. Dale Jr. trying to remain in the race, but the damage to his car was just too much. Ironically, after Busch's team repaired the Chevrolet, they couldn't find their driver and asked Earnhardt to finish the race in the No. 5 car with 10 laps to go. Earnhardt was credited with a 36th-place finish in his car and finished the race 37th in Busch's ride, thus proving that Dale Jr. is a master of the racing world. Despite the wrecks that involved the high-profile drivers, there were only seven cautions for 33 laps. That helped Burton, whose car wasn't at its best at the beginning of a green-flag run, but hit its rhythm over the long haul. And in the end, with stars such as Earnhardt, Gordon and Johnson victims of crashes and brushes to the wall, it allowed two former teammates at Roush to battle for the victory on the last lap. I'm proud of Burton for finishing the race clean when he had several chancing to take out Kenseth for the win. Burton knew he couldn't win the race with flat-out speed and is completely opposed to dirty racing, so he took a cerebral approach that ended in victory. Burton, who collected $526,766, told reporters that the money is cool after the fact but there is nothing cooler than having the trophy. "That's what wakes you up in the morning." What about my buddy, Clint Bowyer? He had a great starting position and had a good run up until the second caution when he went in to pit. After that pit stop he dropped about 15 positions and hung around 25th place for the majority of the race. With race leaders wrecking out all over the place, Clint had the opportunity to pick up a few positions. After the last two restarts, he used smart racing to move himself up to 16th place, where he finished the race. The points he picked up for finishing the race kept him in the top twelve in Nextel Point Standings, which is what is most important due to NASCAR's Race for the Cup style playoff strategy.

As for the experience…my arms and face are burnt red. We had a great time. I can't really explain it. It is just amazing. You really just have to experience it yourself to understand. We left from my brother's house around nine in the morning in order to beat the traffic, but there really wasn't that much traffic. We got parked in our Express parking and just hung around the truck for a while watching the cute girls at the Jack Daniel's tent mix drinks. Then we made our way to our seats. Our seats were on the opposite side of the track from our parking which meant we had a little bit of a trek, but we went around the front of the speedway where the midway was. We got to walk through all the fun stuff going on and all the trailers with merchandise. It's really funny because when you walk up on the Dale Jr. (yay!) and Jeff Gordon (douchebag) trailers there is just a huge crowd lined up to buy their stuff. I say that's funny because when you walk past someone like Denny Hamlin's trailer, there is no one there. We stopped by one of the raceway merchandise trailers to buy some earplugs (just in case) and then made our way into the speedway. Our seats were 15 rows up coming out of turn four. We could see practically the whole track and the pit entrance. We had brought our own coolers and were there about an hour and a half before start time so we just relaxed and ate our sandwiches. It was just awesome. I really don't know how to explain it. You can watch it on TV every weekend and it doesn't give you the same feeling as being there. There is a whole etiquette to being there too. Whenever they are about to start, whether it be the first green flag or the fifth green flag after a caution, you stand up and cheer them by. If you have, you share, and that includes your binoculars, beer, food, scanner, and the guy next to us even gave us the last of his funnel cake. I went through the first hundred laps without my earplugs before I had to put them in, just as a comfort thing. NASCAR is nowhere near as load as Indy or Formula 1, but on a long track like TMS the cars get so spread out that they are constantly passing by you, making it difficult to bear. We had an all-around good time out there. Could have used a butt pad for the bleaches there, but I have recovered. The sunburn, however, may take a little longer to heal.