A Conversion Story from the past, brought current! (A Book Review)

Saint Augustine lead a life of sin and “corruption” for many years back in the early 400ADs, including living with a lady for many years. His mother, a Catholic, prayed for him to find the Lord daily, and with tears and pain. It took many years, but Saint Augustine finally accepted the Lord into his life and he changed his ways, becoming a leader in the Church, a Doctor of the Church, and a great Theologian.

The book “No Turning Back, A Witness to Mercy“, written by Rev. Donald H. Calloway, MIC, chronicles the Author’s life, which closely mimics Saint Augustine’s life.

He starts out with excitement of his arrest at 15 in Japan, and subsequent deportment back to the US, with a stamp on his passport stating he can’t come back.. He then jumps back in time and begins telling his story from roughly 10 years of age on up to around 20, and the trails and tribulations he creates for his family and himself. He tells about the drugs he took, the people he hung out with, and the problems he caused. He goes into detail about the deportation and his going to rehab for the first time, and then his immediate return to drugs, booze, and women.

During this time, his Mother finds the Catholic Church and the rest of his family converts to the Catholic faith, which he declines and continues on his way. His mother begins to pray for him daily, and frequently to find peace in the Lord, placing prayer cards in his cloths when he is home, under his pillow, etc. He ignores these attempts to convert himself, and continues on in his ways.

As he nears 20 years of age, he throws a BIG drug/booze/women party at his parents house and begins to feel like things are not right. After kicking everyone out of the house, and attempting to clean up the house, he begins to see things differently.

One night, several months later he picks up a book on Divine Mercy, about Mother Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and starts feeling that he must change his ways. He reads the book all night, and when his mother gets up he wants to know more, and runs off to the post Chapel to begin his “official” conversion, which had already happened internally. As time progresses he ends up becoming an Ordained Priest in a Religious Order dedicated to Mary, the Mother of God.

This is a VERY compelling book, that I HIGHLY recommend to everyone and anyone interested in learning more about the good Graces of God!

This review was written as part of the Catholic book Reviewer program from The Catholic Company. Visit The Catholic Company to find more information on No Turning Back (book). I was provided with a free copy of the book in exchange for my honest opinion of the book.

Say it isn’t so!!?? AGAIN!!

I received an email from the Knights of Columbus Supreme Chapter of which I am a Knight that reads in it’s entirety here, my comments below:

Religious freedom under attack in Connecticut

(March 10, 2009) – A First Amendment storm is brewing in the Constitution State.

Without any consultation with its bishops, a bill under consideration in Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee threatens to forcefully reorganize the Catholic Church, taking authority away from pastors and bishops and placing governing decisions in the hands of boards of directors from which clergy would be excluded.

The Judiciary Committee, co-chaired by State Senator Andrew McDonald and Assemblyman Michael Lawlor, will hear evidence on Raised Bill No. 1098 on Wednesday. The bill would revise current governance provisions applicable to the Catholic Church in Connecticut. If passed, it would strip a bishop of control of his diocese.

“I think that (this bill) would be very problematic under the First Amendment,” Erwin Chemerinsky told Headline Bistro. Chemerinksy is one of the nation’s foremost authorities on First Amendment law and dean of the Law School at University of California Irvine.

Chemerinsky said the law is problematic “partly because it targets one religion and partly because it enmeshes the legislature in the workings of a particular religion.”

Catholic reaction to the bill has been swift as well.

In the Archdiocese of Hartford and the Diocese of Bridgeport, statements were read from every pulpit last Sunday by Archbishop Henry Mansell and Bishop William Lori respectively.

Calling the bill “irrational, unlawful and bigoted” and a blatant violation of the First Amendment, Bishop Lori’s statement hit back hard.

“This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day,” Lori said, pointing out that no other religious organization is targeted by the measure. “The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church.”

Mansell called on each parish in his diocese to send a delegation to the bill’s public hearing in Hartford on Wednesday.

The laity has been equally appalled.

Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, founded and headquartered in New Haven, Conn., called the bill a throwback to the extreme anti-Catholicism that pervaded America’s early history.

“Whatever their reasons for introducing this bill, there is no doubt that these Connecticut politicians find themselves not only on the wrong side of the First Amendment, but on the wrong side of history, as well,” Anderson wrote in an op-ed in the Stamford Advocate Tuesday.

Background for the bill

The New Haven Register quoted Assemblyman and Judiciary Committee co-chair Mike Lawlor as saying he was approached by “very devout Catholic” constituents asking for greater transparency in terms of diocesan funds.

Misappropriation of parish funds is rare. But in 2007 a priest from the Diocese of Bridgeport pleaded guilty to defrauding his parish of over $1 million. That same year, a Greenwich priest resigned after an audit found $500,000 in unaccounted for spending.

The diocese responded by implementing safeguards and launching thorough investigations and financial audits.

“The pastors of our diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners,” Bridgeport Bishop Lori said in his statement. “For the State Legislature – which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year – to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense.”

Doctrinal differences also seem to have a role in the current controversy as well. Reports from newspapers and blogs link the bill’s origins to a lay group with a history of challenging the Church’s structure.

The New Haven Register credits Connecticut attorney Thomas Gallagher as spearheading the bill, and an article by an officer of the dissident Catholic group Voice of the Faithful in the Diocese of Bridgeport stated that Gallagher had been in dialogue with legislators on this issue since 2007.

The article’s author, James O’Callaghan, encouraged the group’s members early on to “lend their support” to this effort of overhauling current regulations on religious corporations.

Among the stated purposes of Voice of the Faithful is to “shape structural change within the Catholic Church.”

In 2002, the same year the group was formed, Bishop Lori banned Voice of the Faithful from meeting on Church property in his diocese. While he has “consistently supported greater involvement of the laity in the activities of the Church,” the bishop said he could not condone a movement that rejected core Catholic teachings on issues such as sexual morality, celibacy “and a view of conscience contrary to the traditions of the Church.”

First Amendment scholars take exception

In addition to Chemerinksy, many other Constitutional law experts have expressed shock at the proposed law.

In a letter to Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee, Philip Lacovara, who has taught law at Columbia and Georgetown and is now senior counsel at the law firm of Mayer Brown, wrote that even his first year law students would have “little difficulty seeing why the bill goes well beyond the powers that the Constitution allows the States to exercise in dealing with organized churches.”

Kevin Hasson, president of the interfaith Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, likewise issued a stinging statement against the bill, which he called “truly a monstrosity.”

“It would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment even if it applied to all churches,” he said. “But the fact that it applies to only one church – the Catholic Church – makes it unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment besides.”

Legislators have also expressed shock at the bill.

Republican State Senator Michael McLachlan was outspoken in his blog.

“I pray fervently that we can dispense with this brutal attack on the Roman Catholic Church very quickly,” he wrote. “Catholics don’t deserve this attack and the proponents of this bill will hopefully hear this message loud and clear.”

Trusteeism

The Church has been the target of such laws before – albeit over 150 years ago.

The concept of lay “trusteeism” was a persistent problem for the Church in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as some American Catholics – influenced by Protestant congregationalism and aided by groups like the “Know-Nothings” – tried to take control of Church structure.

The Know-Nothing party specifically tried to lessen the influence of the Church using “trusteeism.” They actually succeeded at times – passing the Putnam Bill in New York, for example, in 1855. Overtly anti-Catholic in its purpose, that bill – similar in content to the bill being considered in Connecticut – remained on the books until the need for Union Army recruits from the Catholic population forced New York legislators to think better of it in 1863.

At its worst, trusteeism caused riots and sent some parishes into schism, as trustees asserted their authority over a parish’s temporal matters – often with implications for spiritual matters as well.
Experts warn the religious consequences would be profound today as well.

“Make no mistake, the effect of such a law – if enforced – would be the balkanization of the Catholic Church. Our one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church would no longer be apostolic, with bishops losing the say in the administration of their dioceses,” Anderson wrote in his op-ed.

“Rather than ‘one’ and ‘catholic’ our Church could become many and inconsistent as trustees forced their version of theology on a parish under the very real threat of confiscation if their ideology were resisted,” he added.

Msgr. Francis Weber holds a PhD in Church History and serves as archivist for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

He told Headline Bistro that the trusteeism being proposed in Connecticut is “even worse than the normal kind” because it totally excludes priests and bishops from even voting. Historically, Weber said, “the Church has had all kinds of trouble” with the trustee system.

In terms of the current law under consideration, Weber was clear: “This is a takeover,” he said.

Both Bishop Lori and Archbishop Mansell noted in their statements that the bill is “contrary to the Apostolic nature” of the Church by disconnecting parishes from their priests and bishop. Bishops provide the unifying charter of an apostolic church, and assure doctrinal consistency.

Unlike some Protestant denominations where congregations influence doctrine, “Ours is a doctrinal Church,” Weber said. “We don’t have doctrine up for grabs.”

It is my understanding that the Government, of any level, be it Town, City, State, or Federal does not have any control or say in Church actions and management!? How can something like this make it through today’s system, and how can the Church listen to it if it does happen? If the people of a Church, any Church or denomination don’t like what happens in that Church, move on and find one that meets your needs. Don’t go about trying to change the one you are in.

The Catholic Church has it’s share of problems. Because it is as big as it is, and has the wealth that it has in Real Estate, art, money and other items, it gets talked about a lot more than other denominations and groups, but those other groups have the same problems. And proportionally just as big.

There is no way that the State Government should be allowed to even attempt to take this to the next level and attempt to make this happen.

I can’t believe where the US is taking itself these days! I still love this country, and will not leave it, nor do I have the desire to, but I’m not happy with were I see it going!

Life’s changes over the years.

When air travel happened in the earlier years, everyone dressed up for the event. Granted, most flights were business based, and when the person go to the other side, they went to meetings, etc. Today, I see people get on planes in pajamas and furry slippers. Again, flying has gotten to be a standard mode of transportation. BUT, one should take pride in themselves and dress appropriately. I agree that a coat and tie may not be needed anymore, but SOME decorum should be used!

Then we get to Church services. Again, not too many years ago everyone went to Church in their “Sunday Best”, dressing up for God and for themselves. Today I see people come to Church in shorts, “muscle shirts”, and flip flops. What happened to decorum there too? Yes, just being in Church is important, but come on folks!! Show respect to yourself, others, and the Pastor/minister on the podium.

Speaking of Pastors, use to be, in the Catholic faith, and a few others, you could tell who was a Minister/Priest/etc, by their clothing. In most cases not so anymore. Many Catholic Priest now wear “civilian” cloths. I asked one Priest why that was so, and his response was “so I can take a break”. Um, religious life is not something one should be taking a break from is it? Another Priest answered the same question by saying, “More people come to me and talk when I’m not in my collar, about religion or anything.” This is a better answer, but it still doesn’t work for me. A person in religious life should be in the clothing of that life. This goes for Monks (most monks are still in habit, but I hear many are “coming out of habit” there too), Friars (a person in religious life, who lives and works “in the world”, but in community as well), and Nuns. MANY, MANY of these religious life folks have come out of habit. I was told by one Nun that there was no need for the clothing. Now mind you, those Religious Orders that have stayed in habit are growing, and those Orders which have come out of habit are tending to grow smaller and smaller each year. When you go into Religious Life, you give a vow of poverty. How are you going to own all these cloths, jewelery, etc that I see these “new” Nuns, Brothers, and Priest wearing? What happened to that vow? Go back to habit ladies and gentlemen, let us know who you are. (You can go to Mass now a days and not even know you are sitting by a Religious Brother or Sister. Not appropriate to my eyes.)

I think these clothing and presentation changes have happened because the world has quickly become a “me” world. Everyone is centered on themselves, and forgetting the world. This has SOME good qualities to it, but while centering yourself on yourself, you should also consider those around you, live, dress and act appropriately. Wearing pajamas on an airplane just doesn’t seem to cut it in that regard, nor does wearing shorts and flip flops to Church.

And when you go into religious life, you are supposed to be centering yourself on God, Love and others, not on yourself. Comfort is one of the things you may be asked to give up in your vows, and worldly possessions such as cloths IS one of the things you are supposed to be giving up!

I pray daily that the World looks at where we are going and begins making some changes for the better.

Marriage and Divorce, a Civil Affair!

Historically marriage has been a civil contract between two consenting, and sometimes not consenting, people to live together and help each other through their trials, tribulations and positive life events. It was originally a Church or religious process, blessed by a Priest/Pastor and the community.

When the marriage was not going well, the couple would go back to the Church and talk with Priest/Pastor and attempt to find ways to get the marriage back on track. If the marriage could not be saved in any way, one of two things happened, they stayed together anyway, or the marriage was “annulled”.

As people and families started gaining wealth, when an annulment came about, there would be squabbles and disagreements about the splitting of the wealth. Initially the Church intervened and helped divide the possessions (and took a good portion of said wealth). But soon there after, the local government began getting involved and divorce court (roughly speaking) was created on the civilian side, outside of the Church(es). Again this was still a civil issue. As this continued one spouse or the other kept demanding more and more. Now, mind you, at this stage, most of the women were not working, except at home taking care of the children, house and spouse.

During this phase, child support and spousal support programs were started. The male (initially, now either side may have to pay) had to pay the female money each month to support the children, and often her as well.

People being people, the men stopped paying sooner or later, to support their children or spouse. The courts stepped back in and did all they could do to get the payments started up again. Again, it was still a civil issue.

Some time in the “resent” past the federal government decided to step in. Divorce is now a federal issue, and not a civil issue. You go to a federal district court to get your divorce. At least in most states, such as Colorado, California, etc. So, we have gone from a civil contract (which it still is!!) to a federal ending of the civil contract. Now, the Judge, instead of the Priest, ends the marriage and decides, if the parties don’t agree initially, how to split the property and wealth, and who pays whom what.

This payment system is built off of a bizarre formula that twist and turns on numerous factors. It isn’t based on the needs of the spouse or kids, but on other issues, not related to the basic needs of survival. It is keyed on the paying spouses income predominately, and at the time of divorce, not at real time.

Now, initially, in this “new” system, the court only demanded the payments, and would garnish wages and withhold tax returns to get the payments, minus their handling fees of course, made to the paid spouse. The the Feds step in again…

In most States the District courts are only able to garnish up to 80% of your wages, remove your driver’s license, and withhold tax returns. Now, the money maker goes form paying a child support, to loosing up to 80% of their income to their X-Spouse. Often not having enough to live on, forcing them to work two or more jobs just to survive. And all this while not having a vehicle (legally anyway!)!?

If the national economic situation changes, it doesn’t matter, the paying spouse still must pay as if they are able to make the same amount of money they did before. Hey, they did it once, they still can. What, the receiving X-spouse now has a very good paying job? No problem, the paying must continue at the same level!

There are some States, such as Colorado, California and a few other states, that have made the non-payment of child support a felony offense, punishable with up to 6 years in prison as a Class 5 felony at the low end, and a Class 1 felony with 25-life at the high end. Now, if you are convicted as a felon, you now have a reduced area of work capacity, because few people hire felons, regardless of what the charges are. (All they see is the word “Felony conviction” and automatically lump you into the same category as rapist, murderers, drug lords, etc.) So, a civil issue is now a felony issue.

So, my questions are:

(I have more questions, but these are the pressing ones..)

Now, in some cases I have seen fathers that stopped paying child support because their XWife stopped letting them see and interact with their kids. The judges, as a majority, don’t seem to care about that, they say “work it out”, but don’t do anything to make the visitations happen. In fact they hamper it in many ways. So, when the father stops paying child support, he is taken to court, often by the District or States attorney, not even by the Xspouse. Then the charges start and the man is in trouble all over again. (Could be inverted rolls, I’ve seen it both ways!)

Mind you, I do think that both parents should be responsible for the growth and upbringing of the offspring. With some catches. Both parties should have access to the children, should be able to input into their growth, and should be able to communicate with them. If this is blocked by one of the spouses, or even the courts, that person being blocked should not have to contribute financially. Now, if that spouse is not blocked, but does not contribute physically by being there, they should probably still be paying into the growth of their children. I do not think the federal/district court should be involved in these cases, and at most the civil courts may touch on them. I don not think there is criminally actionable events (in most cases) involved here that require taking away drivers license, jail or prison. Again all three of those make it harder to get the payments in that everyone is after.

Again, we are going the way of the Romans in all of our demands and actions. Wake up America, smell the coffee (at $8 a cup) and let’s get back to the basics of life, growth and love! Let us bring back God and Church into our life. Let us get back to the reasons we ceded from England, and stop taxing heavily (one of the main reasons we split), governing heavily (another big reason), and legislating heavily!

Martial Arts

For over 30 years now I have been studying martial arts. I have acquired a 6th Dan (Black Belt/Master Instructor) in AiKiDo, a 5th Dan (Black Belt/Master Instructor) in Judo, a 3rd Dan (Black Belt/Instructor) in Kendo (the Art of the Sword), a 3rd Dan (Black Belt/Instructor) in Tang Soo Do, and a 3rd Dan (Black Belt/Instructor) in Hapkido. I have also studied with other Masters in other styles, belting in some (at various levels) or just learning new things.

During this time of studying martial arts, I was studying and learning about the body through becoming a Combat Medic, a Cardiovascular Technician, and a Physician’s Assistant in the Army, and a Paramedic in the Civilian world. I also studied Shiatsu (massage therapy and pressure points), becoming a Master Technician in the State of Texas.

About 12 or so years ago, I started teaching individuals a mix of what I had learned, keeping the techniques in tact, and the “requirements” for each styles “belting”, with one minor twist, I took some belts out, and required more in each belt before taking a “Belt Test”. (I’m WAY old school when it comes to testing… I think it SHOULD be White Belt, Brown Belt and Black Belt, that is it…)

My martial theory consist of this:

1. Learn the arts to learn more about yourself.
2. Gain confidence in yourself.
3. Try to talk your way out of a fight, offer to take them for a drink, or food, or …
4. If that doesn’t work, walk (run?) away.
5. If that doesn’t work, block the attack, always trying to go back to 3 and 4.
6. If that doesn’t work, hurt the attacker (via a solid punch (often stops the fight), kick, throw, etc.), always trying to go back to 3 and 4!
7. If that doesn’t work, break something of the attackers. (Hand, wrist, arm, leg, jaw, etc.), always trying to go back to 3 and 4!
8. If that doesn’t work, maim them, always trying to go back to 3 and 4!
9. And if that doesn’t work, as a final and LAST resort, you make it lethal. This is ALWAYS a LAST RESULT, and only if you can’t walk/run away, or take them out for a drink, and the other things in the middle don’t stop the fight.

ANY time you get in a fight, you are going to get hurt, even if it is only the hurting of your hand when you hit them, because if you hit them right, your hand (or foot) will hurt too! Hopefully not as much as they will hurt (if you study under me, I can show you how to hurt them more than they hurt you!). Any time I get in a fight, it hurts me emotionally as well, fighting is not something anyone should be doing if at all possible!

Now, some of you may ask, why is someone like me, a “religious” person, teaching or partaking in martial arts? Well, after MUCH talking with several Priest and one Bishop of the Catholic Church, as long as I’m not studying or teach with the intent to do harm, but rather to learn more about the body, people, and “self defense” there appear not to be an issue with it and the Church. (Remember in the “old days” when Priest use to have boxing schools for their young boys, and when Priest had boxing in Seminary?)

Martial arts, to me, is about learning about my body, the body in general, and about staying in shape, the later of which I really need to do! It is not about hurting people. or about getting in fights.

All this to lead to the comment that I am in the process of opening up my own dojo! (Training Hall/School). I am now forming my own style of the ” Way of Circular Wind Ryu“. I am going to be aggressively be putting together a school, and have already started putting the blocks together!

To learn about that, click on “Investment” above! I could use your help.

You can also see my initial web site at http://cwryu.tripod.com/index.html. This will soon(ish) have it’s own domain and a better built site, but is a good start, if I do say so myself. The content there will be update over the next two weeks.

My opening day should be on or before October 6th of this year! Wish me luck, and pray for me!

Native American Belief systems..

I had someone tell me that I needed to have an Exorcism because I use to follow the Apache belief system and now follow the Roman Catholic faith system (for the rest of my life…). This floored me and took me back in a big way!

I tried to explain to the lady that the North American Natives followed God, pre-Jesus, just like the Christians did. They just didn’t know Jesus as Jesus didn’t make himself known in what is now called the States… So, to give each of you a bit more information about the belief system of the Apache nation as I understand it, I present this:

Yes, I would like to tell you about Shamanism as it applies to the Native Americans. It can be and is different for those overseas that are called Shaman though! Shamanism was a name “tagged” to the those that lead a belief system different than the “tagger”. The Indians call the person Wakan, which roughly translates to Blessed. Wakan Tanka is “The Blessed Spirit” or “The Great Spirit”, which is personified in Father Sky and Mother Earth, as created by “Wakan Tanka”.

In the Nations, a Wakan/Shaman is a “Holy Man” or “Priest” to the Nation. They are the Keepers of the History of the Nation and “the world” as they knew it. The Native Americans of the old days, and even today some are thought to, at least those I have had close dealings with over the years, are strong believers that Wakan Tanka talked to the Wakan (Shaman) and helped them understand illnesses and how to cure them, provided them with the History of the world, which by the way included the parting of the waters, the Great Flood, and many other stories of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, and ways on how to live. Most nations started out as very peaceful, but there was always the rivalries and “stealing of women and horses” to grow and improve the Nation. Most of the Nations were very animal and nature oriented.

Near the end of 1800s and early 1900s, the Wakan in most nations became less a “physical healer” and tried to spend more of their efforts on the “spiritual” healing side of getting the Nations to go back to Peace taking care of their lands, animals, and crops, which the “White Man” had taught them how to raise.

One of their early stories talks about how after the Great Flood, Wakan Tanka split the peoples up and moved them all over the world. The Nations (of North and South America) were one of the “prized people” with whom Wakan Tanka went with in Peace. Aside from inter-Nation horse stealing and spouse stealing, until the early 1800s most of the nations were peaceful. In the early 1800 the Apache Nation as well as other Nations wanted to travel more broadly around the Northern Continent and the other Nations did not want it, so the Apaches began fighting stronger battles to expand their
nomadic way of life. As they grew into new areas, they would leave a Tribe behind to “watch over that area”, typically a water hole or grazing area. The Tribe I was associated with is the Mescalero Tribe of the Apache Nation, which was based out of New Mexico in the mountains, which had a great elk and deer herd, as well as a great water source. This tribe was less nomadic, but did provide warriors for the Nomads.

If you look DEEPLY into the Apache Nation belief system, you will find that they believe that Wakan Tanka, by way of nature through the animals and plants teaches them how to get along in life. They fought for what was theirs, but in most cases would rather live in peace. Very similar to the Catholic Church over the years in protecting our (I’m Catholic now) belief system.

A Wakan of the Nations job is to “preach” the Stories of the Nation to his or her People, to remind them of what the Great Spirit wants them to do, which is to live in peace and harmony with those around them. This is done in Sweat Lodges, where the “sins” are washed off in steam, at campfires in dance, and on “Journeys”. In the Old days the Journey consisted of living on the land for up to a year, learning how to survive in the Great Spirit’s world.

To somewhat equate that to the Catholic Church, you have the Church building where we gather and sing and pray to God. In the Sweat Lodge, you chant and pray to the Great Spirit. Some of the chants of the Nation are actually very similar to the Psalms, but the names are different, and the “location” is different. Many of the songs deal with great harvest, strong herds, and strong Nations.

Part of the reason that the Christian Churches condemned the Native American Belief system was they were not familiar with it, and would not nor did not take the time to understand it. (Now mind you, if they had sat down and learned about the Ways, they still might have condemned it, but we will never really know…) When these “heathens” came to their camps dressed in loin clothes, carrying crude weapons, offering peace, the “immigrants” were initially frightened. The “Red Man” helped them get over the fright, and for a short time there was Peace. “White Man” wanted to grow out and take over more land, and the Indians did not want to give up their lands. Strife grew and the “White Man” became more negative about the “Red Man”, which was not a name given to the skin color, which was more a dark brown, but to the way the Indians live in a communal way, to include their faith and belief system. This same happens now with “unknown” faiths, and even “known” faiths that are different.

The other “Shamanistc” faiths are another story and I would not be able to describe them or answer the question there.

It goes to show how closed people are to what they don’t know.