Daily Archives: June 7, 2009

St. Teresa of Avila on Bitterness

St. Teresa de Jesus warns us against holding grudges.

“You will say that these are little things which have to do with human nature and are not worth troubling about; do not trifle with them, for in religious houses they spread like foam on water, and there is no small matter so extremely dangerous as are punctiliousness about honor and sensitiveness to insult. Do you know one reason, apart from many others, why this is so?[39] It may have its root, perhaps, in some trivial slight — hardly anything, in fact — and the devil will then induce someone else to consider it important, so that she will think it a real charity to tell you about it and to ask how you can allow yourself to be insulted so; and she will pray that God may give you patience and that you may offer it to Him, for even a saint could not bear more. The devil is simply putting his deceitfulness into this other person’s mouth; and, though you yourself are quite ready to bear the slight, you are tempted to vainglory because you have not resisted something else as perfectly as you should.

This human nature of ours is so wretchedly weak that, even while we are telling ourselves that there is nothing for us to make a fuss about, we imagine we are doing something virtuous, and begin to feel sorry for ourselves, particularly when we see that other people are sorry for us too. In this way the soul begins to lose the occasions of merit which it had gained; it becomes weaker; and thus a door is opened to the devil by which he can enter on some other occasion with a temptation worse than the last. It may even happen that, when you yourself are prepared to suffer an insult, your sisters come and ask you if you are a beast of burden, and say you ought to be more sensitive about things. Oh, my sisters, for the love of God, never let charity move you to show pity for another in anything to do with these fancied insults, for that is like the pity shown to holy Job by his wife and friends.” (Ch. 12,
paras. 8 & 9
).

“I often tell you, sisters, and now I want it to be set down in writing, not to forget that we in this house, and for that matter anyone who would be perfect, must flee a thousand leagues from such phrases as: “I had right on my side”; “They had no right to do this to me”; “The person who treated me like this was not right”. God deliver us from such a false idea of right as that! Do you think that it was right for our good Jesus to have to suffer so many insults, and that those who heaped them on Him[40] were right, and that they had any right to do Him those wrongs? I do not know why anyone is in a convent who is willing to bear only the crosses that she has a perfect right to expect: such a person should return to the world, though even there such rights will not be safeguarded. Do you think you can ever possibly have to bear so much that you ought not to have to bear any more? How does right enter into the matter at all? I really do not know.” (Ch. 13, para. 1).

Advertisements

William Saletan thinks Vigilantism is OK; Doesn’t understand pro-lifers or Christians at all.

In my post on Jill Stanek, I quoted a recent column by William Saletan, the “liberal Republican” columnist at Slate magazine.  The column is called, “Is it Wrong to Murder an Abortionist?” and contains a lot more salient material than what I quoted. 

“If abortion is murder, the most efficient thing you could have done to prevent such murders this month was to kill George Tiller.”

Well, yes, the most efficient thing one can do is blow up the entire abortion clinic with its staff.  Just like abortion is the efficient way for a woman in a crisis pregnancy to resolve her crisis . But the efficient solution is very rarely the right one, which is the problem with utilitarian ethics.

If I find out my neighbor is a mafia hit man, getting paid to kill people, that doesn’t mean that I, in turn, have the right to come up to him in his home or place of worship and shoot him.  It means I should call the cops.

However, the more that has been revealed about Tiller in the past week, the clearer it is what a despicable human being he was.

Tiller was the country’s bravest or most ruthless abortion provider, depending on how you saw him. More precisely, how you see abortion.   The pregnancies he ended were the latest of the late. If your local clinic said you were too far along, and they sent you to a late-term provider who said you were too late even for her, Tiller was your last shot. If Tiller said no, you were going to have a baby, or a dying baby, or a stillbirth, or whatever nature and circumstance had in store for you.

So, in other words, Tiller took the abortions that no other doctor was willing to do: medically, ethically or emotionally. 

In other words, he was the Dr. Nick Riviera of abortion.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Hey, Dr. Nick“, posted with vodpod

 

 Rush Limbaugh gets accused of “doctor shopping” for going to different doctors to get Vicodin for a documented back problem that caused him severe pain, and yet now the Left is praising this guy for doing what no other doctor would do in good conscience?

Why not charge Dr. Tiller’s patients with “Doctor Shopping”?

To me, Tiller was brave. His work makes me want to puke. But so does combat, the kind where guts are spilled and people choke on their own blood. I like to think I love my country and would fight for it. But I doubt I have the stomach to pull the trigger, much less put my life on the line.

Yeah, except in combat both sides have a fighting chance.

Tiller’s murder is different from all previous murders of abortion providers. If you kill an ordinary abortionist, somebody else will step in. But if you kill the guy at the end of the line, some of his patients won’t be able to find an alternative. You will have directly prevented abortions.

And how many of these abortions are actually medically necessary? None, according to Phil Kline’s investigation.

Speaking of which,

Peaceful pro-lifers have already tried to prosecute Tiller for doing late-term abortions they claimed were against the law. They failed to convict him.

Only in the same way we “failed” to save Terri Schiavo: an unjust court was stacked against us. The Democrats launched a massive national campaign to get Phil Kline voted out of office (I remember wondering, when I first read of Phil Kline, why this was such a big deal). The new DA simply refused to use any of the evidence Kline collected, and asked all the witnesses softball questions.

Of official statements condemning the Tiller murder, Saletan continues:

I applaud these statements. They affirm the value of life and nonviolence, two principles that should unite us. But they don’t square with what these organizations purport to espouse: a strict moral equation between the unborn and the born.

This is the most absurd logical leap he could have made. No, they’re saying that they think murder is wrong, period. It is precisely establishing the equation of the unborn with the born.

If pro-lifers support the death penalty, we’re called hypocrites who “only care about people before they’re born.” If we say, “Don’t kill abortionists,” we’re accused of not equating abortion with murder.

Next comes

The reason these pro-life groups have held their fire, both rhetorically and literally, is that they don’t really equate fetuses with old or disabled people. They oppose abortion, as most of us do. But they don’t treat abortionists the way they’d treat mass murderers of the old or disabled.

??? Apparently, Saletan thinks someone should go out and shoot Dr. Jack Kevorkian or Michael Schiavo, because Saletan says that the proper way to deal with those who murder the old and disabled is to kill them. Saletan is applying his ethical standards to us and accusing us of hypocrisy because we fail to adopt his view that murder is sometimes necessary.

Make sense?

1) I believe murder is always wrong. Therefore, because I equate all human life, I believe it’s wrong to kill unborn babies, disabled people, and the elderly. I also believe it’s wrong to kill abortionists.
I do believe it’s morally justifiable to kill an assailant if you are trying to stop that assailant from a direct act of assault and you are aiming at incapacitating him. I also believe it is sometimes right for the state, with due process, to take the lives of individuals or groups by war, capital punishment or even assassination.

I do not believe it is right for individuals to take the lives of other individuals, without due process, regardless of how despicable those individuals may be.

John Paul II forgave his would-be assassin, who is now a Catholic serving life in prison.

Msgr. Hugh O’Flaherty, whose life is fictionalized in The Scarlet and the Black, would visit his former adversary, Col. Herbert Kappler, in prison.  Kappler eventually converted to Catholicism.

I could think of so many other examples.  What about St. Therese of Lisieux and Pranzine? 

Oh!  Here’s one! 

A mass murderer named Saul of Tarsus went on to become St. Paul the Apostle.

No, Saletan is just completely ignorant of Christianity.

But while he accuses us of inconsistency, he shows his own consistency, that he *does* equate the unborn with the born.  After all, he compares abortion to war, and says that the deaths in abortion are necessary like the deaths in war. 

Saletan says in this column that he thinks vigilantism is OK.  He says that, if pro-lifers think abortion is really murder, we should support shooting Tiller because he got off on a technicality in his trial.  Well, gee, does Saletan think someone should go shoot O.J. Simpson?  Does Saletan think it’s OK for civilians to go out and shoot all murderers who get off on technicalities?

Then, proving the reason why American Life League and Human Life International exist, he points to the National Right to Life Committee’s strategy of Incrementalism as further evidence of our alleged hypocrisy:

And this self-restraint can’t simply be chalked up to nonviolence or respect for the law. Look up the bills these organizations have written, pushed, or passed to restrict abortions. I challenge you to find a single bill that treats a woman who procures an abortion as a murderer. They don’t even propose that she go to jail.

Now, he wittily paraphrases his earlier statement about abortionists, saying that Scott Roeder is the George Tiller of anti-abortionists:

The people who kill abortion providers are the ones who don’t flinch. . . . But like most of the other people who say such things in polls, you don’t mean it literally. There’s you, and then there are the people who lock arms outside the clinics. And then there are the people who bomb them. And at the end of the line, there’s the guy who killed George Tiller.

False dichotomy.  There is a third option. 

First, going back to his underlying argument (which is specious), does Saletan suggest that anyone who really opposes the Mafia would hunt down the local Don and kill him?  Does Saletan support vigilante justice in civilians shooting street gangs?  Of course he doesn’t. 

Second,  those who lock arms outside the clinics are not the only pro-lifers outside the clinics. 

There are those who stand outside the clinics, without necessarily block them, who engage in sidewalk counseling and in prayer vigils. 

Between the two armies fighting in combat come a humble band of nuns, already refugees, who plead them to stop the fighitng, if only just for Holy Week.

There is the Pope (Leo the Great) who leads a Eucharistic Procession out of the city of Rome to meet the Saracens on the battlefield and drives them away with his courage and faith.

There is the Man who takes up His Cross and wins the greatest battle in history–indeed, the only battle–by sacrificing His own life.

Saletan cannot comprehend this. 

Or is it something less, a tragedy that would be better avoided? Late term abortions “for medical reasons” can be avoided.  It’s called bed rest.  It’s called C-Section.  It’s called medicated childbirth.  Most of us think it’s the latter. We’re looking for ways to prevent abortions—not just a few this month, but millions down the line—without killing or prosecuting people. While saying it’s a fundamental right.  While saying we should pay for women who want abortions.  While saying abortion is  a necessary back-up. Come and join us.

“Join me, Luke.  Come over to the Dark Side.”

See what he’s done?  Now he’s questioning the very practice of prosecuting Tiller for violating Kansas’s law against medically unecessary late term abortions. 

He is totally skirting the issue of infanticide.  How easily could he make all these arguments about born alive protection or infanticide? 

We’re not talking about the “vague” situation of a 7 week old fetus.  We’re talking about full-grown babies who could survive outside the womb if born prematurely, albeit with some artificial assistance.

What does “Just War” or “Justifiable Homicide” mean?

We canonize Saints because they practice heroic virtue: a Saint does something, or many things, for Christ that someone else might not be called to do.  Now, there is the argument that we’re all called to be saints and we’re all called to heroic virtue.

All priests and religious are, in theory, practicing heroic virtue by the nature of their vocations.  So are married couples who practice NFP and so are married couples who have lots of kids.

In theory.  In practice, we know that we are all flawed human beings.

Priests, monks, nuns, husbands and wives all commit sins against chastity in their respective vocations.  Or they may remain chaste but fail in their prayer lives, or they may have problems with anger, or abuse, or some other sin. 

The Church is a hospital for sinners.  We point out people as Saints because we know they’re the exceptions who do it the way it’s supposed to be done.

Even if they sin, they show they get it for the most part by acts of “heroic virtue.”  Heroic virtue is kind of what the letter to the Hebrew means Abraham was justified by faith: Abraham’s trust in God allowed him to perform acts which most people would be afraid to do.

King David was a “man after God’s heart” because he showed heroic virtue, even when he also showed very villainous sin.

St. Gianna Molla is a saint because she refused to have a medical procedure the Church considered morally justifiable.  She was not urged to have an abortion.  She declined medical treatment which may have possibly hurt her unborn baby.  There’s a difference there .

The Orthodox Church has a category of saints known as “passion bearers” saints who, while not martyrs for the Faith, died nobly in a Christian manner, particularly in an act of love.  Sts. Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia and Alexei are all saints in this category.

Now, that’s not to say those who refuse to have abortions despite life-threatening conditions are not also practicing heroic virtue: it’s just a bit more complicated, since they’re praciticing “virtue.”  I guess you can say they’re practicing virtue heroically, versus virtue-that-is-heroic.

And St. Wenceslaus is a martyr, even though he defended himself.

But the point is that heroic virtue constitutes a profound witness for the faith, and a profound trust in Providence.

If a man invades my home with a gun, I have a moral right-some would say an obligation-to defend my family against him using whatever weapon I have at my disposal.  I could shoot a gun at him.  I could throw a knife at him.  I could through a heavy object down the stairs and hit him on the head.

I could also grab my family and flee.

Or, I could do something else.  I might, like the bishop in Les Miserables, tell him that whatever he came to steal is my gift to him.  I might offer him a seat at my table and give him some food.

I might stand in front of him and begin to pray loudly.  I might try to talk to him of Jesus, or read the Bible to him.

I don’t have a gun in my house, but I do have two very powerful weapons stored in my kitchen.  I could go in the kitchen and get those weeapons–the weapons I wish someone had used on George Tiller before Scott Roeder did his work: holy water and holy salt.

I could pray to the angels to defend my home.

All of those would be, in a spiritual sense, weapons.  They would also “heap burning coals on his head,” as the Biblical teaching goes.

It would also not, strictly speaking, be pacifism.  Running and hiding would be pacifism.  It would rather be spiritual warfare.  I would be fighting against the real problem: the demons and the sinful thoughts influencnig the home invader’s soul.

So, as I contemplate issues like waterboarding suspected terrorists and shooting abortionists, I wonder about the death penalty and war in general.  I know they are “necessary” from a worldly perspective.  And I know that the Church teaches the state has the right to recourse to them.

But they are not necessarily the best ways for a Christian to respond to evil.

I wonder how much better our results would be if we splahsed the Muslim suspects’s foreheads with holy water instead of filling their lungs with unblessed water.  What if instead of CIA analysts, we sent in Catholic priests or even Protestant ministers to talk to them about Jesus? What if we left them in empty cells for days on end with nothing to watch, read or listen to but a Bible?

If we wonder why God doesn’t work grand miracles anymore, it’s not just because Jesus “finished the job.”  We know that’s not true: the Apostles worked ’em, too.  OK, “Death of the Last Apostle.” B ut what of the many great miracles worked by saints, even in the past century?

No, besides the fact that people just ignore them when they happen, miracles dont’ happen because we don’t go out on a limb to show our faith in God.  We always hold back.

It wasn’t just Joshua bringing down Jericho by marching the Arch of the Covenant around it.  It wasn’t just Gideon bringing down the Midianites with some trumpets and torches.

It was St. Leo the Great sending away the Saracens with a Eucharistic Procession, and St. Clare of Asissi sending away the Moors the same way. 

That’s the real way to engage in defensive warfare.

Another “Conventional Wisdom” of the Past Six Months Undermined

One of the things we’ve been hearing about the “IPod Generation” is that the phenomenon of dynamic Christian teenagers in the 80s and 90s had dwindled.  Christian rock is dead (tell that to Casting Crowns, arguably one of the best “Contemporary Christian” groups ever–heck, I like them, which says something), they tell us.

They even try to undermine the “Do you believe in God” story from Columbine, relayed by the students who were there, by saying it didn’t happen, that it supposedly isn’t in any of the FBI files.  (Heck, it didn’t even necessarily mean the killings were religiously motivated.  Isn’t that a stereotypical line for a killer?  How many times have we heard Yosemite Sam or Elmer Fudd say, “Say your prayers, Rabbit!”)

Well, so much for the liberals’ hopes.

It turns out that 400 public school students at a high school graduation stood up and said the Lord’s Prayer at their graduation service

The ACLU is suing the Santa Rosa County School District because of student-led prayers at graduation.  At the school in question, the principal is criticized for asking a teacher to say grace at a school dinner, and a teacher is being criticized because her husband said a prayer at some event at the school. 

So, according to the ACLU, public school teachers’ spouses are not allowed to publicly express religious views?  Uh oh.  . . . Where’s that delete button?

So, the students voluntarily stood up and did an act of faith, and the ACLU wants to take action against the school for not stopping it.

From “HanuRamaKwanzmas” (one of the two versions, I get them confused):

“Screw you, ACLU, for getting the twelve

million in your lawsuit

versus Santa and his elves!”

God bless these young Christians for their brave stand for their faith.  As we hear more and more stories of priests arrested for disorderly conduct for saying the rosary at Catholic universities, and nuns being arrested for disorderly conduct for helping homeless men in front of their own homeless shelters, let’s pray that more Christians have the courage to stand up as these young men and women did.  I’m surprised the ACLU isn’t talking of suing the students themselves, though I’m sure it’s not long before that will happen.

O blood and water, which gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus as a Fount of Mercy for us, I trust in You!

My Nephew Graduated from High School

This is going to be the kind of maudlin reflection that blog posts are “supposed” to be but I usually don’t engage in because of the “serious nature” of this blog.  But it’s late, I’m tired, and I want to get in my self-mandated posts for what will be a very busy Sunday. 

We’re having the last Traditional Latin Mass in Columbia for the foreseeable future.  The FSSP are not going to make the trip anymore for such a small congregation.  I had a hard time making it myself, so I hardly blame them.  Then the kids are doing vacation Bible school in the evening.  So I may not be able to post again till the night.

So, we went to my nephew’s graduation party today.  Today was also “Protest the Pill” day.  I never ordered the T-shirts, as I’d intended to do all through the month of May.  And there’s only so much to do.  And perhaps we made some kind of witness today, anyway.

My sister had a little display.  It had his senior pictures in their nice portfolio, and some others.  It had a little framed picture of his elementary school graduation, or maybe kindergarten or something like that.  We sure do a lot of graduations in our society.

So I picked up the picture, and I exclaimed, “Wow!  It’s Jeffrey!  I haven’t seen him in years!”

I think one of the Big Questions About Heaven is “What will we look like?”

My grandmother’s brother who died around the age of 12 said, in his dying moment, “I see millions of children playing.”  Jesus of course said the Kingdom is made of children.  In the final chapters of The Last Battle, C. S. Lewis describes the sainted Narnians and Friends of Narnia as being “youths”: somewhere in young adulthood, but with the freshness and livelienss of childhood mixed with the wisdom and solemnity of age.

He tries some similar descriptions in The Great Divorce.

I always wonder what our “ideal selves” are.  Do we stay whatever age we are when we die?  Some people say everyone will be 33, since that’s the age traditoin tells us Christ was.  Why do people have such beautifully colored hair in their childhood, then, if they live a “ripe old age,” spend most of their lives with gray hair?  Does everyone who dies after 40 have gray hair in Heaven ? Very boring attire for a God who so obviously loves diversity. 

I think of my Grandma as being Grandma.  Maybe the 70s she was in when I was little; maybe the 90s she was in when she died.  But I think of her as “Grandma.”  If I make it to Heaven, and see her there, will she be “Grandma,” as I know her, or will she be the young lady in the painting her brother the artist did of her?  Will she be even younger?  Do people look different to us based upon our relationship to them?  After all, Jesus appears to some as an Infant and others as the Crucified, and to others as in his adult ministry.

Would my Grandma be a different person to me, my dad, my grandpa, or to her own mother?

Every month, I have dreams of my wife.  In those dreams, she’s always the same, but she is different than in reality.  It’s an idealized her.  I wonder if that’s what she’s like in Heaven.

When I think of Jeffrey, I still think of the little boy who used to come over to our house when we lived around the block from him.  I was 13 when he was born.  He was 7 and I was 20 when we moved.  I got married.  Family dramas happened. Time passed.

Mary and I came back to South Carolina.  Went back to Sumter.  He was now 15.  He was about the age I was when he used to come over to my house most afternoons.  I now had my own little kids, who’d come over to his house and play with him. 

When the Transformers  movie came out 2 years ago, he got out his box of Transformers toys: most of which I’d given him. 

We moved to Columbia.  He became Clara’s godfather.

Jeffrey is perpetually 4 to 7 in my mind.  When I visit my sister’s house, I walk in expecting to see that little boy again. 

As with my grandparents’ anniversary party last summer, certain absences were very palpable.  Absences that, were they there, may have been very painful yet, there was a grief greater than that of death.

Life is complicated that way. 

My sister was sad.  Sad about those absences in particular.  Sad that the party she’d planned for months hadn’t turned out as well-attended as she’d hoped (yet there was no room for more cars).  Sad, I think, that there seemed to be a division among the family even there, though it was more situational than anything.  Her in-laws in the back yard; we in the front yard.  It was more practical than personal. 

People you’ve known for 24/25 years, whom you haven’t seen in half that time.  My sister’s mother in law went from someone I’d seen regularly, and had many good conversations with, to someone I’ve seen three times since I married: my wedding, a brief coincidental visit two years ago when we lived in Sumter, and today.  I never knew his sister and her family very well, but they’d often come to Sumter on holidays, and haven’t seen them in years.

My brother-in-law’s niece and nephew refer to my parents as “Grandma and Grandpa Hathaway.”  There mother is pretty much my dad’s age.   She was already in college when her younger brother was born, and he said that, when he annoyed her growing up, she’d say, “You were going to be my pool!”

Family is so important.  My brother in law understands that, because he never had much. 

I of course, tend to the belief that “family” should be more a matter of beliefs than biology, but, at this stage in my life, I see both sides. 

Funny thing, though.  I’m the family’s “religious nut.”  I am part of the reason for one of those divisions, because of someone who would constantly berate me for my faith.  Constantly pick fights, when I just wanted my brother back.  Constantly attack me for being pro-life, for being so devout in my faith.  Constantly tell me that I didn’t know any better, that I would learn when I got to college, etc.  And it was always done when no one else was around, so others would come along just when I was blowing  up, and she’d say, “See?  See?  He’s unstable!”

Ironically, though, while my disagreements with Catholic or recently lapsed Catholic relatives are somewhat notorious in my family, I’m also the one the non-Catholic relatives feel free to talk to.

While the individuals involved in that sad situation above are now “absences,” and while those “behind the scenes” discussions are notorious in my family, there have been plenty of other private conversations that are not so notorious.

For there have been plenty of times over the years when my agnostic brother in law has come to me with questions about religion that he wouldn’t ask anyone else. 

There have been plenty of times when his congregationalist mother has come and sat with me when I was by myself at a family gathering and talked to me about Catholic saints she admires, prayer life, etc.

I don’t understand social skills.  I’m not interested in the things most people are interested in.  I get uncomfortable in large groups of people.   I’ve learned how to “mingle” more than I used to.  Ironically, at events now, one of my greatest challenges is juggling my responsibility of chasing after my kids with the responsibility of mingling.

I actually impress Mary with how I manage to converse.

But I think of my sister’s high school graduation, 26 years ago.  She started college, my middle brother started high school, and I started first grade, all in the same year.  Her high school graduation party, and my eldest brother’s graduation party a year later, were both packed with people.

I, for my part, was terrified.  A geeky little kid who could barely see, trying to make my way in a crowd of people at my house, which was suddenly an alien place.  But it still cool having so many people there: our vast family in the town where my father’s family had lived for generations.  Relatives from out of town.  Numerous friends and acquaintances.

My sister was expecting something like that today, but it didn’t materialize.  A town where they’ve lived since 1987, and where we moved to a year later, but not really any family there.  A few of their friends.  Some family friends who are family.  And my parents, and us, and my brother in law’s sister and her family.  And so many absences.

And my sister was sad. 

We had a good time.  I’d wished we could have mingled more, but I was trying to keep an eye on the kids.  I got to talk to my nephews, very briefly.  I got to talk to their cousins, with whom I was never particularly close, but whom I’ve known for almost a quarter century, and who used to be just as much a part of family gatherings as any of my biological relatives back in PA. 

Haven’t seen them since at least 1998.  We had a nice chat.  I pointed out to the niece that she was Clara’s age when I first met her: she had just turned 2.  I forget how many years younger than me her brother is, but it’s only a few.

It got to be 6:30 before we knew it.  They wanted us to stay, but we had a long trip home, and too much to do.

Jeffrey and I are “Facebook friends” now.  I think I bug him more than anything.

Nun Arrested for Helping Homeless man

One of the things I like about great women saints is their courage in standing up to secular authorities: St. Catherine marching up to the scaffold to be by the side of Nicholas di Tuldo; St. Clare confronting the Moors with the Monstrance; the Sisters of St. Joseph in Sumter, SC, standing up to Sherman’s troops on Palm Sunday and successfully begging them not to burn the city.

Well, a Missionary of Charity (Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta’s order) was arrested today for confronting a cop who was arguing with a homeless man.  The man was armed with a knife and an ice pick.  Sr. Margaret Anthony got in front of the homeless man and confronted the cop, believing that the cop was unnecessarily harrassing the man, especially as they were in front of the shelter.

“The nun refused to stay back. She came through the gate. At one point, she gets right in front of, or right in the middle of, the police officer and this knife-, ice pick-wielding man.” Cmdr. Delrish Moss said.

Moss said police think Sister Margaret was only trying to protect the homeless man, but she “stepped over the boundary” and interefered with the police officer.

Uh, huh.  Yep.  “Stepped over the boundary.”  There shouldn’t be any boundaries between a Nun and doing the work of Christ, Commander. 

St. Catherine “stepped over the line” in the aforementioned incident.
How many times and ways did Bl. Teresa “step over the line”?  After all, she started her ministry to break one of India’s most sacred laws: you don’t touch an Untouchable.

Let’s hear it for Sr. Margaret Anthony!  It’s nice to get some good Catholic news from Miami!

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee!

H/T to the Curt Jester