Saturday, March 9, 2013
Sandra Fluke update
Blessed are the poor Catholics
As it is, their youth group is going on retreat A year ago, some youth went on a trip to Italy. Know what? My boys didn't. Why? We can't afford it, that's why. Heck, there's a decent chance that if I were to have kept my standard of living I had before entering the Church, we still couldn't have afforded it. And no, there were no offers to pay for those without the funds.
You know what we did in Protestant circles? First, we made sure that anything we did was open to everyone. Not just the well-to-do. Second, when it involved funds or expenses, we raised the money. The kids had to wash cars, work at people's houses, raise the money themselves. All of them equally. Then the congregation would find a way to match, or through donations pay, a certain balance. That way no kid was set in the 'you're too poor so here's the money' category, as opposed to those kids with rich parents who don't need the help. I know, it is likely behind the scenes. But still, I know churches. People talk. Things get around. And it's enough to remind the kids by virtue of what is needed anyway.
This doesn't even include the uber-trips like Italy or the Holy Land that just don't have options. Let the adults do that, but don't do it for the kids. Don't separate the kids into sheep with money and goats without before they're even out of high school.
Do I seem a bit pissed off, maybe resentful and jealous? Perhaps. Maybe I am. But it's not jealousy toward the people with the money. That's fine and dandy. I'm not one who thinks large bank accounts leadeth unto perdition. It's the fact that it's my Church doing the categorizing. It's being the standard bearer of 'blessed are the poor, for they shall stand over there' that's the problem. The Catholic Church has a long, age old reputation for wallowing in wealth while the poor of the world grovel in the mud and dirt. Remember what I've said about avoiding stereotypes?
If our parishes want to go to wonderful events for our youth that's great! Just find a way to make sure all can go together, without the need to stand up and say 'I need help since my family isn't as rich as yours.' And if the answer is 'but Dave, there's no shame in being poor', let me remind the Church it shouldn't be the Church's youth policies and programs that force the confession in the first place. Programs for adults? Sure, why not. But kids shouldn't be shown by the Church that with money comes soother paths to the child born in a manger.
My son the comedian
So last night we watched a few shows together during the weekly Friday Night chill out. We got to talking about all sorts of things, religion and history, movies then and now, art, music, and whether pigs have wings. Then my 12 year old asked what was the most famous phrase in history. Not in movies (that's easy, GWTW's famous line). But of all time. Wow, how to you categorize that? We threw some ideas out: 'Let there be light...', 'In the beginning...', 'Blessed are the poor..', 'To be or not to be...', 'Do unto others...'. All of them coming from our own cultural heritage of course. But it's quite the tall order if you think about it. So we kept on throwing out our own ideas until, right along with the string of opinions, my 14 year old chimed in with his contribution: 'Would you like fries with that?' After the laugh, I had to admit he's probably right. What is a modern phrase or rallying cry that no doubt will make it into the annals of history?
Mayor Bloomberg the Uniter
Sin
SIN
A word you don't hear much in Catholic circles Nope. It's just not a term used that often. Evil. Intrinsic evil. I've heard those terms used. But the word sin is not something that is overly used. I can't remember the last time I heard the word in an actual homily. And when a particular issue is mentioned at all, it's often in a very roundabout way. So I mentioned the other day that I've never heard homosexual relations called sinful. I've not heard them called wrong. I have heard priests point out that marriage is between a man and a woman. That does seem to suggest that marriage between any other combination is therefore wrong. Though sin, perhaps not. But maybe none of it is sin?
I learned as a pastor that you have to say it, say it again, say it one more time, then tell them you said it for the message to sink in. And even then you could have about a 20% failure rate of getting the point across. I can't tell you how often the church I was serving would begin promoting something, like a special concert, weeks in advance. We would have posters and signs. We would have bulletin inserts. We would announce from behind the pulpit (that was OK in evangelical circles) the upcoming event for many Sundays. The last couple weeks before the event I would then add the final push to encourage everyone to come. And it never failed that someone would come up to me after the concert and say "Gee, I didn't know we were having that. When did you say we were having a concert?" Sigh.
So given the tendency some people have of missing the train's headlights, hiding things under bushels is no way to make a point. Priests could get up Sunday after Sunday and say 'homosexuality is a disordered appetite and homosexual relations are sinful' (assuming, that is, the Church still teaches this). They could do it for weeks, and you'd still have a hunk of the people not sure about where the Church stands on the issue. But since that's not what I've seen priests or anyone do, and since when it's brought up at all it's in that sort of backdoor 'we're not saying anything at all about homosexuality, but we will say marriage is between a man and woman' approach, we shouldn't be surprised that one of the top demographic groups in America to come out in support of gay marriage is - you guessed it - American Catholics! Woohoo!
That's because people usually don't take exactly what you leave them with and stay there. For all the attempts to say 'but for penetration, homosexual same sex attraction is a perfectly normal disorder', that dog just isn't going to hunt. People won't leave it there. Questions will be asked. Puzzlement will occur. The obvious contradictions will be noticed. The pressures of the post-Western juggernaut will take their toll, and you'll have folks just take it to the next step. Since clearly same sex attraction is one of the most wonderful disorders a person can have, and since the Church isn't really coming out and saying it's a sin or whatever other word it prefers, I'm just going to say it's time to get with the act and go the final step. After all, we're 9/10 there anyway, let's just take it to the final obvious conclusion. Assuming this is not what the Church wants, I'd advise it start making things clear, or you're going to have more and more Catholics deciding that whatever the Church is desperately trying not to say is sin must, in fact, be the way it should be.
1
a : an
offense against religious or moral law
b : an
action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible sin
to
waste food>
c : an
often serious shortcoming : Fault
2
a : transgression
of the law of God
b : a
vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
Origin
of SIN
Middle
English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to
Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-,
sons guilty,est is
First
Known Use: before 12th century
A word you don't hear much in Catholic circles Nope. It's just not a term used that often. Evil. Intrinsic evil. I've heard those terms used. But the word sin is not something that is overly used. I can't remember the last time I heard the word in an actual homily. And when a particular issue is mentioned at all, it's often in a very roundabout way. So I mentioned the other day that I've never heard homosexual relations called sinful. I've not heard them called wrong. I have heard priests point out that marriage is between a man and a woman. That does seem to suggest that marriage between any other combination is therefore wrong. Though sin, perhaps not. But maybe none of it is sin?
I learned as a pastor that you have to say it, say it again, say it one more time, then tell them you said it for the message to sink in. And even then you could have about a 20% failure rate of getting the point across. I can't tell you how often the church I was serving would begin promoting something, like a special concert, weeks in advance. We would have posters and signs. We would have bulletin inserts. We would announce from behind the pulpit (that was OK in evangelical circles) the upcoming event for many Sundays. The last couple weeks before the event I would then add the final push to encourage everyone to come. And it never failed that someone would come up to me after the concert and say "Gee, I didn't know we were having that. When did you say we were having a concert?" Sigh.
So given the tendency some people have of missing the train's headlights, hiding things under bushels is no way to make a point. Priests could get up Sunday after Sunday and say 'homosexuality is a disordered appetite and homosexual relations are sinful' (assuming, that is, the Church still teaches this). They could do it for weeks, and you'd still have a hunk of the people not sure about where the Church stands on the issue. But since that's not what I've seen priests or anyone do, and since when it's brought up at all it's in that sort of backdoor 'we're not saying anything at all about homosexuality, but we will say marriage is between a man and woman' approach, we shouldn't be surprised that one of the top demographic groups in America to come out in support of gay marriage is - you guessed it - American Catholics! Woohoo!
That's because people usually don't take exactly what you leave them with and stay there. For all the attempts to say 'but for penetration, homosexual same sex attraction is a perfectly normal disorder', that dog just isn't going to hunt. People won't leave it there. Questions will be asked. Puzzlement will occur. The obvious contradictions will be noticed. The pressures of the post-Western juggernaut will take their toll, and you'll have folks just take it to the next step. Since clearly same sex attraction is one of the most wonderful disorders a person can have, and since the Church isn't really coming out and saying it's a sin or whatever other word it prefers, I'm just going to say it's time to get with the act and go the final step. After all, we're 9/10 there anyway, let's just take it to the final obvious conclusion. Assuming this is not what the Church wants, I'd advise it start making things clear, or you're going to have more and more Catholics deciding that whatever the Church is desperately trying not to say is sin must, in fact, be the way it should be.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Am I a bad Catholic for not caring that Hugo Chavez is dead?
I don't know. Over at Mark Shea's blog, there're a couple posts about Mr. Chavez. For some reason, the focus is on Matt Drudge and the Evil Conservatives I'm sure there are some who are cheering his death, and we probably shouldn't cheer that anyone has died. I guess we ought to pray for him like we pray for anyone.
But truth be told, it's easy to pray for him. What was he to me? Several on Mark's blog point out that Chavez was well loved in his country. Of course Russians wept when Stalin died. And Chinese still venerate the memory of Chairman Mao. So the love of the people doesn't seem to equate good living.
From what I can tell, and given the attitudes of those in the West who celebrate Chavez, I'll guess he was a petty dictator who gained immense wealth and power by catering to the masses with bread and circuses, and keeping their minds off their problems by continually stirring up hatred toward other countries (like ours). Of course in some corners of the Catholic blogosphere, that's a feather in his cap. It certainly was for a large swath of American progressives who have always known of the eternal evil of America.
But despite it all, I didn't really suffer under him. He didn't do anything to me. He didn't hurt me, help me, or mean anything to me. He was one of those cheerleaders hoping for my country's decline. Too many in his country testified to brutal totalitarian tactics that Americans only think we suffer under but don't. He cozied up to our enemies, those proud and open in their desire to slaughter and kill us. But in the end, I still didn't really get hurt by anything he did.
So I can pray for him all I want. It doesn't cost me a cent. But what does it matter? Personally, I will pray only so far as I say I hope he is in the hands of a loving, merciful and just God. Beyond that, not so much. It's not my job to forgive him. It's not my job to defend him. I can say I saw what he did and that it was bad. Even evil. Catholic though I am, I'm not ready to believe all evil ends at the exit sign of 1600 Pennsylvania. So personally, I don't care that he's dead. My guess is the world will be no worse off because of his passing, and there might even be some in the long run who are better off.
Perhaps that makes me a bad Catholic, but it's how I feel.
But truth be told, it's easy to pray for him. What was he to me? Several on Mark's blog point out that Chavez was well loved in his country. Of course Russians wept when Stalin died. And Chinese still venerate the memory of Chairman Mao. So the love of the people doesn't seem to equate good living.
From what I can tell, and given the attitudes of those in the West who celebrate Chavez, I'll guess he was a petty dictator who gained immense wealth and power by catering to the masses with bread and circuses, and keeping their minds off their problems by continually stirring up hatred toward other countries (like ours). Of course in some corners of the Catholic blogosphere, that's a feather in his cap. It certainly was for a large swath of American progressives who have always known of the eternal evil of America.
But despite it all, I didn't really suffer under him. He didn't do anything to me. He didn't hurt me, help me, or mean anything to me. He was one of those cheerleaders hoping for my country's decline. Too many in his country testified to brutal totalitarian tactics that Americans only think we suffer under but don't. He cozied up to our enemies, those proud and open in their desire to slaughter and kill us. But in the end, I still didn't really get hurt by anything he did.
So I can pray for him all I want. It doesn't cost me a cent. But what does it matter? Personally, I will pray only so far as I say I hope he is in the hands of a loving, merciful and just God. Beyond that, not so much. It's not my job to forgive him. It's not my job to defend him. I can say I saw what he did and that it was bad. Even evil. Catholic though I am, I'm not ready to believe all evil ends at the exit sign of 1600 Pennsylvania. So personally, I don't care that he's dead. My guess is the world will be no worse off because of his passing, and there might even be some in the long run who are better off.
Perhaps that makes me a bad Catholic, but it's how I feel.
Catholics where the hell is Hell?
A month or so ago, a conservation swept across the internet involving speculation about the hereafter. The main crux of the issue was hoping all humanity is saved vs. the possibility that some will not be saved. That is, some will spend an eternity separated from God in a place we commonly translate with the word Hell. It was an interesting conversation. It touched on many different points. What shocked me, however, was the number of Catholics who have already dismissed the doctrine of Hell as passe; at least, Hell as anything real. Two individuals had "Fr." before their names, though on the Internet, that might not mean much. Several spoke of Hell existing, for Satan and the fallen angels, but in a Barth-like turn of doctrine, all humanity will be saved. From St. Peter to Hitler and Mao, it's going to be the great banquet feast!
I realize this is not a new idea. In fact, for most of the Faith's history, there have been those who have questioned the idea that God would allow people to suffer for all eternity, to be cast into the outer darkness for all that is outside of time and space. That's even worse than the Sarlacc! How could God do it? Especially when there is already so much suffering, and our only hope is through mere faith, not by God actually appearing in front of us in human shape to tell each generation here He is.
Nonetheless, the Church's historic answer has been: tough. Basically, it's said whether we like it or not, that's the makeup of eternity. That's why we needed saved. That's what makes the Good News so damn good. That's why God sent a savior. To save us from the penalty of our sins. Sure, salvation is more than just an insurance policy that eliminates the need for 900000 point sun blocker. But the escape from an eternity separated from God was certainly one of the main selling points of the Gospel.
Plus, to be honest, it incorporated a concept I'm hearing less, and less, and less of in the Church, and that's the concept of Justice. That idea that God is a merciful God. God is a loving God. But God is also a just God. The idea that justice is real, and not only when it comes to bending governments and societies to taking care of the widow and the orphan's healthcare and nutritional needs. There is a sort of 'all accounts are reconciled in the end', an opening of the books and judging the dead based on what they had done. I realize that the thief on the cross had his famous 11th hour and 59th minute conversion. I know the biblical passages of 1 Timothy and 2 Peter. I got that.
But this has always - and I mean always - been balanced with the sheer fact that despite God's wishes, not all will be saved. God doesn't desire sin, but yet we sin. God doesn't desire the little ones to suffer. And yet they suffer. The promise of Justice has always been that those who call upon the Lord will be saved, they will be redeemed, they will have their rewards who may have had nothing in this world due to the evil that men (and women) do. And this is more than a promise of justice. It's a reality. A notion that this whole world isn't just one big test drive for eternity, where nothing really matters, where everything is just a temp tag for what's real in the netherworld. Justice says that this created order is as integral a part of reality as the next. What we do here does have ramifications, because the one small moment of a baby's precious breath is a part of the whole fabric, one that ultimately includes an eternity in heaven before the throne of the Almighty - or not, as the case may be. It's why we're judged. And it's why, if we follow the wide path that leadeth unto destruction, well, you know.
Now, I'll admit that ditching the idea of Hell goes a long way toward opening up to other things. It's not some cosmic coincidence that mainline Protestant denominations that have ditched Hell tend to be more focused on the individuals, disdaining the death penalty and all armed conflicts, focusing less on authority and more on the right of each person to define his or her own reality. Things like war, punishment, negative reinforcement - they just crush the individual's right to be an individual. As for the ramifications? Well, in the end, we all end up in heaven anyway. It's just not worth it down here, and if an innocent suffers well, there's automatic salvation, however vaguely or new-agely that salvation is defined.
How the Church will continue to hold onto its historic teachings if it begins to jettison key doctrines like Hell, I don't know. But then again, I'm not sure I'm convinced on it's jettisoning of teachings like Capital Punishment or Just War (which seems to be going the same direction that Capital Punishment was going a couple decades ago). Maybe it isn't. Maybe it is. Will it hold firm? Will it toss it and other doctrines out with the bathwater? Will it look back and say 'we used to believe silly things like that but we're much better now'? I don't know. I just found the discussion interesting. And yet, not altogether shocking.
I leave you with a couple of verses from a lyric we used to sing in Seminary. It was a humorous tribute to Rudolf Bultmann the famous German Protestant Theologian who popularized the idea of demythologizing the New Testament. That is, admitting that the New - as well as the Old - was just a collection of myths, fables, and fairy tales. Bultmann promoted a sort of existentialist spin on Christian doctrine, though some of my professors who actually heard him said that he could preach the old time religion as well as Billy Graham. For him, it was not a contradiction to say 'The Christ who died for your sins' and elsewhere say 'it was all a made up legend to put a philosophical and spiritual spin on events that may not have happened.' So out of humor, an individual rewrote the words to the Protestant hymn "Jesus, Jesus How I love You." I can't remember the whole song, but I remember these two verses, one of which is quite pertinent to my musings:
Rudolf, Rudolf we've been thinking
What a pity it would be
If our faith were transformed into
Existentiality.
Rudolf, Rudolf
You have shown us
Heaven here on earth must dwell
Purgatory's gone to Limbo
Rudolf where the hell is Hell?
I wonder if there will be a similar cant directed at the Church someday. Time will tell I guess.
I realize this is not a new idea. In fact, for most of the Faith's history, there have been those who have questioned the idea that God would allow people to suffer for all eternity, to be cast into the outer darkness for all that is outside of time and space. That's even worse than the Sarlacc! How could God do it? Especially when there is already so much suffering, and our only hope is through mere faith, not by God actually appearing in front of us in human shape to tell each generation here He is.
Nonetheless, the Church's historic answer has been: tough. Basically, it's said whether we like it or not, that's the makeup of eternity. That's why we needed saved. That's what makes the Good News so damn good. That's why God sent a savior. To save us from the penalty of our sins. Sure, salvation is more than just an insurance policy that eliminates the need for 900000 point sun blocker. But the escape from an eternity separated from God was certainly one of the main selling points of the Gospel.
Plus, to be honest, it incorporated a concept I'm hearing less, and less, and less of in the Church, and that's the concept of Justice. That idea that God is a merciful God. God is a loving God. But God is also a just God. The idea that justice is real, and not only when it comes to bending governments and societies to taking care of the widow and the orphan's healthcare and nutritional needs. There is a sort of 'all accounts are reconciled in the end', an opening of the books and judging the dead based on what they had done. I realize that the thief on the cross had his famous 11th hour and 59th minute conversion. I know the biblical passages of 1 Timothy and 2 Peter. I got that.
But this has always - and I mean always - been balanced with the sheer fact that despite God's wishes, not all will be saved. God doesn't desire sin, but yet we sin. God doesn't desire the little ones to suffer. And yet they suffer. The promise of Justice has always been that those who call upon the Lord will be saved, they will be redeemed, they will have their rewards who may have had nothing in this world due to the evil that men (and women) do. And this is more than a promise of justice. It's a reality. A notion that this whole world isn't just one big test drive for eternity, where nothing really matters, where everything is just a temp tag for what's real in the netherworld. Justice says that this created order is as integral a part of reality as the next. What we do here does have ramifications, because the one small moment of a baby's precious breath is a part of the whole fabric, one that ultimately includes an eternity in heaven before the throne of the Almighty - or not, as the case may be. It's why we're judged. And it's why, if we follow the wide path that leadeth unto destruction, well, you know.
Now, I'll admit that ditching the idea of Hell goes a long way toward opening up to other things. It's not some cosmic coincidence that mainline Protestant denominations that have ditched Hell tend to be more focused on the individuals, disdaining the death penalty and all armed conflicts, focusing less on authority and more on the right of each person to define his or her own reality. Things like war, punishment, negative reinforcement - they just crush the individual's right to be an individual. As for the ramifications? Well, in the end, we all end up in heaven anyway. It's just not worth it down here, and if an innocent suffers well, there's automatic salvation, however vaguely or new-agely that salvation is defined.
How the Church will continue to hold onto its historic teachings if it begins to jettison key doctrines like Hell, I don't know. But then again, I'm not sure I'm convinced on it's jettisoning of teachings like Capital Punishment or Just War (which seems to be going the same direction that Capital Punishment was going a couple decades ago). Maybe it isn't. Maybe it is. Will it hold firm? Will it toss it and other doctrines out with the bathwater? Will it look back and say 'we used to believe silly things like that but we're much better now'? I don't know. I just found the discussion interesting. And yet, not altogether shocking.
I leave you with a couple of verses from a lyric we used to sing in Seminary. It was a humorous tribute to Rudolf Bultmann the famous German Protestant Theologian who popularized the idea of demythologizing the New Testament. That is, admitting that the New - as well as the Old - was just a collection of myths, fables, and fairy tales. Bultmann promoted a sort of existentialist spin on Christian doctrine, though some of my professors who actually heard him said that he could preach the old time religion as well as Billy Graham. For him, it was not a contradiction to say 'The Christ who died for your sins' and elsewhere say 'it was all a made up legend to put a philosophical and spiritual spin on events that may not have happened.' So out of humor, an individual rewrote the words to the Protestant hymn "Jesus, Jesus How I love You." I can't remember the whole song, but I remember these two verses, one of which is quite pertinent to my musings:
Rudolf, Rudolf we've been thinking
What a pity it would be
If our faith were transformed into
Existentiality.
Rudolf, Rudolf
You have shown us
Heaven here on earth must dwell
Purgatory's gone to Limbo
Rudolf where the hell is Hell?
I wonder if there will be a similar cant directed at the Church someday. Time will tell I guess.
Why did John McCain lose the election in 2008?
Now we know! What a couple of buffoons Really. Rand Paul inspires a nation, cuts across partisan lines, challenges a terrifying trend in presidential politics, and what do the esteemed John McCain and Lindsey Graham do? Well, after dining in posh surroundings and pressing their lips against the President's buttocks and smooching, they promptly run back to the Senate to - wait for it - trash Rand Paul! There is a reason most conservatives and Republicans didn't trust McCain in 2008. Hopefully common sense will see a rise in that number.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Rand Paul is filibustering
I just thought I'd throw that out since not one television news agency is bothering to cover it. I understand that some shows, even on 24/7 cable, are prerecorded. But still, you'd think they could break in and at least mention it. I know they are cable of that, since I've seen different cable networks do just that over the years. Or how about CSPAN. Hello. Anyone?
I like Rand more than Ron. Ron always struck me as a bit unstable, a sort of 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest' spark in his eye when anyone questioned him. Not to mention his radical isolationism, America sucksf or fifty years perspective, and hyper libertarianism are not to my taste. Of course Rand is similar, but I trust him more. He seems more level headed and a little less inclined to declare himself the only one in Washington who isn't nuts.
I also appreciate his cause. Believe it or not, I'm no fan of George W. Bush. I never was. I didn't support him in the 2000 primaries. I was less than happy with him in 2004, especially when it became clear he had no intention of following through with any of his lofty promises to religious conservatives. Plus, he was just a lousy leader. With that said, I'm not a fan of Obama either. He's everything that was wrong with Bush, plus the added benefit of now having a sympathetic media cheering him on.
So when Bush was pushing warrantless wire tapping, to hear the media report it, we were on the edge of a new dark ages. Now, we have a president arguing that it might be permissible for the president to kill American citizens on the mere suspicion that they might be terrorists. And the media? Crickets my friend, chirping crickets. Like I say in other debates, it's not that the radical right doesn't have its loons. Oklahoma City showed that. Radical militias and people holed up in log cabins in Montana ready to shoot the local mailman show that.
But show the same level of lunacy and radicalism on the left, and it's in the newsrooms, the college classrooms, the seats of power and influence and wealth and adoration. They don't have to hole up in Montana. They spew the same radicalism and are rewarded by the other venues of liberal thought. So our president, buoyed by the progressive culture, is going places that Nixon never came close to going - and we ran him the hell out of town on two rails.
So well done Mr. Paul for pointing out the obvious. You'd make Jefferson Smith proud.
I like Rand more than Ron. Ron always struck me as a bit unstable, a sort of 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest' spark in his eye when anyone questioned him. Not to mention his radical isolationism, America sucksf or fifty years perspective, and hyper libertarianism are not to my taste. Of course Rand is similar, but I trust him more. He seems more level headed and a little less inclined to declare himself the only one in Washington who isn't nuts.
I also appreciate his cause. Believe it or not, I'm no fan of George W. Bush. I never was. I didn't support him in the 2000 primaries. I was less than happy with him in 2004, especially when it became clear he had no intention of following through with any of his lofty promises to religious conservatives. Plus, he was just a lousy leader. With that said, I'm not a fan of Obama either. He's everything that was wrong with Bush, plus the added benefit of now having a sympathetic media cheering him on.
So when Bush was pushing warrantless wire tapping, to hear the media report it, we were on the edge of a new dark ages. Now, we have a president arguing that it might be permissible for the president to kill American citizens on the mere suspicion that they might be terrorists. And the media? Crickets my friend, chirping crickets. Like I say in other debates, it's not that the radical right doesn't have its loons. Oklahoma City showed that. Radical militias and people holed up in log cabins in Montana ready to shoot the local mailman show that.
But show the same level of lunacy and radicalism on the left, and it's in the newsrooms, the college classrooms, the seats of power and influence and wealth and adoration. They don't have to hole up in Montana. They spew the same radicalism and are rewarded by the other venues of liberal thought. So our president, buoyed by the progressive culture, is going places that Nixon never came close to going - and we ran him the hell out of town on two rails.
So well done Mr. Paul for pointing out the obvious. You'd make Jefferson Smith proud.
Well done Ohio State!
David has toppled Goliath. But this season, that seems to be a weekly headline. I'm not a huge basketball fan, but my oldest follows it pretty closely. I have to admit, it was impressive. Or perhaps Indiana, basking in the glow of media love, just wasn't up to par. Whatever, it was clear by the end that OSU had it in the bag. So congrats Bucks! It's been a long time since OSU was a basketball powerhouse, and these last few years have been a nice counterbalance to all the problems with the football program. Keep up the good work!
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
It's off to work I go
My apologies for not blogging more. It's been a trademark of mine that just about the time I make a bold, brash promise to do something, inevitably I'm sidetracked. I guess James wasn't writing to kill time when he warned us about making too many plans. In any event, just getting settled into the new job. Like all things, it's a bit of an adjustment. Quite a bit to learn. Also just getting used to the discipline of going somewhere regularly and working on a schedule. It's amazing how something you just get used to over the years becomes quite new when you've been out of the loop for a while. Hopefully as things settle down, I'll be back to where I hoped to be, and keep the readership going. I'll try to post when I can. Maybe a post here or there. In the meantime, keep visiting, send me your thoughts and offer your prayers for my wife, that her side of the job options finally opens up. And enjoy this little tribute to workers everywhere around the world, courtesy of the house of Mouse in its glory years:
Monday, March 4, 2013
Married priests on the Huffington Post
Mark Shea was on the Huffington Post today, discussing the whole priestly celibacy topic. Mark didn't get much of a chance to talk, and was clearly outnumbered by those who think it's time to put the whole priestly celibacy issue to rest. I don't have time to go into much, but here are a couple of ideas of mine when it comes to this.
First, as I've said, I think the clergy convert movement has turned a corner, and we won't be seeing broad ordinations of married former protestant clergy like we did. At least that's what I've been told. I didn't say much, but a couple years ago, after being approached by several individuals suggesting I consider the diaconate, I went to our parish pastor to discuss the possibilities. After a while, it was floated that I consider going all the way into the priesthood. To be honest, I never really thought about that, and hadn't really considered it. But who was I to say no? After almost two years of discussions it just came back to me, on the eve of our pastor leaving for another parish, that the married priest ship has sailed. At least in our diocese.
In fact, on a side note, I've been told that the attitude toward clergy converts is such that not mentioning that I was a clergy convert could go a long way toward increasing my possibilities in our diocese. I had already been told this before, but now it came from on high. But that's a different issue. Right now, the answer is what piqued my curiosity. Basically, from the high seat itself, I was informed that there is a Canon Law limit of 2 married priests per diocese, we have 2, that's that. Don't even think about it.
That's the first thing with the priest shortage. I've noticed that even now, the Church turns people away. Whether because of class size, availability of resources, demands for apparently a far from perfect screening process, an arbitrarily decided upon number, whatever - the Church does its thing and that's that. Better to shut down parishes and close ministries than consider moving the number to 3, or possibly letting 4 more into the class this year. The Church does its thing. Reason #1. The Church simply does its thing and isn't going to change, demographics or stats be damned.
Reason #2 is that the Church has lost some of its zing. It's trying to adapt to a rapidly changing anti-Christian world while standing firm in a 2000 year old tradition. And so you have a Church that seems to say, on one hand, that it's better that a million babies be murdered than a single person tell a white lie to save them. And on the other hand, is willing to embrace the latest hippest that all the cool post-Christian progressive Westerners embrace, as I said yesterday.
That sort of 'everything because sometimes it's near darn close to what is almost always for the most part nearly true based on the clear teachings of the ancient Church until yesterday but need to be understood without coming full near to saying up to the down of something' approach to crystal clear teaching has left a Church where a whole lot of people are on record not believing. Period. Half of Catholics don't believe in the Real Presence. Most accept the use of birth control. Most American Catholics support abortion rights. Most Catholic scholarship is far closer to the mainline liberal scholarship of Protestantism than traditional understandings of biblical studies (see above). Catholics are quite frankly all over the map, some to the extreme left, others to the extreme right, and others calling down a pox on both extremes while simultaneously, and not too subtlety forging their own fiscal version of what the Church really should have said.
In my seven years, I've met three priests whose homilies call it like it is. So many times, I hear priests talk in ways I can't pin down, even though I know the context. I've not heard one priest say that homosexual relations are sinful. Not one. Abortion? Yeah. That's the one issue the Church will take a bullet for. But unlike Patton, the Church seems to have forgotten what many Protestants are now forgetting, but both traditions (and Patton) once knew: you don't just get a bunch of guys together, hand them guns, then say storm the bunker. You train them. You discipline them. You teach them it's the little things that are as important as the big things, because those who are faithful with little things will typically end up being faithful with bigger things (Luke 16). Any coach worth his salt will say the same thing. You learn the fundamentals. The basics. The little disciplines. Then, and only then, are you ready to take on the powers of hell.
Unfortunately, that's not the Church today. It's troubles' roots no doubt precede Vatican II. I would wager they predate Vatican I. Truth be told, the difficulties are rooted in Luther's rather successful throwing off of the Church's authority. For centuries, that has caused no end of trouble. And in the last century, the trouble has been overflowing. Vatican II was simply an expression of trying to fit the square peg of the historical Catholic faith in the increasingly round hole of post-enlightenment, post-Christian contexts. Because of that, the Church is confused, or at least appears that way to the average Jane and Joe who don't have multiple advanced doctoral degrees in hermeneutics, historical theology, philosophy, and biblical interpretation. Mixed up. Not sure. I hear Catholics say more things than I ever heard in a dozen different Protestant denominations.
Catholics, and especially Catholic converts, love to point out that once upon a time there was a Protestant denomination, now look how many! Fair enough. One of the clear problems with Protestantism was its very origins. I knew that well. It's true. But in many ways, there are as many Catholic denominations today, at least mentally and religiously. That they all gather together around a table that only half believe to be true is hardly the point. Do we really think in such a setting, in such a fragmented and quite frankly confused environment you're going to have parents pushing their kids to be priests? Do you think you're going to have kids grow up and want to be priests? Fighting and dying for a cause is one thing. Fighting and dying for something that's not really sure how it wants to say this, is something else.
Naturally some will, and God bless them. Because not all Catholics are like this. Many are faithful, finding balance, seeking wisdom in humility, following the Church, questioning the Church, but doing so with honesty and restraint with a heart toward obedience. But the Church is made up of far more who are not there, for whatever reasons, and their numbers have pushed the limit I'm afraid. And sometimes, to be brutally honest, I can't help but believe the aforesaid things I've noticed are part of the problem. At some point, the Church needs to get its act together, and remember that God takes a dim view of religion that stands by while the flock drifts off into oblivion (Ezekiel 22.26, Hosea 4.6).
One more thing. For the most part, I don't buy the whole concern over priestly celibacy as anything but the outrage of it interfering with the mantra of the sexual revolution After all, the keystone to to our entire post-Freudian sexual ethic is that sex is like oxygen No, scratch that. Food, oxygen and water we can live without. But not sex. Not Sex! Everything we teach, believe, or follow just happily points to this idea that man can live on sex alone. And celibacy of any sort, especially of a traditional Christian sort, is a smack in the face to that little lie. It's Jessie Owens sprinting down before the pride of Nazi Germany in the 36 Olympics, smacking Hitler's entire Master Race theory square in the jaw. That's why they want celibacy to just go away. It's a powerful reminder upon just how much of a falsehood is our entire modern sexual ethic. So here's hoping that the Church can get it's act together, learn to not always be an Ent about adapting to changes, and yet that it stands firm on its traditions, especially because of the rather nefarious nature of those who are so eager for her to change them.
First, as I've said, I think the clergy convert movement has turned a corner, and we won't be seeing broad ordinations of married former protestant clergy like we did. At least that's what I've been told. I didn't say much, but a couple years ago, after being approached by several individuals suggesting I consider the diaconate, I went to our parish pastor to discuss the possibilities. After a while, it was floated that I consider going all the way into the priesthood. To be honest, I never really thought about that, and hadn't really considered it. But who was I to say no? After almost two years of discussions it just came back to me, on the eve of our pastor leaving for another parish, that the married priest ship has sailed. At least in our diocese.
In fact, on a side note, I've been told that the attitude toward clergy converts is such that not mentioning that I was a clergy convert could go a long way toward increasing my possibilities in our diocese. I had already been told this before, but now it came from on high. But that's a different issue. Right now, the answer is what piqued my curiosity. Basically, from the high seat itself, I was informed that there is a Canon Law limit of 2 married priests per diocese, we have 2, that's that. Don't even think about it.
That's the first thing with the priest shortage. I've noticed that even now, the Church turns people away. Whether because of class size, availability of resources, demands for apparently a far from perfect screening process, an arbitrarily decided upon number, whatever - the Church does its thing and that's that. Better to shut down parishes and close ministries than consider moving the number to 3, or possibly letting 4 more into the class this year. The Church does its thing. Reason #1. The Church simply does its thing and isn't going to change, demographics or stats be damned.
Reason #2 is that the Church has lost some of its zing. It's trying to adapt to a rapidly changing anti-Christian world while standing firm in a 2000 year old tradition. And so you have a Church that seems to say, on one hand, that it's better that a million babies be murdered than a single person tell a white lie to save them. And on the other hand, is willing to embrace the latest hippest that all the cool post-Christian progressive Westerners embrace, as I said yesterday.
That sort of 'everything because sometimes it's near darn close to what is almost always for the most part nearly true based on the clear teachings of the ancient Church until yesterday but need to be understood without coming full near to saying up to the down of something' approach to crystal clear teaching has left a Church where a whole lot of people are on record not believing. Period. Half of Catholics don't believe in the Real Presence. Most accept the use of birth control. Most American Catholics support abortion rights. Most Catholic scholarship is far closer to the mainline liberal scholarship of Protestantism than traditional understandings of biblical studies (see above). Catholics are quite frankly all over the map, some to the extreme left, others to the extreme right, and others calling down a pox on both extremes while simultaneously, and not too subtlety forging their own fiscal version of what the Church really should have said.
In my seven years, I've met three priests whose homilies call it like it is. So many times, I hear priests talk in ways I can't pin down, even though I know the context. I've not heard one priest say that homosexual relations are sinful. Not one. Abortion? Yeah. That's the one issue the Church will take a bullet for. But unlike Patton, the Church seems to have forgotten what many Protestants are now forgetting, but both traditions (and Patton) once knew: you don't just get a bunch of guys together, hand them guns, then say storm the bunker. You train them. You discipline them. You teach them it's the little things that are as important as the big things, because those who are faithful with little things will typically end up being faithful with bigger things (Luke 16). Any coach worth his salt will say the same thing. You learn the fundamentals. The basics. The little disciplines. Then, and only then, are you ready to take on the powers of hell.
Unfortunately, that's not the Church today. It's troubles' roots no doubt precede Vatican II. I would wager they predate Vatican I. Truth be told, the difficulties are rooted in Luther's rather successful throwing off of the Church's authority. For centuries, that has caused no end of trouble. And in the last century, the trouble has been overflowing. Vatican II was simply an expression of trying to fit the square peg of the historical Catholic faith in the increasingly round hole of post-enlightenment, post-Christian contexts. Because of that, the Church is confused, or at least appears that way to the average Jane and Joe who don't have multiple advanced doctoral degrees in hermeneutics, historical theology, philosophy, and biblical interpretation. Mixed up. Not sure. I hear Catholics say more things than I ever heard in a dozen different Protestant denominations.
Catholics, and especially Catholic converts, love to point out that once upon a time there was a Protestant denomination, now look how many! Fair enough. One of the clear problems with Protestantism was its very origins. I knew that well. It's true. But in many ways, there are as many Catholic denominations today, at least mentally and religiously. That they all gather together around a table that only half believe to be true is hardly the point. Do we really think in such a setting, in such a fragmented and quite frankly confused environment you're going to have parents pushing their kids to be priests? Do you think you're going to have kids grow up and want to be priests? Fighting and dying for a cause is one thing. Fighting and dying for something that's not really sure how it wants to say this, is something else.
Naturally some will, and God bless them. Because not all Catholics are like this. Many are faithful, finding balance, seeking wisdom in humility, following the Church, questioning the Church, but doing so with honesty and restraint with a heart toward obedience. But the Church is made up of far more who are not there, for whatever reasons, and their numbers have pushed the limit I'm afraid. And sometimes, to be brutally honest, I can't help but believe the aforesaid things I've noticed are part of the problem. At some point, the Church needs to get its act together, and remember that God takes a dim view of religion that stands by while the flock drifts off into oblivion (Ezekiel 22.26, Hosea 4.6).
One more thing. For the most part, I don't buy the whole concern over priestly celibacy as anything but the outrage of it interfering with the mantra of the sexual revolution After all, the keystone to to our entire post-Freudian sexual ethic is that sex is like oxygen No, scratch that. Food, oxygen and water we can live without. But not sex. Not Sex! Everything we teach, believe, or follow just happily points to this idea that man can live on sex alone. And celibacy of any sort, especially of a traditional Christian sort, is a smack in the face to that little lie. It's Jessie Owens sprinting down before the pride of Nazi Germany in the 36 Olympics, smacking Hitler's entire Master Race theory square in the jaw. That's why they want celibacy to just go away. It's a powerful reminder upon just how much of a falsehood is our entire modern sexual ethic. So here's hoping that the Church can get it's act together, learn to not always be an Ent about adapting to changes, and yet that it stands firm on its traditions, especially because of the rather nefarious nature of those who are so eager for her to change them.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
A person who had a fig tree?
Really? That's one of the problems I have with the New American Bible translation endorsed and used exclusively in American Catholic Masses. A person didn't have a fig tree. A man did. How do I know his gender? Easy, read:
“There once was a person who had a fig tree planted in his orchard,
and when he came in search of fruit on it but found none,
he said to the gardener,
‘For three years now I have come in search of fruit on this fig tree
but have found none.
So cut it down.
Why should it exhaust the soil?’
He said to him in reply,
‘Sir, leave it for this year also,
and I shall cultivate the ground around it and fertilize it;
it may bear fruit in the future.
If not you can cut it down.’” (Emphasis mine)
You see, the continued and repeated use of the masculine third person singular pronoun proves it was a he. I have no problem with translating Brothers as Brothers and Sisters when it is clear that the meaning was all people. I have no problem with translating Men to People when, again, the intent is the whole of humanity, male and female alike.
But this is a clear and flagrant case of appeasing the great PC brother. This is PC revisionism and nothing less. I know it's a small, almost insignificant thing. So what Dave? Get a grip man! Who cares? Well, I care. Because, to be brutally honest, like so much that is modern PC censorship (and Heston was right, PC is simply censorship with increasingly diminishing manners), it is dishonest. Call it C.E. rather than A.D. all you want, but it still references the life and times of He Whose Name Cannot Be Mentioned.
And use 'a person' when it's beyond clear that the individual is a man, and you've just been slightly less than honest, and that dealing with nothing less than Holy Scripture. Sometimes when Catholics call for a Church with more backbone, they're smacked down and asked if they would want the Church to come down on them. Would I want the Church to come down that hard on me? Would I want the Church to say 'it is as it is, suck on it'?
Well, yeah. For one thing, it has. After years pounding on the doors at Canossa Castle, I've been told there's no room in the inn for former Protestant Clergy. At least not from my tradition. At least not for now. That's that. It is what it is. For whatever reasons, whether I'm right or not in guessing what reasons might be, the winds have changed and are blowing in different directions than the ones that carried the Hahns and Grodis into a life of Catholic lay ministry, or even the Ray Rylands or the Longeneckers into ordained priestly ministry. But that's what comes of being Catholic. It is what it is. The Church has spoken.
In my few years as a Catholic, I've gotten used to the Church saying it is as it is. So yes, I'd be happy to have the Church start saying it a little more across the board. Tell feminist sensitivities and progressives calling for radical change that they can deal with it. We don't have to go and rewrite all of Scripture, even dishonestly, to appease them. Start telling it straight. You can't say 'take up your cross and follow the Savior', only to turn around and start rewriting words like cross and Savior in the hopes of appealing to our post-modern generation. Take it from one who spent years along side mainline Protestants and denominations descended from the traditions of Bultmann and John Dominic Crossan, any attempts to compromise with a movement whose roots are diametrically opposed to the foundations of the Christian universe are doomed to fail, no matter how trivial the compromises first appear. Being less than sincere in our interpretations of Scripture in order to contribute to the failure is just heaping coals on an already burning flame.
“There once was a person who had a fig tree planted in his orchard,
and when he came in search of fruit on it but found none,
he said to the gardener,
‘For three years now I have come in search of fruit on this fig tree
but have found none.
So cut it down.
Why should it exhaust the soil?’
He said to him in reply,
‘Sir, leave it for this year also,
and I shall cultivate the ground around it and fertilize it;
it may bear fruit in the future.
If not you can cut it down.’” (Emphasis mine)
You see, the continued and repeated use of the masculine third person singular pronoun proves it was a he. I have no problem with translating Brothers as Brothers and Sisters when it is clear that the meaning was all people. I have no problem with translating Men to People when, again, the intent is the whole of humanity, male and female alike.
But this is a clear and flagrant case of appeasing the great PC brother. This is PC revisionism and nothing less. I know it's a small, almost insignificant thing. So what Dave? Get a grip man! Who cares? Well, I care. Because, to be brutally honest, like so much that is modern PC censorship (and Heston was right, PC is simply censorship with increasingly diminishing manners), it is dishonest. Call it C.E. rather than A.D. all you want, but it still references the life and times of He Whose Name Cannot Be Mentioned.
And use 'a person' when it's beyond clear that the individual is a man, and you've just been slightly less than honest, and that dealing with nothing less than Holy Scripture. Sometimes when Catholics call for a Church with more backbone, they're smacked down and asked if they would want the Church to come down on them. Would I want the Church to come down that hard on me? Would I want the Church to say 'it is as it is, suck on it'?
Well, yeah. For one thing, it has. After years pounding on the doors at Canossa Castle, I've been told there's no room in the inn for former Protestant Clergy. At least not from my tradition. At least not for now. That's that. It is what it is. For whatever reasons, whether I'm right or not in guessing what reasons might be, the winds have changed and are blowing in different directions than the ones that carried the Hahns and Grodis into a life of Catholic lay ministry, or even the Ray Rylands or the Longeneckers into ordained priestly ministry. But that's what comes of being Catholic. It is what it is. The Church has spoken.
In my few years as a Catholic, I've gotten used to the Church saying it is as it is. So yes, I'd be happy to have the Church start saying it a little more across the board. Tell feminist sensitivities and progressives calling for radical change that they can deal with it. We don't have to go and rewrite all of Scripture, even dishonestly, to appease them. Start telling it straight. You can't say 'take up your cross and follow the Savior', only to turn around and start rewriting words like cross and Savior in the hopes of appealing to our post-modern generation. Take it from one who spent years along side mainline Protestants and denominations descended from the traditions of Bultmann and John Dominic Crossan, any attempts to compromise with a movement whose roots are diametrically opposed to the foundations of the Christian universe are doomed to fail, no matter how trivial the compromises first appear. Being less than sincere in our interpretations of Scripture in order to contribute to the failure is just heaping coals on an already burning flame.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Happy Anniversary to the world's most tolerant wife!
 |
| Who were those goofy kids? |
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Enjoyment for the modern work load
Now that I will be busy with a new job, helping with homeschool, helping with my Mom, and keeping life up as usual, I won't have much excess time for much in the way of casual entertainment. So my sons found this little help, consolidating the whole of The Lord of the Rings into a nice, neat usable package for those without enough extra time on their hands.
On Protestant Clergy Convert blogging with a new job
 |
| Elijah in the wilderness |
What we didn't know is that the economy was poised to collapse around us. We also hadn't reckoned with the fact that our society has changed in its views about religion to the extent that it has. I guess being in vocational ministry, especially of the full time sort, can isolate you from the real trends in the real world. We also didn't realize that, like it or not, the Great Clergy Convert Movement begun in the 80s with Scott Hahn has, unfortunately, slowed to a trickle. Part of it may well be the other factors I just mentioned. After all this is not Scott Hahn's generation. Hahn, Grodi, Thigpin, others of the 'Celebrity Convert' movement came into the Church during booming economic times, under the passionate and charismatic leadership of Pope John Paul II, who put a major premium on reaching out to 'our separated brethren' as of prime importance in the New Evangelization. And it was still a somewhat 'religious friendly' culture.
I know, by the 80s America was hardly a Baptist tent meeting. We were moving ever faster away from our cultural Christian roots. Religion was becoming increasingly suspect. Generations of kids never having graced the doors of the Church were becoming the norm rather than the exception. But there was still not the automatic suspicion and contempt that our post-9/11 world would bring to the minds of the unchurched. There was still a generic nod, and even handshake, toward traditional religion. Not all portrayals of the religious were Piper Laurie, some were still positive. If the individuals were negatively portrayed, there was still some generic 'religion somewhere in some way is still OK" attitude within our culture. As an agnostic, I conceded the point back in the day.
But in these years, it's none of that. Pope Benedict had his own priorities, and with the exception of reaching out to the Anglican Communion and the Orthodox traditions, there didn't seem to be as much focus on the rest of our "Separated Brethren". Perhaps it was beginning the process of actually figuring out how to bring the divergent traditions back into the Church, but that simply meant removing the focus from some abstract, generic 'them' and focusing on one tradition at a time. Hostility toward religion is at an all time high, and many younger people (like young people who are HR managers who do the hiring), look at religion somewhere between collecting Spock Ears and belonging to the KKK.
Naturally the economic collapse didn't help. With ten people applying for every job, you could levitate into an HR manager's office, only to be told the last guy could levitate and juggle. Having 'religious guy in religious stuff' on your resume was almost like an iron weight around a marathon runner's neck. And there was the Church itself. There simply were no positions, and no real desire at this point to do anything about it. Because of the economy, Church jobs that may have once seemed paltry for their compensation were now like gold. Folks just wouldn't give them up. And the Church, at least in these parts, no longer felt the need to create an 'office of ecumenical relations for this clergy convert who can't find a job.' The great enthusiasm about clergy converts had clearly dwindled. After meeting with dozens throughout the diocese, it was typically 'we'll pray that things work out somehow...though we have no clue how they will.'
So no, this was not the Scott Hahn generation of converts. Which could be why the overall numbers appear to have dwindled, and even lay ministries supposedly dedicated to helping clergy converts seem to be filling their testimonials with people coming into the Church who actually aren't, you know, clergy converts There is no Mother Angelica ready to swoop down and help form lay apostolates around a convert on the sole criteria that he is a convert. Come into the Catholic Church from Protestant ministry in the 00s or later, and you're pretty much on your own.
None of this is to say that we've had no help. On the contrary, the Church, in the sense of the people in the parishes, has been beyond overwhelming in generosity. Had they given us all they've given us when we had money to live, we could have afforded that month long round the world cruise we've always dreamt of. Of course the money, the gifts, the help and services have gone to keeping us alive all these years as I jumped from this temp job to that wild card chance. And in these last few years the help kept us just under the surface, but not descending into the depths of Davey Jones' Locker.
Now, as I begin my new job, I'm reminded of just how long it's been. The last time we had any sense of stability in our family, my oldest son - a Junior in high school - was in the third grade. Our 7th grader had not started school. That's a long time of jumping through hoops, and if anything, I regret that such a large portion of our life with our children was spent not knowing one day to the next what would happen.
I can't help but admit I wish something would have come by way of the Church, to keep the ministry going, to keep the sense of calling to vocational ministry to the Gospel alive. But, as of now, it apparently was not to be. I also have to admit that while this job helps, it gets us to the next place, sort of like that die roll that gets you past Boardwalk with a hotel. We made it. We got to GO and get to collect our $200. But we still have a long way to go. We need my wife to find something that will bring in money and fit with our homeschooling. We need my Mom's health to rebound. And once the dust settles, we still need to find ways to settle into the Church's ministry. Scheduling has been the biggest bane in that, and my job, alas, will not help as the initial schedule will be alternately through late evenings. No big problem, but makes taking part on a regular basis difficult.
So prayers will still be appreciated. We have a long way to go, though we've come along way in the process. To the families at St. Mary and St. John Neumann we owe much. To some of my readers and the prayers, kindness and generous offers, we also owe much. I am indebted to Mark Shea and some of his readers for having come through for us when we were literally at the end of ropes. It's for that I continue to visit Mark's blog, hoping that things go back to the way they used to be. And, of course, I thank God maybe not enough, because the air I breath and the health I and my family have, the food we have and the roof over our heads, ultimately come from Him.
I'll blog when I can, and hopefully get back to my goal of 2/day in the not-too-distant. Pray again, thanks again, and TTFN.
Why the Catholic Church looks so bad to the world
Is demonstrated in this story. The story, carried by Reuters, showcases Catholics who are outraged that Cardinal Mahony, who in some ways has come to exemplify everything bad about the abuse scandal in the Church, will be part of the conclave to elect the next Pope. I know, it's easy to be critical, judgmental, self-righteous. We don't need to wish him ill, pain, suffering, or the fires of hell. And yet, there is such a thing as justice. There is such a thing as the wrong shall fail, the right prevail. One of the basic reasons as Christians we rejoice is because God is a just God as well as a merciful God. Sin must be accounted for, it must be dealt with. There is a book of life, which suggests strongly a book that is not the book of life, or being absent from the book of life means something. And yet God is also a merciful God, and sends His Son to die on our behalf, so that those who believe on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
Take away the justice, the idea that wrong needs reckoned with, that there is punishment or basic accounting for wrong deeds, and the idea we are saved takes a hit. Ask anyone in a mainline Protestant denomination that has long abandoned such archaic notions as hell or punishment for sins. Like it or not, when that happens the Faith itself lacks punch. After all, God so loved the world He gave His only Son for what? To save us from what? So that we might have what apparently we would have anyway?
And if there are eternal results of our sins, there are also temporal consequences as well. I don't know the details about Cardinal Mahony. Almost everything that's been published suggests he was part of the grand cover up and obstruction of justice that has been the major hit to the Catholic Church. As I've said before, no fair minded person would slam the Church because priests raped or abused young people. That happens when you deal with humans, some do horrible things. But it's the systemic cover up, the wide and sweeping use and abuse of Church positions of authority that have given the Church the major black eye. That cover up, that wide ranging attempt to sweep things under the carpet, feeds into the stereotype that the Church is, and always has been, a lumbering bureaucracy of corruption and decadence, where warped individuals abuse and use the power of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to crush the masses while being drunk on the wine of influence and domination.
It also plays into the notion that the Catholic Church is a modern Pharisaical movement that believes man was made for the Canon Law, not Canon Law for man. It suggests that while kids having the hell raped out of them by priests while bishops and other officials use the power of their office to crush all inquirers is a bad thing, the really important thing is Canon Law 12391298.HSEIF12038940123 that says technically we still should keep the guilty on because otherwise, etc.,etc.,etc.
IMHO, it would be best if Mahony stepped out. For sheer public relations and to make a point that the Scandal was more than a big mess of an inconvenience to business as usual. If he doesn't, it would be a feather in the cap of the Church to lovingly set him aside, explain that there is no malice in the decision, and it prays for all involved, or something. But the idea that he could be within the decision making process of the next Pope poll-vaults beyond the reality that all Cardinals are sinners. It pushes the idea that all sin is an affront to God the wrong direction. We don't say that to get people off the hook. We say that to be humble ourselves, and realize that who are we to judge? But we don't say it to take away our ability to call evil or even wrong what it is. Nor do we use it to say a person who may well have been responsible for one of the most scandalous affronts to the Christian faith in generations is no worse off than the person who stole a towel from a hotel. Keeping things in perspective, standing on justice as well as mercy, and acting as if there are things worth being saved from, will go a long way toward repairing the reputation of the Church in the minds of fair minded people, as well as reminding us all that there are in fact consequences of our actions, hence the praise we give to God for saving us through Christ Jesus.
Take away the justice, the idea that wrong needs reckoned with, that there is punishment or basic accounting for wrong deeds, and the idea we are saved takes a hit. Ask anyone in a mainline Protestant denomination that has long abandoned such archaic notions as hell or punishment for sins. Like it or not, when that happens the Faith itself lacks punch. After all, God so loved the world He gave His only Son for what? To save us from what? So that we might have what apparently we would have anyway?
And if there are eternal results of our sins, there are also temporal consequences as well. I don't know the details about Cardinal Mahony. Almost everything that's been published suggests he was part of the grand cover up and obstruction of justice that has been the major hit to the Catholic Church. As I've said before, no fair minded person would slam the Church because priests raped or abused young people. That happens when you deal with humans, some do horrible things. But it's the systemic cover up, the wide and sweeping use and abuse of Church positions of authority that have given the Church the major black eye. That cover up, that wide ranging attempt to sweep things under the carpet, feeds into the stereotype that the Church is, and always has been, a lumbering bureaucracy of corruption and decadence, where warped individuals abuse and use the power of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to crush the masses while being drunk on the wine of influence and domination.
It also plays into the notion that the Catholic Church is a modern Pharisaical movement that believes man was made for the Canon Law, not Canon Law for man. It suggests that while kids having the hell raped out of them by priests while bishops and other officials use the power of their office to crush all inquirers is a bad thing, the really important thing is Canon Law 12391298.HSEIF12038940123 that says technically we still should keep the guilty on because otherwise, etc.,etc.,etc.
IMHO, it would be best if Mahony stepped out. For sheer public relations and to make a point that the Scandal was more than a big mess of an inconvenience to business as usual. If he doesn't, it would be a feather in the cap of the Church to lovingly set him aside, explain that there is no malice in the decision, and it prays for all involved, or something. But the idea that he could be within the decision making process of the next Pope poll-vaults beyond the reality that all Cardinals are sinners. It pushes the idea that all sin is an affront to God the wrong direction. We don't say that to get people off the hook. We say that to be humble ourselves, and realize that who are we to judge? But we don't say it to take away our ability to call evil or even wrong what it is. Nor do we use it to say a person who may well have been responsible for one of the most scandalous affronts to the Christian faith in generations is no worse off than the person who stole a towel from a hotel. Keeping things in perspective, standing on justice as well as mercy, and acting as if there are things worth being saved from, will go a long way toward repairing the reputation of the Church in the minds of fair minded people, as well as reminding us all that there are in fact consequences of our actions, hence the praise we give to God for saving us through Christ Jesus.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
We shouldn't teach morality in schools
That was the big conclusion in a debate we had in a secondary education class back at OSU. It would have been around 1988, and Dr. Jerry, our professor, threw the question out for discussion. With only a few dissenters, it was concluded that schools were no place to legislate morality. That kept with the 70s brand of liberalism that screamed we should never legislate morality. Looking back, I get the sneaky feeling that what they meant was 'you can't use our schools to teach this rubbish about not living a life of unbridled hedonism an narcissism.'
Fast forward. A girl shows up to school with a T-Shirt that promotes *gasp* abstinence and is told the shirt is entirely inappropriate. I thought maybe there was something about 'don't have sex, have Jesus instead.' Nope. Just one suggesting that from backseat accidents come little kids. I guess my college class was right, you just shouldn't teach morality...if you're a student. The school, apparently, can mandate moral absolutes until the cows come home, especially if they promote the same hedonism and debauchery we so yearned for back in the day.
Fast forward. A girl shows up to school with a T-Shirt that promotes *gasp* abstinence and is told the shirt is entirely inappropriate. I thought maybe there was something about 'don't have sex, have Jesus instead.' Nope. Just one suggesting that from backseat accidents come little kids. I guess my college class was right, you just shouldn't teach morality...if you're a student. The school, apparently, can mandate moral absolutes until the cows come home, especially if they promote the same hedonism and debauchery we so yearned for back in the day.
A reading list for atheists
OK, nobody was speaking of John C. Wright, but by goodness they ought to be. Here he is, giving a list of reading materials he would and wouldn't recommend to the aspiring atheist. It's a fair list. Though I was shocked he didn't include Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens due to never having read them. I admit I've not read Harris's later works, though his breakout book The End of Faith was riddled with all manner of errors and false assumptions, and seemed to set the standard for the movement known as modern atheism (who needs facts when you know religion is dumb?). I know he corrected some of the errors in later years, such as crime rates associated with secular/religious societies, and did back down on his basic call to eradicate religions he doesn't like from the planet. But still.
Hitchens, also, was a factual train wreck, and many things he spoke about as firmly rooted in fact were the stuff that would get you a D- in most college courses. His many errors in god is Not Great were examples of his fast and loose approach to facts. I enjoyed reading reviews of the book as various individuals with expertise in different fields all disassembled the book and its inaccuracies, while also deferring to experts in other fields as if to say 'he's probably only wrong with the facts I know, not those over there.' Hitchens was the living example of how a British accent and a caustic wit will get you bonus points in modern American debate, God rest his soul.
As for the others on the list, the only one I'm aware of I might question is the late, great Carl Sagan. Yes, a popular evangelist for the pre-Harris styled atheism, Sagan still demonstrated some pretty weak knowledge of religion in general and biblical studies in particular I will always remember seeing a lecture he gave ages ago in which he said if you believed the Bible, you must believe the world is flat with four corners, referencing images from the Book of Revelation. Even fundamentalists could shoot that one out of the sky. Brilliant man, but like Stephen Hawking, only within his particular realm of expertise. Otherwise, a reading list worth looking at, for the atheist or the thinking believer.
Hitchens, also, was a factual train wreck, and many things he spoke about as firmly rooted in fact were the stuff that would get you a D- in most college courses. His many errors in god is Not Great were examples of his fast and loose approach to facts. I enjoyed reading reviews of the book as various individuals with expertise in different fields all disassembled the book and its inaccuracies, while also deferring to experts in other fields as if to say 'he's probably only wrong with the facts I know, not those over there.' Hitchens was the living example of how a British accent and a caustic wit will get you bonus points in modern American debate, God rest his soul.
As for the others on the list, the only one I'm aware of I might question is the late, great Carl Sagan. Yes, a popular evangelist for the pre-Harris styled atheism, Sagan still demonstrated some pretty weak knowledge of religion in general and biblical studies in particular I will always remember seeing a lecture he gave ages ago in which he said if you believed the Bible, you must believe the world is flat with four corners, referencing images from the Book of Revelation. Even fundamentalists could shoot that one out of the sky. Brilliant man, but like Stephen Hawking, only within his particular realm of expertise. Otherwise, a reading list worth looking at, for the atheist or the thinking believer.
Jimmy Akin on the Transfiguration
Some interesting stuff, as always, over at Jimmy Akin's blog. Here he unpacks ten things worth knowing about that unique event mentioned in the Gospels: the transfiguration of Jesus.
Super-cool point I had never considered: Luke 9:27, often used by skeptics to point out flawed predictions on Jesus' part (while ignoring the fact that the early Church would have understood the problems when the Gospels were written), is put into context of the Transfiguration. It isn't that some will not taste death before the Kingdom of God is revealed, as in the end of times. It's pointing to the Transfiguration, and what the apostles who witness it will see. Great point! I don't think I'll read Luke 9:27 again the same way. Go read it now, well worth the read.
Super-cool point I had never considered: Luke 9:27, often used by skeptics to point out flawed predictions on Jesus' part (while ignoring the fact that the early Church would have understood the problems when the Gospels were written), is put into context of the Transfiguration. It isn't that some will not taste death before the Kingdom of God is revealed, as in the end of times. It's pointing to the Transfiguration, and what the apostles who witness it will see. Great point! I don't think I'll read Luke 9:27 again the same way. Go read it now, well worth the read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)