Protestant Clergy Converts to Catholicism...where?

Being a protestant clergy convert to Catholicism, one who has yet to find any opportunity to serve within the Church apart from 'here, pass these out', I keep an eye open to any news about the phenomenon. I just noticed something, as I looked at a brochure regarding some conferences featuring 'Protestant Clergy Converts to Catholicism.' I noticed they're all, well, gray haired and graying. Think of the notable clergy converts. Can we think of any who don't have predominantly gray hair? Any who can't remember when Howdy Doody was prime time? Any who didn't come into the Church before 9/11?

I can't help but feel that the great tidal wave of Clergy converts, inspired by Pope John Paul II, and eased in by a crop of lay apostolates geared at making straight the paths into the Church, is dwindling. No new blood. Most of the significant names are people who seem to be within a singular set, a group, a clique. And no younger folks are coming in to light the way. I hear the same stats over and over (more than a thousand here or there), but given the hundreds of thousands of Protestant clergy around the world, that's not much. There are likely as many priests leaving the Church and embracing Protestantism as clergy becoming Catholic. I knew of several in my own ministry days. Far more in proportion than the Protestant Clergy I've found since I became Catholic.

All of this is to say the Church might want to step up to the plate and grab hold of what was there, because I can't help but get the feeling that it appears to be slowing. The appearance is there at least. Likewise, those who have carried the torch for the first great influx of Protestant clergy post PJPII into the Catholic Church may want to start priming a new generation to rise up and represent the movement as the world changes, the context of conversion changes, and the demands on an individual ready to leave it all for Mother Church changes. Just a thought.

So why did Keith Olbermann get the axe?

It's hard to say. Many are suggesting it's MSNBC's way of trying to distance itself from FOX News. A way of saying, "See, we do have standards!" For me, the question is the timing. I have a hard time believing it was coincidence. No, my guess is it was damage control for MSNBC's deplorable election night coverage that has drawn criticism from across the board. No pretense of objectivity existed, as a panel of liberals mocked, ridiculed, laughed at, and derided Republican after Republican. Chris Matthew's interview of Michelle Bachmann was, of course, the low point of the night. And that's saying something, given how low the night already was. It consisted of anchors and hosts acting like pre-adolescents in an elementary school coat room making fun of the teachers. And of course, only making fun of the Republican/Conservative teachers.

Because the condemnation was so swift, and encompassed voices from the Left side of the aisle, MSNBC had to do something. So it picked its most flagrant liberal voice, a voice who is essentially the Sean Hannity of MSNBC, and sacrificed him on the altar. Whether they let him back or not, we'll have to see. But I think this was far less about MSNBC trying, suddenly and for no other apparent reason, to distance itself from FOX, but a clear attempt to clean up the verbal defecation that resulted from possibly the most embarrassingly bad election night coverage since the invention of Cuneiform.

Pope to Spain: Save yourself

Greeted by a few hundred of the usual suspects, Pope Benedict once again has given a part of Europe the antidote for healing itself from the infection of secularism. Naturally, a few hundred folks who insist that the individual is the hub around which the universe spins came out to express their displeasure. But note that over a quarter million came out to cheer the Pope. Of course some of these hundreds of thousands may well have been responsible for electing a socialist government founded upon, among other things, giving a giant middle finger to the Church. We can't know. But the government has been voted in, in part thanks to some well timed Islamic terrorist attacks a few years ago, and is working overtime to help push Spain over the same brink that so many other European countries have plummeted. We'll see if it's too little too late. But at least he is speaking more forcibly. Let's see if he aims such strong rhetoric at the Catholic faithful and other notable religions that seem to be causing a certain amount of problems in the world.

Subaru's perfect commercial for parents

Blogging will be light the next few days. I'm continuing to look around at options for the comments boxes, since I've been informed it isn't always that, well, user friendly. In the meantime, I appreciate all the comments that are being given - even if we don't see eye to eye. I sometimes learn best from those with whom I disagree. My only rule: don't insult or attack, otherwise, opinions may be given rather freely. Hopefully I'll be back up in a day or two. Several interesting things worth looking at, like Pope Benedict's increasingly blunt statements, Bill Maher's interesting take on Islamic names, and even some reflections on a movie or two I've seen recently.

Until then, enjoy this little gem. I know, it's a commercial. It's main purpose is to sell stuff. But advertisers, as amoral as they tend to be, can sometimes hit the nail on the head. Picking three perfect actors to pull it off didn't hurt. But there isn't a parent out there who can't identify with this one. I look at this, as I prepare to begin teaching my oldest to drive, and wonder what ever happened to that little tyke in an over sized Santa hat all those Christmases ago. They will always be that child in our eyes. Thus originates the tears of their parents.

Mark Shea asks for prayers for his father

I admire Mark Shea, and am indebted to him for the part he played in my journey to Catholicism. I think he has posted this, or a variation of it, every year since I've visited his blog. He's done it at least a couple times. This is the day his Dad died. And he includes in his post a picture of himself as a child sitting next to his Dad.

Now I don't know why, but each time I see the picture, it almost brings a tear to my eye. And anyone who knows me knows I'm not the crying type. Yet it does. Perhaps because of the picture itself. Maybe I imagine that someday when I have gone my grown boys will look at a picture of them with me and reminisce the same way. Maybe it's because I think of the pictures of my own Dad, ravaged by Alzheimer's, barely recognizable, and remember those days gone by, mourning my own loss of innocence as much as his loss of identity. I don't' know. But I know it moves me every time he posts this.

So yes, I will pray. Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May he rest in peace.

Where's the turkey Charlie Brown?

On our kitchen wall, above a cluttered desk next to a cabinet, hangs a calendar. We received it last Christmas. It's one of those organizational calendars, with columns for each person. Like most organizational things in our house, the first few months are marked with a good old college try at cataloging our monthly obligations. The later months are blank. Still, it's there.

Each month has a banner with Charlie Brown and the Peanuts gang demonstrating the monthly theme. July shows patriotism and flags and bunting. August is summer sports and sunny days. September has the kids lined up with school books and lunch bags. October has pumpkins and trick or treating. And then comes November. I noticed it when I changed the month a couple days ago, but didn't really think about it until last night. The kids are there doing...nothing. They are standing. In a grassy field. They are holding bags or books, and just staring around.

Why? What was missing? Obviously the month's theme. And what theme would I have expected? A theme of pilgrims or turkeys or something to do with Thanksgiving, that's what. Yet nothing was there. It was almost flagrantly left blank. And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do. Why did it so obviously, so brazenly, not include any references to Thanksgiving when every other classic theme was included?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that the long arm of politically correct censorship is reaching farther than we imagine. The power of the post-Western progressive movement is seeping into every nook and craney of our lives. It's obviously not an accident. It was purposeful. The artists and the publisher of the calendar are not lost on the fact that Thanksgiving is a rather big holiday in November. Knowing that, they still went out of their way not to include a reference to the holiday.

Now the secular progressive movement is, like most revolutions, based on a complete and total rejection of all things traditional. Anything and everything to do with the classical Christian foundation of Western culture is rejected. In order to do this, the myths of bygone days have to be exposed, and the 'Truth' revealed. The result, ironically, is not 'Truth' at all. A bad myth simply has replaced good myth. The pilgrims, like all European settlers, have been lumped into the category of genocidal racist imperialists. Their contributions have been stripped away, the positive dispensed, and the legacy dismissed. And lie based on some truth has been replaced by a lie based on almost no truth at all.

Many American Indians, happy to ignore any bad in their own heritage, and ride the wave of modern Anti-Westernism, use the day each year to rain on the parade of happy celebrants. Post-moderns use it to drive home the ludicrous myth of the pilgrims by revealing their unforgivable decimation of the beautiful indigenous peoples. And most Americans, unaware but taking it in by Osmosis, continue on their way, eating their turkeys, having their get togethers, watching their football games, not realizing that even as they wipe their chins of gravy, the very basis for their feasting is slowly being eaten away.

The religious components of the holiday have long been removed. Thanksgiving was obviously a religious celebration by a religious people. Scholars, always ready to ride the latest wave of hip thinking, have worked laboriously to strip away any notion that we should identify the holiday as purely religious; certainly we should feel no compunction to associate it with a Christian belief system.

Most of us who have children who watch PBS cartoons, or are vaguely aware of the surrounding culture, or who read the papers and articles brought home from public schools, can see the diminished role of thanks-giving. We see that being thankful is still a priority, but there is no particular recipient of our thanks. Our children are calleed to be thankful in some vague, ethereal way. That will be good enough. Anyone over the age of forty is aware of the change, however slowly it occurred.

Now, a new change is happening. While Thanksgiving remains a truly American holiday - for the time being - it is gradually disolving by the acidic effects of post-modern sensitivites. Already the first volleys are being fired. To invoke the pilgrims is to celebrate a genocide (that never happened). To remind ourselves of anything positive in the European Christian tradition is to do nothing less than give a wink and nod to the likes of Nazis and racist murderers.

Sure, we're not there yet. Give it a few decades to settle in. Eventually it will become bolder, more common, and finally accepted. By the time my youngest is in high school, I can't help wondering what it will look like. Certainly we can't get rid of our official kick off to America's annual frenzy of commercialism and greed. Something will have to be there. What it will morph into, though, I can only guess. But since I can still remember hearing about the pilgrims' thankfulness to God for their well being, and see what it has become in our modern popular understanding, the calendar that stands starkly in denial of this holiday bodes ill for what my boy will ever know.

More just criticism of MSNBC

Glad to see I'm not the only one. Sure, CNN and Fox tilted to their respective biases. But at least they gave some amount of time to hosts and guests who were not on the same ideological team. Both did more than some might give them credit for. For instance, the article mentions that Fox gave time to conservatives, like Sarah Palin (who works for Fox). It fails to point out she was on next to Geraldine Ferraro, a noted liberal Democrat. It also mentioned that Fox drew criticism for the number of republican and conservative candidates on their payroll. Yet fails to mention that many hosts and anchors on other networks are no less linked to liberal and Democrat backgrounds, Chris Matthews and George Stephanopoulos being the first two that leap to mind. Still Fox, like CNN, and the others really, at least tried to give the impression that they were trying to be balanced.

In the end, every network is biased. What was so flagrant about MSNBC is that it didn't simply decide to throw away all pretense of neutrality. What was shocking was the insulting, disrespectful, and downright childish snobbery that the hosts had toward various Republican candidates, as well as their fellow Americans - who happen to be conservative - as a whole.

Reflections: Amazon for Commodore 64 - When all things are new

I miss Michael Crichton. First, the man never met a scientific breakthrough that he didn't fear. Because of this, he was a great antidote to all the science worship in our modern world. Despite the fact that science and innovation brought forth the very forces that scientists now say could wipe out life on our planet, despite living in the shadow of the mushroom cloud and the gas chambers, we still tend to think scientists are one up on the evolutionary scale, never wrong, and anything they give us will only be good cuz nothing bad could come from science. Crichton, God rest his soul, did what he could to warn us of such blind faith in science.

Second, the man was creative. He wrote some good novels. Even if some, like Congo, that relied so heavily on now outdated innovations, can come off as dated, they are still fun reads. He managed to combine a keen scientific intellect with a vivid and wild imagination. And not just books or movies. He was also a fair hand at video games. One computer game that is. Released in 1984, my Junior and Senior years of high school, the game Amazon stands as one of the best examples of what we thought computer and video games would eventually yield.

Sure, it looks dated today. Duh. I'm often taken by the fact that the Internet seems to have bred an entire generation of critics who can't imagine why Ancient Egypt didn't have cool CGI images in their tombs. Somehow it's telescoped our thinking when it comes to the things of the past, producing a contempt for things that came before. But if we can set such silliness aside, and look at the game in its context, we can see why it was so well received, so successful, and quite frankly, so darn fun.

The preimse was based, albeit loosely, on his book Congo. You were an agent who was dropped in the middle of the Amazon in order to find a lost ruin, while also following hard on the demise of an expedition that had preceded you. The game opens, in fact, with a pretty clever set of graphics meant to illustrate the previous party's demise. You literally watch as the cameras pan, until a native slowly moves toward the lens and Zap! Everything goes blank.

After a run through the city to get to the airport, you're off. Once dropped in the Amazon itself, you must dodge jaguars, hostile natives, hostile enemies, scrounging monkeys, and devious traps set in an ancient pre-Colombian ruin. The game itself bounces from a 3D POV approach, moving through hours of screen with nothing but jungle leaves, to arcade style shoot'em ups. You were given an actual map to plot your course - and you had better do so. You had other items as well, and had to solve puzzles, find your way through endless jungle (before the term was renamed Rain Forest), and eventually make it to the destination without dying. You could always go back and reload, but this was on a Commodore 64. The reload function took a month of Sundays.

Now maybe I'm just an old crank, but I can't help but feel that at least some of the potential creativity and possible avenues that computer games could have gone didn't pan out. Though limited to C64 technology, the game packed quite a punch. You interacted, you had to use a map, you had multiple game types. And the map was part of the game, not a supplement! You ignored it at your own risk. But today, the games are pretty much the same: sports, strategy, simulation, POV games and RPGs, they all pretty much follow the same formula. You play, save, reload, play, save reload. The graphics are at times stunning, but there is almost a simplicity to it all. Through sheer repetitiveness, you will get through it without doing much but the same thing over, and over, and over again. You put a game in, and it will be more or less the same thing until it is through.

When I think of how much variety was included in the game Amazon, the quality of production, the added elements, the variety of gameplay in a game so crude, I can't help but think if the creativity had advanced in proportion with technology, the games today would be beyond our imagination, and not merely cut from one of a half dozen molds that rely on sameness to appeal to a mass audience.

All of this is to say I got to thinking. There was a time, as in most new technologies, that folks imagine there is no limit. The sky maybe, but otherwise no limit, once we get going, to what a new invention will bring. Sometimes we may look around and think look at everything we have! Look at how everything is brilliant! And yet there always ends up being a plateau, a leveling off of what we thought was possible by what becomes possible. What we, in the early 80s, believed computer games and video games could be in twenty years has not really happened. The graphics are certainly stunning. But beyond that, not much else. It's pretty much pong on steroids. Maybe that's why we obsess with getting more of the latest. We always hope that the next one will scratch the itch we have for more than just doing the same old same old. And yet, when it comes to technology at least, even the new eventually becomes the same old down the road. And we look back, realizing that so many of our expectations ultimately fell short. As much as we have, we imagined we would have so much more. Maybe in a thousand years, but never in the lifetime of one's imagination.

A thanks to all the poll workers from this election season

Sherry Weddell, a writer whose reflections I enjoy, wrote a nice piece about an often overlooked side of our election process: the army of volunteers who make it happen. On a side note, I was heartened to see a young woman as one of the volunteers this year. I think that's the first time in my decades of voting that I saw someone that young helping out. Just a note, in a few more years, we'll need more folks to step up to the plate.

"I just had to say “thank-you for your service" to the woman who took my ballot. If it wouldn’t have disturbed the hush of the moment, I would have tried to thank all the volunteers present. We owe them. We owe all who ensure that year after year, our experience of voting is dim and threadbare and ordinary instead of violent or marred by corruption.

In the context of human history, that qualifies as a major achievement. God bless all who make it possible."

MSNBC Continues to make Fox News look good

MSNBC continues to embarrass itself, and that's no easy accomplishment. The one network that actually makes FOX News look fair and balanced, MSNBC continues to reach down to the lowest common denominator of modern discourse. I'm trying to be charitable, but there just isn't much to say. I watched its election night coverage for about ten minutes, became ashamed at the spot to which journalism had sunk, and turned. The rank and obvious partisanship is bad enough. The open contempt and loathing of all who reject liberal dogmas is bothersome. But the worst thing is that so many of its 'stars' - Matthews, Olbermann, Madow - act as though they have yet to hit puberty. Like a bunch of snotty pre-adolescents, they snicker and sneer and laugh and make fun of the other side to a point where you wonder if they have anything valuable to say. And you figure they must. So why act the way they do?

At least on other networks like CNN and Fox, when Anderson Cooper or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly act obnoxious or partisan, it's done as an adult acting that way. Compared to the MSNBC gang, I could do better wheeling a TV in front of a bunch of sixth graders. Goodness knows the sixth graders probably would act more mature.

The best part of this rather shameful and embarrassing exchange on the part of the host Chris Matthews, and his giggling peanut gallery, is the slam Michelle Bachmann threw at him. Calling up Matthews' infamous 'tingling' feel he got when Obama spoke, Bachmann gives him as much as he deserves for being so condescending, contemptuous, and patronizing to a US Congresswoman. That Matthews didn't seem to get the reference, and the silence of the otherwise sneering cohorts, makes it a clip worth watching. When will NBC get it together and at least try not to look like the propaganda machine it has become? And an immature one at that.

California pot lovers vow to fight on

Something about this just makes me laugh. Folks who are wiling to work themselves up into a frenzy over legalized pot while our country falters, wars rage, and millions starve. Yep, that's about what you come to expect from the American post-liberal left.

Reflections on Election 2010

As a decades long fan of politics, I can't help but watch the interesting turn of events that is our electoral process. Unlike some, I am not entirely lost in cynicism when it comes to our government. I'm no wide eyed dreamer either. I know politics is a practical profession, and expect no more or less than it usually delivers. I am happy to live in a country that does not need bloodshed and riots and assassinations and carnage to overthrow the powers that be. Where the greatest inconvenience is road construction or a miscommunication over polling locations, things could be worse. A heck of a lot worse.

So it's with some pride of being an American in a country, though flawed, that still has hope for living up to its higher ideals, that I will watch and see what happens. One of the difficulties will be sifting through the source of partisanship that has hamstrung so much of our public life: the media. Whether FOX News, or any other publication, advocacy is more and more the special of the day. In this particular piece, we have a story trying desperately to say that the big loser was, in fact, Boehner and the Republicans. There is some truth to that. But it won't be like 1994, when Bill Clinton, with the help of the MSM, was able to cast himself as the knight in white armor saving America from Prince Gingrich, and his evil congress. Since the Democrats still hold the Senate, be it ever so marginally, President Obama will not be able to establish a narrative of 'me vs. congress.' To do so, he would have to break down and parse the numbers to exclude the Democrats. Once you begin to do that, to deconstruct the story and have to comment on the individual parts, it becomes very difficult to establish that crucial narrative - no matter how much help he will get from the media.

So we'll have to see. Right now pundits on the Left will be trying to spin it the best way they know how, and pundits on the Right will be trying to make sure expectations are for their designs, putting as many protective barriers around the Republicans in the House as possible. Next stop will be President Obama's reaction.

Muslim group declares war on Christians

The headlines read Al-Qaida is threatening to kill more Christians. But if you read the article, you will see that it's actually a group calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq. The Christian church in Iraq has suffered greatly since the US lead invasion. The question is, why? I know, I know, because Bush screwed everything up. But that doesn't answer everything. Since 9/11, the biggest killer of Muslims has been Muslims. Why? How does Bush's policies in Iraq lead to Muslims in other parts of the world killing each other? Launching raids against India or Pakistan? Rising up against churches in Indonesia? Now the attention is turning to the Christian population in Iraq.

I'm not saying Bush's policies weren't majorly flawed. But to simply dismiss all this with a 'it's Bush's fault' answer may miss the point. It certainly plays loose with the well being of those Christians in question. In any event, obviously there are problems with Christians being singled out for slaughter by a Muslim group. Notice that the group is an 'umbrella' group. It includes, but is not solely made up of, Al-Qaida. Should we expect international outrage? Would we hear such outrage if Christians in Iraq targeted Muslims? If Christians in America targeted Muslims? When a pastor of a small church in Florida said he would burn the Koran, all hell broke loose. World leaders came together, President Obama pleaded with him to stop, the military asked for him to reconsider. What will the world response to this development be?

Why Catholics should watch being too cynical

The Catholic Church is big. And it's old. As a singular institution, it is the oldest in the world. It is also one of the largest. Over one billion people call themselves Catholic. Only Islam is larger. Unlike Islam, the Catholic Church traces itself to one source, one authority, one hierarchy. That makes it tough on the Church if we consider its faults. After all, an institution that probably has had close to 2 billion people walk through its doors in almost 2000 years, is going to have some bad apples. Take for instance this little story out of Mexico. Now Mexico has been, and continues to be, one of the most corrupt nations on earth. This isn't something that just began. One of the arguments, quite valid I should add, against simple amnesty is the problem with corruption. If Mexico can just shuttle its unwanted up to us, where is its own motivation to change? But that's for another post.

In this little gem of a story, we have a Catholic chapel. Rumor has it that drug money from a powerful drug lord is at least partially responsible for its building. In a way reminiscent of medieval lords who donated cathedrals and monasteries to make amends for their bloodshed, this chapel has found its source in blood money. Or so they think. And investigation is ongoing.

What struck me was the usual suspects: unaware bishops, priests willing to turn a blind eye to Catholic teaching about such things as consequentialism, and parishioners who don't even care. There's a reason why the Church has suffered horrible public relations nightmares in the last decade, and these are some of the reasons why.

And yet, this is a single Church in Mexico. How does it impact the whole Church? Easy, because the whole Church is seen as one, each time any part of its members sins, it suddenly tarnishes the whole. Think of the priest abuse scandal. There isn't a person in the world with their head on straight who believes Catholic priests are somehow more likely to abuse children than anyone else. Or who thinks the problem is uniquely Catholic. Or even believes that the Church is worse than any other organization.

But its single structure, its touting of itself as one, big, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, sometimes swims around and bites it in the rear. Especially in a world where there are plenty of people ready to believe the absolute worst about the Catholic Faith. Even optimists can find their faith in the leadership of the Church stretched to the limit. How much easier for those who already have axes to grind.

All of this is to say that Catholics should remember, when we see stories like this, that they should not reflect on the whole Church. Even when there is a pattern, it looks worse than it is - sometimes. That's not to say the Church doesn't have problems. I've said if the Church were a business, it would have gone bankrupt ages ago. But it is to say we should keep it in perspective, look at the facts and the context, and not jump to the most cynical conclusion. Of course, truth be told, Catholics should also resist jumping to the most cynical conclusions about non-Catholic issues and organizations as well, starting with things like our country, our government, our schools, or whatever. We can certainly criticize, and where evidence is overwhelming, call a spade a spade. But the conclusion should be fact based, not based on a cynicism that, if applied to the Catholic Church, would make any reasonable person think twice about ever listening to its proclamations again.

How should Catholics vote?

Easy, based on the teachings of the Catholic Church, that's how. The statement by the USCCB is pretty clear. We should be involved in our country's political life. Voting is not the only way. When we vote, we should be informed by Catholic moral teaching. We cannot put party loyalties or loyalties to a politician ahead of Catholic teaching. We sure cannot vote for individuals or measures in order to advance something that is deemed an intrinsic moral evil by the Church. You cannot vote for someone who supports moral evils simply because. If you do vote for one person who advocates a grave moral evil, it had better damn well be because you are hoping it will cancel out an even greater moral evil. If you can't bring yourself to vote for any candidate, you can take the extraordinary step of just not voting (notice the emphasis on extraordinary step - that suggests that voting is the assumed approach to preforming our civic duties). If you feel you have no choice between two candidates or parties, you can - as long as you are being honest with God, who of course knows - vote for the one who is least morally offensive if it is to prevent greater moral evils of the other party or advance greater moral goods:

When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

Ultimately, how you vote is between you and God.

That's it. The basic ideas is that you should vote. As Americans, we should sometimes remember just how precious this thing called freedom is. I notice sometimes we tend to take it lightly. We assume that, no matter what happens, things will be the same. If America slides down the scale of world powers, or some other country emerges, it will all be the same. Despite our railing against American Exceptionalism, everyone seems to think that America as it is will be around forever. It won't. Enjoy the freedom while we can.

Also, don't let folks tell you that voting a certain way, or even voting at all, is a sure path toward damnation. In the 2008 election, I was shocked at how many Catholic apologists tried to insinuate that only dolts and sinners wouldn't vote their way, or even would vote at all. There was actually attempts by some notables to suggest that the very act of voting puts one's soul in jeopardy. Since Catholics have the benefit of an actual, physical teaching authority, they should listen to them. The Bishops have made it clear we should take part in the political process, we should do it as Catholics first, we can never vote to promote, or even support someone who does promote, intrinsic evils. And if there is no other choice, we can abstain, or try to take the path to eliminate the worst evil or promote the best good in the most efficient way. All of it being, of course, between the voter and the Maker.

Pretty simple, huh. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If they are trying to suggest they vote the way Jesus would, and only idiots or sinners could disagree, then rest assured if you smell a rat, you're right.

It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. (Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, no. 4)

Halloween 2010

On a much lighter note, the boys had their annual retreat into a kinder, more innocent time. If nothing else, dressing as devils and ghosts seems almost mundane compared to what's out there. But then, what's out there has always been out there - that's why people had the need to celebrate and indulge in such revelries as Halloween parties, bobbing for apples, trick or treating, and the occasional TPing. Here our boys are, as usual resisting the modern gore and slaughter and rotting corpse motif for a wizard with facial hair problems, a ninja with attitude, a pumpkin just learning to get around, and the oh, so cool Invisible Man. See ya tomorrow.

And a happy Halloween it was

In some Christian circles, whether or not to celebrate Halloween is a pretty hot topic. Satan's Christmas!, I've heard some folks call it. Needless to say, in my own former Protestant culture, alternatives were looked for and found in Harvest Fests, or Hell Houses, or anything that borrowed liberally from Halloween without the need for invoking witches, ghosts, devils, or anything supposedly hellish.

But that always struck me as a bit odd. After all, what is Christianity but a resounding affirmation of the supernatural in an otherwise secular and materialist world? At a time when so many people watch the stock tickers, or worry about the next IPad upgrade, or think about how to connect every digital form of entertainment in the house, Christianity dares to say 'there's more out there!' Celebrating Halloween without the ghosts is like drinking alcohol free whiskey. What's the point?

The fact is, as I mentioned a few days ago, we could spend hours on where Halloween came from. We could argue its pagan origins, or its Catholic roots. Truth be told, like most things, there's probably a little bit of truth to both. Skeptics and Protestants who still maintain a healthy grudge against the Catholic Church will prefer to focus on the pagan origins of the holiday. Catholics, and especially that exclusive breed of Catholic apologists, will likely turn to the Catholic foundations of the celebration. In any event, it's history is not what I want to think about.

What I want to focus on (apart from the total fun the holiday can be), is the supernatural beckoning of the event. Somehow, in some way, we all have that little tug in us that suggests there is more to heaven and earth than is dreamt of in our philosophies. In my agnostic days, toward the end of college, I became restless with my self proclaimed agnosticism. I wavered. I began to ask questions about God. How could we even come up with the concept of God in the first place? We assume that we could, because we have something known as religion. But where did it come from? The old tales that a bunch of cavemen just made the whole thing up make for great reading in your standard introduction to anthropology text. But we just don't know. We have no record of Throg, the first caveman to put forth the hypothesis of a supreme being. The idea that it was made up, I realized, was simply a factor of belief; a belief that there is really nothing to any religion at all. A belief that could not be proven any easier than the belief in a personal God.

While reflecting on this, and getting the queasy feeling that I was starting to sound too religious, I decided only atheism was safe, and valid. Agnostics, I concluded, were folks who wanted to have their cake and eat it. They wanted to dismiss any real anchor in religious thought, being free to make up their own moral universes, while keeping a couple toes dipped in the shallows of religion - just in case. Hence the tendency to start entertaining religious thoughts at the first sight of a quandary. Atheists, on the other hand, were pure, brave, courageous. No vision of a wrathful God consigning their souls to an eternity of damnation bothered them. They took a stand and said there was nothing, no God, no spirit, no supernatural, no miracles, nothing. True, naturalist, atheist, materialist - that was where the respect was. That was secularism in its purist form.

The problem was, I didn't believe it. Beyond some questions about the sources and consistency of moral beliefs I ran into, I just didn't believe that the universe was all atoms and molecules and quasars. I had some deep down gut feeling that there was something more. Beyond this thin, gray veil was something else, something beyond the limits of our five senses.

And oddly enough, one of the things that brought this feeling to the forefront of my thinking was the simple belief that good was as real and potent a force as evil. That there was real good, real evil, and real domains in which these forces held sway. It wasn't hard to look at the 20th century and believe in real evil. What surprised me was the number of people who, as the century wound down, came to believe that evil was not really a force at all. Everything was psychological, social, environmental. True evil was simply one more fairy tale to be discarded along with leprechauns and unicorns.

And yet, I didn't believe that. I thought about evil. I thought about its causes. Without ever reading Paul's insistence that we fight against the principalities and powers of this present darkness, I had a gut feeling that there was true evil behind it all, working against whatever power of good existed in the universe.

So when I came into the Church, by way of my Protestant brethren, I was surprised that this holiday that focused on the darker side of the world was shunned. I could understand, perhaps, the argument that children dressing as a devil or ghost might trivialize the power of Satan. But I couldn't understand why every vestige of the hellish side of the day was removed. For Halloween has a way of reminding us, however superficially, that there is something beyond. There is a power beyond what we see. There is a source of that power. And more disconcerting than anything, especially for a struggling agnostic, there may be a destination that awaits those who flirt with those powers of darkness. And what better way to celebrate our salvation, I thought, than to acknowledge, even in festive form, the never ending darkness that awaits those who refuse the grace of God, the source of every good and perfect thing? Especially for those of us who have accepted this gift of gifts.

A discussion of Baptism by sprinkling

An interesting article about the USCCB working with some reformed communities. It centers around the validity of sprinkling in light of the post-Reformation emphasis on baptism by immersion only (and to some degree by pouring). It's nice to see these things debated. One often gets the feeling that a growing number of believers in the modern pew couldn't give a rats rip about such things, believing them to be completely irrelevant. That is the impact of secularization. Even the most devoted followers are plagued with the doubts raised by the secular revolution. It doesn't help that many traditions embrace these very same secular perspectives. The idea that religions were just clever stories and yarns spun by some pretty insightful individuals, does tend to diminish the importance of such topics. If, however, one believes that religions are divinely inspired, revealed by the Creator God, then questions about how things are done takes on new meaning. I suppose how important things like this are to the average person indicates where they think their faith came from: God, or some really insightful authors of a bygone age.

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert fail their saving throws vs. Self Aware

The press has loved every minute of this rally. Unlike Glenn Beck's event, that was covered amidst the swirling clouds of controversy and scandal, charges of racism and bigotry, and of course condemnation of the blasphemous decision to hold the rally on that singular holy day of modern American history, the Rally to Restore Sanity has received pretty much fawning reviews. Not surprising. What is surprising, at least to me, is the lack of self awareness behind the event. Jon Stewart's impassioned plea for unity at the end left my jaw agape. Here is a rally by two left leaning hosts of very liberal shows, whose primary purpose is to lampoon those with whom they disagree, supported by organizations such as the ultra-left leaning Huffington Post, and featuring a cadre of celebrities and entertainers who, on the whole, tend to the liberal side of the debates, and centered around continual mocking of the Tea Party, and those who support the Tea Party...and the final appeal is for unity?

What would have shown unity? One suggestion would have been to work with various folks, organizations, and interest groups from the right. Inviting Glenn Beck, or some Tea Party folks. Showing they want unity. Not just saying they want unity while having every second of the event scream they want conformity to their ideals. The problem with America today is that we are so divided, we don't even realize it any more. If there are problems without our unity, we imagine it's their fault, whoever the they happens to be. When our call for bi-partisanship and togetherness is filtered through common sense, it emerges as simply one more demand to have it our way, the whole way, and everyone else confess they have been the problem all along. I seriously doubt the media, in its celebration of the event, will catch the irony.

Muslim militants attack and kill Catholics in Baghdad

I wonder if militants are the same as terrorists. One of the prevailing narratives in our post-9/11 world is that Islam is dualistic: there are terrorists, and then there are the other 1.5 billion Muslims who only want to give peace a chance. So as we wade through the endless hours and days and weeks of coverage that this anti-Christian slaughterfest will no doubt yield, it's worth asking just where the perpetrators fit into the two-fold grouping of Islam.