Saturday, March 28, 2009

One Headline Glitch, a Mistake; Two: 'yougottabekidding'

Once in a while, a non-serious post. This is one of them.

"Insert blogpost headline here"
The Deacon's Bench (March 28, 2009)

Take a look at the headline in the photo.

Take a good look at the headline in the closeup.

I'm with the Deacon on this one: it doesn't fill me with glee.

On the other hand, it is funny.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Annulment: Divorce, Catholic Style - NOT!

'Annulment is a Catholic divorce.' Odds are pretty good that you've heard something like that: or read it. 'Everybody knows' that when a Catholic couple is tired of that love, honor and (yukkkk!) obey stuff (that is so nineteen-fifties!), they get a divorce: just like everybody else.

Except it's called an annulment, and the Catholic Church used to be so behind the times with that thing. Why, they actually expected people to get married before getting it on.

Imagine!

I ran into a witty, urbane, sophisticated, intelligent - you get the picture - post about those Catholics today. Here's how it starts:
Mother Church can be rigid, but at times—bless her—she can think like a $700-an-hour K Street lawyer. Annulments are granted for a number of reasons: lack of discretion (I didn't realize the bum was a drunk at the time); defective consent (The bum lied—he didn't want kids all along); psychic incapacity (The bum was a schizophrenic!); prior bond (see 'ligamen,' above). As the Rev. John Catoir, a doctor of canon law, points out, 'Forty years ago, people were told "You made your bed, now sleep in it." ' Thank God this is no longer the Church’s guiding philosophy. If the church had been this progressive in the matter of annulments back in the 1530s in merry olde England, the Archbishop of Canterbury would today be a Roman cardinal. But back to Newt….
"The Audacity of Poping"
Blogs and Stories Christopher Buckley (March 26, 2009)
I don't blame Mr. Buckley for assuming that what he describes is the policy of the Catholic Church. Quite a few Catholic priests in America have, for decades, been giving every indication that they know less about Catholic beliefs and practices than the doctor of canon law cited by Mr. Buckley.

Unhappily, priests who are on the same page as Catoir are ignoramuses. That's not a naughty word: An ignoramus is a know nothing, an uneducated person or an ignorant person (Princeton's WordNet)

Catoir is, obviously, not an uneducated person. You have to sit through a whole lot of classes, and give the approved answers on many tests, before you get a piece of paper that says you're a doctor of canon law.

I don't know where Catoir got his documentation, but quite a few priests in America have been cranked out by seminaries whose faculties apparently had a bold, imaginative vision for what they thought the Catholic Church ought to be teaching: and would, if they were in the top slot.

Getting a Degree and Getting an Education

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) are, let's face it, a bunch of eggheads. Seriously educated men. 'Educated' as in taught how to assemble, assess, analyze, and compare information, form conclusions based on the information and check those conclusions against what others have found.

In some circles, they're not considered very intelligent, since they didn't learn to parrot back what the department head wanted to hear: and don't have politically correct views on important issues.

Actually, some of the USCCB's views do seem to be politically correct. Liberals aren't always wrong: and conservatives aren't always right. Keep digging, though, and you'll find that the USCCB teaches things that might cause myocardial infarctions among both liberals and conservatives. That's a whole different topic.

'Annulment is a Catholic Divorce:' Reality Check, Please!

'Everybody knows' that an annulment is what Catholics call a divorce. The USCCB doesn't seem to realize that. Neither does the Holy See, but I'll get to that later.

FAQ About Marriage - Catholic Style

The USCCB's "Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage" has some eye-openers about what the Catholic Church really teaches about marriage. For example:

"19. What is an annulment?

"An annulment is a declaration by a tribunal (Catholic church court) that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union (see question #3). Unlike civil divorce, an annulment does not erase something that was already there, but rather it is a declaration that a valid marriage was never actually brought about on the wedding day. A declaration of nullity does not deny that a relationship ever existed between the couple, or that the spouses truly loved one another."

That's a rather long paragraph, so I put some of the points in bold

A quick review: A Catholic annulment
  • Is not a divorce
  • Is a declaration that a valid marriage never existed
That Makes the Kids Bastards, Right?
Wrong.

Back to that FAQ page:

"21. If a marriage is annulled are the children from it considered illegitimate?

"No. A declaration of nullity has no effect on the legitimacy of children, since the child's mother and father were presumed to be married at the time that the child was born."

I hope that's clear: The kids of a couple whose alleged marriage was annulled are considered legitimate.

There's quite a lot more on that marriage FAQ page: I recommend reading it.

There's More to the Catholic Faith than a FAQ Page

There's a translation in English, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Actually, there are at least two floating around. One is a quite imaginative take on what the Holy See should have written, in the opinion of the translators.

The other, more accurate, translation is available online at the USCCB website.

There's a whole section of the Catechism about Marriage: "Article 7
The Sacrament OF Matrimony
"

Most of Article 7 doesn't have much to do with annulments. It's about what a marriage is: not what it's not.

Another recommendation: If you're interested in what the Catholic Church has to say about marriage, and English is your first language: read Article 7 of the Catechism. It's heavy reading in spots: but it's accurate. Which is more that I can say for Catholics, educated and otherwise, who go to the first church of Pelosi, and believe in the Gospel According to Newsweek.

Marriage: Catholic Style

You want to know what the Catholic Church really says about marriage? Or anything else? Don't ask some dude: even if he's got a title. The Catholic Church is pretty good about letting people know what's what.

It's up to you to learn, though.

A few bits and pieces, from Article 7 of the Catechism:
Marriage is Real
"...The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator...." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 16303)

Maybe that's why divorce hurts so much. Just a thought.
You Mean, You Want KIDS?!
"...Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: 'And God blessed them, and God said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it." '..." (1604)

Remember what I said about myocardial infarctions: The Catholic Church isn't in the business of keeping up with intellectual fashions. You don't like it? You can leave. I don't advise that you do: but my job ends with passing on facts. What you do with your immortal soul is, as I've written before, up to you. Back to marriage.
Marriage in the Catholic Church? Yeah, it's Kind of a Big Deal
"On the threshold of his public life Jesus performs his first sign—at his mother's request—during a wedding feast. The Church attaches great importance to Jesus' presence at the wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ's presence." (1613)

If you'd rather think that Mary having Jesus get more drinks for everybody is a purely spiritual thing: fine. As I said before, that's your business. Fact is, though, the party was running out of wine: and Mary was very insistent about her son doing something about it. Which he did. (The story's in John 2: 1-10.)
A Catholic Marriage Involves Consenting Adults
"The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; 'to be free' means:
  • not being under constraint;
  • not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law."
(1625)
No Consent? No Marriage
"The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that 'makes the marriage.' If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

"The consent consists in a 'human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other': 'I take you to be my wife'—'I take you to be my husband.' This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two 'becoming one flesh.'

"The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.130 No human power can substitute for this consent. If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid." (1626-1628)

"For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed. In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged." (1629)
Short Version: It Takes Two to Make a Marriage; One to Make an Annulment
If one of the adults intends to be part of a Catholic Marriage, and the other doesn't - but says he/she does at the time of the ceremony - a Catholic Marriage did not take place. Demonstrating that one of the parties didn't consent is what can make an annulment take so long.

But, Father Schmoo Says Divorce is Okay

I don't know how to break this to you, but some Catholic priests aren't quite up to spec. You may have heard about a few naughty priests, who liked to have sex with young boys? It was in the news a few years ago.

They really were (and, in quite a few cases, still are) Catholic priests. That didn't make what they did right, and it certainly didn't mean that the Catholic Church teaches 'go and sin some more.'

Which is a can of worms I'll leave for another post.

The point is: A Catholic priest can do something that isn't approved of by the Catholic Church. Priests are human beings. Sometimes they do bad things.

I'm just grateful for all the priests who are good, practicing, Catholics: and don't get their names in the news, and aren't asked to appear on talk shows.

Go Ahead: Look it Up

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, English translation, is available online, as I wrote earlier. It's not the easiest reading in the world, but I think it's worth it.

Particularly if you're seriously interested in learning what the Catholic Church teaches.

If you just want to seem 'intelligent,' read blog posts like "The Audacity of Poping" - or read Maria Monk's classic.

After all: What would the USCCB know? They're Catholics: and everybody knows what they're like.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Dead British Teen, Daft Letter, School Prom, and Forgiveness

The parents of a teenage girl got a letter from the school recently, signed by the deputy headmaster (a sort of principal - Macclesfield High is in the Manchester area of the United Kingdom,), and said that their daughter would have to start attending school regularly, or she would miss the prom.

This would be a real problem. Megan Gillan, 15, wanted to go to the prom very badly, and planned to attend with some friends. Missing the prom would have been a big disappointment to her. And, she's been dead for a couple months.

Macclesfield High officials might have been a bit nonplussed if Megan had started attending classes regularly. Her body was found January 19.

The letter? It was dated March 16.

No Doubt About it: The School Shouldn't Have Sent That Letter. No How, No Way, No Sir!

Headteacher Ged Ward has apologized. Personally. In addition, he has stated that the letter was sent as the result of a software glitch. I'm inclined to believe him.

Capita, the company that publishes SIMS (School Information Management Systems), the software used by Macclesfield High, acknowledges that their software is buggy, and is likely to allow a SNAFU like this to happen.

I'm inclined to believe Capita, too. They were probably counting on relatively few teens dropping dead: and on school administrations being a bit more proactive when it came to correspondence quality control.

The School Did a Bad Thing. Headmaster Ward Did a Bad Thing. Capita Did a Bad Thing.

Headmaster Ward should have made sure that the letters he was signing weren't being sent to parents whose children would cause a public scene if they shambled into class. Whoever processed the letters should have made sure that such letters weren't sent.

When I was a list manager, I learned - very early - to do quality control. My guess is that Macclesfield doesn't have a full-time list manager on the staff.

Letting that letter be sent was a bad thing.

It was wrong. It wasn't right. Got it? Okay. Next:

Capita was wrong to release buggy software. Although they may not have been aware of the bugs, or may have assumed that the end users would check their output.

That was wrong, too.

Finally, the Gillams were hurt.

Got that? Bad things were done. People got hurt. Moving along:

Megan Gillam's Parents 'Will Never Forgive the Mistake'

I have no doubt that Megan's parents are feeling very bad. They feel hurt because they have been hurt. Sending that letter was, as I said before, wrong. The Gillams have a legitimate complaint.

I trust that restitution will be sought, and made, so that whatever vices were involved will be corrected, and justice maintained. That's not my idea: That's a paraphrase of part of paragraph 2302 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

What?! That Sounds Like Vengeance

No. It's justice. A wrong has been done. It needs to be corrected.

So, They Shouldn't Forgive Whoever They're Angry With?

As a Catholic, I'm ordered to forgive those who hurt me. (2840, 2842)

Harm has been done to the Gillams. There's no question about that. Restitution needs to be made: proportional to the harm. That's justice.

Never forgiving is a sort of unjustified anger. That's a sin. It's also stupid.

The Gillams would be well advised to change their policy, and forgive those who wronged them.

I didn't say, 'claim that no wrong was done.' Or, 'pretend that they weren't hurt.' That would be also be stupid.

I won't go into the psychobabble about what nursing a grudge and not letting anger go does to the people who indulge in such things. If you're an American, or have paid attention to American pop culture over the last decade or so, you've probably heard about it.

Anger issues are nothing new. About 20 centuries back, someone wrote:
"Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' Rather, 'if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.' Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good." (Romans 12: 19-21)
About 22 centuries back, someone else wrote:
"The vengeful will suffer the LORD'S vengeance, for he remembers their sins in detail. Forgive your neighbor's injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven. Should a man nourish anger against his fellows and expect healing from the LORD? Should a man refuse mercy to his fellows, yet seek pardon for his own sins?..." (Sirach 28: 1-4)
The way I see it, sooner or later I'm going to have face time with God, and review my life. I'm counting on God's forgiveness. I don't think it would be very bright to refuse to forgive others. It just wouldn't look good.

I hope - and pray - that the Gillams will receive justice. And, that they will learn to forgive.

Aren't You Supposed to Simply Forgive and Forget?

You want simple? Go to some 'First Church of Bubba.' The Catholic Church deals with the real world, and simple it isn't.

Well, actually, it is. There are, when it comes down to it, two important rules. We read about them in Mark 12:28-31. The rest, I've been told, is commentary on 'love God, love your neighbor.' But this post is pretty long already.

It's Easier to Give Advice than Take It

I've had to learn to forgive: and it isn't easy. Not at all easy. But, it's necessary, so I'm learning.

For example, I have forgiven the doctor who made me the subject, back in the fifties, of a medical experiment. Many of the physical problems I have had might not have happened, or been much less severe, if he hadn't decided to include me in his research. In that case, forgiving wasn't actually that hard, when I considered what my mother may have done to his mind.

I have forgiven the school bully, and others who have done me harm. Again, I have no practical choice. Not if I'm going to follow Catholic teachings.

Related post: In the news:

Monday, March 23, 2009

Pro-Life? You May be a Dangerous Domestic Terrorist! MIAC Says So

There's an old saying: "give a man enough rope, and he'll hang himself."

Or, in this case, someone else.

9/11, Focus Groups, Fear, and the MIAC

Apparently1, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, or MIAC, is a government collective set up by the Missouri state government. It's supposed to identify warning signs, so law enforcement can spot potential domestic terrorists.

So far, so good. I think it's prudent to keep an eye on the equivalent of a wild-eyed loony with an assault rifle, before he starts down shoppers at the mall. But, to continue the analogy, I think it's crazy to stake out the sporting goods store that sells BB guns.

Which may be what's being recommended in Missouri.

According to the MIAC (draft, I hope) report, you're a suspected domestic terrorist if you:
  • Supported third-party candidates like
    • Ron Paul (Republican, Constitution Party)
    • Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party)
    • Bob Barr (Libertarian)
  • Are an "anti-abortion activist"
  • Believe the United States, Mexico and Canada will someday form a North American Union
    • This is described as a "conspiracy theory" - It's a new one to me
  • Possess the
    • Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag
    • Widely available anti-income tax film "America: Freedom to Fascism"
Okay: there's being prudent, and there's being full-bore, pedal-to-the-metal, paranoid. The MIAC report, as described, is pretty close to paranoid.

I didn't support, or vote for, Ron Paul: but I can't seriously believe that my neighbors who did are domestic terrorists. Not even potential domestic terrorists, any more than any person with an opinion might, conceivably, go crazy and start building pipe bombs.

The same goes for people who own the Gadsden flag.

"Anti-abortion activists" might, legitimately, be called domestic terrorists. If that term is used to describe people who want to blow up abortion clinics (excuse me: is the euphemism still 'women's health centers?') or kill abortionists.

But, if an "anti-abortion activist" is someone who seriously thinks that killing a baby is naughty, that mothers shouldn't have their kids killed - and says so in public - that puts me on MIAC's suspect list.

There are 58 of these Fusion Centers, set up by the Department of Homeland Security. I can only hope that the other 57 have a tighter grip on reality than this bunch seems to.

Dangerous Revolutionaries Holding Washington D.C.!

Take a good look at the flags that the MAIC identifies as having links to domestic terror:

(from Southeast Missourian, used w/o permission)
Hello! Earth Calling MIAC! The Colonists Won!
I don't doubt that there are real domestic terrorists who use: the Gadsden flag; variations of the current American flag; the colors red, white, blue, yellow, or green. But that doesn't mean that everyone who uses these things is dangerous.

Strike that. Potentially dangerous, but in a very selective and sanctioned way. Like the first Commander in Chief of the New Continental Fleet. That's the flag his ships used, in the upper left corner of a page from the MIAC's report.

I realize that the propriety of signing off on the Declaration of Independence can be debated: but by now it's a done deal.

And, like it or not, the "Gadsden flag" is part of American history: and not everyone who, on the whole, is satisfied with the results of that colonial revolt, is a danger to friends and neighbors.

A Government Body Says I'm a Suspected Anti-Establishment Radical? Cool!

I'm "anti-abortion" - that's newspeak for 'pro-life.'2 I have to be: I've read Humanae Vitae, researched what the Catechism has to say about killing innocent babies (the gist of it is "don't"), and paid attention to what the Vatican says.

And, I've made no secret of it.

Which, quite possibly, makes me a suspected subversive extremist radical domestic terrorist, in MIAC's eyes.

Cool!

I grew up in the sixties, and absorbed some of the 'question authority' ethic of that epoch.

Sound odd, coming from a Catholic? And a convert, at that? Not really. I question authority: but that doesn't mean I necessarily defy or avoid it. In the case of God and his Church, I realized that there was absolutely no way I could beat God, so I joined his outfit. Call me shallow: but I like power. Besides, I can't come up with a better ethical system than the Word of God, as preserved and transmitted by his Church.

My views and way of life being what it is, I get pegged as "conservative" quite a bit. Which is, as far as it goes, somewhat accurate. Much of what I believe and do is "conservative," by today's standards.

I don't mind: labels are useful, and calling me "conservative" is a convenient way for people to think about me. And, back in the sixties, I looked like a pencil-necked geek: right down to the pencil protector and huge larynx.

I missed out on the whole freak-your-parents-out, long hair and love beads hippy thing.

So, on the far side of middle age, I get a kick out of being 'one of those people.'

As long as nobody apart from a few policy wonks and over-age-in-grade Vietnam War protesters take the MIAC's recommendations seriously.

Today, MIAC's Report is a Mildly Off-Color Joke

If law enforcement or anybody else with real power takes these madcap opinions seriously - and implements them - we could all be in for a world of trouble.

It isn't that long ago that the Maryland State Police put some nuns on their watch list. And then took them off.

I do not agree with the politics of those nuns, but they were not, in my opinion, a threat to American security.

Granted, it's unsettling to know that three nuns could break into a secure American military facility, paint slogans on the walls - in blood - and leave before anybody noticed. But embarrassing whoever was supposed to be in charge of security is not "terrorism."

And I really don't think that writing graffiti is 'terroristic,' even if I don't agree with the sentiments expressed.

I'm hoping, quite sincerely, and praying, that crazy ideas like that (draft?) MIAC report don't take root. If they do, I'm very concerned that it may be 'happy new year, 1984.'

More-or-less related posts:News and views: Background:
1 "On March 12, 2009 the following article authored by internet reporter Kurt Nimmo was published on Alex Jones' www.infowars.com website as well as the Truth News internet news site, ( http://www.truthnews.us/?p=2720 ):...

"'Alex Jones has received a secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled "The Modern Militia Movement: and dated February 20, 2009. A footer on the document indicates it is "unclassified" but "law enforcement sensitive," in other words not for public consumption. A copy of the report was sent to Jones by an anonymous Missouri police officer.'..." (Southeast Missourian)

2 "Newspeak" is one of many words which George Orwell introduced in 1984. Since newspeak contains terms which describe a disturbing number of accepted ideas in contemporary America, I've started a sort of glossary of newspeak terms: "Feeling Ungood About Doublethink? Here's Help" (March 23, 2009).

Feeling Ungood About Doublethink? Here's Help

This post started as a simple definition, and grew.

Had a Bellyful of Newspeak and Bellyfeel?

If doublethink has you feeling ungood, or you can't get rid of the niggling suspicion that thoughtcrimes may not be as ungood as you've been told, you're not alone.

Here's a very short glossary of terms which you may find helpful, while trying to think coherently about what you read and hear on the news. The words are from George Orwell's novel, 1984.

A Brief Glossary of Newspeak - "Peace," "Love," "Truth," OR ELSE

bellyfeel
a blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea
blackwhite
in reference to an opponent: the claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts
in reference to a Party member: a loyal willingness to say, believe, and know that black is white when Party discipline demands this
crimestop see thoughtcrime
to rid oneself of thoughts that interfere with the ideology of the Party (verb)
crimethink
see goodthink, thoughtcrime
doublethink
believing two contradictory ideas at the same time
duckspeak
to quack like a duck (verb)
to speak without thinking (verb)
good
acceptable to the Party
goodsex see sexcrime
any form of sex considered acceptable by the Party
sex for the exclusive purpose of providing new children for the Party
newspeak
deliberately ambiguous and contradictory language use to mislead and manipulate the public
ownlife
the tendency to enjoy being solitary - the Party considers this subversive
sexcrime
all forms of sex which are not goodsex
thoughtcrime
thoughts that are unorthodox, or outside official government platform
to commit thoughtcrime (verb)
ungood
not acceptable to the Party
unperson
a person who was killed by the state, with all references erased from books, photographs, articles and historical records
I would have used the Newspeak Dictionary as a source, but it seems to be offline. I sincerely hope that's temporary: and the result of a technical glitch. Links in the definition list are to entries in Wikipedia and Princeton's Wordnet.

And, two disclaimers, sort of:
  • This blog is not political, but some of what I believe and discuss inevitably overlaps American and global politics. I'm not going to avoid life-or-death issues because they're "political."
  • Despite what 'everybody knows,' the Catholic Church doesn't dictate goodsex.

Totalitarianism Isn't What it Used to Be

Society and politics have changed a bit since 1949, when George Orwell wrote 1984.
  • Today's America isn't concerned about the Soviet Union having The Bomb
    • Partly because there's no Soviet Union around these days
  • DVDs are replacing the CDs that supplanted vinyl albums
    • The 45 rpm record has gone from cutting-edge technology to museum piece
  • You're not likely to hear " 'A' You're Adorable" ("The Alphabet Song") on the radio, sung by Perry Como or anyone else.
  • You may know - and care - that Louis St. Laurent defeated George A. Drew in the 1949 Canadian Federal Election: but the odds are that you never heard of either of them
Totalitarianism has changed, too. Sort of. The idea is still the same:
absolutism, totalitarianism
the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government
dictatorship, absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, monocracy, one-man rule, ... Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny "(a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.))"
Back in 1949, the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin had his fans: But his forward-looking approach to improving the worker's paradise for future generations has made his name part of a definition of totalitarianism.

Even those who still hold the ideals of Stalin in high regard see another 20th century leader as "totalitarian." In fact, Chancellor Adolph Hitler's efforts to reform Germany made the anglicized form of his party synonymous with brutal suppression and totalitarianism.
Everybody I Disagree with is NOT a Nazi
Chancellor Hitler's policies of national socialism are, as a rule, not an issue these days: so I'm not likely to call anyone a "Nazi," or describe totalitarian ideas or behavior as "fascist." Besides, those words, as epithets, have been used so often for so long that I'd want to avoid them on stylistic grounds.

That said, totalitarianism is alive and well: and living in America today.
American Academia: The Eighties are Over
I was on campus as a student in the eighties (and the seventies and sixties, for that matter), and remember the month when the official non-racist word or phrase for people whose ancestors walked across the Bering Strait 20,000 or so years ago changed at approximately weekly intervals. Officially. We were informed, in class, that last week's word or phrase was now racist, and what the new word or phrase was. The 'good old days' those weren't.

You may not remember that sort of thing, and it's possible that you haven't read about them. See crimestop and unperson, above.

Don't be Alarmed: But Do be Aware

I do not seriously think that America is under the control of some latter-day Stalin or Hitler. I do, however, think that any time when a society's guiding institutions are dominated by people with very similar assumptions there's a tendency towards totalitarianism.

I'll be writing about specific examples as this blog evolves.

More-or-less related posts:

Sunday, March 22, 2009

The Pope, Angola, and the News: No Wonder 'Everybody Knows' What Those Catholics Are Like

The Pope celebrated Mass in Angola today. He also had a few words to say.

The impression you got of the Holy Father and those Catholics might depend on where you get your news.

The Associated Press: Catholic Church, "Ally of the Colonizers"

The Associated Press lead paragraph:
"LUANDA, Angola (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass Sunday with hundreds of thousands of Angolans and decried the 'clouds of evil' over Africa that have spawned war, tribalism and ethnic rivalry that he said condemned poor people to virtual slavery...."
The AP article's 5th and 6th paragraphs give a pretty strong hint about what malignant force is behind Africa's troubles:
"...Angolans have been enslaved, subjugated and at war almost nonstop since Portuguese colonizers brought the first Catholic missionaries in 1491. Many of the slaves taken to Brazil, for example, came from Angola.

"The Catholic Church was an ally of the colonizers who discriminated against the people until independence from Portugal in 1975, when civil war erupted, in part fueled by the country's oil and diamond wealth...." (AP) (emphasis mine)
Unlike The Associated Press, Al Jazeera didn't imply a link between slavery, subjugation, war and the Catholic Church. The network did, however, quote excerpts from the Holy Father's remarks on corruption, war, and condoms.

Al Jazeera Lead Paragraph:
"The Roman Catholic pope has appealed to Africans to rid the continent of corruption and to combat poverty...."
Al Jazeera didn't say much about Catholicism in the article, apart from noting that there would be a Mass celebrated today.

Al Jazeera Paragraphs 7 through 10:
"...Benedict called on Africa to show 'a determination born from the conversion of hearts to excise corruption once and for all.

" 'Unfortunately within the borders of Angola there are still many poor people demanding that their rights be respected. Do not disappoint their expectations,' he said in his televised address.

"Benedict called for 'respect and promotion of human rights, transparent governance, an independent judiciary, a free press, a civil service of integrity, a properly functioning network of schools and hospitals'.

"Many of those are still lacking in Angola where two-thirds of the population still live on less than $2...." (Al Jazeera)

No Wonder 'Everybody Knows' What Those Catholics are Like

A few days ago, I wrote about the sort of indignation some people feel toward the "irresponsible" and "immoral" Catholic Church.

This was a sampling of comments, after the Pope said that condoms aren't a good idea: :
  • "[name redacted] You can always count on the Catholic church (for anything from idiocy to downright fascism): [link redacted]
  • "[name redacted] [link redacted] I refuse to be counted a Catholic. I didn't ask to be one and there should be a way of renouncing one's forced baptism.
  • "[name redacted] Condoms don't prevent AIDS, religion does. [link redacted] Get f****d, Catholic Church.
    (March 18, 2009)
Although America as a whole is fairly tolerant of people who don't fit the WASP/Boston Brahma mold, That sort of attitude toward the Catholic Church isn't at all uncommon.

Looking at today's news, I think I can see part of the reason

In America, quite a few people read and hear stories distributed by The Associated Press and other Western news media. The old-school, traditional news outlets have competition now, but I suspect that most Americans still don't read Al Jazeera, or any other of the newer news outlets.
Traditional News Media: Not Hostile, Just Clueless
At best, American news media just doesn't get religion in general. Generally, I'm grateful when reporting of a crime involving a Catholic doesn't revert to the "former altar boy" treatment. I'll take what improvement has happened, and be grateful.

My guess is that the "ally of the colonizers" innuendo got past because
  • It's sort of true
    • Missionaries did come on Portuguese ships
    • They did not, so far as I know, try to antagonize Portugal while doing so
  • The idea that Catholic leaders are oppressive seems to be pretty wide-spread
I think some anti-Catholic feelings come from getting information from outfits like The Associated Press. Many news and publishing institutions seem to have not gotten past the Nast & Monk view of those Catholics.

But, maybe they'll learn.

Related posts: In the news:

Saturday, March 21, 2009

The Catholic Church: 19 Centuries of the Great Commission

I'm an American, born in this country: and not particularly ashamed of the fact. America isn't perfect, but I think it's one of humanity's better efforts.

I'm also a Catholic.

That makes me part of an outfit that has been around for just under two millennia, and spans the globe. If you believe the person who was tortured to death, returned to life three days later, got this Church going, and promised to be back at an unspecified time, the Church I go to will last as long as humanity does.

As a digression: quite a few people have claimed to be God, or something close to the Almighty. Sooner or later, people notice inconsistencies and re-categorize these individuals as 'nuts we've known.' Jesus the Christ claimed to be God. One of the more in-your-face instances is in John 8, where Jesus wound up the discussion by saying, " 'Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.' "

"Before Abraham came to be, I AM" Isn't Bad Grammar

Oh, great: now the digression has a backstory: Ancient Mesopotamian people were in the habit of giving their gods names that identified what their sphere of influence or particular characteristic was:
  • Atrahasis (AKA Ziusudra, Ziusura, Xisuthros)
    • "Surpassing Wise" or "Extra Wise"
  • Dagan (Hebrew Dagon*) - West Semitic corn god
    • "grain"
  • Ningikuga - the Sumerian goddess of reeds and marshes; goddess of dreams, interpretation, and insight
    • "Lady of the Pure Reed"
    ("Mesopotamian Character Glossary"
    Unit 1: The Age of Taurus, Mr. Hagin, Kennesaw State University (Fall 2006))
* Dagon is that Dagon: 1 Samuel 5, Judges 16, and elsewhere.

Where was I? Right: ancient Mesopotamians were used to the idea that the names of gods meant something - in the contemporary language - and had been for centuries by the time Moses got lured up the slopes of Sinai.

Moses, understandably, had quite a few questions about the little job God was giving him, including:
" 'But,' said Moses to God, 'when I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," if they ask me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?' "

"God replied, 'I am who am.' Then he added, 'This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.' "
(Exodus 3:13-14)
It's not that much of a stretch, I think, to think that God was telling Moses, and through him, the descendants of Abraham and Isaac, that he is in charge of existence.

However that may be, When Moses passed on what I AM had to say, it left quite an impression of the Israelites.

A quick review:
  • God to Moses, on Sinai:
    • "God replied, 'I am who am.' Then he added, 'This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.' "
  • Jesus, to the scribes and the Pharisees, in the Temple area:
    • " 'Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.' "

A Few Centuries Later, in Jerusalem

Jesus had been throwing his weight around a bit, earlier in John 8. That's the chapter where the scribes and Pharisees (think "the establishment") brought a woman who could, legally, be stoned to death, before Jesus.

He'd said, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." We still don't know what Jesus was writing on the ground - there's been quite a lot of speculation - but her accusers walked away. Embarrassing for them, I should think.

Then, after an less-than-cordial exchange of words, Jesus said, " 'Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.' " In other words, he was saying, "I am God."

Later in the same book, Jesus and his disciples are talking, and -
"Philip said to him, 'Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.'
"Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, "Show us the Father"?' "
(John 14:8-9)
There you have it: Jesus said, "before Abraham came to be, I AM." And, "Whoever has seen me has seen the father."

Not long after that, he was tortured to death and buried.

Normally, that would be the end of it. But three days later Jesus left the tomb, quite alive, met with a number of his disciples, and left.

Christians have been celebrating Easter ever since: and we make a rather big deal of it. It's April 12th this year, I see.

Ancient Roots

The Pentateuch went into written form about 26 centuries ago, around the time of Zarathustra. The oral tradition, and some writing, came before that.

Writing itself wasn't exactly a new information storage and retrieval technology by then. People had been making pictures on surfaces for something like 25 millennia, and we've had what I'll call proto-writing for around nine millennia. About six millennia back, a sort of writing was used to keep track of commercial transactions.

The idea of using symbols to record the words used in poetry, stories, conversations, and discussions, came later. (The History of Writing Historian.net) But that's a tangent I won't go off on.

19 Centuries And Counting

There's been some discussion of exactly which year Jesus was born in, thanks to Herodian politics, and, I think, to the failure of Imperial Roman authorities to anticipate the Gregorian calendar reform (which came about a thousand years after the the fall of Rome). And he may not have been born in December: which doesn't bother me. Royalty tends to have official birthdays celebrated at a time of year that's most suitable for either practical or symbolic reasons. If the King of Kings gets his birthday celebrated in the "wrong" month: so what?

If you count the beginning of the Catholic Church as the day Jesus was born, the Church has already been around for a trifle over two millennia. I tend to mark the date as either of these moments:
  • The day Jesus said to Peter,
    " 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' "
    (Matthew 16:17-19)
  • After Jesus left the tomb, when he gave his disciples their marching orders:
    "The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. Then Jesus approached and said to them, 'All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.' "
    (Matthew 28:16-20)
Either way, the Catholic Church is a little shy of its 2000th year.

As I said, I like being an American. But I also like being a part of an outfit with roots in antiquity, and which will, barring new orders from higher up, be around when America and the Ming Dynasty are as 'current' as Rome and the Delian League are today.

Vaguely related post:

Friday, March 20, 2009

Faith and Reason, Religion and Science

'Everybody knows' that faith and reason, religion and science, get together about as well as mongoose and cobra.

Everybody's wrong.

I Can't Ignore Reason: I'm a Catholic

There's some long, possibly-boring, stuff toward the end of this post: mostly quotes from a document I found in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' archives. Like most of the Catholic Church's working documents, it's long, detailed, quite academic, and nowhere near as exciting as, say, a Steven King novel.

The point was, that faith and reason are both part of the skill set that people have, and that it's okay to use both.

Strike that.

We're supposed to use both.

The Catechism starts discussing faith and reason (not faith vs. reason) pretty quick:
"Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 35)

Darwin and Huxley vs. Ussher and Carlyle

Sounds like a pro wrestling tag-team match, doesn't it?

That comparison isn't as wide of the mark as it might seem. Britain of the Victorian age was going through very interesting times. The Industrial Revolution was going full steam ahead, making life better - or different, at any rate. Some people didn't like the changes, some did.

Then there was Charles Darwin, who noticed some facts about the natural world, and put them together in a new way. He decided that the world hadn't always been exactly the way it was right then, and that animals had changed, systematically, over time.

The idea of Natural Selection caught on. Aldous Huxley was one of the supporters of the notion, as I recall.

The long and short of it was somehow the idea that things in this world change got linked - tightly - to the idea that God doesn't exist. I can see the Victorians' point. There isn't a one-to-one match between what Darwin said was happening, and a strictly literal, no-poetry-allowed, reading of Genesis.

Over a century later, I'm still running into the people who are fervently convinced that Genesis is exactly, literally, true - just the way Reverend whoever says it is.

And I run into people who are convinced that, because there's substantial evidence that the world is more than about 6,000 years old, and has changed a bit along the way, God doesn't exist.

Of course, the ardent followers of Reverend whoever are convinced that Evolution is Bad and Wrong and Mustn't Be So. They're not all intellectually challenged: some are quite interested in, and aware of, sciences like astronomy.

What If Darwin Had Been an Astronomer?

Let's say that, instead of a naturalist, Darwin was an astronomer, and that in the late 19th century he demonstrated that the Moon has no atmosphere to speak of.

Philosophers, and later scientists, have studied the Moon for millennia. Those who thought it was a sphere (or a disk), assumed that it wasn't all that different from Earth. That's why the plains of the Moon are called mare, or seas. Strong evidence that there was no appreciable atmosphere would have forced astronomers to abandon that model. As, in fact, astronomers did.

Interestingly, I have yet to run into a fundamentalist who has a problem with the idea of an airless Moon.

But we're still in the imaginary 'Darwin was an astronomer' world. Darwin's research would be discussed, analyzed, derided, and finally accepted by other astronomers. Facts are facts and, after a decent period of denial and fuss, scientists accept them, and change their minds.

Meanwhile, serious thinkers of this alternate Victorian age were popularizing a bold, new, and very 'scientific' idea:

The moon has no atmosphere,
therefore God doesn't exist.

It's "obvious."

The Bible quite clearly says "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: 'Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.' " (Genesis 1:27-28)

See? The word "earth" isn't capitalized, so it's referring to ground, soil, dirt: not the planet we're standing on. And since people who believe the Bible thought that the Moon had soil, and water, and quite possibly life, they thought that they could walk around on the Moon, just like earth.

Logically, since the Moon has no air, and people can't live there, God doesn't exist.

Silly? I think so. I doubt that anyone would take what I just wrote seriously. At least, I hope not. But, I'm not a 19th century writer with the gift of gab, playing to intellectual fashions of the day.

I think there's a good chance, in this imaginary Victorian age, that very sincere 'Bible-believing' people would decide that the world had to be exactly the way it was, as described in Genesis. By the mid-20th century, they'd have very imaginative explanations for what astronomers were seeing. What they'd do after the moon landings, I don't know. My guess is that they'd decide that the whole Apollo program was a hoax.

Which, in the real world, some people do believe: but not for that reason.

Darwin Was a Naturalist

In the real world, we had the idea of natural selection linked with secularism. And, more than a century after Darwin did his thing, we've got many if not most people, in American at least, believing that faith and reason are mutually contradictory.

That's a pity.

I'll be posting on this general topic again. It's quite possible that you won't agree with me: at least, not entirely. I acknowledge that. What you want to believe is true is your affair. I do, though, intend to pass along what some of the greatest minds of the northwestern part of Eurasia have found, over the last two millennia. 26 centuries, if you go back to when the Pentateuch was converted into writing. But I'm getting into the next post's topic now.

Related post:
Background:

The world wasn't always like Victorian England, or parts of 20th century America. People have not, from the foundations of the world, been divided into:
  • Bible-thumping anti-intellectuals
  • Prim devotees of what they think is Reason and Rationality
    • Who would obliterate any consciously religious thought that appeared
Humanity wasn't divided that way in Victorian England, either: but the proper sort of person may not have recognized that.

Something I found in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' archive had quite a bit to say on the subject, including these brief (no kidding) excerpts. At these points, "they" are the holy fathers, the people who founded the church.
"The 'Ratio Fundamentalist' stresses that professors and students must adhere with complete fidelity to the word of God in Sacred Scripture and in tradition, and draw its living meaning 'first of all from the works of the holy fathers.' They are to be highly valued because 'their work belongs to the living tradition of the church to which, through providential provision, they have made contributions of lasting value in eras that were more favorable to the synthesis of faith and reason.'..."

"As 'theologians,' they did not make use of the resources of reason only but, more properly, also of the religious resources gained through their affective existential knowledge, anchored in intimate union with Christ, nourished by prayer and sustained by grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In their attitudes as theologians and pastors they showed to a marked degree their deep sense of mystery and their experience of the divine that protected them from the ever recurring temptations both of exaggerated rationalism or of a flat and resigned fideism...."
("Instruction on the Study of the Fathers of the Church in the Formation of Priests," 2, d, 1, via USCCB) (emphasis mine)

Holy Fathers? What am I, a Male Chauvinist Pig?

Since I'm a devout Catholic, and don't agree with acolytes of Gloria Steinem, yes. But I'm okay with that.

And, no: the Church doesn't (really!) oppress women. Mary told Jesus when to perform his first miracle (keeping the party going at Cana - it's in John 2), and Saint Catherine of Siena is one of the Doctors of the Church. "Doctor of the Church" - that's one of the major intellectual heavy hitters who helped put together what we know about the Word of God and other matters of interest to followers of The Christ.

Ussher? Carlyle?

Bishop Ussher is the fellow who decided that the world began at a particular time of day, on a particular date, in the year 4004 B.C., and that there wasn't anything before that. I've written about him before.

Thomas Carlyle is a "Scottish historian, critic, and sociological writer...." who has been called a fundamentalist. "The father was stern, irascible, a puritan of the puritans, but withal a man of rigid probity and strength of character...." At Edinburgh
"...he began to suffer agonies from a gastric complaint which continued to torment him all his life, and may well have played a large part in shaping the rugged, rude fabric of his philosophy...."

"...No coherent body of philosophy can be extracted from his teachings: it is rather as a prophet and a seer that he has his place. He was blind to the greatest phenomenon of his age — the rise of science as an interpreter of the universe — and spoke insultingly of Darwin. Formal economics also incurred his censure. His theological attitude is hardest of all to define...."

In sum, "'Carlyle's genius,' wrote Hector Macpherson, 'was many-sided. He touched and ennobled the national life at all points. He lifted a whole generation of young men out of the stagnating atmosphere of materialism and dead orthodoxy into the region of the ideal. With the Master of Balliol, we believe that "no English writer has done more to elevate and purify our ideas of life and to make us conscious that the things of the spirit are real, and that in the last resort there is no other reality." ' "
Nuff said.

(Quotes about Carlyle from "Thomas Carlyle: Biography" extract from British Authors of the Nineteenth Century, 115-118, at The Victorian Web)

Thursday, March 19, 2009

The Bells of St. Mary's and the Movies: The 'Good Old Days' had Problems, Too

It's been a long time since Going My Way and Bells of St. Mary's represented a common perception of Catholicism. These days, The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Our Lady of the Assassins are more what I've come to expect. And, of course, that blast from the past, "The Last Temptation of Christ."

Those two Bing Crosby films were, I think, well done. But I don't think there ever was a 'good old days' when the film industry could be counted on to produce nice movies with religious themes.

They Just Don't Make Movies Like That Any More - And Never Did

I think we tend to remember "Bible movies" that weren't too bad, like David and Bathsheba (1951), ones where the director didn't 'improve' the story too much, like The Bible: In The Beginning, and forget films like Salome, where "the contrived proceedings are colorful but have little to do with the Gospel account and Hayworth's performance is lovely to look at but is unconvincing as a dramatic character...." (USCCB)

That was Rita Hayworth as Salome, by the way: and she was emphatically not hard on the eyes.

Wonderfully Awful Movies

Then, there were those wonderful movies whose writers and directors might have learned their theology and history by watching Ghosts on the Loose (1943) and Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955), respectively.

Some of the howlers I watched in my teens could have been made before that Abbott and Costello film, though.
Satan: A Really Nice Guy?!
I watched quite a few movies on late-afternoon television, in my teens. Sadly, I can't remember their titles. Most were unremarkable, but some touched on serious theological concepts.

With mixed results.

Several presented Satan as an urbane gentleman who was dressed as if he were about to watch an opera. So far, no problems. Theological plausibility hit the fan when it turned out that, once you got to know him, he was a really nice guy.

One of these fantastically optimistic films had Mr. Mephistopheles' office done in a sort of deco-modern style, with lots of open space - and a trap door right in front of the desk.
Warning! Middle-Age Guy Reminiscing!
The only scene of that movie I remember was where a worried-looking new arrival from Earth had been introduced. A fussy, overweight, middle-aged woman marched in and began giving the devil a piece of her mind. The devil's initial look of gentlemanly concern turned to annoyance, he pushed a button, and she dropped through the trap door.

Funny, in a way. The new arrival was then assured that unpleasantness in Hell was reserved for fusspots like that: not for nice people who just happened to be there.

Irwin Allen's The Story of Mankind (1957), if it's the one I think it is, did a better job of approximating Judeo-Christian ideas of how the big picture works. Wouldn't take that much.

Don't get me wrong: I think some of those 'he's not so bad' movies are funny. Amusing, anyway. As long as I don't think too much about what I'm watching.

The attitude behind Mark Twain's "heaven for climate, and hell for society" quote, and his reaction to late-Victorian era self-righteousness, may behind some of the mid-20th-century movie nuttiness.

Which opens a can of worms I don't have time to deal with right now.

Hollywood, Bible Epics, and Nostalgia

A few decades ago, a reviewer said that a film's dialog had been written in 'Biblese.' I'm pretty sure what he meant was that thees thys and thous strewn across a bad imitation of King James' English.

That sort of film, by and large, I'm not nostalgic about.

And, I'm just as glad that the American film industry isn't cranking out movies like Samson and Delilah. It was one of those films that proved Victor (Samson) Mature's claim: "I'm no actor, and I've got 64 pictures to prove it."

I actually enjoy watching Bible Epics: There's a sort of over-the-top feel to many of them that the movie industry didn't recapture until Star Wars hit the screen. My opinion. Their close-but-not-quite take on theology, on the other hand, is something else.

On the whole, I don't think the movie industry is doing that badly. It's not doing that well, either: but I don't think it ever was.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB): They Review Movies, Too

The USCCB's Office for Film and Broadcasting" has about 8,000 movie reviews online - and an indexing system that leaves something to be desired. I often use Google to get at specific reviews: mostly because I don't always know the right title.

I put together a set of links to USCCB reviews of the movies I mentioned, at the start of this post:
  • "Going My Way -- Bing Crosby ambles amiably through the role of Father O'Malley, the crooning curate sent to assist the aging, crotchety pastor (Barry Fitzgerald) of a poor parish in need of change...." 1944
  • "Bells of St. Mary's-- Director Leo McCarey's sequel to "Going My Way" (1944) pulls out all the emotional stops in a sugary confection that takes happy-go-lucky Father O'Malley (Bing Crosby) to a poor parish with a crumbling school run by overworked Sister Benedict (Ingrid Bergman)...." 1945
  • The Exorcism of Emily Rose "Sober, theologically oriented thriller based, in part, on true events surrounding a Catholic priest (Tom Wilkinson) on trial for negligent homicide in connection with an exorcism he performed on a young woman (Jennifer Carpenter)..." 2005
    • "Requiem, 2006, is a German film based on the same incident as The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
  • La Virgen de los sicarios, 2000 /
    "Our Lady of the Assassins-- Depressing drama shot in the violence-drenched drug capital of Medellin, Colombia where an older gay man (German Jaramillo) has returned to die but falls in lust with a volatile teen (Anderson Ballesteros)...." 2001, Paramount Classics
  • "The Last Temptation of Christ -- Deeply flawed screen adaptation of the Nikos Kazantzakis novel probing the mystery of the human nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, fails because of artistic inadequacy rather than anti-religious bias...."
whatever

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

"Get f****d, Catholic Church" - It Comes With the Territory

Twitter is a great online community. That's the way I see it, anyway. I'm meeting people I've known from other places there, and will be getting to know more.

"Get f****d, Catholic Church"

I was born in a virulently anti-Catholic town, and raised in a mainstream Protestant household. I knew what to expect, when I decided to covert to Catholicism. No complaints: This sort of thing comes with the territory.

Looking for fellow-Twitterers (Twitterians??), I searched for "catholic" on the site. Not all Twitters were like this, but many were:
  • "[name redacted] You can always count on the Catholic church (for anything from idiocy to downright fascism): [link redacted]
  • "[name redacted] [link redacted] I refuse to be counted a Catholic. I didn't ask to be one and there should be a way of renouncing one's forced baptism.
  • "[name redacted] Condoms don't prevent AIDS, religion does. [link redacted] Get f****d, Catholic Church.
I've done a little redaction - like that 'adult, mature' suggestion for the Catholic Church.

Indignation at an "Irresponsible" and "Immoral" Church

Not all days may be like this. People are reacting to the Pope's "irresponsible" and "immoral" assertion that condoms won't protect you from AIDS, but limiting your sexual activity to what's healthy for body, mind, and spirit, will. (March 17, 2009)

I don't claim to be as irresponsible and immoral (by those standards) as the Holy Father, but I try to be on the same page: The person who wants to renounce a "forced baptism" shows more understanding of what the Catholic Church is about, than many 'ardent' Catholics do.

The fact is, though, that the door isn't locked, either way. Anyone who wants to, can walk away from the Catholic Church, and never come back. Can't say that I'd recommend it, but what you do with your immortal soul is your business. All I'm responsible for is relaying the facts.

I did find some promising leads on that "catholic" search, by the way: and hope to run into more, as time goes on.

Why I Twitter

Most of the people I run into on Twitter are not as uptight as the three I quoted. I doubt that any that I follow are Catholic - we are a minority in the English-speaking (and writing) world - but they don't seem bothered by my being one of Those People.

For the most part, I enjoy posting and reading short (140-character maximum) messages, and exchanging ideas, greetings, and tiny talk with others. (It'd be "small talk" anywhere else, but Twitter is so succinct, I figure it must be "tiny talk" there.)

Now, a blatant plug:
On Twitter, I'm
Aluwir

Not All Catholics are Like Me - Thank God

I mean it: Thank God that the Roman Catholic Church is just that: Catholic. "Universal." (I mean really universal - but that's for another post, another day.)

The Church isn't geared for one sort of personality. It's not intended for one culture, or one period in history.

The down side of being in an organization that spans so much of time and space is that sometimes it's hard (for me, at least) to find out exactly what the Church teaches about some point that's important to me, here at the dawn of the Information Age, in America.

Whatever I'm concerned about didn't matter a thousand years ago, when half of my ancestors were raiding the other half of my forebears. Odds are that it won't matter a thousand years from now.

It's not that the Church is stuck in the past: Bishops and Archbishops are expected to apply what the Church teaches to local conditions. That's why we have movie reviews today, in America.

About a dozen centuries ago, St. Cuthbert and other bishops of Lindisfarne didn't address social, artistic, and ethical implications of a technology that didn't exist yet. They had other concerns. Vikings, for example, after that 793 incident.

A Really Nice Catholic Blog

Not mine: One called A Catholic Mom in Minnesota. She's doing Lenten reflections this season. Yesterday's mentioned Matthew 18: 21-35. You know: where Peter asks Jesus, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him?"

The prayer that wraps up that post ends with "Give me the grace I need to live a holy life. Instill in my heart the constant desire to do Your Holy Will."

From There are more "A Lenten Journey" posts in A Catholic Mom in Minnesota - type lenten in her blog's search box (odds are that it's near the top right corner of your screen).

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Being Counter-Cultural in 21st Century America

Being counter-cultural isn't what it used to be.

There was a time when people could show independence from convention by letting their hair grow and/or wearing jeans. There was more to it than that, of course.

These days, with the campus radicals being in tenured faculty positions, cultural conventions are different. The days of the gray flannel suit are over.

Can't say that I'm disappointed.

Being Catholic is Being Counter-Cultural

I follow what someone called an oriental mystery religion. Technically, he was right. When you get right down to it, Catholicism is about as "western" as Zoroastrianism.

Which is fine by me. I grew up in a Western culture, I'm an American citizen, I speak American English, and I am, in some ways, "western." I'm not particularly ashamed of being an American - which makes me an odd bird in some circles. On the other hand, what I believe and how I live is not typically "western."

For starters, I believe that there are things that are true, and things that are not true; things that are real, and things that are not real.

I believe that good, and evil, exist.

I'm not talking about which side of the road you drive on, or which fork to use first. That's cultural stuff.

Are Forks Evil?

When forks were introduced to England, 400 years ago, proper Englishmen regarded them as "effeminate and unnecessary. 'Why should a person need a fork when God had given him hands?' " Four centuries from now, everybody in the British Isles and North America may be eating with sporks and chopsticks.

What utensils, if any, a person uses to get through a meal is determined by culture. I go with the flow, and use knife, fork, and spoon the way most Americans do. I may be counter-cultural, but I don't go out of my way to buck the system.

This household does have chopsticks, by the way, and we use them now and again. They're great for any food that comes in chunks - like stew.

I'm getting off-topic.

Emotions: They're Bad, or Good: Right?

Wrong. Anger, for example, isn't a 'bad' emotion. What a person does with it may be, though.

While I'm thinking about it: If you think God is angry with you, I'd figure out why, and patch things up. Fast. Not to make you complacent, but my understanding is that it's what you're doing that's got Him ticked off. You, He loves.

Back to emotions.

Article 5 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a pretty good primer on "The Morality of the Passions." Passions, in this context, means emotions.

Despite the premium that the Catholic Church places on reason, we're not taught that emotions, or passions, are wrong.
"There are many passions. The most fundamental passion is love, aroused by the attraction of the good. Love causes a desire for the absent good and the hope of obtaining it; this movement finds completion in the pleasure and joy of the good possessed. The apprehension of evil causes hatred, aversion, and fear of the impending evil; this movement ends in sadness at some present evil, or in the anger that resists it."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1765)
Think about it: God made us; emotions are part of us; so, God made emotions. And, the way I see it, God doesn't make junk - and He doesn't make evil. He allows us to choose evil, but that's another tangent that I'm not going to go off on. Not in this post, anyway. (see Heaven, Hell, and Free Will, in "Oh, Hell: You Mean That Place Really Exists?" (November 20, 2010))

I said that anger, by itself, is a 'bad' emotion. There aren't any 'good' or 'bad' emotions. It's what we do with them that makes them good or bad. Not my opinion: I'm just re-stating what the Church teaches:
"In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, 'either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.' It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason."
(Catechism, 1767)

"Trust Your Feelings, Luke" - Cool Line, Stupid Move

Don't get me wrong: I'm a bit of a Star Wars fan. I like the movies, for the most part, and won't mind watching them again.

But that famous line, "trust your feelings, Luke" - that's just not good advice. "If it feels good, do it" may, well, feel good: but it's not what the Church teaches.

Quite a lot of things feel good in the short run, but aren't particularly good for you over time. If you've ever had a hangover, you know what I mean. And yes, I've had a hangover. Don't intend to repeat the experience.

I Believe that Good and Evil Exist; that Reason Trumps Emotion: What Kind of Freak am I?

I'm Catholic. I don't follow priests out of blind, unthinking obedience: the Church encourages Catholics - or anyone else - to study what's we've learned over the last going-on-twenty centuries. Quite a lot is online by now. I've studied a tiny fraction of what's available, as part of my job of conforming my will to God's

By the way, I don't insist that you live the way I do, or believe what I do. My job, in terms of what the Church is passing along, is to present the facts. What you do with them is your business, not mine.

Another thing: In posts where I get into what the Church teaches, I provide linked references. That's partly for my convenience, partly so that you can follow the links and learn more. But if you'd rather not know: again, that's your business.

'Not Following Where your Heart and Other Major Organs Lead? That's Crazy!'

If using my reason, accepting the idea that God knows more than I do, and trying to not only do things God's way, but see things God's way runs contrary to every popular trend in today's America: I can live with that.

The way I see it, Oscars, Super Bowl Championships, and Constitutional Amendments come and go. They're part of the wonderful, ever-changing, evolving creation that we're blessed to be a part of.

But, a thousand years from now, I'd be astounded if the Oscars were still around. Never mind what's likely to happen over geological time scales.

On the other hand, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Hebrews 13:8) On the whole, I'd rather be part of an outfit that's going to last.

Good News from Africa: But Some People Won't Like It

First, the good news: The rate of new AIDS infections in some African countries has gone down.

Now, the 'bad' news, from one point of view: They're the countries that stopped pushing condoms.

Obviously, there can't possibly be any connection.

Or, maybe, there is.

The establishment types can rest easy, though. One of the few places that anyone will read about that disturbing correlation is in an article provided by the Catholic News Agency. And 'everybody knows what those Catholics are like.'

For the convenience of conventional thinkers, here's why this factoid can be ignored:
  • A news agency that admits to being Catholic carried the story
  • They're biased, obviously
  • Everybody knows that condoms prevent the spread of AIDS
    • So any report to the contrary is false
Related Post: In the news:

Sex, Condoms, AIDS, an "Immoral" Pope, and What Everybody Knows

Here's the deal:
  • The Pope's going to Africa
  • AIDS is a major health problem in Africa
  • AIDS is spread very easily through sexual intercourse
  • Condom manufacturers say that condoms prevent the spread of AIDS
    • Well, reduce
    • Generally
  • The Pope is stuck with fuddy-duddy old rules
Obviously, "...The Vatican's stance is not simply irresponsible; it is immoral...." (g.c.u.)

'As is well known,' people are incapable of not, ah, being real friendly with the nearest member of the opposite sex when those ol' debil hormones hit. Or, for that matter, of the same sex. Everybody knows that.

Walking Away from God, or Siding with Giants: Yeah, a Really Hard Choice

I was brought up in a mainstream protestant church. Among the many things I "knew" was that contraceptives were perfectly okay. Again, everybody knows that.

When I married a Catholic woman, I needed to know about the Catholic faith. Including that stuff about contraceptives. I really didn't want to exercise self-control.

So, I read Humanae Vitae. Cover to cover. English translation, of course. Then I read it again, very carefully. Studied it, actually: looking for a loophole. Looking for a knot I could poke out and make into a loophole.

After that, I did have options: I could give God the one-finger salute and walk away, or I could side with some of the best minds that western Eurasia has produced over the last two millennia.

When I put it to my self that way, it wasn't really that hard a choice.

That was over a quarter-century ago. I won't claim that using the outer layers of my brain, like the frontal cortex, to override parts of my endocrine system is easy. But the payoff, aesthetically and otherwise, has been great.

"No Sex" - Close But Not Quite

The Australian almost got it right. Their headline was "No sex is the best AIDS solution - Pope Benedict XVI". The article said, somewhat accurately, that "...The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of disease...."

If they'd said "chastity," they'd be closer to the mark. That's not the same as "abstinence." Married Catholic couples are expected to live chaste lives. Not sexless ones.

Good grief! Where does The Australian think little Catholics come from?

More-or-less related posts: News and views (all are Google News links):

Like it? Pin it, Plus it, - - -

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store

Popular Posts

Label Cloud

1277 abortion ADD ADHD-Inattentive Adoration Chapel Advent Afghanistan Africa America Amoris Laetitia angels animals annulment Annunciation anti-catholicism Antichrist apocalyptic ideas apparitions archaeology architecture Arianism art Asperger syndrome assumptions asteroid astronomy Australia authority balance and moderation baptism being Catholic beliefs bias Bible Bible and Catechism bioethics biology blogs brain Brazil business Canada capital punishment Caritas in Veritate Catechism Catholic Church Catholic counter-culture Catholicism change happens charisms charity Chile China Christianity Christmas citizenship climate change climatology cloning comets common good common sense Communion community compassion confirmation conscience conversion Corpus Christi cosmology creation credibility crime crucifix Crucifixion Cuba culture dance dark night of the soul death depression designer babies despair detachment devotion discipline disease diversity divination Divine Mercy divorce Docetism domestic church dualism duty Easter economics education elections emotions England entertainment environmental issues Epiphany Establishment Clause ethics ethnicity Eucharist eugenics Europe evangelizing evolution exobiology exoplanets exorcism extremophiles faith faith and works family Father's Day Faust Faustus fear of the Lord fiction Final Judgment First Amendment forgiveness Fortnight For Freedom free will freedom fun genetics genocide geoengineering geology getting a grip global Gnosticism God God's will good judgment government gratitude great commission guest post guilt Haiti Halloween happiness hate health Heaven Hell HHS hierarchy history holidays Holy Family Holy See Holy Spirit holy water home schooling hope humility humor hypocrisy idolatry image of God images Immaculate Conception immigrants in the news Incarnation Independence Day India information technology Internet Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jesus John Paul II joy just war justice Kansas Kenya Knights of Columbus knowledge Korea language Last Judgment last things law learning Lent Lenten Chaplet life issues love magi magic Magisterium Manichaeism marriage martyrs Mary Mass materialism media medicine meditation Memorial Day mercy meteor meteorology Mexico Minnesota miracles Missouri moderation modesty Monophysitism Mother Teresa of Calcutta Mother's Day movies music Muslims myth natural law neighbor Nestorianism New Year's Eve New Zealand news Nietzsche obedience Oceania organization original sin paleontology parish Parousia penance penitence Pentecost Philippines physical disability physics pilgrimage politics Pope Pope in Germany 2011 population growth positive law poverty prayer predestination presumption pride priests prophets prostitution Providence Purgatory purpose quantum entanglement quotes reason redemption reflections relics religion religious freedom repentance Resurrection robots Roman Missal Third Edition rosaries rules sacramentals Sacraments Saints salvation schools science secondary causes SETI sex shrines sin slavery social justice solar planets soul South Sudan space aliens space exploration Spain spirituality stem cell research stereotypes stewardship stories storm Sudan suicide Sunday obligation superstition symbols technology temptation terraforming the establishment the human condition tolerance Tradition traffic Transfiguration Transubstantiation travel Trinity trust truth uncertainty United Kingdom universal destination of goods vacation Vatican Vatican II veneration vengeance Veterans Day videos virtue vlog vocations voting war warp drive theory wealth weather wisdom within reason work worship writing

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:Posts in this blog: In the news:

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

From time to time, a service that I use will display links to - odd - services and retailers.

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

For example: psychic anything, numerology, mediums, and related practices are on the no-no list for Catholics. It has to do with the Church's stand on divination. I try to block those ads.

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

Bottom line? What that service displays reflects the local culture's norms, - not Catholic teaching.