Sunday, August 30, 2009

Twenty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time

Readings for August 30, 2009, Twenty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time:

1st Sunday of Advent 2009

By Deacon Lawrence N. Kaas
August 30, 2009

Deacon Lawrence N. Kaas

I don't know about you but for me these last week's listening to the news has been disheartening to say the least. This health care thing has become a gross disrespect for persons. Not only in the bill itself but also in the implementing of it. At times so much so that I have to stop and wash my hands so to speak. Then too we hear of the death of Senator Kennedy. It is said of him that he had a high regard for the Church and had made his entry into politics on a pro-life platform, what changed him has not really been explained, could it be that being politically correct was most important? I found this yesterday; Kennedy writes, "Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized - the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old." May God have Mercy on his soul!

Our Gospel for today deals with hand-washing. Not for hygiene but for ritual cleanliness. But even today, what phrase do you hear most often, wash your hand, did you wash your hands? And of course our mothers are correct washing ones hands is important especially that we are worried about the flu seasons. In my case I keep a squirt bottle of hand cleaner in my car that I use between Communion calls.

But that isn't what Deuteronomy is talking about for it is concerned as to what makes one unclean. Example: A Gentile was considered unclean, a dead body was unclean. Even certain objects were considered unclean and if you so much as touched them you had to purify yourself. Hand washing in this instance was a purification rite. I remember my mother telling of the time when she worked for a Jewish family in the cities and she had inadvertently used a meat knife to cut butter and the man of the house used a full kettle of hot water to clean that knife.

Jesus accused the Pharisees of following petty religious regulations while their hearts were far from God. Was Jesus opposed to hand washing? You will remember that one day the Pharisees accosted Jesus because His disciples didn't wash their hands before eating and Jesus called them hypocrites. The point was that He was by far more concerned about having a clean heart.

Cleanliness, for all it has to recommend it, can become an obsession, as ritual cleanliness was for the Pharisees. Being sanitary is one thing, but germ-a-phobia is an impossible way to live. Remember Howard Hughes and how the last years of his life he cleansed himself to death. In Jesus' world it was the Pharisees who were preoccupied with cleanliness.

There is a religious question that has been around, it seems, forever, and may be asked in a variety of ways. Is religious Faith an internal or an external reality? What matters more, what we believe or what we do? Does true Faith focus more on the hands or on the heart? In a matter such as this it seems that whatever choice you make some one can give you valid reasons for choosing the other. Maybe the right answer is to keep both in a healthy balance. Sin is more often a matter of elevating something good even, to the level of a God. Then suddenly we recall the words of Jesus from Mark; "This people honors me with their lips, but, their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts."

You disregard God's Commandments but cling to human tradition." He summoned the crowd again and said to them "Hear me, all of you, and understand. Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile. From within peoples hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from within and they defile." Mathew has Jesus say, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

The letter of James is very important in this regard, for he wants us to understand that every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change. James goes on to say that He willed to give us birth by the word of truth that we may be a kind of first-fruits of His creatures. The Psalm for today supports James for in part in says, Whoever walks blamelessly and does justice: who thinks the truth in his heart, does not slander, who harms not his fellow man, he honors those who fear the Lord, whoever does these thing shall not be disturbed. What I want you to understand is that the gift of God's Grace is not an inactive Grace, it must be acted upon. You can not say for example, once saved, always save. Human nature tells us as does Scripture that we all sin and fall short of what is expected of us.

Some time ago young man stopped at my shop and said, "Lawrence, have been saved? Oh yes, I said, many times." After completing our business he had to ask how I could say that and I responded, every time I go to Confession! About that time Father Paul walk in and he to had to know what was going on and after telling him the story he asked if he could print it in a small paper the Paulist print. Sure why not.

Once again James tells us; "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world." This doesn't sound to me to be an inactive Grace but a Grace that requires that we put into action the Grace that God has given. In other word do some thing with God's Grace, freely given, or it dies!
More:

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Ted Kennedy, the Catholic Church, and Our Law

Edward Kennedy, son of Joseph Kennedy, "Lion of the Senate," also called Ted Kennedy and Teddy Kennedy, is dead.

About an hour from now, as I write this, a motorcade bearing his body from the Kennedy compound on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, is expected to reach Boston, Massachusetts.

According to the news, it will go first to St. Stephen's Church in the North End; cross the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway; pass Faneuil Hall, where the mayor of Boston will ring the bell once for each year Edward Kennedy served in the Senate, 47 in all; pass the John F. Kennedy Federal Building, arriving in the fullness of time at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum; where the Lion of the Senate's body will lie in repose until Saturday.

I'm quite sure that many people will take the opportunity, and pay their respect to this remarkable man.

Then, on Saturday, Edward Kennedy will have a Catholic funeral. At that time, as befitting a man of his rank and station, President Obama will deliver a eulogy for Ted Kennedy.

I think we've had a preview of what to expect:
"...He was 'not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy,' Obama said, speaking to reporters during his vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts.

" 'His extraordinary life on this earth has come to an end. The extraordinary good that he did lives on. For his family, he was a guardian. For America, he was the defender of a dream.'

"Obama said that Americans knew Kennedy's death was coming for some time, but have been 'awaiting it with no small amount of dread.'..."
(CNN)

Ted Kennedy? A Catholic Funeral? Say What?!

Ted Kennedy went to a Catholic church. By the standards of this culture, he was a Catholic.

The standards of the Catholic Church aren't quite the same as those of the dominant culture in America. I've discussed the Kennedys and Catholicism in another post. (August 26, 2009) For example, one of my daughters is getting married in about 10 days. All the paperwork's done and the fees paid, so as far as the state is concerned those two are married. We're Catholic, so we don't recognize the union until early September.

And, by the standards of the Catholic Church, it looks like Edward Kennedy may have a Catholic funeral. Yes, for nearly a half-century he strove with some success to take America further from Catholic teachings on a number of issues. And no, the Catholic Church does not go in for the 'although personally opposed' doublethink that's today's gold standard of sophistication.

"A Catholic Funeral for Ted Kennedy?" (In the Light of the Law (August 27, 2009)) discusses why, under cannon law, Edward Kennedy may reasonably be granted a Catholic funeral.

I doubt that President Obama's eulogy will touch on the reasons: but that's another matter.

That's Pretty Non-Judgmental, for One of Those Catholics

I grew up in America, so I know how judgmental those Christians and/or those Catholics are supposed to be. There's some truth to the stereotype. A cartoon character said 'Cliches are cliches for a reason' - I think the same can be said for stereotypes.

There are quite a number of people who profess to be Christians and apparently believe that anyone who follows the whore of Babylon, drinks alcohol and/or smokes, likes certain kinds of music, or commits one of a cluster of other 'unpardonable sins' is going straight to Hell.

Not all Protestants are like that, and some Catholics are. Oddly, the people I ran into who were of the 'my way or the hellway' ilk generally had a book with this passage in it:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7: 1, 2 (Bartleby.com))
I doubt they see any inconsistency there: and would probably have some very Biblical explanations why they, their friends, and pastor Jones are the only 'saved' people on Earth. And many of them are savvy enough not to say, "if King James English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"1

Judging Someone Else? I Don't Need That Kind of Trouble

I've made the point before. As a Catholic, I'm not allowed to judge other people. What they do, yes. Where they stand in relation to God, not so much. I don't need that kind of trouble.
" 'Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, "Let me remove that splinter from your eye," while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."
(Matthew 7:1-5) (check out Luke 6: 37, 41)
A footnote on that passage reads, "This is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with Matthew 7:5, 6 but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one's own faults."

I'm not allowed to judge Bruce Jeffrey Pardo or Edward Kennedy in the sense of saying what their destination is. And I'm aware enough of my own faults, so that I try to avoid "a spirit of arrogance." That said, I am allowed to assert that shooting a little girl in the face isn't right: and neither was some of what Senator Kennedy did.

I am profoundly glad to learn that there is some reason to believe that Edward Kennedy, before he died, "gave some signs of repentance" - which means that, by Cannon Law, he's eligible for a Catholic funeral, Mass and all. What I think of the evidence doesn't matter: "...If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed...." (1983 CIC 1184)2 (In the Catholic Church, "ordinaries" are "Diocesan bishops, religious superiors, and certain other diocesan authorities with jurisdiction over the clergy in a specific geographical area, or the members of a religious order. The term also applies to the head Exarch of an Eastern Church Exarchy." Glossary of Church Terms," Office of Media Relations, USCCB)

Looks like the local ordinary gave Edward Kennedy's funeral the green light.

A Eulogy? At a Catholic Funeral?!

Eulogies have a long history in Western civilization, at least. The word means "a formal expression of praise for someone who has died recently". (Princeton's WordNet) I have nothing against the warm fuzzies survivors might feel, hearing what a great guy the deceased was.

On the other hand, eulogies can exhibit a sort of break with reality.

Not all funeral eulogies involve recalling the shining virtues of some pillar of the community, devoted husband and loving father, while his wives and girlfriends glare at each other; his former clients wish they'd known more, earlier; and his daughter wishes she'd brought charges sooner. But I think there's a tendency to recall not so much the deceased, as the person the deceased might have been.

Catholic funerals don't - literally as a rule - have eulogies. That's because for us, it's more of a sendoff than a farewell. I recommend reading the Catechism's "Article 2 / Christian Funerals" for a more formal discussion.

Eulogies? No.
"The liturgy of the Word during funerals demands very careful preparation because the assembly present for the funeral may include some faithful who rarely attend the liturgy, and friends of the deceased who are not Christians. The homily in particular must 'avoid the literary genre of funeral eulogy'189 and illumine the mystery of Christian death in the light of the risen Christ."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1688) [emphasis mine]
It's possible that the American press referred to President Obama's planned address as a "eulogy" because they are unaware of Catholic teaching on the matter - or assume that their readers are. Maybe a bit of both. And, perhaps there will be a more by-the-book homily and a eulogy in the panegyric style of American culture.

Or, maybe the Lion of the Senate's funeral Catholic funeral will be a bit less conventional than most.

Related posts: News and views:
A tip of the hat to newadvent, on Twitter, for the heads-up on that In the Light of the Law post.

1 Don't get me wrong: I love the King James translation of the Bible. And I have a certain respect for the English king whose name is now attached to it. I'm aware that it's been revised a time or two, but it is still, I think, one of the apex achievements in English literature. The language is beautiful, almost poetic.

The English language, however, has changed a bit in the intervening four centuries. And, although I'm sure that the Euro-British scholars working on the project were as smart and talented as their contemporary counterparts, they were working in the first decade of the 1600s. They didn't have the resources we have available today.

Yes, screwball theologians of the 20th century came up with whoppers: but so did their predecessors in the first through 19th. Newer isn't necessarily better, but it's not necessarily worse, either.

So, although I respect and enjoy the beautiful and archaic language of that translation, I don't rely on it for my study of the Word of God.

2 From "Code of Cannon Law", English translation of Latin document, © Copyright 1983 by Libreria Editrice Vaticana. This is one of those "secret Vatican documents" you read about, that (supposedly) nobody ever gets to see. (November 12, 2008)

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta: Born August 26, 1910

Gonxha Agnes Bojaxhiu was born on August 26, 1910, in Skopje (now part of Macedonia). The Albanian girl received her First Communion at the age of five and a half, and died at the age of 87, on September 5, 1997.

During those eight decades she
  • Joined the Sisters of Loreto, in Ireland
  • Changed her name
  • Was assigned to Calcutta, India
    • As part of the city's Loreto Entally community
  • Taught at a girls' school there
  • Took her Final Profession of Vows
    • After which she was called Mother Teresa
  • Founded the Missionaries of Charity
  • Cared for " 'the unwanted, the unloved, the uncared for' "
    (Vatican)
Mother Teresa of Calcutta is no Princess Di of England. She wore the same uniform as the rest of her religious community, a white sari, and lived a simple life among "the unwanted, the unloved, the uncared for" and won a Nobel Peace Prize (1979). Princess Di was against land mines (CNN), and helped get a Nobel Peace Prize for anti-land-mine activists twenty years later. (CNN)

Mother Teresa's Letters and the Dark Night of the Soul

About two years ago, if you believe what you read in the press and the blogosphere, we found out that Mother Teresa was an atheist, a fake, a fraud - not spiritual at all.

That's because letters were made public, showing that for a very long time, she didn't feel all that uplifted and peppy about Jesus. She went about her work and prayers, relying on her will, not her feelings.

As far as some people are concerned, a person just isn't spiritual without that HALLELUJAH! feeling.

Catholics recognize a prolonged dry period like that as the dark night of the soul - a name that comes from "The Dark Night," by St. John of the Cross, which described and discussed this part of a soul's growth. I discussed the letters, and clueless reactions to them, in another blog. (August 31, 2007)

Many saints, and many Catholics who haven't been canonized, went through that experience. I can't think of one who was given as long a dark night of the soul as Mother Teresa's, though.

I see a spiritual dryness, a lack of emotional uplift, as something like Special Forces training: rigorous; definitely not for everybody; reserved for those few who can handle it.

Calling Mother Teresa a hypocrite or an atheist because she went through an unusually long dark night of the soul is like saying that a Green Beret isn't a real soldier because he's had training most GIs don't get.

Related posts:
Background:

Correction (August 26, 2009)

I extend sincere thanks to Sr Constance, lsp, Little Sisters of the Poor, for pointing out an error in this post.

Little Sisters of the Poor was founded by Jeanne Jugan.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta founded the Missionaries of Charity.

Jeanne Jugan was beatified in 1982, and will be canonized by Pope Benedict XVI on October 11, 2009.

Several pages of information about Jeanne Jugan are on the Little Sisters of the Poor website (www.littlesistersofthepoor.org) Briefly, she was born October 25, 1792, and formed Servants of the Poor in 1842. The group was re-named "Sisters of the Poor" in 1844 and "Little Sisters of the Poor" in 1849. There's a great deal more information on the Little Sisters of the Poor timeline.

Updated (January 21, 2010)

Another resource about the dark night of the soul, and related topics:

Kennedys, Catholicism, and Abortion: So That's What Happened

This post is about the Kennedy family in the American northeast, ersatz Catholicism in America, and what happened to a good Irish family in America.

I'll admit to having a personal stake in this. I'm half Irish: a quarter, counting my ancestors who called themselves Scotch-Irish in the new country. Which could lead me to a not-quite-unrelated topic.

Unlike my ancestors, who in recent generations had demonstrated an uncanny gift for avoiding the temptations of worldly riches, the Kennedy family became quite distinctly burdened by wealth to degree remarkable even by American standards. Not that the Kennedys have experienced an entirely serene life here:
  • Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Jr.
    • Namesake of the American family founder
    • Dying abruptly over the English Channel in the course of the second of the World Wars
  • John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    • The one, the only, JFK
    • Quite famously assassinated during America's Camelot era
  • Rosemary Kennedy
    • Not-so-famously lobotomized in 1941
      • When such things were all the rage
      • Ah, the sacrifices one makes to keep up with the manners of the day
The problem, you see, stems from the Kennedys being Irish, and good Irish too: Catholic, that is. Trusting of their priests. Poor folk: When the likes of these spoke: the Kennedys, they listened. And, worse, believed the likes of:
  • Albert Jonsen
    • One-time
      • Professor of ethics (of all things!) at the University of Washington
      • Priest
  • Robert Drinan
    • Dean of Boston College Law School at the time
    • Bearing the title priest

  • Joseph Fuchs
    • Catholic (in name, if perhaps not in mind and heart) theologian
  • Charles Curran
    • (the American priest, not the Dubliner)
  • These illustrious men, one hot summer day in the year of Our Lord 1964, explained to the Kennedys how a good Catholic family such as the Kennedys might help make killing helpless babies quite legal in America - and still keep what might be called a clear conscience.

    And, as I said before, the Kennedys - they listened. And, to judge by what's happened since, believed.

    The great Cromwell himself could not have done such damage.

    With Friends Like These - - -

    It's one thing, you see, to withstand attacks from without. Nero, with the power of Rome's own empire at his back, he strove mightily to wipe the Church from the face of the earth.

    And did he succeed? Perhaps here and there there was the good Christian who said, 'although personally opposed to worshiping other gods, I don't feel it's my right to say no to the emperor,' or some such prattle as that. For the rest: well, I've heard it said that a bishop's robes are to this day colored red, so as not to clash with the blood which would soon stain them; once the man took office, that is. Bishoping was by way of being a high-risk position, you see.

    But did Nero succeed? Well, a good many centuries have rolled past since Rome was seat of the Caesars in any meaningful sense of the word. Each year, at Eastertide, the man who sits in the seat of Peter celebrates Mass where so many Christians refused to be conventional Roman citizens and were killed for their obstinacy. Offhand, I'd say that Nero's efforts were not entirely successful.

    Of course, it wasn't that lot of Christians who turned the tide. In my view, we're where we are due to the interest taken in Roman politics by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It's nice to have friends in high places.

    Kennedys: The Next Generation

    I wish the Kennedys no ill: they've had that aplenty. Still, it's sad to see their younger folk following down the same misdirected path:
    "...'supports Roe v. Wade, which prohibits third trimester abortions except when the life or health of the mother is at risk.'..." Ms. Kennedy presumably knows this means no limits on abortion rights, right up to birth, "...because the 'health of the mother' can be so broadly defined that it includes the psychological distress that can accompany an unintended pregnancy...."
    (WSJ)

    Trusting People, Trusting the Church

    It wasn't so long ago that I wrote a post about annulment, the American notion of divorce, and Catholic teachings. A fellow with a sad history corrected me, so he thought, with these words: "...You should not listen to just what the books say...." (March 27, 2009)

    Now, it's true that there's more to the Catholic Church than books. As I've discussed before, there's the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium to consider. (February 19, 2009, October 2, 2008) Now, two of the three are not, strictly speaking, in their entirety, books. (October 2, 2008)

    Nevertheless, though the Magesterium and Tradition represent the living Church: not every titled expert who says he's Catholic necessarily conforms to the teachings of Catholicism. Particularly those experts whose fame and fortune depend on their being more nearly aligned with the intellectual fashions of the day, than to the treasure of faith which the Church has carried through the millennia.

    It's all very well to consider the mores and polemics set forth by the likes of Curran, Drinan, Fuchs and Jonsen. They are, it is certain, men of note in the century from which we've lately emerged.

    Just the same, I'm more inclined to give heed to what the saints had to say: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Linus, Cletus, Catherine of Siena, Augustine, Jerome, Bonaventure, Anselm, Hilary, Alphonsus Liguori and Francis de Sales: to name but a few.

    Related posts:
    Background:

    A tip of the hat to patrickmadrid, on Twitter, for the heads-up on his post.

    Monday, August 24, 2009

    The Dreaded Vacation Mass

    My family doesn't do vacations very often, but the few times that we've been away from our usual haunts on Sunday, we've had remarkably good experiences with local churches.

    There's the one near Itasca State Park in Minnesota, a small church with a big grotto and an outdoor walk-around rosary; and the time my wife and I were in Massachusetts on a rare business trip, and found an architecturally delightful church with a 'real' Mass - no weird attempts to fit in.

    Not everyone has that experience. For the flip(-flop) side of vacation Mass, check out:
    A tip of the hat to newadvent, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this.

    Sunday, August 23, 2009

    "Your Life, Your Choices" is Back

    In today's news:

    "Specter Calls for Hearings on End-of-Life Care Guide for Veterans"
    FOXNews (August 23, 2009)

    "Sen. Arlen Specter on Sunday called for hearings to scrutinize a guide for veterans' end-of-life care which one former Bush official says sends a 'hurry-up-and-die' message to injured troops.

    "The guide, called 'Your Life, Your Choices,' was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs...."

    Arlan Specter is one of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's United States Senators. He's also a Democrat, and has a (sadly) traditional American view of abortion. His official website reads, in part: "...Finally, I am personally opposed to abortion, but I am a supporter of a woman's right to choose...." (Issues & Legislation / Key Issues /Health Care: Prevention, Treatment, and Education Programs, excerpt copied August 23, 2009)

    Sure, it's 'nice' to be equivocal on 'divisive' issues: but I've yet to hear a senator say he's personally opposed to slavery or cannibalism, but feels that it's a matter of personal choice. (May 19, 2009)

    I think it's interesting that as 'open minded' a senator as Specter seems concerned about the "Your Life, Your Choices" guide. And, I hope that more than a little clique of senators gets a chance to see what's in the current version - before it's been distributed to all American veterans who no longer measure up to some physical standard.

    There's an opinion that's taken root some American subcultures, that there's a sharp division between a person's 'spiritual' life and 'real' life. A person's 'spiritual' life is personal, private, and isn't supposed to intrude on public life - unless the person is against pollution, or something groovy.

    I can't work that way. For starters, I recognize that spiritual matters are quite real. And: Related posts: In the news:

    Saturday, August 22, 2009

    Afghanistan's "Family Law," Western Mores, and Catholic Teaching

    Working on another blog this evening, I ran across a short piece in a Reuters blog: with some of the funniest wordplay I've run into in some time. More about that in "Exploding Wieners, Awful Wordplay," Apathetic Lemming of the North (August 22, 2009).

    As I said, the piece was funny: but the story behind the photo is anything but.
    "...The photo comes from Reuters, and is part of a rather under-reported '...rally protesting against Afghanistan's "Family Law", which diminishes women's rights in Afghanistan, near the Afghanistan embassy in Kiev August 21, 2009. Authorities in Afghanistan passed a law permitting men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands....'
    ('Topics / Women's-Rights / Photos ' Reuters, via The Wall Street Journal (August 21, 2009))...
    "
    (Apathetic Lemming of the North)
    From what little has gotten into the news about that new law in Afghanistan, it sounds like the powers that be in Afghanistan have a long way to go before they catch up with western culture's habit of treating women as people.

    What?! A Catholic Man Sticking up for Women's Rights?!

    Sort of. As a practicing Catholic, I can't support abortion-on-demand, lesbian marriage, or any of a number of other "rights" which have been demanded - and, in some cases, recognized.

    On the other hand, as a practicing Catholic, I can't approve of that 'give me what I want or I'll starve you' law. Not that my preferences make any difference: Afghanistan's a long way from where my vote counts.

    I'll have to come back to this general topic someday, and discuss it in more detail.

    The bottom line is that the Catholic Church does have rules, and does recognize that women aren't men. And vice versa. That's 'oppressive' by some definitions. Even so, Catholic history includes quite a few women like St. Catherine of Siena, doctor of the church.

    "Doctor of the church" is "...a title conferred on 33 saints who distinguished themselves through the orthodoxy of their theological teaching". (Princeton's WordNet) WordNet is a pretty good resource, but that time they have the tail wagging the dog. Doctors of the church are Catholicism's heavy-hitters, who helped define what orthodox theological teaching is. There's a bit more about that in a footnote in another post.

    But Don't Catholic Husbands Lord it Over Their Wives?

    Some, sadly, do. But that's not what the church teaches.

    This gives an idea of what a Catholic man can expect from marriage:
    "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her"
    (Ephesians 5:25)
    I converted after marriage - but before signing on, I'd agreed that the household would be run as a Catholic household. And I knew what that meant for me.

    In the event that my death would serve my wife, I had explicit instructions: to serve my wife. Even if I died as a result.

    You don't have to believe that. But, as I've written before, my responsibility ends when I've presented what's so. What you do with the facts is up to you.

    Related posts: Background:

    Tuesday, August 18, 2009

    Nothing New in Letter to Deacons: And That's Nothing New

    It's a letter, from the Holy See (most Americans call it 'the Vatican'), to the Catholic Church's permanent deacons.

    Catholic World News has a short piece about it, in yesterday's news:
    "Cardinal Claudio Hummes, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, is urging the world’s permanent deacons to follow the example of St. Stephen in their ministry of the Word and the example of St. Lawrence in their ministry of charity.

    " 'The ministry of the Word which, in a special way for Deacons, has as its great model St. Stephen, Deacon and Martyr, requires of ordained ministers a constant struggle to study it and carry it out, at the same time as one proclaims it to others,' writes Cardinal Hummes in a letter, dated August 10. 'Meditation, following the style of lectio divina, that is, prayerful reading, is one well traveled and much counseled way to understand and live the Word of God, and make it ones own. At the same time, intellectual, theological and pastoral formation is a challenge which endures throughout life. A qualified and up to date ministry of the Word very much depends upon this in depth formation.'..."
    (August 17, 2009)
    There's more, of course. But as far as I can tell, it's nothing new.

    That doesn't mean it's not important.

    I see it as a reminder from headquarters about what's important. And, that "...intellectual, theological and pastoral formation is a challenge which endures throughout life...."

    I think a layman like me needs a reminder like that, now and again. God willing, I've got a few decades left in this life: and there's a whole lot that I haven't learned about God and His Church.

    Related posts:

    In the news:

    American Nuns, Fitting In, and Being Catholic in America

    The Catholic Church simply isn't American.

    There, I've said it.

    Which isn't quite the same as saying that the Catholic Church is un-American, with connotations in American English that go back at least as far as the days when McCarthyism was in flower.

    Thomas Nast, Cultural Catholics, and the Vatican

    This is just my opinion, but I think that people like Maria Monk and Thomas Nast quite unintentionally did some cultural Catholics a favor by popularizing wild stories about Catholic orgies and plots.

    Tales of secret tunnels between nunneries and rectories, clandestine burial sites hiding the corpses of babies conceived by priests and nuns, and all the rest of the anti-Catholic mythos became a part of America's cultural background noise.

    It's the old 'boy who cries wolf' principle. With a couple centuries of crazy stories about Catholic debauchery - that many Americans didn't take seriously - coming from America, is it any wonder that it took the while for the Vatican to realize that a few priests really had been raping boys?

    And, that it's taken the Vatican a long time (by American standards) to get around to taking a serious look at what presumably-Catholic organizations in America have actually been up to?

    Catholics, America, Getting Along and Fitting In

    I have it easy. I was born in America, and converted to Catholicism shortly after moving to a largely-Catholic community.

    But, although I can't prove it, I didn't convert to 'fit in.' The conversion process had started many years ago, as I tried to make sense of the virulently anti-Catholic sentiments endemic to where I grew up.

    Many Catholics who came to America found the same sort of 'Monk and Nast' attitude. They quite understandably wanted to be employable and, if possible, convince the (largely Protestant) Americans around them that they were 'real' Americans, too.

    I think that may have contributed to many originally-Catholic families concentrating more on making sure that their children grew up to be 'real' Americans, and perhaps a bit less on seeing to it that Catholic beliefs were passed on as well.

    There's more to it than that, of course.

    America in the Spotlight

    Maybe it was the 'pedophile priest' scandal, or maybe it was just the slow accumulation of evidence. But it looks like the Holy See, the Vatican, has finally started to pay closer attention to Catholic institutions in America.

    I'm pretty sure that quite a few of the people in those institutions aren't going to like it.

    The SNAFU with Notre Dame, where the leadership of that (allegedly Catholic) school told the bishops of this country that they were wrong about President Obama being honored and tacitly endorsed is, I think, among the first sign that there's change coming.

    I think it's only a matter of time before a more serious effort to impose quality control on Catholic institutions gets into mainstream media.

    Not All Nuns are Alike

    Just as Catholics in general come in a wide range of abilities, interests, personalities and degrees of solidarity with the Catholic Church, there are all sorts of nuns.

    A few, like Blessed Mother Teresa are famous. (She was beatified on October 19, 2003.)

    Most live, work, and pray without getting much - if any - attention. Some are in cloistered orders; some, like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, get their jobs done in a more public setting.

    And a few are definitely off the 50th percentile. Like a pair who were fingered by Maryland police last year as 'suspected terrorists.' Reading about the case in mainstream news, I didn't know what to think. America has never been a Catholic country, and these days there are secular zealots who seem to believe that America should be made safe from Christianity in general. Odd things have happened: like Bible studies getting banned for goofy reasons.

    After a little digging, I discovered that someone in Maryland's police force had made a (stupid) mistake, and that it was being corrected. I also found out why the nuns had been suspected of being terrorists. They'd broken into a nuclear missile site in Colorado "and, in rather loud taste, painted crosses on the silo with their own blood...." (October 11, 2008)

    They also seem to have a very 'relevant' view of America:
    "...I doubt that they should have gone on a 'suspected terrorist' list, these Jonah House nuns were involved with an organization that says "...we believe that the US is the world's number one terrorist." On the home page of their website, above the fold...."
    (October 11, 2008)
    I'm no expert, but it does look like Jonah House has bought into Liberation Theology. And, although the Catholic Church isn't a running-dog lackey of the capitalistic oppressor, it isn't a hero of the people's revolution, either.

    I've made the point before: The Catholic Church is the universal church. It's been around for almost two thousand years, so far, and barring orders from higher up I expect it will be around for another two millennia. By then, not many people are likely to have heard terms like populares and optimates, or liberal and conservative, unless they're students of history.

    That means that what the Catholic Church teaches isn't "relevant" in the good old sixties meaning of the term. It doesn't conform to a contemporary ideological fashion.

    American Nuns Object to Inquiry

    This could get interesting:
    "Leaders representing 59,000 women religious are questioning what they say is a lack of full disclosure about what is motivating the Vatican's apostolic visitation that will study the contemporary practices of U.S. women's religious orders.

    "In an Aug. 17 press statement, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious also said the leaders 'object to the fact that their orders will not be permitted to see the investigative reports about them' when they are submitted in 2011 to the Vatican's Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and its prefect, Cardinal Franc Rode...."
    (August 18, 2009)
    The LCWR has what may be legitimate points, about where funding for the Vatican representatives will be handled.

    I think there's a possibility that at least some of the objection comes from a realization that Americans who like to be Catholic their way have finally attracted the attention of the Holy See - and that the Catholic Church is not a democracy.

    A final point: Jonah House appears to be an anything-but-conservative enclave in America. Not all Catholics who like to roll their own religion are liberal, a point I discussed in June

    Related posts: In the news: Background:
    A tip of the hat to DiscernMyCall, on Twitter, for the heads-up on today's CNS article.

    Monday, August 17, 2009

    Animals: Yeah, the Catholic Church has Rules About Them, Too

    'I love my [peke, parakeet, persian, whatever].'

    Okay.

    I like animals, too. I suppose you could say I 'love' animals, in at least two of the meanings of the English-language word. I enjoy steak and chicken - grilled or cooked, and am very fond of my oldest daughter's pet rabbit - although I wouldn't eat him.

    Stereotypes are Stereotypes for a Reason

    Then there are the real-life analogs to the fictional character who leaves her (sometimes his) entire multi-million dollar estate to a beloved pet: somewhat to the chagrin of her (his) children. Or the dupe who has been providing a (fake) medium with not-to-expensive jewelry, under the impression that it's being passed along to a deceased pet.

    Or the stereotype overly-rich, overly-skinny character who declares that (almost always she) loves animals and hates people.

    These are stereotypes. But there are people with disordered views of animals.

    Torturing Animals isn't Nice, and We Shouldn't Do It

    At the other end of the spectrum, there's the bully who delights in pulling wings off butterflies; and the researcher who 'knows' that animals don't feel pain - so it's all right to experiment with them. Even though he has to move his office, to get out of range of the screams.

    Wouldn't you know it? The Catholic Church has rules about animals, too. As I wrote in another post, "...To hear some people talk, you'd think the Catholic Church was against people having any fun at all...." (July 24, 2009)
    "Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals."
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2416)

    "It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons."
    (Catechism, 2418)
    There's more. Including a paragraph that says it's okay to "use animals for food and clothing" and to domesticate animals. Experimenting on animals "...is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contribute to caring for or saving human lives." (Catechism, 2417)

    Why this 'humanocentric' view of things?
    "God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image...." (Catechism, 2417)
    Yeah: That makes us pretty hot stuff. Sort of like God - "in his own image" - but let's not get too cocky. A steward is "someone who manages property or other affairs for someone else" or "one having charge of buildings or grounds or animals" - and the word has some other meanings, too. (Princeton's WordNet)

    A key phrase there is "for someone else." In the case of us and animals, that "someone else" is God.

    I don't think it's prudent, considering the position and nature of the owner, to mistreat animals: any more than it would be a good idea for the 'steward' of a zoo to abuse the penguins. When it comes time to review the books, that could be embarrassing.

    Why All these Rules? Doesn't God Trust Us?

    Taking the second question first: God gave us free will - a topic for another post - and if that's not "trust," I don't know what is. Anybody who reads about, say, the 20th century; or lived through much of it, as I did; should realize that people are capable of doing some very nasty things, given the opportunity.

    So, why all the rules?

    Actually, there aren't all that many, when you get down to basics. It's possible to boil the rules down to two:
    "...You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind...." and "...The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.'..."
    (excerpt from Matthew 22:36-40)
    Even so, it's a good idea, I think, to take advantage of what some of the greatest minds of the last two thousand years have had to say about how those two basic rules get applied to everyday life.

    Like, 'is it okay to eat meat?' or 'am I allowed to torture frogs?' Turns out, even though neither cats nor frogs was mentioned in that passage from Matthew, the answers are 'yes' and 'no', respectively.

    I don't see the teachings of the Catholic Church as being all that restrictive. But then, I do see them as guidelines for a way of life that will:
    1. Keep me from hurting myself or other people
    2. Help me, therefore, live a fuller and possibly longer life
    3. Have fewer embarrassing details to discuss with God, sometime in the relatively near future
    In a way, I think it helps that I never quite bought in to the mainstream culture's value systems: either the pre-sixties 'success' track; or the sixties-and-beyond 'tune in, turn on and drop out' ethic.

    Following the Catholic Church's teachings will result in a temperate, family-centered or community-centered way of life that I think a secularist might agree tends to result in physical well-being and emotional health.

    Since I take God seriously, and expect to outlive the universe - whether I enjoy it or not - I take the implications of point #3 pretty seriously, too. (see Catechism, 1020, 1021-1022 and 1051, for starters)

    Related post, about dealing with animals: Related posts, about rules, the Catholic Church and common sense:

    Sunday, August 16, 2009

    Woodstock? Yeah, it was Groovy, But That was Then

    "1969 Woodstock Festival A Colossal, Unique Mistake"
    Patrick Butler: Another Look, TylerPaper.com (August 15, 2009)

    I wasn't there, but I remember Woodstock. I think anyone who was alive in America at the time, and didn't take Timothy Leary's advice, is likely to.

    This article is one of the more accurate - and insightful - reminiscences of that remarkable rock concert. Sample excerpts:
    "...The Woodstock Arts and Music festival 40 years ago today could be succinctly summed up as a colossal, mistake and a unique one at that. The 'Aquarian Festival' proved to be an unrepeatable phenomenon and is yet recalled with misguided sentimentality...."

    "...'By the time we got to Woodstock,' sang Crosby, Stills and Nash, recalling the cow pasture event, 'We were half a million strong, and everywhere was a song and celebration and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden.'

    "Ah, the garden, an admirable goal. But as Woodstock-era musician John Michael Talbot of the Mason Proffit band - and now a Franciscan monk - put it to me, 'We were asking all the right questions in all the wrong places.'..."
    John Michael Talbot? He's doing okay, still making music.

    But you know what those Woodstock people are like: counter-cultural.
    "...Inspired by the life of St. Francis of Assisi, he sold everything he owned and joined a secular Franciscan order in 1978...."
    (John Michael Talbot biography)
    Well, you could do worse.
    A tip of the hat to JMTweeps, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the article. John Michael Talbot also has the Twitter account JMTalbot.

    Modesty: Living in Balance

    It isn't easy for a father - or mother - to try encouraging modest clothing and behavior. The culture we live in seems to reward immodesty. And it is not easy to remember that modesty is not staying covered up: it is a matter of living in a balanced way.

    A few years ago, young men were wearing trousers that looked like they were about to fall around their ankles. Occasionally, they did.

    Recently, young women have been wearing pants that start a few inches below their navels, and tops that don't go quite that far down.

    Fashion Hits Bottom

    It looks like styles may have finally hit bottom. On January 25, a fashion model waltzed down a runway with about half her rump hanging out the back of her pants. This happened in Brazil, in Cavalera's 2005 Fall/Winter collection show at the Sao Paulo Fashion Week.

    Lack of modesty has a few benefits. Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl ensured that she would get more exposure than just the song-and-dance number she had been booked for.

    That bare-butt fashion model in Sao Paulo, Brazil, put Cavalera's 2005 Fall/Winter collection show and the Sao Paulo Fashion Week in the faces of people around the world.

    Turning a "Who" into a "What"

    The problem with immodesty is that it makes people into less of a 'who.' and more of a 'what'. Immodest clothing focuses attention on a person's appearance in a way calculated to turn on sexual passion at the wrong time and in the wrong way.

    Today's low-cut, skin-tight, see-through styles give us an eyeful of what immodesty is.

    Saying what modesty is may take a little doing.

    Modesty, Yes; Prudery, No

    First, modesty is not prudery. Modesty in dress, speech, or behavior, St. Thomas Aquinas says, means moderation: doing something in a thoughtful, balanced way that avoids extremes. Prudery or shameful inhibitions and shamelessness are both "immodest." Both extremes are out of balance.

    Modesty, according to the tradition of the Catholic Church, is one of the 12 fruits of the Holy Spirit, along with charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control, and chastity.

    Modesty is a part of temperance. It
    "...protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

    "Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one's choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet." (Catechism, 2521-2522)
    A teacher at the Franciscan University at Steubenville, Benjamin D. Wiker, suggests avoiding clingy clothing and having a knee-to-neck rule for people at Mass. His guidelines would guard us from distractions like miniskirts and bicycle shorts at Mass, and sound like a good idea for most occasions.

    Giving good advice about modest behavior and clothing wouldn't be worth much if there were no way to find decent clothes. Happily, enough folks have been looking for an alternative to tube tops and hot pants for at least two stores specialize in modest women's wear:

    Modest Apparel USA
    122 Airport Road
    Buffalo, MO 65622
    Toll free 1-866-269-0907
    417-345-8421
    http://www.modestapparelusa.com
    A family owned home-based business offering women an alternative to today's promiscuous fashions.

    Modest by Design
    252 E. Winchester Street
    Murray UT 84107
    Toll free 1-888-756-0944
    801-264-0944
    http://www.modestbydesign.com
    A clothing company specializing in a variety of fashionable modest clothing at reasonable prices

    Related post:
    This post was originally published as an article in the Knights of Columbus Bulletin for Knights of Columbus Bishop Busch Council 4863 (February, 2005). I confirmed the contact information for Modest Apparel USA and Modest by Design, and made the format compatible with this blog's.

    Sunday? Sabbath? Day of Rest?

    What gets said in the Sacrament of Reconciliation / Confession is not public information. However, since this is my own experience, I think I'm on solid ground.

    Some years ago, while in the confessional, I brought up a point that had bothered me. I was concerned that I was guilty of sloth. I was acutely aware of the degree to which I was not working with high efficiency for my employer.

    Turns out, I didn't have much to worry about. The priest, who had served in a couple of countries, said that he'd never encountered an American who had a problem with "sloth" in that secular sense.

    We've got our troubles, as a culture, but lack of productivity isn't one of them. Sloth is "A culpable lack of physical or spiritual effort; acedia or laziness. One of the capital sins (1866, 2094, 2733)."
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Glossary)

    A Day of Rest? I Can't Work?!

    This is probably true in other cultures, too: but in the northern Midwest, where I was born and now live, quite a few people need to be told to stop working. Like on Sunday.

    What's all this 'Sunday' and 'Sabbath' Thing?

    Sabbath:
    "he Sabbath or seventh "day," on which God rested after the work of the "six days" of creation was completed, as recounted in the opening narrative of the Bible. Creation is thus ordered to the Sabbath, the day to be kept holy to the praise and worship of God. Just as the seventh day or Sabbath completes the first creation, so the "eighth day," Sunday, the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the dead, is celebrated as the "holy day" by Christians--the day on which the "new creation" began (345-349). Thus the Christian observance of Sunday fulfills the commandment to remember and keep holy the Sabbath day (2175)." Catechism of the Catholic Church - Glossary)
    There's more. There always seems to be more.
    "Just as God 'rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done,' human life has a rhythm of work and rest. The institution of the Lord's Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives."
    (2184)
    There's quite a bit about the Sabbath in the Bible, too: Genesis 2:2, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:15: and Deuteronomy 5:15, for starters)

    Since it's Sunday, I'll leave it at that, and get on with cultivating my "familial, cultural, social, and religious" life. What's my excuse for writing this post on Sunday? First, I enjoy writing, so this isn't 'work,' it's 'fun.' Second, more seriously, I figure that researching and writing this has been putting in time on cultural and religious aspects of my life.

    And, I've already been to Mass.

    Which is another topic.

    Bikinis, Burkinis, and Modesty: The Other Guy isn't Always Wrong

    News from the United Kingdom:
    "British swimming pools are imposing Muslim dress codes in a move described as divisive by Labour MPs."

    "Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.

    "Instead they are told that they must comply with the 'modest' code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees. [emphasis mine]

    "The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water. [emphasis mine]

    "The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds...."
    (telegraph.co.uk)

    Men have a Right to be Titillated?

    I think the Labor Members of Parliament have a point: this is a "divisive" point. Men in western countries have learned to expect the titillation of watching nubile young women bouncing in their bikinis on the beach. Depriving them of this (right?) certainly could be a "divisive" issue.

    On the other hand, I'm not at all sure that something being done in France makes it sophisticated and/or a good idea.

    Sure: right now, after decades of bikinis, hot pants and nipple rings, it's hard to imagine that anyone would be mean-spirited enough to deprive hot-blooded men of their jollies. Or women of the opportunity to be regarded as 3D living color moving centerfolds.

    Bikinis, Modesty and the Other Guy

    For several decades I've run into the assumption that there's a positive correlation between the acreage of female flesh exposed for ogling, and a country being 'civilized' - or advanced, or whatever.

    One of the 'proofs' of how backward Islam is has been the habit some of Muslims to practice a degree of modesty that disappeared in America several generations back.

    There's something to that argument. Quite a few crazy pronouncements have come from Saudi Arabia, for example.

    On the other hand, the notion that women should not be regarded as sex objects is something that the sixties feminists, Catholics, and quite a few Muslims agree on - although I wouldn't lay any odds on too many members of the groups being aware of that solidarity.

    One of these days, I'll write about Catholic beliefs and modesty - which is not a four-letter word. But today is Sunday, and I'm getting close to 'working' on the subject.

    Which is a whole other topic.

    Related posts: In the news:

    Saturday, August 15, 2009

    List of Posts About the Catholic Church and Catholicism, in Another Blog

    To paraphrase a description of a character in the Babylon 5 series, I am 'Catholic, but not born Catholic'. I converted to Catholicism in 1986 or 87 - I can't remember which, although it'll be recorded somewhere. I've discussed aspects of my conversion in other posts.1

    The point is that I'm a Catholic because I made a conscious decision to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    No Half-Measures

    As a post's title said, quoting the archbishop of Denver, "Being Christian, Being Catholic: No Half-Measures" (May 20, 2009). Being Catholic is more than going to church on Sunday and getting ashes on your forehead once a year.

    Which means that I can't be 'sophisticated' in some senses of the word, and keep 'all that religious stuff' in an idea-proof container over in the corner, to be taken out at convenient intervals, and live the rest of my life as a worldly-wise chap.

    Catholic Beliefs, Applied

    While writing "Iraq and America, and the Catholic Question" (August 13, 2009), I remembered that I've mentioned my Catholic beliefs in other blogs. Particularly Another War-on-Terror Blog. I'd been writing for that blog for over a year before starting A Catholic Citizen in America in September, 2008.

    Particularly because of the religious and cultural aspects of the war on terror (a phrase which is no longer in official use), I had opportunities to discuss my beliefs in that blog. I've discussed perceptions of Muslims and Islam by Americans, and westerners in general, fairly often.

    Muslims, Muslimas, and This Catholic

    Although I am definitely not an apologist for terrorism, I have more sympathy for Muslims than many Americans.

    Part of that comes from my understanding that, western chauvinists notwithstanding, quite a number of Muslims strenuously oppose terrorism.

    I think it helps that I'm not a 'real American' by many of those chauvinists' standards. (August 11, 2009) I am by choice a member of a religious minority: and converted in large part because of my efforts to understand what, specifically, was so evil about the Catholic Church.

    Finally, although my attitude toward Muslims and their beliefs is 'obviously' liberal, and my beliefs about opposing terrorism are 'obviously' conservative - when they're not 'obviously' liberal - I'm neither. "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic" (November 3, 2008).

    Selected posts relating to Catholics, the Catholic Church and Catholicism in Another War-on-Terror Blog: Related posts:
    1 I've discussed my conversion in the context of other subjects in posts dated September 26, 2008, January 27, 2009, and February 19, 2009, and others.

    "Firebase Earth" (April 5, 2009) is a narrative of history and my conversion, told in a style that's not generally used for such things.

    Thursday, August 13, 2009

    Iraq and America, and the Catholic Question

    I haven't heard "go back where you came from" for quite a few years. I can't say that learning of the phrase's passing from the language and culture would make me unhappy.

    I might not be likely to hear it in any case, since lately I've been living in areas where the people living there, grew up there. Until recently. Even a bigot might balk at regarding someone with generations-deep roots in American soil a 'foreigner.'

    American History: Learning to Get Along

    A question that leaders need to answer is 'what to do about people who are different?' A traditional approach in some cultures has been to either kill minorities outright: or let them live, and kill them when a scapegoat is needed.

    That's not nice, and we're not supposed to do it. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1935)

    For the last several decades, here in America, there's been a lot of discussion about "tolerance:" Generally along racial / ethnic lines. Well and good.

    Before that, when I was growing up, I was taught that America practiced religious tolerance, too. Which is just as well, considering this country's history.

    In 1776, America "was overwhelmingly English and Protestant."1 Sure, there were Catholics in the 13 colonies: A whopping 23 or 24 priests serving between 20,000 and 25,000 Catholics. That's around 1% of the 2,500,000 population of the nascent country. The Catholics were mostly in Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York. 12

    Fast-forward two centuries. By the time I was taking a long, hard, look at America's institutions and what I thought of them, America had changed. Protestants were still a majority, but by a smaller lead: 65% of Americans were Protestant from 1973 to 1993.3

    A little over a dozen years later, in 2007, America looked like this:4
    • Protestant 51.3%
    • Roman Catholic 23.9%
    • Unaffiliated 12.1%
    • None 4%
    • Other or unspecified 2.5%
    • Mormon 1.7%
    • Other Christian 1.6%
    • Jewish 1.7%
    • Buddhist 0.7%
    • Muslim 0.6%
    That makes America 76.8% Christian - 78.5% if you add Mormon - and barely over half Protestant.

    America is by no means perfect. I've discussed that, more than once, in another blog. On the other hand, over the last 233 years Americans have somehow learned to get along.

    Getting used to allowing Catholics to live must have taken some doing. At least some of America's founding fathers had oddly familiar attitudes about allowing Catholicism to sully the shores of their land.
    "...The political spark that ignited latent anti-Catholicism in America was the Quebec Act of 1774. The settlement of the French and Indian War in 1763 left Great Britain with the whole of Canada and everything west of the Mississippi River. The British, in the Quebec Act, retained French civil law in Canada, protected feudal land tenure, and mandated that the existing religion of the French Canadians-Roman Catholicism-was to be tolerated. The British-American colonists were outraged and considered the law to be one of the 'Intolerable Acts' of the British Parliament. If the British had any regard for 'the freedom and happiness of mankind they would not have done it,' wrote Alexander Hamilton. 'If they had been friends to the Protestant cause they would not have done it.... They may as well establish Popery in New York and the other colonies as they did in Canada.'

    "The general assumption was that Roman Catholicism, by its very nature, is incompatible with republican5 government and that any toleration of it would, , threaten its establishment. Consider two addresses issued by the Continental Congress in October 1774 in response to the Quebec Act. Congress wrote the Canadians, asking 'What is offered to you by the late Parliament? . . . Liberty of conscience in your religion? No. God gave it to you; and the powers with which you have been and are connected, firmly stipulated for your enjoyment of it.... We are all too well acquainted with the liberality of sentiment distinguishing your nation, to imagine that difference of religion will prejudice you against a hearty amity with us.' Yet five days earlier they issued an 'Address Written to the People of England' (penned by John Jay), which expressed 'our astonishment that a British Parliament should ever consent to establish in that country [Canada] a religion that has deluged your island in blood, and disbursed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.' "1 [emphasis mine]
    I think it's important to remember that "Protestants" are no more unified and monolithic a group than "Muslims." You've got your Anabaptists, Anglicans, Baptists (rivaling Baskin Robbins for variety), Hussites, Lutherans (with over a dozen varieties), Methodists (United Methodists, now), Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and many more.

    Back in the late 18th century, people had come to the colonies in part to practice their religion. And found themselves living next to people who didn't. As someone put it, "...New York was more a sphere for forced religious diversity than a center of religious liberty...." 6

    We did get 'religious liberty' out of the mess, though: which I think as an outstanding accomplishment.

    Not that America has achieved some pinnacle of perfection, of course. One reason I put so much emphasis on understanding Islam and Muslims in another blog are latter-day Alexander Hamilton wannabes who say things like "they're all Muslims."

    The way I see it, if I don't speak up for the rights of others to practice their religion, I shouldn't expect tolerance of my own beliefs.

    Which brings me to the news item that got me started on this post.

    Christians in Iraq: The Catholic Connection

    In common with most Western journalism, the Catholic News Service headline focuses on the dire. It's accurate, though, as far as it goes:
    "Vatican official: Iraq's Christian community at risk of disappearing"

    "A leading Vatican official called for greater protection of Iraq's beleaguered Christian minority, saying the disappearance of Christianity from the country would be an enormous religious and cultural loss for everyone....

    " 'The authorities must do everything they can so that Christians are a respected and integral part of the life of the country, even if they are a minority,' Archbishop Filoni said in an interview Aug. 11 with the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano...."

    "...If Iraqi Christians continue to emigrate, it won't take long before they'll lose their language, culture and identity -- and it will be lost forever, he said...."
    (Catholic News Service)
    Archbishop Filoni also said that Iraqi Christians need to decide whether or not they want to maintain their community.

    He's assistant secretary of state at the Vatican now, but he's got a clue what Catholics in Iraq are going through. From 2001 to 2006 he was the Vatican's nuncio to Iraq from 2001 to 2006. He was the only diplomatic mission chief to stay on duty in Baghdad while an America-led coalition invaded Iraq and gave Iraqis an alternative to Saddam Hussein.

    My guess is that there are contemporary Iraqi equivalents of Alexander Hamilton around, so Iraqi Catholics and the country's majority leadership have their work cut out for them.

    Here's how Iraq shakes out, when it comes to religious beliefs:7
    • Muslim 97%
      • Shia 60%-65%
      • Sunni 32%-37%
    • Christian or other 3%
    Substitute "Protestant" for "Muslim," and you've got a country that's a trifle more diverse than America was in 1776.

    I hope Iraq does as well as America did, allowing 'those people' to raise their families.

    It's not all doom and gloom for Catholics in Iraq:
    "...The archbishop pointed to the recent restitution of three church-run schools as an important step in the right direction. The schools, two in Baghdad and one in Kirkuk, will be run by Chaldean Catholic nuns, who managed them before they were nationalized under Saddam Hussein...."
    (Catholic News Service)

    Tolerance Takes Conscious Effort

    It's a little too easy, I think, particularly for someone growing up in a place like America, to assume that tolerance is the norm, and intolerance is limited to uneducated, unintelligent, funny-looking people. You know: foreigners.

    I grew up in America and like it here. I hope that, if Iraqi Catholics decide that they must leave their homes, they'll consider moving in. Not just because they're Catholics: I think America benefits from immigrants. I would: I'm descended from immigrants myself.

    And, America has a pretty good record of tolerance, together with: I think the sometimes-imaginative views of Catholicism come in part from propaganda going back at least to the era when Europe's northern princes were establishing their independence from Mediterranean Europe's cultural and economic dominance. The more contemporary 'Christianity kills people' idea may be related to that: a sort of generalization of the old 'Protestants/Catholics are monsters' propaganda. I think the Post-Renaissance interest in (obsession with?) human abilities may be involved, too.

    Maybe it's my experiences in the sixties, but I don't feel at all bad about being counter-cultural, and belonging to the " '...religion that has ... disbursed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.'..."1 According to John Jay, anyway.

    Related posts: In the news: 1"Faith of Our Fathers"
    Matthew Spalding, via EWTN (undated)

    2"EVANGELIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE"
    C. John McCloskey, via EWTN (undated)

    3"NORC survey finds America’s Protestant majority is shrinking"
    The University of Chicago Chronicle (August 19, 2004)

    4"United States"
    CIA World Factbook (last updated July 30, 2009)

    5When Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were protecting America from Catholicism, the Republican party was still eight decades in the future. The "republican government" mentioned is one "having the supreme power lying in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them or characteristic of such government". (Princeton's WordNet)

    6"III. THE FOUNDING OF NEW SOCIETIES, 1607-1763"
    Essays in American History, The Educator's Reference Desk (undated)

    7"Iraq"
    CIA World Factbook (last updated July 30, 2009)
    A tip of the hat to srsusan, on Twitter, for the heads-up on that news article.

    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.