Saturday, September 26, 2009

Are You a Boy, or Are You a Girl?

I remember, back in the sixties, when The Barbarians sang "Are You A Boy Or Are You A Girl." The first two lines summed up some of the confusion of the period:

"Are you a boy? Or are you a girl?
"With your long blond hair you look like a girl...."

Time Passes, Change Happens

Before the sixties, in America, it was pretty easy to tell who was a boy and who was a girl. The boys had very short hair, and wore trousers. The girls had very long hair, and wore dresses or skirts and blouses - never mind how cold it was, or what exposure to sub-zero temperatures was doing to their legs.

Those were the 'good old days' - and I don't want to go back. I remember enough of what the "Happy Days" years were really like.

Before the 20th century in America, it was even easier. As soon as a boy could manage it, he grew a beard. Girls went to painful extremes to make sure they had no visible facial hair - and still do. Which for some European ethnic groups could almost be called heroic behavior. We're a hairy bunch.

Then, decades before I was born, men in America started trying to make the lower part of their faces look like a woman's. I've no clue why. (September 19, 2009)

Culture, Common Sense, and the "Effete" Practice of Men Growing Beards

The no-beards rule had been in place for so long that it's been accepted as 'normal' in some subcultures. Not all that long ago, I heard a fundamentalist/evangelical fellow - an educated man - express alarm and disgust at the "effete" habit of men growing beards. That word's an exact quote.

I still haven't figured out what he thought he meant. (September 19, 2009)

That's an isolated incident. Most fundamentalists and/or evangelicals seem to have a pretty solid grasp of which secondary sex characteristics go with which sex.

On the other hand, several groups have rather fixed ideas about what sort of clothing boys should wear, what sort girls should wear - and what happens when a girl wears clothing they don't approve of.

Wearing Pants Makes You Look Like a Boy?!

Although this is a thoroughly Catholic family, my wife and daughters normally wear pants and shirts. Dresses, or something with a skirt, are for Mass and special occasions. "Everybody does it" isn't a valid excuse: but the fact is that the regional culture is very post-sixties, and skirts are optional for women.

We're not trying to 'fit in' by abandoning important principles: but we're following principles, not habits of another age.

I heard of a conversation about what was 'proper.' The gist of it was this: girls shouldn't wear pants, because then they'll look like boys.

Oh-kay. Before adolescence, there's something to that. Once we get past the age of fourteen or so, though, not so much. There aren't all that many teenage girls or women who look male - no matter what they've got on. Assuming that they're not trying to hide their sexuality.

The same goes for teenage boys and men. Some of us are fine-featured and lightly-built enough to pass as women - if we work at it. But it takes effort. For one thing, the hip-to-shoulder ratio tends to be a giveaway.

As for pants being a universal sign of masculinity: Scotsmen, highlanders, anyway, wore kilts - a sort of skirt. And I don't think it would have been prudent to tell a highlander that he dressed like a woman.

So It's Okay for a Man to Wear a Dress and Makeup?

I didn't say that it's okay for a man to dress as a woman. Or a woman to dress as a man. The point is that what is appropriate for men and women has changed - a lot - over the millennia and across the world.
" 'A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God."
(Deuteronomy 22:5)
I have no problem with following that rule. On the other hand, if I tried to wear articles proper to a man living in the plain of Moab over two dozen centuries back, I'd have to stay inside all winter. It gets cold here in central Minnesota.

Don't get me wrong: I think that traditional clothing for men in the Arab world is both literally and figuratively cool. I've worn a close approximation - and it's just what I'd want to wear in a hot, dry climate.

But as I said, I live in central Minnesota in the early Information Age. If I tried to dress the way Moses did, I'd be getting caught in machinery and - more to the point - look like I was wearing a dress.

Change Happens: Deal With It

I've talked about "appropriate" clothing before, in a post about modesty. (August 16, 2009) I think a point made there applies here, too:
"The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person."
(2524)
I think it's important that men dress like men, and women like women. But exactly what that means has changed - a lot - as millennia rolled by.

Personally, I like the look of 'normal' clothing from a number of periods: including 1940s America. The zoot suit was a bit extreme, but men's and women's clothing had quite a lot of style then.

But I don't think it's particularly 'Biblical' to wear a killer coat with drape shape and reet pleats. And I don't think Moses was unmanly because he didn't.

Sure, it's a bit easier to tell who's who when everyone who wears one tube from the waist down is a girl, and everyone who wears a tube that branches into two tubes is a boy. But since the sixties, the American subcultures I've been around have worked out distinctive styles, so that there's still a difference between what men and women wear.

Which is the way most of us like it.
" 'God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . ., God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion.'115

" 'God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them';116 He blessed them and said, 'Be fruitful and multiply';117 'When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.'118"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2331)
That's from Article 6 in the Catechism: the part discussing another one of those rules: "You shall not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18) and the follow-up on that rule: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27, 28)

I can see why some folks see the Catholic Church as run by a bunch of prudish killjoys. 'Nothing but "thou shalt nots".'

But the same authority that set down that rule about adultery told us to be fruitful and multiply. Human sexuality is a gift that we're supposed to respect - and use.

The way I see it, the rules are there to show us how to handle the fires of creation without getting burned. It's sort of like nuclear power. Keep the pumps running and the coolant flowing, and you've got abundant power. Start playing with the pumps, and you've got Chernobyl.

Which is another topic, for another day.Background:

Friday, September 25, 2009

My Father and a Somewhat-Corroded Cross

My wife told me, today, that our #2 daughter and son-in-law saw something new when they identified my father's body today.

Not 'new' so much as 'new to them.' The cross he wore on a chain around his neck was old enough to be corroded, although you could still make out the Miraculous Medal (AKA Medal of the Immaculate Conception) on the back. It probably had the sort of 'call a priest' words, too, that #2 daughter's has: but like I said, it was corroded.

I know: it's just a piece of metal, quite a number of non-Catholics wear a Miraculous Medal, and I don't. (I have, however, been wearing a chaplet - crucifix and all - around my neck since Lent. That's another story.)

Sure: it's just a bit of metal. But I rather like the symbolism involved.

Related posts:

Rambling on About Death, Resurrection, Burial and Cremation

I'm looking at a coffee mug at the moment: one of those with a few words printed on it. This one says:
"God put me on Earth to accomplish a certain number of things. By now I'm so far behind I will never die."
I've felt that way, sometimes: but it doesn't work like that. Even if I'd gotten nothing of what I was 'supposed to do' done: I'd still die, sooner or later.

Most likely. There seems to have been an exception to that rule here and there: Elijah, for example. (2 Kings 2:11) But I rather doubt that, out of all humanity's billions, I'll warrant the flaming horses treatment. And I'd be daft to count on it.

"The Hinge of Salvation"

I did a little checking in the Catechism, and found a whole article on the resurrection. And what has to come before resurrection, death.

I enjoy breathing, and hope to keep doing so for a good many years. I also like the material world. Many of my posts in in another blog are attempts to let readers see the layers upon layers of wonder and beauty that I live in: from the swamp east of town to cherry blossoms and the moons of Saturn.

On the other hand, I'm glad that I only have to go through this life once.

A few excerpts from that section of the Catechism:
" 'The flesh is the hinge of salvation' (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2: PL 2, 852). We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh."
(1015)

"What is "rising"? In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus' Resurrection."
(997)

" 'We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess' (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a 'spiritual body' (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44)."
(1017)

"Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When 'the single course of our earthly life' is completed,586 we shall not return to other earthly lives: 'It is appointed for men to die once.'587 There is no 'reincarnation' after death."
(1013)

"Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men."
(1019)
Time for a disclaimer: There's more. What I've quoted are just snippets, intended to give an impression of what the Church teaches - like I said, there's more.

Resurrected? You Mean I Have to Live With This Body Forever?!

We don't have a lot of information on what our resurrected bodies will be like, although I think it's likely that there's a sort of preview of what to expect in accounts of what Jesus did, after he'd died, been buried, and rose again.

Take the road to Emmaus encounter, for instance.
"As they approached the village to which they were going, he gave the impression that he was going on farther. But they urged him, 'Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.' So he went in to stay with them. And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight."
(Luke 24: 28-31)
Okay: Jesus apparently didn't look all that outlandish, although Luke 24:16 does say: "but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him."

A footnote on that verse reads:
"A consistent feature of the resurrection stories is that the risen Jesus was different and initially unrecognizable (Luke 24:37; Mark 16:12; John 20:14; John 21:4)."
(Luke 24, Footnote 7, NAB)
That "vanished" business seems to indicate that he didn't have to walk from one place to another, if he didn't want to. Picking up the 24th chapter a little further on:
"Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. While they were still speaking about this, he stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost. Then he said to them, 'Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.' And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, 'Have you anything here to eat?' "
(Luke 24:35-41)
If our resurrected bodies are something like Jesus', they'll no ghostly stuff: Jesus had "flesh and bones" - quite tangible.

And, we're told, incorruptible. Right there you've got something that's very different from what we've got now. I don't know what the resurrected body will be like - and I certainly don't know the 'how' of resurrection. God knows that sort of thing: and I'm certainly not that much like God.

But we really don't have all that much information. Which is okay by me: I don't need to know the details, and I sort of like surprises.

Cremation: Not Recommended, but Allowed

I wrote about cremation back on Tuesday. Cremation used to be forbidden, now it's okay. It's not a case of the Church 'rewriting' God's law - more like changing regulations to deal with what's going on today.

There are very good reasons why the Church strongly prefers that we bury our dead. For one thing, this is the body that was baptized - I'll let you read the whole article: just follow the link, if you're interested.
"Why does the Church prefer the burial of the actual body of the deceased? There are many reasons that I can think of for the burial of simply the cremated remains....

"...Disposition of the bodies of deceased Catholics by means of cremation is a fairly recent development. The 1917 Code of Canon Law forbade the practice, and this prohibition continued until 1963. While making allowance for cremation (as long as it was not chosen as a sign of denial of Christian teaching) the 1963 instruction Piam et constantem issued by the Holy Office urged that 'the practice of burying the bodies of the faithful is by all means to be kept.' This 1963 concession is provided for in the 1969 Ordo Exsequiarum, the Latin edition of the revised Catholic funeral ritual and was later incorporated into the 1983 Code of Canon Law in canon 1176: 'The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the dead be observed; it does not, however, forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.'..."
("Cremation and Corporeal Burial," Committee on Divine Worship, USCCB)
What the Church had to say about cremation was very important to me, since my father had very specific instructions about what to do with his body. He wanted to be cremated, as my mother was, their ashes comingled, separated into two lots and then one urn buried near their home in the Red River Valley of the North, another buried in his homeland, east of Chicago, Illinois.

He loved my mother very much, and I believe I understand why he wanted this disposition of the bodies.

Particularly since I had to sign the authorization for his cremation today, I'm glad that the Church allows such things. That sort of go/no-go decision I can do without.

Related posts:
Background:

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Marriage, Catholic Beliefs, and This Catholic

Or, "Marriage, Sacraments, and All That"

My second-oldest daughter got married on the fifth of this month. I started writing this post before the wedding, but I've been a bit distracted, mostly by the impending death of my father.

One thing I'll say: My life hasn't been boring.

Yeah: My Wife's Catholic: and You Know What That Means, Heh Heh Heh!

Actually, quite a few people don't.

Quite a number of Protestant denominations take Ephesians 5:22 quite seriously. Odds are that you have heard this:
"Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord."
(Ephesians 5:22)
The problem is, that all too many people - men and (a bit surprisingly) women - stop reading there.

As a result, 'way too many couples live for years with the lord and master getting everything he wants. Then, if the jerk is lucky, the woman files for a divorce, or just runs away. Sometimes we end up reading another one of those 'black widow' news stories.

I suppose I need to say this: That's not how the Catholic Church operates.

I know: You may have had a run-in with a whack job of a Catholic layman, or maybe a priest, who was really big on keeping women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Some priests and alleged Catholic theologians have said some really odd things from time to time. (August 26, 2009)

Read the Book! It says be Subordinate to Each Other!

Here's the deal: That part of Ephesians runs like this:
"5 Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. 6

"Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.

"For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.

"As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her

"to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,

"that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

"So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

"For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church,

"because we are members of his body."
(Ephesians 5:21-30) [emphasis mine]
I'm one of those people who read a manifest, or a contract, before signing it. It takes a little time, but I like to know what I've given my word on.

With an agreement as important as marriage, I was particularly careful to know just what I was signing on for.

Even before I met my wife, I knew about that Ephesians thing. Not just the culturally-normative 'wives, thou shalt bring hubby his beer' part: the whole thing.

I also knew what Jesus had done for His Church. Knowing what was going to happen, he walked back to Jerusalem to be tortured to death. I'd just as soon not endure an agonizing death in order to serve my wife. But, if necessary, that's what I'd be required to do. Like it says, "...even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her...."

That doesn't mean I'm some kind of ideal husband - or even close to it. But I do know what's expected of me.

Marriage isn't All Death-By-Torture: There's Diaper Changing, Too

I haven't run into this in Holy Writ, but I think it's a good idea: change the diapers and clean out the toilet. Actually, I don't think it matters who does what when it comes to chores: as long as they get done, and everybody pitches in.

Let's See, Where Was I?

This post has been written over a span of about four weeks, so my writing's a bit more non-linear than usual.

Let's see:
  • "Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ."
    • Got that
  • Change diapers - make yourself useful
    • Right
I didn't go into that "Husbands, love your wives" thing as much as I could - but that's a key point.

A Catholic Marriage is a - "Sacrament"?!

I ran into a handy FAQ about marriage, Catholic style, on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website. Here's the first point:
"1. Why does the church teach that marriage is a sacrament?

"The sacraments make Christ present in our midst. Like the other sacraments, marriage is not just for the good of individuals, or the couple, but for the community as a whole. The Catholic Church teaches that marriage between two baptized persons is a sacrament. The Old Testament prophets saw the marriage of a man and woman as a symbol of the covenant relationship between God and his people. The permanent and exclusive union between husband and wife mirrors the mutual commitment between God and his people. The Letter to the Ephesians says that this union is a symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church...."
("Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage," Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, USCCB)
So, as a Catholic couple, we're a living symbol of Christ and the Church. Hey, no pressure - - -.

Okay, so Marriage is a Sacrament: What's That?

There are seven sacraments: There are seven sacraments in all:
  • Baptism
  • Confirmation
  • Eucharist
  • Penance
  • Matrimony
  • Holy orders
  • The anointing of the sick
  • (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1210)
Okay. There are seven, and that's what they're called. But what's a sacrament?
"Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life: they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life."
(Catechism, 1210)
That'll have to do for now. I've put a link to the section of the Catechism that kicks off, down in "Background" - it's Section Two.
" 'The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.' "
(1601)
After that there's a whole lot of counter-cultural stuff about loving each other, indissoluble unions, having children, and raising them with a love of God.

I won't kid you: marriage isn't for wimps. But do it right, and it's a hoot. In the case of me and my wife, I'm quite sure that God's been holding us up. It's not by my strength, that's sure.

The Catholic Church Has - You Guessed it - Rules About Marriage

For starters, the Church insists that those getting married be
  • Human
  • One man and one woman
    • No
      • Polygamy
      • Polyandry
    • Even if your culture says otherwise
    (Catechism, 1601-1658, Leviticus 20:15)
There are some minimum requirements too. Mostly that the two parties:
  1. Are free to marry
  2. Freely exchange their consent
  3. They have the intention to
    • Marry for life
    • Be faithful to one another
    • Be open to children
  4. Give their consent
    • In the presence of two witnesses
    • Before a properly authorized Church minister
    (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), "Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage")
That last requirement, #4, can be waived - but the waiver has to be approved by a church authority. (USCCB)

Getting married in the Catholic Church isn't as simple as getting hitched by Viva Las Vegas Wedding Chapels Inc. - but then, the Church is helping you get ready for a lifetime commitment as a symbol of Christ's relationship with His Church.

Which can mean the psychological and spiritual equivalent of a decades-long marathon. Or, as in the case of my son-in-law's first marriage, the devotion, joy, sadness and loss of those decades packed into a very short span.

Either way, you're well-advised to get ready before tying the knot.

Catholic marriage being a sacrament is another reason why it has to be in a church (a cathedral will do, too) - unless there's a really good reason for doing it somewhere else. And then, you have to get clearance.

There's a Lot of Fun, Too

If you do it right, marriage can be a wonderful experience. I have a hard time imagining life without our six children - the four who lived to be born, and the two who didn't.

It hasn't been one long sweetness-and-light session. This morning, for example, my son and I had a few rather tense words about a particular activity: but we're okay now, and he's learned a bit about himself, I trust. So have I, for that matter. (I'd be more specific - but I'd have to clear it with him first: And I'm not delaying this post another day.)

And now, if I'm going to be a halfway-decent husband and father tomorrow, I have to tie this post up and get to bed. Goodnight, and my God bless you.

Related posts:
Background:

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Death, Dying, Dignity, Intravenous Tubes and Catholic Teachings

I got a call from my son-in-law this morning. My father, who is living in a care facility a few miles away from the new couple, was unable to swallow this morning. It doesn't seem to be a temporary problem: he can't get food or water in any more.

I'm not all that surprised. He's been having increasing trouble that way: on top of stiff lungs that have made breathing an all-consuming task.

My son-in-law's first wife died of cancer: and he's noticed the same progression in my father that he saw in his wife.

We've probably got anywhere from hours to days or weeks before my father dies.

(Last?) Visit, and Preparations

Happily, the family was able to see him, weekend before last. (Through One Dad's Eye, September 14, 2009) That was a good visit.

The family's getting ready as best we can: making sure that we know what funeral arrangements have been made; who to contact; checking to see if there are any last-minute legal procedures that should be done.

I know: it sounds morbid. But we're in better shape to take care of business now than we're likely to be immediately after his death. And given the unpredictable nature of creation, it doesn't do to get 'all set up' too far in advance. Things change.

'All Those Tubes,' Obligations, Emotions, and Common Sense

It's been a while since I heard someone declaim, with passion, a strong disinclination for being kept alive by 'all those tubes.' But I'd guess that there are still people who feel that way: and I think I can understand how they feel. I'm none too fond of intravenous tubes myself. They're awkward, and sometimes painful.

But a few years ago, when my digestive system had been taken offline to repair damage: it was 'those tubes' that helped keep me going. Any food or water I got, had to be fed directly into my blood stream.

An ideal situation? Something I enjoyed? Not particularly. But they made sense in that case. I wasn't expected to die soon, the needles weren't all that uncomfortable, and that particular bit of life support technology gave my GI tract time to heal.

That was then. This is now.

My father's dying. We've had a few false alarms already. He's been dealing with interstitial lung disease - which, I suppose, isn't exactly a disease. It's more of a condition where a person's lungs get stiff. Which makes it very difficult to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide. It's not what I'd call a pleasant state of affairs.

He hasn't had all that much interest in food for some time. Now, it looks like he's not able to get it past his mouth. Same thing with water.

Time for the Tubes?

He's kept going this long, thanks in part to decades of active, sensible living; and in part to some relatively high-tech breathing equipment and morphine (I think that's it).

I know: morphine - or any industrial-strength painkiller - isn't all that good for you. But, under the circumstances, it made sense to control the pain my father experienced. And he agreed.

Thankfully, he's been alert and able to discuss his care with the facility's staff - who are a great bunch.

About this latest development? I don't think he'll opt for getting hooked up to something that'll bypass his digestive system and feed nutrients directly into his blood.

And I'm okay with that.

Cold, Unfeeling? Hardly

For an hour or so after I got the not-unexpected news this morning, I felt shaky. And was. I had to pay more attention than usual to walking, and my hands wouldn't stay steady.

I do not like the idea of my father dying. Not at all. But, as things are, that's a part of life. Death happens.

Contemporary Medical Technology: A Mixed Blessing

Medical technicians can do amazing things: like giving my digestive system a long vacation; controlling pain to a remarkable extent; replacing worn or damaged parts - joints, particularly.

The ability to keep a body - or substantial parts of it - alive longer than we could a hundred years ago has brought up the question of 'how much is too much?' How hard to we have to try, when it comes to keeping someone from dying?

You guessed it: the Catholic Church has rules about that.

Starving Granny for the Inheritance: A Big No-No

We're not allowed to practice euthanasia (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2277) - even if granny isn't as chipper as she was, and we're waiting for the inheritance; or little Filbert will never run the Iron Man Marathon, as his father dreamed.

On the other hand, we're not required to do a "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more" medical last stand for someone who's dying - and ready to die.
"Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of 'over-zealous' treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected."
(Catechism, 2278)
On the other hand, we're required to continue care for the dying, right up to the end. That includes painkillers. Even if using the painkillers will bring death sooner. (2279)

Is it any wonder that some people think Catholic teachings are 'vague' or 'inconsistent?'

The key in these end-of-life situations is, as with so much else, intent. (2277, again)

Which brings up some points: Catholic teachings aren't vague. They're developed for the universal church. A book like the Catechism is written for everybody - so it's heavy on universal principles, and a bit light on nuts-and-bolts details. I'm just glad they got as specific as they did with the paragraphs I quoted.

Not that the church neglects the practical details. That's part of what the bishops are for - teaching their people how Catholic teachings apply in that particular culture. For a Catholic living in America, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) shows how my faith applies to the opportunities and limitations that come with this particular cultural, technical, and economic situation.

I'm running out of time, so I'm putting a couple of USCCB resources in the "Background" section, below.

Religious People Hate Technology, Right?

I grew up in America, and think I know where folks can get the idea that 'those religious people' don't like technology, education, or just about anything that wasn't invented before around 1850. As the decades passed, I heard and read how television was the work of the devil, then as people who'd grown up with television started getting inspired, if that's the word, with the idea that the Internet was an affront to God.

Earlier ages had the same sort of difficulty with lightning rods, I understand.

I think a good deal of that sort of Luddite feeling comes from a confusion of cultural norms with religious teaching: something I've been writing about, off and on, for about two years now in another blog. (See "Islam, Christianity, Culture, and Kooks," Another War-on-Terror Blog (November 26, 2007))

The Catholic Church may seem 'old fashioned.' I think that's what happens, when you teach love, respect, obedience, kindness, and compassion - even if that teaching doesn't line up exactly with some cherished local cultural values.

Autopsies? Cremation? Sure, Why Not?

When it's for legal investigations or scientific research, autopsies are morally acceptable. (Catechism, 2301) Which is just as well, since my father's instructions include handing his body over for scientific study after he's dead. And then cremating what's left.

Cremation?! Isn't that a sin?!

Cremation used to be forbidden to Catholics. Something to do with a heresy, I understand, where people were denying the possibility of resurrection. That's heresy's gone now (it'll be back, I'm pretty sure - these things seem to run in cycles), and cremation is both a cultural norm in quite a few places - and good common sense in many more.

So, the Church allows cremation. "...provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body." (Catechism, 2301) Intention counts, again.

And no, this isn't a matter of the Church 'changing its mind' about a basic doctrine. The cremation ban was, I'm told, more of a procedural rule: the sort of rule that's recognized as being dependent on some temporary situation from the get-go.

Organ Transplants? Yeah: That's A Good Idea

From the Catechism, again:
"Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good that is sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorous act and is to be encouraged as an expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons."
(2296)
Again with the conditions - but Catholic teachings deal with human beings, and that's the way it is.

I still don't feel good about my father's impending death. I don't expect to. But he's made good decisions, and I can hope with some reason that he will experience what has been called a "happy death." A few prayers at this end wouldn't hurt.

Related posts:
Background:

Monday, September 21, 2009

Catholics Invented Transubstantiation Like Newton Invented Gravity

"Transubstantiation"?! What's that mean?

It's a six-syllable word that means the whole Christ is really, actually, present in the Eucharist. Otherwise known as "blood-spurting crackers" or "[expletive deleted] crackers" by, ah, serious thinkers. (More at " 'Self-Satisfied Ignorance?' Eucharist, Quran, and Atheist Book Trashed" Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 5, 2008))

Here's how the Vatican puts it, in part:
"The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as 'the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.' In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist 'the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.' 'This presence is called "real" - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be "real" too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.' "
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1374, excerpted from 1373-1377, see 1413, also see references under Eucharist)
The "[expletive deleted] crackers" actually are crackers, in one sense of the word. "Cracker" is a term used to denote:
  1. "A thin crisp wafer made of flour and water with or without leavening and shortening; unsweetened or semisweet"
  2. "Redneck ... (a poor White person in the southern United States"
  3. "A programmer who cracks (gains unauthorized access to) computers, typically to do malicious things... "
  4. "Firecracker, cracker, banger (firework consisting of a small explosive charge and fuse in a heavy paper casing)"
  5. "Snapper, cracker bonbon (a party favor consisting of a paper roll (usually containing candy or a small favor) that pops when pulled at both ends" (Princeton's WordNet
Definition #1 applies to the Host used at Mass. And, yes: the Catholic Church has rules about what sort of "cracker" we use. For good reason, under the circumstances. The "crackers" have to be made of wheat, using water, and nothing else.1 A more archaic or poetic way of describing them would be "unleavened bread."

And yes, the Catholic Church is picky. About some things: particularly when they directly involve the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Like I said the other day: "God is large and in charge." (September 13, 2009) Of all the people I don't want to cross, He tops the list. And Jesus, who said "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." (John 8:58)

No wonder there's been a bit of controversy about Jesus over the millennia.

When Moses asked God what His name was, "God replied, 'I am who am.' Then he added, 'This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.' " (Exodus 3:14) In this context, I AM is a proper name. Jesus said, in effect, that he is God.

Moving along.

Transubstantiation: A Hard Idea to Swallow

A character in a book made a crack about Christians practicing ritual cannibalism. He was right, in a way.

If Jesus had been interested in marketing his ideas, or shaped his campaign by studying the contemporary equivalent of opinion polls, He wouldn't have said this:
"Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.' " (John 6 53-58)
I'm a 'civilized' person who grew up in a 20th-century Western culture. I have a deep-seated aversion to cannibalism. So did Hebrews of the 1st century.

Using Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation for me to understand Jesus' apparently going out of his way to alienate his followers and enrage his enemies is to assume that the 'hard saying' was (1) true and (2) important.

New on the Blogroll

Someone discussed transubstantiation, and made a pretty good job of it. He points out that the Church invented transubstantiation like Newton invented gravity in the sixth paragraph.

So, I added Fallible Blogma to the blogroll.

Here's a link to that post:
Related posts, about the Eucharist and rules:

1Here's what the Catholic Church says, in part, about preparing the hosts:
"The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools...."
(Chapter III, The Proper Celebration of Mass, 1. The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist, Redemptionis Sacramentum (On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist), Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, (Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect; Domenico Sorrentino, Archbishop Secretary) Translated into English)

Saturday, September 19, 2009

I'm Not Awed by Authority, I Don't Conform Easily: So I Became a Catholic?!

I've never been big on conformity - or particularly good at it. As I wrote earlier today, I waited until the sixties trend of guys growing beards was over before growing mine.

So, why did I chose to become a Catholic? Marrying a Catholic woman was a factor - but it started a long time before that.

Snail Shells, the Irish Sweepstakes, Statistics, and God

In my teens, when most people start piecing together their own take on life, the universe, and everything, I noticed how orderly everything is. My parents had told me about God - and I accepted the idea that a specific person had not been created, and had created everything we can sense. Tentatively, at least.

I'd also learned something about statistics. I was a bit of a geek in high school. No, make that a big geek. White socks, pants that were too short, pocket protector, King-Kong-size Adam's apple in a long neck, horn-rim glasses, the whole nine yards.

Like I said, I'd learned something about statistics. The underlying orderliness of the universe - patterns getting repeated in snail shells, whirlpools, sunflower heads, and galaxies for example - suggested strongly that
  1. This wasn't something that just fell together
    • Odds are, it was made
      • By somebody
  2. Whoever made the universe liked really complex math
    • And modularization
The odds that a universe with everything from the gravitational constant to bonding forces in the outer shells of atoms being so perfectly balanced 'just happened' made winning the Irish Sweepstakes look like a sure bet.

I know: the counter-argument is that we're here to observe an orderly universe because creatures like us can exist only in such a place. Could be.

Or, maybe you're the only real thing: and that the monitor you're looking at, the keyboard, this post, me, and everybody else you've every met, are just figments of our imagination. Could be.

Or, turn it around: Maybe I'm the only real thing, and just imagining that you're there. Could be.

'I am God!' Yeah, Right

But, seriously? I doubt it. Very much. For starters, I'm nowhere near smart enough to keep track of all the mind-numbing detail I've noticed.

It's not that I'm modest, in the culturally-normative sense of the word. I'm a pretty sharp fellow. But years ago, when I was game-master for a fantasy role-playing game, I mislaid an entire barony for a while. I knew it was there, but the whole file - characters, stats, maps, everything - was misplaced.

Happily, God doesn't have lapses like that.

Experiences and Choices

Besides, I'd had a few experiences that strongly suggested that God was real, and interested in His creation.

Like the time - again, in my teens - when I was sinking, fast, in a blind, bright-red sea of rage and madness. I didn't like it. At all. Asked for help. And the redness dimmed, I could feel (comparative) calm flowing into my mind, and I could see. I still hurt, intensely, but I was here and able to deal with the situation. Elapsed time since my distress call? Maybe a second, probably less.

Again, there are the standard-issue secular explanations for what 'really' happened. They could be true.

But, if you throw a pair of dice and get a natural seven the first time: that's luck; random chance. Throw dice a hundred times in a row and get natural seven each time: that could be a wildly-improbable statistical fluke. But it's more likely that somebody's been fiddling with the dice.

In a sense, I've been rolling natural sevens all my life.

Not that I'm 'lucky' in the conventional sense:
  • I was born with a serious defect
  • Used in a medical experiment
    • Without my parents' knowledge or consent
  • I'm still dealing with psychological fallout from my mother's stroke, over four decades ago
  • A woman who meant a great deal to me killed herself
  • My wife and I had six children
    • Two of them died before birth
    • We nearly lost my wife with the last one
  • I lived with major depression for my all of my adolescence and the bulk of my adult life
    • Only recently discovering that everybody didn't feel this way
But I've never had more than I could take. I've skimmed the envelope from time to time, but never been pushed harder than I could bear.

And yes, I know: I've lived an easy, carefree life compared to many others. The point here is that I've had many opportunities to notice that somebody's been holding me up when the going got rough.

I think it helped that I've been willing to ask for help when I need it. Grudgingly, sometimes - but willing nonetheless.

I know this sounds trite, but God is willing to help. You have to make the choice to ask, though.

Why Would a Non-Conformist Become Catholic?

Conformity isn't one of my characteristics.

And, I've got a problem with authority, at least in one sense of the word. I'm not particularly awed by letters after someone's name, or a fancy title.

If an 'expert' says something that doesn't add up, I don't assume that I am too dull and unsophisticated to understand: and believe what I'm told. If at all possible, I check out the assertions. If they're backed up by facts, fine: I adjust my assumptions. If they're not, still fine: I file the assertions under one of the 'crackpot ideas' headings.

Again, why would a non-conformist, and someone who doesn't blindly accept what someone with a degree or a certificate says, become a Catholic?

Because
  1. I have reason to believe that God exists
  2. I don't think that I'm more powerful than God
    • Intellectually
    • Physically
    • Or any other way
I've got a big ego - but not that big.

As I've said before, "God is large and in charge." There's more to my belief than that. But, as it says, "The beginning of wisdom is fear of the LORD, which is formed with the faithful in the womb." (Sirach 1:12) There's more to wisdom than that, of course. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1830, 1831, 1845, for starters) Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

But, yes: I fear God. I'm not a fool.

The way I see it, if I decide to defy God: I'll hurt myself; and not affect God all that much. It'd be sort of like punching a boulder. You could make some noise, and probably break your hand: but the boulder won't move.

I love and adore God, but I also recognize that He has the power and the willingness to do anything He wants. Happily, he's merciful as well as just - but that's another topic.

(I tell about my conversion, in a rather different way, in "Firebase Earth" - and elsewhere in this blog. The whole story isn't in any one post - and I doubt that I could write it all down.)

Somewhat-related posts:

New on the Blogroll: Liturgy, the Website/Blog

Liturgy
"Worship that works – spirituality that connects"

A post published today starts with:
"Sixty-six teenage lads at Christ's College, on their own initiative, sought sponsorship and had their head shaved and raised more than $14,000 for the Cancer Society. These are notes preparing for an address to the school about this.

"There's been remarks about how losing your hair means you look more similar to each other – lose some of your individuality. There’s been a mention that having shaved your hair you carry yourself with a stronger assurance. Or maybe it is that those less self-assured were less likely to offer themselves for this...."
I don't know that you "lose some of your individuality" when you shave your head. But then, my head has had enough distinctive lumps on it, at least since I turned fourteen, to make the thing stand out: hair or no hair.

I hadn't thought about "the spirituality of hair" all that much, before reading this post. The author brings up interesting questions:
"...There’s a lot to reflect on about hair. If you are later on looking for a doctorate topic – you could easily do one on hair and on the spirituality of hair. Our attitudes to hair, hair length, hair colour, going grey, long hair, going bald, dyeing hair. What is it like belonging to a school which restricts your hair length and style? Why do grown men shave off their facial hair?..."
As for that last point: I last shaved somewhere in the mid-seventies. I never did understand why men in most Western cultures go out of their way to remove a secondary sex characteristic - and finally decided to buck the trend. I'd probably have done it earlier, but in the sixties, growing a beard was a trend, and I never was very good at conformity.

And then there was the fundamentalist/evangelical chap who expressed alarm and disgust at the "effete" habit of men growing beards. That's the exact word he used.

I haven't yet made up my mind, what he thought he meant.

There's much more to Liturgy than that hair post: which is why I've added it to the blogroll, under Other Catholic Websites and Blogs.
A tip of the hat to Liturgy, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this website.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Catholic Media in America, Aaron McWilliams, and Some Radio Station in Fargo, North Dakota

"Aaron McWilliams" isn't a household name, except for a few places in Louisiana, Texas, Ohio, and (recently) Minnesota and North Dakota. But he's a young man who has been getting things done. I think he's got good ideas for Catholic media, with the qualities it takes to make those ideas real.

An admission, up front: I know Aaron McWilliams. About as personally as it gets. He's my son-in-law, as of last Saturday.

If you live in or near the Red River Valley of the North, you'll get a chance to hear him a little over a week from now.

He's being interviewed on the Real Presence Radio Live program a week from this Monday: on Monday, September 21, 1009. It'll be aired on Real Presence Radio (AM 1370 Grand Forks, AM 1280 Fargo, North Dakota)

The station's website (www.yourcatholicradiostation.com says the show's on at 9:00 a.m., my son-in-law told me he's being interviewed at 10:00 a.m. - so that may be an old schedule. Either way, I'd check with Real Presence Radio.

Vaguely related posts:

James Pouillon Wasn't Pro-Life: He Was Anti-Abortion

It says so in the news.

James Pouillon, one of the people shot in Owosso, Michigan, apparently was shot because of his views on a woman's inviolable right to kill her babies.

Provided she does so within the legally prescribed time currently available under American law.

Sounds different, when I put it that way. Here's another version: He was shot because of his pro-life views.

I think of Mr. Pouillon as being pro-life. Like me.

Labels Matter

What people are called really does make a difference.

"Anti-abortion" is what people are, when they try to force their views on others, and stand in the way of a woman's right to choose. They're dead-set against the tolerant, open-minded "my life, my choice" standard that has applied since Roe v. Wade liberated American women from the oppression of pregnancy caused by male chauvinist pigs.

"Pro-life" is what people are, when they think that, on the whole, it isn't nice to kill babies and sick people: and that we shouldn't do it. I'll grant that this involves forcing someone else's views on a woman who found out that somewhere in the last month she picked up an unwanted parasite (I remember when the was the 'correct' view of a baby): or the family who is tired of waiting for granny to die.

Labels matter, because they can suggest or imply how the reality they identify is supposed to be viewed.

As I said before, I call myself pro-life. It's not that I'm unsymapthetic with someone who didn't expect to get pregnant, or a family waiting for an inheritance: but I'm also concerned about the person who can be killed, quite legally, in this country.

Back to James Pouillon

According to police and the prosecutor, it wasn't Mr. Pouillon's beliefs that angered the assailant, so much as the sign he carried outside the Owosso, Michigan, high school.
"...It was Pouillon's presence outside the high school that seemed to drive Drake to kill, said assistant prosecutor Sara Edwards.
That 'seemed to bother him .... the fact that he was outside the high school with his signs in front of children going to school,' Edwards said....
"

"...Students said they regularly saw Pouillon outside their high school and that he often greeted them, but didn't shout slogans or try to start up a conversation with them.

" 'I can see someone spitting on him or punching him, but shooting him is pretty stupid,' said 16-year-old Curtis Wisterman...."
(AP)
I can see why that sign angered the killer.
"...James Pouillon stood with a sign that pictured a chubby-cheeked baby with the word "LIFE" on one side and an image of an aborted fetus with the word "ABORTION" on the other...."
(AP)
It must feel bad, to see what "anti-abortion" people are talking about - and realize that impressionable youth are being exposed to the idea that a woman's right to choose involves killing babies.

Harlan James Drake, the accused killer, killed Mike Fuoss, too, and would have also shot another person if he hadn't been stopped. Mr. Drake seems to have been rather angry that day.

As I said yesterday, I'm quite sure that people who staunchly uphold a woman's right to choose/kill her baby wouldn't use a gun to hurt anyone.

I do think, though, that it's important to remember what those "anti-abortion" people think they're trying to do.

Related posts: In the news:

Friday, September 11, 2009

Mr. Pouillon's Dead: Pro-Life Protester Shot

James Pouillon, 63, is dead: shot in front of outside Owosso High School in Owosso, Michigan.

Someone else was also shot nearby, and a suspect is in custody. This would be just one more shooting in or near a school, except for what Mr. Pouillon was allegedly doing there.
"A man who had long been vocal in his opposition to abortion was shot to death Friday morning while staging an anti-abortion protest outside a Michigan high school, authorities said....

"...Officials are investigating whether Mr. Pouillon, who had been involved in anti-abortion efforts for decades, was singled out because of those views. Local newspapers reported that he had been carrying photographs of fetuses outside the school shortly before the shooting...."
(NYT)
The suspect told police that he'd shot someone else, too: Mike Fuoss, 61, who had owned Fuoss Gravel. Mr. Fuoss apparently hadn't been involved in anti-abortion protests.

So the suspect may have shot Mr. Pouillon because he was pro-life, and Mr. Fuoss for some other reason, or maybe the suspect just felt like shooting people that day.

The New York Times did a pretty straightforward job of reporting the shootings and arrest. The closest to blaming the victim or defending the shooter was this paragraph:
"...'There was some displeasure with how open he was,' said Sara Edwards, the chief assistant prosecutor for Shiawassee County. 'He tended to carry big signs with very graphic pictures of fetuses.'..."
(NYT)
I think that's more a matter of suggesting a motive, than saying that Mr. Pouillon was to blame for being shot.

The Catholic Church does not teach pacifism. (June 7, 2009) On the other hand, the Church does teach that life is precious - and that do-it-yourself justice or murder for gain is wrong.

So is killing someone because you don't agree with the person.

It's tempting to lash out at people who don't accept your views. Yielding to that temptation can be grimly funny, when passionate peace protesters freak out (April 25, 2008, March 7, 2008, in another blog). But that doesn't make it right.

Whatever the motive for Mr. Pouillon's killing was, it was not a good thing to do. It was wrong. Just as wrong as killing Dr. Tiller, earlier this year.

Pro-life people were called "domestic terrorists and violent racketeers" after Dr. Tiller's killing. I'm quite certain that was an overly-broad generalization.

I'm also quite certain that most if not all proponents of euthanasia and abortion would never consider using a gun to kill someone. And, they wouldn't approve of killing Mr. Pouillon.

Unless, of course, he was sick, or in pain, or unable to live a quality lifestyle. Or if he'd been caught before he was more than nine months past conception.

Related posts: In the news:
A tip of the hat to wbdnewton, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this article.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Pope St. Gregory VII: A Great Reformer (or Huge Pain in the Neck)

While working on this month's Knights of Columbus local council bulletin, I looked up Pope Gregory VII - AKA Pope St. Gregory VII and Hildebrand.

I don't think there's been a time when the Catholic Church hasn't had troubles of some kind, but the situation when Hildebrand became Pope Gregory VII, a thousand years ago, stands out a bit. Monastic discipline had gotten lax - putting it politely - and cattle were roaming through broken church doors. Lack of effective law enforcement - or laws - in places like the Champagne weren't helping, but that was external problem.

Depending on whether you were someone who wanted to see the Church get back on track, or one of the fat cats who liked the status quo just fine, St. Gregory VII was a dedicated reformer, or an enormous pain in the neck.

There's a pretty good - and lengthy - writeup on "Pope St. Gregory VII" on the New Advent website: excerpted from "The Catholic Encyclopedia." (New York: Robert Appleton Company.)

Changing Times: Been There, Done That

I've noticed that many 'interesting times,' when everything seems to be in upheaval, come at roughly 500-year intervals:
  • The rise - and fall - of the
    • Babylonian Empire
    • Assyrian Empire
  • The epic age of India
  • Rome's meltdown that
    • Ended the Republic
    • Started the Empire
  • The Roman Empire's collapse
  • The viking age, when half my ancestors were
    • Raiding the other half, or
    • Trading with them
  • The Renaissance
  • Now
There was quite a lot during that four-millennia span that didn't happen at very roughly half-millennium intervals - but some of the really big shakeouts did.

Interesting, and I'll let it go at that.

Vaguely-related posts:

"I Hate Barack Obama" - Maybe Not the Best Message from a Pulpit

The pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in the Phoenix area seems to have a very interesting set of beliefs.
"A Phoenix-area pastor has started to draw protesters to his congregation after he delivered a sermon titled, 'Why I Hate Barack Obama,' and told his parishioners that he prays for President Obama's death.

"Pastor Steven Anderson stood by his sermon ... [and] ... continues to encourage his parishioners to join him in praying for the president's death.

" 'I hope that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy and I hope it happens today,' he told MyFOXPhoenix on Sunday. He called his message 'spiritual warfare' and said he does not condone killing...."

"...'I'm gonna pray that he dies and goes to hell when I go to bed tonight. That's what I'm gonna pray,' he told his congregation...."
(FOXNews) [emphasis mine]
Looks like Pastor Anderson doesn't approve of some of President Obama's policies, like promoting abortions.

Is Asking for a Divine Assassination Really Smart?

Can't say I'm too thrilled about the president's stand on life issues, myself. But pray for his lingering death? No.

I'll pray that America realizes that killing babies isn't nice, and that we shouldn't do it.

I'll pray that doctors who make money by killing their youngest patients realize that they're doing something wrong and find another line of work.

But I'll pray for America's leaders.

You might consider praying for them, yourself. I put together a couple of lists last month, if you're interested in individual names: "Praying for America's Leaders" (July 2, 2009). Of course, you don't have to do anything. It's strictly your decision.

There is a huge difference between asking God to kill someone for you, and thinking that the person is not acting in an optimum way.

Besides, I take that "...For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you..."1 stuff seriously: and I'm nowhere near perfect enough to knowingly risk a 'zero-tolerance' audit of my life.

How Can I Possibly be For Barack Obama?!

I'm not. I'm not against him, either.

In another blog, I discuss the war on terror and related topics. I think I may confuse some readers.

I'm 'obviously' conservative in my views - but I don't say that everything President Obama does is wrong.

For example, when he "reached out" to the Taliban in Afghanistan, I wrote that it was - in my opinion - a prudent move. Before making up my mind, I did a little checking. Turns out, the situation was a little more complicated than what the headlines said. And, President Obama was pursuing a strategy which had worked before.

Approving of this somewhat-controversial strategy might be taken as showing that I'm 'for' President Obama. As I wrote then:
"...I Must Support Barack Obama, Right?

"Wrong. I'm not 'against' the American president, either.

"On examination, some of President Obama's policies appear to be prudent. I support these. Other policies of the current administration are unacceptable to me. I do not support those.

"As for President Barack Obama, I pray for him - and suggest that others do, too. (May 24, 2009, in A Catholic Citizen in America)..."
("June 21, 2009 Another War-on-Terror Blog)

Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner

That 'hate the sin, not the sinner' stuff probably sounds corny - but it's solid Catholic teaching. And, I think, good sense.

It's like those 'friends don't let friends drive drunk' public service announcements. Sure, it's awkward to keep your buddy from driving when he or she is sozzled. At the time, your friend may not feel that you're very 'loving.' But how loving is it to let that person drive drunk? People can get killed that way.

Back to Pastor 'I hate Barack Obama' Anderson.

The Bible's All About God Killing People and Stuff, Right?

Um. Not exactly.

I'll grant that there's a lot of violence in the Bible. A movie, "The Passion of the Christ" (2004), made an effort to show what really happened on the way to Golgotha - and got rated R for graphic violence.

No question about it: God is quite capable of decisive action. Like the air strike that obliterated the Cities of the Plain. (Genesis 19: 25)

But there's more to God than that. He doesn't always use violence - and his followers don't, either.

Over two dozen centuries ago, King Saul resented the publicity David was getting. "...'They give David ten thousands, but only thousands to me. All that remains for him is the kingship.'..." Later, Saul tried to nail David to the wall with a spear. Twice. (1 Sam 18 7, 8)

David, having a good head on his shoulders and wanting to keep it that way, skedaddled. Good thing, too, because Saul went looking for him. With 3,000 men.

David had men, too: although apparently not quite so many. At one point, David and his men were holed up in the back part of a cave. Saul and his troops were searching the area. Then Saul went into the cave "to ease nature". David's men noted that their leader had the drop on Saul, and urged him to take advantage of the situation.
"...So David moved up and stealthily cut off an end of Saul's mantle.

"Afterward, however, David regretted that he had cut off an end of Saul's mantle.

"He said to his men, 'The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the LORD'S anointed, as to lay a hand on him, for he is the Lord's anointed.'

"With these words David restrained his men and would not permit them to attack Saul. Saul then left the cave and went on his way...."
(From 1 Sam 24:5-8)
I'll admit to enjoying the 'Robin Hood' quality of David's cutting off part of Saul's clothing. But I also see David's point. Violence isn't always the way to go.

Hate, Anger, and Good Sense

Pastor 'I Hate Barack Obama' Anderson deserves considerable credit for saying that he doesn't condone killing.

Great. But "I hate Barack Obama"? It's possible that one of Pastor Anderson's flock may decide to do something about what he's heard in church. That wouldn't be good.

Even if nobody gets the idea that he or she is the hand of God, anointed to smite the enemy: Harboring that sort of anger isn't good for a person.

Never mind the psychobabble:
"...Anger is a desire for revenge. 'To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,' but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution 'to correct vices and maintain justice.'95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, 'Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.'96..."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2302)
Again: I have no idea what's going inside Pastor Anderson, and even if I did, I've got clear instructions to not judge him. On the other hand, what we're seeing in that Phoenix-area church is about as good - or bad - an example of malignant virtue as I've encountered in years.

And whether you take what psychologists have found out about the effects of harboring resentments, or look at the teachings of the Church: Cherishing hatred of someone else may or may not harm the other person - but it's just about guaranteed to hurt you.

It's not easy to "...love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you..." ? (Matthew 5:44) Of course not. But it's important.

Related posts: News and views: Background:
1 From Matthew 7:1-5.

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.