Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Pedophile Priests, 'Evil Pope' and The New York Times

I'd be more shocked at old-school American news media's coverage of the pedophile priests and 'evil' pope, if I hadn't lived in this country all my life. Actually, I haven't seen the word 'evil' used to describe the Holy Father in traditional news media - no surprise, since 'evil' isn't supposed to exist now, except in the minds of hate-filled, narrow-minded people.

Like so many words, "shocked" has a fairly definite meaning. Several of them, actually, but this is the cluster that applies in this case:
  1. Surprise greatly
  2. Strike with disgust or revulsion
  3. Strike with horror or terror
  4. Inflict a trauma upon
    (Princeton's WordNet) [numbering mine]
I'm not surprised - greatly or otherwise - that The New York Times is coming out with potshots at the Pope. The upper crust of lower Manhattan may think that the Times is a 100% unbiased font of "all the news that's fit to print": But that doesn't mean that they're right.

So, cross out #1.

I am a bit disgusted and revulsed at what I see as self-righteous indignation, so #2 fits, more or less. My emotional reaction is a bit stronger because it's my outfit that's being attacked - but I don't like to see malignant virtue directed against anyone.

Check off #2.

Does The New York Times antics strike me with horror or terror? It might, if I let myself think about what's going on inside the heads of the proper gentlefolk who run the paper. But no, not really. I'll get back to that.

Nothing for #3, really.

Does the sort of anti-Catholic tripe that passes for some contemporary news "inflict a trauma upon" me? In a way, yes. I'm not particularly thick-skinned, and I don't like it when my considered beliefs are assaulted like that.

Check off #4 - sort of.

Final score: a weak two out of four. Not bad, really, since I don't think that The New York Times staff realize that they're off-base.

Here's what got me started on this post:
"Cardinal Levada to NY Times: Reconsider 'attack mode' against Pope Benedict"
Catholic San Francisco (March 30th, 2010)
"The New York Times and Pope Benedict XVI:
how it looks to an American in the Vatican
"

By Cardinal William J. Levada
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

"In our melting pot of peoples, languages and backgrounds, Americans are not noted as examples of 'high' culture. But we can take pride as a rule in our passion for fairness. In the Vatican where I currently work, my colleagues – whether fellow cardinals at meetings or officials in my office – come from many different countries, continents and cultures. As I write this response today (March 26, 2010) I have had to admit to them that I am not proud of America's newspaper of record, the New York Times, as a paragon of fairness.

"I say this because today's Times presents both a lengthy article by Laurie Goodstein, a senior columnist, headlined 'Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest,' and an accompanying editorial entitled 'The Pope and the Pedophilia Scandal,' in which the editors call the Goodstein article a disturbing report (emphasis in original) as a basis for their own charges against the Pope. Both the article and the editorial are deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness that Americans have every right and expectation to find in their major media reporting...."
As far as I know, that "America's newspaper of record" is about as official as the New York Times' "all the news that's fit to print" line.

The New York Times: An Adequate Hometown Newspaper

I think that The New York Times, as a reflection of New York City's upper crust and social wannabes, makes a quite adequate hometown newspaper. As for the reputation it's built? I think an increasing number of Americans are catching on to just what the "Gray Lady" really is:
Back to Cardinal William J. Levada's article:
"...In her lead paragraph, Goodstein relies on what she describes as 'newly unearthed files' to point out what the Vatican (i.e. then Cardinal Ratzinger and his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) did not do – 'defrock Fr. Murphy.' Breaking news, apparently. Only after eight paragraphs of purple prose does Goodstein reveal that Fr. Murphy, who criminally abused as many as 200 deaf children while working at a school in the Milwaukee Archdiocese from 1950 to 1974, 'not only was never tried or disciplined by the church's own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims.'

"But in paragraph 13, commenting on a statement of Fr. Lombardi (the Vatican spokesman) that Church law does not prohibit anyone from reporting cases of abuse to civil authorities, Goodstein writes, 'He did not address why that had never happened in this case.' Did she forget, or did her editors not read, what she wrote in paragraph nine about Murphy getting 'a pass from the police and prosecutors'? By her own account it seems clear that criminal authorities had been notified, most probably by the victims and their families...."
The Holy See doesn't, as a rule, micromanage Catholic dioceses and parishes around the world. With upwards of 1,150,000,000 Catholics around the world (CIA), I doubt that they'd want to try. Or have enough staff for the job, even if they wanted to.

I'm not excusing the actions of a few priests over the last half-century, at all. I think it's a good thing that the Church is finally dealing with them and their victims. I also think that it'd be nice if they'd never raped and/or seduced those folks, and all that. But the Church is dealing with the problem: although you're not likely to hear that in the news. I suppose it's not exciting enough.

Not an Excuse: But a Possible Partial Explanation

I don't know why it took so long for the Church to start correcting the appalling behavior of misbehaving priests, but I've got an idea.

The Catholic Church is a huge organization, involving more than a billion people on every continent. Except, I suppose, Antarctica: and I wouldn't be surprised if there are some of us there, from time to time.

I think it's the size of the Catholic Church that accounts for America's traditional anti-Catholicism. Besides, we simply aren't British: which may have been a factor in Thomas Nast's dim view of those Catholics over there.

As the centuries rolled by, anti-Catholicism has been a fairly constant background noise in America. That's changing, I think: and that's another topic.

When the pedophile priests seemed to be limited to a limited cadre in America, I thought that the Vatican might have written off accusations that got to them through unofficial channels as just more wild claims from accuracy-challenged anti-Catholics.

The Murphy case, and some others, shows that the problem isn't limited to this country. From what I can tell, though, it may still be priests who got into the system around the same time who have been acting badly.

What is emerging - even in old-school news, if you dig deeply enough - is that the Vatican didn't act in many cases because they'd been lied to.

There are more delicate ways to put that: but the unzipped clerics wouldn't have been able to indulge their disordered passions freely, if their immediate superiors hadn't been doctoring the records and passing misinformation up the chain of command.

That was then, this is now.

It's Not the 20th Century Any More

The Vatican has been re-assigning bishops here in America - and we've been getting some new ones. The process isn't going swiftly, by American standards: but I'll probably live long enough to see the Catholic Church's 2,000th anniversary. An outfit with over a billion people, that's almost two millenniums old, can be expected to have an un-American notion of 'swift action.'

With any luck, we'll be getting bishops and priests re-assigned here from Africa. The way things are going, I think it's very possible that parts of Africa will be the Ireland of the 22nd century - and maybe beyond. Which is yet another topic.

The terrible damage done by sexual predators using their position in the Church as cover is being dealt with. We'll continue paying the bills - literally - for their misbehavior for a long time. No complaints: that's the way it works.

Other monumental foul-ups - many done "in the spirit of Vatican II" - are being corrected, too. If you think The New York Times is strident now, just wait until those reforms hit the fan.

If "It's Not Because I'm Jealous" - It Usually Is

Someone in the family noted that when the phrase, "it's not because I'm jealous" comes up in a conversation that hasn't been about jealousy - the person who said that usually is. I think there's something to that.

A recent op-ed piece in The New York Times came close to claiming that opposition to President Obama's health care proposal was racism. (March 29, 2010) There's a germ of truth in that claim, I think. Some people are almost certainly opposed to the president because he's black.

I think that disapproving - or approving - of a person's actions on the basis of that person's ancestry is daft. No surprises there: I'm a Catholic, and very few Catholics were ever WASPs. I never was, for that matter: although I'm a convert and 'look Anglo.'

At the risk of being like the person who says "It's Not Because I'm Jealous", I think that some of the wild opinions in The New York Times and other traditional news media may be rooted in part in an uneasiness about a changing America.

Say Goodbye to the 'Good Old Days'

This country started out being heavily Protestant, and stayed that way until somewhere in the 20th century. By now, though, even those Americans who go to church fairly regularly have a less-than-intense interest in - and understanding of - their own faith.

Not many Americans go to the length of University of Minnesota, Morris, associate professor Paul Myers, to demonstrate how open-minded they are: but I don't think you could call America a particularly Christian country. Not on a practical level.

And the folks who are at the top of the dominant culture seem to like it that way. Religion, after all, is the opiate of the masses and something that sophisticated people don't take seriously. 'Everybody knows that.' Being "spiritual" is okay: as long as you do it in private, or take up one of the popular versions of Eastern philosophies.

That's an over-simplification of what's going on with something like 307,000,000 people - but not, I think, by much.

That was America, maybe 20 years back.

Today, there are a lot more Catholics - and Muslims - in this country. I'm a little more aware of Americans who are followers of Islam, because quite a few live here in Minnesota. Many Somalis are in the position my ancestors were, a few generations back, and are now American citizens living in Minnesota. But I'm getting off-topic.

Immigration by Hispanics has been credited - or blamed - for the increasing fraction of Americans who are Catholic. That's had a more immediate impact on my community. There's a whole section of one aisle in the grocery down the street with food that's not what the old German/Irish families here are used to. For my household, it means we now can pick up prayer candles on a grocery run.

For me, more waves of immigrants to America is 'more of the same.' My household's a sort of German/Norwegian/Irish stew. The extended family isn't all recent immigrants, though: I'm related by marriage to the Lakota nation. We seem to have a sort of ethnic apathy: We marry people we love, even if they don't have the 'proper' ancestors. As of a few years ago, I've got kin in the Philippines. So give us another generation or two and we'll probably have "Hispanic" in the mix, too.

I'm getting off-topic again.

The point is, this isn't the self-satisfied fifties, the earnest sixties, or the painfully 'open minded' eighties anymore. Can't say that I miss any of those periods.

For folks who were quite comfortable, living in a genteelly secular culture, this influx of people who look funny, go to a different church, and give a rip about their religious beliefs must be a jarring experience.

The Catholic Church is Real Conservative, Right?

One of the things 'everybody knows,' apparently, is that the Catholic Church is a bunch of hidebound conservatives. Who are PEDOPHILES, of course.

I think it's an American habit, at least, to sort people out into as small a number of categories as possible. In America, when it comes to the practical philosophy that determines what people do - not what they say they should do - there seem to be three categories:
  • Conservatives
    • Hate-filled homophobic racist oppressors
    • Patriotic supporters of family, flag and apple pie
  • Liberals
    • Open-minded tolerant lovers of the environment
    • Bleeding heart nitwits with no morals
  • Moderates
    • Don't give a damn
      • As long as they get re-elected
    • Understand the complexities of a diverse society
That's a rather extreme over-simplification, I hope: but you get the picture.

'Obviously' the Catholic Church is horribly conservative. Just look at life issues: We're against abortion!

Take another look at life issues: We're against capital punishment! Sort of. (October 2, 2008)

I've written about this before. (November 3, 2008)

You want something simple, that conforms to contemporary American cultural assumptions? Don't look at the Catholic Church: we've been around for almost 2,000 years now: we didn't conform to the world then, and we don't now.

I think it's the failure of the Catholic Church to follow cultural stereotypes that's maddening to some folks. Particularly since Catholics who understand their faith know that they're supposed to be engaged in their culture. (September 24, 2008) By some American standards, that's not being very 'spiritual.'

And, since we've got fairly well-defined standards of behavior, we're not 'open minded,' either. Not by the sort of sixties standards that America's current crop of 'best and brightest' grew up with.

Under the circumstances, I'd be concerned if stalwart bastions of a declining culture didn't go a little crazy about Catholicism. Look at this way: given what The New York Times editorial staff seem to believe, do we really want our beliefs to be something they'll praise?

Vaguely-related posts:
In the news:

More:

A tip of the hat to CatholicNewsSvc, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this article.

Monday, March 29, 2010

"I Take No Interest in Politics" isn't an Option

"I take no interest in politics" sounds very high-minded, even noble.

It's not an option for me.

What brought this to mind were some of today's headlines:
The "health care reform" issue is not, I think, going to go away any time soon. And I'm pretty sure that it's going to get messy. For example, over the weekend I read that, essentially, opposition to the president's health care ideas is racism.1

Pedophile Priests! Pedophile Priests!

Incidentally, it struck me that the current flurry of news, along the lines of 'did the Pope shield pedophile priests', came just as a critical vote on health care was coming up in the American Congress. Coincidence? Maybe.

Or, maybe it was time to discredit the Catholic Church again. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been downright uppity lately, saying that some aspects of the health care proposal weren't acceptable.

I don't have an opinion on the whether or not there was a connection between the somewhat exuberant headlines and Catholic opposition to abortion and euthanasia. To form an opinion, I'd need facts that I'm not likely to get, about what goes on in the editorial offices of America's news services, and in places where decision-makers meet.

All I have to go on is the decision to focus on the continuing sorting out of a dreadful mess in the Catholic Church during a critical moment in American politics.

Religion and Politics

I was born in America, and absorbed quite a lot of American culture over the decades. On the whole, I rather like living in a federal republic with strong democratic (small "d") traditions. I even think that the American system of government is pretty good, compared to other available options. Mostly because of the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place.

But I don't think that the American system is the only 'right' way to run a country. (Another War-on-Terror Blog (November 15, 2009))

Although I don't share the 'sophisticated' loathing of all things American, I have to admit that it'd be easier to be a citizen in a place like the United Arab Emirates: provided that I wasn't one of the few thousand people who can vote. The UAE is a federation, like America, with some powers in the hands of the federal government - and emirates where we have states.

The United Arab Emirates aren't America

There are quite a few differences, of course, between the USA and the UAE. For starters, UAE law forbids political parties. Some public offices are elected positions, some appointed, only members of the electoral college can vote for the candidate of their choice: and they're appointed by rulers of the seven emirates.

Like I said, as long as I wasn't in the electoral college, being a UAE citizen wouldn't have some of the headaches that come with American citizenship.

Not, getting a little off-topic again, because it's a 'boys only' club: As of December, 2006, 1,189 of the 6,689 Emiratis in the electoral college were women. So it 'should be' exactly half - by contemporary American standards: so what? A little over one in eight isn't exactly 'token' - and give them time. The literacy rate (people over 15 who can read and write) is 77.9% - 76.1% of the men, 81.7% of the women.("United Arab Emirates," World Factobook, CIA (last updated March 23, 2010)) I'm inclined to see literacy as at least as significant a mark of power and position as being tied to a desk or being given a hotshot title.

America isn't the United Arab Emirates

As wistful as I might get, about being out of the decision-making loop for state and national policy, I don't think the UAE's system would work in America. We've got too much of a stake in the political process as it's evolved over the last few centuries (not a typo - what we have now grew out of what the colonists had been cobbling together before the revolution).

And the last king we had was - regrettable. Forensic evidence discussed over the last few decades indicates that George III may not have been entirely responsible for his eccentricities: but I'm afraid he left a really bad impression about monarchies in general, over here.

The culture here in America is different, too: Many Americans think they have a right to vote. And, by our laws and customs, they're right.

Responsibility: What a Bummer!

I don't, really, mind voting. I grew up with this system, and realized that I'd have to pay attention to public affairs and make reasoned choices long before I reached voting age. I'm okay with having that responsibility: just like, if I'd grown up in a different place and time, I hope I'd be okay with having the responsibility of sitting in on the elders' councils - and keeping my mouth shut until I was maybe 35. Given my urge to talk, it'd have been a struggle: but I hope I'd have accepted the way things were.

And if I still thought it was a bad idea after I did get the right to speak - tried to change things.

I don't like having responsibility - but the fact is that I am responsible for quite a few things, whether I like it or not.

Since I'm an American citizen, one of my responsibilities is paying attention to what's going on and voting when it's election time.

Sometimes I don't have an informed opinion on something that's on the ballot. When that happens, I look for someone whose opinion I trust and ask for advice. A very few times, when it's been an option, I haven't voted on an issue.

'Everybody Knows' Religion Has No Place In Politics

One of the American assumptions about politics, in some circles at least, is that religious beliefs should have no part in politics.

In a way, I think I can see that point of view. After the Renaissance, the northern princes of Europe arguably embraced Protestantism as a means to help break the political and economic hold that southern Europe had at the time. Between that, the feudal tradition of the Church holding land, and the institution of state churches later: politics with a religious coating happened a lot.

And, I think, left a really bad impression in many people's minds.

About the Church holding land? During most of the feudal period, Europe didn't have a money economy: and it was much more practical for landholders to tithe by permanently transferring land to the Church, than driving some number of cows, pigs, and chickens, along with part of the harvest, over at intervals. Which is yet another topic.

Some Religious People are Crackpots: Some aren't

In today's world, antics of the likes of Pat Robertson and Tony Alamo do nothing to make 'religion' seem like something other than a psychiatric condition: or a scam.

I don't see religion that way: but I'm one of those religious people you hear about. And 'everybody knows' what they're like.

Yes, some very religious folks are crackpots. I've run into quite a few over the years.

Men and Women, Trousers and Skirts

Some, back in the seventies, were convinced that the Bible said it was sinful for women to wear slacks. I am a little sympathetic with some of those folks. There was a lot of change going on, and they'd grown up in a culture that was falling apart. Back in their 'good old days,' women always wore skirts or dresses: and they may never have seen a kilt.

I think it's a good idea to acknowledge that there are two basic models of homo sapiens sapiens, but I also know that options for expressing that difference are determined by culture. (September 26, 2009)

Demon Rum, Sinful Cigarettes

Then, several few decades back, there was the denomination that had members in northern and southern American states. By the time they had a national conference, one group had become convinced that tobacco was the work of the devil, but that a drink now and then was okay; the other group 'knew' that drinking demon rum - or any sort of alcohol - was sinful, but that smoking tobacco was okay.

I heard that they thrashed out some sort of agreement.

The point is: I think I understand why some folks who aren't 'religious' themselves think that all religious people are like the loud crackpots they hear, and think that religion should be kept strictly out of politics.

Me? I think the crackpots tend to cancel each other out.

Religion, Beliefs, and Values

And in my view a religion that has no effect on what a person believes is right and wrong is pretty useless. And if the religion does have standards - and teaches that its adherents must not apply those standards to their lives, it's worse than useless.

Like it or not, American citizens are allowed to vote.

As a Catholic, I'm required to be a good citizen. (September 24, 2008) Since I am an American citizen, part of being a good citizen is following local, state, national and world events so that I can vote responsibly.

That makes me very "conservative" on right-to-life issues like abortion and euthanasia.

That makes me very "liberal" on right-to-life issues like capital punishment.

Maybe I'm more "conservative" than "liberal," because there is not an absolute ban in capital punishment. People in some cultures have no option except to kill the most dangerous members of their society, in order to protect those who do follow the rules. I think America isn't in that position - but acknowledge that it's a debatable point. Part of my objection to capital punishment is not whether or not it's just - but whether or not the Supreme Court can raise a wrongly-executed person from the dead. Since they can't, and since they're human beings and can make mistakes: I don't trust them with executions. (October 2, 2008)

War? I grew up in the sixties, so I've heard the changes rung on 'Jesus was a pacifist.' I'm Catholic, and so I think that human life is precious. I'm Catholic, so I also know that there are limited circumstances under which war is an option. (June 7, 2009)

All of which makes me a war-monger bleeding heart liberal conservative with no respect for mom, apple pie and the flag or the right to choose.

It's work, shoveling through impassioned rhetoric - from all sides - to get at the occasional nugget of fact. It'd be much easier, if I could either throw myself into some political movement and accept what I was told: or pretend to be spiritually and/or intellectually above the rabble and say 'I take no interest in politics.'

Well, nobody told me this would be easy.

Related posts:

1 I wish I was making this up:
"The Rage Is Not About Health Care"
Frank Rich, Opinion, The New York Times (March 27, 2010)

"THERE were times when last Sunday's great G.O.P. health care implosion threatened to bring the thrill back to reality television. On ABC's 'This Week,' a frothing and filibustering Karl Rove all but lost it in a debate with the Obama strategist David Plouffe. A few hours later, the perennially copper-faced Republican leader John Boehner..."

"...There's nothing entertaining about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil rights hero John Lewis and the openly gay Barney Frank. And as the week dragged on, and reports of death threats and vandalism stretched from Arizona to Kansas to upstate New York, the F.B.I. and the local police had to get into the act to protect members of Congress and their families.

"How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn't recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht...."

"...But there was nothing like this. To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar majorities in Congress; the Civil Rights Act received even more votes in the Senate (73) than Medicare (70). But it was only the civil rights bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That's because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance...."

"...It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan 'Take our country back!,' these are the people they want to take the country back from.

"They can't. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven't had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

"If Congressional Republicans want to maintain a politburo-like homogeneity in opposition to the Democrats, that's their right...."
[emphasis mine]
I am about as certain as I can be that some people are opposed to President Obama's policies because he's black. ("The Sign Says "Obama Half-Breed Muslin" - Freedom of Speech, Politics, Spelling, and Race," Another War-on-Terror Blog (October 1, 2008)) There may even be some who oppose him because he's America's first Hawaiian president: although that doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

But, with due respect to America's dominant culture, I think that a person may oppose the views of another person: independently of the ethnicity of either individual. For example, I assume that it's possible for a black member of Congress to oppose the views of a white member of Congress, not because the other member is white, but because the member of Congress who is black believes the white member's views to be wrong.

At least, I hope so.

I am fairly certain that some people oppose the Obama administration's policies because some of the president's ancestors came from Africa: just as I'm fairly certain that some people didn't want John F. Kennedy in the White House because he was Irish, and outwardly Catholic.

If you think that being against J.F.K. because of his ethnic background or religious affiliation is silly, I'm inclined to agree. But some folks will be like that.

But, just as I don't think that every black Democrat is a white-hating radical: I don't think that everybody who opposes the current administration's health care package is a racist. Some are, I'm sure. But all?!

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Posts About Palm Sunday and Blogging, in Another Blog

Noted and linked:Hats off to A Catholic Mom in Minnesota, for taking Holy Week off:
"I am not going to blog this week so that I can give myself more fully to this Holy Week...."
(A Catholic Mom in Minnesota)
I don't plan to go offline on blogging entirely this week, but I think that ACMM is setting a good example.

Maybe I can at least throttle back a little.

It is Palm Sunday, by the way. I intend to do a better job than usual of using this day for 'reflection, silence, cultivation of the mind and meditation' to further the growth of this Christian's interior life.

Related post:

Saturday, March 27, 2010

The Fight for Life, God, and Choosing Sides

If this post looks familiar, you've probably read what started as a discussion of Father Paul Marx's death. About half-way through, I found myself writing about Representative Neugebauer, the sixties, and change.

I've copied the second half of that post and edited it a little. But not much:

"...When the Fight for Life is Finally Won...."

Not "if" - "when". There will be no final victory over death until this world is sorted out, at its end, but victory there will be.

I'm optimistic about the short term, too.

It may take a year, a decade, a century, a millennium or more, but make no mistake: We will win

Times are Changing

On a secular, political level, this isn't the sixties any more.

I think it's partly because so many of today's adults realize that they're the ones mother didn't have killed.

I'm not faulting the women so much. All too often it's the teacher, employer, boyfriend, or husband who pressured her into having his love machine 'fixed.' And the torrent of propaganda for "women's health" rights has been steady and massive.

Still, knowing that your brothers and sisters were offed - by your mom - must have an effect on your view of what's nice and what's not.

Whaddaya Know! It's a Baby!

Advances in imaging technology have changed the cultural landscape too, I think. When I was growing up, lines like "formless blob of protoplasm" worked: because very few people really knew what was going on inside the mother before birth.

Now, not so much.

Excerpt from an op-ed piece:
"Neugebauer: 'Outpouring' of support since 'baby killer' outburst"
Ben Smith, POLITCO.com (March 23, 2010)

"Rep. Randy Neugebauer said this afternoon that his shout of 'baby killer' amid Congressional debate over health care legislation Sunday night has drawn a 'tremendous outpouring' of phone calls, emails, and financial contributions 'telling me, "Congressman, thank you for taking a stand." '

" 'You wouldn't believe the emails and the phone calls of people calling and saying just, 'Thank you, Congressman, for taking a stand for the unborn,' he told POLITICO in an interview. He said he had 'no idea' how much money he's raised, though he addresses the subject just above a 'Donate' button on his campaign website.

" 'People are outpouring their support to me and that's whats important – this is not about money,' he said.

"Neugebauer maintains that his shout was directed at the health care legislation, not at Rep. Bart Stupak, and he said he called Stupak and then approached him on the floor of the House to apologize. But Stupak today said he thought Neugebauer should apologize more formally during House proceedings...."
Like I said, this isn't the sixties any more. Back then, "baby killer" was what we were being taught to call American soldiers who were fighting a war: one being micromanaged by the nitwits back in Washington. That was then. Not too long ago management trade journals were using Vietnam fairly often as an example of how not to run anything. And, outside a few urban enclaves, quite a few Americans seem to have shaken off the 'anti-military' conditioning.

This isn't the sixties any more.

Definitely.

God isn't On Our Side: We're on His

This is one of quite a few promises in the Bible:
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."
(Matthew 16:18)
I'd recommend reading footnote 13. It ends with:
"...The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death."
(footnote 13, on Matthew 16:18, The New American Bible)
God, Power, Authority, and Me
Remember, I'm a layman, and have about as little authority in the Church as a person can have. What I say next is strictly my ideas.

I agree wholeheartedly that the power of death will not overcome the church of Jesus.

I think, however, that it may be a mistake to think of the power of death or of Hell as being in an entirely offensive role. Gates in a fortification may be used as outlets from which offensive forces may issue. But their primary purpose is not to attack. It is to defend.

Matthew 18:16, it seems to me, shows the netherworld as a walled city. One that is under attack - and whose gates will not stand against the attacker.

Yeah: We'll win. Not because God is on our side. Because we're on His.

Related posts:More:

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Priests Behaving Badly, Ephebophilia, and Statistics

It bothers me when I don't know the meaning of a word, or know that something has a name, but what the name is. It bothers me a lot.

That happened while I was writing another post today. ("Saints, the Catholic Church, and Pedophile Priests" (March 25, 2010)) What particularly bothered me was being pretty sure that I'd run across the term for adults who have a disordered sexual interest in adolescents.1 Fairly recently.

"Fairly recently" covers a lot of territory for me. Depending on the context, it can be anything from the last few seconds; or days; or months; or decades. Then there's paleontology - but I'm getting off-topic.

Turns out, I'd read about ephebophilia earlier this month:
"Papal Pots Shots"
The Black Biretta (March 13, 2010)

"Reuters reported that attempts to link Pope Benedict XVI with an alleged cover-up of a pedophile priest in 1980 while the Pontiff was an Archbishop in Bavaria have been disproved and discredited.

"The Vatican's disciplinary office had dealt with 3,000 cases of sexual misconduct since 2001, covering crimes committed over the last 50 years. However only about 300 of these involved 'pedophilia in the true sense of the term,' meaning abuse base on attraction to prepubescent children. About 60 percent of the cases concerned adolescents and the rest involved heterosexual relations.

"Ephebophilia is the attraction of adults toward pubescents and adolescents (generally 15-19)...."
I feel a lot better now: and I've got a new word in my vocabulary: ephebophilia. One which I'd like to think I won't have reason to use very often.

Statistics: Putting Numbers in Perspective.

One case of sexual abuse by a priest is too many. On the other hand, I think it's useful, now and again, to put numbers in perspective.

Take that "3,000 cases of sexual misconduct". That's an awfully big number.

Again, one case is too many. But that's 3,000 cases out of - how many priests?

At last count, the Holy See was responsible for around 407,000 priests. (CathNews (August 19, 2009))

In July, 2009, the world population was an estimated 6,790,062,216. Roman Catholics accounted for 16.99% of that number, which means there were around 1,153,631,570 of us then. (CIA "World Factbook," last updated March 4, 2010)) That makes about 1 priest for every 2884 Catholics: It's a manageable ratio. And yet another topic.

Getting back to those 407,000 or so Catholic priests. Since 2001, the Vatican has been handing 3,000 cases of sexual misconduct involving them. With some of the cases going back about a half-century.

It's a problem. One case would be a problem.

What I don't know is how many of those 3,000 cases were simply reports of misconduct, and how many had been verified.

I know, from news and other sources, that more than one priest is involved: so the cases aren't all the work of one moderately active miscreant (3000 cases spanning a half-century works out to an average of about 60 per year). But I don't know how many priests were involved. My guess is that each misbehaving priest got more than one complaint: but that's a guess.

Related post:More at:And see:
More:
A tip of the hat to ZephyrK9, on Twitter, to the heads-up on holysmoke.

1 The key term here is disordered. Show me a man between the ages of 21 and 125 who doesn't feel a physical response to well-formed woman of, say, 18, and I'll show you a man who needs help. But I'm no expert.

Saints, the Catholic Church, and Pedophile Priests

Catholics, particularly priests, are perfect people. Flawless. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly ethical, perfectly dutiful, and - most important - perfectly holy.

Sort of like Kung Fu's Kwai Chang Caine, except without that character's gritty character flaws and rough language.1

Right?

News flash: Every one of us, priests included, are human beings.

Well, the saints are perfect people, right?

Wrong.

Catholic Saints

A Catholic saint is "a disciple who has lived a life of exemplary fidelity to the Lord". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2156) That's "exemplary fidelity to the Lord" - not "had a well-balanced personality," "led a placidly boring life," or "never did anything wrong."

One of the saints, when asked if he knew this Jesus, replied: "Woman, I do not know him." A little later came these exchanges: "You too are one of them", "My friend, I am not"; "Assuredly, this man too was with him, for he also is a Galilean.", "My friend, I do not know what you are talking about." (Luke 22:56-60)

And this man "lived a life of exemplary fidelity to the Lord"?! In the end, yes. From the looks of it, he had impulse control issues, and there was that three-fold denial: but he came back, asking forgiveness.

I haven't quite made up my mind, whether putting Peter in charge of the church ("And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)) was a reward: or penance. Or something else. (I know what I am and what Jesus is: and my self-esteem isn't that strong.)

Pedophile Priests

Actually, quite a few of the lot in this week's news aren't, strictly speaking, pedophiles. Their victims were, apparently, underage and/or in vulnerable positions. Since "pedophile" is, sadly, a rather familiar term these days, and it's close to the issue these priests seem to have had, I'm using that word. I don't know what the technical term is for a disordered inclination which leads some adults to lust after teenagers of the opposite sex. Or, occasionally, their own.

The priests here in America who made the news were mostly interested in young boys: but that's not the only disorder people can have. By a long shot. Necrophilia, for example. If you don't know what that is: you may want to keep it that way.

Actually, I rather doubt that sexual predators tend to target people who aren't in vulnerable positions. Rapists, at least, seem to prefer victims who aren't likely to fight back. Understandably, as the Romans learned after they mistreated Queen Boudicca and her daughters.

Naughty Priests! Naughty Priests! Oh, Those Naughty Priests!!

Some American news services, actually, are doing a fairly good job of covering the scandals involving priests in Europe:
"A Catholic bishop in Waterford, Ireland, apologized Thursday for his "inadequate" response to complaints that a priest in his diocese had sexually abused children.

"William Lee, the bishop of Waterford and Lismore in the southeast of Ireland, said in 1994 he allowed the priest to continue in his ministry after he was evaluated by a clinician who had been told in detail about the allegations.

"Lee later concluded his actions had been 'inadequate' and reported the allegations to the police, but the complainants declined to make a criminal complaint, he said...."
(CNN)
That article could have been a lot worse, and still been strictly accurate. For example, that last paragraph could have been written this way:
"Lee later admitted his actions had been 'inadequate' and he and finally reported the allegations to the police, but the by then complainants declined to make a criminal complaint, he said.
[alterations in bold or struck out]
That CNN article could have been a lot worse.

It focuses, by the way, on the 'Murphy Report' meltdown in the Irish Catholic Church.

I'm sad to see what's happening over there. It looks like a variation on the theme that played out here in America, not too many years back. Is still playing out: we'll be dealing with fallout from what that handful of priests did for generations.

Priests Misbehaving: Here We Go Again

Of course, the Irish situation isn't exactly the same as the one in America. Demographics of the victims seems to be a bit different, for starters. Here in America, the priests who enjoyed seducing boys seemed to come from a fairly narrow cadre of seminarians. But that's another topic.

What's going on in Ireland is reflected in continental Europe, apparently.

If you haven't heard about it, you aren't following the news. At all.

I know that newspapers and news services are, for the most part, businesses. As such, they have to select topics that will attract readers. That's where the old 'if it bleeds, it leads' principle came from. And another batch of misbehaving priests is certainly an attention-getting topic.

I wonder, though, if there would be quite the same sort of attention given to, say, a group of scientists who were caught destroying data that they may - or may not - have been truthful about? 'That's different,' of course.

What's going on now upsets me - a lot. But what I wrote in another post still applies. I'm disappointed, but not disheartened.

Partly because this is, as far as I can tell, nowhere near the biggest crisis the Church has faced. For example, about a thousand years ago, we had men who said they were the Pope, and weren't. Problem was, they weren't regarded as crazy. Quite a few people believed them. Compared to that, a handful of priests with disordered sexual desires and an apparent lack of self-control is small change.

That's the big-picture situation. On the individual level, what happened is a terrible violation of trust, which must be - and is being - dealt with. That's another topic.

Making Excuses, Making Sense

I think that the priests in America who raped boys and the priests in Europe who took advantage of vulnerable people are human beings, not wild animals. Where it might make sense to simply shoot a dog that's not behaving correctly, people shouldn't be killed simply because they've behaved badly.

Maybe that sounds like I'm 'one of those people' who is soft on crime and feels sorry for criminals and wants rapists to go free and doesn't respect apple pie and the flag. I can't help that. I am convinced that human life is precious, and should be preserved. (November 2, 2008)

I also think that adult men who like to have sex with boys, or with other adult men, or animals, or dead bodies, have disordered inclinations.

Maybe that sounds like I'm 'one of those people' who hates homosexuals and blacks and women and doesn't respect the environment and animals. I can't help that, either. I'm Catholic, and I have to have some standards. I also am commanded to love people whose behavior I can't condone. (March 13, 2009)

Nobody said this was going to be easy. Just necessary.

Related posts:In the news:
More:
1 "Kung Fu" is a seventies television series. IMDB describes it this way: After avenging the death of his teacher, a Shaolin monk flees China to the American West and helps people while being pursued by bounty hunters."

Sounds like just one more yell-scream-punch martial arts show, but it isn't. A sample of Cain's dialog:

"I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions."

That's how the character talked, and that was how he lived.

Fast-paced the show wasn't. I liked it - and still do, when it shows up as re-runs.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Father Paul Marx, Human Life International Founder, Dead: Requiescat in Pace

Father Paul Marx: Order of Saint Benedict, founder of Human Life International; "the Apostle of Life."

Fr. Paul Marx died March 20, 2010. The following is a Human Life International press release, with contact information redacted. (That's available through HLI, online.)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 20, 2010

HLI Mourns Loss of Beloved Founder,
Father Paul Marx


Front Royal, VA /Christian Newswire/ -- Shortly after 8:00 a.m. on March 20th of this year Fr. Paul Marx, OSB passed from this world into the Life that never ends--this is the hope that the whole pro-life movement nurtures in its heart for the one whom Pope John Paul II called "the Apostle of Life."

"In the more than forty-year pro-life career of Fr. Marx, and through his almost three million miles of world travel, Human Life International (HLI) saw the blossoming of the world's conscience about the issues of life," said Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, Fr. Marx's successor as president of HLI. "Father put pro-life 'on the map' in a literal sense and through his efforts gave the world direct and organized opposition to the culture of death."

Often referred to as "the father of the international pro-life movement", Fr. Marx visited all 50 states and 91 countries in his over 40 years of pro-life activism. Seeing the advance of anti-life forces before most did, he founded the Human Life Center in 1971, two years before Roe v. Wade. In 1981, the Human Life Center became Human Life International (HLI), the world's first and largest international pro-life organization. Fr. Marx was president of HLI until his retirement in 1999.

Father Marx authored over one dozen books, including The Death Peddlers: War on the Unborn (1971), Death Without Dignity: Killing for Mercy (1982), Confessions of a Pro-Life Missionary (1988), Fighting for Life (1989), The Flying Monk (1990), The Warehouse Priest (1993), and his autobiography, Faithful for Life (1997).

President Ronald Reagan once wrote in a personal letter to Fr. Marx, "You can be proud of all you've done to summon this Nation and others to reflection and positive action on issues affecting the sanctity of human life. God bless you."

"We pray for the repose of his soul and for the strengthening of the spiritual children and pro-life family that Father leaves as a legacy in more than 100 countries" said Rev. Euteneuer.

Father Marx died just short of his 90th birthday. He liked to point out that he was born 10 days before the late Pope John Paul II, who once said to him, "You are doing the most important work on earth."

A Mass of Christian Burial for Fr. Marx will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Friday, March 26 at St. John's Abbey.

Below is the full text of the statement of Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of HLI.

"Shortly after 8:00 a.m. on March the 20th of this year Fr. Paul Marx, OSB passed from this world into the Life that never ends -- at least that is the hope that the whole pro-life movement nurtures in its heart for the one whom Pope John Paul II called 'the Apostle of Life.'

"In the forty-year pro-life career of Fr. Marx, and through his three million miles of world travel, Human Life International saw the blossoming of the world's conscience about the issues of life. Father put pro-life 'on the map' in a literal sense and through his efforts gave the world direct and organized opposition to the culture of death. He will be missed dearly by all pro-lifers, especially those of us who had a chance to work intimately with him, and whose lives were changed irrevocably as a result.

"When that blessed day comes, when the fight for life is finally won, people will look back at this dark age of destruction and wonder who opposed the onslaught. Standing among the greatest champions for life will be Fr. Marx, not only for his own work, but for the work done by the countless other pro-life warriors he inspired."

"We pray for the repose of his soul and for the strengthening of the spiritual children and pro-life family that Father leaves as a legacy in more than 100 countries."
I'll miss him.

But I'm not disheartened. As the press release said, quoting Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer: "..."When that blessed day comes, when the fight for life is finally won...."

Not "if" - "when". There will be no final victory over death until this world is sorted out, at its end, but victory there will be. I'm optimistic about the short term, too.

It may take a year, a decade, a century, a millennium or more, but make no mistake: We will win.

Times are Changing

On a secular, political level, this isn't the sixties any more.

I think it's partly because so many of today's adults realize that they're the ones mother didn't have killed. I'm not faulting the women so much. All too often it's the teacher, employer, boyfriend, or husband who pressured her into having his love machine 'fixed.' And the torrent of propaganda for "women's health" rights has been steady and massive.

Still, knowing that your brothers and sisters were offed by your mom must have an effect on your view of what's nice and what's not.

Advances in imaging technology have changed the cultural landscape too, I think. When I was growing up, lines like "formless blob of protoplasm" worked: because very few people really knew what was going on inside the mother before birth.

Now, not so much.

Excerpt from an op-ed piece:
"Neugebauer: 'Outpouring' of support since 'baby killer' outburst
Ben Smith, POLITCO.com (March 23, 2010)

"Rep. Randy Neugebauer said this afternoon that his shout of 'baby killer' amid Congressional debate over health care legislation Sunday night has drawn a "tremendous outpouring" of phone calls, emails, and financial contributions "telling me, "Congressman, thank you for taking a stand." '

" 'You wouldn't believe the emails and the phone calls of people calling and saying just, 'Thank you, Congressman, for taking a stand for the unborn,' he told POLITICO in an interview. He said he had 'no idea' how much money he's raised, though he addresses the subject just above a 'Donate' button on his campaign website.

" 'People are outpouring their support to me and that's whats important – this is not about money,' he said.

"Neugebauer maintains that his shout was directed at the health care legislation, not at Rep. Bart Stupak, and he said he called Stupak and then approached him on the floor of the House to apologize. But Stupak today said he thought Neugebauer should apologize more formally during House proceedings...."
Like I said, this isn't the sixties any more. Back then, "baby killer" was what we were being taught to call American soldiers who were fighting a war: one being micromanaged by the nitwits back in Washington. When I was reading management trade journals, Vietnam was used fairly often as an example of how not to run anything.

Now, well, like I said: this isn't the sixties any more.

God isn't On Our Side: We're on His

We've been given quite a few promises in the Bible, including this one:
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."
(Matthew 16:18)
I'd recommend reading that footnote. It ends with:
"...The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death."
(footnote 13, on Matthew 16:18, The New American Bible)
Remember, I'm a layman, and have about as little authority in the Church as a person can have. What I say next is strictly my ideas.

I agree wholeheartedly that the power of death will not overcome the church of Jesus.

I think, however, that it may be a mistake to think of the power of death or of Hell as being in an entirely offensive role. Gates in a fortification may be used as outlets from which offensive forces may issue. But their primary purpose is not to attack. It is to defend.

Matthew 18:16, it seems to me, shows the netherworld as a walled city. One that is under attack - and whose gates will not stand against the attacker.

Yeah: We'll win. Not because God is on our side. Because we're on His.

Related posts:More:

Which Way the Priest Faces

I converted to Catholicism well after the sixties, Vatican II, and the weird "in the spirit of Vatican II" stuff. Quite a lot that went down in American churches that were nominally Catholic wasn't in the Vatican II documents - and wasn't "in the spirit of Vatican II", either. Which is another topic.

One of the things that happened then was that the altar 'got turned around.' Instead of the priest facing the altar with his back to the congregation, he was facing the altar, and the folks in the pews.

Some Catholics at the time who had grown up with the older ways and realized that there was something drastically wrong with some of the new practices, like keeping the consecrated Host in a cloth bag between Masses, figured that the priest facing the congregation was just one more bogus notion.

Interestingly, it wasn't. I know about the pre-Vatican II practices at Mass, and the new ones. I sort of like the older traditions. But that's not the way we do it now, in America.

And, that's okay. The Catholic Church takes local culture into account, and I suspect that's part of what was going on in this case. It looks like the locals here really didn't like having the priest face away from them - and, more to the point, might be getting the wrong idea about what was going on.

It's like the ban on liturgical dance in Catholic churches - in the West. Elsewhere, it's a good idea: and encouraged.

Maybe the Church decided that the locals here in America and other places had to have another one of their cultural foibles accommodated, about where to put the priest.

Related post:More:

Monday, March 22, 2010

"Raving Politics, Never at Rest"

"Raving politics, never at rest - - -"1

For almost 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has been dealing with emperors and the war bands of pre-feudal Europe, the United States Department of State, and the United Nations. 2,000 years from now, it's likely we'll be dealing with whoever holds the reigns of secular authority then.

Just a thought.

1 From "Vastness," Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

God is Love, Wisdom: And Power


Updated (March 22, 2010)

Here's the video I intended to include with this post. Better late than never?

"Jesus Music - 'He's Alive' - Don Francisco - Easter"

NoneBeforeNoneAfter, YouTube (February 17, 2007)
video, 4:59

"http://www.rockymountainmin... Fans are encouraged to visit the Site. EASTER is coming...."
I've been spending the weekend assembling and organizing information needed to fill out the tax forms. With a whole lot less time to work with than I thought. ("Lemming Tracks: Tax Time Surprise," Apathetic Lemming of the North (March 20, 2010))

There's only so much of re-arranging data in a spreadsheet and verifying the data in each line that I can take at a time, so I took a break. A cup of coffee, a walk around part of the house, and I was back at the computer.

I suppose it's a sort of procrastination, but I decided to take a look at this blog. A little later I was re-reading "Home Schooling, Religious and Moral Instruction, and American Culture" (March 6, 2010). Something I'd written wasn't clear, so I added a footnote.

It got longer than I'd planned, so I decided to spend another - seven minutes, so far, including what follows these words - writing this post.

Our God is an Awesome God

I've heard that Rich Mullins didn't think his song, "Our God is an Awesome God" was one of his best. I like it, and my family's heard me humming and singing parts of it now and again - but I'm pretty sure Mr. Mullins was right.

Regarded as a serious work of musical art, "Awesome God" isn't particularly outstanding.

Which didn't keep it from becoming quite a hit in the - eighties, I think.

Creative matters notwithstanding, there's pretty good sense in the words. Like the chorus:
"Our God is an awesome God
"He reigns from Heaven above
"With wisdom power and love
"Our God is an awesome God!"
(Chorus, "Our God is an Awesome God!" Rich Mullins)
Starting at least as far back as the sixties, it's been okay to talk about God's love. And that's fine. God is loving: for which I'm grateful.

He's also wise and powerful.

The "wise" part may have been okay as grooviness, disco, and The Simpsons left footprints on Western culture: but "powerful"? Well, that was one of those things one simply didn't discuss. Prudery wasn't limited to the Victorian age. Which is another topic.

I recognize and rejoice that God is loving and wise. I also am okay with the idea that God is all-powerful. Omnipotent.

Which may be why He communicated through the prophets so often. There's something to the old idea that seeing God, unshielded, meant death. It's easy to imagine that facing God directly, unless He toned down his presence - a lot - would be like stepping into a blast furnace: only more so.

Then there was what happened in Bethlehem - but I've spent too much time on this post already.

Throughout the Old Testament, God generally used prophets to deliver messages and give instructions. On a few occasions, though, He got more obviously involved. The burning bush, that run-in with Pharaoh's army, and the Mount Sinai audience, for example (Exodus 14:24, 19-20, for starters)

Then there's that intriguing visible phenomenon, the column of cloud/fire, and Exodus 14:19-20:
"The angel of God, who had been leading Israel's camp, now moved and went around behind them. The column of cloud also, leaving the front, took up its place behind them, 2so that it came between the camp of the Egyptians and that of Israel. But the cloud now became dark, and thus the night passed without the rival camps coming any closer together all night long."
Reading that part of the Bible, I think that in general Cecil B. DeMille's "Moses" underplayed the visible effects of God's intervention. But then, there was only so much you could do with special effects then - and DeMille may have decided that there was only so much that the audience would accept.
Not-entirely-unrelated post:

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Is the Church For Capitalism? Yes: and No

The Catholic Church 'obviously' supports free-market laissez faire capitalism:
"Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor. He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good.215"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2429)
Or, not:
"Economic life brings into play different interests, often opposed to one another. This explains why the conflicts that characterize it arise.216 Efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts by negotiation that respects the rights and duties of each social partner: those responsible for business enterprises, representatives of wage-earners (for example, trade unions), and public authorities when appropriate."
(Catechism, 2430)

"Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment."
(Catechism, 2432)
That's from part of the Catechism that discusses how the seventh commandment should be applied to life. ("You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15, Deuteronomy 5:19, Matthew 19:18))

That's the same section where you can learn why the Catholic Church is okay with 'sinful' activities like poker and Bingo. (Catechism, 2413)

That's one of the reasons I got interested in Catholicism: I learned that there isn't much that 'those Catholics' (I hadn't converted yet) weren't allowed to do: in moderation. Which is another topic. ("Why Did I Convert to Catholicism?" (November 24, 2009) and other posts: including "Firebase Earth" (April 5, 2009))

Well, if the Catholic Church isn't for capitalism, it must be against it: which means they're commies?! Odds are there are still people who (think?) that way. The Church isn't for or against capitalism - or any other economic system. It does teach how any system should affect people. And how it shouldn't:
"A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204

"A system that 'subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production' is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. 'You cannot serve God and mammon.'206 "
(2424)
For those of you who like 'chapter and verse,' Jesus' 'mammon' remark is recorded in Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13.

Catholic 'economic' teaching is applicable to the contemporary global economy. It would also be applicable in the sort of economy we had when Ig and Og ganged up on Oog to steal his stick. We're against that sort of thing, by the way.

There's more, of course. A pretty good place to start is Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2401-2463.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Home Schooling, Religious and Moral Instruction, and American Culture

I'm one of those home schooling parents you hear about from time to time. Oddly enough, the ones I know aren't particularly outstanding for being poor, uneducated and easily led: and do not intentionally wallow in self-righteous ignorance.

But what do I know? I'm one of those home schooling parents you hear about.

Sorry: That's about as close to a rant as I'll allow myself.

Here's what set me off, in today's news:
"Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn't taken a friend's advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old's biology lessons.

"Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed Charles Darwin's theory.

" 'I thought she was going to have a coronary,' Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. 'She's like, "This is not true!" '

"Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children 'religious or moral instruction.'..."
(Associated Press)
There are days when I think the American habit of assuming that Catholics aren't Christians may not be an entirely bad thing.

Seriously: what sensible person would want to be thought of as having beliefs like Pat Robertson, Tony Alamo, or that wunderkind Baptist minister in Tennessee? The one who distributed that "Death Cookie" comic?

Don't Read the News: Study It

The Associated Press apparently came up with "for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's creation is exactly what they want" from "Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children 'religious or moral instruction.' "

Wow.

NOT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE DOLTS

My wife and I gave our children the option of being home schooled for grades 7-12. And yes, part of the reason was "to give their children 'religious or moral instruction.' "

But we're Catholics. For us "religious and moral instruction" means clueing our kids in on what the Church has taught for about two millennia now, and how God and the prophets worked with Israel's descendants.1 That's the religious part. The "moral instruction" includes telling them that snorting cocaine is a really stupid idea, and that obeying the law is a good idea.

"Religious and moral instruction" does not mean that we teach them that some dude who looks like Charlton Heston in the role of Moses made everything we can observe in 144 hours, a few thousand years back.

Bishop Ussher was a bishop: but not a Catholic one.

Let's put it this way: there's a patron saint of scientists. (October 25, 2009)

It's not that I don't think God could create all things in 6 days. He's God. It's just that there's a huge amount of evidence that He didn't. I might have decided to make a one-week project of creation: but I'm not God. And I'm not going to tell him that he can't have done something, because I don't like it.

I'm not all that upset with another bunch of Bible-thumpers marketing a work of speculative fiction as a science textbook. That sort of nonsense corrects itself it time, in my view. I am a bit upset that The Associated Press seems to believe that "religious and moral instruction" means "teaching the kids a bunch of nonsense that we want to believe is so."

But that is one of those dearly-cherished cultural assumptions, like the notion that faith and reason are utterly incompatible, that I don't see changing any time soon.

Related posts:
In the news:

1 It'd be possible to assume, from that sentence, that I think that the prophets are equivalent to God. I don't, of course. They were prophets: people sent by God to deliver messages and give instruction. As a rule, God worked through prophets. On a few occasions, though, he got more obviously involved. The burning bush, that run-in with Pharaoh's army, and the Mount Sinai for example (Exodus 14:24, Exodus 19-20, for starters)

Then there's that intriguing visible phenomenon, the column of cloud/fire, and Exodus 14:19-20:
"The angel of God, who had been leading Israel's camp, now moved and went around behind them. The column of cloud also, leaving the front, took up its place behind them, 2so that it came between the camp of the Egyptians and that of Israel. But the cloud now became dark, and thus the night passed without the rival camps coming any closer together all night long."
(Exodus 14:19-20)
Reading that part of the Bible, I think that in general Cecil B. DeMille's "Moses" underplayed the visible effects of God's intervention. But then, there was only so much you could do with special effects then - and DeMille may have decided that there was only so much that the audience would accept.

Friday, March 5, 2010

'Death Cookie' Comic: Seemed Like a Good Idea At the Time?

In today's news:
"Anti-Catholic Leaflet Stirs Holy War in Tennessee Town"
FOXNews (March 5, 2010)

"A Baptist pastor in Tennessee says he now regrets that his church distributed an anti-Catholic leaflet that a local Catholic priest decried as 'hate material.'

Pastor Jonathan Hatcher, who leads Conner Heights Baptist Church in Pigeon Forge, Tenn., has removed the inflammatory leaflet, 'The Death Cookie,' from his congregation. He says he will no longer distribute it.

'Looking back, I don't think it was the right tract to give out,' Hatcher told FoxNews.com. 'I have some others that wouldn't have been as offensive. But I will continue to spread the gospel - that's what I'm called by Christ to do. I’m still going to hand out tracts, but not "The Death Cookie." '

The illustrated leaflet, distributed since 1988 by California-based Chick Publications, features an ominous character with a snake around his neck who advises a man that he can control the world by establishing a false religion based upon worshipping a cookie. Upon taking the control of the cookie, the man becomes the 'papa' - a reference to the pope....
"
A sample from that (thought-provoking?) pamphlet/comic:


(Chick Publications, via FoxNews.com, used w/o permission)

I suppose I could rail on about how awful this makes me feel and how demonic those Baptists are, or how everybody in Tennessee is Satanic: except the Catholics, who are all victims of something.

Not gonna happen.

Actually, what Chick publications is doing is fairly mild, compared to what a professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, did in 2008:



That's a consecrated host with a nail through it, by the way. And my tax dollars at work, indirectly. Associate professor Paul Myers, who took the photo and put it online, is on the U. of M., Morris, payroll.

Since I'm a resident of Minnesota, a portion of what I pay in taxes goes to pay Paul Myers' salary, and that of the people who defend him. But that's another topic.

Since this is America, not India, what he did is protected by 'academic freedom,' as defined by some of the best and brightest (just ask them) in all the land. (More about India in "Jesus Christ, Beer, Tobacco, Idols and Indian Law" (February 22, 2010))

In Professor Myers' defense, he probably hasn't a clue about what he actually did. I think most Americans who aren't Catholics have no idea whatsoever as to what happens when the unleavened bread is consecrated.

The Secret of the Death Cookie

It's not a cookie, by the way: it's unleavened bread, prepared according to a recipe that was ancient when the first Caesar took over management of the Roman Republic. And it's no secret.

All too many Catholics, by now, may not really understand what's going on. The AmChurch has been doing a miserable job of teaching the young: another thing that's changing. There's a section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I recommend reading, if you're curious about the Host, Consecration, and Transubstantiation: The Sacrament of the Eucharist.

The link is to the Vatican's online Catechism of the Catholic Church, part of a website where you can read more of those "secret Vatican documents" that nobody's allowed to read - according to the more imaginative of the anti-Catholic crowd.

Be warned, though: the Vatican's website is just simply covered with Catholic cooties.

Pedophile Priests! Everybody KNOWS What Those Catholics Are Like!!!!

Yes. Some priests behaved badly. That was wrong. It wasn't right. The matter is being dealt with. It should have been dealt with earlier.

The pedophile priests weren't the first Catholics to do something bad, and they almost certainly won't be the last. We're human: individuals with free will, born from a fallen race.

Moving on.

'Everything I Don't Like is Satanic' and Other Quirks

'Those Catholics' and 'those people over there' in general can be upsetting to some folks. People who don't look exactly like the ones you grew up among, who don't talk exactly the same way, and who don't like the same sort of music that you do take getting used to.

Anybody who remembers the fifties and sixties - when rock music was 'Satanic' among the more self-assured "Christian" set - know how emotional people can get about something they don't like or understand. (More in "Emotions, the Frontal Cortex, The War on Terror, Anarchists, and the Illuminati," Another War-on-Terror Blog (December 23, 2008))

Maria Monk and Thomas Nast are history - but their heritage of ill-informed biased lives on. And no: I really do not think Baptists or Tennesseans have a monopoly on having kooks in their midst.

Aren't I Just a Little Upset?

I'd like to live in a world where people didn't make wild accusations, and where 'good Christians' didn't assume that everybody who isn't them is Satanic. While I'm fantasizing, I'd like to have a monthly income of about a million dollars, tax-free.

None of that is going to happen.

Of course I'm upset to learn about yet one more goofy bit of anti-Catholic bigotry. But it comes with the territory.

Besides, it was ignorant ranting like that "Death Cookie" comic that got me digging into the 'secrets' of the Catholic Church. And, after I found out who was really in charge, I signed up. Converted. (That story, part of it, is in "Firebase Earth" (April 5, 2009) )

Related posts:In the news:

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.