This post is an excerpt from the one I just finished: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Citing my Sources, the Bible, and All That" (May 31, 2010). The point about Catholics and the Bible is pretty important - and I figured it deserved a post of its own:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a pretty good guide for what the Catholic faith is about. Happily, there's an official English translation. Rather early in the book, there's this instruction about Catholics and the Bible:
" 'And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life.'109 Hence 'access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.'110
" 'Therefore, the "study of the sacred page" should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too—pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place—is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.'111
" 'The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn "the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,' by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." ' 112"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 131-133)
Why all those footnotes and links? The ones in that excerpt from the Catechism are in the online version — and help the faithful look up who said what, in which resource, and often when.
It's the same reason we have links to passages from the Bible.
Which practicing Catholics are "forcefully and specifically" exhorted to read.
"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so." That statement, or a paraphrase of it, has been attributed to:
"Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
"They are part of an evil religion which does not have the Holy Spirit.
"Pastor Art
"Source(s):
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/talk2apast…
"3 years ago
"30% 3 Votes
I'm familiar with the notion that Catholicism is
Evil
Anti-Bible
Anti-Christian
Evil, I tell you!
From the looks of it, this - ah, spirit-filled - view of Catholicism isn't limited to America. The same Q & A - coming at it from a different direction - starts with "Gelöste Frage" and shows the same "Best Answer:" plus readers' comments.
What's interesting to me are the comments on that (revelation?) by "Pastor Art" - many of them are in conversational English. Here are the ones at the top of the list. I've included the dates associated with the comments, although they may not be the date on which the comment was made:
"Debra M. Wishing Peace To All
"Mitglied seit:
"20.April 2006...
"...Update: We do read the Bible. We have for quite a while.
"Quelle(n):
"Darn! I guess I better go find someone who wants these 10 Bibles we have in my house.
"vor 3 Jahren""Beauty&B...
"Mitglied seit:
"16.Mai 2007...
"...Why can't you?
"Who says you can't?
"I am Catholic and I do by myself.""SpiritRoaming...
"Mitglied seit:
"04.September 2006...
"You need to stop getting your 'information' from the chick tracts, son.
"We are not forbidden to read the Bible, or anything else for that matter. Come join my 5 year Bible School- see how much we read the Bible.
"Go to a Mass, every single day of the week, and hear at least 3 Bible readings a day."
"Pastor art...that title is a joke - you are spreading lies and are not of Christ at all.""Millie by Millie
"Mitglied seit:
"10.April 2007...
"...Catholics are not encourage to read the Bible, but is not forbidden either. The Watchtower Society expressly forbids to the Jehovah Witnesses to read the Bible by themselves, UNLESS the Jehovah Witnesses use the publications of the Watchtower Society as the only possible interpretation of what they read."
(Yahoo!® Answers)
Sometimes What You Hear About 'Those Catholics' is True - Sort of
I'd have to check on this, but I think that SpiritRoaming made a factual error. There have been times, during the almost-2,000 years that the Catholic Church has been around, when some books were "forbidden." "Prohibited" would probably be a better translation of "index librorum prohibitorum."
You'll find quite a few statements about the 'list of forbidden books' online. Some of them are - 'imaginative' would be a nice way to put it.
Oddly enough, the index of prohibited books actually exists. Or existed.
There's a reference to the index librorum prohibitorum on page 69 of an issue of Acta Sanctae Sedis 1897-98. That's on the Vatican.va website, by the way. Acta Sanctae Sedis is:
"A Roman monthly publication containing the principal public documents issued by the Pope, directly or through the Roman Congregations. It was begun in 1865, under the title of 'Acta Sanctæ Sedis in compendium redacta etc.', and was declared, 23 May, 1904, an organ of the Holy See to the extent that all documents printed in it are 'authentic and official'."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, via New Advent)
Since I couldn't find anything more recent - or in English - about the i. l. p., I picked up the phone and had a short talk about it with a local Catholic deacon. I realize that he isn't even close to being the highest authority in the Catholic Church: but I know him personally, and have learned that what he knows is verifiable - and that he knows what he doesn't know.
About the index librorum prohibitorum: it's a sort of generic term for a Catholic 'black list' of publications that contain (serious) doctrinal errors. Think of them as intellectual land mines. Some folks have the sort of training that lets them disarm mines without blowing themselves up. Others - not so much.
Censorship is Always Bad - Right?
I'm an American, with the usual emotional responses to words like "censorship." On the other hand, I can see reasons for restricting access to some knowledge: like what's the best way to break into the Pentagon's computer network; or the codes to your bank account. In general, though, I think letting people get at information - accurate information - is a good idea.
That said, I can understand why a 'black list' should exist. I'm also a cantankerous, nit-picking old intellectual (in one sense of the word) who insists that ideas make sense - and I made it through American academia with my faith intact. I could probably handle one of those 'forbidden' books. Just the same, I'd like to know that it was blacklisted, while evaluating it.
That's all pretty negative stuff. Much more to the point, the Catholic Church has 'white lists' - books that are certified to be free of doctrinal error, at least. Particularly in older Catholic publications, you'll see "imprimatur" or "nihil obstat" near the front of the book. The Church doesn't give out certification like that all that much now - there's a huge volume of stuff being published, for one thing.
That was Then
But the 'index of forbidden books?' I haven't run into it, apart from historical references - and it's not something that's used, as far as I've experienced, in the Catholic Church in America.
Which isn't to say that there haven't been parishes where, for a time, some reading was restricted. I don't think that's necessarily a good idea - but that's another topic. (January 27, 2009)
If Catholics aren't Supposed to Read the Bible, How Come We're Told to Read the Bible?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a pretty good guide for what the Catholic faith is about. Happily, there's an official English translation. Rather early in the book, there's this instruction about Catholics and the Bible:
" 'And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life.'109 Hence 'access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.'110
" 'Therefore, the "study of the sacred page" should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too—pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place—is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.'111
" 'The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn "the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,' by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." ' 112"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 131-133)
Why all those footnotes and links? The ones in that excerpt from the Catechism are in the online version - and help the faithful look up who said what, in which resource, and often when.
It's the same reason we have links to passages from the Bible.
Which practicing Catholics are "forcefully and specifically" exhorted to read.
But what would I know? I'm one of those Catholics, and I'm just quoting the official English translation of our Catechism.
I could be lying through my teeth. I know that I'm not - but you wouldn't know that. Unless you follow the links, and see what my sources are.
Which is why I cite my sources - with links, wherever possible.
Of course, the Catechism could be some kind of plot to fool the gullible Catholic laity into thinking we're supposed to read the Bible, when we're not - but I think that's about as likely as the the idea that shape-shifting space-alien lizard people are ruling the world.
About the Holy Spirit
The Catechism has a few words - a chapter-full - to say about the Holy Spirit: I Believe in the Holy Spirit. 'Nuff said.
1 "Vox populi, vox dei," is a Latin phrase attributed to Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, although it looks like he's one of the folks who argued against "voice of the people - voice of God."
In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit!
Every time we make the Sign of the Cross, we acknowledge the central mystery of the Christian faith: that our God is not one but three -- three Divine Persons in one God. It is the one statement that separates us from all of the other religions in the world, and it is the foundation for everything else that we profess and believe as Catholics.
But the teaching of the Trinity really explains much more than mere metaphysical propositions. It tells us about the inner life of God -- the intimate love and communion that is constantly flowing between the Father, Son, and Spirit. God is far from an isolated being or uninvolved deity. His very existence has to do with relationships.
If it is God's nature to share Himself, and if we are created in His image and likeness, it follows that we too are meant to share our lives with one another. As Paul reminds us, we are the body of Christ, and a body is not a single part but, of many parts.
We were made to be in communion with one another, joining together to build the Kingdom and to proclaim the Gospel to all of creation. It's a tall order, and anyone who has tried to do it alone knows that it just doesn't work!
But the Trinity is more than just a model for togetherness: It also gives us the power to live it! We really can love one another as fully as Jesus loves us -- if we draw from the love of God that has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Jesus promises that as we deepen our relationship with one another, our lives will start to reflect the very life of the Trinity -- and that's how we can experience the joy we are meant to know as Christians!
"Holy Spirit, draw us all into the love that you share with the Father and the Son! Stir up your gifts within us, so that we may pour out that same Love on one another!" Amen!
'Thank you' to Deacon Kaas, for letting me post his reflection here.More:
Sunday is supposed to be "a time for reflection, silence, cultivation of the mind, and meditation which furthers the growth of the Christian interior life." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2186)
Last night I dozed off downstairs, resulting in an interrupted night's sleep. Today it's warm, overcast - and the droning of fans is doing nothing to help me stay alert.
I may take a nap, have a cup or two of coffee, or just walk around a little. Maybe a combination of the three.
If this picture looks familiar, you probably follow the Catholic News Agency, or this blog. I posted the frame from a CNA video on Wednesday of this week:
(from the Maywood, California, Police Department and Jeff Allen (Flickr); via catholicnewsagency, used w/o permission)
Looks like the folks in Maywood, California, still don't know why their Catholic school was vandalized. As EWTN News quoted the parish priest-
" 'We still do not know the motivation for this attack of hate. We do not understand the motivations of such people. Maybe they wanted to take part in a satanic ritual. Maybe they wanted to leave a message. Maybe they wanted to offend what is most sacred to us.' "
(EWTN News)
Or maybe 'all of the above.' We just don't know.
From some points of view, it looks like the St. Rose of Lima Parish 'got what they deserved.' They were helping 'those people:' undocumented immigrants.
Law, Loyalty, and Personal Reminiscence
Before someone has a stroke, read this: I'm an American citizen. I think it's a good idea to obey the national laws - providing that I'm not in a Thomas à Becket situation. When it's there's a conflict between secular law and God's law - the decision is not easy. Actually, it is: for anybody who has some notion of just how powerful God is. But it's not comfortable.
That said, obeying the letter of the law is prudent.
I'm an American: a Euro-American. My ancestors came to this country because they thought they'd be better off here. Although I'm related by marriage to the Lakota people, I tend to be sympathetic to those who were born elsewhere, but want to live here. Even if they don't look quite like me.
Ah, but what about the law! Well, if I remember my family history correctly: some of my relatives couldn't get into the United States legally. They could, however, get into Canada.
Then, having established Canadian residency, they came south. Technically, they didn't (quite) break any laws. Arguably, though, they violated the spirit of the American laws of the time.
And yet, I have no intention of disowning them.
The Burned Crucifix of St. Rose of Lima in Maywood
Back to that bit of self-expression or whatever in Maywood, and the St. Rose of Lima parish:
"The faithful of Saint Rose of Lima Church in Maywood, Calif., will hold a day of prayer and reparation after their church was attacked by vandals on May 24. Two unidentified assailants ransacked the school kitchen and desecrated a cross and an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in an attack that has been described by local police as a 'hate crime.'
"Fr. David Velásquez, pastor of St. Rose of Lima, a parish with many Latino immigrants, said they are not sure if they will restore the image of the Virgin that was stabbed in various parts of the body and face. They are also unsure whether or not they will re-build the crucifix that was turned upside down and burnt before it was broken.
" 'It is safer to leave the church as it is, as a reminder of the attack and as a sign that together we are the body of Christ. Even under attack or hate, we will not give up in our mission to defend our faith and our community,' said the priest...."
"...Accustomed to dealing with violence, Fr Velásquez said he has been 'shot at, the rectory windows have been broken, my license has been taken off me, I have been threatened.' He added that the violence has increased since 2006, when Maywood was declared a 'sanctuary city' for undocumented immigrants.
"Mexican media outlets report that the Church in this area has made many enemies since it began taking an active role in the defense of the immigrant community."
Right now, I don't know enough about what St. Rose of Lima parish is doing to say whether or not they're doing the right thing. I do think that 'those people over there' who are undocumented immigrants/illegal aliens/dirty foreigners/whatever are - people. They've got the same basic needs that I do: and aren't in the position I'm in.
Helping Those in Need
Helping those in need isn't the worst thing that a church could do.
'But they broke the law.' Okay: that's a fact, and it needs to be considered.
On the other hand, that knife in the eye of a picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe doesn't inspire me with patriotic zeal to drive the foreigners from our American midst. Particularly since, not too many generations back: my ancestors were 'those people.'
Maybe the St. Rose of Lima parish was wrong to help the poor who were living among them. But I don't think that stabbing a picture of Mary, burning a crucifix, and trashing a school was a reasonable response.
And I'm not convinced that it was wrong to help 'those people.'
A Universal Church
One aspect of the Catholic Church that hasn't, I think, endeared itself to some Americans is that we really are a universal church. We're American, Mexican, French, Italian, Chinese, Japanese - and we're all Catholic. It's not that national identity isn't important. As a Catholic, I'm required to be a good citizen - wherever I am. (September 24, 2008)
The St. Rose of Lima parish has been helping some of America's very poor residents. These residents are not, apparently, here legally. But I'm not inclined to think that not having the correct government papers is a terribly serious a crime.
Meanwhile, take note: Parishioners of St. Rose of Lima in Maywood, when attacked, prayed. I think other Catholics could profit by studying their example.
At least up to a few years ago, one of the reasons given for why home schooling was bad for kids was that they missed out on "socialization." You know: the uplifting experience of being snubbed, bullied - and sometimes maimed.
"Pain is the operative word in the unfortunate story of 14-year-old David Gibbons. It is a pain he has endured both physically and emotionally after being punched in the groin by another student as he changed classes at Crosby Ironton High School.
" 'One o'clock in the morning he woke me up and told me he was in excruciating pain,' recalls Christy Gibbons, David's mom. Not long after, David was in surgery at St. Joseph's Hospital in Brainerd having his right testicle removed.
" 'This may be called a game, but it's not a game. It's dangerous and it needs to stop,' said Christy.
"It's a notion seconded by Dr. Scott Wheeler, a Brainerd urologist.
" 'It's just gotten way out of control,' said Wheeler, who now performs 'three to four surgeries a year' on boys with ruptured testicles and other complications of being groin punched - with dozens more coming in with less severe injuries. 'It's high school, junior high, elementary school,' said Wheeler.
"Dubbed 'sack tapping' by some students, the practice is now featured in dozens of homemade videos on YouTube...."
Is it any wonder that I don't feel guilty, depriving my kids of "socialization?"
Tomorrow is the start of Memorial Day weekend: an American holiday that's the unofficial start of summer. It's a weekend for outdoor grilling, enjoying that first weekend at the lake, checking out flea markets, and goofing off.
It's about something else, too - I'll get to that.
America has changed - a lot - in the half-century or so that I've been paying attention. That's nothing new. Like the fellow said, "Nothing endures but change." (Heraclitus, 540 BC - 480 BC)
For example, take this poem, called "Memorial Day." It was written about a century back. If you're an American, and were born after about 1970, you may never have read anything like this. Prepare for a shock:
Memorial Day
"Dulce et decorum est"
The bugle echoes shrill and sweet, But not of war it sings to-day. The road is rhythmic with the feet Of men-at-arms who come to pray.
The roses blossom white and red On tombs where weary soldiers lie; Flags wave above the honored dead And martial music cleaves the sky.
Above their wreath-strewn graves we kneel, They kept the faith and fought the fight. Through flying lead and crimson steel They plunged for Freedom and the Right.
May we, their grateful children, learn Their strength, who lie beneath this sod, Who went through fire and death to earn At last the accolade of God.
In shining rank on rank arrayed They march, the legions of the Lord; He is their Captain unafraid, The Prince of Peace . . . Who brought a sword. (from "Trees and Other Poems," by Joyce Kilmer [Alfred Joyce Kilmer, American (New Jersey & New York) Poet -- 1886-1918.], via EWTN)
That's definitely not the sort of thing that's considered 'sweet and honorable' these days. Not that being 'honorable' is something that proper people discuss in public. (One of my daughters had a head start in a college class: thanks to my discussion of the subject, she was the only one who had heard about the pre-Renaissance European concept of "honor.") I'm getting off-topic.
There's nothing particularly Catholic about America's Memorial Day holiday.
But I don't see why a practicing Catholic couldn't kick back and relax - or maybe even remember the ones who sacrificed so that we can kick back and relax. I've written about Memorial Day elsewhere:
"...A Wisconsin Army veteran -- who faced eviction this week for flying the American flag -- will now be allowed to keep the flag up for as long as he wants.
"Under mounting nationwide protest, Charlie Price, 28, of Oshkosh, Wis., and officials at Midwest Realty Management struck a 'mutual agreement' that allows the veteran to continue displaying the patriotic symbol, according to a statement posted on the company's website on Thursday.
"Price and his wife, Dawn, 27, were previously told they had to remove the flag -- which hangs in a window inside the couple's apartment -- by Saturday or face eviction due to a company policy that bans the display of flags, banners and political or religious materials. ..."
I'm glad that Charlie Price can keep his flag in place. I can - sort of - see the company's point of view. They're just following the dominant culture's lead, putting 'divisive' things like religious beliefs where they belong (by the culture's standards): behind closed doors.
So far, so good. What disturbs me is some of the (support?) Mr. Price got:
"...'It means the world to me,' Price told FoxNews.com. 'The way it happened wasn't the right way because the staff members were getting threatened and we didn't want any violence out of this, but I'm glad we did come to a compromise.'
"Randy Rich, the apartment complex's property manager, told FoxNews.com that Midwest Realty Management received nearly 4,000 e-mails and thousands of phone calls in connection to the controversy.
" 'A few were questioning our policies and were civil in nature,' Rich wrote in an e-mail. 'However, most were filled with profanity and demeaning statements. Hundreds contained threats to our property, our employees and their families.
"Rich said a Facebook page created by Dawn Price contained personal information of some employees at the apartment complex that led to harassing messages. The company has asked her to remove that information since it 'has no bearing on this situation or her goal of changing the current flag legislation,' Rich's e-mail continued...."
With friends like that, you don't need enemies.
I'm not happy when someone expresses the hope that a Cardinal die a long and painful death. (May 27, 2010) I don't think vomiting hate on a rental company's staff is a good idea, either. At the very least, verbal attacks like that associate hate and malice with the ideas they're (presumably) defending.
That is - not - a - good - idea.
Sure, spitting on one of 'those people' or screaming insults may get you points in your little circle of acquaintances. But I doubt very much that it's going to make other folks take your ideas seriously.
Being Right, Acting Right
Decades ago, a group of well-intentioned (I trust) college students earned the disdain of the folks the were trying to "save." At the time, I made the crack that they went around in groups of three: two to hold the subject down, the third to shove a Bible down his or her throat. Sideways.
That's an exaggeration. They didn't use force. On the other hand, there wasn't much short of running away that would keep you from being 'witnessed' at. I had the impression that they operated on a quota system.
I suppose their hard-sell tactics may have won over a few of their fellow-students. But I don't think it was worth the way they associated Christianity with the sort of salesman who won't let you go until you buy something.
Then there are the folks who claim that if you follow Jesus, you'll get rich quick and have a big expensive house, wife, and car. I've mentioned the prosperity gospel before. Catholic versions of the same thing exist: like the notion that if you bury some saint's statue on your property it'll sell for a higher price.
No wonder some Americans assume that Christianity is some sort of spiritual snake oil.
Being "right" isn't enough. If you say, "I hope you die" to someone who doesn't agree with you: that person may understand that you think you're right. But seriously - if someone said that to you, would you be motivated to adopt the ideas of that person? No matter how much sense they might make, if presented reasonably?
"A Bishop who is a real shepherd, i.e., one who corrects and disciplines as well as teaches and protects. One could say Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona, is a MANLY Bishop (not macho, but strong --- FORZA, as we would say in Italian). No one relishes impo[s]ing penal sanctions on anyone, least of all on a nun, but at the same time, to ignore a nun's participation in abortion would have been tantamount to gross spiritual negligence if not indirect participation in evil (through silence).
"Sister McBride should know well Catholic morality is adamant: the ends never justifies the means. Evil may NEVER be directly intended...."
There are bishops and cardinals who know what Catholic teachings are, and give a rip about them. It's not easy, being Catholic when the local culture hates what we stand for: Kudos to Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona.
When I write about something that the Catholic Church teaches, I don't expect you to take my word for it. I'm a Catholic layman, living in a small central Minnesota town.
What I think is important - to me and my family. And, arguably, it's important as eyewitness testimony to several decades of American history.
Because I'm picky about sorting out facts, assumptions, and flights of fancy: I'm not likely to deliberately misrepresent information. But - how would you know that? And how could either of us tell whether what I say the Church says really is a plausible paraphrase?
That's why I cite "chapter and verse" from an official, recognized, source: most often the Bible or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Although I quote individual priests and bishops - I hope I don't give the impression that 'the Church believes this because Pastor Bob says so.' That's 'Father Bob:' My Protestant roots are showing.
Here's one reason why I don't take what one person - even a priest - says as necessarily being "Gospel truth:"
"Rape" is an emotionally-charged word. American conservatives and liberals agree that "rape" is wrong - although at times they disagree on what the term means. (May 8, 2010)
"Sex" is an emotion-filled word, too. People - if they're anywhere near healthy - have strong feelings about sex after they hit puberty. Considering how important sex is, and how deeply woven into the human experience it is, it might be a surprise that the Catholic Church's recognition of the importance of sex is criticized.
After all, since somewhere in the sixties here in America, talking about sex was, like, you know: groovy.
Sex and the Catholic Church
First, why is the Catholic Church so interested in sex?
"Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2332)
So far, so good: Sex is important, and it's part of the human experience. Here's where the Catholic Church starts moving away from the latest now-and-wow intellectual fashions. Or, as I see it, remaining true to what's real - no matter what the local culture's leaders preferences are.
"Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: 'Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.'121 All human generations proceed from this union.122" (2335)
I think at least part of what's 'wrong' with Catholic teaching about sex is our insistence that sex isn't just some sort of biological play-toy for us. (2360 and following)
Rape and Catholic Teaching
As usual, the Catechism doesn't just say that we shouldn't rape other people: it explains why it's a bad idea
"Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them." (2356)
Oh, the Conservative Horror of It All!
Okay: Catholic teaching claims that rape is bad, but that marriage is good: and so is sex, provided it is part of a marriage between a man and a woman. 'Obviously' the Catholic Church is a hide-bound conservative outfit run by a lot of authoritarian men. I've written about this before. (November 3, 2008, or May 12, 2010, for starters)
Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet: 'Heartless,' or Something
There was a time when one of the first items of business for a warlord who had killed another warlord and taken over his territory was to hunt down and kill all known relatives of the previous administration. It made sense: A living relative of the old ruler could either organize a revolt, or be the figurehead for a revolt. Eliminate the old ruler's family, and the new ruler would have one less concern on his mind.
It wasn't limited to the ruling class: folks in my ancestors' end of society would, in some circumstances, have settled scores by going after relatives of an offending party. Yours, too, in all probability. That practice is remembered in words like feud and vendetta.
We don't do that sort of thing, all that much, these days. But when I was growing up, I'd still hear phrases like 'there's bad blood there.' There's a very real tendency to feel like going after everyone related to a person who has committed an offense.
'Whaddaya Mean, We Can't Kill that Bastard's Kid?
A Canadian Cardinal is in hot water, because he says that a child shouldn't be killed for a crime that the child's father committed. He's right by the way:
"Cardinal Marc Ouellet is facing heated criticism in Canada for reiterating Catholic teaching that abortion is wrong even in cases where the mother was raped. In response to the scathing remarks from critics, a Church spokesman pointed out that those conceived in rape are also fully human.
"Over the weekend Cardinal Ouellet addressed an audience of about 200 people, applauding the Harper government for its decision not to fund abortions in the developing world, the Canadian Press reports.
"He mentioned abortion in the case where the baby was conceived in rape, asking 'Why should we push a woman who has been the victim of a crime to commit one of her own?'..." (EWTN News)
An answer, of course, is that a woman may legally kill her children, provided that the has the job done before they reach a particular age, in Canada: and quite a few other 'advanced' countries.
Attitudes toward this legal killing are changing. Particularly, I think, as more young adults are realizing what Mom did to their brothers and sisters. I'm sympathetic with 'Mom,' by the way: particularly when she had her kids offed to please her husband/boyfriend/significant other - or maybe it was some other man who didn't want an inconvenient baby around.
Unless things have changed a great deal, the best and brightest will point out how heartless and cruel the Cardinal is: forcing a woman to not kill her baby. That's not the way the idea will be expressed, of course. It'll be more about her the psychological repercussions of traumatizing events.
The Cardinal, Defying the Rulers of This World, and 'I Hope You Die'
There's already been a response from Canada's more 'intelligent' quarter:
"...In response to the cardinal's comments, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Josée Verner said the Canadian government's decision was not made 'to go get congratulations from the cardinal.'
'I don't want to be disrespectful towards him, but this wasn't our objective,' she continued, describing herself as pro-choice.
According to the Canadian Press, she said Cardinal Ouellet's remarks were 'unacceptable.'
In what was described as a 'particularly strident reaction,' Montreal La Presse columnist Patrick Lagace compared the Catholic prelate to an Iranian imam who reportedly said scantily clad women were to blame for natural disasters.
'Cardinal Ouellet will die someday. I hope he dies from a long and painful illness. . . Yes, the paragraph I've just written is vicious. But Marc Ouellet is an extremist. And in the debate against religious extremists, every shot is fair game.'..." (EWTN News)
I'm not at all surprised: "I hope you die" is a fairly common response, when those whose beliefs are shaped by today's Western culture learn that someone doesn't think they're correct. (See excerpt from " 'Cafeteria Catholics' and a Diverse Church" (June 8, 2009).)
I'm glad to read that Cardinal Ouellet prefers allegiance to Jesus of Nazareth, over the immediate rewards of 'going with the flow' of Western culture. I tend to hear, in statements like "I hope he dies from a long and painful illness," the frustration of people who realize that they're no longer in control - and that it's only a matter of time before their regime falls.
I'm not talking about someone overthrowing the Canadian government. In strictly secular terms, I've seen this sort of thing before:
Wacky anti-communists ranting about 'facts' that only they could see
Dedicated traditionalists insisting that Moses wanted everybody to dress the way they did in America, around 1910
Music-lovers(?) who insisted that the Bible says rock 'n roll is evil
Today, the details are different: but I see the same emotion-charged threats and claims that 'I'm right and everyone who doesn't agree should die!'
Last time I saw this, we got 'the sixties.' I don't know what folks will call the next period, but there is change. Not coming. Change is here.
Who would I rather side with? The Cardinal, or the 'I hope you die' crowd? Neither, actually. But I have decided that, all things considered, I'd rather be on the side that the Cardinal is supporting. Carrying the 'mark of this world' has some huge short-term payoffs: but the long-term outlook is not good. (671)
Finally I pray that folks who are convinced that Catholic teaching is icky, and who 'really believe' that the culture of death is right, will learn what's really going on, and change their minds.
One of the challenges - and opportunities - for a practicing Catholic living in America involves what we're taught about hate. I'll get into more detail a little later in this post, but the short-short version of Catholic teaching on hate is that we're not supposed to hate people. Any people. Any group of people.
You've probably run into someone who insists that he or she is Catholic, and is a sort of poster child for some sort of hatred. What can I say? Some people are jerks, and some jerks are Catholic. And we all can use prayer. More of that later, too.
Since Catholics who understand and practice their faith are neither part of America's dominant culture, nor inclined to support all of its policies, it's easy for us to feel a bit persecuted. Sometimes, I think, with some reason.
But that's no excuse for hating people. At all.
Isn't Religion All About Being Angry?
In my adolescence, I came up with "First Church of Holy Hate," to describe what I was hearing on the 'good Christian' radio programs, and from other sources. That was the sixties, and some of the older generation were going through a very rough time. (May 25, 2010)
But, despite the impression some Christians give, Christianity isn't all about hating people. Yes, you'll run into the 'good Christian' who explains why the Bible is against everything he doesn't like. But that joker isn't necessarily a 'typical' Christian leader. Despite what you'll read and hear in the more 'sophisticated' American enclaves. Actually, it's hard for me to see any of the world's major religions as particularly hate-filled.
Try to imagine the Dalai Lama throwing a Molotov cocktail, and you'll see what I mean. On the other hand, maybe using the Dalai Lama as an example isn't a good idea. As I wrote in another post:
"...I don't know it this is still the case, but back in the day, people who were convinced that religion was bad and that religious beliefs made people do bad things - also thought the Dalai Lama was a nice guy.
"But that wasn't a contradiction, since the Dalai Lama wasn't religious.
Don't let that 'open-minded' approach fool you. I'm not one of those well-meaning folks who think that all religions are pretty much the same. But I try not to be the sort of chauvinist who says, in effect, "I'm right, and anybody who doesn't agree with me is a doo-doo head." (May 16, 2010)
What's Wrong With Being Angry?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn't discuss hate all that much: but there's quite a bit about what fuels hate: anger.
"...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)
Anger and Decisions to Hate, Decisions to Love
Keep reading the Catechism, and other Catholic works, and you'll learn that anger, by itself, isn't good. It isn't bad, either, by itself. What's good or bad is what we decide to do about the anger. Hate isn't necessarily bad, either - but that'll take a bit more explaining.
The seven capital sins, by the way, are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1866) "Wrath" is what's often called "anger:" and those two words don't mean quite the same thing.
I'm getting off-topic.
This is Not a Hate Crime
(from PZ Myers, Pharyngula (July 24, 2008), used w/o permission)
This photo is an example of academic freedom and self-expression, as practiced by an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, a few years ago. Some Catholics here in Minnesota raised a modest fuss about the gentleman's decision to drive a nail through a consecrated Host; throw it, along with a pages ripped from the Quran and an atheist's book, in the trash; photograph the lot; and post the photo, along with an explanation for his inquiring, open-minded action.
The University of Minnesota, Morris, was nice enough to remove some of their website's links to this bit of self-expression, but explained that the sacrilege was perfectly okay. The assistant professor, you see, has "academic freedom:" which includes the right to do outrageous things like that, without experiencing consequences. While my tax dollars help pay his salary.
I am not happy about that.
The academician's act certainly was not a hate crime, in the American sense of the word.
Still, it was a horrific act of sacrilege.
In fairness, I rather doubt that the learned associate professor realized quite what he was doing. Non-Catholics in this country may have a vague impression that Catholics believe in a 'magic cracker,' as one wit put it: but probably know little if anything about the Real Presence. Even a distressing number of Catholics, at least here in America, are clueless as to what - and who - a consecrated Host is. (Catechism, 1378, 1379) I hope the fellow who pushed a nail through that Host didn't know what he was doing.
This Might be a Hate Crime
(from the Maywood, California, Police Department and Jeff Allen (Flickr); via catholicnewsagency, used w/o permission)
That's a frame taken from a Catholic News Agency's video about a particularly nasty bit of vandalism done at a Catholic school associated with this church:
(from the Maywood, California, Police Department and Jeff Allen (Flickr); via catholicnewsagency, used w/o permission)
St. Rose of Lima, Maywood, California
At least two people broke into the school, wrote "666" as a way, I presume, of expressing their feelings, and stuck a cross - upside down - in a stove. I don't think that was very nice.
Maywood Vandalism: Nothing New Here
I'm not, however, all that surprised that the crime was committed. Disgusted, revolted, angry, almost nauseated: yes. Surprised, no. The attitude toward 'those Catholics' is, in several American subcultures, bitterly negative at best. It's hard to shake the impression that many Americans, from the distributors of that "Death Cookie" comic to the editors of The New York Times, see the Catholic Church in much the same way that American organizations like the KKK did, back in the 'good old days.'
And, no: I do not see any evidence that the Klan is involved with this vandalism. I do, however, think its quite likely that a 'klannish' sort of festering hatred is involved in the motive.
Oh, Come On: How Bad Can It Be?
I first learned about the Maywood Catholic school incident through cnalive, the Catholic News Agency's Twitter account. Here are a couple more frames from a Catholic News Agency video, and the video itself:
(from the Maywood, California, Police Department and Jeff Allen (Flickr); via catholicnewsagency, used w/o permission)
(The CNA video has been reduced in size to fit this blog's format. If it doesn't display properly, you could follow the link to the YouTube source.)
"In an apparent hate crime, vandals broke into the kitchen of St. Rose of Lima Catholic School in Maywood, Calif. desecrating an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe and a cross and spilling foodstuffs everywhere."
(catholicnewsagency, YouTube)
St. Rose of Lima is a "bilingual community," according to the Catholic News Agency video: which raises the possibility that hatred toward Catholics and Catholicism wasn't the only - or even the primary - motive.
Whatever the motive: How bad can it be? Quite bad.
The good news is that nobody was hurt or killed. For that we should all be grateful.
How People Respond to a Hateful Act
I've got very strong feelings about what happened at the Maywood Catholic school. But I've learned that reason is a more reliable tool than emotion, when it comes to evaluating facts. If this post seems cold, or uncaring: maybe it's because I want to stick to what's real: and giving in to an emotional flood wouldn't help me achieve that goal.
Reader comments following one article, "Los Angeles Catholic school vandalized, religious items desecrated," Catholic News Agency (May 25, 2010), display an - interesting - range of attitudes. As usual in cases like this, they were displayed in reverse chronological order, withthe most recent comment on top:
"Subscriber comments:
"Published by: Hera
"Kenya 05/26/2010 09:26 AM EST
"The US government & the EU & are so PROMPT to attack & condemn the laws of countries when Homosexuals are incacerated[!]or face a death sentence. But they have NOTHING to say whatsoever in the desecration of a Christian Churh.[!]And BBC who is alwyas [!] at the forefront at dennouncing the homosexual 'persecution' as a priority news item NEVER bring up this persecution of the Church when it happens in the 'free & rights based' America but never tires to do so in Muslim countries as though it is OK for Americans & not so for Muslims. Yet,ironically many in the Obama administration claimed to be Christian during their campaigns."
"Published by: Darla Lucas
"Springdale, AR 72764 05/26/2010 09:18 AM EST
"In circumstances where the hatred is so obvious, there is nothing more powerful than prayer.
"Published by: GerryL
"Land O Lakes, FL 05/25/2010 11:23 PM EST
"Lord, forgive them for they do not know what they do.
"Published by: Lynn
"So. Illinois 05/25/2010 10:03 PM EST
"The above commenter is truly perceptive and a discerner of spirits. We must pray to appease Our Lord & Lady concerning this evil attack. I have a newspaper clipping of a similar IL. vandalism where the boys spraypainted Our Lady of Grace's face with a Swaztika [!] symbol. One boy has repented of his actions and made some type of reparation. Praise God."
"Published by: Tim Henning
"Pasadena, CA, USA 05/25/2010 08:09 PM EST
"It is a sad day when people behave so much worse than any animal. This is a case of extreme selfishness, immorality and cowardice--the kind of act that resembles terrorism. We should reflect on what happened to our society that we could have such things happen."
"Published by: Nate
"Minnesota 05/25/2010 08:07 PM EST
"The only way one will not see any of the 'mainstream media condemning this' is if one refuses to pay attention to the mainstream media; the L.A. Times reported on this. The ideology of advocating for the oppressed and the poor (the ideology of the ACLU) is the ideology of Christ. Accusing 'liberal organizations' of tyranny and of being enemies of 'Our Lord and his Catholic Church' does nothing to bring about reconciliation. Please refuse to engage in the polarizing rhetoric of hate, and instead engage in the life affirming rhetoric of peace, love and justice."
"Published by: Nate
Minnesota 05/25/2010 07:20 PM EST
Francis, let's not respond to hate with more hate. This vandalism is deplorable. Why do you feel the need to label and grumble against organizations and people that are utterly blameless in this crime. Creating false dichotomies only escalates hatefulness and division. Let us work toward reconciliation, peace and unity through charity and humility."
"Published by: Francis
"Wareham Ma 05/25/2010 04:24 PM EST
"You won't see any of the leftwing, marxist, masonic and liberal organizations and people like the ACLU, the 'Southern Poverty law center', the ADL or the mainstream media condemning this. Our Lord and his Catholic Church are fair game to these people because Our Lord and his One True Church are considered the enemy and stand in the way of the people that I mentioned above from bringing their ideology and tyranny to the masses."
(CNA)
I sympathize - a little - with Francis. There have been times when America's old-school news media decided that a particular bit of news wasn't "fit to print" - perhaps because they didn't have room in the paper, or perhaps because they couldn't imagine that anyone would, for example, really burn down a construction project in the name of conservation.
That doesn't happen very often, though: not now, anyway. That's why I always check before claiming that journalism's old guard has suppressed a story. Generally, I find some sort of coverage: although sometimes off in a specialized department.
That's yet again another topic.
The point is, Francis failed to notice the CBS and other articles on the Maywood vandalism - and also made some fairly wild charges about organizations that have no apparent connection with what happened in Maywood. I suppose the same charge could be leveled at me, for introducing the KKK. But note: I was careful to use the Klan as an example, not as an active agent in this week's crime.
The bottom line is that assumptions are assumptions: and it's not a good idea to present them as facts, unless you've done your research.
I'd have more sympathy for Nate, if my background didn't encourage me to see phrases like "polarizing rhetoric of hate" as ways to describe any statement that is not supportive of the day's politically correct view. Nate has a point though: it's best to restrict confrontations to topics that really matter. At least, I hope that's what he meant.
"Reconciliation" sounds nice, and so does "life affirming rhetoric of peace, love and justice." The latter reminds me of the groovy days of my youth. I've also lived in a subculture where phrases like that mean, "sit down and shut up if you don't agree with us." But then, Nate is convinced that the ideology of Christ is the ideology of the ACLU - which sounds an awful lot like the old "Jesus is an American" sentiment of the wacky right.
Oh, well.
Back to Anger
As I wrote before, anger isn't good, and it isn't bad. That's not my opinion, by the way:
"The term 'passions' refers to the affections or the feelings. By his emotions man intuits the good and suspects evil.
"The principal passions are love and hatred, desire and fear, joy, sadness, and anger.
"In the passions, as movements of the sensitive appetite, there is neither moral good nor evil. But insofar as they engage reason and will, there is moral good or evil in them.
"Emotions and feelings can be taken up in the virtues or perverted by the vices.
"The perfection of the moral good consists in man's being moved to the good not only by his will but also by his 'heart.' "
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1771-1775)
So, am I angry? Yes, I am angry that someone decided to trash a school - and I'm particularly angry about what was done with the cross, and that stab in the eye of a picture.
Sure: 'it's just a picture.' But let's say that, instead of a picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe, it was a photo of a prominent figure like Martin Luther King. A picture of a person isn't 'just a picture.' It is a representation, a symbol, of that person. Hurting the picture does no direct harm to the person: but it is a powerful symbol of the intent or desire to hurt the person.
I don't know what the point of stabbing her right eye was, but I recognize that quite a few non-Catholics, and some Catholics, don't understand Mary. ("Our Lady of Guadalupe: Empress of the Americas" (August 11, 2009))
How Do I Really Feel About the Maywood Vandalism?
If I let go, I'll be gut-wrenching furious about what vandals did in that Catholic school. That wouldn't do me any good, and would serve no useful purpose.
I'm not trying to understand what sort of warped motive led people to commit those acts. Right now, that would help feed a rage that - again - would serve no useful purpose.
I do intend, as soon as I wrap up this post, to pray for whoever committed these acts. Not pray that they burn in everlasting fire! That kind of trouble I do not need. Like Matthew wrote:
" 'Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you...'...."
(Matthew 7:1-2
What I plan to do is pray that the people who committed those crimes decide that what they did was wrong, and re-evaluate what they believe. And, I'm going to ask for help in cleaning up my own mind.
No pressure, but it wouldn't hurt if you prayed for those folks too. And, the parishioners at St. Rose of Lima in Maywood. They're hurting now, I suspect.
I wrote a short post, 10 days ago, About how to act and dress for Mass. Mostly, it was a sort of review of a video I'd been shown on the topic.
This time, I'm focusing on modesty, culture, common sense, and what is (and isn't) appropriate when Catholics living in America celebrate Mass. Here's an excerpt from what set me off in that direction:
"Last week we had a discussion on the women wearing veils in Church. One of the themes that emerged in the comments was that the discussions about what to wear in Church should be broader than just a veil. More specifically BOTH men and women should consider how they dress when going into God's house. Hence I would like to explore some background issues and enunciate some principles. You of course will be able to add to them.
"1. Scripture - There is very little in Scripture that seems to spell out the proper way to dress for sacred worship. There is the general directive to Adore the Lord in holy attire (Psalm 96:9; Ps 29:2) But this seems more an allusion to holiness (God's and ours) more than to clothing per se...."
"...2. Church norms and rules – There are no official and specific Church norms or requirement for lay persons who attend Mass mentioned in Canon Law or the Sacramentary. Surely for priests and other clergy there are many rules and norms but I am unaware of any currently binding norms for the laity. Although the veils were once required for women, the 1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated and the current code is silent on any requirement.
"3. Hence it seems that Culture supplies most of the norms regarding what is considered appropriate attire for Church. And, alas our culture is currently quite unhelpful to us in this regard. Here in America we have become extremely casual about the way we dress for just about everything...."
"...My sister and mother always wore a dress. Pants would not even have been considered for them. For the younger girls a skirt and a blouse might be OK but preferably a dress with a hat or veil.
"But things changed dramatically around 1970. The photo above right was taken in 1969 in a Parish near my own in the northern suburbs of Chicago Ill. It was the end of an era...."
'None are Righteous, Save Me and Thee: And I'm Not So Sure About Thee'
I looked up Monsignor Charles Pope on the Archdiocese of Washington website - and found that he's apparently quite a bit younger than I am. That makes his appreciation for what happened in the years around 1970 impressive: He's done his research.
He's also, I think, got some very good advice for Catholics living in America. What's important, I think, is that in addition to a list of 'dos and don'ts,' he briefly discusses why what we wear is important.
I was born during the Truman administration , so I remember the 'good old days,' when 'decent' women didn't wear pants in public, and American culture had a somewhat formal dress code.
In a way, I miss those 'good old days.' But not very much.
I've lived the bulk of my life in the Red River Valley of the North and central Minnesota. I love it here, but then I grew up in a place where water is a mineral for several months each year. Dresses and skirts look good on women - and I've got the legs it takes to wear a kilt - but during winter it's simple common sense to wrap your legs in pants - trousers - slacks - long johns - anything.
On practical grounds, it makes no more sense to demand that a woman go outside wearing a dress in winter, than it would to insist that I walk around in a kilt during January. Bracing as the experience would be.
But the Bible Says Women Shouldn't Dress Like Men!
There are scriptural prohibitions against cross-dressing. I've discussed this before. Here's what's in Deuteronomy:
" '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 accept the idea that men should dress like men and all that: but I also realize that a few things have changed as the millennia rolled by.
If I tried dressing "like a man," according to the standards of the Middle East several thousand years back: I'd look downright out of place. And time.
Nice Christian Girls and Nice Christian Ladies, ca. 1970
I sang with a Christian folk/gospel group in the early seventies, and have some good memories of those times. I also remember an occasion when well-meaning folks from two generations weren't on the same page.
The group I was part of had been booked in a sort of retirement community: no problem with that, except we'd been told that semi-formal attire was expected. So far, still no problem. For me. The young ladies had, like me, been born around the early fifties - and some of them didn't have a long dress to wear. So they did the sensible thing, and all wore modest, formal-looking pant suits.
I had no problem with that - but the elderly ladies were, well, displeased. The spokesperson for the old guard was nice about it: but we wouldn't be allowed back.
Our behavior was sinful, you see: The young women were dress up 'like men.'
It was the slacks.
Never mind that I'd have looked like I was in drag, if I'd had any of their outfits retailored for me. Those nice old folks were convinced that it was sinful for women to wear pants - 'it says so in the Bible.'
You can't argue with that sort of logic, and we didn't go back.
I also filed that experience under 'religious beliefs,' with a sort of cross-indexing with 'assumptions,' 'reason,' and 'abnormal psychology.' Eventually, I converted to Catholicism - but that's another story.
Sorting Out Preferences and Principles
I have preferences about how I'd like other people to dress - but I'm nowhere near confident enough about my own position in creation to assume that what I like and dislike has much authority behind it. Or that I could take Biblical injunctions about proper dress and use them as an authority to back up what I like and don't like.
I don't, really, blame the old folks in that community. They had grown up in a very different world - and things were changing in the early seventies. Fast. Given their age and comparative lack of connection with the rest of the culture, it's no wonder that they hadn't realized that the standards of their youth weren't the unchanging standards of all times and all places.
And I'm pretty sure that they would, if they'd thought about it, have realizee that the Israelites who followed Moses out of Egypt didn't dress quite the same way that Euro-Americans did in the upper Midwest during the early 20th century.
It's the Principle of the Thing
Thousands of years ago, women living near the east end of the Mediterranean dressed one way and men dressed another. Human beings tend to have more-or-less different clothing for men and women. Partly, it's a matter of practicality. A woman's body isn't quite the same as a man's. Partly, I think, men and women dress differently because most of us like it that way.
Let's face it, folks, human sexuality is fun. Yet another topic.
Okay: Moses and company had a dress code. God was rather clear on the topic: Women were supposed to dress like women, not men: and men were supposed to dress like men, not like women. That's clear enough.
Now, fast-forward more than two dozen centuries, and go several thousand miles west and a bit north. Quite a bit has changed. Including the way people dress.
I have no trouble applying the principle of dressing appropriately - but I'd have trouble keeping a straight face while insisting that everybody start wearing clothing just like the Egyptians and Israelites did, back when.
A couple dozen centuries from now, the Catholic Church will still be insisting that God really meant it, about cross-dressing - and wearing 21st-century North American clothing might not be a good way to follow that rule.
Bottom line? Things change.
Back to the Washington Monseigneur
Msgr. Charles Pope had a 14-point list of recommendations for what to wear - and not to wear - when celebrating Mass. Actually, it's more like 13. The 14th point was "Well, you may have at this list. Add or subtract as you will." I may take him up on that. But not today.
"...4. Hence at the cost of seeming old and stuffy I might like to suggest a few norms and I hope you'll supply your own as well:
Men should wear formal shoes to Church. We used to call these hard shoes (because they were) but today many formal shoes are actually quite comfortable.
Men should wear trousers (not jeans).
Men should never wear shorts to Church.
Men should wear a decent shirt, preferably a button down shirt. If it is a pullover shirt it should include a collar. Wearing a plain t-shirt without a collar is too informal.
Men should consider wearing a tie to Church and in cooler weather, a suit coat. Some may consider this a bit too stuffy and formal but who knows, you might be a trend setter!
Now as I talk about women I know I'll get in some trouble!
Women should wear decent shoes to Church. Flip flops, beach sandals etc. seem inappropriate.
Women should not wear shorts to Church.
Women, if they wear pants, should never wear jeans to Church. Some nice slacks that are not too tight can be fine.
Women should consider wearing a dress or at least a skirt in preference to pants. It just looks a bit more formal than pants.
Women should wear a nice blouse (if they are not wearing a full dress). The blouse or shirt they wear should not be too tight.
Sleeveless garments are pushing it a bit but can be acceptable.
Women should never wear tank tops, tube tops, spaghetti straps, or bare midriffs to Church.
Well, you may have at this list. Add or subtract as you will.
"A final thought: Clothes say something about what we think, what we value. They also influence how we behave and feel. That our culture has become so casual about everything says something about us. I cannot exactly articulate it but it seems to say, 'nothing is really all that important.'..." (Archdiocese of Washington)
Msgr. Pope's speculation about the root of contemporary America's very casual habits of dress may or may not be near the mark. Particularly since it was introduced by a generation who included some of the most intensely involved and earnest folks I've known. I don't think informality is necessarily a sign of apathy.
My own perception is that the deliberately casual style of the sixties and following decades was in part a rejection of the fifties obsession with material gain and status in society.
But, that's what I noticed, from where I was.
On the other hand, I have no trouble agreeing with this statement:
"...Clothes say something about what we think, what we value. They also influence how we behave and feel...." (Archdiocese of Washington)
It's possible to get into the proper frame of mind, attending Mass in frayed jeans and a torn T-Shirt. But I think it'd be easier for someone following the monseigneur's fashion advice.
Oh, great: that means I'll have to re-evaluate how I dress when at Mass.
I was born during the Truman administration, and American culture has changed. A lot. Some of the change has been for the better: some not so much. What hasn't changed is the challenge of being Catholic in a culture that doesn't quite approve of our beliefs.
That phrase, "American culture," raises a couple of points I'll discuss first:
Does America have an "Indigenous" Culture?
I looked up "indigenous." It means "originating where it is found," like: autochthonal; autochthonic; autochthonous; or endemic.
Those words get used in phrases like " 'the autochthonal fauna of Australia includes the kangaroo'; 'autochthonous rocks and people and folktales'; 'endemic folkways'; 'the Ainu are indigenous to the northernmost islands of Japan'."(Princeton's WordNet)
You don't tend to hear "indigenous" used to describe what the Victorians would have called 'proper' or civilized people. You know: folks who wear business suits and ties, and know which fork to use.
I'm a Norwegian-Irish-American Catholic living in the 21st century. With a background like that, I'd have a hard time being "proper" by Victorian standards, even if I wanted to. Which is something I can live with.
Back to the question: Does America have an indigenous culture? I'd say, yes. I think that there is, arguably, an "indigenous" American culture. At least one. Again arguably, I'd say there are several American sub-cultures.
One proof I'd offer for there being a distinct, indigenous, American culture is the frequent complaint that American culture is overwhelming others. That'd be quite a trick, if there wasn't a distinctly "American" culture.
America is Okay
I was born in America, and am an American citizen. I know that America isn't perfect. But I'd rather live here than anywhere else on Earth. That isn't just feel-good patriotism. There were a few times when I very seriously considered moving out: but after researching my options I decided to stay.
'Okay,' Yes: 'Catholic,' No
My guess is that even in "Catholic" countries, the citizens don't really live the full Catholic life. That's not a criticism: just a recognition that whenever you've got human beings, you've got trouble.
Then, there's America. The United States of America isn't as anti-Catholic as it was in 'the good old days' when Thomas Nast was sounding the alarm: but America can't be called a "Catholic" nation. Not yet: and that's definitely another topic.
Fortune Telling and an Informed Conscience
Take fortune tellers, for example. I'm not sure whether or not fortune telling would be legal in a "Catholic" America. In principle, a law like that wouldn't be necessary because Americans would understand that divination is against Catholic teaching. And many would understand why.
But, again: I rather doubt that "Catholic" countries have a fully-informed and committed citizenry.
Abortion: Catholics aren't Allowed to Fix Sex Machines
One of the more spectacular ways in which America's dominant culture isn't on the same page as the Catholic Church is the matter of whether it's okay to kill babies. America's laws allow mothers to have their children killed - provided they get the job done early enough.
Or, as often happens, gives interested male parties permission to try forcing the woman to kill that inconvenient baby. I don't have statistics, but it seems to me that rather often the mother had an abortion because of pressure from her:
'Significant Other'
Husband
Boyfriend
Roommate
Whatever
Non-domestic superior
Employer
Professor
Teacher
Counselor
Whatever
Although I think it's disgusting, I can almost see the men's point of view in this sort of situation. Here they've got a compliant sex machine, sometimes in conveniently low-commitment circumstances. Everything's groovily under control. Then the sex machine gets pregnant. That's not so groovy - and there must be a very real temptation to 'fix' it with an abortion.
That's not the way proper, polite Americans put it, of course. We're supposed to use nice terms like "freedom of choice" or "women's health services" when discussing the legal and culturally-sanctioned killing of pre-born infants. Even so, I've read that women who exercise their right to kill their children don't always feel good about it, later. Yet again another topic.
Going to the 'Right' Church, Attitudes Toward Religion, and Retailoring the Gray Flannel Suit
Back in the American fifties, conformity was a big deal. Movies like "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" (1956) were at least partly about individual values in conflict with cultural pressure: although that's a little harder to see these days, since so much changed in the last half-century.
For people who fit easily into the "gray flannel suit" mold, and looked the part, I suppose it really was "Happy Days." After reading - and more from talking with my father - about that period, I'm glad that we're not likely to go back to that particular 'good old days.'
Take going to church, for example. I'm not happy with today's dominant culture and their assumption that religion is bad - but that if you must have religious beliefs, you should have the common decency to do it behind closed doors. And, whatever you do, don't bring that sort of thing out in public.
On the other hand, back in the fifties the 'smart' man on the go would find out which was the 'right' church to go to - and join it. Just as he'd find out which was the upwardly-mobile country club. Reducing religious practice to an aspect of career enhancement is not, in my opinion, a good idea.
That was the 'good old days,' too, when abortion was something that those Catholics over there were worried about. Certainly not something good Christians (who went to the 'right' churches) thought much about. Until their secretary or daughter needed to be 'fixed.'
Then kids who had been raised by parents using all the best expert advice hit adolescence. And went to college, where Timothy Leary's "turn on, tune in, drop out" advice struck a responsive chord. The lockstep conformity of "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" was (with some justification) abandoned.
And replaced by the sort of conformity we have today. Different band, different style: but the same old tune.
Conformity? I think so: but then, I'm a practicing Catholic. Which means that I'm part of a counter-culture.
Counter-Culture?! I Must be a Hippie!!
Quite a few Americans probably think 'hippie,' or something like that, when they hear "counter-culture." The hippies were counter-cultural. But there's a whole lot of ways to be counter-cultural.
Although we don't stand out as much as hippies or Amish folks, we're likely to be noticeably different - particularly in social situations where women are expected to strip down to a titillating minimum coverage. And I've talked about that, too. ("Modesty: Living in Balance"(August 16, 2009), "Are You a Boy, or Are You a Girl?" (September 26, 2009))
Being Different to be Different, Being Different to Be Right
I think the old stereotype Hollywood starlet, with her deliberately bizarre fashions and pet anaconda (or whatever), is being different just to stand out from the crowd. That's one sort of non-conformity. I won't say it's wrong: but it's not the same as folks who make a point of dressing more-or-less the way their cultural leaders expect, following the dominant culture's norms when they can: but refusing to go along with what they are convinced are wrong behaviors and beliefs.
Take Catholics. I'm a Catholic: but apart from wearing a crucifix, I don't look all that much different from any other pushing-60 man in Minnesota.
I don't buck the dominant culture unless it's about something that matters. like the idea that people should be treated like people - even if they're sick, or haven't been born yet.
American culture is nowhere near as bad as it could be. Most Americans probably wouldn't agree to killing a normal-looking, moderately attractive 25-year-old. An ugly, sick old person? That's a different story. It'd be a "mercy killing," of course, or whatever the contemporary euphemism is: but there'd still be a dead body at the end of the process.
One reason for the optimism I have for turning America's culture around is that folks in this country still have to be persuaded that it'd be a kindness to kill someone who's sick, or old, or unwanted, or ugly. "Every child a wanted child" is an example of this. "Compassion," no matter how the term has been abused, is still a good thing - and that's something that decades of social engineering haven't driven out of the American mindset. In my view.
What Catholics - and anybody else who understands natural law - needs to remember is that it's okay to be counter-cultural. Despite what some of us have been taught, fitting in and getting along are not the highest virtues. Particularly when the dominant culture is wrong.
Although Personally Opposed to Slavery - - -
I'd like to say that we've heard the last of the old "although personally opposed" line. I think it's on the wane, but I read it in a politico's remarks last year - sorry, I don't remember who it was.
It's usually "although personally opposed to abortion, I don't think I have the right to impose my beliefs on others." It sounds so reasonable, so noble. Until we start switching terms: "Although personally opposed to [slavery / genocide / polluting the air] I don't think I have the right to impose my beliefs on others."
Since most folks in America are pretty sure that slavery, genocide, and air pollution are not good things - any politico who made a statement like that would be lucky to merely see his or her political career crash and burn.
That's because Americans generally realize that some things - like genocide - are wrong. No matter how much someone really feels like killing off some group.
What I'll call the 'abortion exception' has been, I think, carefully developed and maintained by the traditional gatekeepers of American culture.1 (See "What is an Information Gatekeeper?," Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 14, 2009))
Fitting In Feels Good: So What?
As I wrote before, I don't see fitting in as being one of the top virtues. Particularly when the culture I'd try to fit into is, in some ways, doing bad things.
Although I think there's a lot of good - and potential for good - in American culture, I also think that some of the dominant culture's values have got to go. I do not believe that religion is the root of all ickyness. I do believe that human life is precious; and that women shouldn't have to dress provocatively to be accepted. All of which means I'm rather counter-cultural. More specifically, Catholic.
It isn't easy, deciding whether to 'go with the flow' and be considered acceptable by the dominant culture, or be 'stupid' and ignorant' because you won't fit in. There's very good reason to believe that a prominent east coast family found themselves caught between their Catholic beliefs and political expedience - and opted for short-term gains. ("Kennedys, Catholicism, and Abortion: So That's What Happened" (August 26, 2009))
It's easy for me to acknowledge my Catholic beliefs. I'm not running for public office. For someone with a political career, or who is trying to be taken seriously in American business or academia: the choice between holding unpopular beliefs, or being accepted by the people in charge, can be very difficult.
But, at the end of all things, I'd rather explain why I failed to convince others that the Church was right; than explain why I abandoned the outfit my Lord set up, to make more money or get elected.
1 No, I don't think it's 'some kinda plot.' I do think that America's top journalists, educators, and entertainment leaders live in a relatively small, tightly bounded subculture of like-minded people - and are intensely, sincerely convinced that they're right. And, in sharp contrast, everybody who doesn't believe what they do is stupid and ignorant.
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.
