Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Victims of Human Trafficking in Minnesota: How to Help

Around 14,500 to 17,500 foreign nationals are trafficked into the United States every year, according to the United States government. "Trafficked" as in shipped as merchandise. It's not a nice business.

Some of the people who are "trafficked" end up here in Minnesota.

We've got quite a few options:
  1. Ignore them
    • They're just foreigners
  2. Ask, rhetorically, "why don't they go back where they came from?"
    • Then ignore them
  3. Help them
I think #3 makes sense. Particularly since the Catholic Church says it's the right thing to do.
"Christ died out of love for us, while we were still 'enemies.'100 The Lord asks us to love as he does, even our enemies, to make ourselves the neighbor of those farthest away, and to love children and the poor as Christ himself.101
"The Apostle Paul has given an incomparable depiction of charity: 'charity is patient and kind, charity is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Charity does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Charity bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.'102"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church (1825)
(June 18, 2010)
An outfit called Civil Society in St. Paul, Minnesota is a nonprofit organization that helps human trafficking victims.

They're looking for donations to help them put together "care packages" for the victims of human trafficking. The packages include:
  • Shampoo
  • Conditioner
  • Toothbrush and toothpaste
  • Hairbrush
  • Soap
  • Lotion
  • Deodorant
  • Feminine toiletry products
  • Razors
  • Shaving cream
  • Encouragement letter/card
"Feminine toiletry products?" What can I say? Human trafficking isn't a very nice business: and quite a lot of their merchandise is women.

Who get stranded in what, to them, is a strange foreign country. They've got no money, no friends or relatives nearby, they don't speak the local language: they can use help.

Care Package? Big Deal

Actually, I think the care packages alone would be a fairly big deal, but there's more to the program. According to the official newspaper of the St. Paul - Minneapolis archdiocese, Civil Society or a related organization also provides:
  • Prayer support
  • Funding for
    • Shelter
    • Food
    • Legal services
    • English as a Second Language classes
    • Counseling and health services
The same article has a link - www.civilsocietyhelps.org - plus a phone number and an email address for folks who want to help.

I can imagine worse things to do with a few bucks.

Why Focus on Minnesota?

I live in a small town in central Minnesota.

The St. Paul - Minneapolis archdiocese newspaper doesn't go into this sort of detail: but my guess is that most of the victims of human trafficking are in or near what we call "the Metro." That's the urban area centered on Minneapolis and St. Paul. It's the biggest concentration of people in the state - and was known as a collection point for human trafficking several decades back. Looks like not much has changed, except that the victims now are incoming - and the faces are different.

There's more to the Twin Cities than an illicit slave trade, of course. They're also known as the home of the Guthrie Theater and the Minnesota Historical Society. And, to our credit, slavery is illegal in America - which doesn't stop those who traffic in human beings.

The Metro is just a couple hours' drive down the Interstate - and it's in my home state. Even if human trafficking was strictly limited to the Twin Cities, and I doubt that it is, it's happening in my state. Which makes it an issue I have to pay attention to.

Posts about neighbors and the poor:In the news:More:
A tip of the hat to catholicspirit, on Twitter, for the heads-up on their article.

Minnesota Bishops, Immigrants, Papers and Justice

Imagine yourself on the sidewalk, going home from work. Ahead, you see a uniformed figure, a member of the state police. He turns, notices you and says: "Your papers, please."

You reach in your pocket for the government papers that give you the right to be in that area. They're not there. You try your other pockets.

The state official is growing impatient.

Then you remember: you left your papers on the dresser at home.

So you are handcuffed, taken to a holding facility: where you will wait while those in authority begin sifting through your background. You'd better hope that there are no irregularities in your past, and that you have all your papers: or you will not walk on that sidewalk again.

"It Can't Happen Here," Right?

That won't happen to me. I speak fluent American English and have pasty-white skin. Sparkling blue eyes attest to my northwestern European ancestry.

I won't be picked up because of my appearance, until someone gets the idea that middle-aged bearded men are a threat.

I won't be asked to show my papers, because I don't look like 'those immigrants.'

Immigrants Commit Crimes! So do 'Real Americans'

Timothy McVeigh helped blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Oklahoma City. He was white. That doesn't mean that all "white" folks want to blow up buildings with people inside.

Some immigrants commit crimes. That doesn't mean that all immigrants are criminals, waiting for a chance to strike.

Immigrants are People

From today's news:
"Minnesota bishops urge national immigration reform"
TheCatholicSpirit.com (June 30, 2010)
(The Official Newspaper of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis)

"Minnesota's Catholic bishops want comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level, citing the need for legislation that is just and compassionate.

" 'The way we treat immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, is a matter of justice,' the bishops wrote. 'It re­flects our commitment to fairness and de­cency, our respect for persons and families.'...

"...The statement, the bishops' third since 2007, was re­leased June 15. It was signed by all 10 of the state's active and retired bishops. It was prompted in part by recent legislation passed in Arizona and concerns of a similar law being adopted in Minnesota.

"The soon-to-be-enacted Arizona law would require police officers to make a 'reasonable attempt' to determine a person's legal status during any lawful 'stop, detention or arrest' and arrest those who can't prove their status...."
Let me repeat that last phrase: "...and arrest those who can't prove their status."

Yes, folks who moved to America without getting the proper government papers are a problem - at least for some bureaucrats. And yes, illegal aliens/undocumented immigrants/whatever are a problem. As I quoted a few days ago:
"Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian."
Robert Orben, The Quotations Page
(June 25, 2010)
Sometimes, when bishops sign off on a statement, I have to grit my teeth and work at understanding how and why they said what they did. (June 24, 2010)

Today, it won't be so much work. I've been interested in the 'immigrant crisis,' or whatever it's called, for some time.

And I'm very glad that my ancestors looked Anglo.

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Public Officials with Ethical Standards: A Radical Idea For Today's America

Noted, from last week:
"EDITORIAL | Religious values are not obstacles to public service"
St. Louis Review (June 23, 2010)

"There was a time, not so long ago, when Catholics were effectively excluded from the debates that took place at the highest levels of American public policy. Now that we Catholics clearly have a voice, we need to ask ourselves whether what we have to contribute to our national discourse is true to who we are as Catholics and as Americans.

"The good news is that Catholics care deeply about the role morality should play in public life and are willing to fight about it. The bad news is that Catholics on both sides of the ideological divide tend to be confused about what the Church teaches on fundamental moral issues and how this relates to the role of public officials...."

"...We reject the notion that Catholic teaching on issues of morality and social justice are somehow incompatible with effective judicial thinking. We also reject the idea that any government leader, whether elected or appointed, can 'personally' hold the teachings of the Catholic faith while 'publicly' thinking or acting otherwise...."
The old "although personally opposed to abortion, I don't think I have the right to force...." is still around. Although I think more and more folks have given that excuse the stink test by substituting words like "slavery" or "cannibalism" for "abortion."

The 'noble' "although personally opposed..." doesn't sound quite so nice, then.

The editorial discusses "religious" standards: which I think are arguably a sort of ethical standard which, in the case of Catholic teachings, have their origins in the revealed Word of God - and have been discussed and refined for almost two thousand years by some of the best thinkers around.

Bottom line? The editorial claims that it's possible to have moral, ethical standards and still be an official in the United States of America's government.

That may sound like a radical idea, but I think it's one worth considering.

Not-quite-entirely-unrelated posts:
A tip of the hat to CatholicNewsSvc, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the St. Louis Review op-ed.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Bird Songs, a Chain Saw, and the Church Militant

This afternoon was one of those beautiful summer days: about 69° Fahrenheit, just enough wind to discourage mosquitoes without bothering people, blue sky with only a few shreds of cloud. These aren't all that common here in central Minnesota, so I went for a walk.


Our Lady of the Angels church's Marian garden: a good place to sit, think, and pray.

The Marian garden between Our Lady of the Angels church and the rectory makes a nice destination. Today, I sat on one of the benches for several minutes, enjoying the flowers, statues, sunlight bird songs: and the sound of a chain saw being used across the street.


The garden's serene, for the most part.

The beautiful surroundings, complete with the singing of birds and the brapping of a chain saw, put me in mind of the Church Militant.

The Church Militant?

Outside some of America's more tensely earnest thinkers' circles, the words "militant" and "church" may not seem to have much to do with each other. I think that's partly because of an emphasis on the 'nice' parts of Christianity, back in the 19th century. (February 15, 2010)

The fact is, though, that we're involved in a struggle. A big one:
"For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens."
(Ephesians 6:12)
I haven't tracked town where the term came from, but my guess is that "the Church Militant" comes from a recognition of the conflict that's been raging since long before my Lord came, and changed everything.

The best - or shortest, at any rate - definition of the Church Militant that I've found is in an old Catechism:
"Q. Where are the members of the Church to be found?
A. The members of the Church are found partly in heaven, forming the Church Triumphant; partly in purgatory, forming the Church Suffering; partly on earth, forming the Church Militant.
"
("Catechism of Saint Pius X")
Recapping: The Church Triumphant are the souls in Heaven; the Church Suffering are the folks in Purgatory; the Church Militant is what I'm in right now, the followers of my Lord who are now living.

The copy of the Pius X Catechism available the EWTN.com website starts with some background - and a disclaimer. That particular Catechism wasn't officially approved for the entire Church - although it was given the green light in parts of Italy. Also: "...Parts relating to canon law may not be up to date."

The basic, foundational rules and teachings of the Church don't change: but as the centuries piled up into millennia, the Catholic Church has had to tweak what I'll call the nuts-and-bolts procedures from time to time.

Which is another topic.

Not-completely-unrelated posts:

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Saint Thérèse of Lisieux: On Tour in South Africa

In today's news:
"Relics of St. Thérèse of Lisieux to make three-month tour of South Africa"
EWTN News (June 26, 2010)

"On Friday, relics of St. Thérèse of Lisieux arrived at a South African convent. They will travel around the country for the next three months making stops in the provinces of Limpopo, Gauteng, Free State, Eastern Cape and Western Cape.

"Priests from the Archdiocese of Johannesburg joined the Carmelite Sisters and the Catholic Order of the Knights of da Gama to receive the traveling relics at the Carmelite Convent in Benoni.

"The casket, containing some of the saint's mortal remains will be kept at the convent until June 28. At that time, the relics will proceed along a three-month tour of South Africa that includes the provinces of Limpopo, Gauteng, Free State..."
I've posted about Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, or "the little flower," before. (October 1, 2009)

I see that I've mentioned the veneration of relics, too: but didn't go into much detail. That's "veneration," not "adoration," by the way. That's a distinction, and an important one (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2132)

Carrying parts of a long-dead Saint around is a custom that definitely wasn't part of my life, growing up in a nice mainstream Protestant family. To this day it 'feels funny,' if I give my emotions a shove. But I also recognize a value in getting close to some physical thing that was connected with a Saint: particularly the Saint's body, or part of it.

Gruesome? I suppose so, from some points of view. But it's also a way of getting physically close to someone who led a life of heroic holiness.

And that's worth something.

Related posts:

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Statue of Saint Rita of Cascia, Biggest Catholic Statue, Unveiled Today

Santa Cruz, Brazil, is in the international news today. If you know where to look:
"World's largest Catholic statue to be unveiled in Brazil"
Statue of St. Rita of CasciaEWTN News (June 25, 2010 )

"The world's largest Catholic statue will be unveiled on June 26 in the city of Santa Cruz in Brazil. The statue of St. Rita of Cascia towers 183 feet, which is 65 feet taller than the famous Christ the Redeemer statue that sits atop Rio de Janeiro...."
Like many Catholic Saints, St. Rita of Cascia has several aliases: Margarita of Cascia; Rita La Abogada de Imposibles; and Saint of the Impossible, which is sort of what La Abogada de Imposibles means, translated into English.

All those AKAs don't come from an effort to be sneaky: St. Rita of Cascia lived about five centuries back - and she's been known by people living in quite a few other places since then. As the centuries and millennia roll by, cultures, languages and customs involving people's names change. And, in the case of Saints, titles sometimes get added. (I found that list of Saing Rita of Cascia's at Saints.SQPN.com.)

'Anything You Can Build, We Can Build Bigger'

When my family learned that the Buckingham Fountain in Chicago is a copy of a French original - scaled up to twice the original's dimensions - I sang out "anything you can build, we can build bigger...," to the tune of "Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better," from "Annie Get Your Gun."

Americans have been criticized for acting as if 'bigger is better:' sometimes with reason. Linking size and importance seems to be a fairly common human trait, though. Thousands of years ago, the Narmer Palette showed how important the Pharaoh was by making him really big. I'm getting off-topic.

But not by much.

I don't think that the folks in Santa Cruz, Brazil, are trying to say that Saint Rita of Cascia is 65 feet more important that Jesus - comparing the Santa Cruz and Rio de Janeiro statues. I do think that part of the message they're sending is that Saint Rita of Cascia is quite important to them.

Also a good way to attract tourists.

'They're Just in it for the Money'

I'll admit that there is no shortage of hucksters selling "Jesus junk:" cheaply-made, tacky, 'religious' pictures and doodads. There was a television commercial for a sparkly bit of jewelry with a lens you could look through - and see a Bible verse or something of the sort "miraculously" appear.

No wonder some folks assume that Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, is some kind of rip-off.

Happily, being able to distinguish between well-crafted art and tacky junk isn't vital to being a practicing Catholic. Yet another topic.

Back to Santa Cruz and Religious Tourism

I found a more detailed article covering Santa Cruz's new statue at globo.com:
"Rio Grande do Norte inaugurates 56 meter statue of Saint Rita of Cascia
G1 (June 26, 2010)

"Santa is the patroness of the city of Santa Cruz, where the image is located.
Christ Redeemer is 38 meters high.
"

"A 56 meter (187 feet) imagine of Santa Rita of Cascia will be inaugurated on Saturday (26), in Santa Cruz, Rio Grande do Norte. She is the patron saint of the city. According to the Government of Rio Grande do Norte, the inauguration will include masses and public visitation throughout the weekend...."
According to the article, the Saint Rita complex will include an "auditorium for 225 people, a restaurant and chapel."

Will the food at that restaurant be particularly 'holy?' I don't know about that - and I found no hint that anyone's making a claim like that. I also have no problem with a place serving food being near a chapel, and auditorium, and a whacking great statue of St. Rita of Cascia.

Quite a few people will probably be visiting the place. Some of them will probably want to pray - hence the statue. Some of them will probably want to hear someone else talk about the statue, St. Rita, Santa Cruz, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil, or maybe butterflies, for all I know - hence the auditorium. They'll all probably want to eat while they're in the area - which explains the restaurant.

Eating probably isn't what most people think of first, when they start listing spiritual or religious things: but it's an important part of our lives. Considering things like that loaves and fish incident, I can't see excluding feeding people from what can be done near a religious site.

Besides, it's good for the local economy.

Which may sound crass, commercial, and not 'spiritual' at all.

Money, the Love of Money, and a Link

If making a fast buck is all a person has in mind when putting up a statue of a saint, that's a problem. But making money by serving people who come to see the statue? It's a little complicated: but I don't necessarily have a problem with that. Yet again another topic. (February 4, 2010)

Saint Rita of Cascia: That's a BIG Statue

The G1 article had a better photo of the new statue:

The statue of Saint Rita of Cascia. (Image: Demis Roussos/Rio Grande do Norte administration)
(from Demis Roussos/Rio Grande do Norte administration, via G1, used w/o permission)

I think the statue looks much better without the scaffolding. That building at the bottom gives a better idea of the size of the sculpture, too.

Vaguely-related posts:
More, about St. Rita of Cascia
(links found at "Saints R," Theology Library, Spring Hill College):

Friday, June 25, 2010

Immigrants, Illegal and Otherwise, America, and Getting a Grip

I remember a cartoon, decades back, of several Indians1 on the beach, looking at a longboat being rowed in from a big sailing ship. One of them was saying: "Well, there goes the neighborhood."

Today "Quotes of the Day" put this quote on my iGoogle page:
"Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian."
Robert Orben, The Quotations Page

Obeying the Law is a Good Idea: So is Obeying the Law

Sometimes Christians have to decide which law they follow: the one made by whoever's running the territory they're in, or God's law. Obeying God's law can be messy: as Thomas à Becket discovered.

On the other hand: I figure that, sooner or later, both the warlord or judge and I will be facing judgment by the Lord of Hosts. With that in mind, deciding whose law to follow is a no-brainer. If I'm smart, I'll obey the one with more clout. I've written about this before.

Immigrants, Legal and Otherwise

A whole lot of folks here in America are very emotional about both - or all - sides of the "illegal aliens" situation. The number of names that group of new Americans has is one sign that we're not, as a nation, quite comfortable with the status quo: they're called illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants, depending in part on how the speaker views our new neighbors.

Illegal Aliens/Undocumented Immigrants/Our New Neighbors

On the whole, I think that obeying the law is a good idea. Many of America's laws make sense: like insisting that everybody drive on one side of the road, and stop at red lights.

Sometimes, America's laws haven't made sense: like Prohibition and the shamefully legal status of slavery.

Today, we've got laws about who is allowed to come to America, and who isn't. That's nothing new: America has always had a more-or-less ambivalent attitude toward the latest wave of folks who come to make this country work, and enrich themselves in the process.

I am not upset that other folks are making the decision that my ancestors did. I think one of America's great strengths - maybe what's kept us going so long - is that every generation we've got a new set of Americans with new ideas, new energy, and a fresh look at what it is to live and thrive in this country.

I think it would be nice if so many didn't have to dodge around the system to get here - but on the whole I'm glad they're here.

'But They're All Criminals!?'

I've read the statistics: "Illegal aliens" commit crimes. Some of them. Maybe a higher percentage than the general population. Real crimes, I mean: not just being unable to show your government papers on demand.

Speaking of which: unless you're driving, since when has an American had to carry papers to show that he or she is allowed to stand on some spot of land?

I could assume that the rape that happened a few miles from where I live is "typical" of "those people." But I don't. That was the act of one individual. And I have trouble assuming that the families I meet in the grocery, chatting along in Spanish, are engaged in some kind of criminal activity.

Maybe my attitude comes from my Irish ancestry. We're not all that far from the days of "Irish Need Not Apply" and crimes being solved by grabbing the nearest Irishman. Well, maybe that's an exaggeration. Or, not.

I don't have a problem with folks who come to this country, find jobs, settle down, and become our newest neighbors.

If they don't have the right government papers, that's an issue that needs to be addressed. But I think it's as much a problem with the government that requires the papers, as it is with the folks who are trying to better their lot.

Some churches have taken our standing orders to care for the poor to heart, and started helping their neighbors: even those who didn't fill out all the right forms. My hat's off to St. Rose of Lima parish in Maywood, California, and others who take the risk of being practical Christians.

Related post:
1 Native Americans, or whatever this week's politically correct phrase is.

Belgian Police: Tomb Raider and the Cardinals

From today's news:
"Vatican 'indignant' over Belgium police raids"
BBC (June 25, 2010)

"The Vatican has expressed shock at raids, including the 'violation' of a cathedral crypt, by Belgian police investigating alleged child sex abuse.

"As well as searching a couple of main Church offices and a cardinal's home, police had drilled holes in two archbishops' tombs, said the Church.

"Prosecutors said the raids were over alleged 'abuse of minors committed by a certain number of Church figures'...."

"...They also searched the Church's headquarters, the Brussels archdiocese in Mechelen, north of the Belgian capital.

"Bishops holding a meeting there were barred from leaving the premises for several hours and had their mobile phones confiscated, said Church officials...."
I first heard about this raid on a cathedral yesterday. In the context of today's culture, I wasn't surprised: some Catholic priests have abused some people. (That's a bad thing, by the way: no question about it.) A few Catholic bishops have - foolishly, in my view - tried to cover up abuse in their dioceses.

So, naturally, Belgian police would raid a Catholic cathedral. They're Catholics, right? So it's okay. Yesterday I thought it was possible that Belgian authorities had reason to raid that particular cathedral. I preferred to believe that the raid wasn't just a fishing expedition: based on the assumption that, since the folks at the cathedral were Catholic, they must be up to something.

Shocked, No; Disgusted, Yes

Personally, I'm not "shocked" at Belgian snoopers drilling into the graves of Cardinals Jozef-Ernest Van Roey and Leon-Joseph Suenens. There's a lot of (self?) righteous indignation floating around these days.

The tomb robbers were looking for something specific: documents. That were hidden in the graves. But weren't found, according to the BBC article.

It could have been worse: If this was like the 'good old days' of the French Revolution or Cromwell's venture we'd probably be hearing about the whole cathedral being torn down - or at least the windows getting smashed out and statues destroyed. Because "someone mentioned" there might be documents in them.

Belgian authorities apparently left the cardinals' tombs essentially intact, after sending a robot in to snoop around. The BBC article isn't too detailed on that subject.

Maybe we'll be reading about the whole crypt being dug up tomorrow.

The Belgian rulers had a good reason for drilling into the tombs. And it was only one tomb. They say:
"...A spokesman for the Belgian prosecutor in Brussels told news agency Reuters that investigators partially opened one tomb in the cathedral after someone mentioned work had recently been carried out on the grave...."
There, you see? Someone mentioned" work had been done near the grave. I suppose that's a good-enough reason to go spelunking. It's "the" grave, notice - the Belgian line is that they just did their, ah, work on just one grave.

Maybe Cardinals Jozef-Ernest Van Roey and Leon-Joseph Suenens were buried in one tomb.
Shocked? Why Should I Be?
Shocked? No, I'm not shocked. That would imply that I'm surprised at what the secular authorities in Belgium did. I'm not, particularly. The Catholic Church is, just now, one of the "usual suspects" in Western culture. We'll have to get used to being shaken down from time to time.
Disgusted? Yes, a Bit
According to the BBC article, a boy was abused by a priest in Belgium. 20 years ago. That abuse was a bad thing. It was not right. It was wrong. I've written about this before.

I suppose I should be impressed that Belgian investigators apparently drilled into the tomb(s) and used robots to look around, instead of simply taking pickaxes to the graves. Maybe, despite the very vague excuse given in the BBC article, they had something to go on besides "someone mentioned."

Even so, the drilling into those graves - based on what sounds like something out of Maria Monk's bestseller - left a bad taste in my mind.

My guess is that we'll soon see more desecrated graves and vandalized sanctuaries, based on what "someone mentioned."

Related posts:
More:

Thursday, June 24, 2010

I Accept Catholic Teachings: Or, Understanding Why I Believe What I Believe

I'm not awed by authority. Part of that's probably from spending my youth in the sixties. Part, I suspect, is because I'm firm-minded. Or stubborn. Or obstinate. Which word fits depends partly on your point of view.

I like to make my own decisions - and really resent someone else trying to do my thinking for me.

So I became a Catholic?!

I've posted about this before. (November 24, 2009, September 19, 2009)

There's been a bit of buzz in the online Catholic community, about people and organizations who claim to be Catholic but seem to be making up their own version of Catholic beliefs. I've posted about this, too - I've put links in the "related posts" below.

Thinking My Way Through to Belief

Before I converted to Catholicism, being the sort of person I was, I had to think my way through what I believed about something before I could really believe it.

Now that I'm a practicing Catholic, being the sort of person I am, I have to think my way through what I believe about something before I can really believe it.

Every human being has free will: I can decide to believe whatever I want. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1730) So can you. A few minutes from now, I could decide to abandon Catholicism and start following Thor. That'd be a daft thing to do: but in principle I could make that choice.

Being a practicing Catholic hasn't taken away my free will: and it certainly hasn't made me a "different person." Not deep down inside.

Being Catholic has Changed Me: But Not By Much

What has changed in me are a few details about the process I go through in evaluating a belief.

These days, when I learn about some detail of the human condition that's new to me - that happens pretty often - I go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and some other officially-sanctioned resources like the USCCB (since I live in America) and the Holy See.

Knowing What I Believe, and Why I Believe It

While doing my research, I find out what the Church teaches - or where the best minds of the Catholic Church are, in sorting out some new wrinkle in culture and technology. That shows me what I need to believe.

Then I start studying how the Church arrived (or is arriving) at that teaching - and the reasons given for why we're supposed to believe it. After a while, I have a pretty good idea of why I believe what I believe.

For me, that's important. I like to know as much as I can about what I'm committed to.

The Human Brain: Hot Stuff; But Not That Hot

Some things, like the Trinity, I accept as something I simply can't understand.

Like most adult humans, my brain weighs about three pounds - give or take. ("Brain Facts that make you go, 'Hmmmmm'.") I think it's unreasonable to assume that the circuits and programming packed into a few pounds of neurons, glial cells, and whatever else we use to think with, can fully understand everything. Even with the resources of the Internet at my disposal.

God's God and I'm not. I may not like it: but that's a fact.

Related posts:

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Pope Benedict XVI, Faith and Reason

Religion is a lot of irrational nonsense, emotional foolishness, and not something that real men could - or should - be interested in. Right?

In some cases, right.

And I see that this blog went off-topic in the first paragraph. That may be a new record for me. (I've posted about men, women, Christianity and a marketing campaign gone wrong before.)

What I meant to focus on was the notion that religion is - by its nature - irrational. Even anti-rational. Quite a few people believe that it is.

I don't. Even though I've run into enough 'religious' individuals and groups who seem to go out of their way to prove that religion is nonsense. Which is why I converted to Catholicism. Which is yet another topic.

But just because some folks treat faith as if it was dependent on emotion ('do you feel saved?) - I don't have to go with the flow.

Long before I converted, or even knew much about Catholicism, I'd figured that the universe couldn't have been put together by someone who didn't have much sense. Turns out, I'm not the first person to come up with that notion:
"...'The Summa Theologiae, his masterpiece, reflects Thomas' serene confidence in the harmony of faith and reason, and in the ability of reason, enlightened by faith, to come to an understanding of God and his saving plan.'..."
(Pope Benedict XVI, general audience (June 23, 2010))
(also quoted in Catholicseeking)
I lifted that quote from someone else's blog - and verified it against a video taken at the Vatican this week.

The Thomas Pope Benedict XVI was talking about is Saint Thomas Aquinas, one of the Catholic Church's intellectual heavy hitters. We've had quite a few of those, over the last couple millennia.

"Benedict XVI says believing in God is logical and reasonable"

romereports YouTube (June 23, 2010)
video, 1:13

"www.romereports.com For the third week in a row, Benedict XVI dedicated his general audience to St. Thomas Aquinas. The Pope cited Thomas' work as a source of profound theological truths."

Related posts:
A tip of the hat to catholicseeking, on Twitter, "Benedict XVI says believing in God is logical and reasonable," Catholicseeking (June 24, 2010)) for the heads-up on Benedict XVI's remarks, and that video.

New on the Blogroll: Catholicseeking

I've been following Catholicseeking's Twitter account for some time, and visited the blog now and then. Today, I decided it's time to put Catholicseeking on the blogroll.

Under "blogs, of course.

What tipped the balance today, I think, in my decision was Catholicseeking's motto: " 'Our Hearts are Restless Until They Rest in You' St. Augustine."

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Why State Definitions of Marriage Matter to This Catholic

American law is going through an interesting change. The definition of "marriage," for example, is being stretched to include any two human beings over a certain age.

Interestingly, I haven't run into proposals to decriminalize polygamy, polyandry, or child marriage.

And the obvious 'injustice' of not letting pet owners marry their dachshunds, tabbies, or parrots isn't even on the mainstream radar. But that's another topic. Almost.

I'm just "some guy with a blog." Whether or not I think inter-species marriage is a good idea or not shouldn't matter to practicing Catholics. (I think it's a bad idea, incidentally, although I like animals. Just not that way.)

What an archbishop has to say about what marriage is, what it isn't, and why what a bunch of Congresspeople and/or judges want matters: That, a practicing Catholic should be interested in.

From today's news:
"Erosion of religious freedom threatens Church and nation, warns Archbishop Wuerl"
EWTN News/CNA (June 23, 2010)

"...One issue to which the archbishop referred was the definition of marriage, a contentious issue, especially after the City Council of Washington D.C. passed a law allowing the recognition of same-sex 'marriage' without allowing voters to weigh in on the issue. The measure resulted in Catholic Charities of Washington D.C. being forced to stop offering benefits to employees' spouses and to close their adoption program.

" 'If you take another position than what is presented by people today … you are defined as discriminatory,' he said. 'And because of that, you and your institutions can be very, very severely criticized,' or even sanctioned.

"Essentially, what we are facing, Archbishop Wuerl stated, 'Is the failure to balance the rights of free expression of religion with all these other newly-created rights that are coming up out of our secular society.'..."

Sticks and Stones May Break Your Bones: But Words Can Really Hurt You

Nobody in America, for the last three or four decades, has wanted to be called "discriminatory." It's sort of like being called a commie, back in the days of McCarthyism. Which is another topic.

What's - interesting? - about the propaganda value of words "discriminatory" or "discrimination" is that being able to discriminate is what keeps us alive, starting around the time we're toddlers.

"To discriminate" means several things, including:
  1. Recognize or perceive the difference
  2. Discriminate, separate, single out
    • Treat differently on the basis of sex or race
  3. Distinguish
    • As in "I could not discriminate the different tastes in this complicated dish"
    (Princeton's WordNet)
Definition #2 is what most Americans have been conditioned to think of when they hear variations on the word "discriminate."

Don't get me wrong: Civil rights made sense, in 1968. And I'm not at all anxious to see a return to the 'good old days' long before that, of "Irish Need Not Apply" signs. I also recognize that women are people: but then, I'm a Catholic. Think folks like Mary, Catherine of Siena and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

"Discrimination," as in definition #1? That's what keeps us alive. We learn - early - to discriminate between things we can touch and things we shouldn't: like hot stove tops. Discriminating between "Walk" and "Don't Walk" signs is - by definition - discriminatory. It's also part of what keeps city folks alive.
"Silly" is in the Eye of the Beholder
'That's silly! Crossing on a red light and marrying outside your species are completely different!' In a way, that's true. For that matter, it's possible to "discriminate" between crossing on a red light and drinking from a bottle marked "poison."

A big difference, I think, between 'good' discrimination like paying attention to traffic signals, and what America's dominant culture insists is 'bad' discrimination, like paying attention to the sex of the person you're marrying, is the length of time it takes for consequences to show up. It's a little like stepping off the top of a tall building: There's this wonderful, exhilarating rush of air. Until you hit the pavement.

I don't think America has hit the pavement. And I'm aware that there's no shortage of articles and experts who say that the pavement doesn't exist. Or that rubber heels will help you land safely.

I'm not convinced: but then, I'm a practicing Catholic, so I'm not following the regional culture's norms. (January 12, 2010)

Listening to the Church

What's tricky is listening to all of what the Catholic Church says. I've read too many strident defenses of "traditional marriage" that ooze venom. It's tempting to hate 'those people over there' who don't agree, or are different in some way. But hating people is not a good idea. At all. I've written about that before: you could check out the "related posts," below, or click 'hate' in this blog's label cloud.

Catholics are supposed to love all people: even the ones whose behavior we're not too crazy about. Some of us don't follow that 'love the sinner, hate the sin' instruction: but that's yet another topic.

Here's a video of the CNA interview with Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington D.C.:

"Archbishop Wuerl on Religious Freedom"

catholicnewsagency, YouTube (June 22, 2010)
video, 4:24

"When asked by Dr. John Haas of the National Catholic Bioethics Center to comment on some issues facing the Church today, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington D.C. spoke of a growing bias against the 'thread' of faith in the 'social fabric' of Western Society."

Related posts: In the news:

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

"Parallel Magesterium?" Catholicism 101: The Church Speaks For the Church

Speaking with the full authority of some guy with a blog, this is nuts.

Some person who runs a health care business has been supporting health care legislation that's supposed to give people better health care. Like killing their babies.

There are nicer ways of putting it, of course: like "providing affordable reproductive health care," or even "elective abortions." But you've still got dead babies at the end of the process.

I am weary of being nice and polite about the right a mother has, to off her kids if she feels like it - or of a professor, to force his va-va-voom star student to kill the embarrassing results of his off-campus tutoring. At taxpayer expense. 'Health care' should be affordable, you know.

The (Real) Magisterium; a Cardinal; "Health Care" American Style; and an Important Executive

After a relaxing break this afternoon, I came back and read an - interesting - article about 'health care,' an allegedly Catholic business, and a Cardinal who apparently has had just about enough.

Excerpt:
"Allen interview of Cardinal George supports report of 'parallel magisterium' worries"
Catholic News Agency (June 22, 2010)

"Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), in an interview last week agreed that the rift over the federal health care bill between the bishops and the Catholic Health Association (CHA) exposed a major question concerning who speaks for the Church.

"The cardinal's recorded comments echo other reports. Last week, episcopal sources, who requested anonymity, told CNA that the cardinal lamented the rise of a 'parallel magisterium' in the health care debate and blamed CHA and other groups for the passage of the bill.

"On Tuesday Vatican expert John L. Allen, Jr., published the full text of his June 16 interview with Cardinal George on the blog of the National Catholic Reporter's website...."
Here's a link to that post:Back to the Catholic News Agency (CNA) article:
"...'What worries me more than a difference over empirical content, however, is the claim that the bishops cannot speak to the moral content of the law,' the cardinal told Allen. 'That seems to be what the CHA has said, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong.'..."
(Catholic News Agency)
I think this bears repeating:

What worries the cardinal more than a businesswoman's claim about what a law really says is "...'...the claim that the bishops cannot speak to the moral content of the law'...."

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. (February 19, 2009) We don't vote on which of the Ten Commandments we like this term. And, very importantly: Bishops teach, we listen. Not the other way around.

As a Catholic, I'm free to leave the Church. The door is open - both ways. (Timothy Radcliffe wrote an excellent article, "Should I stay or should I go?," in The Tablet (April 11, 2010) - cited in this blog April 11, 2010.)

Go Ahead: Read That Article

I recommend reading the entire Catholic News Agency article. It's got the sort of informed detail you seldom find when mainstream American news covers matters involving the Catholic Church.

The cardinal seems to be very interested in dialog and clarification. In my opinion, he's simply doing his job. The top executive of the business called the Catholic Health Association is, presumably, a Catholic. Even if she wasn't, my understanding is that the cardinal would still be obligated to be concerned about her.

How Could a Bishop Say That a Law isn't Moral?

I remember the 'good old days,' from maybe 1968 on, when red-white-and-blue-blooded Americans were all for "law and order." They had a point.

Any society with more than one person in it has to have rules and ways to enforce the rules - or you'll probably be down to one person very soon. Which is about what you might expect to hear from somebody who became a Catholic: intentionally.

Where many of the "law and order" folks made their mistake, I think, was in elevating law - any law - to a sort of secularly-sanctified status. Provided it was an American law, of course.

It's not 1968 any more, and another set of people have been deciding what American law is for several decades. I don't think we'll see "law and order" getting much traction, politically, now.

The notion that something is morally acceptable if it's legal hasn't gone away, though. Not as far as I can tell.

Take killing people. As long as your victim is young enough, or sick enough, and you have a particular sort of relationship with your victim: it's perfectly legal. We call it "abortion," "assisted suicide," or "euthanasia," depending on the details. All quite legal.

Moral? I don't think so. And, more to the point, that's what the Catholic Church teaches - to the best of my ability to discern. I've written about this before: click 'life issues' in this blog's label cloud.

So, yes: as far as I can tell, a bishop can say that a law is immoral. Sometimes he's obligated to say so.

Immoral Laws: Been There, Done That

Catholic leaders have been in awkward positions before, when the laws of the land they live in are not consistent with Catholic teaching. One of the more outstanding examples of this situation happened during the late 1930s and early 1940s, when a European country's elected leadership decided to put some fashionable ideas into practice.

Back to the article again:
"...At one point in the interview, he [Cardinal George] invoked the example of Blessed Cardinal Clemens von Galen, who under the Nazis 'not only condemned euthanasia as an unethical procedure, but he also condemned the laws which permitted it.'..."
(Catholic News Agency)
"Nazi?" Yeah, it's almost a cliche these days: but sometimes it's a good idea not to ignore history. As I said in another blog:
"...I've gotten the impression that it's considered gauche in some circles, to cite Chancellor Hitler's social programs and methods of persuasion. I'll grant that using 'fascist!' as an epithet has given references to Nazi Germany the same tacky feel as crying 'commie!'..."
(Another War-on-Terror Blog (June 22, 2010))
Cliche or not, I think Cardinal George has a point.

Eugenics and euthanasia were quite popular ideas, until Chancellor Hitler gave them bad publicity that's only now being cleared away. We really ought to know better, now: but it's easy to forget. Particularly when nasty ideas are put in nice, new, fresh-looking packages.

I'm profoundly grateful that Cardinal George and others are willing to do their jobs, and say what is right - and what is not.

Finally: "Magisterium?" That's what I'm not - and neither is somebody whose authority extends down through some 'health care' business. I've written a little about the Magisterium before.

Related posts:More:

Monday, June 21, 2010

'To Infinity, and Beyond' - And a Plug for Home Schooling

From today's news:
"Buzz Lightyear's Out-of-This-World 'Toy Story' Told by Boy's Space Patch"
Space.com (June 21, 2010)

"In Disney's 'Toy Story 3,' Buzz Lightyear once again faces identity issues between being a real space ranger or being a toy. For at least one 11-year-old fan who designed the mission patch for Lightyear's real-life space adventure, the answer must seem clear: the animated astronaut is in fact, both.

"Before Lightyear returned to the silver screen this past weekend, his likeness — as drawn by Adam Carr of Tampa, Florida — returned to Earth last month aboard the final planned flight of NASA's space shuttle Atlantis...."

What's This doing in a 'Catholic' Blog?

I almost used that Space.com article on Apathetic Lemming of the North. But I've done several space-related posts there recently, and I try not to let ruts form there. Sometimes, when this sort of thing happens - several potential post topics coming at once - I either save some for later, or decide to pass the 'extra' topics by.

I didn't want to do that with the Buzz Lightyear story. Mostly because I'm something of a "Toy Story" fan - and definitely a fan of Buzz Lightyear of Star Command ("to infinity, and beyond!").

Which still doesn't explain what this post is doing here.

I'm not going to present you with some theologically-dubious claptrap that tries to tie the International Space Station (ISS) is with something "heavenly." Even if I hadn't read what Bishop Gabino Zavala had to say about roll-your-own theology online, I'm not about to be a case-in-point for the 'religious people are unreasonable' stereotype.
Let's Hear it for Home Schooling
My excuse for sticking a "Buzz Lightyear" post in this blog is in the article's fifth paragraph:
"...Carr, who is home-schooled, came across the contest as part of his studies...."
(Space.com)
Kudos to Space.com, for mentioning Adam Carr's educational status.

I've posted a few times about home schooling in this blog: the realities; and the stereotypes.

So far, I've written about reasons for getting kids out of America's government schools, and a little about the advantages of home schooling. The 'Buzz Lightyear' contest mentioned in Space.com touches on one of the reasons for getting your kids into home schooling. There's more to be said on the subject.

But not today.

Related posts:

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Father's Day, 2010

No particularly deep thoughts today.

It's Father's Day here in America. Since it's also a Sunday, I went to Mass. Recognizing the regional culture, the parish priest had all fathers stand: after which he blessed us.


Mass at Our Lady of the Angels Church, Sauk Centre. June 20, 2010

Well, Maybe One Deep Thought

The Mass, and the homily, involved Zechariah 12:10-11, 13:1; Galatians 3:26-29; and Luke 9:18-24. The passage from Luke starts with a really important question:
"8 9 Once when Jesus was praying in solitude, and the disciples were with him, he asked them, 'Who do the crowds say that I am?' "
Luke 9:18
I've read the rest of what my Lord had to say about who - and what - He is. Including this unequivocal statement:
" 'Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.' "
(John 8:58)
Through the centuries, other people have claimed to be God. What made my Lord stand out was that he was able to make the claim stick. I've written about that before. More than once.

Jesus said that he was - and is - God. I believe Him. And because I believe, I have to be on the same page with Joshua:
"3 If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve, the gods your fathers served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
(Joshua 24:15)
I thought about editing out that bit about "the gods your fathers served beyond the River" and so forth. It was relevant to the folks Joshua was talking to, but not so much now, more than two dozen centuries later. The choice Joshua offered, though, is still an important one.

Enough With being Serious

After Mass, I over-grilled burgers while spending some time outside with #1 daughter. Next weekend, God willing, I'll try to remember that it's summer - and burgers heat up faster now.

After lunch, I picked up green tea and Boost at the grocery, and spent the rest of the day relaxing. #1 daughter went back to her place in Alexandria, down the road - and called me after she got there, to let me know about a special Dirty Jobs show on Discovery channel.

It's been a good Father's Day.

Related posts:

Saturday, June 19, 2010

It's Faith and Reason

I have The Quotations Page "Quotes of the Day" gadget on my Google Homepage. As a rule, it's fun to see what shows up. There's even the occasional witticism from G. K. Chesterton.

And, there's the predictable stuff from current serious thinkers. Like today's quote:
"Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people."
- Doris Egan
The Wikipedia article on Doris Egan starts: "Doris Egan (1955-) is an American screenwriter, producer, and writer...." She's a few years younger than I am, but we're nearly contemporaries.

Which is why I think I may know what she means.

Faith, Reason, and Cherished American Assumptions

Over the decades, I've encountered a fair number of very 'religious' folks who reinforce the notion that reasonable people can't be religious: and vice versa. Some of them even believe it, themselves.

Then there are the well-read 'Bible Christians' who come up with such phrases as "a good Christian: like David." The David, king of Israel, had run-ins with King Saul, killed Goliath: that David. The one who lived and died centuries before Jesus of Nazareth was born.

I'm not making up that assertion that 'King David was a Christian,' by the way. I rather wish I was. It was on a pre-recorded radio program: so I'm pretty sure it wasn't a slip of the tongue.

More important than the occasional chronologically-challenged preacher, I think, is the deep-rooted cultural assumption, so dear to so many Americans, that faith and reason, religion and science are not only polar opposites: but are in conflict.

I'm pretty sure that the 'faith vs. reason' notion is endemic to most if not all Western cultures, too.

Faith, Reason, and Expectations

I don't expect to change that sort of belief - any more than I'd expect to alter the assumptions of that 'David was a Christian' fellow.

I'll just say that I converted to Catholicism in part because anything I believe has to make sense. I've written about this before.

Related posts:

Well, That's Interesting: A Priest Blogs About an AP Story About an iPad Mass App


Updated (June 29, 2010)

A pretty good, well-thought-out, response to the "iRomanMissal." Don't let the name Curt Jester fool you: This is a Catholic who can be serious when the subject demands it.
Noted with interest:The AP article says Father Paolo Padrini is a consultant with the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Social Communications.

Looks like a good idea to me.

I may be missing something significant: something in the symbolism, for example, of having an electronic device passing along data from the Vatican, instead of a paper-and-ink book doing the same thing. But since app is apparently going ahead with cooperation from the Holy See - I don't see a problem.

The AP says the app will be launched in July.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Rules, the Catholic Church, Neighbors and Me

Yesterday, I wrote: "As a Catholic, there are things I must do." (June 17, 2010)

The first draft of that sentence ended with "things I must not do." In context, the meaning of the sentence was almost - but not quite - the same.

Christianity, Culture, and Me

That "must not" phrase came, I think, at least in part from my cultural background. I'm an American, born toward the end of the Truman administration. I was brought up in a nice, Christian, mainstream Protestant home. From the culture - not so much from the church my parents went to - I learned that religion, Christianity in particular, had a lot of 'thou shalt nots.'

In the case of some groups, there's something to that assertion. When I was growing up, the noisier little denominations were very definite about what 'good Christians' mustn't do. Some were convinced that drinking led straight to Hell, others said it was smoking: and most were agreed that gambling was the work of the Devil.

So, I joined a church that has Bingo fundraisers. Actually, I didn't become a Catholic so that I could play Bingo - that's another story.

This Catholic and Rules

It's possible to describe the rules of the Catholic Church (we've got books full of them) in terms of 'don't do this,' and 'don't do that.' For example, I'm forbidden to kill myself. (January 28, 2009) Talk about being oppressed? Or, not.

Turn the same set of rules around, and I'm commanded to maintain my health, and live.

I've discovered that the rules of the Catholic Church - coming from the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium (look it up) - are things I'm supposed to do and be: not a list of actions to shun.

And, boiled down to essentials, there's only one rule. Or maybe it's two: Love God and your neighbor. That's not my idea, by the way:
"27 'You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust...."
(Matthew 5:43-44)

"5 One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, 'Which is the first of all the commandments?' Jesus replied, 'The first is this: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." The second is this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." There is no other commandment greater than these.' "
(Mark 12:28-31)

"10 There was a scholar of the law 11 who stood up to test him and said, 'Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'What is written in the law? How do you read it?' He said in reply, 'You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.' He replied to him, 'You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.' But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?' Jesus replied, 'A man fell victim to robbers as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead....'..."
(Luke 10:25-30)
(You may know the rest of that story: it's the one about the good Samaritan.)
I particularly like that passage out of Mark. An expert comes up to Jesus and asks him for one rule: "the first of all the commandments." Jesus gives him the first: and the second.

"And who is my neighbor?"

Before I get back to the story of the good Samaritan, a sort of disclaimer: I speak with the full authority of some guy with a blog. I'm a Catholic layman. Moving along.

In Luke, a legal expert had asked Jesus what he had to do, to inherit eternal life. Jesus encouraged him to recall the most important commandments - which include loving one's neighbor. Then the expert asked 'who's my neighbor?' Back to Luke. Samaritans and Israelites didn't get along all that well, remember:
"Jesus replied, 'A man fell victim to robbers as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead. 12 A priest happened to be going down that road, but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. Likewise a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion at the sight. He approached the victim, poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them. Then he lifted him up on his own animal, took him to an inn and cared for him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction, "Take care of him. If you spend more than what I have given you, I shall repay you on my way back." Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers' victim?' He answered, 'The one who treated him with mercy.' Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.' "
(Luke 10:31-37)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses neighbors quite a lot, including this bit:
"Christ died out of love for us, while we were still 'enemies.'100 The Lord asks us to love as he does, even our enemies, to make ourselves the neighbor of those farthest away, and to love children and the poor as Christ himself.101
"The Apostle Paul has given an incomparable depiction of charity: 'charity is patient and kind, charity is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Charity does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Charity bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.'102"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church (1825)I've written before, that things get complicated when human beings are involved. But that's mostly in the nuts-and-bolts detail. Jesus boiled what we're supposed to do down to a couple of fairly simple, easy-to-understand instructions: Love God and love my neighbor.

And that everybody's my neighbor.

I said 'simple,' not 'easy.'

But, getting back to where I started in this post: The way I see it, the Catholic Church isn't telling me what I can't do so much as what I must do.

Loving God? That's not so hard - although I don't show it as well as I should.

Loving my neighbor? The folks here in my neighborhood: that's easy. We get along okay. Everybody else? That's where it gets interesting.

Sort-of-related posts:

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Some Catholic Blogs Bother Bishops - A Lot

Catholics are blogging. There's good news, and there's bad news.

First, the good news: from my point of view. During the years since that day in 1997 when I launched my first website, many Catholics and Catholic organizations have learned about the Internet and are learning how to use it.

Now, the bad news: again from my point of view. Not all Catholics know how to behave themselves.

I've written about what Bishop Gabino Zavala had to say about bloggers before. (June 4, 2010) Actually, I started out writing about the bishop's remarks - and ended up discussing an elephant and journalists. What can I say? That's the way my mind works. My brain, anyway - which is another topic.

"Very Troubled" - Not What a Catholic Wants to Hear a Bishop Say

I'm a practicing Catholic. And, to the best of my ability, an informed one. I understand the hierarchical structure of the Church well enough to know that when someone who is in authority speaks, I'd do well to listen.

So when the posts of folks who do my kind of work make a bishop "very troubled" - I get concerned.

The USCCB Media Blog posted the complete text of Bishop Gabino Zavala's remarks on June 4, 2010. If you're a Catholic and blogger, or are involved in some sort of Catholic media: I recommend reading what the bishop said. I think he's got some really good thoughts on "faithful Catholic media:" what it's not, and what it is.

I've read "What Does it Mean to be a Faithful Catholic Media Organization in the 21st Century?" And I intend to do so again - probably on Sunday. Odds are pretty good that I missed something before.

At least a Few Bloggers are Paying Attention

I'm not the only blogger who's noticed what Bishop Gabino Zavala said. Matthew Warner (National Catholic Register) probably had the bishop's remarks in mind when he a video and commentary yesterday. (Which I used as the core of a post.)

Mr. Warner was back today, with quite a bit more to say on the subject:
"Bishops Very Troubled by Some Catholic Blogs"
Matthew Warner blog, National Catholic Register (June 17, 2010)

"Bishop Gabino Zavala, auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles and Chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Communications Committee, recently spoke at the annual Catholic Media Association convention. He had a lot of really good things to say, particularly about what it means to be faithful Catholics in the media and what we can teach the secular media in the process. But he also had a message for Catholic blogs:

" 'There was consistent agreement [among brother bishops] that one aspect that is most alarming to us about media is when it becomes unchristian and hurtful to individuals. For example, we are particularly concerned about blogs that engage in attacks and hurtful, judgmental language. We are very troubled by blogs and other elements of media that assume the role of Magisterium and judge others in the Church. Such actions shatter the communion of the Church that we hold so precious.'

"I think this was an especially important point and I'm glad he made it. I have probably spoken as if I was a little too like the Magisterium and judged others a bit too harshly in blog posts in the past, myself. One of the reasons I named my personal blog Fallible Blogma was to try and make it clear from the very title that everything that originates from me is the opposite of infallible and carries the serious and full authority of some guy with a blog - despite me occasionally forgetting that...."
As "some guy with a blog," I need to be - careful.

'You Have the Right to be a Nitwit'

As an American citizen, I've got the right to write and publish a remarkably wide range of crazy, foolish ideas. As a Catholic, there are things I must do. It boils down to the old 'love God, love your neighbor' thing. But, like anything involving human beings - it gets complicated. I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church's discussions of truth and love fit in here:

Love, Catholic Style

I sometimes feel like I'm in a bind: I must love my neighbor - and regard everybody as my neighbor; but some ideas are loose in Western civilization - including America - that are dangerous, and some of my neighbor-Americans don't seem aware of that. Discussing these ideas and their consequences will probably seem "hateful." I've gone over this before. ("The Manhattan Declaration: Hateful? - Who Knew?" (November 21, 2009))

Back to an excerpt from what Bishop Gabino Zavala said:
"...As I [writes Bishop Zavala] talked with brother bishops in preparation for this presentation, there was consistent agreement that one aspect that is most alarming to us about media is when it becomes unchristian and hurtful to individuals. For example, we are particularly concerned about blogs that engage in attacks and hurtful, judgmental language. We are very troubled by blogs and other elements of media that assume the role of Magisterium and judge others in the Church. Such actions shatter the communion of the Church that we hold so precious...."
("What Does it Mean to be a Faithful Catholic Media Organization in the 21st Century?"
Bishop Gabino Zavala (June 3, 2010) (quoted in USCCB Media Blog (June 4, 2010))
[emphasis mine]
What the bishop said about blogs and other elements of media usurping the Magisterium's role is important too, which is why I have so many citations in some of my posts - but that's yet another topic. ("Magisterium?" I've written about that before.)

The "hurtful to individuals" remark is important, too, I think. Like I wrote yesterday: nobody's going to understand what another person says if they don't listen. And very few of us listen to someone who attacks us with words.

Which means that I'd better be careful about what I write. I've got an obligation to be truthful: but I've also got an obligation to not be "hurtful." Well, nobody said this would be easy. Actually, someone did - and that is yet again another topic.

Related posts:
More:
  • "Bishop Zavala on Catholic Media"
    USCCB Media Blog (June 4, 2010)
    Includes full text of
    • "What Does it Mean to be a Faithful Catholic Media Organization in the 21st Century?"
      Bishop Gabino Zavala (June 3, 2010)

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.