Religious Art in the Home: We Like It

As far as I know, there's no rule that says a practicing Catholic has to have a crucifix on the wall, or some sort of religious art on display. I think it's a good idea, though.

Besides, I like to display things that matter to me. Up in the attic, where I do most of my reading and offline research, I've got an M. C. Escher poster, a few maps, and assorted pictures on the walls. Also a little Holy Family desktop sculpture.

Next to the front door of my house, there's a sort of crucifix on the inside wall. My father-in-law carved it, several years ago. It's a little different: a representation of my Lord's face in profile is at the meeting of a cross's upright and bar.


By the front door: a sort of crucifix.

I like it. And it's one of the many reminders in the house of our faith.

The east wall of the kitchen has a few 'religious' pictures, including one of Jesus in Gethsemane. My wife's family had a picture of the Last Supper in the kitchen - a sort of tradition. We wound up putting a copy of The Last Supper in the north room.


The east wall of the kitchen. The framed words are a Norwegian meal blessing.

That Norwegian prayer to be said at meals is from my heritage. My mother is Norwegian, and taught me 'grace' in that language. A decade or so back, I saw a copy of the prayer in a religious book & gift shop in Alexandria and put it on the wall.

The wall sculpture in the upper right of the picture is a stylized Madonna and Child that my father-in-law carved. I think quite a few of his kids have one of those.


In the north room: a picture of the Last Supper, next to family photos.

This household's Last Supper picture is, of all places, in the north room: where we don't eat. Oh, well: it loses some of its symbolic significance here, but I see it every time I get up from my desk. Or do, if I remember to look to my right as I walk toward the kitchen.

So, why do I think having that stuff on the walls is a good idea? The pictures and carvings are reminders of what I believe. When I see one, it may encourage me to think about some aspect of my Lord, His life and teachings.

Some also have a certain amount of 'warm fuzzy' appeal. Which is okay.

I don't think that everybody should have things like that on their walls. Like I said, as far as I know there's no rule that says Catholics have to have any sort of art on display.

But it's something my family and I do.

Related posts:

• "Scapulars and a Crucifix: Showing Where You Stand"
  (April 20, 2010)
• "Feeling Forgiven: My Faith and Emotional Perks"
  (November 24, 2009)

Is it Wrong to Kill One Person on the Chance that Someone Else Might Benefit?

"Stem cell research" has been in the news quite a bit lately. And, being discussed online. A familiar line is that caring, noble scientists are being thwarted by uncaring, ignorant religious people.

There's actually something to that claim.

What's the Big Deal With "Embryonic" Stem Cells?

Medical researchers have a fairly good reason for wanting to kill babies and chop them up. "Embryonic" cells are easier to grow than those found in adults - according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). And they're pluripotent - able to grow into any sort of tissue.

Quite convenient, both ways.

According to the National Institutes of Health:

"...Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin...."
("Stem Cell Basics," Stem Cell Information, National Institutes of Health)

Here's the last sentence in that paragraph, with emphasis:

"...Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin...."
("Stem Cell Basics," Stem Cell Information, National Institutes of Health)

Rephrased, with somewhat less lofty terms: 'it's easier to grow stem cells we've taken from murdered babies: and besides, we think adult stem cells probably wouldn't be quite as useful.'

Sounds disgusting, when I put it that way. Particularly the "we think" part.

But quite a few folks in America are convinced that it's cruel and heartless and uncaring to not chop up babies - on the off chance that someone who's older and better-looking than the victims of this research might, maybe, benefit.

(Adapted from foonote 1, (August 23, 2010))

Isn't It Okay to Kill Somebody, if Somebody Else Will Benefit?

I've discussed the ethics of experimenting on human beings, from a more secular point of view, in another blog:

"A Lesson from Nürnberg: Get Informed Consent Before Experimenting on People

"The so-called Nürnberg Code was supposed to give physicians guidelines about how to use people as guinea pigs. It didn't work quite as well as might have been hoped.

"After the code was set up, America saw a number of more-or-less well-publicized lapses:

• "Tuskegee syphilis experiment (1932-1972)
  Black men in in Macon County, Alabama, who had syphilis weren't treated
• "Harold Blauer (1952)
  Mr. Blauer went to the New York State Psychiatric Institute for treatment of depression, was dosed with mescaline derivatives supplied by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps: then he killed himself
• "High oxygen to premature infants (1953)
  Premature babies were exposed to high levels of oxygen: the doctor knew that it would probably cause blindness, and noticed their eyes swelling, but kept up the treatment anyway
• "Injections of cancer cells (1963)
  Doctors wanted to know if cancer cells would thrive as well in patients who were debilitated by something other than cancer, as they did in debilitated cancer patients, so they injected cancer cells into patients who didn't have cancer - without telling them.
  • "Ironically, this non-consensual research was done at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital. And: "Two years later, the American Cancer Society elected the principal investigator to be their Vice-President."
• "Hepatitis in retarded children (1964+)
  The Willowbrook State Hospital in New York injected severely retarded children with hepatitis virus: as 'a vaccine against hepatitis.' True enough, survivors of the disease had an immunity.
• "Cincinnati radiation experiments (1960-72)
  Blacks, again, and this time exposed to high radiation. For the U.S. military.
  "Without their consent.
  "Source: "Nonconsensual Medical Experiments on Human Beings" (copyright 1997 by Ronald B. Standler)

"What's Going on Here?

"Although half of the cases that Mr. Standler mentioned involved the American military, half didn't. I don't see these excesses of experimental enthusiasm from the fifties and sixties - or the current scandal at the VA - so much as a military problem, as a medical one...."
(Another War-on-Terror Blog (June 17, 2008))

As the survivor of a medical experiment, I can't say that I'm 'unbiased' about using human beings as laboratory animals. I've written about that before:

• "Medical Ethics and Human Experimentation: Why I Take it Personally"
  (February 3, 2009)

All of those cases I cited in the other blog, of course, involve experiments on people - human beings. Or, rather, people who are now recognized as "people." It's not all that long ago that folks whose ancestors came from Africa, or children who weren't as bright as the 'average child,' weren't, quite, "people." Not important people, anyway.

As for soldiers? Well, as long as they're not related to a member of Congress or somebody else important - - - I like to think that's changing: but the little SNAFU with Chiantix is almost current events.

Back to chopping up babies to get their stem cells. One excuse is that 'they're going to be killed anyway, so why not use the bodies of these little unpeople.'

The matter of whether or not it's okay to use research and materials that has already been done is - a bit complicated. I've discussed that before. (October 26, 2009)

Harvesting People Who Get Killed Anyway: A Hypothetical Situation

Here's a hypothetical situation. I want to emphasize that I do not support the sort of thinking that might result in this - again, hypothetical - situation.

'Scientific Progress Thwarted'

What if someone with letters after his name said that he thought that maybe he'd find a cure for something, if he could just slice and dice the bodies of Hispanics that show up along the Mexican border?

He wouldn't kill them himself: he'd just tag along with whoever was helping them get across the border. And if some of the cargo just happened to die along the way: he would be all caring and scientific, and see if maybe something nifty could be made from the leftover parts.

Disgusting? Yes, certainly. Illegal? Probably. Immoral? I think so.

Unthinkable? Considering that lobotomies seem to be coming back into vogue, I'm afraid not. I've discussed that in another blog.

Would putting a stop to 'harvesting' Hispanic immigrants be thwarting 'medical research?' Actually, yes. But I think that sort of research would be wrong, and should be stopped.

Even if maybe something useful could be found, if it continued.

I'm such a bleeding heart that I even think it would be wrong if members of Congress were killed for their parts.

That's because I recognize that folks who try to get into America are people: and so are members of Congress.

I also think that human beings are people, no matter what age they are.

"The End Justifies the Means:" NOT

As a practicing Catholic, I'm not allowed to kill someone and take the person's wallet - even if I give half of the take to charity. Committing an evil act so that something good can be done is, simply, wrong.

" 'An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention' (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1759)

A counter-argument is that the babies that get cut up for their stem cells would be killed anyway: but I don't think that hypothetical chap tagging along with the human smugglers was very nice - and I don't think that arranging to collect the pieces after babies 'just happen' to be killed is very nice, either.

Even if maybe there might be something useful found in the mess.

Related posts:

• "Stem Cell Research in the News: My Take
  (August 23, 2010)
• "Vaccines, Aborted Babies, and Catholic Bioethics"
  (October 26, 2009)
• "Inconvenient Classes of Persons and Health Care"
  (July 26, 2009)
• "Medical Ethics and Human Experimentation: Why I Take it Personally"
  (February 3, 2009)
• "Human Clones Possible: Don't Worry, They're Just for Parts and Research"
  (February 2, 2009)
• "Life: It's a Single Issue, and an Important One"
  (November 2, 2008)
• "Capital Punishment: Killing Those Who Deserve to Die"
  (October 2, 2008)
• "Chantix and Veteran's Affairs: Who Needs Consent? We Got 'Em, Let's Dose 'Em"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (June 17, 2008)

Striving for Success: A Successful Strategy?

I've been casting a net through my mind, trawling for something to write about today.

It's not that it's been a quiet weekend here: My household experienced a visit from #1 daughter and a friend of hers yesterday morning and afternoon; a visit from #2 daughter and her husband yesterday afternoon through this afternoon; and an overlapping visit from my father-in-law, to see #2 daughter and her husband. Also the photos and video from their Hawaiian trip: a sort of belated honeymoon.

All of which was a series of good experiences: and left me with less time than usual to get my writing done. It was a good trade-off, though.

So Much Depends on What's Meant by "Success"

Today's homily at Our Lady of the Angels church mentioned our culture's emphasis on "success:" which generally means having an expensive house, and expensive car, and expensive clothes.

Nothing wrong with being rich. Or being poor. (February 4, 2010)

But if all a person wants is to have as much wealth as possible: I can see a problem with that.

This weekend, I spent more time being with my family than I did working at being 'successful' in the business sense of the word. I think I made the right decision. Family's important.

So is God, and a Christian's relationship with God.

Which is why I like to spend Sundays doing that "cultivation of the mind" that we're supposed to do. (January 2, 2010) I went to Mass, of course: but somewhere in the early afternoon my body decided that I needed a nap. I woke in time to say goodbye to #2 daughter and my son-in-law, but got precious little "cultivation" done.

I figure that nap was important, too: I feel a bit more refreshed now, than I did right after noon.

Bottom line, for this weekend? It was "successful" in terms of family time. I didn't spend Sunday doing the sort of reading, thinking, and meditation I like to do - but at least I gave myself time to rest. So, yes: I'd say this weekend's outcome was "successful."

Even if I didn't get much work done.

Related posts:

• "Brooding on Ecclesiastes"
  (August 1, 2010)
• "Work, 'Giving Back,' and a Saint"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Money isn't Everything: But it Helps"
  (April 10, 2010)
• "Wealth, the Vatican, the White House, Corporate Headquarters, and Cultural Values"
  (February 4, 2010)

'To Know, Love, and Serve God' - Great, but How?!

I used to wonder what, specifically, God wanted me to do with my life. I'd assumed that I would, God willing, be a husband and a father: I've written about that before.

I felt that I might be - quite likely was - missing something, a sort of second vocation.

I still feel that way, from time to time.

That's how I feel.

Now, what I think.

It's [Not] All in the Catechism

I'm a convert to Catholicism, so I didn't know much about the Baltimore Catechism when I was growing up.

I've seen that old standard in more recent years, and think that the Q&A format made sense for a book that was used as a teaching tool. I also think that the Holy See had the right idea, publishing a newer Catechism.

Back to the Baltimore Catechism for a moment, though: here's a question and answer pair that addresses the question "what does God want me to do?" Sort of.

"4. What must we do to gain the happiness of heaven?

"To gain the happiness of heaven we must know, love, and serve God in this world."
(Baltimore Catechism, Revised Edition (1941), The Purpose of Man's Existence, via CatholiCity.com)

That's pretty straightforward:

• Know God
  • I've been working on that
• Love God
  • Same comment
• Serve God in this world
  • Great advice
    • But how?!

Specifics! I want specific, detailed instructions! And, naturally, I want them now.

You can probably guess how God would react to a demand like that. If not, check out Job in the Old Testament.

Specific Instructions: A Case Study

St. Francis of Asisi, I'm told, in response to a prayer in a ruined church, heard a voice telling him "...'Go, Francis, and repair my house, which as you see is falling into ruin.'..." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Saint Francis of Assisi) So he went off and started repairing St. Damian's, the church where he'd been praying.

There's nothing wrong with a DIY job of architectural restoration: but there's very good reason to believe that St. Francis of Assisi was supposed to "repair" the Church: the outfit that my Lord put Peter in charge of.

Eventually, St. Francis did "repair" the Church. Which is another story.

I'm no Francis of Assisi: and I don't mind a bit.

Have you noticed? Quite often, the first thing a prophet did was try to talk his way out of the assignment. It was the same way with a fair number of Saints, I understand. And I'm getting off-topic. Again.

'Don't Worry - be Happy'

Wanting to be happy probably makes sense: assuming that "happiness" isn't a sort of vacant euphoria. I seriously doubt that's the sort of "happiness" defined in the current Catechism:

"...God put us into the world to know, love, and serve him, and so come to the happiness of paradise (1720)."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary, H, under Happiness)

Sounds a lot like what was in the Baltimore Catechism, doesn't it? (I've quoted that excerpt from the Catechism's glossary before.)

What is the Purpose of Life? To Know, Love and Serve God

That triad of instructions - to know, love and serve God - are clear enough. But that still doesn't answer my desire for explicit, specific instructions about what to do with my life.

Which is okay. I've learned that the Church doesn't work like that. We get instructions like "be charitable." It's up to us to decide, based on what we see around us and how the local culture works, just what we do to be charitable.

How to Serve God? Good Question

I've decided that I was probably supposed to serve a family as a husband and father. Which I've been doing for over a quarter-century now.

Along the way I've given a tenth part of what I make to the Church and a variety of charities. No bragging, by the way: I've just been following instructions about tithing, within the framework of the culture I live in.

I've also tried to be an informed citizen. America selects leaders in elections, and I have the right to vote: so when I vote, I'm responsible for having some awareness of which candidate deviates least from what a practicing Catholic can, in good conscience, support.

And, in a small way, I support the charitable activities of the Knights of Columbus, through the local council.

Finally, I try to let folks know what it's like to live as a Catholic: and tell what I know about my faith.

Which is where this blog comes in.

Related posts:

• "Marriage, Family, being a Father, and Certainty"
  (August 3, 2010)
• "My Life Has Purpose: Everybody's Does"
  (January 5, 2009)

Prayers Over the Kitchen Sink

We've got two sheets of paper taped to the window frame, over the kitchen sink. One of them's been there for a while, the other went up a few days ago.



The older, more wrinkled, one is a meditation for someone who has received the Eucharist earlier in the day. The new one is a prayer request from someone I met on Twitter.

Both are there to remind members of this family to pray: meditating on what's happened that day at Mass; and asking for help with someone's health issue.

The window over our kitchen sink isn't particularly "spiritual." It's one place in the house where we all stop at least once a day: which makes it a good place to post reminders. In these cases, to pray.

What is Prayer?

One thing prayer is not is 'making God do things for me.' I heard somewhere that prayer is more about conforming our hearts to God, than bending His will to ours.

Here's a somewhat more detailed (and official) definition of Catholic prayer:

" 'Prayer is the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God.'² But when we pray, do we speak from the height of our pride and will, or 'out of the depths' of a humble and contrite heart?³ He who humbles himself will be exalted;⁴ humility is the foundation of prayer. Only when we humbly acknowledge that 'we do not know how to pray as we ought,'⁵ are we ready to receive freely the gift of prayer. 'Man is a beggar before God.'⁶"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2559)

There's quite a bit more on the subject, of course. (Catechism 2558-2565, for starters)

Prayers by the Bushel

As a practicing Catholic, I've got quite a selection of kinds of prayers to choose from:

• Novenas, sets of prayers to be said over a nine-day period
• Short, informal, prayers of the "please help me find those keys" sort
• Long-established memorized prayers like the St. Michael's prayer
  • I'll get back to that one
• The set of prayers we call "the Rosary"
• The Lord's Prayer
  • Which is part of the Rosary

There are prayers to be said when getting up in the morning, before meals (my family does that), prayers to be said at particular times during the day: after about two millennia of accumulated traditions, a person could probably find prayers for every waking moment.

After a few hours, that'd be hard on the throat. And leave no time for anything else.

Some religious orders do a very great deal of praying. You might say "it's what they do."

Apart from the meal-time prayers, I don't have prayers that I say at fixed intervals during the day. It's not that I think it's a bad idea: it's just that I haven't seen any clear instruction that I should.

On the other hand, for years now I've prayed the St. Michael's prayer whenever I hear a siren: plus a few words, asking help for whoever's responding to an emergency. Those words have to be pretty generic, sometimes, since I can't tell what sort of emergency vehicle the siren's mounted on: but I figure the heavenly analog of dispatchers can sort it out.

Later tonight, when I do the dishes that need hand-washing, I'll put in a word about that prayer request I read on Twitter. It's no big deal: just part of being a Catholic.

• "A Chaplet for America"
  (June 15, 2010)
• "Prayer, Medicine and Trusting God"
  (March 4, 2010)
• "A Lenten Chaplet, Routines, and Catching Up"
  (February 24, 2010)
• "Haiti Earthquake: Send Help if You Can, and Pray for the Folks Living There"
  (January 12, 2010)
• "Praying for America's Leaders"
  (July 2, 2009)
• "A Prayer for the Dead"
  (June 25, 2009)

Unity, Diversity, and Being Catholic

There's a fellow on Twitter who plans to post the entire Bible on his account, by doing one verse a day. Some of those verses will have to be posted in pieces, since they run more than Twitter's 140 character limit. Like Luke 1:5.

Bible Verses, Platitudes, and Me

My hat's off to him, and the folks who make those 'one platitude each day' websites.

Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible (May 31, 2010), and committing to typing a verse a day is one way to make sure you stay with a reading program. About platitudes, Hallmark demonstrated how many folks like sayings like 'be thankful.' That's good advice, by the way.

But I'm not going to recite Bible verses, or post parables at intervals.

For one thing, I've done my 'read the Bible, cover-to-cover' exercise and don't see a point in repeating it just yet. By the way, with due respect to the Author: some of those census reports in the Old Testament are not particularly scintillating reading.

I'm glad I read the whole Bible, though. It was a good way to get a sort of overview of what's in Holy Writ.

Why am I not going to type (or copy and paste) the entire Bible? There's the matter of copyright infringement: and yes, there's a copyright on the NAB.

Another, major, reason I see no need of transcribing the Old and New Testaments is that they're already available online. "The New American Bible" is on the Vatican's website: full text, with footnotes and links, and no index to speak of. Which is okay by me: I'd probably use Google to search for particular verses or topics, anyway.

As for parables: I can get those elsewhere, and I'm pretty sure you know where to find them, too.

Conforming to Catholic Teachings, Being an Individual

A joke from my 'good old days' involved a speaker addressing young people with, "all together now, say 'I am an individual!'"

It was a time when 'the nation's youth' declared their individuality and independence: by wearing jeans and T-shirts, and letting their hair grow.

I proclaimed my individuality by growing sideburns and wearing white socks every day of my high school years. The pocket protector and huge Adam's apple helped.

Fact is, I've never had difficulty standing out from the crowd: or having the crowd stand away from me. I'm not sure which way it went, in some cases.

What Being Catholic is Not

I did not convert to Catholicism because I wanted to be part of a clique where everybody would be like me. I've written about my reasons for conversion before, and probably will again.

The 1,100,000,000 or so Catholics living today are not a monolithic mass of indistinguishable church groupies.

One Body - Many Members

We all believe the same things - or should. That's where tools like the Catechism come in. But we are not - and are not expected to be - identical. There's the 1 Corinthians 12 thing, for starters.

Archbishop Gregory of Atlanta, Georgia, talked about individuality in the context of cultural diversity:

"...'Our efforts at national unity often depend upon bringing peoples' diversity into something of an artificial harmony that seeks to minimize the uniqueness and distinctiveness of people. The Catholic Church on the contrary focuses upon what we all share in common which is our faith and our oneness in Christ,' Archbishop Gregory said.

" 'To be a Catholic one need not abandon one's individuality. In fact, the Catholic Church is most perfectly herself when all of her children display that rich diversity that God has fashioned into the very heart of humanity,' the archbishop said. 'We are most Catholic when we reflect our oneness of faith and worship that is achieved in response to our rich mixture of human variety through the grace of the Holy Spirit.'..."
("Atlanta Archbishop delivers homily at Catholic Cultural Diversity Convocation," USCCB News Release, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (May 10, 2010))
[emphasis mine]

I figure that if God had wanted me to be close to the 50th percentile in most ways, that's the way He'd have made me. So I'm not going to try to be 'just like everybody else.'

Sure, there are things that a Catholic must believe, if he or she is going to be Catholic: But I think that leaves an enormous amount of room for what I'll call individual style. For some folks, that means posting one verse from the Bible each day. That's fine.

Me? I write posts like this one.

Related posts:

• "Dark Night of the Soul? No, More Like a Dim Monday Morning"
  (July 19, 2010)
• "Catholics are Different: No Argument There"
  (May 10, 2010)
• "Catholics aren't Klingons"
  (April 27, 2010)
• "Good Friday, Catholic Beliefs, and Fitting In"
  (April 3, 2010)
• "Not All Catholics are Like Me - Thank God"
  (March 18, 2009)

Food, Water, Playing Cards, a Crucifix, and Statues of Saints

The miners also asked for a Chilean flag.

Backing up a bit: There's been a terrible accident in a mine in Chile. Dozens of miners are still alive: but trapped about a half mile down.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that the odds are pretty good that they can be brought out: in a few months.

And that there's a small hole drilled down to them: enough for communication and lowering vital supplies. Which, in the opinion of the trapped miners, included a Chilean flag and statues of saints. Those fellows are definitely Catholics.

Here's what I read in the news this evening:

"Chilean miners to create shrine inside mine"
CNN (August 24, 2010)

"Communications and supplies were flowing efficiently between rescuers and 33 trapped miners in Chile, authorities said Wednesday.

"The miners have been trapped for a total of 20 days with minimal food. A probe sent by rescuers found the men alive on Sunday, but it could be three to four months before a hole can be drilled that will reach the men, 2,300 feet below the earth's surface.

"In the meantime, the miners are asking for certain objects to be sent down to make surviving in the cave easier for them.

"Officials have sent down playing cards, and the miners have asked for religious figures, such as statuettes of saints, to be delivered to them, Health Minister Jaime Manalich said.

"A crucifix has also been sent down. The miners intend to designate an area in their shelter as a shrine, Manalich said.

"They have also asked for a Chilean flag...."

There's quite a bit more in that article - and news services aren't exactly ignoring this incident.

Trapped Under a Half-Mile of Rock? Build a Shrine

Here's the situation: almost three dozen people are stuck in a hole in the ground. They've got supplies, now, so they can stay alive. But they'll be there for maybe four months.

After a while, the Chilean (and Bolivian) equivalent of "I spy" would wear a bit thin - and people don't tend to handle boredom well.

The playing cards make good sense. Most folks enjoy playing games, it's a way to socialize, and you can spend a lot of time at it. Unlike a few of the American splinters of Christianity, the Catholic Church has no problems with playing cards - as long as there aren't side-effects.

About the shrine? I suppose it could be some sort of superstitious thing, where the miners think they'll bribe Saint Borewell to get them out. (Borewell isn't a saint, by the way: It's a sort of mining equipment.) I doubt it, though. Whatever you've been told, Catholics aren't superstitious. At least, we're not supposed to be. (August 18, 2010)

On the other hand, we're encouraged to ask for help - which includes asking people to pray for us. Which is where the Saints come in. I'll get back to that.

Designating part of that hole in the ground they're stuck in as a shrine makes sense on several levels, I think.

First: If they decide to do a little work on the area, it'll give them something to do besides play cards.

Second: On a strictly psychological level, my guess is that the shrine will give them something familiar to focus their attention on, a reminder of what they have to look forward to.

Third: Being stuck in a caved-in mine for months is a great opportunity for cultivating the Christian interior life.

Don't worry, that's about as "spiritual" as I'll get in this post.

Saints? What do They Have to do With Rescuing Miners?

About Saints: They're folks who demonstrated that they're very much on the same page as my Lord: and have also demonstrated the ability to work miracles. After they died.

And yes, miracles happen. (June 7, 2010)

Asking a Saint for help is quite a lot like asking your neighbor to pray for you. Catholics don't (or shouldn't) think that Saints are gods (lower case g) - just that they've got a proven track record for working with God.

On a personal note, I've asked St. Jude for help: and my household and I owe him, big time. That's another story.

I looked up patron saints of miners on SQPN.com, and got this list:

• Anne
• Barbara
  • Removed from the Roman calendar in 1969
• Eligius
• Leonard of Noblac
• Piran
• Virgen of Rosario AKA
  • Our Lady of the Holy Letter
  • Mary, Virgin Mother of Grace
  • Our Lady of Perpetual Help
  • Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary
  • - - - and the list goes on
  (patrons of miners, SQPN)

About Barbara: She, along with quite a few other people who had been regarded as Saints, was reclassified in the late sixties.

The Catholic Church was doing a lot of what I'll call spiritual inventory work then. It turned out that, when folks took a hard look at the documentation, quite a few of the very early saints simply didn't have their paperwork in order.

Barbara and others may very well be Saints: but, since the Catholic Church didn't have a complete file on them, they couldn't legitimately be recognized as Saints. Not officially.

And yes: We've got records going back almost 2,000 years. That's one reason the Church uses Latin as its official language: and that's yet another topic.

Those Miners Won't have a Statue of You

Odds are very good that none of the miners knows you, so you won't have a statue or picture of you set up somewhere in that mine.

But you could pray for their safety, sanity, and spiritual growth, anyway.

Related post:

• "Saints: That's so Medieval"
  (February 14, 2010)

---

A tip of the hat to CNN_Networks, on Twitter, for the heads-up on their article.

Labor Day and the Bishop of Rockville Centre

It's a couple weeks before America's Labor Day, and between traditional observations and a looming midterm election, most folks in public positions will be saying something about the holiday, the economy, workers, employment, or unemployment.

Rockville Centre, New York's Bishop William Murphy is no exception. He's called for "new things" in a new social contract.¹

I haven't read Bishop Murphy's five-page document through, yet. It's getting late, and I didn't run into it until a few minutes ago. One reason I'm writing this post is to help me remember that it's there - and prod me into giving it a good once-over.

I've skimmed it, though: and it picks up with the Industrial Revolution and Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on what we should be doing:

• "Rerum Novarum"
  Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII | On Capital and Labor (May 15, 1891)

Things have changed a bit since 1891: covers over moving parts, warning signs and minimum standards for working conditions, for starters.

That Doesn't Sound Very Conservative

Quite a few folks in America seem to think that there are two possible philosophical/ethical stances: conservative; and liberal. Three, if you count moderate/amoral.

It's a convenient way to categorize the way people view the world, but the conservative/liberal continuum doesn't fit the Catholic Church too well.

Or, rather, the Catholic Church doesn't fit into the local culture's assumptions. That's pretty much par for the course as millennia roll past.

One cherished American assumption is that the Catholic Church is very "conservative." If you look only at certain facets of Catholic teaching on the nature of marriage and respect for life: yes, we seem to be "conservative."

Take a look at other Catholic teachings, and we look like liberals. I've written about this before. (November 3, 2008)

Bottom line? For about two millennia now, the Catholic Church has been teaching pretty much the same thing: Love God, love your neighbor. (June 18, 2010)

That puts us as far out of the mainstream now as it did when my Lord made Peter the first Pope - and will probably still be counter-cultural when words like "conservatives" and "liberals" will be as archaic as "optimates" and "populares" are today.

Although, come to think of it - no, I am not going to be sidetracked by Roman-era politics.

"Workers" aren't "the Masses"

Something I think many ideologues tend to forget is that people are people. Not interchangeable units in a socioeconomic matrix.

I see a great deal of promise in the sort of global society that's possible with today's information technology. I also didn't have any problem agreeing with this:

"...The risk for our time is that the de facto interdependence of people and nations is not matched by ethical interaction of consciences and minds that would give rise to truly human development. Only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and humanizing value...."
(Caritas in Veritate, section 9)

I've quoted that before. (January 31, 2010)

I Don't Belong to a Union: But I Did Once

I've spent most of my working life in jobs that weren't unionized: which was fine by me. I've also been a member of a union: not by choice. It was either join, or not get the job.

I think labor unions were important. In the 19th century, and part of the 20th. Today, I think they're part of the establishment: and that's yet another topic.

The point is that there needs to be some means by which people who are employed by others can - at a minimum - be assured that they'll be treated fairly.

My checkered employment history gave me opportunities to learn a little about how folks in several of America's subcultures live. Quite a bit of this sounds all too familiar:

"...In too many places across America, workers are not being fully paid for their labor. National reports tell of factory workers whose time begins with the start of the conveyor belt not their arrival; of retail workers who are 'clocked out' and then required to restock or take inventory; and wait staff whose employers do not give them their tips...."
("A New 'Social Contract' for Today's 'New Things'," Most Reverend William F. Murphy, (September 6, 2010) (released August 24, 2010))

Not all employers treat the folks who work for them badly. Some of my bosses have been gems.

But some employers quite simply are not nice. We need to have some way to deal with them - and, perhaps more importantly, help the folks who depend on jerks for their livelihood.

Related posts:

• "Work, "Giving Back," and a Saint"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Money isn't Everything: But it Helps"
  (April 10, 2010)
• "Is the Church For Capitalism? Yes: and No"
  (March 13, 2010)
• "Caritas in Veritate: Charity, Illumined by the Light of Reason and Faith"
  (January 31, 2010)
• "Working on Sunday: At Growing the Christian Interior Life"
  (January 2, 2010)

---

¹Full text of USCCB press release on Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York's 2010 Labor Day remarks:

"Bishop Murphy Calls for New Social Contract for 'New Things' in Today's Economy in Labor Day Statement"
USCCB News Release (August 24, 2010)

"With millions unemployed and U.S. workers experiencing tragedies such as mining deaths in West Virginia and the oil rig explosion and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Americans 'must seek to protect the life and dignity of each worker in a renewed and robust economy,' said Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York. Bishop Murphy addressed these issues in the 2010 Labor Day Statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), entitled 'A New "Social Contract" for Today's "New Things," ' which can be found online in English (www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/labor_day_2010.pdf) and Spanish (www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/labor_day_2010_spanish.pdf).

Bishop Murphy, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, compared the challenges faced by today's workers to the changing society of the Industrial Revolution addressed by Pope Leo XIII in the 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum (Of New Things).

" 'America is undergoing a rare economic transformation, shedding jobs and testing safety nets as the nation searches for new ways to govern and grow our economy,' said Bishop Murphy. 'Workers need a new "social contract." ' Bishop Murphy said that creating new jobs would require new investments, initiative and creativity in the economy. He also drew on the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI, which call for placing the human person at the center of economic life and emphasize the role of civil society and mediating institutions such as unions in pursing the common good.

" 'Workers need to have a real voice and effective protections in economic life,' said Bishop Murphy. 'The market, the state, and civil society, unions and employers all have roles to play and they must be exercised in creative and fruitful interrelationships. Private action and public policies that strengthen families and reduce poverty are needed. New jobs with just wages and benefits must be created so that all workers can express their dignity through the dignity of work and are able to fulfill God's call to us all to be co-creators. A new social contract, which begins by honoring work and workers, must be forged that ultimately focuses on the common good of the entire human family.'

"---

"Keywords: Labor Day, unemployment, economic life, labor unions, social contract, social encyclicals, Rerum Novarum, Caritas in Veritate, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop William Murphy, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development"

Stem Cell Research in the News: My Take

---

Update (August 30, 2010)
See also

• "Is it Wrong to Kill One Person on the Chance that Someone Else Might Benefit?"
  (August 30, 2010)

---

Normally I read well past the headline in news articles. Today I didn't: and so might have gotten the idea that vital medical research had been dealt a terrible blow by a short-sighted Congress. Stem cell research was blocked, you see.

I trust that America's old-school news media got around, somewhere in their coverage, to explaining what sort of stem cell research was blocked.

I've been around long enough not to hope that they'd also explain why this incredibly important research was stopped.

Stem Cells: Lots of Potential

Stem cells are cells you can find in people who haven't been born yet, people who are adults, and even in our umbilical cords, after we're done with them. There's a good chance that the knack stem cells have for becoming different sorts of tissue will help folks whose bodies aren't working right.¹

"Harvesting Stem Cells" Sounds so Nice

One way to get stem cells is to kill someone and cut out the stem cells.

When you do that to an adult, it's often regarded as murder.

When you kill a baby: as long as the hit is done before we're born, it's quite legal here in America.

Legal, yes: moral, no.

I've discussed this before. (November 2, 2008)

The stem cell research that was blocked was the sort that involves cutting up babies and seeing what can be done with the pieces.

It sounds nicer when terms like "harvesting" are used: plus a bit of linguistic trickery to make it sound like the person who's being sliced and diced wasn't a living baby a few hours earlier.

Isn't the Catholic Church Against Science and Reason?

Two words:

• Gregor
• Mendel

I've discussed this before, too. (June 5, 2010)

About medical research in general, and stem cell research in particular, if the Vatican is against that sort of thing, they've got a funny way of showing it:

• "Stem Cell Research: Backed by the Vatican, No Kidding"
  (April 28, 2010)

Related posts:

• "Science vs. Religion: the Same Tired Old Line"
  (June 5, 2010)
• " 'Artificial' Bacteria, Genetics, the Vatican, and 'Courage With Caution' "
  (May 22, 2010)
• "Stem Cell Research: Backed by the Vatican, No Kidding"
  (April 28, 2010)
• "Donating Umbilical Cord Blood: Good Idea!"
  (June 15, 2009)
• "Stem Cell Research: Change Some of Us Won't Live With"
  (March 9, 2009)
• "Life: It's a Single Issue, and an Important One"
  (November 2, 2008)

In the news:

• "Pro-life groups laud decision to block embryonic stem cell research"
  Catholic News Agency (August 23, 2010)

---

¹Update (August 24, 2010)

One reason that medical researchers want to kill babies and chop them up is that 'embryonic' stem cells are easier to grow than those found in adults. And they're pluripotent - able to grow into any sort of tissue. Quite convenient, both ways.

According to the National Institutes of Health:

"...Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin...."
("Stem Cell Basics," Stem Cell Information, National Institutes of Health)

Clear enough. Here's the last sentence in that paragraph, with emphasis:

"...Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin...."
("Stem Cell Basics," Stem Cell Information, National Institutes of Health)

I don't think it's very unfair to summarize that portion of the NIH's remarks as "it's easier to grow stem cells we've taken from murdered babies: and besides, we think adult stem cells probably wouldn't be quite as useful."

Sounds disgusting, when I put it that way. Use lots of words, many of them very long and derived from Latin: and folks may tend to forget what's done to get those "embryonic" stem cells.

Photos and Faith in Sauk Centre

I've already shown this photo, in "Confession: We've Got Rules About That, Too," earlier today.


St. Paul's Church's confessional. August 21, 2010.

After going to Confession/participating in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Penance yesterday, I walked up to the front of St. Paul's sanctuary and took a few more photos.


St. Paul's Church, Sauk Centre. August 21, 2010

That's the baptismal font, covered, in the foreground: and the tabernacle's behind that small door. You can't see it with sunlight coming in the windows, but there's a candle lit by the tabernacle that signals that the consecrated Host is there.


St. Paul's Church altar, Sauk Centre. August 21, 2010

One thing I'll say about Catholic churches: as a rule, we don't have a visually boring ambiance.


St. Paul's Church, Sauk Centre, Divine Mercy area. August 21, 2010

There's the Divine Mercy carving. It's mentioned in other posts. (April 11, 2010, April 9, 2010, March 7, 2009, April 26, 2009) The rail and kneeler is for folks who want to stop and pray there.


Our Lady of the Angels Church, Sauk Centre. August 22, 2010

Next day, I'm back in our parish church: Our Lady of the Angels: Asking for forgiveness, again, but also celebrating Mass. Emphasis on celebrating. When you think about it, the coming of the Son of God, Redeemer of the world, King of glory, sun of justice, to a small town in central Minnesota is a pretty big deal.

Confession: We've Got Rules About That, Too

Jokes about the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, or Confession, are endemic in American culture. The ones I've heard generally involve a distorted view of priestly celibacy. Which is another topic.

Then there's the idea that it's somehow wrong to think that sin exists - or, among those who admit the possibility, that confession involving another living person isn't necessary. Which is (almost) yet another topic.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses Confession here and there. Article 4 | The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation 1422-1484 might be a good place to start.

I don't, by the way, think that the priest I spoke with on Saturday can forgive my sins. Only God can. (Catechism, 1441-1442) So why do I go to a priest for this sacrament? He's a duly deputized agent of my Lord, and has the authority which was passed along to him - tracking back to Jesus.

I am Not Mary Poppins

I "went to Confession," as we say in this community, yesterday. I'd have gone on Friday, with the rest of the family, but didn't realize we were going until I'd booked myself up with other tasks.

Some major get-together was letting out as I approached St. Paul's. A wedding, I think. By the time I got into the church, things were quiet. Apart from another fellow who was probably waiting for the priest to show up, too.

Why would I go to Confession and admit what I'd fouled up on since last time?


St. Paul's Church's confessional. August 21, 2010.

Mostly it's because I'm not "Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way." (IMDB.com)

I'm definitely included in that verse: "all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) I'm more familiar with the "all have sinned and falls short of the glory of God" translation used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, though. (Catechism, 1922)

The point is, I am not perfect.

Am I writhing in self-disgust and abject horror at the awfulness that is me? No. That's not required.

I am, however, aware of the truth of that part of the missal that (currently) says:

"I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned
through my own fault,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;

"and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord, our God."
(The Assembly, Roman Missal, Third Edition, via USCCB)

Turns out, by the way, that part's apparently going to go back to what I'm a little more familiar with:

"I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.'
(The Assembly, Roman Missal, Third Edition, via USCCB)

Doesn't sound much like a self-affirming, feel-good, uplifting vibe does it?

On the other hand, I think it's a pretty good description of where I'm at, in relation to God.

Confession Doesn't Solve Everything?

So, why did I say those lines from Assembly during Mass this morning? Partly because it's part of the routine: but also because it's true.

Hold on: I went to Confession Saturday afternoon, and I'm crawling back Sunday morning, asking forgiveness? What was I up to?

No, I didn't have a wild Saturday night out. I did, however, breathe in and out quite a few times and had the usual experiences of my life. Nothing spectacular: but no golden bubble keeping my fallen nature away from me, either.

Which is threatening to send me off on yet another topic again.

It's not the the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Penance doesn't "do anything" for me. The way I see it, things take time. Or, using a pharmaceutical metaphor, that sacrament is a series of booster shots. I'm not at all convinced that the metaphor will hold up.

Bottom line? The rules say I should participate in the sacrament of reconciliation and penance regularly: so I do. Not as often as I should: I let it slide well over a month this time.

If I thought I was smarter than God, and wiser than some of the greatest minds the world has seen over the last two millennia: I might consider giving this particular rule of the Catholic Churth a miss.

Since my opinion of myself isn't quite that good: I think I'll follow the rules.

Related posts:

• "Making a Good Confession: There's Help"
  (February 3, 2010)
• "Feeling Forgiven: My Faith and Emotional Perks"
  (November 24, 2009)
• "Dying to Ourselves, Dying to Self: Not Exactly a Feel-Good Religion?"
  (March 3, 2009)

Living in the Real World

Something to keep in mind, when reading poll results or listening to campaign speeches: or any other time.

"Sanity, remember, does not mean living in the same world as everyone else; it means living in the real world."
("Theology and Sanity," Frank J. Sheed)

Somewhat-related post:

• "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Citing my Sources, the Bible, and All That"
  (May 31, 2010)
  • Particularly my footnote on "vox populi, vox dei."

The Catholic Church, Rules, and American Law

One of the stereotype assumptions about the Catholic Church is that we have rules about everything. There's something to that.

Here in America, we even have rules about what we're allowed to say in our churches. Quite a lot of that comes from the bishops in this country making an effort to conform to local law and custom: being Catholic while dealing with a non-Catholic ruling culture.

For example:

"Parishes and other IRS-designated section 501(c)(3) church organizations are prohibited from participating in political campaign activity. Thus, certain political activities that are entirely appropriate for individuals may not be undertaken by church organizations or their representatives...."
(Political Responsibility Guidelines to Keep in Mind during Election Season," United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB))

There's more detail on the USCCB website. (www.usccb.org/ogc) Happily, we're not required to keep our mouths shut on moral issues.

Like any legal system, a great deal depends on which parts of their laws the secular rulers of the area feel like enforcing. And how they feel like enforcing their laws.

A case in point, from the weekend news:

"Congressional Candidate Robbed at Gunpoint in North Miami"
NBC Miami (August 22, 2010)

"Congressional candidate and advocate Marleine Bastien was robbed at gunpoint while waiting to make a campaign appearance after mass at a church in North Miami on Saturday.

"Another car pulled up alongside Bastien's as she waited in her car with her sister outside the Church of the Living God...."

"Congressional candidate robbed at gunpoint on campaign trail"
The Miami Herald (August 21, 2010)

" The campaign trail turned into a crime scene Saturday for 17th Congressional District candidate Marleine Bastien.

"The community activist running for U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek's seat was robbed at gunpoint outside a North Miami church where she was going to meet voters before Tuesday's primary...."

17th Congressional District candidate Marleine Bastien is fine, by the way, aside from having been robbed.

A Political Candidate at a Meet-and-Greet - at a Church?

Here's part of what the USCCB has to say about Catholic organizations and political activity:

"...Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC prohibits organizations that are exempt from federal income tax under its provisions, including Catholic organizations exempt under the USCCB Group Ruling, from participating or intervening in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. This prohibition has been interpreted as absolute...."
("2007 Political Activity Guidelines for Catholic Organizations," Office of the General Counsel, USCCB)

That's pretty clear: although we're allowed to say that something like cannibalism is morally wrong, we're not allowed to say "don't vote for the Cannibal party." I'm sure there's more to it than that, of course.

So, what was a candidate doing, having a campaign function at a church?

Like I said, much depends on which parts of their laws the secular rulers feel like enforcing, and how they prefer to enforce them.

17th Congressional District candidate Marleine Bastien is a Democrat.

Related posts:

• "New Archbishop of Miami: Obviously Conservative? Obviously Liberal? No: Clearly Catholic"
  (July 2, 2010)
• "'Potty Parity,' Conservative / Liberal Values, and a Universal Church"
  (May 12, 2010)
• "Living in America and Living a Catholic Life"
  (April 29, 2010)
• " 'I Take No Interest in Politics' isn't an Option"
  (March 29, 2010)
• "Supreme Court Lets Foreigners Influence American Elections! Or, Not"
  (January 28, 2010)
• "Rebellious Youth, Protests, and The Establishment: in 2010"
  (January 26, 2010)
• "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic"
  (November 3, 2008)

Or click "politics" in this blog's label cloud.

Asceticism: Seeing Past Some Skinny Guy Screaming on a Pillar

A long time ago a number of folks decided that it would be a good idea to go into a desert — one particular area in Egypt was a quite popular destination — and come close to starving themselves to death.

Considering what they had to look forward to in Third Century Rome: the decision isn't as daft as it may look.

Besides, they prayed. A lot.

The Desert Fathers got so famous for not eating and for praying a lot that I was running into accounts of them in my high school and college years. The word-image was often one of some lunatic screaming pious phrases while being very skinny at the top of a pillar.

I've gotten the impression that now, over a dozen centuries later, quite a few folks in America have the idea that religious people want to be saints; and that saints are half-starved psychiatric cases residing on top of a pillar.

There's something to that idea: but it's missing some important pieces.

I've written about saints before. It's true: Catholics are expected to try to live "a life of exemplary fidelity to the Lord." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2156)

That doesn't necessarily mean stripping down to a loin cloth and starving yourself in the Egyptian desert, though.

Asceticism has Its Place: But Get a Grip

One of the problems with contemporary American — and, I think, Western — culture is that we indulge in physical pleasures too much, and without restraint. That isn't a particularly good idea.

There are, whether we 'believe in it' or not, consequences to indulging in 'pleasures of the flesh.' Take a look at recent headlines on obesity in America, for example.

On the other hand, we're called to holiness: not starvation.

Still, asceticism is a good idea. The Catholic Church encourages us to follow the practice:

"...The season of Lent has traditionally been a time of prolonged penance for the Christian community. Together we prepare for the great Easter mysteries by committing ourselves to fulfill our baptismal call to maturity, holiness, service, and community. Our response to each call will demand sacrifice, mortification, asceticism, and denial of our own self-will. Mortification helps to 'put to death' the cancer cells of sin; asceticism brings a discipline that makes us increasingly free and responsible. Again, this action and grace of the Holy Spirit are what enlighten, enkindle, and empower us to live more fully the way of discipleship...."
(Penitential Practices for Today's Catholics, Doctrine, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)

It's not just Lent. A fair number of Catholics in America have restarted the practice of meatless Fridays — including my household. The way my wife prepares fish, though, rather defeats the purpose of the exercise. And that's another topic.

One of those 'secret Vatican documents' you hear about deals with fasting and abstinence:

"...The necessity of the mortification of the flesh also stands clearly revealed if we consider the fragility of our nature, in which, since Adam's sin, flesh and spirit have contrasting desires.(47) This exercise of bodily mortification-far removed from any form of stoicism does not imply a condemnation of the flesh which sons of God deign to assume.(48) On the contrary, mortification aims at the 'liberation'(49) of man, who often finds himself, because of concupiscence, almost chained(50) by his own senses. Through "corporal fasting"(51) man regains strength and the 'wound inflicted on the dignity of our nature by intemperance is cured by the medicine of a salutary abstinence.'(52)..."
(Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini of the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI of Fast and Abstinence, Chapter II)

Asceticism is even mentioned — rather positively — in the Catechism:

"Many religious have consecrated their whole lives to prayer. Hermits, monks, and nuns since the time of the desert fathers have devoted their time to praising God and interceding for his people. The consecrated life cannot be sustained or spread without prayer; it is one of the living sources of contemplation and the spiritual life of the Church."
(2687)

That bit from the Catechism is an excerpt from a section about prayer, by the way.

So, the Catholic Church is For Spiritual Stuff and Against Material Stuff, Right?

Wrong!

The idea that spirit is good and matter is bad is a heresy. Satan is a spirit, God made the material world, and God doesn't make junk.

God made Satan, too: but that gets me into a discussion of free will. And yet another topic.

The Catholic Church does not teach that the material world is wrong, bad, and icky. Repeating from Pope Paul VI's document:

"...This exercise of bodily mortification-far removed from any form of stoicism does not imply a condemnation of the flesh which sons of God deign to assume...."
(Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini, Paul VI, Chapter II [emphasis mine])

There's more about the (wrong) idea that the material world is evil in the Catechism. (285)

I don't think there's too much danger of many Americans deciding that the material world is bad: if anything, we've had a problem with thinking too much about the material world, and enough about spiritual concerns.

On the other hand, I think there is a problem in American culture of assuming that religious people are crazy about rejecting food, drink, and other physical pleasures.

For Catholics, anyway: we're not expected to starve ourselves. The idea, as I see it, is to worship God, not our favorite restaurant.

Related (sort of) posts:

• "Meatless Fridays and All That"
  (May 7, 2010)
• "Saints: That's so Medieval"
  (February 14, 2010)
• " 'If you must see ghosts ...' Materialism, Being Spiritual, and Uncle Deadly"
  (December 18, 2009)

Haiti, Knights of Columbus, and Kids Without Limbs

Sometimes it's nice to get your name in the paper. Or the name of an organization you're with in the news:

"Knights of Columbus Aid Haitians Who Lost Limbs"
Zenit (August 19, 2010)

"Donate 2,200 Wheelchairs to Quake Victims

"The Knights of Columbus announced a program to help the estimated 800 Haitian children who lost limbs in the Jan. 12 earthquake.

"The charitable organization committed to provide $1 million for prosthetic limbs and therapy for all of the children who lost an arm or a leg in the earthquake.

"The program, 'Hope for Haiti's Children,' will be administered by Medishare, which operates the University of Miami/Medishare Hospital in Port au Prince, and is the premier children's medical facility in that country...."

I've been a member of the Knights of Columbus for - years. Each year I spend two hours in the K. of C. Bingo booth at Stearns County Fair, calling out numbers. It's one of the local council's major fundraisers.

I don't know how much of that $1,000,000 came from our part of central Minnesota: but I'm pretty sure some did.

What's the big deal?

There are kids in Haiti who will have a bit less trouble moving around as a result of what Knights of Columbus and Medishare did. I think that's a good idea.

We're able to help: and so we should. I've been working my way through a recent document from the Holy See, Caritas in Veritate: a title that can be translated as "Charity in Truth." Looking at my link page for the posts I've written about it, I see that I'm letting that task slip. Maybe this weekend.

Bottom line, though: I don't think I'm working my way into heaven by putting in time at a Bingo booth. (August 8, 2010)

On the other hand, "charity" is one of the three theological virtues: and I figure that helping an outfit that does things for others - including folks who aren't likely to be able to return the favor any time soon - counts as "charity." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1813, 1822-1826)

So, why do I help the Knights of Columbus do charitable works? Because I can, and since I can - because I'm supposed to.

Posts about Knights of Columbus and Haiti:

• " 'Army of Oppression,' Unmentionables, and Being Catholic in America"
  (August 17, 2010)
• "Pope, Knights of Columbus, and Fidelity"
  (August 3, 2010)
• "Hats Off to New Orleans Parishioners"
  (July 2, 2010)
• "Archbishop: 'Let's Not Forget Haiti' - Works for Me"
  (June 9, 2010)
• "Whadaya Know! Knights of Columbus has a YouTube Channel"
  (April 5, 2010)
• "Haiti Earthquake: Send Help if You Can, and Pray for the Folks Living There"
  (January 12, 2010)
• "About the Knights of Columbus, Charity, Food, and Miracles"
  (November 30, 2009)
• 
  

Science, Faith, and Auto Mechanics

Earlier this afternoon I finished reading "Unintelligently Designed Article...," a post in Mark Shea's blog that included this:

"...No. He really wrote that. And then he makes all the usual category mistakes ('God, under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, does whatever he wants and that makes me mad. I can't see God doing magic tricks for me, so that means he's not there. The universe has knowable laws, so there is no Legislator. It offends my pride that God has hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes.') and similar stupid pet tricks...."
(Catholic and Enjoying It!)

It's a short read, and focuses on a quirk in Western culture - maybe human nature. (I'll rant about that in a moment) It also prompted me to:

• Put Mark Shea's blog on my blogroll
• Add that post to my "Science, Religion, and being Catholic" link list

Faith, Science, Celebrities and Common Sense

Here's that rant. I'll keep it short.

Why is it that reporters, editors, and readers take time to learn what a celebrity says about international diplomacy? And think that it matters, except to the celebrity and maybe the celebrity's psychiatrist?

And why does the same lot think that a scientist knows more about matters of faith than an auto mechanic?

Don't get me wrong: it takes a lot of training and a certain amount of native talent to be a good mechanic. But being a good mechanic doesn't make a person an expert theologian.

For that matter, being an "expert" theologian doesn't necessarily make a person competent to discuss matters of faith.

A degree in theology, in America at least, apparently means that some dude or dudette was able to pay for several years of sitting in a classroom. There's more to it than just showing up, of course: The graduate has to become adept at spitting back what a succession of professors want to hear.

Sad. Higher education should be about learning, not indoctrination. And that's another topic.

Scientists spouting off on what they think of faith is practically a cultural tradition in this country. Maybe others, too.

I have nothing at all against science - the systematic study of this universe. I became even more interested in science when I realized that this immense creation was made by God - and that we can learn about God by studying what He made.

But, as that blog post points out, studying creation doesn't make a person respect God.

Neither does fixing cars. So how come we listen when a scientist spouts off?

Not all that long ago, I could almost see why folks assumed that scientists had superior knowledge of matters outside their specialty. Many people didn't graduate from high school - or need to - and even fewer went on to get a college degree.

One of the 'great ones' who had gone to that mystical place called 'college' and became a learned man may have seemed - special. A member of an order set apart.

These days a high school degree or its equivalent is important for just about any sort of job - and just about everybody, from auto mechanics to astrophysicists, gets some sort of post-high-school training.

I'd think that getting up close and personal with the hallowed halls of ivy would have knocked more sense into folks.

As for why reporters take notes when a celebrity blurts a feeling about the geopolitical ramifications of international diplomacy? That's yet another topic.

More:

• "Unintelligently Designed Article..."
  Mark Shea, Catholic and Enjoying It! (August 19, 2010)

---

A tip of the hat to Christomicro, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the Catholic and Enjoying It! post.

New on the Blogroll:

I added Mark P. Shea's Catholic and Enjoying It! blog to the blogroll a few minutes ago, under - what else? - blogs.

A tip of the hat to Christomicro, on Twitter, for the heads-up on Mark Shea's "Unintelligently Designed Article... " post (August 19, 2010), that put me 'over the top' on my decision to include Catholic and Enjoying It!

If the name, Mark P. Shea, sounds familiar, maybe it's because he's written a few books.

If Catholics are Superstitious, How Come We're Not Allowed to be Superstitious?

Wouldn't you know it? The Catholic Church has a rule about superstitions.

Briefly, it's 'don't be superstitious.'

Here's the same idea, in a little more detail:

"The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.

"Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.⁴¹"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2110, 2111)

Aren't Religious People Real, You Know, Superstitious?

I've lived in America all my life, and am all too familiar with the assumption that religious belief is "superstitious." Also, that "intelligent" people are defined by their scorn of religion. Particularly their seething resentment toward Christianity.

I don't expect to alter the beliefs of any person who sees little difference between, say, Tony Alamo and Pope Benedict XVI.

Popes and leaders of today's spiritual fad: what's the difference?

The way I see it, high-profile 'spiritual leaders' of this world come and go. So do whatever organizations they set up.

The Popes? We're on our 266th now. Benedict XVI is operating with the same authority, handed down through the centuries, that Jesus gave Peter.

Somebody's Backing the Catholic Church

I'd be willing to take the assurance of Jesus - but by now, there's some evidence to back up the claim that "...you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, ¹³ and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

I've studied history: mostly the history of the Western civilization. Institutions don't, as a rule, last nearly 20 centuries. There are exceptions, of course: like Egypt's pharaohs. But even there, although the culture remained relatively stable: dynasties didn't.

Then there's the Catholic Church. There's a chance that I'll live to see the 2,000th year since Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom. And whoever's Pope then will be using the same authority my Lord gave to Peter: handed down in an unbroken chain.

That's, in my view, wildly improbable. Particularly considering what was going on in the 11th, 12th, and 14th centuries. Which is a slightly different topic.

I could make a number of assumptions about why the Catholic Church is still around:

1. It's all a lie.
   • The world comes to an abrupt end about 20 miles off the North American shore
   • Everything we're told about the rest of the world is part of a conspiracy
2. The Vatican has a magic lucky rabbit's foot
3. The Holy See operates under the authority of God
   • Which is what they've been saying for almost 2,000 years

There are other explanations that have been floated from time to time: some of them fairly imaginative. Looking at these three, though: there's only one that I can accept

It's Some Kinda Plot!

Assumption #1 has been fairly popular. Partly, I think, because quite a few folks like conspiracy theories. I made my example sound a bit silly: but take the 'North America is the entire world' thing out and replace it with a political conspiracy of male chauvinist pigs who plotted to get tortured to death for personal profit - and it still sounds silly.

To me, anyway.

I think a person could still make some money, though, writing a book about a Catholic conspiracy - preferably with a new wrinkle. Maybe involving space aliens or Big Oil?

It's Magic!

#2 is the obviously superstitious explanation. Swap out a mystic crystal for that lucky rabbit's foot: and I think a person could whip up support for the notion.

Since I expect to be asked for an accounting of my actions, I'm not going to do that.

When I go through my particular judgment, I do not need that kind of trouble.

The Catholic Church has Friend(s) in High Places

Maybe this is "simplistic" - but I assume that what the Catholic Church has been saying since before the Roman Empire crumbled is true: that we're operating under the authority that the Son of God gave Peter.

The remarkable longevity of the Catholic Church makes a little more sense when I assume that God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit are holding it up.

Like they say: it helps to have friends in high places.

Trusting God isn't Being Superstitious

America's dominant culture notwithstanding, being a Catholic Christian doesn't make me superstitious. It does mean that I worship God: and that I'm aware that what I do doesn't make God do things.

Related posts:

• "Mother Teresa of Calcutta's Sandals; Relics, and Minnesota"
  (July 25, 2010)
• "Superstitions, Catholicism, and a Really Bad Experience With the Ark"
  (July 13, 2010)
• "If Catholics aren't Supposed to Read the Bible, How Come We're Told to Read the Bible?"
  (May 31, 2010)

Lourdes, Daft Comments, and Thinking of Something to Say

Noted, in FatherTF's The hermeneutic of continuity:

"Bomb scare at Lourdes and silly comments"
The hermeneutic of continuity (August 18, 2010)

"It was sad to hear that there was a bomb scare at Lourdes on Sunday, the feast of the Assumption. Everyone had to be evacuated from the Domaine for three hours while the army searched the place. Not pleasant for the people there, but I suppose it is good for Lourdes to have a dry-run evacuation. With the amount of anti-Catholic hatred being whipped up in Europe it is not impossible that places like Lourdes will become real targets.

"Given that danger, I was irritated by the silly bits at the end of the Telegraph report Bomb scare at Lourdes. Here they are:

"Around 200 million people have visited the shrine since 1860, and the Roman Catholic Church has recognised 67 miracle healings, the last in November 2005.

"Despite this, the Lourdes (sic) has built up enemies over the years among those who criticise its commercialism. It makes millions from tourism and souvenir selling every year.

"Others, including members of the Catholic Church, are deeply sceptical of its alleged healing powers, attributing them to superstition.

"Why would Lourdes build up 'enemies' because it engages in commerce? Why don't the enemies moan about Oxford Street or Bluewater shopping centre instead? They are a lot more commercial than Lourdes. If a town has a religious shrine in it, are all the people of that town supposed to live in some kind of monastic super-community without owning anything?

"On the second point, it is true that many people are sceptical about the miracles of Lourdes, but in reports such as this, the one thing that you never hear of is the Lourdes Medical Bureau...."

First, I recommend that you read the rest of that post. Father Timothy Finigan makes a good point about the Catholic position on miracles.

Second, there's the matter of the 'proper' attitudes toward the Catholic Church. But I've written about that before. (August 17, 2010)

Then, there's miracles. Oh, wait: I've written about that, too. Fairly recently. (June 7, 2010)

Wealth? (February 4, 2010)

Looks like I'll have to think about something else meaningful to write about today. Or, here's a thought: pray about it.

Sort-of-related posts:

• " 'Army of Oppression,' Unmentionables, and Being Catholic in America"
  (August 17, 2010)
• "Miracles, Mass, Bread and Wine
  (June 7, 2010)
• "Reason, Faith and 'What Folks Know, that Just Ain't So' "
  (June 4, 2010)

"Army of Oppression," Unmentionables, and Being Catholic in America

I get the impression that many folks who are the 'right sort' in America either don't understand Catholicism, or don't understand Catholicism and hate it.

For example:

"Harry Knox, a member of President Barack Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, has stood by his past comment that Pope Benedict XVI is 'hurting people in the name of Jesus.'

"Knox, a former licensed minister of the United Methodist Church and a leader with the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign (HRC), originally made his comments in March 2009 in response to Pope Benedict's comments about the effectiveness of condoms in fighting AIDS in Africa...."
(CNA (February 4, 2010))

I think I understand Harry Knox's point: the Pope, reflecting Catholic teaching, assumes that Africans are people: capable of reason, self-control, and other qualities which haven't been fashionable in the West recently. This 'obviously' shows great 'insensitivity,' and is 'hurting' Africans.

'As is well known,' teenagers, Africans and The Masses in general have about as much self-control as a cat in heat. And so must be protected from themselves. I don't buy the idea. But then, I'm one of 'those' people: practicing Catholics.

Unmentioned in Polite Society

Unfortunately, from one point of view, people in some parts of Africa have decided to stop using condoms and start using their brains. And even worse - again from one point of view - the incidence of AIDS has gone down in those areas. (March 17, 2009)

Haven't heard about that? I'm not terribly surprised. That information doesn't square with what America's dominant culture wants to believe: and so doesn't get discussed much.

It's sort of like sex is supposed to have been in Victorian England: There are some things that decent persons simply do not mention.

It Could be Worse

Looking at places like China, I realize that the situation for practicing Catholics could be a lot worse here in America.

We're even allowed to hold positions in the government:

"Several Catholics are included among President Barack Obama's announced appointments to his advisory council on faith-based partnerships. However, the appointees also include a homosexual activist who has described the Pope as a 'discredited leader' and the Knights of Columbus as 'foot soldiers' of an 'army of oppression' because of their opposition to same-sex 'marriage.'

"Anthony R. Picarello Jr., General Counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), was announced as an appointee on April 6. A former head counsel and executive director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Picarello has litigated several major religious freedom cases. He is a 1991 graduate of Harvard University and received his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1995...."
(CNA(April 8, 2009))

Sure, there's that 'Knights of Columbus are an army of oppression' thing, but really: it could be worse.

How Can He Work With Those People?

As to how a practicing Catholic - particularly a General Counsel for the USCCB - could, in good conscience, work with an American government that's so sincerely non-Catholic? The way I look at it is this: the Catholic Church works with people where they are.

A dozen centuries or so ago, the Church didn't wait for leaders of Europe's war bands to develop the Magna Carta and parliaments. Missionaries went in, showed folks living in my ancestors' homelands what this Jesus fellow was about: and eventually we got things like the Notre Dame Cathedral.

Sure, we lost cherished cultural traditions like human sacrifice: but we also (eventually) got more humane laws. I think it was a good trade off.

Name-Calling and Being a Catholic in America

I'm a member of the Knights of Columbus, by the way. And I've written about today's quirky notions regarding marriage before.

How do I feel, having a group I belong to called 'an army of oppression?'

I don't like having being labeled a "foot soldier" in an "army of oppression" by one of my government's officials, but I'm used to that sort of thing.

I've done time in American academia: where any view might be openly and freely discussed. Provided, of course, that the view was approved by the professors and the more earnest students.

I hadn't converted to Catholicism then, by the way.

College Days and Unintended Consequences

My stretches on campus weren't a complete wash, of course. I spent a great deal of time in libraries, learning a great deal - in addition to getting an education. And, I paid attention to what the establishment seemed to be saying.

They had some ideas that, stripped of their loopy ideological trappings, made some sense. Like the much-maligned "multiculturalism." I didn't buy into the notion that everything America did was icky: but the core idea that people were people, no matter where they lived, seemed to make sense.

Which, eventually, led me to join the Catholic Church. And that's another topic.

Not-entirely-unrelated posts:

• "Reason, Faith and 'What Folks Know, that Just Ain't So' "
  (June 4, 2010)
• "Those Heretics May Not Like being Called Heretics"
  (May 16, 2010)
• "Religion Doesn't Cause Intolerance?!"
  (February 27, 2010)
• " 'Catholics and Muslims along with the fake Jews all are Satanic Cults' - Who Knew?"
  (April 2, 2009)
• " 'Get f****d, Catholic Church' - It Comes With the Territory"
  (March 18, 2009)
• "Good News from Africa: But Some People Won't Like It"
  (March 17, 2009)

In the news:

• "Obama faith-based advisor maintains that Pope hurts people 'in name of Jesus' "
  Catholic News Agency (February 4, 2010 )
• "New Obama faith-based advisor described Knights of Columbus as 'army of oppression' "
  Catholic News Agency (April 8, 2009)