Joseph Maraachli, Medical Ethics, and Making Sense

---

Update (March 14, 2011)

---

As I finished this post (8:11 p.m. February 28, 2011 Central Time, 2:12 a.m. March 1, 2011, UTC), a new development in Joseph Maraachli's situation:

"The Canadian hospital under fire for ordering parents to remove their young son from life support because he is a vegetative state has backed down and agreed to one of the family's requests: to let the boy die at home.

"London Health Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, issued a statement Monday afternoon saying that it will bring 13-month-old Joseph Maraachli to his family's home, but it then insists that staff members remove the boy from a respirator, possibly giving him only minutes more to live, the London Free Press reported.

" 'London Health Sciences Centre is and always has been willing to organize and pay for a medical transfer home to Windsor (where the family lives) for Baby Joseph, accompanied by LHSC physicians and staff,' the hospital said.

"But the hospital still will not agree to the parents' request to perform a tracheotomy on Joseph, a measure the hospital calls needlessly invasive but the family has said helped their older child who suffered a similar condition live another six months...."
(FoxNews.com)

Since they were going to let the boy die, I think it was rather considerate of the hospital to let him go home - even paying for the trip.

Particularly since watching Joseph Maraachli die might have given them material for an article in a medical journal. Cynical? Maybe. It wouldn't be the first time a doctor took advantage of an interesting lab specimen that came along. (February 3, 2009)

This is probably the best outcome that the Maraachli family could hope for, contemporary medicine's standards being as they are.

Now, the post as written before the latest development.

---

Before getting started, a sort of position statement. I think:

• Medical ethics shouldn't be an oxymoron - a contradiction in terms
• It'd be nice if everybody enjoyed perfect health

And - a point I'll get back to - I think it's a bad idea to threaten a hospital. Even a hospital that seems to be doing something wrong.

Excerpt from today's news:

"The Canadian hospital at the center of the 'Baby Joseph' controversy finds itself on the receiving end of threats sent via email and phone calls, reported the Toronto Sun. Many of these threats have been said to come from the U.S....

"...The hospital went on to say that it is working closely with police and have taken the 'necessary steps' to protect its staff and physicians.

"The uproar comes after Joseph Maraachli, 13 months old, who is currently kept alive by a respirator, was denied a transfer to a Michigan hospital to undergo a tracheotomy. [NOTE: THE DENIAL OF TRANSFER CAME FROM THE MICHIGAN HOSPITAL, NOT THE ONE IN ONTARIO]

"The boy suffers from a rare, progressive neurological disease which, Canadian doctors say, has left him in a vegetative state beyond recovery....

"...Police are investigating some of the threats he called serious enough they could break the law.

"Many of the threatening comments have come from the U.S., [London, Ontario, police Deputy Chief Ian] Peer said.

" 'South of the border people seem to be quite emotional and happy to share their opinions.'...

"...Canadian health care allocation officials already ruled that Joseph had to be taken off life support and allowed to die in the hospital."
(FoxNews.com) (emphasis and [inserted text] mine)

Daft Attitudes: Not An Option

There are quite a few ways I could go, commenting on this article.

Loony Liberal

If I was one sort of knee-jerk liberal, I could declaim on the violent tendencies of this country's white-racist-male-dominated-authoritarian-oppressor government. Or maybe not. I'm not sure what the current fashion is.

Counter-Culture, It's Not What You May Think

I'm part of a counter-culture, so that's out. I never thought political correctness made much sense, anyway. (Counter-culture? I'm a practicing Catholic: and that's 'way out of the American mainstream. (January 12, 2010))

Crackpots by the Barrel

I could rant and rave about somebody else: Hollywood liberals; or some conspiracy that's 'really' running the world. But that doesn't seem like a good idea. I'll get back to that, too. Speaking of conspiracy theories, I don't take them seriously: but they've got some entertainment value. One of my favorites involves space-alien, shape-shifting lizard people. And I'm getting off-topic again.

Joseph Maraachli and Family

As for Joseph Maraachli and his family? They're going through a lot of stress just now. My wife and I lost two children - and just about lost her, too, when the latest one died. That's tough, even when they die quickly. What young Joseph is going through, I think, is probably harder to handle.

They have my sympathy. And, more to the point, I think, my prayers.

Contemporary Medicine, Rules, and Ethics

The hospital in Michigan may have a reasonable motive for refusing to treat young Joseph. Ontario hospitals may have reasonable motives for letting some patients die. I don't know, one way or the other.

One thing I do know is that we've got ethical concerns today that weren't on the radar a century or two back.

Medical Technology: A Mixed Blessing

I've discussed contemporary medical technology before. (September 22, 2009) It's a mixed blessing, in my view. We're able to keep people alive much longer than we could in the 'good old days.' The problem is that we can keep parts of people alive even longer.

I'm not against supporting the functions of a person's organs. I'm around today in large part because a hospital was able to take my digestive system offline for a few weeks while repairs got done. Technologies like artificial kidney dialysis help folks live longer, better lives.

The problem is that the question of just when parts of a person stop being that person isn't limited to philosophical speculation any more. Young Joseph's family is struggling with that question now - or, rather, struggling with doctors who seem to have made their decision.

As for that 'vegetative state' - I'll get back to that.

The Catholic Church has - what else? - rules about using medical technology.

Killing Granny's Out, Painkillers are Okay

Euthanasia is not acceptable. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2277) I can't kill a member of my family 'for their own good.' Not and follow Catholic teaching. American law - but that's almost another topic.

Would the Church make me keep a member of my family hooked up to life-support equipment indefinitely, even though there was no hope of recovery? At all?

First, the Church can't "make" me do anything. I can abandon the Church's teachings any time I want. Just as someone on a cruise ship can voluntarily go overboard in mid-ocean. I don't think either is a good idea. And that's yet another topic.

In secular terms, the Catholic Church does not have the coercive power that even a county government does, here in America. I've discussed - imaginative? - end-times preaching about the Catholic Church elsewhere. (November 12, 2008)

Second, although you've probably met a Catholic or two who's a few tacos short of a combination plate, the Catholic Church is almost coldly practical. Which suits me just fine. If I wanted a church that gave me an emotional buzz, plus cool music, I'd probably be a Southern Baptist. Good grief - more topics.

About keeping someone's body going 'artificially:'

"Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of 'over-zealous' treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected."
(Catechism, 2278)

So, the Church says that I will have to suffer terrible, agonizing, excruciating pain: instead of having someone kill me?

No.

The next paragraph specifically says that painkillers are okay.

"...The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable...."(Catechism, 2279)

As I've said before, it's no wonder that some folks think we're 'vague' on issues.

I'll take that sort of 'vague,' built on nearly two millennia's experience with humanity's condition, any day.

By the way, paragraph 2279 is a very personal, practical matter for me. Before he died, my father breathed with the help of some high-tech equipment (which extended his life) and morphine (which shortened his life). Used together, the gadgets and drugs kept him alive a bit longer than he would have lived, otherwise - and made him more comfortable, by far, than he'd have been without either.

We'd discussed the matter, I agreed with his decision, and happily we were dealing with a really fine set of medical people. (September 22, 2009)

Back to young Joseph.

'Vegetative State,' and Napping in the Lobby

That phrase, "vegetative state" has been applied in quite a number of ways: generally, it seems, as a reason for killing someone. I'm aware that medical conditions can make folks unfit for playing hockey or driving a car - or even conversing with their relatives.

I'm also aware that folks in a "persistent vegetative state" have gotten up and walked out of the hospital - when someone decided to let them live.

Then there was the woman who died - doctors said so - but whose sons wouldn't play along. She woke up a little later. (October 22, 2010)

I've quipped that there are some hospitals where I wouldn't dare fall asleep in the lobby. Almost another topic, again.

'Support Peace, Or I'll Kill You!'

A few years ago, in another blog, I posted a few opinions about peaceniks who were anything but peaceful in their words and actions.

Clarification Time

I'm no pacifist, but I think that peace is nice. And certainly preferable to war. We've been hearing about the Beatitudes at Mass, and my Lord obviously has high regard for those who seek peace:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."
(Matthew 5:9)

So, Jesus is a pacifist? Or a warmonger?

No. Not in my opinion. Or, more to the point, according to His Church. I've mentioned the just war doctrine before. (June 7, 2009) (and see Catechism, 2307-2311)

Again, not vague. Practical and principled, yes: vague, no.

About the 'peace or I'll kill you' folks? I think they may have let their feelings trump their reason.

Not that I'd hope to convince a zealot - and that's not quite another topic.

Emotions, Reason, and Making Sense

Particularly since Canadian police say they're investigating the threats, I'm inclined to think that the Ontario hospital really did receive threatening statements. I'll concede that some may have come from America. Quite a few folks live here, and some - in my opinion - are more passionate than wise.

Although I deplore the way that contemporary medical professionals have rewritten the Hippocratic Oath so that they can kill inconvenient or 'unfit' patients: I do not think that threatening a hospital is a good idea.

For one thing, there's a moral aspect to making threats against a hospital - or a doctor - or anybody else. In my opinion. That's because the threat of injury or death is awfully close to kidnapping, hostage taking, and terrorism. Which are strictly off-limits, according to the Catholic Church. (Catechism, 2297)

For another, I think that, even by Machiavellian standards, supporting the sanctity of life by threatening death or bodily harm is counterproductive.

Putting it another way, saying you'll kill someone if they don't value life is like shooting yourself in the foot: You can do it, but it hurts you more than the other fellow.

I've written about emotions, reason, and why I try not to think with my glands before.

Posts about:

• Emotions and thinking straight
  • "Apathy is Rampant, But Who Cares? - The Sequel"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 7, 2011)
  • "Hating People: Not a Good Idea"
    (January 22, 2010)
  • "Anger, Hate, Love, Prayer and Trashing a Maywood, California, Catholic School"
    (May 26, 2010)
  • "Pro-Life Americans Declared Terrorists: It Can't Happen Here?"
    (July 6, 2009)
  • "Emotions, the Frontal Cortex, The War on Terror, Anarchists, and the Illuminati"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (December 23, 2008)
• Actions not matching the message
  • "Dr. George Tiller's Killer Sentenced"
    (April 2, 2010)
  • "Gimme Peace, or I'll Punch Your Kid"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (April 25, 2008)
  • "Embrace Peace or I'll Kill You! Violent Peace Lovers (Not) in the News"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 26, 2008)
  • "Embrace Peace or I'll Kill You! More Violent Peace Lovers"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 7, 2008)
  • "Embrace Peace or I'll Kill You! Times Square Blast Linked to Peacenik(s)"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 6, 2008)
• Mostly medical
  • "Remember: 'Clinically Dead' isn't 'Dead' "
    (October 22, 2010)
  • "Death, Dying, Dignity, Intravenous Tubes and Catholic Teachings"
    (September 22, 2009)
  • " 'Hand of Hope' Spinal Bifida Case - Eugenics, Ersatz Compassion, and Life"
    (May 6, 2009)

In the news:

• "Canadian Hospital Agrees to Let Boy in Vegetative State Die at Home"
  FoxNews.com (February 28, 2011)
• "Canadian Hospital Reportedly Receiving Threats Over 'Baby Joseph' "
  FoxNews.com (February 28, 2011)

Steve Ray, Sauk Centre, Occam's Razor, and Me

Steve Ray is coming to Sauk Centre in a few weeks, for our Lenten kickoff.

Or, rather, Our Lady of the Angels' Lenten Parish Mission. The mission has a title: "Contemplating the Passion and What Christ Has Done For Us."

I've written about the mission, and Steve Ray, before.(February 16, 2011) He's a convert, and came to the Church for essentially the same reasons I did. Mr. Ray gives a very brief overview of his conversion on the

• "Why I'm Catholic"
  Steve Ray, Defenders of the Catholic Faith

Our paths to the Catholic Church aren't the same: I was raised in a nice mainstream Protestant church, Steve Ray's background is Evangelical:

"...As an Evangelical Protestant, echoing the words of Baptist Preacher Charles H. Spurgeon, I cared about what the Holy Spirit revealed to me, but had little regard for what he had revealed to others, especially those in the first centuries–some who knew the apostles personally.

"I was convinced that the earliest Christians were basically 'Protestant' in their theology and practice and only became corrupted with 'Catholic stuff' in later centuries. I thought Protestants had the claim to authentic continuity back to the apostles.

"But I was very mistaken and the more I studied the early Fathers of the Church ... I became convinced the early Church was Catholic. Intellectual honestly and spiritual integrity forced me to become a Catholic...."
("Why I'm Catholic," Steve Ray)

I've heard that some folks aren't too anxious to find out about their family tree, because they might find something unpleasant in their roots. There's something to that concern, or fear: there's no telling what will turn up while digging through histories.

Occam's Razor and Me

During my youth, the weird combination of numerology, Bible trivia, and anti-communism I heard from radio preachers didn't encourage me to take their brand of Christianity seriously. (November 19, 2010)

The mainstream Protestant church I grew up in was, as I said, nice. It also was very much a part of the culture I lived in: more enduring, I could tell, than any given rock band was likely to be; but with a history and tradition that went back centuries, not millennia.

Before I started learning about the Catholic Church, I didn't think anybody had it right. Almost two thousand years, 20 centuries, had gone by since my Lord walked on Earth. Since then:

• The Roman Empire fell
• The Holy Roman Empire rose and fell
• Barbarians from the backside of the old Roman provinces built a civilization
• Miscellaneous nations and empires came and went

I assumed that some customs had survived in the Catholic Church, along with documents that helped nail down what was and wasn't so. But a continuous, unbroken, fidelity to core principles? I didn't think that was very likely at all.

Then I discovered that the Pope's authority came to him, without a break in continuity, from Peter. The Peter. Matthew 16:18 and all that. That got my attention.

Then there were the Popes themselves.

Some folks might have been been moved to convert, after learning about some of the saintly Popes. I was more impressed by the anything-but-saintly ones. I'd better explain that.

The Catholic Church has had times of really, profoundly, bad leadership. Folks will put up with inept, corrupt, and just plain nasty leaders for a while: but the current north African/Middle East mess is an example of what happens when their patience runs out. (Another War on Terror Blog (February 21, 2011))

With the sort of leadership it's had, the Catholic Church shouldn't, in my opinion, be here.

But it is.

I mean the Church itself - the organization. Not St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. That's a comparatively new building - most of what we see is only about five centuries old.

The organization headquartered there has endured almost 2,000 years of changing times: and a few periods of profoundly lousy leadership.

I could put together a conspiracy theory to explain the Church's enduring through the ages. Or I could apply Occam's razor, and accept the Church's explanation: They've had help. (August 31, 2010) When I realized Who was backing the Catholic Church, I decided it would be prudent to join.

Occam's razor? It's the idea that when you've got several possible explanations, the simplest one is probably true. I've discussed that in another blog.

Related posts:

• "Steve 'Crossing the Tiber' Ray: Coming to Sauk Centre"
  (February 16, 2011)
• "Becoming Catholic for Reasons, Leaving Because of Feelings"
  (August 5, 2010)
• "I Accept Catholic Teachings: Or, Understanding Why I Believe What I Believe"
  (June 24, 2010)
• "I'm Not Awed by Authority, I Don't Conform Easily: So I Became a Catholic?!"
  (September 19, 2009)

More:

• "Why I Became a Catholic"
  • Curiosity and This Catholic
  • Answers That Make Sense
  • It's a Big Church
  • Links to more posts

Catching up on Reflections

I was about to post the homily Deacon L. N. Kaas is giving today, when I discovered that I've fallen behind in those guest posts. I've gotten one of the backlogged homilies posted: but the rest - and today's - will have to wait until after Mass.

While reconstructing the readings for last year's posts, I discovered a handy online resource:

• The Catholic Calendar Page
  Designed and Created by Bob & Linda Easterbrooks

There's nothing 'official' about it, but the Easterbooks have done a quite nice job of collecting and presenting the data, it's been accurate where I was able to cross-reference with a known, authoritative source - and it's been a big help.

Now, here's a list of the guest posts, put online today but time-stamped for the dates when they were presented:Recently-posted reflections (and when they should have been posted):

• "Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time: Mary and Martha"
  (February 27, 2011)
• "Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time: The Beatitudes"
  (January 30, 2011)
• "The Feast of the Holy Family"
  (December 26, 2010)
• "Feast of All Saints 2009"
  (October 1, 2009)

Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time: Mary and Martha

Readings for February 27, 2011, Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time:

• Isaiah 49:14-15
• 1Corinthians 4:1-5
• Matthew 6:24-34

---

Fourth Sunday Ordinary Time 2011

By Deacon Lawrence N. Kaas
February 27, 2011

Your heart is racing, you're breathing quickens, and maybe you even start to sweat. I experienced this on Friday as I carried a large movement into the shop in the cold and with asthma my lungs don't like that. Maybe you look down from on high and realize, I don't like heights. Or maybe you are startled by a noise in the house and you are all alone. Is it a burglar or did a hose brake and water is running all over the place. Remember having come awake after a vivid nightmare and you are afraid!

All of us experience fear one time or another, but what about a persistent fear or anxiety? There is a lot of that going around these days. Is my child having to go to Afghanistan? Will I be able to keep my job? Will I be able to beat this cancer? Or are my kids going to church now that they are no longer home, or what will it take to get them back to Church? This maybe is the tip of the iceberg: and it is no secret that stress, anxiety and worry have a negative effect on us.

However in the Gospel, Jesus tells us "not to worry" about our lives. And you know what I say to that, easier said that done. And I'm betting that you all are saying the same thing albeit not willing to say it out loud. Remembering what we just heard from the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus compares us to the birds of the air and the flowers of the field. Are not their needs taken care of? "If God so cloths the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown in the oven tomorrow, will He not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?"

As it is in our day, so it was at the time of Christ. Much of the New Testament is implicitly a story about the easing of fear and the beginnings of hope. Mary was afraid when she was visited by the angel Gabriel, announcing she would bear a son. So was Jesus when He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane preparing for His crucifixion. So must have been the Apostles when they gathered in the Upper Room after the death of the Lord. They were afraid, but none of them was paralyzed by their fear. They were strengthened to overcome it. God's Spirit enabled Mary to cry out to Gabriel not in fear, but in confidence and in love---"I am the handmaid of the Lord, may it be done unto me according to your word" -- accepting the unknown as God's will. The Holy Spirit enabled Jesus to cry out--"Father, not my will, but your will be done" before He was led to His death. The Spirit enabled the Apostles to boldly proclaim the Gospel to the ends of the earth, changing their fear to an unshakable sense of their mission in Christ.

Jesus Himself also describes the reality of worry and hope in parable form.

Remember the familiar story of Mary and Martha? Often the story is used to compare prayer and action, it can likewise be used to compare hope and worry. Martha, busy and distracted by her duties in the home, came to Jesus and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me" But the Lord said to her in reply, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need for only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her."

Gee-wiz, Martha surely had to be concerned about the cleanliness of the house and what food to be served is properly prepared? I say someone had to be concerned, what do you say? We can be on Mary's side of the story as well, who sat at the feet of Jesus, learning from Him and trusting Him. You may ask yourself, am I a Martha or a Mary? For myself I find that I'm a Martha. Not that Mary's role isn't inviting, but after-all someone has to get the work done.

For the Marthas and all of us who worry, the antidote to anxiety is the virtue of Hope, enabling us through the power of the Holy Spirit to trust in a future blessing by God, culminating in eternal life with Him. I could not guess how many time in a day that I say, Jesus I trust in You! At every Mass, at the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, we pray: "Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ."

We trust that the same spirit that emboldened Mary, Jesus and the Apostles can help us to overcome the fear and anxiety that weigh us down today. It's okay to be afraid, it's okay to acknowledge our weaknesses, our hesitations, and our anxieties, and all the things that can hold us back. Before we can offer them to the Holy Spirit we must first be able to name these fears; claim them as truly bothering us, and then we can ask the Holy Spirit to transform them from anxiety and despair into hope and an invitation to grow closer in God's Love. Jesus, I trust in You, now and always!

---

'Thank you' to Deacon Kaas, for letting me post his reflection here.

---

More reflections:

• "Reflections from Sauk Centre's Our Lady of the Angels Church"

Somewhat-related posts:

• "Sunday Obligation and Getting the Job Done"
  (October 9, 2010)
• "Striving for Success: A Successful Strategy?"
  (August 29, 2010)
• "Work, 'Giving Back,' and a Saint"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Money isn't Everything: But it Helps"
  (April 10, 2010)
• "Working on Sunday: At Growing the Christian Interior Life"
  (January 2, 2010)

Home Schooling and This Catholic Family

The other day, I asked my wife if I could take a look at the book she'd been using.

I'd noticed an illustration of a Roman-era family, which turned out to be a very quick introduction to what Roman citizens wore, and who was allowed to wear a toga. And that's another topic.

She's teaching a unit in Latin for a home schooling family we know. We got the teaching resources through someone else we know at church - yet another topic.

Why Home School?

My wife and I have home-schooled our kids, from grade 7 through high school graduation. Their choice.

The local school system is pretty good, and I might not have embraced the idea of home-schooling quite so readily, if I hadn't been involved in America's government schools for a time.

No matter how basically decent the folks in a local district may be, and how sincerely they want to teach students skills and knowledge: Their options are limited by the government school system's rules, customs, and values.

The American educational establishment as a whole has a culture which is not entirely consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. In my opinion.

Short version: I think my wife and I can teach our kids more effectively than the government schools. And - an important point for me - that we won't be indoctrinating them with whatever intellectual fad is in vogue at the moment.

That said, we have a working relationship with the local school district. Which, among other things, allows our youngest to participate in the school band.

Home Schooling Parents: 'Everybody Knows' What They're Like

'As is well-known,' at least in much of America's old-school news services, parents who home school are Bible-thumping anti-evolution zealots. (March 6, 2010) Which is one of the reasons I think it's a good idea to study the news: not just read it. Yet again another topic.

I'm sure that quite a few folks who have decided to take their kids out of the government schools think that Bishop Ussher was right - at least in principle.

Me? I'm comfortable with the idea that an all-powerful, all-knowing God could have made the entire universe in six days. I'm also aware that the evidence He left indicates otherwise. (March 5, 2009) I'm not patient enough to spend something like 14,000,0000,000 years on one project: but I'm not God, either. Just as well, and that's still one more topic.

Bottom line? Some home schooling parents may be the backwoods ignoramuses we're told about now and again. The folks I've met who home school their children aren't like that. At all.

I don't expect to sway the opinion of zealots, or convince 'serious thinkers' that Pat Robertson, Tony Alamo, and Fred Phelps aren't typical Christian leaders. (December 10, 2010)

On the other hand, I figure that it won't hurt to add my views about home schooling, learning, and intellectual pursuits in Catholic life, to the marketplace of ideas. And occasionally mention the likes of St. Catherine of Siena, Copernicus, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Related posts:

• Home schooling
  • "Jesus is a 'Wine-Guzzling Vagrant' - It's Taught in School"
    (December 7, 2010)
  • "School District Celebrates Religious Freedom Day: By Banning Bibles"
    (July 1, 2010)
  • " 'To Infinity, and Beyond' - And a Plug for Home Schooling"
    (June 21, 2010)
  • "Home Schooling: It May Not be What You Think"
    (May 20, 2010)
  • "Home Schooling, Religious and Moral Instruction, and American Culture"
    (March 6, 2010)
• Science
  • Pope Benedict XVI, the Big Bang, and Science: No Surprises Here"
    (January 15, 2011)
  • God's Creation: He Seems to Think Big"
    (September 23, 2010)
  • Science, Faith, and Auto Mechanics"
    (August 19, 2010)
  • Stem Cell Research: Backed by the Vatican, No Kidding"
    (April 28, 2010)
• Catholicism, culture, science, and getting a grip
  
  • Archaeology Paleontology, Science, and Wishful Thinking"
    (October 12, 2010)
    Particularly
    • 'Man is Inherently Evil' - What is Wrong With This Picture?
  • Astrobiology, the Vatican, and the Meaning of Our Existence"
    (November 12, 2009)
  • Copernicus, Galileo, Science and a Reality Check"
    (October 26, 2009)
  • A Patron Saint of - Scientists?!"
    (October 25, 2009)
  • Faith and Reason, Religion and Science"
    (March 20, 2009)
    Particularly
    • What If Darwin Had Been an Astronomer?
  • "Science, Religion, and being Catholic "
    List of related posts in this blog
  
  
  

Prayer, Rules, a Saint, and Lent

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has an entire chapter about prayer: 2650-2660.

I ended yesterday's post with an excerpt from that chapter:

"Prayer cannot be reduced to the spontaneous outpouring of interior impulse: in order to pray, one must have the will to pray. Nor is it enough to know what the Scriptures reveal about prayer: one must also learn how to pray. Through a living transmission (Sacred Tradition) within 'the believing and praying Church,'¹ the Holy Spirit teaches the children of God how to pray.

"The tradition of Christian prayer is one of the ways in which the tradition of faith takes shape and grows, especially through the contemplation and study of believers who treasure in their hearts the events and words of the economy of salvation, and through their profound grasp of the spiritual realities they experience.²"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2650-2651)

Wouldn't you know it: The Catholic Church says that prayer doesn't just 'come naturally.' It's something we learn to do. Makes sense to me.

Learning: Catholics have a Rule About That

Catholics have a reputation for having rules about everything. There's something to that.

For example, as a practicing Catholic I'm expected to learn about my Lord, Jesus. It's in the rules.

"The Church 'forcefully and specially exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn "the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ" (Phil 3:8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. . . . Let them remember, however, that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that a dialogue takes place between God and man. For "we speak to him when we pray; we listen to him when we read the divine oracles." '⁴

"The spiritual writers, paraphrasing Matthew 7:7, summarize in this way the dispositions of the heart nourished by the word of God in prayer: 'Seek in reading and you will find in meditating; knock in mental prayer and it will be opened to you by contemplation.'⁵"
(Catechism, 2653-2654)

There's more, about the liturgy of the Church and prayer (Catechism, 2655), theological virtues (Catechism, 2656-2658), even when to pray: "in the present." (Catechism, 2659-2660)

Ideally, I'd be praying constantly: one way or another. Which is sort of what Saint Thérèse of Lisieux meant by her "little way." I see I've posted about Saint Thérèse of Lisieux before. (July 7, 2010, October 1, 2009") But not about her "little way." Which is another topic. Topics.

Before moving on, I hope to learn from St. Thérèse, but I don't expect to be exactly like her. I've discussed unity, diversity, and a universal Church before.(August 26, 2010, April 19, 2010)

Prayer and the Liturgy

The connection between the liturgy and prayer isn't, quite, the prayers we say at Mass. "Liturgy," by the way, means "a Christian sacrament commemorating the Last Supper by consecrating bread and wine," or "a rite or body of rites prescribed for public worship." (Princeton's WordNet)

Back to the Catechism:

"In the sacramental liturgy of the Church, the mission of Christ and of the Holy Spirit proclaims, makes present, and communicates the mystery of salvation, which is continued in the heart that prays. The spiritual writers sometimes compare the heart to an altar. Prayer internalizes and assimilates the liturgy during and after its celebration. Even when it is lived out 'in secret,'⁶ prayer is always prayer of the Church; it is a communion with the Holy Trinity.⁷"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2655)

What's the Point of This Post?

Lent is coming up: fast, the way I reckon time. As usual, I'm wondering what I'll concentrate on during the Lenten season. Beefing up my prayer life is one possibility. So is bucking down and doing some serious reading of Scripture and documents of the Church.

Which is where this post comes in.

I've found that talking - or writing - about a topic helps me organize my thoughts. Or at least show me what I need to learn to have something worth organizing. More topics.

Writing this post helped me realize that I could concentrate more on my 'religious' reading. No big surprise there: but now I'm aware of that 'to do' item.

Somewhat-related posts:

• "Christchurch, New Zealand: A Cathedral, a Hotel, People, and Prayer"
  (February 24, 2011)
• "Rambling About What 'Spirit' Means"
  (February 22, 2011)
• "Questions, Answers, and Being Catholic"
  (December 9, 2010)
• "The Pope's 'Fundamental Priority,' and the 'Dark Side' of Bible Study"
  (November 19, 2010)
• "Becoming Catholic for Reasons, Leaving Because of Feelings"
  (August 5, 2010)

Christchurch, New Zealand: A Cathedral, a Hotel, People, and Prayer

Prayer is important.

But first, here's something from today's news and views:

"The authorities in Christchurch, New Zealand, kept emergency workers and others away from one of the city's tallest buildings on Friday, concerned that it might collapse three days after it was heavily damaged in an earthquake that killed more than 100 people.

"But engineers familiar with the city and with New Zealand's building codes said the structure, the 26-story Hotel Grand Chancellor, had performed up to standards during the quake. It survived initially, allowing those inside to escape.

" 'That's kind of the minimum performance expectation' for a building of that type, said Chris Poland, who is chairman of an American Society of Civil Engineers committee on seismic rehabilitation of buildings. ..."
(The New York Times)

---

"The death toll from the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand's second biggest city was revised higher on Friday.

""The latest information I have regarding the number of deceased is that we have 113 people in the temporary morgue," police commander Dave Cliff told reporters...."
(Reuters)

---

"The spire lost in New Zealand's earthquake matters. Obliterating past treasures or leaving the scars of ruins never helps

"The collapse in Tuesday's earthquake of the bell tower of ChristChurch cathedral is a tragedy both for those killed and for the heart and soul of New Zealand's second city. The tower was the focus point at the heart of this charming, peaceful chip off the old British block. Its loss is symbolic of the tragedy. It should be rebuilt at once.

"Cities vary widely in their response to disaster. London reacted to terrorist attack differently from New York. The resignation of the poor of Pakistan, Haiti and Indonesia faced with earthquake and tsunami surprised western observers, as families and villages turned in on themselves and found a comfort and security the state could not supply. It is the same in time of war.

"In each case someone comes along shouting for a memorial. They demand some artist's self-regarding creation of modern sculpture, like a Diana fountain. They demand hunks of concrete and steel, cenotaphs and memorial walls, the crude litterings of New York's Ground Zero or London's Hyde Park Corner. It is as if tragedy required atonement in an all too visible and eternal gesture of commemoration...."
(guardian.co.uk)

The Reuters article puts the number of people missing in Christchurch, New Zealand, at upwards of 200: but explains that some of the bodies recovered may be people who are missing. The folks in Christchurch are a long way from getting themselves sorted out after the most recent earthquake.

If Christchurch, New Zealand, sounds familiar, it should. They had another earthquake last year:

• "New Zealand Quake: It Could have been a Lot Worse"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (September 4, 2010)

Christchurch, New Zealand: Prayer Couldn't Hurt

The folks in Christchurch, New Zealand, have been shaken up. Literally, of course: and I'm pretty sure that many of them have felt calmer than they do now.

Some have lost family, friends, or acquaintances. Others are dealing with familiar places that aren't so familiar any more - or usable.

As I've said before: no pressure, but I don't think prayer for the folks there could hurt.

That's the important part of this post.

People Pay Attention to What Matters - to Them

Those excerpts are from a quick Google news search for articles relating to New Zealand. I picked three that had numbers or observations to offer.

The New York Times may have published something about the Christchurch cathedral's destruction: but what I found near the top of the pile of results was a discussion of a hotel and building codes. That's quite understandable, in a newspaper that is written by folks working in one of America's major cities. It takes planning to come through a disaster like an earthquake without the sort of devastation we saw in Haiti.

That isn't a criticism of Haitians: but the folks running that country could have done a better job of making sure that buildings stayed up long enough for folks to get out, at least. Looks like the survivors have learned from the experience:

• "Haiti's Rebuilding: and Doing It Right"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (May 22, 2010)

Simon Jenkins, in guardian.co.uk, doesn't have The New York Times' point of view. Another excerpt from his op-ed piece:

"...On Wednesday the dean of ChristChurch cathedral said that the loss of his tower was devastating, 'but the most important thing at the moment is not the buildings, it's the people'. The dead must be found and buried. I would question only the implied demotion of the buildings. Unlike dead people they can live again, and if revived can restore more than brick and stone. They restore morale, civic pride and collective memory.

"ChristChurch cathedral tower is the totem of civic continuity. Begun in 1864, it was built apart from the nave to minimise collateral damage should it fall...."
(guardian.co.uk)

I think Simon Jenkins is right, where it comes to structures being important to people living near them: important in more that a strictly utilitarian sense. I also think that "unlike dead people they can live again" misses an important point or two about Catholic beliefs: like the Resurrection. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 638-655, 988-1014, for starters)

What impressed me was that he seemed to appreciate at least the cultural and psychological importance of the cathedral to Christchurch's people. The Catholics, anyway. Kudos.

The point is that, in my opinion, people tend to notice what interests them.

For example, if a fashion designer, a botanist, and a sports writer watched the same football game, the first might be chiefly aware of the fabrics and colors worn by the teams - and fans; the second might notice what sort of grass was on the field; while the third would see the strategies and skills involved in game play.

Each has seen what's 'really' going on - from their own point of view. That's hardly a profound observation.

Moving on.

Christchurch Cathedral

(from AFP, via Radio New Zealand News, used w/o permission)

That photo is from Radio New Zealand News (online):

• "Masonry to be cleared to allow Cathedral search"
  Radio New Zealand News (February 24, 2011)

More about the cathedral and earthquakes:

"The picture of the crumbling spire at Christchurch Cathedral is one of the starkest images to emerge from today's devastating earthquake.

"But it's by no means the first time the historic cathedral has suffered major quake damage.

"The cathedral, consecrated on November 1, 1881, was damaged just a month after the event when a magnitude-six quake hit the city.

"University of Canterbury history professor Geoffrey Rice said the cathedral bells gave one toll when the quake hit on that fateful day.

" 'A stone fell from the finial cap below the cross on the spire, and dented the asphalt below,' Professor Rice wrote in an article published by New Zealand's The Press newspaper last year.

" 'Luckily nobody was passing at the time.'..."
(brisbanetimes.com.au)

This time around, the news isn't so happy. There's a good chance that 22 people died when the spire fell on them. Folks in Christchurch will find out just how many, as they clear away the rubble.

Sometimes Bad Things Happen to Good People

From time to time, I run into - interesting - assumptions about Christians and Christianity. ("Report of a UFO Would 'Destroy One's Belief in the Church?!' " (August 6, 2010))The notion that meeting people who aren't human would shatter Christian faith has been around for quite a while. I suspect it may come from assuming that the more rabid radio preachers and dudes who sell 'prosperity gospel' books are the foundation of Christendom.

Back to the Christchurch quake, I'm not at all surprised that people - probably Catholics - were killed when a cathedral spire fell on them. Sad, and sympathetic for the survivors, yes. Surprised, no.

It's that Matthew 5:44-45 thing. Also Psalms 145:15. Both of which are cited in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2828.

Then there's the tower of Siloam incident. (Luke 13:4)

No, I do not see my faith as a sort of celestial 'get out of jail free' card.

Prayer: It's Important

I was going to write about prayer today, and this post came out instead.

Here's where I intended to start:

"Prayer cannot be reduced to the spontaneous outpouring of interior impulse: in order to pray, one must have the will to pray. Nor is it enough to know what the Scriptures reveal about prayer: one must also learn how to pray. Through a living transmission (Sacred Tradition) within 'the believing and praying Church,'¹ the Holy Spirit teaches the children of God how to pray.

"The tradition of Christian prayer is one of the ways in which the tradition of faith takes shape and grows, especially through the contemplation and study of believers who treasure in their hearts the events and words of the economy of salvation, and through their profound grasp of the spiritual realities they experience.²"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2650-2651)

Maybe I'll try to get that train of thought back on the tracks - tomorrow.

Not-entirely-unrelated posts:

• "ADHD, an Apostolic Exhortation, Another Document, and V8"
  (November 11, 2010)
• "Saving the Planet, Saving Haitians"
  (September 1, 2010)
• "Prayer, Medicine and Trusting God"
  (March 4, 2010)
• "A Prayer for the Dead"
  (June 25, 2009)
• "Happy Lent?! What Kind of a Nut am I?"
  (March 3, 2009)

News and views:

• "After Quake, Christchurch Is Concerned About Tower"
  Asia Pacific, The New York Times (February 24, 2011)
• "New Zealand quake toll rises to 113 - police"
  Edition: US, Reuters (February 24, 2011)
• "Restoring Christchurch's bell tower is a first step to easing the city's trauma"
  guardian.co.uk (February 24, 2011)
• "Cathedral no stranger to quake damage)
  Daniel Hurst, brisbanetimes.com.au (February 22, 2011)

Life, Death, and a Billboard in New York City

Life is precious.

That's my opinion. It's controversial - which might seem odd, at first.

'Life is Precious' - So What?

Again, I think life is precious. The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it more strongly:

" 'Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.'⁵⁶"
(Catechism, 2258)

Since the Catholic Church teaches that life is precious, even sacred, we're 'obviously:' bleeding-heart liberals (death penalty); uncaring conservatives (abortion); or, a perennial favorite, hypocrites.

I've written about this sort of thing before. Fairly often, I see. (March 29, 2010, June 7, 2009, May 8, 2009, November 3, 2008, October 2, 2008)

Out of Step With Contemporary Culture: For Two Millennia

The Catholic Church's insistence that human life is sacred has put us at odds with dominant cultures before, and the Church isn't playing along with America's self-described best and brightest today.

Back in the 20th century, important folks in America and elsewhere thought that eugenics was important. Separation of the races and eliminating the unfit were all the rage - then a German chancellor started cleaning out Europe's gene pool. I think places like Dachau gave eugenics a public relations problem that lasted until fairly recently.

The Catholic Church has - what else? - rules about killing innocent people. Even if it's 'for the good of the race.' Essentially, it's: don't. (2268, 2313)

Today, I doubt that 'for the good of the race' is used as a slogan very often. Too many folks know about the Tuskegee experiments. And like I said: Dachau was a huge PR problem for eugenics advocates.

Ersatz Compassion

The idea that it's okay to kill innocent people is still with us, though. Some of the slogans have been 'every child a wanted child,' and 'freedom of choice.' In a way, the 'wanted child' line is a step forward. Although seriously disordered, the argument that every child should be born healthy and loved - or be killed - is an appeal to compassion.

I think the unwanted and defective babies might want a chance at life, anyway: but I would. Good grief, yet another topic. (February 3, 2009)

Black Babies Killed: Somebody Finally Noticed

That photo, and the article that goes with it, are what got me started on this post. Here's an excerpt:

"A new billboard campaign has responded to the high abortion rate among black women in New York City by declaring 'the most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.'

"The billboard, which depicts a young black girl, is located in the Manhattan neighborhood of SoHo about half a mile from a Planned Parenthood abortion facility. The three Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in New York City altogether reported nearly 17,000 abortions in 2010.

"The pro-life group Life Always is sponsoring the billboard, its first in the state of New York, as part of a new national campaign which charges that Planned Parenthood targets minority neighborhoods...."
(CNA)

This isn't the first time I've run into someone pointing out that - perhaps by coincidence - folks who used to be regarded as an 'inferior race' just happen to have a whole lot of abortions these days.

That billboard will probably anger quite a few folks. And maybe, just maybe, get some to start thinking about whether it's nice to kill babies.

Even if they're not quite 'the right sort.'

Related posts:

• "Lychee Nuts, Litchi Nuts: Either Way, They're Edible"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 18, 2011)
  Particularly
  • Eugenics and a Ranting Lemming
• "Sudan, Darfur: My Take"
  (January 8, 2011)
• "Sustainable African Development: And Swift's Modest Proposal"
  (May 6, 2010)
• "Inconvenient Classes of Persons and Health Care"
  (July 26, 2009)
• "'Hand of Hope' Spinal Bifida Case - Eugenics, Ersatz Compassion, and Life"
  (May 6, 2009)
• "Human Clones Possible: Don't Worry, They're Just for Parts and Research"
  (February 2, 2009)

In the news:

• "Billboard in Manhattan describes abortion as ‘number one killer’ of blacks"
  CNA (Catholic News Agency) (February 23, 2011)

Rambling About What "Spirit" Means

I wrote about "spiritual" beings over the weekend:

• "Demons: The Other Angels"
  (February 20, 2011)
• "Angels: Wings, Violins, and Swords"
  (February 20, 2011)

After I'd posted those, I realized that I hadn't nailed down just what "spirit" and "spiritual" mean.

Here's what a dictionary says "spirit" means:

• Noun
  1. The vital principle or animating force within living things
  2. The general atmosphere of a place or situation and the effect that it has on people
  3. A fundamental emotional and activating principle determining one's character
  4. Any incorporeal supernatural being that can become visible (or audible) to human beings
  5. The state of a person's emotions
  6. The intended meaning of a communication
  7. Animation and energy in action or expression
  8. An inclination or tendency of a certain kind
• Verb
  
  1. Infuse with spirit
  (Princeton's WordNnet)

Offhand, it seems to me that the definitions of "spirit" as noun, numbers 1 and 4, are fairly close to how I've seen "spirit" used in a Catholic context.

Emotions are Okay

As for the emotional angle, I've discussed emotion before. (August 5, 2010, November 24, 2009, March 17, 2009, for starters)

Briefly, in my view there's nothing intrinsically wrong with emotions: they come standard-equipment with our human nature. Emotions can be useful warnings that we ought to pay attention to something.

But I prefer to think with my central nervous system, and feel with the endocrine system - not the other way around.

Which is another topic. Topics.

The Soul, the Holy Spirit, and Spiritual Life

I took a quick look in the Catechism, and didn't find "spirit" in the Glossary. I did find these related concepts:

"HOLY SPIRIT: The third divine Person of the Blessed Trinity, the personal love of Father and Son for each other. Also called the Paraclete (Advocate) and Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit is at work with the Father and the Son from the beginning to the completion of the divine plan for our salvation (685; cf. 152, 243)."

"SOUL: The spiritual principle of human beings. The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom; soul and body together form one unique human nature. Each human soul is individual and immortal, immediately created by God. The soul does not die with the body, from which it is separated by death, and with which it will be reunited in the final resurrection (363, 366; cf. 1703)."
(Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Which brings up another point. In a way, I can't die. Not permanently. Which is a sort of good news/bad news thing. (Catechism 988-1014) The Resurrection isn't the same thing as reincarnation, by the way. At all. I've got one shot at this earthly life, and that's it. (Catechism, 1013)

And those are more topics.

By the way, as I've said before: my opinions carry the full weight of "some guy with a blog." Which is why I've got so many links to more authoritative sources.

"Spirit," Catholic Style?

It still looks to me like "spirit" in the Catholic sense means pretty much what the numbers 1 and 4 definitions of "spirit" as a noun say: "The vital principle or animating force within living things," and "Any incorporeal supernatural being that can become visible (or audible) to human beings."

As a child, I had a very hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that angels, and two persons in the Holy Trinity, had no physical bodies. At all. I still have a hard time imagining that: it's 'way too easy to start thinking of them as a sort of gas. Or energy - which we're now pretty sure is the flip side of matter. Sort of. That E=mc² thing. And I've gotten into yet more topics.

Back to "spirit" and "spiritual," Catholic style.

"Spiritual Life"

Because of some of my personal history, I tend to cringe when "spiritual experiences" and that sort of thing come up. But never mind that. Here's a little of what the Catechism has to say about the Catholic spiritual life:

"There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.⁵⁰"
(Catechism, 89)

Preferring almost two millennia of accumulated wisdom and learning to what each of us cobbles together hasn't been fashionable in America's 'better' circles.

I became a Catholic anyway: and that's yet again another topic.

Related posts:

• "Fasting, Penance, and the 'Fun' Miracle: Many Faces of Spirituality"
  (December 14, 2010)
• "Studying the Bible: Carefully"
  (November 16, 2010)
• "Asceticism: Seeing Past Some Skinny Guy Screaming on a Pillar"
  (August 21, 2010)
• "Really 'Spiritual' Experiences: Those are Okay"
  (April 22, 2010)
• "'If you must see ghosts ...' Materialism, Being Spiritual, and Uncle Deadly"
  (December 18, 2009)

Catholicism: Ashes, Penance, and Priests on Skis

I've gotten the impression that "being religious" is, for some folks, a matter of sackcloth, ashes, mortification and renunciation of worldly pleasures. They're right, sort of.

"Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one's life, with hope in God's mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).²⁴"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1431)

There's quite a lot more in the Catechism, about interior conversion, penance, repentance, and learning to control our desires. (Catechism, 1430, 1434, 2015, for starters)

So, why have a bunch of priests gotten together for a skiing competition?

Important as mortification of the flesh is: it's not all there is to Catholicism.

Priests on Skis

Here's what got me thinking about the grim, and not-so-grim, sides of Catholicism:

"Pope John Paul II Polish Skiing Competition"

catholicnewsagency, YouTube (February 18, 2011)
video, 0:56

"Polish Priests and Seminarians strapped on their snow skis February 12th to compete for the John Paul II Cup in Wisla, Poland.

"The 14th annual Alpine Skiing Championship was founded out of esteem for the Polish Pontiff, who loved to ski.

"Events are based around an 800 meter slalom race...."

The way I see it, there's nothing wrong with skiing: as long as a person doesn't make an idol out of it. And I've written about that sort of thing before. (February 22, 2010)

Not-entirely-unrelated posts:

• "Catholicism: Obligations, Penance, Fasting; and Cartoons"
  (December 18, 2010)
• "Shop Class, Home Ec, and Being Catholic"
  (December 14, 2010)
• "From Father Dowling to The Simpsons: Somebody Finally Got it Right"
  (October 21, 2010)
• "Colorful Catholics: Vestment Colors For Every Season"
  (July 22, 2010)
• "Catholics aren't Klingons"
  (April 27, 2010)

In the news:

• "Polish priests display their skiing skills for John Paul II Cup"
  Alan Holdren, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (February 19, 2011)

Demons: The Other Angels

I wrote about angels earlier today. (February 20, 2011) Basically, they're spiritual creatures with intelligence and free will: people; but not human.

Since they've got free will, angels could decide to obey God - or not. I've discussed free will before. (November 20, 2010, June 24, 2010) More to the point, the Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses the idea. (Catechism, 1730, for starters)

We call the angels who decided to reject God fallen angels, demons, or devils. The #1 fallen angel is often called Satan.

Satan: Real, and Just a Creature

I think a person can make at least two major mistakes, when thinking about Satan. One is to assume that this fallen angel isn't real. The other is to assume that Satan is real, and a sort of counterpart to God.

Then there's what we see in the movies: from The House of the Devil (1896), to The Devil's Revenge (2010). Most of them are, under the blood and thunder, silly. Some, like Heaven Can Wait (1943), show us a friendly gentleman-devil. At least Ghost Rider (2007) portrayed demons as not entirely reliable people. And that's almost another topic.

Satan: He's No God

Definition time:

"DEVIL/DEMON: A fallen angel, who sinned against God by refusing to accept his reign. Satan or the devil, the Evil One, and the other demons were at first good angels, created naturally good, who became evil by their own doing (391, 1707; cf. 2851)."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary)

Disclaimer time: I've got the full teaching authority of "some guy with a blog." I do not speak for the Catholic Church. Which is why I use all these excerpts and links to what the Catholic Church does have to say.

Back to the fallen angels.

Satan and company were created by God, like us. Treating Satan as if he's like God makes about as much sense as saying that a movie star is God. Which is yet another topic.

The Catechism has a few things to say about Satan, including this backgrounder:

"Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.²⁶⁶ Scripture and the Church's Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called 'Satan' or the 'devil.'²⁶⁷ The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: 'The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.'²⁶⁸

"Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.²⁶⁹ This 'fall' consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: 'You will be like God.'²⁷⁰ The devil 'has sinned from the beginning'; he is 'a liar and the father of lies.'²⁷¹

"It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. 'There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.'²⁷²"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 391-393)

That last paragraph is important - partly, I think, because it's hard to imagine a "loving" God throwing someone into Hell. It's more a matter of God not dragging anybody, kicking and screaming, into Heaven - and I've written about that before, too. (November 20, 2010)

Like I said, I think it's a mistake to assume that Satan doesn't exist. Or that Satan is like God. Bad, powerful, yes: All-powerful? Definitely not.

"Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls 'a murderer from the beginning,' who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.²⁷³ 'The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.'²⁷⁴ In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

"The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries—of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature—to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but 'we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.'²⁷⁵"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 394-395)

Two things to remember: Satan can't win. God can't lose.

Actually, my Lord won - quite a while ago - and that's something else I've written about before. (January 13, 2011)

Somewhat-related posts:

• "Angels: Wings, Violins, and Swords"
  (February 20, 2011)
• "Demons aren't Dull"
  (November 30, 2010)
• "Demonic Deception? Or What You Get When We Play God?"
  (May 5, 2010)
• "Laughing at Lucifer: Link"
  (February 17, 2010)
• "'If you must see ghosts ...' Materialism, Being Spiritual, and Uncle Deadly"
  (December 18, 2009)

Angels: Wings, Violins, and Swords

Anyone who's moderately familiar with Western culture should recognize what three of the four people in that painting are: angels. It's mostly the wings: although the really pale skin and taste for stringed instruments sets them apart, too. Also the very, very delicate features.

That's how angels have been depicted in art since the Renaissance. For the most part. In the Euro-American part of the world. That William-Adolphe Bouguereau painting was made in 1881, by the way.

I think I understand what artists like Bouguereau are trying to do. Delicate features, pale skin, and languid poses seem to be some of Western culture's visual shorthand for "spiritual."

We have some pictures that express "being spiritual" that way in my household. They're not necessarily my favorite art - but some members of the family like them. And to the extent that they serve to remind us of elements of our faith, they serve a purpose.

On the other hand, I think there are appropriate ways of responding to God that don't involve being dreamy and insipid. And that's another topic. I've discussed culture in a universal church, art, and what I think happened to men and churches in English-speaking countries before:

• "It's the Catholic Church in America; Not the American Catholic Church"
  (November 9, 2010)
  Particularly
  • America is Okay: So are Other Places
• "Unity, Diversity, and Being Catholic"
  (August 26, 2010)
• "Art, Catholic Teachings, and This Catholic"
  (August 9, 2010)
  Particularly
  • Religious Art: From Jesus Junk to the Sistine Chapel
• "Jesus, Men, and a Marketing Campaign Gone Wrong"
  (February 15, 2010)

Pretty Angels and Art

Despite - or maybe because of - some intellectual fashions of the last century, I don't have a problem with art that depicts beauty. I do take issue with how beauty is used.

For example, the delicate features of Bouguereau's angels represent an ideal of feminine beauty that's been in fashion, off and on, for quite a while. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion: provided it doesn't slide into something like the "Twiggy look."¹

But when folks start getting used to the idea that angels look like Clara Bow with wings and long hair - that, I think, isn't an entirely good thing.

That's because angels aren't women. They aren't men, either. They're not human.

At all.

I'm No Angel: And I Won't be One, Either

When our youngest child died, shortly before birth, I was told that 'she's an angel in Heaven.' That was a nice sentiment. It's also quite impossible. My wife and I are human beings. So are our children, of course. We're human. Angels aren't.

When I die, I'll still be a human being. A dead one, until my Lord sorts things out, but a human. Later, I'll still be a human being. I won't be a rock or a chipmunk: and I won't be an angel.

So, if angels aren't human beings who have died and gotten flight capability, what are they?

"ANGEL: A spiritual, personal, and immortal creature, with intelligence and free will, who glorifies God without ceasing and who serves God as a messenger of his saving plan (329-331). See Guardian Angels."

"GUARDIAN ANGELS: Angels assigned to protect and intercede for each person (336). See Angel."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary)

That's straightforward enough. And, as usual, there's more. Quite a lot more, including these excerpts:

"St. Augustine says: ' "Angel" is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is "spirit"; if you seek the name of their office, it is "angel": from what they are, "spirit," from what they do, "angel." '¹⁸⁸ With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they 'always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven' they are the 'mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word.'¹⁸⁹

"As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness.¹⁹⁰

"Christ 'with all his angels'

"Christ is the center of the angelic world. They are his angels: 'When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . .'¹⁹¹ They belong to him because they were created through and for him: 'for in him all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.'¹⁹² They belong to him still more because he has made them messengers of his saving plan: 'Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?'¹⁹³"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 329-331)

"From its beginning until death, human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession.²⁰² 'Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life.'²⁰³ Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God."
(Catechism, 336)

The Bible mentions angels quite a bit, too. Like these passages:

• Numbers 22:22-35
• Judges 13:3-5
• Daniel 9:21-27
• Matthew 28:2-7
• Luke 1:11-20
• 2 Corinthians 11:14

That's what I got after a very quick Google search. Some of those bits from the Bible are familiar, or should be: like Matthew 28:2-7, where Mary Magdalene and the the other Mary meet one of God's agents at my Lord's tomb. Remember what I said, about angels not being human? Sometimes they've shown up looking like us. Sometimes, not so much. Like this:

"His appearance was like lightning and his clothing was white as snow. The guards were shaken with fear of him and became like dead men."
(Matthew 28:3-4)

Maybe that isn't an entirely literal description. It's possible that someone steeped in contemporary Western culture would have recorded the encounter differently. I've discussed my native culture's quirks when it comes to metaphor and poetry before. (February 15, 2010, January 3, 2010)

Still, the guards were impressed by the angel's appearance, "and became like dead men." Maybe the description is fairly straightforward, after all.

In any case, it's a little hard to imagine someone looking like a member of that string trio in Bouguereau's painting scaring a guard. Not "shaken with fear" scared.

Then there's the account we have of Baalam's reality check. Picking it up after the angel, armed with a sword, let Baalam see him:

"When the ass saw me, she turned away from me these three times. If she had not turned away from me, I would have killed you; her I would have spared.""
(Numbers 22:33)

"I would have killed you?!" I wouldn't expect the greeting-card angels I've seen to talk that way.

I know that angels - and their boss - are gentle. I also know that they're quite capable of taking decisive action if the occasion warrants it. Maybe it's time that folks in Western cultures start taking a look at the angelic reality.

Vaguely-related posts:

• "Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Mary, and Who's In Charge?"
  (December 6, 2010)
• "Demons aren't Dull"
  (November 30, 2010)
• "Alone in a Church? Yes and No"
  (May 14, 2010)
• "God is Love, Wisdom: And Power"
  (March 21, 2010)
• "Firebase Earth"
  (April 5, 2009)

---

¹ Before someone has a stroke: I have nothing at all against Lesley Hornby; I think women are people; and I think that most women aren't going to look like Twiggy in her teens without going on short rations. Yet more topics:

• "Not-So-Silly Science: Women Who Look Like Women are Healthier"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (January 7, 2009)
• "Silly Science: Hourglass Figure Not Good for Women"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (December 17, 2008)