Monday, April 30, 2012

Divine Mercy Suday, 2012, Reflection: Now Posted

I posted a Divine Mercy reflection today - with a time stamp of April 15, 2012, so it'll show up in the right place in this blog's timeline.You'll find familiar material there: Deacon Kaas used what he's said in previous years as a starting point. This year's reflection has some new-to-me material, though.

A sincere 'thank you' to Deacon Kaas, for letting me post his homilies in this blog.

More reflections:

Love and Intelligence, Faith and Reason

Last week's post started with this excerpt:
"...Charity does not exclude knowledge, but rather requires, promotes, and animates it from within...."
("Caritas in Veritate," 30)
I liked the metaphor in that section of Caritas in Veritate, about wisdom seasoning knowledge with the salt of charity.

Two more excerpts, and I'll move on to the next section:
"...Deeds without knowledge are blind, and knowledge without love is sterile...."

"...Human knowledge is insufficient and the conclusions of science cannot indicate by themselves the path towards integral human development. There is always a need to push further ahead: this is what is required by charity in truth[76] Going beyond, however, never means prescinding from the conclusions of reason, nor contradicting its results. Intelligence and love are not in separate compartments: love is rich in intelligence and intelligence is full of love."
("Caritas in Veritate," 30)

"Love is Rich in Intelligence" - "Intelligence is Full of Love"

I thought recapping last week's post made sense, since section 31 of Caritas in Veritate continues the ideas discussed in section 30:
"This means that moral evaluation and scientific research must go hand in hand, and that charity must animate them in a harmonious interdisciplinary whole, marked by unity and distinction. The Church's social doctrine, which has 'an important interdisciplinary dimension'[77], can exercise, in this perspective, a function of extraordinary effectiveness. It allows faith, theology, metaphysics and science to come together in a collaborative effort in the service of humanity...."
("Caritas in Veritate," 31)
Faith and reason, science and religion, get along just fine. Or, rather, they should. I've said this before. A lot:
  • Faith and science are compatible
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159)
  • Science and technology
    • Can help people
      • Provided ethics are not violated
        (Catechism, 2292-2294)
    • Scientific medical research is a good idea
      (Catechism, 2292-2296)
  • Health care
    • Concern for health is a good idea
      (Catechism, 2288-2291)
      • Within reason
        (Catechism, 2289)
    • Organ transplants are okay
      • Breaking down a living person for parts is wrong
        • Even if it helps someone else
      (Catechism, 2296)
    (March 5, 2012)
If science and religion are compatible, why do so many folks think they're not? A scientist from the Vatican Observatory said that it's a fairly recent idea, and a crazy one. I've posted about the Victorian-era snit before. (March 20, 2009)

"Recent" is in the eye of the beholder: Brother Guy Consolmagno said "the 'crazy idea' that science and religion conflict" dates back to around the middle of the 19th century. (March 14, 2012) For me, that's 'recent.' But I'm interested in ancient history and cosmology, among other things, so my timescale may be a little different from yours.

Benedict XVI comes at the (unnecessary) discord between religion and science from a different angle, pointing out how it affects more than just Bible thumpers and wackadoo secularists. Not that the Pope used those terms:
"...The excessive segmentation of knowledge[80], the rejection of metaphysics by the human sciences[81], the difficulties encountered by dialogue between science and theology are damaging not only to the development of knowledge, but also to the development of peoples...."
("Caritas in Veritate," 31)

Conscience, Science, and the Golden Rule

The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses respect for the person and scientific research. (Catechism, 2292-2296) What the Church says might be frustrating to folks who'd like to be "beyond good and evil:" Nietzsche and all that. (March 9, 2012)

What the Catechism says about scientific research is, as far as I can tell, a matter of pointing out that rules about moral choice apply to science and technology. That's covered in a section about conscience:
"Some rules apply in every case:
  • "One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
  • "the Golden Rule: 'Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.'56
  • "charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: 'Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.57 Therefore 'it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.'58"
(Catechism, 1789)
'Don't do evil so that good may follow.' 'Do to others what you'd like them to do to you.' It doesn't sound complicated. I don't think ethics is, really. Not when folks bother to look at the basics.

I think the Vatican archives take up about 85 kilometers of shelf space, at last count, in large part because folks have been trying to weasel out of simple principles for two millennia. More. (Job 5:7) And that's another topic.

"Obedient to the Truth"

I don't see a conflict between faith and reason, religion and science. But then, I converted to Catholicism partly because once I started learning about the Church: what they said made sense. I didn't like everything I read: but I couldn't deny the logic. More topics.

We live in an era that's been changing: fast. Computers were the stuff of science fiction when I was growing up. Today a computer manages the family minivan's engine, and I spend hours a day at a computer's keyboard.

I remember when permanent press was still a new wrinkle in fabrics technology. The NDSU Plant Diagnostic Lab has a Facebook page. you get the idea.

I don't see having clothes that don't need ironing as a problem: and I certainly don't think disease-resistant crops are a bad thing. But I don't think that science and technology are a 'values-free' zone, either.

It's like Benedict XVI said:
"...The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application...."
("Address at the University of Regensburg," Benedict XVI (September 12, 2006))

More posts about "Caritas in Veritate" (Charity in Truth)
"Caritas in Veritate"

Related posts:
More:
  • "Address at the University of Regensburg"
    (Meeting with the representatives of science in the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg)
    Pope Benedict XVI (September 12, 2006)
  • "Fides et Ratio," Chapter VII - Current Requirements and Tasks
    Pope John Paul II (English translation) (September 14, 1998)
  • "Centesimus Annus"
    Pope John Paul II (English translation) (May 1, 1991)
  • "Populorum Progressio"
    Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Development of Peoples (March 26, 1967)

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Gray Afternoon of the Soul

I write these 'Sunday morning' posts on Saturday, then set them to get posted a little before 8:00 a.m. in my time zone. That lets me take a deep breath, think about what I've written, and even then obvious typos slip past me. Which is another topic.

A Cold, Damp, Dreary, Day

Right now, it's not one of those 'picture postcard' days here in Sauk Centre. The sky is a uniform, dim, damp, gray mass. It's been not-quite-raining off and on all day, refreshing the grass and the street's little reflecting ponds: but not my spirits.

Earlier, the vault of heaven's oozing patterns of ash and slate seemed to bleakly proclaim "be cold, and know that life is damp." Weather forecasts for tomorrow promise more of the same.

I feel like staying inside, where it's warm and dry.

I don't feel like going to Mass tomorrow morning.

But I will, anyway.

When I Gotta Go, I Gotta Go

It's not that I'm so 'spiritual' that I'm 'moved' to go. I'm a practicing Catholic, and we've got something called the Sunday obligation. If possible, I have to go to Mass each week. It's 'in the rules.' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2180-2183)

If I can't go, there are backup procedures. (Catechism, 2183) Sometimes I've done 'none of the above,' generally when I was really sick. But those are rare occasions. When it's time to go to Mass, I go to Mass: partly because it's an obligation.

Sunday Obligation, Not Sunday Fear

So, am I 'burdened with care,' worried that an OCD God will smite me, casting me into the pit because I've occasionally missed Mass? Hardly.

That's not because I think Hell doesn't exist, or that God wouldn't let anybody go there. I'm a practicing Catholic, so I have to make long-range plans. Really long range plans, since I'm going to live forever. I'll get back to that.

'Spiritual Hygiene,' Sort of

I decide to join my neighbors in the parish church each Sunday, and the occasional Saturday late-afternoon, because I think it's a good idea. I also think flossing and brushing my teeth is a good idea, and I've been over that before. (October 20, 2010)

An Obligation, a Privilege, and a Blessing

Once in a while, I find great emotional satisfaction in the experience of Mass. Quite often I enjoy moments of beauty.


Mass at Our Lady of the Angels, Sauk Centre, Minnesota. April 8, 2012.

But that's 'frosting on the cake.' Each week I have the obligation - and privilege - and blessing - of being with my Lord:
"...we'll be celebrating Mass that day at Our Lady of the Angels Church, here in Sauk Centre.

"Which means that, as I understand it, we'll be at the Mass at St. Peter's Square, too, and the Passover meal we call the Last Supper, and Golgotha - in a way. (Catechism, 1326, 1330, 1545)"
(April 23, 2011)
That, in my considered opinion, is a pretty big deal.

Feelings: Nice, But Not Essential

I hope that I'd have the good sense to fulfill my Sunday obligation even if I never got an emotional 'zing' out of the process.

Emotions are okay: and very much a part of being human. By themselves, emotions aren't good: or bad. It's what we decide to do with them that makes the difference. (Catechism, 1767) I've been over that before. (March 17, 2009)

As a practicing Catholic, it's okay if I feel all warm and fuzzy about going to Mass. It's also okay if I don't. It's even okay if I go hours - days - years - without feeling 'spiritual.' Provided that I keep soldiering on, doing what I'm supposed to:
"...Catholics recognize a prolonged dry period like that as the dark night of the soul - a name that comes from "The Dark Night," by St. John of the Cross, which described and discussed this part of a soul's growth. ... Many saints, and many Catholics who haven't been canonized, went through that experience. I can't think of one who was given as long a dark night of the soul as Mother Teresa's, though...."
(August 26, 2009)

Living Forever: Good News, Bad News

I'm going to live forever. So will you. It comes with being human, and it's not something we can get out of.

Living forever doesn't mean not dying. My body will die somewhere in the next few decades: assuming that the Last Judgment doesn't come first: which seems a bit unlikely, and that's yet another topic.

When I'm dead, I won't be a living human being. I'll be a dead person: someone whose body is dead. But the part of me that's spirit, the part that God made when I was conceived, can't die:
"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) [links added]
Living forever is a sort of good news, bad news, proposition. Like I said earlier, I need to make really long-range plans: because how I spend eternity is up to me:
  • Hell exists
    (Catechism, 1033-1037)
    • "...This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell.' "
      (Catechism, 1033)
  • Heaven exists
    (Catechism, 1023-1029)
    • "Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ...."
      (Catechism, 1023)
  • My final destination gets sorted out at my particular judgment
    (Catechism, 1021-1022)

Decisions, Deeds, and Death

I decide whether I want to be united with God in Heaven, or stay away from the Almighty in Hell. It's more than 'really believing,' though. What I've done about my faith counts, too:
"Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul-a destiny which can be different for some and for others.593

"Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595-or immediate and everlasting damnation.596
"At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.597"
(Catechism, 1021-1022)
Being all 'on fire' with faith, without doing something about it, doesn't make sense to me. Maybe because I've read this sort of thing:
"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

"And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?

"For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."
(James 2:24-26)
That bit from James gets me into faith and works: and that's yet again another topic.

Somewhat-related posts:

Friday, April 27, 2012

"A Consistent Ethic of Life," Reality Checks About Religion, and a New Widget

One reason I joined the Catholic Church was that it made sense. Even the parts I didn't like at first. I also learned, eventually, why I wasn't entirely comfortable with cultural mores like capital punishment.

There's more to learn about what the Church has taught: more than I could absorb in a lifetime. Which is why I hope to keep learning until last things happen. And that's another topic. Topics.
  1. Death Penalty, a Consistent Ethic of Life, and Connecticut
  2. Fundamentalist? Conservative? No, I'm Catholic
  3. "To Proclaim Christ to the World"
  4. What Folks Know, That Just Ain't So
  5. Also Noted: The New Vatican Widget
On the whole, I think this is a fairly 'upbeat' selection from the news.

Sure, some reporters are clueless where religion is concerned, but that's nothing new. What's remarkable, I think, is that some actually 'get it.'

Then there's today's news release from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. America has taken a step toward "a consistent ethic of life."

1. Death Penalty, a Consistent Ethic of Life, and Connecticut

"Bishops Welcome Repeal Of Death Penalty In Connecticut"
USCCB News Release (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) (April 26, 2012)

"The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) congratulated the Connecticut bishops, the Connecticut Catholic Conference, Catholic Mobilizing Network, and all dedicated advocates against the death penalty for their work to bring about the repeal of the death penalty in Connecticut. Governor Dan Malloy enacted the legislation April 25, making Connecticut the 17th state to repeal the death penalty.

" 'As Catholics we are dedicated to promoting a consistent ethic of life, which values all human life as full of dignity and inherent worth – even those convicted of the worst crimes,' said Bishop Stephen E. Blaire, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. 'We welcome the courageous decision by the governor and the legislature to abolish the use of the death penalty in Connecticut. We stand in solidarity with all those who work for a just and safe society that protects its citizens and upholds the sanctity and dignity of all human life.'

"Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor John Paul II, has called for the end of the use of the death penalty. In November 2011, Pope Benedict expressed support for efforts for 'political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty.' "
I've felt like killing someone. That doesn't make it right, though:
  • Human life is sacred
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2258)
  • Murder is wrong
    (Catechism, 2259-2262, 2268-2269)

Lethal Force and Options

How about someone who wants to kill me? Or someone else? Or actually murdered someone? The answer gets a little complicated:
  • Lethal force is an option for self-defense
    • But only if necessary
    (Catechism, 2264
  • Legitimate defense of others is right
    • And may be a grave duty
    (Catechism, 2265)
  • The state has a duty to
    • "Curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights"
    • Inflict punishment
      • Proportionate to the gravity of the offense
    (Catechism, 2266)
  • Punishment inflicted by the state
    • "Has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense"
    • Defends public order
    • Protects people's safety
    • Assumes the value of expiation
      • When willingly accepted by the guilty party
    • Has a medicinal purpose
      • Must contribute to the correction of the guilty party
        • As far as possible
    (Catechism, 2266)
About punishment contributing "to the correction of the guilty party:" A countdown to death might focus the convicted party's attention on the need for repentance. Or, not. On the whole, I'd rather give someone more time to think, and less opportunity for blind panic.

Mistakes, Executions, and the Super Bowl

I might think that the death penalty was okay in this country, if I also thought that
  • America's judicial system never made mistakes
  • The United States Supreme Court could unkill someone
  • America couldn't afford to restrain dangerous people
About that last item, it's hard for me to believe that America can't afford to keep people locked up. Not when Super Bowl commercials cost $3,000,000 for each 30 seconds: and make good business sense. (CNN)

Sure, it's easy to kill someone and send a nice 'sorry about that' note if a mistake was made. But 'easy' and 'right' aren't necessarily the same thing.

Justice, Real and Imagined

There are quite a few flavors of justice. There's what we see in some westerns: "We're gonna give you a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging." ("Silverado" (1985))

Then there's the sort of 'justice' that made good Samaritan laws necessary. I remember when America's courts were getting used to the idea that punishing folks who helped accident victims wasn't prudent.

More recently, America's courts had apparently decided that folks who committed crimes were 'victims of society.' I'll agree that committing a crime is the result of a disordered conscience, but that's about as far as I'll go. I've discussed natural law and common sense before:Finally, here's part of what the Catholic Church says about situations where a judge thinks someone is probably guilty of a serious crime:
"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'68
" (Catechism, 2267)

2. Fundamentalist? Conservative? No, I'm Catholic

"NY Times writer defends Church teachings in online series"
Benjamin Mann, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (April 25, 2012)

"New York Times writer Ross Douthat has defended Catholic theological and moral teachings, in a series of articles explaining how the Church is not 'fundamentalist' but simply 'orthodox.'

" 'What I describe as "Christian orthodoxy" is not identical to everything that calls itself conservative Christianity in the United States, and it's certainly not identical to Christian fundamentalism,' wrote Douthat, a Catholic convert known for his conservative social and political outlook, in an April 16-19 online exchange with Slate magazine author William Saletan...."
I'm a Catholic convert myself. Most of the Catholics I know are 'cradle Catholics,' who grew up going to Mass and absorbing our heritage. I missed out on quite a lot by growing up outside the Church.

On the other hand, since I joined the Church as an act of will, I was aware that there was a whole lot to learn. Also that I couldn't count on what I'd grown up with to give me a general idea of what was so, and what wasn't. I think there's value in that.

There's Old, and there's Ancient

"...The Catholic columnist pointed out that Biblical 'fundamentalism' is actually a modern phenomenon, originating in the 19th and 20th centuries. By contrast, Christian orthodoxy 'is an ancient thing, dating back to the early centuries A.D., when Christian doctrine was first codified.'

"While Christian orthodoxy accepts Scripture as inspired by God, it does not employ it for inappropriate purposes – such as predicting the end of the world, ruling out scientific discoveries, or interpreting natural disasters as forms of divine retribution...."
I didn't become a Catholic because the Church is ancient, quite. But I've been a historian: and I know how wildly improbable it is for an institution to hold together for two millennia. Particularly with the sort of leadership the Church had now and then. I've been over that before. (January 13, 2011)

I also didn't become a Catholic because there's a science academy at the Vatican. But it helped that I didn't have to check my brain at the door. I've been over this before:

3. "To Proclaim Christ to the World"

"The Changing Image of Benedict XVI"
H. Sergio Mora, ZENIT (April 24, 2012)
"The Pope as Seen by Vatican Reporters"

"Initially the media portrayed Pope Benedict XVI as God's Rottweiler, the stern protector of the faith. Seven years later he is now seen as a gentle and humble intellectual who has learned to move among the people, and a paternal figure who has made himself loved.

"He is also seen as a reformer who has never lost sight of his objective: to proclaim Christ to the world and bring everyone closer to the Church. A Pope who has faced up to tremendous problems such as the sexual abuses.

"This is the image that emerges from some interviews that ZENIT held with correspondents and Vatican experts who follow Benedict XVI's pontificate, even if some of them hold that he has a difficulty with communication that still persists.

"According to Giovanna Chirri, Vatican expert for the Italian Agency ANSA, 'This Pope is a theologian who, although he became a reformer, never lost sight of his objective: to proclaim Christ to the world.'..."
I was very glad to see that last phrase in the excerpt: "to proclaim Christ to the world." It looks like at least one reporter 'gets it.'

Not all do: take the clueless "exorcism" reporting in Canada, for example.

4. What Folks Know, That Just Ain't So

"Canadian media criticized for irresponsible 'exorcism' reporting"
Benjamin Mann, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (April 24, 2012)

"Canadian news outlets are sensationalizing an event that was not treated as demonic possession and did not prompt a search for an exorcist, according to the Diocese of Saskatoon's communications office.

"Communications coordinator Kiply Yaworski told CNA that the public had been misled by 'headlines that were completely false,' suggesting that an exorcism had been performed by a local priest in March.

" 'There was no rite of exorcism,' said Yaworski. 'No one here was calling it that.' She said media outlets were erroneously connecting the 'blessing of a distraught man' to the topic of possession and exorcism, 'just to get people to click on their stories.'

"Yaworski was eager to clear up misunderstandings about an event reported by CBC News on April 13, under the headline 'Exorcist expertise sought after Saskatoon "possession".'..."
Exorcisms are real. The Catholic Church has specialists who deal with that sort of thing: and procedures that filter out situations that are better-handled by counseling, detox, or some other less-drastic intervention.

That's reality. Then there's what we find in the movies:

Ignorance and Adequate Reporting

Reporters and editors who produce the sort of "exorcism" story Yaworski discussed may realize that watching "House of Exorcism" isn't a good way to learn about Catholic practices. But however they get their education, the results are less than adequate.

'Bias' is a serious issue. But I'm also concerned about folks who 'know' things that just aren't so. I've said this before:
" 'Non-biased' is part of the picture. I think some of the apparent 'bias' is more of a complete lack of understanding.

"There are times when I suspect that if football games were covered with the same expertise as 'religious' stories, we'd hear announcers discussing the hole-in-one made by the goalie."

(Comment on a post by Lisa Hendey (March 28, 2012)) (March 28, 2012)

"Unnamed 'Church Leaders' "

"...CBC's article acknowledged that the priestly blessing the man received was 'not a formal exorcism.' Bishop Donald Bolan, the only Catholic leader named in the article, reportedly said it was unclear whether the man was possessed or merely mentally disturbed.

"But his comments were placed alongside those of the unnamed 'church leaders,' who were said to be 'considering whether Saskatoon needs a trained exorcist' after 'a case of what is being called possible demonic possession.'...
(CNA)
I think using anonymous sources makes sense. Sometimes. Let's say that a reporter learned that space aliens had infiltrated the U.S. Department of State. The reporter wouldn't have paid attention, except the source was the department's Executive Secretary: who had hard evidence. In that (wildly improbable) situation, keeping the source anonymous might be a good idea. ('Space aliens?!' I'll get back to that.)

The point is that sometimes sources have very good reasons for staying anonymous: so that they can remain sources of information; or remain alive.

I suspect that sometimes 'unnamed sources' are used because the reporter or editor wants to keep readers from learning that the story is based on a tale spun just before closing time at the corner bar. Or that the editorial staff needed an 'outside' source for something that 'everybody knows.' Am I being cynical? Maybe.

"Vast Oversimplification"

"...During the incident, the diocese said, 'a priest blessed a distraught and emotional man with holy water and prayed with the family, before advising them to call the police.'

"In his statement on the matter, Bishop Bolan stressed the reality of supernatural evil, but confirmed that no exorcism had occurred in the March incident.
" 'In Jesus' ministry there were exorcisms, and so it is not something that we can lightly dismiss,' he said.

" 'But the headline that the bishop of Saskatoon is looking for an exorcist was a vast oversimplification. Catholic dioceses, like other Christian communities, must look at how best to respond to requests in this area.'..."
(CNA)
Like the bishop said, supernatural evil is real. So are families, the police, and Saskatoon.

Very briefly, about exorcism. It's:
  • Real
  • Involved in the sacrament of Baptism
    • Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1237, 1673
  • A power and office the Church received from Jesus
Exorcism, defined:
"EXORCISM: The public and authoritative act of the Church to protect or liberate a person or object from the power of the devil (e.g., demonic possession) in the name of Christ (1673). A simple exorcism prayer in preparation for Baptism invokes God's help in overcoming the power of Satan and the spirit of evil (1237)."

(Catechism, Glossary, E) [links added]
(May 17, 2011)

As I've said before, technically-accurate discussions of exorcism tend to be fairly dry reading: which may explain why so many movies get it wrong.

I take exorcisms, supernatural evil, and Satan, seriously. But I also take Jesus seriously, and I've read Matthew 16:18. It's like the bishop said:
"...'Our resurrection faith is that life is stronger than death, that God brings hope out of despair and light out of darkness,' Bishop Bolen said. 'It is more important to affirm the goodness of the love of God than to speculate about the nature of events such as these.' "

(CNA) [emphasis mine]

"Journalistic Infotainment-Like Art-Product"

In the wake of the Kennedy assassination in 1963, up to somewhere after Watergate, reporters were taken quite seriously. The brave reporter, on a quest for Truth, became a stock character in movies. I've discussed stereotypes and movies before:And that's yet another topic.

When Richard T. Heffron needed intrepid heroes for a movie about a conspiracy by robots to take over the world, "reporters" filled the bill neatly. That was in 1976.

Like I've said before, change happens. A few years after "Futureworld", another creative team gave us a somewhat different view of reporters:


(© Studio Foglio, LLC (1980-2008), used w/o permission)
An artist's view of the "journalistic infotainment-like art-product" we find at newsstands. (Buck Godot (December 18, 2008))

I could be wrong, but I suspect that reporters and editors have made too many mistakes: and simply don't have credibility any more. Except among their friends and fans, maybe.

I've discussed reporters, editors, and other old-school information gatekeepers, in another blog:I've posted these quotes before:
"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so."
(attr. humorists Mark Twain,11 Artemus Ward, Kin Hubbard, and Will Rogers; inventor Charles Kettering; pianist Eubie Blake; baseball player Yogi Berra (once, by Al Gore))
"There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church - which is, of course, quite a different thing."
(Bishop Fulton Sheen,12 Foreword to Radio Replies Vol. 1, (1938) page ix, via Wikiquote)

5. Also Noted: The New Vatican Widget

"Vatican Web Page Releases Widget"
ZENIT (April 20, 2012)

"To mark Benedict XVI's seventh anniversary as Pope on Thursday, the Vatican internet service announced that a new www.vatican.va widget is available...."

"...The 'Focus' area of the homepage www.vatican.va contains the mail address at which users may request the code to insert on their own pages the 'vatican.va widget'."
I've seen the www.vatican.va widget, think it looks pretty good. It's also seems like a pretty good way to get at-a-glance announcements of at least some of the latest Vatican posts. There are also tabs for "Angelus," "Audiences," and "Bulletin."

I don't plan to add it to this blog, though. For starters, the Vatican's website has fairly user-friendly navigation, and I've put a link to vatican.va hear the top of this blog's sidebar, under "Links to the Vatican, USCCB." Besides, I can't think of a good place to put one more item. Not today, anyway.

Related posts:

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Secret Service Sex SNAFU: My Take

Most arguments over a hotel bill don't turn into diplomatic incidents. This one did:
"Obama: Reported details of prostitution scandal fall short of Secret Service standards"
FoxNews.com (April 15, 2012)

"President Obama, in his first public remarks on the prostitution scandal involving members of the Secret Service, said Sunday that he will be 'angry' if the reported allegations against the agents turn out to be true. He said Secret Service personnel, like the rest of any U.S. delegation abroad, must 'observe the highest standards.'..."

"...Details are still emerging, but the behavior of the agents initially attracted attention during a dispute at the Hotel Caribe over payment for an extra 'guest.'

"According to a senior law enforcement official, an employee approached at least one Secret Service agent and demanded that he pay extra money for having an additional overnight guest in his room.

"The agent balked, which eventually resulted in a confrontation and forced diplomatic intervention.

"The official said the guest involved apparently was a prostitute...."

Ethics and Foolishness

Prostitution is a bad idea, and I'll get back to that. My first reaction to the story, though, was a sort of astonished disgust: that someone with the Secret Service would invite an "extra guest," and then refuse to pay!

Hiring a prostitute is one thing: expecting a free ride from service providers is just plain stupid. Particularly when the service is a hotel room, where you're a registered guest.

When the you're a registered guest, who's there because he's employed by a national government? That sort of world-class foolishness is the sort of thing I've come to expect from elected officials: not professionals who are paid to use their brains. And that's another topic. Topics.

Getting food, lodging or other accommodations at a hotel without paying is illegal in Minnesota. It's also wrong.

The Catholic Church and Rules

Like I've said before, the Church has a reputation for having rules about everything. We're not as hidebound as all that, and I've posted about being καθολικός before.

Some of the rules I have to live by, if I'm going to be a practicing Catholic, involve money and property. For example:
  • It's okay for me to have private property
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2403)
  • I must use what I own ethically
    (Catechism, 2402-2405)
Use of private property is part of discussion of the Seventh Commandment: "you shall not steal." The Church says that forbidding theft includes legally taking property - by unethical means. (Catechism, 2408)

Contracts, Ethics, and Prostitutes

More to the point, in the context of this SNAFU1 over a hotel bill, we've got someone who apparently wanted to violate the terms of a contract. That's generally not a good idea:
"Promises must be kept and contracts strictly observed to the extent that the commitments made in them are morally just. A significant part of economic and social life depends on the honoring of contracts between physical or moral persons-commercial contracts of purchase or sale, rental or labor contracts. All contracts must be agreed to and executed in good faith." (Catechism, 2410)
I suppose I could argue that the secret service agent didn't have to pay the hotel for an additional guest, since his contract to the hotel was valid "to the extent that the commitments made in them are morally just" - - - and she didn't count, since she's 'just a prostitute.'

My Lord's attitude toward people who 'don't count' is, I think, fairly obvious in Luke 7:36-50: particularly this part:
"Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, 'Do you see this woman? When I entered your house, you did not give me water for my feet, but she has bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair.

"You did not give me a kiss, but she has not ceased kissing my feet since the time I entered.

"You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment.

"So I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love. 13 But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.'

"He said to her, 'Your sins are forgiven.' "
(Luke 7:47-48)

Forgiveness, Not Denial

Before getting back to hotel bills and common sense, I think there's something about forgiveness that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle. Forgiveness is important. And forgiveness of sin isn't denial that sin exists. We get a look at that in John 8:3-11, where a woman got caught in the sin of adultery. It ends with these lines:
"Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, '"Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?'

"She replied, 'No one, sir.' Then Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.' "
(John 8:10-11)
Forgiveness is important. But Jesus also said "...from now on do not sin any more." Pretty good advice, I think.

Another point: given the nature of adultery, she had to be committing it with someone. That's led to speculation about just what Jesus was writing on the ground, and that's another topic.

A "Really Bad Idea"

"Report: Secret Service involved in second prostitution scandal"
CNN (April 26, 2012)

"A day after U.S. lawmakers were briefed on an alleged prostitution scandal in Colombia involving Secret Service members, a report emerged Thursday of similar allegations, this time in El Salvador..."

"...The men drank heavily at the club, and most of them paid extra for access to a VIP section where they were provided sexual favors in return for cash, the source told the station....

"...The owner said his club routinely takes care of high-ranking employees of the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador as well as visiting agents from the FBI and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, KIRO said. The owner said his reputation for 'security' and 'privacy' makes his strip club popular with 'those who want to be discreet.'

"The government contractor source said he told the agents it was a 'really bad idea' to take the strippers back to their hotel rooms, but several agents bragged that they 'did this all the time' and 'not to worry about it,' KIRO reported...."
I put a longer excerpt at the end of this post.2

I'm inclined to agree with the contractor: taking strippers back to the hotel was a "really bad idea." I think just being there was a bad idea, and that has to do with natural law.

Natural Law

Natural law is the idea that cause and effect exist: and that there's a moral order built into the universe, just as there is a set of rules that determines how physical processes happen. There's more to it, of course. (Catechism, 1954-1960)

"Morality," in this sense, is much more than the sort of zipper issues that seem to plague public officials and government employees. Acting morally means acting ethically - in all aspects of life. I've been over this before. (June 3, 2011)

I think part of the reason that more folks don't feel like natural law exists is that consequences tend to take longer when ethical standards are violated. For example, Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme made him a wealthy man: for a while. That's hardly the sort of 'write a bad check and get hit by lightning' sort of 'divine retribution' that some folks may expect.

I don't have to pay attention to natural law. I've got free will, like anybody else. I don't have to pay attention to rules built into the visible world, either. I could, in principle, decide that gravity doesn't exist: and step off the roof of a building. I'd enjoy wild, exhilarating sensations while rushing through the air: for a while. If the building was high enough, there might be quite a mess for someone to clean up, which is part of why I won't do that.

Rules, Assumptions, and Sex

I've read that rules about government employees and illicit sexual activity are there to prevent blackmail. I'm inclined to believe that.

Assuming that a government employee might be forced to work against the government is wrong - is an assumption. But I think it's a valid one. Starting with that assumption, it seem reasonable to reduce or eliminate opportunities for blackmail. That's where existing rules about doing stupid things come in.

Another approach to reducing or eliminating opportunities for blackmail would be to decide that existing rules about sexual conduct shouldn't exist. That sounded pretty good to quite a few folks, a half-century ago. I agree that many Americans have enjoyed wild, exhilarating sensations for the last half-century. But I think quite a few of us have hit the sidewalk, too: and the mess is getting increasingly hard to ignore.

That's not the same as thinking that sex is bad. Sex is build into humanity. It's part of what and who we are. (Genesis 1:27, Catechism, 355, for starters) God designed sex, and I don't think God makes bad things.

What we do with a basically good creation? That's been a mixed bag.

Porn, Prostitution: What's the Big Deal?

"I'm a feminist, and I'm for prostitution" may have joined "although personally opposed" as a dubiously-effective slogan. The idea that porn and prostitution is good for women makes sense: provided that someone pretends making money is all that matters, and that natural law doesn't exist.

I'm a practicing Catholic, so I'm not allowed to think that way:
"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties...."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2354)

"Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure...."
(Catechism, 2355)
Bottom line? The Church won't let me see women as sex objects.

I'm not allowed to think of women as being inferior beings, either:
"The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:
"Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.40"
(Catechism, 1935)

Lanugage, Regional Culture, and a Universal Church

"The equality of men..." should, by politically-correct standards read something like "The equality of non-gender-specific persons of any sexual orientation...." "Men" is shorter, and means "people" in English. As I've said before, the Catechism is a translation into my native language. The original document is written for an organization that's καθολικός. (April 10, 2012)

I very sincerely do not want to get back to the 'good old days' when 'she's smart as a man' was supposed to be a compliment, and that's another topic.

Sex, Tourism, and the Pope

As for the unraveling story of government employees pretending that natural law doesn't apply to them? I think their behavior is very regrettable; and has been hurting them, their employers, and the people involved at the service-provider end of the situation. Maybe there will be a serious re-evaluation of the way Federal agencies and their employees behave. Then again, maybe not. There's an election coming up in November: just a thought.

I also hope that Catholics, at least, pay attention to what the Benedict XVI said about responsible tourism:
"Tourism Must Be Enlightened by the Word of God, Says Pope"
ZENIT (April 23, 2012)
"Calls for End to Human Trafficking"

"With a message from Benedict XVI, the 7th World Congress on the Pastoral Care of Tourism opened today in Cancun, Mexico, on the topic 'Tourism That Makes a Difference.'...

"...The Pope points out three areas on which the pastoral care of tourism must focus its attention.

"In the first place, 'we need shed light on this reality using the social teaching of the Church and promote a culture of ethical and responsible tourism, in such a way that it will respect the dignity of persons and of peoples, be open to all, be just, sustainable and ecological....'

"In the second place, 'our pastoral action should never lose sight of the via pulchritudinis, "the way of beauty." Many of the manifestations of the historical and cultural religious patrimony are "authentic ways to God, Supreme Beauty; indeed they help us to grow in our relationship with him, in prayer. These are works that arise from faith and express faith"...'

"And, in the third place, 'pastoral activity in the area of tourism should care for Christians as they enjoy their vacations and free time in such a way that these will contribute to their human and spiritual growth. Truly this is "an appropriate moment to let the body relax and to nourish the spirit with more time for prayer and meditation, in order to grow in personal relationship with Christ and become ever more conformed to his teachings"....'..."
Full text of Benedict XVI's message at Cancun:
Related posts:

1 Normally, I link directly to the Princeton WordNet definition for a term, or to another resource. My standards for this blog require me to note that the definition for SNAFU involves a term which is somewhat indelicate.

I include 'definition' links partly because I'm a recovering English teacher: partly because I think some folks who read this blog understand English very well: as a second language. Sometimes a native speaker uses unfamiliar words: or uses familiar words in an unusual way.

2 Longer excerpt from the news:
"Report: Secret Service involved in second prostitution scandal"
CNN (April 26, 2012)

"A day after U.S. lawmakers were briefed on an alleged prostitution scandal in Colombia involving Secret Service members, a report emerged Thursday of similar allegations, this time in El Salvador...."

"Seattle TV station KIRO, a CNN affiliate, cited an unnamed U.S. government contractor who worked extensively with the Secret Service advance team in San Salvador prior to President Barack Obama's trip there in March, 2011.

"The source said he was with about a dozen Secret Service agents and a few U.S. military specialists at a strip club in the city a few days before Obama arrived, KIRO reported.

"The men drank heavily at the club, and most of them paid extra for access to a VIP section where they were provided sexual favors in return for cash, the source told the station.

"KIRO said the owner of the strip club corroborated the allegations. The owner confirmed that a large number of Secret Service agents, and some military escorts, 'descended on his club' that week and were there at least three nights in a row, KIRO reported.

"The owner said his club routinely takes care of high-ranking employees of the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador as well as visiting agents from the FBI and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, KIRO said. The owner said his reputation for 'security' and 'privacy' makes his strip club popular with 'those who want to be discreet.'

"The government contractor source said he told the agents it was a 'really bad idea' to take the strippers back to their hotel rooms, but several agents bragged that they 'did this all the time' and 'not to worry about it,' KIRO reported...."

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Honoring the Body, Within Reason

For most of my life, I've had trouble dealing with gluttony: which is in the list of seven capital sins. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1866) Gluttony involves intense human desires, where the way my body works makes it easy for me to act unreasonably.

One way to deal with gluttony is to decide that the body is bad, and try to be purely 'spiritual.' This is a bad idea. (Catechism, 2515-2516) And I'm getting ahead of myself.

Living in a Material World

The part of the Catechism I'm reading now is about man (humanity), what and who we are. Along the way I've written about American culture and language, a movie, and a unity that we don't quite have yet:
Here's how this part of the Catechism starts. Today's post picks up several paragraphs after #355.
" 'God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.'218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship."
(Catechism, 355)
Backing up a bit more, I'm a practicing Catholic, so I have to believe that God created everything: and that what God created is good. (Genesis 1:1-31; Catechism, 337-338) Which isn't the same as believing Bishop Ussher, or hating science: and I've been over that before. (March 14, 2012, January 18, 2012)

The bottom line is that God made the material world, and God doesn't make junk.

Matter and Spirit: One Nature

I'm not nice soul, stuck in a nasty body that's dragging me into sin. I'm a human being, and the specs for this sort of creature say that a human being is a body and soul. Not a soul trapped in a body.
"The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic LANGUAGE when it affirms that 'then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.'229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God."
(Catechism, 362)
There's more about body and soul, with emphasis on "and." (Catechism, 362-368) One of the important points is that man isn't two natures, body and spirit, welded together. We're body and spirit, united to form a single nature. (Catechism, 365)

Turns out that, as a practicing Catholic, I'm not allowed to despise my body:
"The human body shares in the dignity of the image of God: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.233"
(Catechism, 364)
I'm not supposed to worship my body, either, and that's another topic. (April 15, 2012)

Living in a Good World

Deciding that the world, the physical universe, is "good" wasn't hard for me. For starters, I've been fascinated by the world as far back as I can remember.

I also wasn't dismayed at the idea that the universe seems hostile or indifferent. I grew up in an region where water is a mineral for a significant fraction of the year. I figured that if I didn't have the sense to keep from freezing to death, blaming winter wouldn't help: and blaming God would be daft. Maybe that's why this is one of my favorite bits of poetry:
"A man said to the universe:
'Sir, I exist!'
'However,' replied the universe,
'The fact has not created in me
'A sense of obligation.'
"
("War is Kind," Stephen Crane (1899), via Project Gutenberg)
I've run into folks who seem to think that God shouldn't exist, because there are places in the universe where we need to use our brains to survive. I don't see it that way: but like I said, I grew up in a place where winter happened.

The point I'm groping for is that I like God's creation: even the parts that could kill me if I'm not sensible. There are some Church teachings that I've had to struggle with. Believing that the world was created by God, and is basically good, isn't one of them

Sin and Virtue

In a way, it might be easier for me to deal with gluttony, if I could convince myself that 'spiritual' was good and 'physical' was bad. I could, in principle, develop an antipathy toward food and every other physical pleasure.

But I'm not going to spend the rest of my life eating barely enough to stay alive. And I'm not going to fume about the evils of steak and potatoes. Not that I'd be tempted to do that. I enjoy being a matter/spirit creature too much.

Another option I have would be to brood about the capital sins. (Catechism, 1866) And venial sins, and every other sort of sin. I could obsess about avoiding sin, and fume about how sinful other folks were: and that doesn't seem like a good idea. At all.

I think a better approach is to focus on virtues. Like the cardinal virtues:
  • Prudence
    • "Disposes practical reason to discern our true good"
    (Catechism, 1806)
  • Justice
    • "The constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor"
    (Catechism, 1807)
  • Fortitude
    • "Ensures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good"
    (Catechism, 1808)
  • Temperance
    • "Moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods"
    (Catechism, 1809)
Note: "Temperance," Catholic style, is about moderation, balance, and avoiding excess. (Catechism, 2290) Carry Nation, with her Bible and hatchet, are an American phenomenon. I've been over that before, too. (October 5, 2011)

Applying what I've read, it looks like I'm obliged to see my body as good, "and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day." (Catechism, 364) That's going to take quite a lot of work. Decades of overeating and under-exercising have effects that won't be undone quickly or easily. By the way, gluttony isn't the only sin I've had trouble with. And that's another topic. Topics.

Related posts:

1 A list of major points, from Catechism, 362-368. Like I've said before, I've got the teaching authority of "some guy with a blog." I recommend following those links and reading the Catechism yourself.

One reason I make these lists is that it helps me study the material:
  • The human person is
    • Created in the image of God
    • Both corporeal/material and spiritual
      • A unified whole
    • And that's the way God designed us
    (Catechism, 362)
  • In Sacred Scripture "soul" means
    • human life
    • The entire human person
    • The innermost aspect of man
      • That which is of greatest value
      • By which man is most especially in God's image
    • The spiritual principle in man
    • Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit
      (1 Thessalonians 5:23)
      • The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul
      • "Spirit" signifies that
        • From creation man is ordered to a supernatural end
        • His soul can gratuitously be raised
          • Beyond all it deserves
          • To communion with God
    • The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart
      • In the biblical sense of
        • The depths of one's being
        • Where the person decides for or against God
    (Catechism, 363, 367, 368)
  • The human body is
    • Part of "the image of God"
    • A human body because it is animated by a spiritual soul
    • Intended to become a temple of the Spirit
      • As part of the whole human person
      • In the body of Christ
      (Catechism, 364)
  • Man is a unity
    • Body and soul
    • Man's "bodily condition" sums up the elements of the material world
    • Through man, the material world may freely praise its Creator
      • Therefore, man
        • May not despise his bodily life
          • Since God
            • Has created it
            • Will raise it up on the last day
        • Is obliged to
          • Regard his body as good
          • Hold it in honor
    (Catechism, 364)
  • The unity of soul and body is very profound
    • "One has to consider the soul to be the 'form' of the body"
    • A human body
      • Is material
      • Is a living human being because of its spiritual soul
    • A human being is
      • Not two natures united
      • A single nature
        • Formed from the union of two natures
    (Catechism, 365)
  • Every spiritual soul is
    • Created immediately/directly by God
      • Not "produced" by the parents
    • Immortal
      • Separated from the body at death
      • Reunited with the body at the final Resurrection
    (Catechism, 366)

Like it? Pin it, Plus it, - - -

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store

Popular Posts

Label Cloud

1277 abortion ADD ADHD-Inattentive Adoration Chapel Advent Afghanistan Africa America Amoris Laetitia angels animals annulment Annunciation anti-catholicism Antichrist apocalyptic ideas apparitions archaeology architecture Arianism art Asperger syndrome assumptions asteroid astronomy Australia authority balance and moderation baptism being Catholic beliefs bias Bible Bible and Catechism bioethics biology blogs brain Brazil business Canada capital punishment Caritas in Veritate Catechism Catholic Church Catholic counter-culture Catholicism change happens charisms charity Chile China Christianity Christmas citizenship climate change climatology cloning comets common good common sense Communion community compassion confirmation conscience conversion Corpus Christi cosmology creation credibility crime crucifix Crucifixion Cuba culture dance dark night of the soul death depression designer babies despair detachment devotion discipline disease diversity divination Divine Mercy divorce Docetism domestic church dualism duty Easter economics education elections emotions England entertainment environmental issues Epiphany Establishment Clause ethics ethnicity Eucharist eugenics Europe evangelizing evolution exobiology exoplanets exorcism extremophiles faith faith and works family Father's Day Faust Faustus fear of the Lord fiction Final Judgment First Amendment forgiveness Fortnight For Freedom free will freedom fun genetics genocide geoengineering geology getting a grip global Gnosticism God God's will good judgment government gratitude great commission guest post guilt Haiti Halloween happiness hate health Heaven Hell HHS hierarchy history holidays Holy Family Holy See Holy Spirit holy water home schooling hope humility humor hypocrisy idolatry image of God images Immaculate Conception immigrants in the news Incarnation Independence Day India information technology Internet Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jesus John Paul II joy just war justice Kansas Kenya Knights of Columbus knowledge Korea language Last Judgment last things law learning Lent Lenten Chaplet life issues love magi magic Magisterium Manichaeism marriage martyrs Mary Mass materialism media medicine meditation Memorial Day mercy meteor meteorology Mexico Minnesota miracles Missouri moderation modesty Monophysitism Mother Teresa of Calcutta Mother's Day movies music Muslims myth natural law neighbor Nestorianism New Year's Eve New Zealand news Nietzsche obedience Oceania organization original sin paleontology parish Parousia penance penitence Pentecost Philippines physical disability physics pilgrimage politics Pope Pope in Germany 2011 population growth positive law poverty prayer predestination presumption pride priests prophets prostitution Providence Purgatory purpose quantum entanglement quotes reason redemption reflections relics religion religious freedom repentance Resurrection robots Roman Missal Third Edition rosaries rules sacramentals Sacraments Saints salvation schools science secondary causes SETI sex shrines sin slavery social justice solar planets soul South Sudan space aliens space exploration Spain spirituality stem cell research stereotypes stewardship stories storm Sudan suicide Sunday obligation superstition symbols technology temptation terraforming the establishment the human condition tolerance Tradition traffic Transfiguration Transubstantiation travel Trinity trust truth uncertainty United Kingdom universal destination of goods vacation Vatican Vatican II veneration vengeance Veterans Day videos virtue vlog vocations voting war warp drive theory wealth weather wisdom within reason work worship writing

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:Posts in this blog: In the news:

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

From time to time, a service that I use will display links to - odd - services and retailers.

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

For example: psychic anything, numerology, mediums, and related practices are on the no-no list for Catholics. It has to do with the Church's stand on divination. I try to block those ads.

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

Bottom line? What that service displays reflects the local culture's norms, - not Catholic teaching.