Showing posts with label Catechism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catechism. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Why I Take the Bible Seriously

If you've lived in America during the last half-century, you may have heard something like these assertions:
  1. It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe
  2. You have your truths, I have mine
  3. Nobody can tell me what I should believe
  4. Only a bigot says that things are either right or wrong
I'm a practicing Catholic, there are some things I have to believe: and those four points aren't on the list. On the other hand, frequent study of the Bible is highly recommended. I'll get back to that.

Intellectually Unfashionable: And Loving It

Briefly, my take on those ideas:

1. ...As Long as You Believe

When Linus talks about the Great Pumpkin, and says that sincerity is what counts, it's funny. That's my reaction to Charles Schultz's running gag in his Peanuts comic strip, anyway. Your experience may vary.

When someone tries living as if intensity of 'spiritual' emotions was what matters, not whatever sparked those feelings: that's trouble. In my opinion.

2. You have your truths...

That sounds 'tolerant,' or 'broad minded.' I think it's also a daft approach to living.

In one way, though, it's true. It really does not matter whether a fork is set on the left or right side of the plate. It doesn't even matter if there's a fork - or a plate. That sort of convention is just that: a convention, something that folks in one culture have decided is the 'right' way to do something.

Looking at the big picture, I can't believe that whether or not I use forks will make a difference in my eternal status. Particularly considering that the things are a relatively recent invention. And that's another topic.

3. Nobody can tell me...

Ah, the virtues of rugged individualism! Sticking up for your rights! Being a mule-headed nincompoop!

I've got a stubborn streak that's wide and deep, but I try not to let the 'nobody can tell ME' feeling get in the way of learning. And, when necessary, correcting my beliefs. I've used the example of me and the clockwork universe. A lot.

4. Only a bigot says...

This is another assertion that sounds 'tolerant.' My experience has been that folks who insist that 'only a bigot says' that some things are objectively wrong - or right - also tend to go ballistic when someone contradicts one of their pet beliefs.

Having done time in American academia when political correctness was all the rage probably helped me form that opinion. Try to imagine some reckless student, ca. 1985, suggesting that women weren't an oppressed minority, and you'll see what I mean. These days, it's more about adherence to the dogma of climate change. tomato, tomahto.

Craziness: An Equal-Opportunity Affliction

Wackadoo liberals don't have a monopoly on confusing personal preference for facts. I've shared my experience with folks who confused their preferences in clothing for the Will of God:
I've also shared why I think we're supposed to love people, not beat them to a pulp:

Sacred Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium, and Me

I converted to Catholicism after I learned who had been running the Church for the last two millennia. Not immediately after, and that's yet another topic.

I'm a Catholic because I know that after my Lord gave Peter the 'keys of the Kingdom,' Peter passed that authority along to the next Pope - and that the parish church down the street is connected, through the bishops and hundreds of popes, all the way back to the Last Supper, Golgotha, Easter Sunday, and beyond. Matthew 16:13-19 and all that.

As a Catholic, I have to take the Bible very seriously. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 101-130) And read the Bible, Sacred Scripture, myself. (Catechism, 133)

I'm also required to pay attention to what some of the best minds in the world have had to say about the Bible, God, and all the rest. That's where Tradition, our "living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit" (Catechism, 78), comes in. And the Magisterium. (Catechism, 85-88)

I've run into folks who seem to believe that Catholics blindly follow the arbitrary - and anachronistic - orders of crazed cult leaders in Rome. Follow orders, yes. Blindly, no.

Another point that's important: The popes and other bishops aren't 'in charge' of the Church. They're more like 'officers of the day,' than commanding officers:
"...this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it...."
(Catechism, 86)
Finally, what words like "Magisterium" mean:
"BIBLE: Sacred Scripture: the books which contain the truth of God's Revelation and were composed by human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit (105). The Bible contains both the forty-six books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament (120). See Old Testament; New Testament."

"MAGISTERIUM: The living, teaching office of the Church, whose task it is to give as authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture), or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church's fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals (85, 890, 2033)."

"TRADITION: The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ (75-82). The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition (83)."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary) [with links added]
Vaguely-related posts:
Background:
  • Catechism of the Catholic Church, about
    • Sacred Scripture
      81, 101-130
    • Sacred Scripture in the life of the Church
      131-133
    • Tradition
      77-79, 81, 83
    • The Magisterium
      85-88, 890, 2033
    • Tradition, the Magisterium, and Sacred Scripture
      95
    (not an exhaustive list)
  • "Catechism"
    What We Believe, Beliefs and Teachings, USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)
  • "Relationship between Magisterium and exegetes"
    Pontifical Biblical Commission, Cardinal Ratzinger, (May 10, 2003)
  • "Informative Dossier"
    Editorial Commission of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (June 25, 1992)
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

YouCat, a Production Glitch, and Business-as-Usual in the News

Update (April 14, 2011)
Another blogger's take on the YouCat SNAFU:Update (April 13, 2011)
YouCat, English translation, is available through:
  • YOUCAT
    Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church
    Ignatius Press
  • Youcat [Paperback]
    Cardinal Christoph Schonborn (editor)
    Amazon.com
And quite a few other places, I should think.
The Holy See (called "the Vatican" by most Americans, including me) has a new catechism, geared for youth. I think it sounds like a good idea - but not everybody's going to get that impression.

Particularly since it turns out that the Vatican hasn't accommodated contemporary culture's preferences about contraceptives.

Here's an excerpt from today's update on an article published yesterday:
"The Vatican has again been embarrassed by a botched translation of its teachings, with the launch Wednesday of an error-plagued book that implies the Holy See approves of contraception and euthanasia.

"The errors came to light during a Vatican press conference launching "Youcat: Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church," a youth-focused compilation of the thick volume of core church teachings...."
(Associated Press)
That's a familiar theme: inept, confused, and "embarrassed" religious people; shown the error of their ways by capable, intelligent, and confident journalists. I don't think there's necessarily an effort to misrepresent 'those weird religious people.' My guess is that the sort of 'former altar boy' coverage I see comes from folks assuming - understandably - that the beliefs and preferences of their circle of friends and acquaintances are
  • Shared by all reasonable folks
  • An accurate reflection of reality
I've written about that sort of thing before. (March 31, 2011; March 6, 2010) (and see "My take on old-school journalism" under "Related posts")

YouCat, Translations, and an Embarrassment

Turns out, the botched translation really did embarrass "the Vatican." Or some folks in the Catholic Church, anyway. The Associated Press story seems to have missed a few nuances, though. Here's an excerpt of another article on pretty much the same story, written by folks who apparently know a bit about the Catholic Church:
"...The book 'YouCat' was presented officially at a Vatican press conference on April 13. Nuova Citta, the catechism's Italian publisher, has pulled the Italian copies to fix the error, the Associated Press reports.

"The catechism, which teaches readers in a question-and-answer format, addresses fertility regulation in Question 420.

"The Italian-language edition asked 'Can a Christian couple have recourse to contraceptive methods?' It answered 'Yes, a Christian couple can and should be responsible in its faculty of being able to give life.'...

"...the Italian version incorrectly translates the German word 'empfängnisregelung.' While the word literally means 'birth regulation' and can signify natural family planning, it is also sometimes used to refer to 'birth control' through contraceptive means....

"...The Catholic Church has always opposed the use of contraception. In the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, its use is described as 'intrinsically evil.'...

"...The English and German versions of the youth catechism did not contain the error made in the Italian translation.

" [head of Ignatius Press]Fr. [Joseph] Fessio [SJ] told the AP the translation error was 'an embarrassment' but not a change in Church teaching...."
(CNA/EWTN News) [emphasis mine]
Translations of important teaching documents are a necessity in an outfit like the Catholic Church.

As I've said before, the Catholic Church is literally universal. And not all of the one billion or so Catholics living today speak the same language at home. The Holy See doesn't expect us to - which is why there are translations into quite a few of our languages. (March 7, 2011)

That's good news for me, since I know very little Latin. It does mean that translations can be - - - less than perfect. As the German-to-Italian situation with YouCat demonstrated.

I put a longer excerpt of the CNA/EWTN News article at the end of this article, by the way.1

Contraceptives, Catholics, and Getting a Grip

I suspect that part of what happened in that Associated Press article has to do with contemporary Western culture's assumptions about contraceptives and the Catholic Church.

It's 'well known,' in some circles, that the Church is hopelessly out of step with today's culture (true enough); and 'immoral' about insisting that folks practice self-control. The Catholic Church, for example, is opposed to the right of men to have sex when, where, and with whoever, they like: with no responsibility beyond maybe buying a condom. (see "Catholicism, common sense, and contraceptives," under "Related posts," below)

I grew up in a nice mainstream Protestant church, immersed in mid-20th-century American culture. Before I read "Humanae Vitae" (English translation), I 'knew' that sensible people used contraceptives. Turns out, I was wrong. As I've said before, I have the teaching authority of "some guy with a blog." I recommend reading the English translation of "Humanae Vitae" on Vatican.va.

That said, I think a reasonable summary of part of the Catholic position on human sexuality is that:
  • We're people
  • We have free will
  • If I refuse to share myself fully with my wife - I'm being selfish
That's not what the contemporary culture says - and I've written about the Catholic counterculture before. (April 23, 2010, for starters)

As for my take on a man's 'right' to manage his sex machine's fertility? I've got a fairly well-define opinion about that, too. (again, see "Catholicism, common sense, and contraceptives," under "Related posts," below)

YouCat, and the Catechism

What's being said about YouCat by reporters and editors who pay attention to what the book actually is - it sounds like the Holy See has 'taken a page' from the Baltimore Catechism, and used the familiar question-and-answer format to make what's in the Catechism of the Catholic Church more accessible.
"Youcat, the catechism specially written for young people, was officially released by the Vatican on Wednesday in more than a dozen languages. With a preface by Pope Benedict, Youcat offers a contemporary explanation of the Catholic Faith and contains questions and answers, comments, quotes, illustrations as well as explanations of key terms and instructions for use. The pocket sized book will be placed inside the back-pack of every young person heading to the World Youth Day gathering in Madrid, Spain this August....

"...In his preface to the book, Pope Benedict invites all young people to study the Youcat, but he also reminds them that it will not offer them easy solutions. The Gospel, he says, is a precious pearl for which we must give something in return. The Pope acknowledges that the Church has recently suffered from the attacks of evil, referring to the cases of paedophile priests, but urges the young people not to take this as an excuse to distance themselves from God. ..."
(Vatican Radio)
There's a mention of the Italian translation SNAFU, and what's been done to correct it. "Natural family planning" is mentioned as an acceptable way for spouses to manage their fertility.2

Back to that Vatican Radio article:
"...[Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity] explained that 'Youcat' translates the content of the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' rigorously and faithfully, and using language adapted to the young. It does not replace the Catechism, but rather, leads toward it, paving the way to the 'Catechism' and its 'Compendium'. It aims to guide the young toward a deeper knowledge of their faith"...."
(Vatican Radio)
Again, I've put a longer excerpt from the article near the end of this post.3

Bottom line? I think YouCat sounds like a very good idea, that there was a translation SNAFU in the Italian first edition, and that there are going to be strange notions popping up in online communities about what YouCat 'really' is.

Related posts:
News and views:
1 A longer excerpt from the CNA/EWTN New article:
"The publisher of the Italian-language edition of a youth catechism has pulled it from production because of a translation error implying the Catholic Church's approval of contraception. "The book 'YouCat' was presented officially at a Vatican press conference on April 13. Nuova Citta, the catechism's Italian publisher, has pulled the Italian copies to fix the error, the Associated Press reports. "The catechism, which teaches readers in a question-and-answer format, addresses fertility regulation in Question 420. "The Italian-language edition asked 'Can a Christian couple have recourse to contraceptive methods?' It answered 'Yes, a Christian couple can and should be responsible in its faculty of being able to give life.' "Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, the head of Ignatius Press, which is publishing 'YouCat' in English, said that the Italian version incorrectly translates the German word 'empfängnisregelung.' While the word literally means 'birth regulation' and can signify natural family planning, it is also sometimes used to refer to 'birth control' through contraceptive means. "The Italian version of the youth catechism wrongly rendered the German word as 'metodi anticoncezionali,' meaning 'contraceptive methods.' "The Catholic Church has always opposed the use of contraception. In the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, its use is described as 'intrinsically evil.' " 'The problem did not originate with the German text,' Ignatius Press President Mark Brumley said in a statement on the publisher's website, 'at least not if the Italian translation is based on the same German text as that on which Ignatius Press based its translation.' "The English and German versions of the youth catechism did not contain the error made in the Italian translation. "Fr. Fessio told the AP the translation error was “an embarrassment” but not a change in Church teaching." (CNA/EWTN News)
2 I think priests and bishops - and a fair number of lay Catholics - sometimes forget that not everybody in America is familiar with terms like "natural family planning." And that even more folks think they understand what the term means - and don't. Being counter cultural again: natural family planning is not 'Vatican roulette.' (June 5, 2010)
3 More of the Vatican Radio article:
"Youcat, the catechism specially written for young people, was officially released by the Vatican on Wednesday in more than a dozen languages. With a preface by Pope Benedict, Youcat offers a contemporary explanation of the Catholic Faith and contains questions and answers, comments, quotes, illustrations as well as explanations of key terms and instructions for use. The pocket sized book will be placed inside the back-pack of every young person heading to the World Youth Day gathering in Madrid, Spain this August. "On the eve of the presentation, church officials confirmed that the Italian publisher of Youcat had withdrawn the Italian copies to fix a translation error which concerned a question over whether married couples could plan the size of their families. The erroneous passage, which appeared to imply that the Church approved of artificial contraception, was crossed out and included a paper insert with the correct translation that says the Church promotes Natural Family Planning. "In his preface to the book, Pope Benedict invites all young people to study the Youcat, but he also reminds them that it will not offer them easy solutions. The Gospel, he says, is a precious pearl for which we must give something in return. The Pope acknowledges that the Church has recently suffered from the attacks of evil, referring to the cases of paedophile priests, but urges the young people not to take this as an excuse to distance themselves from God...." "...Referring to the upcoming World Youth Day in Madrid, Spain this August, [Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity] continued 'It is not enough to make young people "dream"; it is necessary also to help them grow well-rooted in the rich earth of Christian tradition. ... A real education in the faith of the young, therefore, must begin by freely proposing Christ to them. He is the solid rock upon which they may build their lives!' "He explained that ' "Youcat" translates the content of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" rigorously and faithfully, and using language adapted to the young. It does not replace the Catechism, but rather, leads toward it, paving the way to the "Catechism" and its "Compendium". It aims to guide the young toward a deeper knowledge of their faith'..." (Vatican Radio)
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Oh, For the Days of Yore?

I don't think nostalgia is a bad thing, by itself: but it's well, in my opinion, to know what the 'good old days' were really like.

Take elections, for example. I'm an American citizen, and I vote when election years come. I've written about politics, how much I trust governments, and citizenship, before:

Elections? It Could be Worse

I see that I've mentioned being in line to inherit the thaneship of Cawdor. (September 12, 2010; Apathetic Lemming of the North (January 29, 2010)) It comes from being related to the clan Campbell, and appalling number of people would have to die before the title came to me. That's almost another topic. And yes, it's the same place Shakespeare mentioned.

The point is that one of my kinsmen, quite a long while ago, got some of the lads together and hacked his way into Cawdor castle. That was how folks handled regrettable rulers in the 'good old days.' Before elections, term limits, and all the legal and social machinery that goes with running a constitution-based federal republic with strong democratic traditions.1

On the whole, I think that the sort of elections America has - weird commercials, hanging chads, lawsuits, and all - do less damage, on average, than the old-fashioned methods.

Elections, Evil Rulers, and Rules

I've said this before: Quite a few folks believe the Catholic Church has rules about everything.

There's something to that. For almost two millennia, the Catholic Church has been explaining just what's involved in 'love God, love your neighbor.' (Matthew 22:36-40) People being the way we are, rules help.

There are rules about what those in authority, and those under the authority of others, should do.

There are even rules about what to do when those in authority don't follow the rules. Interestingly, we are allowed to mount "armed resistance to oppression." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2243) That set of criteria are about the same as the "just war" definition, a little further on. (Catechism, 2309)

Please note: In my considered opinion, election silliness notwithstanding, the United States is not even close to requiring military intervention.

Other countries, not so much. In my opinion.

Which is what I wrote about earlier today:
1 see "United States," World Factbook, CIA (last updated March 16, 2011)
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, February 18, 2011

Bishops, Congress, and the Poor

Socially and politically, it's possible to label me as a hidebound reactionary conservative. I could also be called a bleeding heart liberal.

It depends on which issue is in play at the moment.

I've discussed philosophical pigeonholes in today's America before. (August 24, 2010, November 3, 2008)

The Catholic Church gets called "conservative" quite a bit. Partly because of what the Church teaches about marriage; and the Catholic insistence that killing babies and old people isn't nice. Even if they're sick or inconvenient.

Then there's the matter of wealth and poverty. From Thomas Nast's bloated capitalists to college coffee shops of my younger days, the stereotype "conservative" among America's more angstily earnest serious thinkers was stinking rich and oppressed the poor something fierce. Or was poor and a deluded pawn of the plutocrats.

So, if "conservatives" are greedy plutocrats, ripping crusts of bread from the bleeding lips of the poor - why are a bunch of American bishops telling Congress to not hurt the poor?
"Budget cuts must protect poor and vulnerable, say US bishops"
Benjamin Mann, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (February 15, 2011)

"A group of more than 300 Catholic leaders met with members of Congress on Feb. 15, to share a message from the U.S. bishops – urging legislators to remember the needs of the poor and vulnerable, as they make cuts to the federal budget.

"Participants in the 2011 Catholic Social Ministry Gathering (Feb. 13-16) took the bishops' message to Capitol Hill, delivering letters from two committees of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops during a day of visits with U.S. representatives and senators. The letters express concern over what Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany, chairman for International Justice and Peace, described as 'disproportionate cuts in programs that serve the most vulnerable' to the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Appropriations Resolution.

"Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, chairman for Domestic Justice and Human Development, warned lawmakers against the temptation to 'secure the nation while at the same time furthering the insecurity of the poor and vulnerable in our midst.'

" 'Decisions should be made that not only reflect a commitment to national and long term fiscal security but demonstrate justice, compassion and fairness,' wrote Bishop Blaire...."

We're Catholic

The short answer is that the Catholic Church is - Catholic. Universal. I've written about that before. (August 26, 2010, April 19, 2010, for starters)

That means that the rules I live by - and the principles behind them - are essentially the same as they were when Caesars ruled Rome. We didn't fit in all that well then, and we still don't.

One of those principles is that it's important to look out for the poor: (Deuteronomy 15:11, Matthew 25:34-40, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 853, 2208, 2449) I've written about wealth, poverty, and being Catholic before:
As for what the Bishops said: I'd like to see an America where folks who can do so help those who need it - through their churches, community organizations, and one-on-one personal involvement. That'd be nice.

As it is, we have quite a few folks who aren't in a position to support themselves - and the institutions that help them are part of the government. I'd like to see a transition to a more grassroots, voluntary, non-governmental system: but right now I'm with the bishops, about "justice, compassion and fairness."

'Politics is so Worldly'

As for what business bishops have, telling Congress that folks who don't have money shouldn't be hurt: the Catechism has a bit to say about that.
"Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man's origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:
"Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51
"The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. 'The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen.'52
"It is a part of the Church's mission 'to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances.'53"
(Catechism, 2244-2246)
Related posts:
In the news:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, December 17, 2010

That's Funny: You Don't Look Catholic

Folks have odd ideas sometimes.

Take religion, for example, back in my 'good old days.' In the time and place where I grew up, "Christian" and "Protestant" where interchangeable terms for quite a few folks.

Then there were assumptions about religion and ethnicity. Many, if they thought about it at all, 'knew' that:
  • Buddhists lived in Japan
  • Hindus lived in India
  • "Christians" were 'regular Americans'
    • And the folks living in northwestern Europe
  • Catholics lived in Italy and Ireland
An oversimplification? Certainly. Did all the folks where I grew up make these assumptions? No.

But quite a few did.

Folks with a college degree under their belt, or who were college students, seemed less apt to make those assumptions about religion and ethnicity. That's the good news.

The bad news is that a fair number of the college crowd had other clinkers in their thinkers. Like confusing Christianity with racism and European imperialism. And assuming, if they thought about it at all, that Christians didn't like science and education: and of course didn't 'believe in' evolution.

No wonder I don't admit to being nostalgic very often.

'Stereotypes are Stereotypes for a Reason'

Stereotypes - 'conventional or formulaic conceptions or images' (Princeton's WordNet) - are not, I think, a particularly good tool for understanding the real world. On the other hand, I think that stereotypes often have some basis in fact: no matter how unrealistic they become, once cut free from the space-time continuum.

Like the 'Buddhists are Japanese' thing. Turns out, a little over 71% of the folks living in Japan follow Buddhism. As of 2005, anyway. In 2001, a bit over 80% of the folks in India were Hindus. ("India" (last updated on December 9, 2010), "Japan" (updated December 7, 2010), The World Factbook, CIA)

Who Believes What and Where

After a little checking, I see that there are about a half-dozen or so 'world religions.'

My guess is that not everybody would agree with this list: but I think it's good enough as a 'for instance:'
I may have left out someone's favorite, like Shinto or Zoroastrianism. No disrespect intended.

The unreadably small map up there links to a discussion of religious demographics in a Wikipedia article. The point is that folks in different parts of the world do tend to follow one religion more than other faiths. Which is probably where notions like 'Buddhists live in Japan' come from.

But it's a sort of 'on average' thing. That photo shows what was left of the Urakami Cathedral in Nagasaki, after the bomb went off. Quite a few Catholics died that day.

Does that mean, by the way, that I hate America and writhe in agony that allied forces didn't invade Japan the old-fashioned way? No.

I do think that it would have been nice if what we call World War II hadn't happened. But the world is not always a nice place. I've discussed that sort of thing before (October 27, 2010, June 7, 2009; Another War-on-Terror Blog (October 16, 2009))

Urakami Cathedral, Nagasaki, Japan, by Kzhr (December 3, 2004), via Wikimedia CommonsThe Urakami Cathedral? We built another one. The bomb didn't wipe out all the Catholics, and that's another topic.

Back to assumptions about religion and region or ethnicity. One might think Judaism was an 'ethnic' thing - but there are folks like Sammy Davis Jr..

Christianity: A 'European' Religion?

I've run into folks, on and off campus, who seem convinced that Christianity is a European religion. They've got a point, sort of.

There was a time, about nine centuries back, when Europe was the world's 'cathedral central:' Gothic architecture and all that.

When folks in Europe were sorting themselves out into nations, a cross got worked into quite a few national flags.

Then there's the Holy See: in Rome, Italy. Europe again.

Two millennia back, though, Rome wasn't so much part of Europe as it was the political and economic hub of the Roman Empire. It made sense to set up headquarters there. The city's still a reasonably central location for an organization that has branches on every continent.

Except Antarctica, apparently. My guess is that there are Catholics there, too: but so far the permanent research stations are staffed by folks who are 'just visiting.' And I'm not going to get off-topic.

I've heard Christianity called an 'oriental mystery religion.' (March 17, 2009) I didn't argue the point: Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and points east are part of 'the Orient.' (Princeton's WordNet) But the Catholic Church isn't any more "Oriental" than it is "Western."

Maybe it would be more accurate to say that Catholicism is Oriental. And Western. And everything else.

The Catholic Church is "Universal:" Literally

A dictionary I use quite often defines "catholic" - lower case "c" - as "free from provincial prejudices or attachments." (Princeton's WordNet)

That doesn't mean that Catholics aren't part of the culture we're born in. I've discussed that before. (August 26, 2010, and elsewhere)

For example, I speak English with an accent that's pretty close to the old 'broadcast standard.' That's partly due to having parents who were slightly deaf, and that's yet another topic. I also like lefse, hamburgers, and spaghetti: reflecting the regional and national dietary customs in my homeland. (Lefse? Sort of like a limp tortilla, except made from potato flour.)

None of which makes me less - or more - of a Catholic than someone whose cradle tongue is Japanese, who would just as soon not eat spaghetti, and who loves playing pachinko.

Finally: Another Report from the Department of Unintended Consequences

I doubt that the radio ranters, a half century ago, realized that their (colorful?) depictions of the Catholic Church would indirectly lead one of their listeners to become a Catholic.

I'm also fairly sure that professors who explained multiculturalism during my college years did not suspect that at least one student embraced the idea - so thoroughly that he would eventually join the Catholic Church. I've written about that before. (July 14, 2010

It's one thing to teach that the cultural preferences of 'those people over there' are no better than those of an even more distant group. When someone turns around and suggests that your own cultural preferences may not be the hub around which the world turns - that's still another topic.

Related posts:
Somewhat-related posts, in another blog:
Background:
  • "Religions of the World," Sara Wenner, EMuseum @ University of Minnesota, Mankato (2001)
  • The World Factbook, CIA
    • "Antarctica" (last updated November 16, 2010)
    • "India" (last updated December 9, 2010)
    • "Japan" (updated December 7, 2010)
  • "Sammy Davis Jr."
    Beth Weiss, Jewish Virtual Library
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, November 14, 2010

God Knows, I Don't: And That's Okay

I've written about my take on "Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell, and Warm Fuzzies" before. (August 8, 2010) And how I have the teaching authority of "some guy with a blog." Not much, in other words.

Still, I'm a practicing Catholic: and I try to stay informed.

Our parish priest brought up an important point this Sunday. It's a simple series of statements. Here's what a pope said about the idea, a few decades back:
"...The essential mission of the priesthood is found in the Eucharist. Your identity and mine are fixed forever in the Eucharistic celebration, that action of Jesus which in turn is the fullest and most effective proclamation of his whole Gospel message: Christ has died! Christ is risen! Christ will come again!..."
("Address of John Paul II to a Group of Priests from the United States of America," John Paul II speeches, vatican.va (May 7, 1982)
I think that bears repeating:

"Christ has died! Christ is risen! Christ will come again!"

The Last Judgment, Human Nature, and Marketing

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a few words about particular judgment, when each of us gets judged on our own lives (1021-1022), and the Last Judgment. (1038-1041)

I gather that the Last Judgment will be an event that'll be impossible to miss:
"The resurrection of all the dead, 'of both the just and the unjust,'623 will precede the Last Judgment. This will be 'the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.'624 Then Christ will come "in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . . Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.'625"
(Catechism (1038)
I've mentioned the - interesting - version of Christianity that was endemic to the area I grew up in. (February 2, 2010, and lots of other times)

As my youth merged into early adulthood, I noticed a pattern. Quite a few of these Scripture/Numerology/End Times chaps had a book to sell: proving (Biblically speaking) that The End Was Nigh - four or five years after their book's publication date.

Maybe I'm being too cynical here: but that'd be a pretty good choice from a marketing point of view. Put the End Times too close to the publication date, and book sales might still be brisk when the deadline hit. Put the fireworks too far off in the future, and whipping up enthusiasm for buying the thing might be a trifle difficult.

Four or five years after going on the radio about the latest 'end-times prophecy' strikes a nice balance, in my opinion.

I'll Leave the Timing Up to God

Me? I wouldn't write one of those books. First of all, there'd be a lot of work cobbling together a dramatic comparison of some numbers in Revelation with the Washington, DC zip code and Stalin's shoe size - or whatever I decided would get folks excited enough to shell out $19.95 - or whatever thick paperback books are going for these days.

Much more to the point, I don't think my Lord would appreciate my efforts to cash in on a cultural quirk. We're told that "Only the Father knows the day and the hour" (Catechism, 1040; Matthew 24:4-27, Matthew 24:36)(and see Matthew 24 footnote 9 in the NAB)

I'm inclined to take Jesus seriously. Folks with a book to sell? Not so much.

I couldn't help but notice, though, that a Catechism reference number I used is 1040 - which is the number of IRS form 1040. With a little work I could probably work that into a diatribe about Elijah, 2 Kings 1:10, 1 Kings 18:40, Revelation 11:5 and flamethrowers. Or maybe one of the new laser weapon systems.

That's not gonna happen.

I'm quite willing to assume that God knows what He's doing, and doesn't need me second-guessing His timetable. Besides, there's that Matthew 24:36 thing: looks to me like trying to work out when my Lord is coming back is a waste of time.

That Jesus is returning, literally and unmistakably? I've got His word on that.
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, August 28, 2010

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

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

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

I still feel that way, from time to time.

That's how I feel.

Now, what I think.

It's [Not] All in the Catechism

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

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

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

"To gain the happiness of heaven we must know, love, and serve God in this world."
(Baltimore Catechism, Revised Edition (1941), The Purpose of Man's Existence, via CatholiCity.com)
That's pretty straightforward:
  • Know God
    • I've been working on that
  • Love God
    • Same comment
  • Serve God in this world
    • Great advice
      • But how?!
Specifics! I want specific, detailed instructions! And, naturally, I want them now.

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

Specific Instructions: A Case Study

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

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

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

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

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

'Don't Worry - be Happy'

Wanting to be happy probably makes sense: assuming that "happiness" isn't a sort of vacant euphoria. I seriously doubt that's the sort of "happiness" defined in the current Catechism:
"...God put us into the world to know, love, and serve him, and so come to the happiness of paradise (1720)."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary, H, under Happiness)
Sounds a lot like what was in the Baltimore Catechism, doesn't it? (I've quoted that excerpt from the Catechism's glossary before.)

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

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

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

How to Serve God? Good Question

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

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

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

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

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

Which is where this blog comes in.

Related posts:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, July 30, 2010

Friday: I Could Wait For Inspiration, or Go With This

There's a story I heard, several decades back, about this guy who was stuck on the roof of a building during a flood.

Odds are, you've heard this before. If so, skip to the first heading.

Anyway, he prayed, "God, save me from this flood."

Later somebody came by in a boat and offered him a ride out of the flood. He refused, saying that God would rescue him.

Still later, somebody else came in another boat. Same thing.

As flood waters rose to the peak of the roof, this guy saw a helicopter coming, with a ladder dangling under it. He waved it off, shouting that God would rescue him.

Then the flood waters washed him off the roof, and he drowned.

After being processed in Heaven, he stomped up to God's throne, demanding an explanation.

God told him, "I sent you two boats and a helicopter: what were you waiting for?"

This is the First Heading

Some days, I have a pretty good idea about what I'm going to write for A Catholic Citizen in America. Other days, not so much.

Then there are days like this, when I haven't a clue.

It's not that I don't have any topics. I've got three: I just don't see any of them as the topic for today's post.

I could ponder, contemplate, meditate, and/or pray: which I've done.

Still, three ideas.

I could try cobbling together some half-baked bit of roll-your-own theology about the Trinity: but
  1. That kind of trouble I don't need
  2. That's a horribly mixed metaphor
So - another metaphor - I'm taking that sack of ideas, turning it upside down and giving it a good shake. Here they are:

Everybody Who Doesn't Agree With Me is Going to Hell?!

NOT!

This is one reason that I converted to Catholicism: Thanks to the Bible, Tradition, and the Magisterium (look it up), we have the answer to those simple, yes-or-no questions.

In the case of "does a person have to be a Catholic, to go to Heaven," the answer is - apparently - yes.

And, no.

Remember, I speak with the full authority of some guy with a blog. I have about as little teaching authority as a person can have, and still be breathing.

I ran across part of what I'll be quoting earlier today, and that got me curious.
"How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846, 847)
Does this mean that it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're sincere? That may cut it with the Great Pumpkin in Peanuts, but out here in reality - not so much.

Again, I'm some guy with a blog. I have just about zero teaching authority in the Church.

Those links could take you to what I quoted - and the footnotes include reference to one of those "secret" Catholic documents you hear about. Like so many others, this one's available in English translation on the Holy See's Website:
  • "Lumen Gentium"
    Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI (November 21, 1964)
The bit that's referenced is Lumen Gentium, paragraph 16.

As to whether it's a good idea to get into God's outfit?

Let me put it this way -

I don't particularly like having others tell me what to do, I've had issues with authority, and I have very little respect for folks who claim that I should do things their way because God says so.

And I converted to Catholicism.

Yeah, I'd say it's a good idea.

And Now, For Something Completely Different

Matthew Warner posted this on his Fallible Blogma:He got the list from Patrick Madrid, who modeled it on a Chuck Norris-isms.

Maybe I'm not the only one who came up a little short on good ideas today?

Nope: Look at the post's date. I leaned about it today, but it's been out for months.

Google, Vatican.va, and What Happened

From today's news:
"Vatican website phenomenon could have been 'page hacking' "
EWTN News (July 30, 2010)

"Google's error in placing pedofilo.com ahead of the Vatican's website in a search for the word 'Vatican' was not 'Google bombing,' according to an Italian computer expert. The phenomenon, rather, was likely due to 'page hacking,' the orchestrated use of duplicated content to gain authority in a web search.

"The Italian search engine optimizer (SEO) Andrea Vit, who dedicates himself to increasing the ranking of websites in web searches, explained his take on the technology behind the placement of pedofilo.com as the top result on a Google search for the Vatican.

"Vit explained to EWTN News that in a search, every website has a value or 'page rank' assigned to it by Google based on the site's 'authority.' Authority is assigned to a site according to the number of links to that site from others. The higher the page rank, the higher the site's placement as a result in a search...."
Google corrected the situation shortly after it was discovered.

As for the standard-issue 'the Catholic Church shields pedophiles and is icky' thing, I've posted about that before.

How to Waste Your Vote

Finally, here's something from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL):
"Third parties fall on the fringe of public opinion"
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life State and Federal PAC (undated)

"Minnesotans reject extremist Green, Independence pro-abortion parties

"The 2002 election revealed many of Minnesota's political nuances. Among these was a clear lack of support for so-called third party candidates. Following much fanfare and media coverage, the Independence Party was able to claim only one victory in the entire state, picking up a single seat in the state Senate. Other parties such as the Green Party and the Constitution Party were completely thwarted in their efforts to win elections.

"Statewide support among the electorate for mainstream pro-life candidates was partly responsible for preventing marginal third parties from gaining ground in the Nov. 5 election. This widespread pro-life constituency helped repudiate the third parties still able to claim major party status: the pro-abortion Green and Independence parties.

"Thinly disguised extremism...."
Some Minnesotans voted for third-party candidates. Given human nature, if you campaigned heavily enough you could probably get write-in votes for a Furze Party candidate ("You Could Do Gorse!").

America's midterm election is coming in November. Since I'm a Catholic, I have to be an informed citizen, and vote. And I've posted about that before, too:
A tip of the hat to CatholicNotions, MCCL_org and MatthewWarner, on Twitter.
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 31, 2010

If Catholics aren't Supposed to Read the Bible, How Come We're Told to Read the Bible?

This post is an excerpt from the one I just finished: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Citing my Sources, the Bible, and All That" (May 31, 2010). The point about Catholics and the Bible is pretty important - and I figured it deserved a post of its own:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a pretty good guide for what the Catholic faith is about. Happily, there's an official English translation. Rather early in the book, there's this instruction about Catholics and the Bible:
" 'And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life.'109 Hence 'access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.'110

" 'Therefore, the "study of the sacred page" should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too—pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place—is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.'111

" 'The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn "the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,' by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." ' 112"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 131-133)
Why all those footnotes and links? The ones in that excerpt from the Catechism are in the online version — and help the faithful look up who said what, in which resource, and often when.

It's the same reason we have links to passages from the Bible.

Which practicing Catholics are "forcefully and specifically" exhorted to read.
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, May 3, 2010

Baptism of Desire: Or, Two Thousand Years of Not Knowing Everything

If you think the Catholic Church claims to know everything there is to know about God: Think again. Take a subject that's very important to me: unbaptized infants.

I'll get to why that's so important to me, later in this post.

Baptism: Yeah, It's a Kind of Big Deal

The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses baptism at some length. (1213-1274, for starters)

The part of baptism that we see is someone getting in contact with water. Sometimes that contact is full immersion. I've yet to see that done, by the way. Generally, around here, we go with a rather lighter touch: the baptizer dips fingers in the water and touches the infant's forehead. (Some of the babies like it, some don't.)
"This sacrament is also called 'the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,' for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one 'can enter the kingdom of God.'7"
(Catechism (1215)
So, nobody can enter the Kingdom of God without being baptized: where does that leave unbaptized infants and folks who died before they could be baptized?

That's a good question.

Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire, and a Whole Lot of Questions

The answer, as far as we have it, is — people who are not baptized when they die may be able to enter the Kingdom of God through the baptism of blood or the baptism of desire.

Maybe.

Here's an excerpt from a document written in 2007. As usual with documents generated by the Catholic Church, it isn't exactly light reading:
"...Already in the early Christian community, it was accepted that martyrdom, the 'Baptism of blood', was a substitute for sacramental Baptism. Furthermore, there was the acknowledgement of the Baptism of desire. In this regard, the words of Thomas Aquinas are pertinent: 'The sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptised, nor wish to be baptised…Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire…Such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptised on account of his desire for Baptism'.[95] The Council of Trent acknowledges 'Baptism of desire' as a way whereby one can be justified without the actual reception of the sacrament of Baptism: 'After the promulgation of the Gospel, this transition [from sin to justice] cannot take place without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it for as it is written: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3:5)" '.[96]..."
(International Theological Commission (April 19, 2007)1)
If you think that sounds complicated: just wait. A few acres of text before that excerpt, this came up:
"...[58] The proposals invoking some kind of Baptism of desire or Baptism of blood, however, involved certain difficulties. On the one hand, the adult's act of desire for Baptism can hardly be attributed to children. The little child is scarcely capable of supplying the fully free and responsible personal act which would constitute a substitution for sacramental Baptism; such a fully free and responsible act is rooted in a judgement of reason and cannot be properly achieved before the human person has reached a sufficient or appropriate use of reason (aetas discretionis: 'age of discretion')...."
(International Theological Commission (April 19, 2007)1)
So, an infant who does not receive the Sacrament of Baptism can still enter the Kingdom of God: right?

Like I said: maybe.

Then again, maybe not. Like that document said, the idea involves "certain difficulties."
"...In the Church's tradition, the affirmation that children who died unbaptised are deprived of the beatific vision has for a long time been 'common doctrine'. This common doctrine followed upon a certain way of reconciling the received principles of revelation, but it did not possess the certitude of a statement of faith, or the same certitude as other affirmations whose rejection would entail the denial of a divinely revealed dogma or of a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act of the magisterium. The study of the history of the Church's reflection on this subject shows that it is necessary to make distinctions. In this summary we distinguish first, statements of faith and what pertains to the faith; second, common doctrine; and third, theological opinion...."
(International Theological Commission (April 19, 2007)1)
That's a lot of verbiage. I chose this passage partly because it mentions the view that unbaptized infants "are deprived of the beatific vision," and touches on what sort of a view that is. I'll pull a clarification out:
"...This common doctrine followed upon a certain way of reconciling the received principles of revelation, but it did not possess the certitude of a statement of faith, or the same certitude as other affirmations whose rejection would entail the denial of a divinely revealed dogma or of a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act of the magisterium...."
(International Theological Commission (April 19, 2007)1) [emphasis mine]
(The Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium are very important in the Catholic Church, and I've written about that before.)

What About Unbaptized Infants?

There's hope, as the 2007 document says:
"...Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18)...."
(International Theological Commission (April 19, 2007)1)
The Catechism may put it a little more clearly:
"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."
(Catechism, 1261)
Hope, yes. Certainty: no.

Would I like to go to the Vatican.va website and get all the answers? Sure. But that's not gonna happen. I don't think I'm going too far when I say that the Catholic Church, even after almost two thousand years of discussion and study of the Bible and Tradition, still doesn't know everything!

And that's okay.

Hope, Trusting God, and Curiosity

I like answers: I like questions, too. Which is a good thing, since after more than a half-century, I still have more questions than answers. Definite, unequivocal, rock-solid-certain answers, that is. I've got a lot of answers that'll do for the moment: and which I figure are true — probably.

The Catholic Church is very clear, for anyone who bothers to look, about what is "a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act of the magisterium," and what what we figure is true — probably.

I'm willing to hope, trust God to handle what I don't understand, and work at conforming my will to His with things that I've got some sort of grip on.

As for things I don't understand: I keep working at learning and understanding more. God gave us curiosity — so I figure He expects us to use it.

What's the Big Deal With Unbaptized Infants?

The question of what happens to people who die without being baptized is quite important to me. Two of my six children died without getting baptized.

It's not that my wife and I didn't want to baptize them. Each time we were — a little preoccupied. I've written about the situation for Letters to Priests:

Just Routine, Nothing Special

Quite a lot has happened, since Father James Statz came to the Our Lady of the Angels parish here in Sauk Centre, Minnesota.

Some of it hasn't been routine, like when the Christmas tree — over a dozen feet tall — fell over behind him. Or when he returned to duty after a stroke should have killed him — but didn't. Or when he talked with me and my wife after we lost another child.
Miscarriage #1: Joy
We'd lost one child, several years ago, very early in the pregnancy. The best guess we have is that something went very, very wrong with some basic function in Joy's body. The human body is a wonderfully complex thing: Which means there's a great many things that can go wrong. This isn't a perfect world.

My wife and I sealed the mess, for testing: but saw to it that Joy was buried, informally and briefly, in hallowed ground. I wasn't sure if that was quite what we're supposed to do, but I figured that 'it's easier to get forgiveness, than permission.' Testing showed no problems, aside from the miscarriage. As the years passed, two more children joined the two we'd been blessed with before Joy.
Miscarriage #2: Elizabeth
There was no reason to assume that our sixth pregnancy wouldn't end in a normal delivery. This baby was doing fine. We, and our four surviving children, were looking forward to seeing the newest member of the family.

When the contractions started, they weren't quite what we expected, but as I recall they were inside the 'normal' range. When it was "time," my wife and I headed for the hospital.

As nearly as I can tell, Elizabeth died as we were approaching the Interstate exit nearest the hospital. My wife told me that the baby was very active: and then completely still. At the hospital, the nurses could detect no heartbeat. And the delivery was not going well. At all.

Later that night I followed the ambulance carrying my wife to another hospital, about 45 miles away. And was with her when Elizabeth was delivered: beautifully formed; and quite dead. My wife and I took turns holding Elizabeth, as warmth left her body. Later, we learned that the center of the placenta had given way. The medical folks say if the failure had happened near the edge, my wife would have bled to death.

We have photos of Elizabeth, and of an ultrasound: but I haven't looked at those for quite a long time. There's no need. I remember what she looked like, the weight of her body in my arms: and I'm not likely to forget. Besides: God willing, I'll meet her, and Joy, in a few decades.
'Why be miserable?'
Talking over Elizabeth's death with my wife, and how we feel about it, she summed up the situation with something like "why be miserable?" She's a very practical woman. And, I think, she's right.

If I seem 'upbeat' about losing 1/3 of our children: It helps that Elizabeth died eight years ago. I've gone through the 'stages of grief,' more or less. Don't let anybody kid you: it's not an easy process. Knowing what was behind a nervous tic and auditory hallucinations helped me get through those years: but I'd just as soon not repeat the experience.

There will always be an 'Elizabeth size' hole in my heart — matching the one for Joy. But I've gotten used to the situation: just as people get used to their children living thousands of miles away. Besides, being dead doesn't make them less a part of the family. I still wish Elizabeth and Joy a 'good night,' every night, as I do for all our children.
'It's not fair.' So?
Being born with deformed hips gave me opportunities to think about — and meditate on — whether or not expecting life to be "fair" by American standards is reasonable.

I'm convinced that God is just, and that He is merciful: and that I wouldn't understand why things happen, even if He explained His Will to me. So I'm not going to demand an explanation. I've read the book of Job
Hey! This letter is about Father Statz!
After my wife and I got back to Sauk Centre, Father Statz spoke with us. Nothing earth-shattering, no dramatic revelations. Just words of sympathy and assurance. He also explained the idea of "baptism of desire." (It's nothing new: Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent mentioned it.) And, of course, Father Statz was there when we buried Elizabeth.

Some of the breaks in Father Statz's routine have been good news, like the new Marian garden between the church and the rectory.

Mostly, though, Father Statz has been 'just going through the routines:' celebrating Mass, hearing confessions, anointing the sick, that sort of thing.

He's just an ordinary priest, standing in for Jesus in a small central Minnesota town.

Which, when you think about it, is a pretty big deal.
(Draft of a letter submitted to Letters to Priests)
Not-entirely-unrelated posts:
1 "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Paptised*," International Theological Commission (April 19, 2007)
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

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

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Visit Brian H.'s profile on Pinterest.

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find 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.