Showing posts with label God's will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God's will. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

HHS Mandate: 'Kill, or Pay the Assassins;' Catholic Bishops Say 'No'

More posts about forcing Catholics to violate our conscience:
The Department of Health and Human Services vs. Conscience
I'm a practicing Catholic, and sometimes my faith won't let me 'go with the flow' of my native culture.

Take the case of a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, for example. Catholic bishops in America have said that I can't be a nice little American and play along. And neither can any other Catholic who takes his or her faith seriously.

Health is Important: So is Life

The problem is that the HHS mandate will force virtually all hospitals, insurance providers, and employers, to pay for 'women's health care services.' Today, given the values and customs of America's dominant culture, that includes abortion.

The Catholic Church teaches that health care is important. But we're also told that killing a baby isn't right. Even if the kid hasn't been born yet. The Church even says we can't kill people because they're sick, and that's almost another topic.1

Kill a Kid? What's the Big Deal?

The Catholic Church's position on killing innocent people makes sense, in the context of our beliefs:
Putting it simply, it isn't very 'loving' to kill my neighbor's baby: or help pay someone else to do the job. That may seem like a rigid attitude: but as a practicing Catholic, I'm stuck with it.

Not Hopeless, Not Helpless

Prayer is a good idea. So is letting America's leadership know what we believe.

Catholic bishops in America want us to write our representatives in the national Congress. There is still a chance that Congress may decide to do the right thing.

The bishops explain what's going on, why the HHS mandate is bad idea, and what we can do. In English and en Español:
I've prayed, done the 'write your congressman/person/whatever' thing, and have more to say - in another post.

Your Life, Your Soul, Your Choice

Even if I could, I wouldn't 'force' you to act against your conscience. It's against the rules:
  • Religious freedom is important (Catechism, 2104-2109)
    • For everybody
      (Catechism, 2106)
Freedom comes with responsibility, and that's another topic.2

Decisions

I'd probably be more comfortable, living in a period when I could at least pretend that my native land's dominant culture was on the same page as the Lord of Hosts. But I've yet to run into something in Holy Scripture, or in what the Church has said over the last couple of millennia, that says 'thou shalt not make waves.'

Today is an era when folks have fairly well-defined choices to make. The trick will be making the right choice. This sort of situation is nothing new:
" 'Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve him completely and sincerely. Cast out the gods your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.

"3 If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve, the gods your fathers served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.' "
(Joshua 24:14-15)

Jesus Approached and Said - - -

A bit over a dozen centuries later, my Lord was tortured to death. Then Jesus stopped being dead.

That got the attention of eleven men who had followed him:
"10 When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.

"11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, 'All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

"Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

"teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.' "
(Matthew 28:17-20)

The Winning Side

It's been about three millennia since Joshua told folks to make up their minds; two millennia since Jesus gave those marching orders. My Lord's outfit is still around.

On the whole, I think deciding to serve God, and act as if what He says matters, is prudent. Eventually, God's way wins. But what you decide is up to you.

Conscience Protection: What the Bishops Say

I found these links useful. Maybe you will, too:

Bishops: "TAKE ACTION"

Related posts:
1 Very briefly, the Catholic Church says:
  • Health care is important
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2288-2291
  • Killing innocent people is wrong, even if the person is
2 About freedom:
" Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

"As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach."
(Catechism, 1731-1732)
More: (Catechism, 1733-1738)
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Fourth Sunday of Advent, 2011: John, Jesus, and God's New World Order

Readings for December 18, 2011, Fourth Sunday of Advent 2011:

Fourth Sunday in Advent 2011

By Deacon Lawrence N. Kaas
December 18, 2011

A Little girl sat on her grandfather's lap. Looking up into his face, she touched his wrinkled old cheek. Then she touched her own smooth cheek and asked grandpa, "did God make you"? Yes he answered, "God made me a long time ago," then she asked, "did God make me too," grandpa replied, "yes of course honey but God made you just a little while ago." Checking her own smooth face again the little girl said, "God's getting better at it, isn't He?"

In today's gospel Mary learns that she will give birth to the son of God. Mary will soon be privileged to look upon her newborn child and to let her lips be the first to kiss the perfect cheeks of the face of God.

Why Mary? Why a woman who was a virgin promised to a man? Why Elizabeth? Why a barren and elderly woman who had given up hope of ever being a mother? There is nothing in the sacred texts to recommend either of these women for such significant roles in salvation history. Yet Mary became the mother of Jesus Son of the Most High, and Elizabeth brought John into the world, the one of whom it would be said, "among those born of woman no one is greater".

Surely the good news would have found a firmer footing if Jesus and John were born of well-established and reputable families with the means to help their sons impact the world with their respective messages. However, in choosing these two insignificant women, God was announcing a new world order, one in which traditional values and expectations were turned on their ear. This process of turning things upside down and inside out even has its own theme song which Luke will place on Mary's lips in the verses that follow today's gospel.

In her song, Mary will celebrate in inscrutable ways and the will of God with words that confound us. The hungry are filled with good things, the rich are sent empty away; the mighty are thrown down from their thrones, the lowly are lifted up. This song, as surprising as it is, represents a distillation of the entire gospel with all its contradictions and correctives. Through this world's poor ones, through those least likely to be associated with power and prestige, God will work wonders. These poor ones, and their humble reliance on God, will become venues of grace and greatness,--- beginning with Mary and Elizabeth. But before Mary would sing her song and before Elizabeth would call her "blessed among women" each of these two mothers had a choice to make.

Those choices to accept God's plan for themselves and their families are at the heart of today's gospel.

Gabriel's greeting to Mary is a composite of texts from the Hebrew Scriptures all of which a attest to the special role Mary was being called to fulfill and to the fact that the era of the messiah would dawn in her fulfilling the will of God. These text also affirm that what transpires from Mary has been ordained by God and foretold by the prophets. Nevertheless, neither Mary's nor Elizabeth's responses to God were coerced. Although she clearly did not understand, Mary believed and trusted in God and accepted the plan announced by the Angel-messenger. Luke admits that she was savvy enough to be greatly troubled by what was being said to her. In speaking of Mary, Luke would also admit that, "she did not understand" but that she "pondered all these things in her heart."

Mary's pondering was a spiritual coping mechanism. Mary did not remain in her greatly troubled state. She did not cling to her anxieties but surrendered it to God. She was content to ponder and to pray, and as she gathered strength from these spiritual efforts, she cultivated a vital and sustained faith. By virtue of her faith, the Almighty and Transcendent took up residence in her, and from that holy human address, God has been uniquely revealed in Jesus. This same God wishes to make a home in each of us.
'Thank you' to Deacon Kaas, for letting me post his reflection here.
More reflections:
Somewhat-related posts:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Why I Exist: It's Simple; and Not-So-Simple

Quite a few folks like the Baltimore Catechism. Partly, I think, out of nostalgia and familiarity; and partly because it did a pretty good job of teaching the Catholic faith.

My family has a copy, which I've read. Part of it, anyway. I think it's a good teaching aid. The question-and-answer format gets rediscovered by educators at intervals, and that's another topic.

One of those Q & A couplets answers an important question:
"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)
The implication, I think, is that we want to "gain the happiness of heaven," and that God wants us to do so. I've run into some very odd notions about what Heaven and Hell are like, and that's yet another topic.1

'To Know and Love God'

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church says we're supposed to know and love God, too: and goes into a bit more detail:
"I. The life of man - to know and love God

"God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1)
That's nowhere near as easy to memorize as what the Baltimore Catechism said - but that's okay with me. I never was all that good at memorization: and learned how to look up information I wanted at an early age.

Jesus, Redeemer and Savior

That paragraph from the Catechism says that God sent Jesus, Redeemer and Savior, to call everyone to God. (Catechism, 1) The next one starts telling how my Lord got the ball rolling. (Catechism, 2) It's that thing from Matthew 28:
"11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, 'All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.' "
(Matthew 28:18-20)
About two millennia later, those orders haven't changed - and the successors of Peter have been passing along the commission, and the authority, they received from the Man who is God - and Who wouldn't stay dead. I've posted about Matthew 16:13-19 and the keys of the Kingdom before.2

So I'm Following Jesus: Now What?

I've 'believed in' Jesus, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, ever since I can remember. Which isn't the same as understanding God: and that's yet again another topic.

Being the sort of person I am, I've been learning about my Lord. There's more to being a Christian than that, though, which the next paragraph in the Catechism points out:
"Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.6"
(Catechism, 3)
That's a lot of words, but it looks like the instructions are fairly simple:
  • Proclaim the Good News
    • Everywhere
  • Pass on the treasure of faith by
    • Living it
    • Celebrating it in
      • Liturgy
      • Prayer
Fairly simple, like Matthew 22:36-40 is simple: 'Love God, love your neighbor.'

As usual, there's more to it than that.

How much more? I checked: The Catechism starts discussing the Lord's Prayer around paragraph #2759, gets to the Seven Petitions around #2803, and keeps going. There's a lot to learn there.

Then, after the Catechism, there's an accumulation of several thousand years' worth of documentation - some of which is available online at vatican.va, the Holy See's website.

And that's yet again one more topic.

Vaguely-related posts:
Background:
  • God
    • And humanity
      • Created us
      • Calls us
        • All of us
        (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1)
    • Three persons, one God
      (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 200-202)
    • Is a person, not "an anonymous force"
      (Catechism, 203)
  • Heaven, Hell, and hope
    • Heaven
    • Hell
    • The Hope of the New Heaven and the New Earth
  • Death
  • The meaning of Christian death
  • Particular judgment
  • Final purification, or Purgatory
  • Last Judgment(Definitely not a complete index)
1 I think that spending eternity in Heaven is preferable to the alternative:2 Not long ago, my wife pointed out that I have no problem with authority. It's pompous nitwits who think they've got authority that irritate me. I became a Catholic after I learned who held the authority my Lord had given Peter. More about authority, me, and getting a grip:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Why did God Do That to Me?

This post isn't - by far - the most tightly-organized on in this blog.

Writing it, I let my attention wander, doing minimal editing apart from adding headings by way of signposts along the path I took. There's a reason for that, which I may get back to: in yet another post.

Why this prologue? I figured you might appreciate a sort of 'heads up' about what to expect. Or a warning. I'll leave it up to you, to decide which it is.
I've sometimes wondered 'why did God do this to me?' (June 8, 2009) From what I've gathered about other folks, that's hardly a unique experience. Not even, most likely, a very rare one.

Oh, No! An Old Coot Rambling About His Symptoms

This is going somewhere, so please stick around. Or skip down to this post's next heading. Or take a break from the computer: It's up to you.

Where was I? 'Why did God do this to me.' Right.

For example, I was born with congenital hip dysplasia. A five-dollar word meaning that my hips didn't form properly. Between that, being born in 1951, and a medical experiment my parents didn't know about - but I've been over that before. (February 3, 2009) A few years ago I had both hip joints swapped out - along with some other long-overdue under-the-hood work. 2006 was a busy year. And that's another topic. (Through One Dad's Eye (June 3, 2007))

Not long after that, I was diagnosed as having major depression. Which explained quite a bit. Medication helped sort out my brain chemistry - then we discovered that I was ADD. Make that ADHD-inattentive. Next year the psychiatrists may have another term for that sort of thing. Another diagnosis: more medications.

Possible Side Effects Include - - -

Yesterday, after talking with the psychiatrist who's been working with me to fine-tune my brain's circuits, I made another slight adjustment in how much methylin/methylphenidate I take. It's a sort of generic form of Ritalin - and quite effective, in my case.

Still, anything that has "psychotic symptoms" listed as a possible side effect gets my attention.

- - - Sudden Death?!

I trust doctors. I also do a little research into the magic elixirs they prescribe before committing to a new medication. Following in my father's footsteps, in a way. After what amounted to a bad trip with a 'safe' prescription, he invested in a pharmaceutical 'whatsit' volume. Thick book, fine print. I do pretty much the same thing, except now there's the Internet. Yet another topic.

"Mild Central Nervous System Stimulant" - and "Psychotic Symptoms"

"Methylin is a mild central nervous system stimulant," according to the FDA. That outfit also says to look out for side effects like "nervousness and insomnia," "aggressive behavior or hostility," "psychotic symptoms," "hallucinations, delirium," and "sudden death."

I gave my wife the heads-up on what to look for before my first dose. Which was something of an anticlimax.

My experience with the stuff has been comparatively tame.

Apart from not having to 'fight the machinery' in terms of thinking. I haven't had this sort of clear-headedness since before my teens. Maybe ever. It's like having been driving a car without power brakes or steering, and with a sputtering motor - and then driving the same car with power everything, after a thorough tuneup. Same car - only now it works the way it's supposed to.

"I'm Not as Crazy as You Think I Moose"

I've seen that slogan - "I'm not as crazy as you think I moose" - on a button. It's silly, funny: and a pretty good example of the sort of thing I'm apt to say.

Off-the-50th-percentile thinking runs in the family. (example: Drifting at the Edge of Time and Space (November 12, 2010)) Can't say I'd recommend having my brain chemistry - but the package as a whole has its advantages.

Happily, the Catholic Church teaches that we're supposed to be ourselves - the way God wants us to be. I mentioned diversity, Catholic style, in the last post before this, and have been over the topic before. (August 26, 2010) Just as well, since I don't do conformity. Not very well, anyway.

Dishwater: Fascinating Stuff!

Quite a few folks around my age probably say they want to 'be themselves.'

It's a historical thing, partly. I was born in 1951, when the 'Man in the Gray Flannel Suit' conformity craze had some of the 'older generation' setting folks my age up to make Timothy Leary and Woodstock seem to make sense. By the time I was in my teens, quite a few of my contemporaries were defying conformity. By letting their hair grow out, and wearing jeans.

I wore white socks throughout high school - it was (just) inside the dress code. I'd probably have stood out from the crowd, anyway. Or been stood away from. I have yet to figure out which way that works.

Where was I again? Conformity. I don't have anything against folks whose dream is to be an accountant or a bank clerk. Or a lumberjack, or astronaut, or dental hygienist. If we were all alike, most of us would be redundant. And, probably, dead. Just getting things done seems to require different folks being more-or-less competent at different things. Yet again another topic. Topics.

I'm certainly not going to say that folks who are 'conventional' are dull as dishwater, which is a calumnym on dishwater. The stuff's fascinating. Many the time's I've watched flotillas of bubbles evolve, marveled at visible consequence of molecular interactions between water, grease, and detergent - and those are several other topics.

Eugenics: Eww!

That's partly because I think eugenics is a bad idea. A really bad idea. Good grief: another topic. (May 21, 2010) Criticizing folks who aren't 'colorful,' I mean: not dishwater. Even if the Church didn't have something to say about it (Catechism, 2268), and Western civilization was only now forgetting about Hitler's efforts to clean Europe's gene pool, I'd probably not approve of removing 'inferior' persons from the human race.

Mostly because I've been aware since my late pre-teens that I'd be culled soon after the first sweep. Which gets me back to 'why did God do that to me?'

Born a Cripple, Afflicted With Mental Disease: IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!!!!!

"Fair?" I've read Job. I don't expect to understand what God does. And certainly not why the Omniscient, Omnipotent Lord of Hosts does what he does. And I'm not about to demand an explanation. That kind of trouble I don't need.

That doesn't keep me from being curious.

I was born with bad hips - and God allowed (at least) a doctor to use me as a sort of lab rat. Without my parent's knowledge or consent. (February 3, 2009) Decades of pain later, I'm walking around reasonably well - but it hurt, in several senses of the word.

God also blessed me with a brain that operates at somewhere between the 95th percentile and off-the-chart. Except for being able to concentrate, or hold onto data for short-term operations.

There are a few folks in the state of Minnesota who'd make worse accountants than I would - but not many.

That's not speculation, by the way: being tested recently, I did the verbal-intelligence test perfectly, and barely scored in what used to be called "clerical speed and accuracy."

No bragging, or complaining - that's just the equipment I was conceived with.

What's bothered me is - why would God decide to give me a body that pretty much guaranteed that swimming and parallel bars would be the only athletic activities I was competent at; with a brain that's crazy-powerful in some ways. And just plain crazy in others.

My wife's suggested that I was born a cripple so that I'd have opportunities to learn humility. She's got a point. If I had been a star athlete as well as an intellectual whiz kid: I might have been even more insufferable than I've been at times.

About the extreme peaks and valleys in my psychological and intelligence tests? This is sheer speculation: but I've suspected that maybe I got the smarts, to give me a fighting chance for dealing with the deficits; or maybe those neural speed bumps were put there to keep me humble?

I - really - don't - know.

And that's okay. I don't need to. Uncertainty, and dealing with it, is part of life-as-it-is here on firebase Earth. And I've posted about that earlier today. And on April 5, 2009.

Sort-of-related posts:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 26, 2010

26th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Readings for September 26, 2010, 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time 2010:

26th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By Deacon Lawrence N. Kaas
September 26, 2010

What's in a Name? Maybe more than we realize, especially in the Bible. Most Israelite names had a readily understandable meaning. David means "beloved of God." Nathaniel means "God has given this child." Ezekiel means "may God strengthen this child." Ichabod mean "the glory has departed." Caleb means "dog." Deborah means "bee." Jonah means "dove" In all the parables Jesus told, only one character is named. He is the beggar in today's parable, Lazarus, which means "God helps."

For generations many readers of this parable have thought the rich man was named Dives. "Dives," which appeared in the Latin Vulgate, is not a name but the Latin word for "rich." This man was very rich, and lived in great luxury. Like kings and queens he ware a purple robe, which involved a rare and expensive dye. His inner garment was most likely of fine linen, probably from Egypt. His meals were elaborate banquets. Here was someone living a life that was far beyond the average person's imagination.

The rich man and Lazarus represented opposite ends of the economic spectrum. That Lazarus lay at the rich man's gate says something about his plight. He may have been crippled and probably suffered from a variety of diseases, including malnutrition. Bread served as a napkin in those days. After it was used it was thrown aside, and this is likely what kept Lazarus alive. He was so weak and helpless that he could not fend off the dogs that roamed the streets and licked his sores. A dog was considered an unclean animal. The lowest of the low gives what little comfort it could to Lazarus, so low on the human scale that the rich man could care less that he was begging at his gate.

Lazarus dies! Many of the Jews of that time believed that angels carried the dead to their eternal destination, Lazarus' place at the heavenly banquet is right next to Abraham, the place of honor. The rich man dies. In eternity he finds that things are very different from what they were in life. Before, he was in the lap of luxury, while Lazarus was on the outside looking in. Now, the rich man is the outsider. A great reversal has taken place. In the world he had everything he wanted, while letting an impoverished beggar die at his gate. His life had been a closed circle in which everything was for him alone. The circle that kept out the beggar also kept out God.

The rich man, now in desperate need of help, petitions Abraham. As he did so often in life, he gives an order: "Father Abraham, send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue." Abraham explains that there is a great chasm separating them, a gulf so wide that no one can cross from one side to the other. The rich man suggests another errand for Lazarus, "Send him to warn my brothers, lest they come to this place of torment." Abraham says, "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." The rich man says, "But if someone comes back from the dead, they will repent." Abraham says, "If they won't believe the scriptures, they won't be convinced if someone rises from the dead."

This exchange between the rich man and Abraham helps to relieve our offended sensibilities. How is it possible for such inhumanity to exist among humans made in the image of God? Who will answer for the injustice of one person overindulging continuously within view of another person who is dying from poverty, hunger and neglect? If such disparities are reconciled in eternity, that is at least some consolation.

Is it enough that in eternity the inequities of life in this world will be balance out? Is it enough that those who suffer great cruelty and endure terrible suffering in this life will be healed and made whole in the life to come? Could the most blissful heaven imaginable compensate for the suffering of one little child? Can eternity pay back the millions who died, or had loved ones who died, in POW camps, and concentration camps? What heavenly promise can ever make cancer acceptable, or war, or child abuse?

Christ came into the real world of human joys and sorrows, trials and triumphs, pain and suffering. In a short span of time He impacted the world as no other person has, before or since. Relatively few people actually saw Him or heard Him speak. Fewer still had their lives transformed by His inclusive love and healing touch. His disciples were commissioned to extend His ministry and proclaim His gospel to the ends of the earth. Christ promised to be with those who bear His name, to strengthen and inspire them to do the same work He had done among the needy of the world. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself," wrote Paul, "and has committed to us the ministry of reconciliation." God helps - through us.

Do you remember the movie, "Oh God?" Denver challenged God, played by George Burns, with the question: "Why do you allow so much evil in the world? God responds by reminding Denver that we have a free will: therefore it is not God who allows evil but that we do by the misuse of our free will.

Among the most memorable expressions of this truth are the words of St. Teresa of Avila: "Christ has no body on earth but ours, no hands but ours, no feet but ours. Ours are the eyes through which the compassion of Christ looks out upon the world, ours are the feet with which he goes about doing good, ours are the hands with which He blesses His people."
'Thank you' to Deacon Kaas, for letting me post his reflection here.
More reflections: Related posts:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, September 24, 2010

Providence, God's Tender Kindness, and Training a Mule

You've probably heard this one before:

There's a story about two fellows who were talking about how to train a mule. One of them said that he'd found that the best approach involved treating the mule with kindness, patience and tenderness. To demonstrate his method he picked up a stout plank, walked up to a mule, hauled off and staggered the mule with a blow to its head.

The other, shocked, asked: "what are you doing?! I thought you used kindness, patience, and tenderness to train mules?" "I do," the mule trainer said. "But first, I have to get their attention."

Kindness, Patience, Tenderness, and Getting Our Attention

Providence, God's involvement in the unfolding of this world, can seem like good news or bad news.

For example, after someone had a narrow escape from danger, the neighbors might have said something like 'it was Providence that saved Silas from that fire.' These days, it'd probably be 'Silas was sure lucky.' Or someone might have said that his guardian angel saved him. There's been some renewed interest in angels lately - and that's another topic.

Then there are the stories involving 19th-century folks whose self-righteousness was matched only by their lack of sympathy, who opined that it was Providence that burned down the tavern. They may have been right, at that.

Then there are the stories about lightning rods and churches - and I'm getting off-topic again.

'Providence' is an old-fashioned sounding word, expressing an even older idea:
"Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created 'in a state of journeying' (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call 'divine providence' the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:
"By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, 'reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well.' For 'all are open and laid bare to his eyes,' even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161
"The witness of Scripture is unanimous that the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate; God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. The sacred books powerfully affirm God's absolute sovereignty over the course of events: 'Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases.'162 And so it is with Christ, 'who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.'163 As the book of Proverbs states: 'Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will be established.'164"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 302, 303)
The way I've put the idea sometimes is that "God is large and in charge."

One thing that Providence is not is a sort of divine bodyguard, keeping unpleasant things from happening to good church-going folks. Think about the Book of Job.

Which reminds me:

Satan's Real, But Only a Creature

I've heard "creature" used as a synonym for 'critter' - some sort of animal. Animals are a sort of creature, true enough, but the term isn't necessarily that specific:
Creature:
  1. A created thing, whether animate or inanimate.
  2. Anything created or not self-existent.
  3. A living being that moves of its own volition.
  4. An animal or human.
  5. A being subservient to or dependent upon another.
(ALLWords.com)
Since I'm a Catholic, for me a "creature" is anything that isn't God. Which covers quite a lot of ground. One of the mistakes folks can make is to assume that any creature that's more powerful than themselves is equivalent to God. That's a big mistake.
"The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries—of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature—to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but 'we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.'275"
(Catechism, 395)

God, Satan, and a Busted Pipe in Central Minnesota

A week ago, sometime after midnight, a pipe burst in my laundry room. I was up at the time, but it was maybe an hour before I realized that I wasn't hearing the washing machine go through its cycles.

We've got the house and contents of the basement wrung out now, for the most part, and the damage could have been a whole lot worse. Still, there's a quite human tendency to want to blame someone. I've got a few choices:
  1. Me
    • I could have
      • Noticed the leak sooner
      • Had preventive maintenance done, and replaced the pipe
  2. Satan
    • 'The Devil done me wrong?'
  3. God
    • God flooded my house?!
I'm none too happy about the damage that's been done, but my best guess is that #3 is closest to the mark.

That's not just pious philosophizing. If that water hadn't made a mess, this house might have caught fire in the foreseeable future. While the laundry room and part of the basement was being taken apart and dried out, we've found - so far - a part of the drier vent that had entirely too much lint in it, and a wire near the breaker panel downstairs with defective insulation.

Maybe we'd have noticed those maintenance issues anyway. Or maybe not. God knows, I don't - and I don't expect to know what might have been.

Still, there are some fairly concrete, 'practical' benefits that came from that flooding. Which was relatively minor, since I was up at a ridiculously late hour, and (finally) noticed what was happening.

God, Stuff, and Trust

Aside from some home-safety issues, I've wondered if this minor flooding may have been a sort of reminder about what's reliable, and what's not. Nothing new in the following ideas, but some old ideas are still quite valid.

Look at it this way: thousands of years ago, folks thought that hitting a stone with your foot wasn't a good idea. (Psalms 91:11-12) I suspect that a few folks still think it's not a good thing - or at least that it'd hurt.

Quite a lot of stuff that I like was in the basement. Including a large number of record albums that my father had owned. There's a good chance that I can salvage them, but I've also had an opportunity to think about what's permanent, and what's not - what I can rely on for the long haul, and what I can't.
"The Lord grieves over the rich, because they find their consolation in the abundance of goods.341 'Let the proud seek and love earthly kingdoms, but blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.'342 Abandonment to the providence of the Father in heaven frees us from anxiety about tomorrow.343 Trust in God is a preparation for the blessedness of the poor. They shall see God."
(Catechism, 2547)
I'm not rich - but I do have possessions, and maybe it was time for me to get reminded that they're part of an impermanent world.

Or maybe I was being given a chance to practice patience and calmness.

I really don't know: and that's okay.

Related posts:
An article on the ZENIT website got me started on the line of thought that produced this post. It's about a milestone in the Catholic Church's history, about a century and a half back now. Here's an excerpt:
"Was it the best of times or the worst of times? As Rome celebrated Monday its 140th anniversary as the capital of Italy, the Church and the city came together to forget old wounds and look to an ever brighter future.

"On Sept. 20, 1870, the forces of the Risorgimento, the movement to unify the Italian states, were bombarding the northeastern gate of Rome, the Porta Pia. Inside the walls, the papal forces defended what had been the realm of the pontiff for over 1,000 years. As king of Rome, the pope had beautified the city, given it aqueducts, trains, museums, and hospitals, and had made the Eternal City one of the great sites of the world.

"But the papal kingdom was only a small part of the mosaic of the Italian peninsula. The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the republic of Venice and many other unstable pieces formed the political landscape of Italy. France and Austria claimed large pieces of Northern Italy while the southern region was under control of the Spain Bourbon kings. In the middle of these superpowers stood the Papal States.

"Italians, weary of foreign rule, began to reclaim their peninsula. Region by region, Italians reconquered their own land and history, until 1866 when the only territory remaining outside the Italian fold was Rome...."

"...The Italian army arrived at the gates of Rome, on Sept. 19, 1870, and began the siege. On Sept. 20, three hours of cannon fire tore open the Porta Pia, the elegant gate designed by Michelangelo for Pope Pius IV in 1565, and the Italian army entered the city. Pope Pius IX's orders were to lay down arms as soon as the city was breached, so as to protect the population of Rome. He escaped, smuggled out of the Quirinal palace into the Vatican walls where he died eight years later.

"But this sad day opened another new era of the Church, always aware that her 'kingdom was not of this world.' All the Church needed was, in the words of St. Francis, 'enough body to keep the soul together.' Seventy-nine years later, papal sovereignty over the Vatican area was recognized and Italy and the Holy See made peace.

"No longer responsible for upkeep, administration and protection of the city, the papacy could turn more completely to its role as universal pastor...."
(ZENIT.org)
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

God Flooded My House?!

A water pipe broke in the wee hours of Friday morning. I was up, finishing a bit of writing, and (eventually) realized that the sound of running water was not coming from the washing machine. I've been chronicling the cleanup, and left a new post in my personal blog today.

God Wills It, God Permits It: Not Quite the Same Thing

I'm a Catholic, so I believe that God not only made the universe: He upholds it. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 301)

It's quite easy to believe that, when the day is bright and clear and the day has gone well.

At 4:30 in the morning, with water trickling through the ground floor into the basement, believing that gets a little trickier.

I knew at the time that, even in a worst-case scenario, things could be a lot worse. When it comes to 'how bad can it get,' try what many folks in Haiti experienced earlier this year.

Still, this is my house and my family: so a bit of flooding in the house was a good opportunity for me to do some thinking.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses providence, secondary causes, and the scandal of evil. (Catechism, 302-314) Not that I'd call a broken water pipe in a central Minnesota house "evil." Like I said, it could be a lot worse.

That section ends with this observation:
"We firmly believe that God is master of the world and of its history. But the ways of his providence are often unknown to us. Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God 'face to face,'184 will we fully know the ways by which—even through the dramas of evil and sin—God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest185 for which he created heaven and earth."
(Catechism, 314)
Still: I'm not a particularly bad person. Why would God let that water pipe burst?

For that matter, why not?

Another idea: A person causing something to happen isn't the same as a person letting something happen.

Here's part of what a Pope had to say about wisdom, evil, and good:
"...Sacred Scripture assures us that: 'against wisdom evil does not prevail' (Wis 7:30). This strengthens our conviction that in the Creator's providential plan in regard to the world, in the last analysis evil is subordinated to good. Moreover, in the context of the integral truth about divine Providence, one is helped to better understand the two statements: 'God does not will evil as such' and 'God permits evil.' In regard to the first it is opportune to recall the words of the Book of Wisdom: 'God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things that they may exist' (Wis 1:13-14). As regards the permission of evil in the physical order, e.g., the fact that material beings (among them also the human body) are corruptible and undergo death, it must be said that this belongs to the very structure of the being of these creatures. In the present state of the material world, it would be difficult to think of the unlimited existence of every individual corporeal being. We can therefore understand that, if 'God did not make death,' as the Book of Wisdom states, he nonetheless permitted it in view of the overall good of the material cosmos...."
("The Presence of Evil and Suffering in the World," Pope John Paul II, General Audience (June 4, 1986))

Having All the Answers? Not Gonna Happen

Maybe that water pipe broke when it did, so that I'd have an opportunity to meditate on the transitory nature of the present world.

Maybe it happened so that we'd take a hard look at that part of the house, and get some repairs done.

Maybe my household's belongings were soaked and our lives temporarily disrupted for some mystical reason that my finite mind couldn't retain: even if God gave me full knowledge of His will in the matter.

I - really - don't - know.

And that's okay. After nearly 2,000 years of effort, there are things that the Catholic Church doesn't know. (May 3, 2010) That's okay, too. A little frustrating, maybe: but okay.

I don't expect to find all the answers in this world.

But that won't keep me from looking.

Sort-of-related posts:More:
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: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Marriage, Family, being a Father, and Certainty

"What do you want to be, when you grow up?"

Little boys, asked that question, were at one time, expected to respond with something like "a fireman" or "a cowboy."

Little girls, for most of my life, were most certainly not supposed to say "a mommy."

When I Grow Up, I Wanted to be A - - -

When I was young, I wanted to be a daddy.

That's not quite accurate. I simply assumed that, if things went right, I would be a dad. Sure, I'd have some sort of a job to earn money: but what I'd be would be a husband and father.

I also, since my late pre-teens, wanted to be a writer: but that wasn't quite in the 'what I want to be when I grow up' category. I thought - and think - of myself as a husband and father who writes. Not as a writer who woke up one morning and realized that he'd fathered a child.

I haven't been "young" by any reasonable standard, for quite a while. And I still wonder, sometimes, 'what do I want to be, when I grow up?'

More accurately, I feel, sometimes, that I somehow messed up, and missed what God wanted me to do with my life.

That's a feeling, and I don't assume that my fidelity to God's will depends on my feeling one way or another.

Shouldn't That be "A Parent?"

I think being a father is important. I think being a mother is important, too. I think being a parent is important.

But I'm a male human being. When I became a parent, I became a father. My wife is a female human being. Her version of "parent" is a mother. I realize that the idea of human beings coming in two sexes, and that there are functional, practical differences between the two isn't popular in some circles: but I'm stuck with the way things are. I've discussed that before. (May 12, 2010, September 26, 2009)

Given the way America has been for about the last 40 or 45 years, I'd better say this: I think mothers are important. Even if they don't make lots of money doing it.

I realize that assuming that a woman would want to have children and take personal responsibility for raising them is 'oppressive' or 'servile,' or 'demeaning.' Or was, back in my 'good old days.'

Some folks did - and some folks probably still do - think that boys are more important than girls, that boy stuff is cool and girl stuff is stupid. When someone over the age of, say, 10, still feels that way - I assume it's more that person's problem, than some fundamental property of girls and the women they become.1

Marrying and Raising a Family

Aside from a desire to write - which I didn't see so much as a career as something I could do - I didn't have a drive to 'be something' when I grew up, other than marry and raise a family.

I didn't see that as narrow, or confining, or a waste of my abilities. I saw being a husband and father as a reasonable goal. Which, finally, I achieved.

I'm even fairly sure that I was 'meant' to do this. Nothing terribly mystical: just that one day, when a young woman I knew was over, I came up the basement stairs and saw her, sitting at a table. I had a quite definite, quite silent, none-too-gushy realization that what that vignette represented - domesticity - was what I very much wanted.

No angel choirs, no blinding lights, no industrial-strength spiritual ruffles and flourishes. Just that sudden, rock-hard, cold realization of what my goal was.

I haven't seen that young woman in decades, by the way. The goal did not, at that point, involve any particular woman. Which is another topic.

Satisfied With My Decision? Certain?

I live in a small central Minnesota town, married to a woman who grew up here, and the father of four surviving children. I am satisfied with the choices which led me here.

But I'm not - in the emotional sense - always certain that I made the right choices. I've read that some folks never doubt themselves, never question whether or not they made the right choices. Perhaps they never had reason to.

I can't get inside anybody's mind, except my own - and some of the doors in there are sealed shut. Yet another topic. The point is that, even if I hadn't read Matthew 7:1-2, I might have realized that I simply don't have enough information to decide whether others are right or wrong about their self-evaluations.

Me? Sometimes I really don't feel certain that I've done anything right. The key word there is feel.

I've lived a distinctly imperfect life, and made some fairly daft - and occasionally downright wrong - decisions. The ones that led me to marriage and family, though: when I calm down and look at what I decided, and why I made the decisions, I'm fairly confident that I was right.

Which is about as good as I expect it to get.

Related posts:
1 If you're not surprised, shocked, or offended at the idea that a man can think that mothers are important, that women are people, and that a woman being a mother is okay: You probably don't need to read this footnote.

I've been called a male chauvinist pig.

Some of that epithet's true. I'm male.

The rest, not so much. I can understand why that label was used, though: my ideas about the nature of men and women are counter-cultural.

I think that, ideally, kids are better off when they have access to their mother at times other than evenings and weekends.

Remember, I said ideally. Some mothers were abandoned by the sorry excuse for a human being who fathered their child. Others are part of a family where both parents - and sometimes the older kids - need to work, just to keep a shelter around them and feed the lot.

Other women work because they want to feel actualized, or like money, or because hubby wants a bigger fishing boat.

And there are other factors. One of my sisters-in-law is a medical doctor: and pretty good at it. Healing runs in the family: she's the first to have made a culturally-recognized profession of it.

What do I think about her being a doctor? Her life, her call. And, apparently, her calling. I'm told that she was intent on being a doctor from a very early age.

There's a pretty good discussion of some aspects of women, work, and families from an American and Catholic point of view here:
There's a more general discussion of marriage in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1601-1666.
Posted by 2 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

  • A 'Saint Brian,' Sort of
    My name is Brian Gill. In keeping with the customs of my culture, the first name is one which my parents chose for me, the last is the name ...
  • Blind Mice; Heroism During the 'Batman' Killings
    The London 2012 Olympics start today: but instead of analyzing the significance of a South Korean flag being displayed with a North Korean...
  • A Catholic Citizen in America: New Location
    The good news is still that Blogger's changes haven't made images in my posts here unviewable. ( May 6-16, 2016 ) Instead of jumpi...
  • Mass Murder in Orlando
    I'd be writing a longer, more detailed, post about this; but still haven't resolved some technical issues. ( May 6, 2016 ; updated M...
  • Elijah and Pushing a Rock
    10th Sunday in Ordinary Time, 2016: 1 Kings 17:17 - 24 Galatians 1:11 - 19 Luke 7:11 - 17 Third Sunday of Easter, 2016 by Deacon L...

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.