Fourth Sunday in ordinary Time, 2010

Readings for January 31, 2010, Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time:

• Jer 1:4-5, 17-19
• 1 Cor 12:31-13:13 or 13:4-13
• Lk 4:21-30

---

Fourth Sunday in ordinary Time, 2010

By Deacon Lawrence N. Kaas
January 31, 2010

Ecclesiology is a big word Father used last week and is from the word Ecclesial pertaining to the Church as the community of believers, with stress on their Faith and union through Love, and on the invisible operation of divine grace among the faithful. I'm telling you this because we had to take a course on the subject before ordination. Our teacher was Abbot Jerome and he gives us this book to read and of course you look who wrote it and it says, Abbot Jerome, so I'm wondering is this the only way to get rid of this book?

As the story goes we are assigned to read the first three chapters for the first class. OK, so I read the chapters and Oh my Gosh, what did he try to say? So the next class I finally raised my hand and asked, "Abbot what were you trying to say in these three chapters?" And he laughed, and said you'll understand the rest of the book, so I said, "why would you write something that no one can understand?" You have to keep your standing in academia somehow, he said.

The point to be made, I think, is that it is not necessary to make Church that complicated. For the most part we are a simple people with a simple Faith hat reflects the Life of Christ in the World.

Some stories are happening right here in our parish: You may remember that some time ago Father had given a very good Homily about being GOOD. Very GOOD and well done. So next week was my turn to preach and so I titled my homily out loud: Good isn't good enough, you must be Holy. So what is come out of that is that as I greet people, I will often say, be good and they will respond, be holy. A simple greeting and yet meaningful. It's amazing how quickly the little kids caught on.

Another happening of late goes like this: I will say to someone, I worry about you! This went one for few weeks when one of the young ladies said, you should worry about him! That was my opening: There were a number of people and so I gathered them around and said to them, that I have a story to share! I said. "when my Agnes died and we gathered here, I walked into the Sanctuary and Bishop was setting in Father's chair, I didn't know he would be here, so I walked over and greeted him and said, we worry about you, and he said don't worry, pray. I responded, oh Bishop, it is a great privilege to worry about the people you Love! So you see, I told them, I worry about all of you because I Love you. If I didn't Love you I surely wouldn't worry about you. St, Paul, today, reminds us that Love never fails. Not only does Love never fail but it can not be made less by giving Love. Love given increases the capacity to Love. So if I say to you, I Love you, that doesn't mean I Love some one else less. Never, never be afraid to say I Love you!

Today's Gospel from Luke begins the story of the journey Jesus must make to instill the Good News of Salvation in the world. This journey of Jesus is the beginning of what was called the Way, well before the title Christian. Maybe the best way to share with you the 2nd half of my homily is to title it:

I WANT TO WALK WHERE JESUS WALKS.

How many times in prayer or meditation have you said to yourself, if only I could walk in the footsteps of Jesus! You will note that my title does not say were Jesus walked, but where Jesus walks. This is from a meditation while I was laying back in my chair trying to say a Rosary.

Be careful now because I have new hearing aids and I can almost hear someone thinking, OH, Oh, we're in trouble now, Deacon is thinking! Listen up, because I bet you haven't thought of this before either. So let us consider our coming here to church after telling someone that you are going to walk were Jesus walks.

First of all, why would you say that and how would you explain it to someone from your own experience? For a moment go back to the beginning of this homily and reflect, CHURCH. Then recall the exchange that Saul had with Christ on the Road to Damascus, From Act, 9, 4-5, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' "Who are you Sir?" The voice answered, "I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting." Father reminded us last week that therefore when you persecute the Church you are persecuting Jesus and when you persecute Christ you are persecuting the Church.

Please understand that because you were Baptized you are the property of the Father, adopted Sons and Daughters. Baptized, priest, prophet and king. You are to be other Christs in the world, to do, to say, to perform the works of Christ. So now we can say without question that were you walk, there walks Christ. Coming here with brothers and sisters you are therefore walking were Christ walks. Consider this: if Jesus can say to Saul, "why do you persecute me", then you, setting here are Church, the very Body of Christ.

Again: where you walk, there walks Christ. Consider this: Father Statz is ordained Priest, that is with a capital P, because of Ordination is in the person of Christ, therefore were he walks, there walks Christ. When he walks down this isle, here comes Christ. When he steps to the altar there steps Christ. I said something like that to a priest one time and he said, don't put that load on me! I answered, I didn't but your bishop did.

The problem with all of this is exactly as Father has been saying, the unwillingness to really believe in the Incarnation. Not only, if that were not enough, that God becomes man in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but that God in Jesus comes into us through Baptism and all the Sacraments, with highest value being in the receiving Jesus under the appearance of Bread and Wine.

Why can we not understand and believe that Jesus is who He says that He Is. You know the answer as well as I and know that is sin. I like to tell my 7th graders it is do to the new trinity, me, myself, and I. In other words, my will be done, not the will of God be done in my life. This is another one of these idea's that we come about late or often too late. God has created us individually for a purpose, however with a free will, to except or reject the plan of God in our lives. True happiness is to find that purpose and to fulfill it as best we can as a fore-image of what is awaiting us, Eternal Life with the Father in Heaven.

---

More:

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

Caritas in Veritate: Charity, Illumined by the Light of Reason and Faith

I've been reading about disclosure and disclaimers lately, so I'll start with one.

I'm a devout Catholic. And, I'm a Catholic layman. My opinions and observations are my own. I do my best to make sure that they're in line with Catholic teaching, though.

Okay. Where was I. Right. section 7 of Caritas in Veritate. Today's first stop: section 8.

It starts with a reference back to Pope Paul VI's Populorum Progressio encyclical. (Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Development of Peoples (March 26, 1967))

"...He taught that life in Christ is the first and principal factor of development[6] and he entrusted us with the task of travelling the path of development with all our heart and all our intelligence[7], that is to say with the ardour of charity and the wisdom of truth...."
(Caritas in Veritate, Section 8)

Pope Benedict XVI drops the names of a couple other encyclicals, too:

• "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis"
  Pope John Paul II December 30, 1987)
  
• "Rerum Novarum"
  Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII | On Capital and Labor (May 15, 1891)

Before John Paul II's Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, only Rerum Novarum had been commemorated with a follow-up encyclical. Section 8 ends with this:

"...I express my conviction that Populorum Progressio deserves to be considered 'the Rerum Novarum of the present age', shedding light upon humanity's journey towards unity."
(Caritas in Veritate, Section 8)

Starting section 9 now. Globalization is happening. No surprises there. There are places where people grow, make, or catch everything they need: but they're getting fewer by the generation. Can't say that I'm sorry about moving out of the stone age, myself: but that's another topic.

Another quote:

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

The original had the words I show in bold in italics, presumably for emphasis. Since I've been in the habit of putting quotes more than about a sentence long in italics, I'd have to either change the format of this blog - and others - or find another way to show emphasis. What can I say? I took the easy way out.

Faith and Reason?!

The idea that faith and reason, religion and science are at war with each other is pretty firmly rooted in Western culture: sort of like a persistent wart.

I've written about this before. ("Faith and Reason, Religion and Science" (March 20, 2009), " 'If you must see ghosts ...' Materialism, Being Spiritual, and Uncle Deadly" (December 18, 2009))

Back to Caritas in Veritate, Section 9

"Praxis"?! I can see why some people prefer what I'll call 'sound bite Christianity' - anchoring religious feelings onto a few uplifting, short, and simple phrases. That's not my style, to put it mildly.

"Praxis" means "translating an idea into action". (Princeton's WordNet)

So, why didn't the Pope write "translating an idea into action," if that's what he meant? For one thing, my guess is that we're looking at the official English translation of the original, and that as many terms as practical were left 'as is.' For another, which is shorter: "praxis" or "translating an idea into action"?

But I'm getting off-topic.

When Caritas in Veritate came out, someone said that the Pope was "purposefully vague". (July 18, 2009) There's some truth - a little - in that.

I've said this before: The Catholic Church isn't American. It's quite literally the "universal" Church.

There are Catholics in places like America, Kenya, Argentina and Philippines. Those countries don't all have the same culture, the same local language, and the same economic circumstances.

Which makes this excerpt make sense, I think:

"...The Church does not have technical solutions to offer[10] and does not claim 'to interfere in any way in the politics of States.'[11] She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is easy to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values - sometimes even the meanings - with which to judge and direct it...."
(Caritas in Veritate, section 9)

There's a very good reason for not offering (or ordering) "technical solutions" for all churches in all countries.

We're not all alike.

Take liturgical dance, for example. The Catholic Church has very clear teachings on whether or not it's okay to dance as part of a Mass:

• Yes!
• No!

It depends on where you are. (January 10, 2010)

That business of not interfering with the policies of states? You won't see the Catholic Church saying something like "Thou Shalt Not Drive upon the Left Side of the Road." On the other hand, when state policy involves infanticide: Then you can expect the Church to bring up moral issues.

There's that thing about truth, again.

"...For this reason the Church searches for truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it is manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church can never renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the truth which sets us free. Open to the truth...."
(Caritas in Veritate, section 9)

It was that sort of passion for truth that led me to the church, decades back. But that's another topic.

Next stop in Caritas in Veritate: Chapter One. Everything up to now's been part of the Introduction. Hoo boy.

Related posts on:

Faith and reason:
• "Caritas in Veritate, Charity in Truth: 'Purposefully Vague'?"
  (July 18, 2009)
• " 'Pope blasts capitalism' - but Keep Reading"
  (July 17, 2009)
• Rules
  • "Life, Death, Theft, and Catholic Teaching: Who Said This Was Easy?"
    (January 23, 2010)
  • "Accommodating Indigenous Cultures: Including Ours"
    (January 10, 2010)
  • "Are You a Boy, or Are You a Girl?"
    (September 26, 2009)
  • "Animals: Yeah, the Catholic Church has Rules About Them, Too"
    (August 17, 2009)

---

Links to other posts about my study of Caritas in Veritate:

• "Caritas in Veritate, Charity in Truth, Link Page "

Supreme Court Lets Foreigners Influence American Elections! Or, Not

Take what you hear with a grain of salt.

That's good advice.

Case in point: that Supreme Court decision that will let those foreigners influence American elections? Not everybody sees it the same way.

"Obama Misrepresents the Citizens United Decision"
Shannen Coffin, The Corner, National Review (January 28, 2010)

"The Supreme Court is not — and certainly should not — be above criticism. President Bush made it a point not to criticize the Court's detainee decisions in Hamdan and Rasul — and probably missed a political opportunity. But he apparently considered it unpresidential to attack Court rulings.

By contrast, President Obama displayed an utter lack of tact in his criticism of the Court's decision in Citizens United. Obama preened for political applause while members of the Court had to sit stoically on their hands. That Justice Alito betrayed his feelings in a minor way is understandable — and not simply because he's from New Jersey, as my South Jersey wife said. In his preening, Obama flatly misrepresented the ruling. Citizens United is a 57-page opinion that most Americans wouldn't have a good reason to read – and, quite frankly, I wouldn't blame them for not reading it. Obama understands that most Americans are susceptible to misleading comments about the decision. In claiming that the Court had opened the floodgates to foreign corporations' spending without limit in our elections, he sought to take political advantage of that susceptibility. Brad Smith, who has forgotten more about campaign-finance law than I'll ever know, explained the applicable statutes in his post last night.

"But you needn't take Brad's word for it. The Court itself made clear that its opinion did not address the question of whether the government can regulate improper foreign influence over our electoral process. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy expressly stated: 'We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process.' In support of that carve-out, the Court acknowledged the statute Brad discussed, 2 U.S.C. section 441e, which bans contributions and expenditures from foreign nationals. So Obama's attack was a blatant misrepresentation of the holding of the case. And given that his top White House lawyer is a seasoned campaign-finance attorney, it is hard to believe that it was not an intentional misrepresentation...."

Yes, Shannen Coffin has a particular point of view. And it's not unconditionally laudatory toward the first Hawaiian president.

I've seen and heard what President Obabma said.

I'm inclined to agree with much of what Coffin said.

Like I said: 'Take what you hear with a grain of salt' is pretty good advice. Particularly if it comes from an American subculture with a track record for - remarkable - statements.

Related posts:

• "The Manhattan Declaration: Hateful? - Who Knew?"
  (November 21, 2009)
• "John Holdren Quote Could be Accurate: That Bothers Me"
  (October 30, 2009)
• "Barack Obama, 'Safe Schools' Czar's Oopsie, and Prayer"
  (October 1, 2009)
• " 'I Hate Barack Obama' - Maybe Not the Best Message from a Pulpit"
  (September 1, 2009)
• "Notre Dame, Obama, and 'Outside Agitators' - a Blast From the Past"
  (May 17, 2009)
• "Fear of Right-Wing Extremism: Commie-Hunting in Reverse"
  (April 19, 2009)
• "Pro-Life? You May be a Dangerous Domestic Terrorist! MIAC Says So"
  (March 23, 2009)

Rebellious Youth, Protests, and The Establishment: in 2010

"Pro-Life Youth & Enthusiasm Frighten the Opposition"
National Catholic Register (January 26, 2010)

"Of all the news stories I've read describing this year's March for Life in Washington D.C., none make me prouder or more hopeful for the future than this little piece by Robert McCartney in the Washington Post:

" 'I went to the March for Life rally Friday on the Mall expecting to write about its irrelevance. Isn't it quaint, I thought, that these abortion protesters show up each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, even though the decision still stands after 37 years. What's more, with a Democrat in the White House likely to appoint justices who support abortion rights, surely the Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Roe in the foreseeable future.

"How wrong I was. The antiabortion movement feels it's gaining strength, even if it’s not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous.'

"Did you catch that?

"McCartney admits that he went in with an agenda, planning to serve up some of the main-stream media usual: The pro-life movement is a dying cause kept alive by a few angry old men, young people are overwhelmingly pro-choice, women are underrepresented, ... etc.

"But what he saw would not allow him to report such things.

"Half of the crowd, he estimated, were younger than 30...."

I suspect that, as more youngsters catch on that they're the survivors of the 'right to choose,' we'll be hearing and reading about fear-mongering demagogues spreading divisiveness among the masses.

But I'm not discouraged. I don't expect to see Roe v Wade overturned in my lifetime: but I do think that America will, eventually, catch on that killing babies isn't nice and we shouldn't do it.

Good Morning, Information Age!

This isn't the sixties any more. I can see big changes happening.

• Energized young people in the pro-life movement
• The Web and online communities making it possible to share important, detailed information
  • even if
    • ABC, CBS and NBC news aren't interested
    • NPR won't touch it
    • The New York Times doesn't think it's 'news that's fit to print'
• The establishment branding people whose opinions it finds distasteful as dangerous radicals
  • Or "domestic terrorists and violent racketeers"
  • Remember the McCarthy era?
    • And what it did to what we now call 'social conservatism'?

Like I said, I don't expect to see a reversal of Roe v Wade in my lifetime: but I've been wrong before.

That comment I made about "the establishment" may require a little explanation. The phrase sounds so - sixties.

"The Establishment" - Woodstock to Political Correctness

Back in the days of love beads and Woodstock, "the establishment" was largely white, still thought of itself as 'Anglo' and was - in my opinion - blind to the threat posed by its moonbat-crazy supporters.

I've written before, about the McCarthy era, blacklists, and the dark side of 'happy days.' Some of it's in the "Related posts", below. By the sixties, many young people and a fair number of their elders had become dissatisfied - at best - with "the establishment."

That was then.

Today, many of the campus radicals - who are around my age - have moved on with their lives. Some opted for the corporate career track: hey, carrying protest signs and blowing up campus offices wears thin after a while. Others went into politics: and are still there.

From the looks of it, the elders of 'the establishment' may have forgotten what it was that turned them off, nearly a half-century ago.

I suppose it's harder to see how crazy statements make you look - when you really believe them.

Related posts:

• "Abortion, 'Health Care,' 'Life of the Mother,' and a Story About Two Guys"
  (November 20, 2009)
• "Shocker! American Bishops Seek Conscience Exemption from Killing Babies"
  (November 9, 2009)
• "Kennedys, Catholicism, and Abortion: So That's What Happened"
  (August 26, 2009)
• "Late Term Abortions Reality Check"
  (June 2, 2009)
• "Pro-Life People - 'Domestic Terrorists and Violent Racketeers:' Who Knew?"
  (June 1, 2009)
• "Fear of Right-Wing Extremism: Commie-Hunting in Reverse"
  (April 19, 2009)

---

A tip of the hat to CatholicNewsSvc, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the National Catholic Register article.

"God Created Man in His Image" wasn't Written by an American

This post started out with research for another blog. ("Space Aliens and Killer Monster Robots - From Outer Space; or Pittsburgh," Apathetic Lemming of the North (January 25, 2010)). Last year, an article at Space.com started this way:

"What Will Aliens Really Look Like?"
Space.com (July 16, 2009)

"According to Genesis 1:27, 'God created man in His own image.' OK, but what about all the other intelligent, cosmic inhabitants? Well, Hollywood has taken care of that. It has created aliens in man's image.

"It's hardly a major revelation to point out that most movie aliens bear a strong likeness to humans...."

I've mentioned what I see as "the profound lack of appreciation for poetry and metaphor in contemporary western thought" before. (January 3, 2010) Someday, maybe, I'll do a post on that idea. Not today.

I think it's very probable that whoever wrote that article, judging from the style and assumptions, was an American. I like this country, and am glad to be an American. But my fellow-citizens, as a group, aren't particularly renowned for an appreciation of what can't be weighed, scanned, or caught on sensor arrays.

The article cited Genesis 1:27. I'll go back a verse, to get a little more of the context:

"...⁴Then God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.' God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them."
(Genesis 1:26-27)

I've discussed that 'image of God' idea before, generally when writing about the vocation of marriage.

The footnote to verse 26 is important:

"Man is here presented as the climax of God's creative activity; he resembles God primarily because of the dominion God gives him over the rest of creation."

The very literal American mind, nearly devoid of poetry or metaphor, reads "God created man in his image" and thinks about photographs, MRI scans, and physical replicas.

Which would lead me to wonder if God was five-foot-seven, like me, five-foot-nothing like my wife; and whether He had brown, blond or black hair. Or if the Almighty was like me, balding.

Assuming that the passage of Genesis wasn't written by a literal-minded Westerner of the late Industrial or early Information age allows me to think that Genesis 1:26-27 isn't about what we look like. It's about what we are.

The Catechism has a few words to say on the subject of man and the image of God. A pretty good place to start would be 1701-1709 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

More-or-less-related posts:

• " 'If you must see ghosts ...' Materialism, Being Spiritual, and Uncle Deadly"
  (December 18, 2009)
• "The Manhattan Declaration: Hateful? - Who Knew?"
  (November 21, 2009)
• "Astrobiology, the Vatican, and the Meaning of Our Existence"
  (November 12, 2009)
• "Copernicus, Galileo, Science and a Reality Check"
  (October 26, 2009)
• "Are You a Boy, or Are You a Girl?"
  (September 26, 2009)
• "Dinosaurs, Mutant Chickens, Evolution, and Faith in God"
  (June 29, 2009)

Caritas in Veritate: Charity, Justice, and the Common Good

Last time I posted about Caritas in Veritate was in August of 2009. I'd been reading Section 5, where Caritas in Veritate gets into charity and the Church's social teaching.

First, though, three words about practical charity:

• Haiti
• Earthquake
• Relief

My household gave, at a second collection in today's Mass at Our Lady of the Angels church. Maybe you've donated already. In case you haven't, or want to help again, there's a list of charities in another blog's post:

• "Haiti: About the Earthquake, Relief, and Related Topics"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North

Back to Caritas in Veritate.

Section 6 is about justice, mostly. The common good is mentioned, but that's more a Section 7 thing. The second paragraph starts with:

"...First of all, justice. Ubi societas, ibi ius: every society draws up its own system of justice. Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is 'mine' to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is 'his', what is due to him by reason of his being or his acting...."
(Section 6)

Charity isn't justice, and justice isn't charity: but you can't have charity without justice.

"...Not only is justice not extraneous to charity, not only is it not an alternative or parallel path to charity: justice is inseparable from charity[1], and intrinsic to it. Justice is the primary way of charity or, in Paul VI's words, 'the minimum measure' of it[2], an integral part of the love 'in deed and in truth' (1 Jn 3:18), to which Saint John exhorts us. On the one hand, charity demands justice: recognition and respect for the legitimate rights of individuals and peoples...."
(Section 6)

Well, that's clear enough.

The section goes on to talk about the effort we're called to make, building an earthly "according to law and justice". Rights and duties are basics: but we're expected to have relationships of mercy and communion - with "gratuitousness". "Gratuitousness" isn't a word I run into all that much. I checked, and sure enough: "gratuitousness" means 'the state of being gratuitous'. And gratuitous means "costing nothing" or "unnecessary and unwarranted". (Princeton's WordNet)

So, we're expected to be merciful without having a reason, or expecting reward: and to give with the same conditions - or lack thereof?

I think it's more the 'not expecting a reward' part that's meant here. I've yet to run into something in Catholic teaching that's unreasonable. Difficult, yes. Unpleasant, sometimes. But not unreasonable.

Section 7 talks about the common good.

"...To love someone is to desire that person's good and to take effective steps to secure it. Besides the good of the individual, there is a good that is linked to living in society: the common good...."
(Section 7)

In other words, "my end of the boat isn't sinking" isn't a valid position.

Okay, so action is called for. What are we supposed to do?

"...To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly, politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or 'city'. The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them...."
(Section 7)

In other words, "get involved?" Works for me.

So, as long as we are involved with what's going on in our own town or city, we're okay, right?

Sort of.

There's more, as usual.

"Think globally" is probably a cliche by now - with connotations of love beads and protest banners. Just the same, this is the 21st century. People get around. I live in a small town in central Minnesota, but my circle of friends and acquaintances extends around the world. So, in all probability, does yours.

"...In an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the effort to obtain it cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the whole human family, that is to say, the community of peoples and nations[5], in such a way as to shape the earthly city in unity and peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a prefiguration of the undivided city of God...."
(Section 7)

You don't have to be a dedicated secularist, or someone who's yearning for the worker's paradise, to recognize that we're all neighbors. And, act on that recognition.

Not that there's anything wrong with nations, or being a good citizen of the nation you're in. Actually, being a good citizen is a requirement. (June 9, 2009) I've no illusions about America being perfect, but on the whole I like this country - which makes being a good citizen here easier. But, easy or not: it's a requirement for a Catholic.

And, clearly, I'm also expected to be a 'good citizen' for humanity as a whole. Not all by myself, thank God.

Let's see. I've read and studied seven sections in Caritas in Veritate. There are 79 in all. I've got 72 to go.

As I've written before, this could take a while.

---

Links to other posts about my study of Caritas in Veritate:

• "Caritas in Veritate, Charity in Truth, Link Page "

Life, Death, Theft, and Catholic Teaching: Who Said This Was Easy?

Someone in Haiti died when a few other folks broke a concrete block over his head. They were under the impression that he had stolen money. They could be right. Or, not.

The incident got me thinking about how I'd act in less-than-ideal circumstances. In another blog, I came up with this:

"Stealing is Wrong, Right?

"Don't get me wrong: there's a reason why 'don't steal' is part of what Moses carried down from Sinai.

"But consider a hypothetical situation: You survived an earthquake. The town you live in is mostly knocked flat, but at least now many of the fires are out. It's hot. You helped pull a few people out of the grocery down the street. You can tell from the smell that others didn't make it. The local police force, fire department - the whole city staff - are either dead or putting out fires - literally - on the other side of town. The people you're responsible for are wounded, sick, and haven't eaten for days.

"Is it wrong to salvage food from the grocery, while it's still edible? Maybe not.

"Is it wrong to salvage your neighbor's plasma screen television? Probably...."
(Vigilante Justice isn't Nice: Haiti," Apathetic Lemming of the North (January 23, 2010))

That "maybe not" wasn't entirely satisfying, so I kept thinking. And researching.

Stealing is Wrong: Right

There's a whole article in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on stealing. (2401-2463) Bottom line? Don't.

That section covers quite a lot of territory: including the treatment of animals, games of chance, and economic justice. Some key points, toward the end:

"'You shall not steal' (Ex 20:15; Deut 5:19). 'Neither thieves, nor the greedy . . ., nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God' (1 Cor 6:10).

The seventh commandment enjoins the practice of justice and charity in the administration of earthly goods and the fruits of men's labor.

The goods of creation are destined for the entire human race. The right to private property does not abolish the universal destination of goods.

The seventh commandment forbids theft. Theft is the usurpation of another's goods against the reasonable will of the owner."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2450-2453)

Aha! It says "reasonable will of the owner"! I can take that food. Give me a running start, and I'll cobble together an excuse for taking that plasma screen television, too.

Or, not.

Check this out:

"A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).³⁹

The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

"II. Good Acts and Evil Acts

"A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting 'in order to be seen by men').

"The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts—such as fornication—that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

"It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it."
(Catechism, 1753-1756)

Okay. That's clear enough. The end doesn't justify the means.

On the other hand, I might not need to let my household starve, with a supply of food nearby.

"In virtue of commutative justice, reparation for injustice committed requires the restitution of stolen goods to their owner:

"Jesus blesses Zacchaeus for his pledge: 'If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.'¹⁹³ Those who, directly or indirectly, have taken possession of the goods of another, are obliged to make restitution of them, or to return the equivalent in kind or in money, if the goods have disappeared, as well as the profit or advantages their owner would have legitimately obtained from them. Likewise, all who in some manner have taken part in a theft or who have knowingly benefited from it—for example, those who ordered it, assisted in it, or received the stolen goods—are obliged to make restitution in proportion to their responsibility and to their share of what was stolen."

(Catechism, 2412)

I sincerely hope that I never have to make decisions like that.

I'm Expected to Not Steal: I'm Also Expected to Not Let My Family Die

I am, God help us, head of this household. I knew what I was agreeing to, when I married.

"This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: 'Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,' adding at once: 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church.'¹¹⁰"
(Catechism, 1616)

My Lord died for the sake of the Church. I'm more use to my wife and family alive, now, but if my death means that my wife lives: I die.

If that doesn't sound like the version of Christianity or Catholicism you've heard about: I don't doubt it. There have been - and are - jerks who have cherry-picked what they like out of the Bible and tradition, and ignored the rest. I've written about this before, and probably will again. (June 21, 2009, November 24, 2009, for starters)

Oh, great. I can't let my family starve. I can't salvage food and supplies, because that would be stealing. And I can't quit, either.

Decisions, Decisions

I've got choices. They can be narrowed down to two. Here's how I'd probably explain them:

1. "I followed the letter of the law, and let my household die as a result. Wasn't that virtuous of me?"
2. "I stole to keep my household alive. The decision was mine, not theirs. I am responsible for the theft, and died before I could make restitution to the owner's heir."

When I'm called to judgment, and get serious face time with the Lamb of God, Redeemer of the world, only Son of the Father, the incarnate Word, I'd rather be dealing with option 2, than option 1.

Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell: Not Exactly Warm Fuzzies

That "judgment" thing sounds so - judgmental. Can't say that I'm particularly looking forward to it.

"Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.⁵⁹² The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul—a destiny which can be different for some and for others.⁵⁹³"
(Catechism, 1021)

Okay: so it doesn't give me warm fuzzies. So?

The hypothetical situation, whether or not to steal from a collapsed building, is one I'll probably never face. But unless my life ends really soon, I will have other decisions to make, and some probably won't be easy.

A sort of bottom line for me has been what I heard once: "It's easier to ask forgiveness, than permission."

Vaguely-related posts:

• "Vigilante Justice isn't Nice: Haiti"
  (January 23, 2010)
• "Vaccines, Aborted Babies, and Catholic Bioethics"
  (October 26, 2009)
• "Death, Dying, Dignity, Intravenous Tubes and Catholic Teachings"
  (September 22, 2009)
• "Animals: Yeah, the Catholic Church has Rules About Them, Too"
  (August 17, 2009)
• "Dinosaurs, Mutant Chickens, Evolution, and Faith in God"
  (June 29, 2009)

Hating People: Not a Good Idea

I wouldn't like to have someone telephone me, and direct my attention to a burning cross in front of the home of one of my relatives.

I wouldn't like that at all.

Legislating Beliefs / Protecting the Innocent

Allowing hate to determine beliefs and actions isn't, I think, a good idea.

But I'm not convinced that 'hate crime legislation' is a good idea, either. It's too close to establishing legal controls on what people think. Crimethink, anyone?

On the other hand, I think I understand why intent is sometimes considered in criminal cases.

Like this:

"Louisiana Man Convicted of Civil Rights Violation in Connection with Cross-Burning"
Press release, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New Orleans (January 22, 2010)

"Daniel Earl Danforth of Minden, La., was convicted yesterday by a jury in Shreveport, La., of a civil rights conspiracy, use of fire in the commission of a federal felony, and obstruction of justice in connection with a cross-burning near the home of an interracial couple in Athens, La., the Justice Department announced.

"Sentencing has been set for April 14, 2010. At sentencing, Danforth, 31, faces a maximum penalty of 10 years for the civil rights conspiracy; 20 years for obstruction of justice; and an additional 10 years for use of fire.

"At trial, evidence revealed that on Oct. 23 or 24, 2008, Danforth agreed with his two cousins to build, erect, and burn a cross near the homes of a cousin and her African-American boyfriend (now husband), and other relatives who approved of their interracial relationship. Danforth and his co-conspirators built the cross using two pine trees, wire or cable, and a large nail. One of Danforth's cousins then went to get diesel fuel to use to burn the cross. Meanwhile, Danforth and his other cousin transported the cross to an area adjacent to the victims' homes where, using chainsaw gas, they set the cross on fire in order to intimidate the victims. On Oct. 26, 2008, Danforth telephoned a relative who was living with the victims and directed her to the location of the burned cross...."

The press release doesn't mention the Ku Klux Klan or white supremacists: but let's face it. Anybody who's lived in America during the last century is going to associate burning crosses with the KKK.

There's a reason for that.

Earlier in the 20th century, the KKK had used burning crosses as a sort of propaganda weapon against people they didn't approve of. By the sixties, those burning crosses had become emblems not only of the KKK, but of opposition to the civil rights movement. Which is another topic.

That illustration was made in 1928, by the Reverend Branford Clarke. It was, according to the Wikipedia description page, an "illustration in Heroes of the Fiery Cross".

I think the good reverend deserves credit for putting that "THE BALLOT" label on the Klansman's club. Very civilized of him.

Most - many, anyway - Americans probably know that the various iterations of the KKK weren't all that happy with black people being free. Or being around, for that matter.

The KKK's Attitude Toward Catholics, Jews, and Other 'Furriners'

What isn't as obvious to someone immersed in American culture is the Klan's attitude toward Jews, Catholics, and other people who weren't just like them. (Jackson 1992 ed., pp. 241-242. Jackson, Kenneth T. (1967; 1992 edition). "The Ku Klux Klan in the City, 1915-1930." Oxford University Press, as cited in a Wikipedia article)

I would be upset about white supremacists' expressed hatred toward blacks, even if that were the only group they despised.

But I think it's okay to point out that some cliques of 'real Americans' are none too well-disposed toward other groups, too.

This was Too Weird Not to Mention

While researching this post, I ran into some - strange - ideas. Like this, in a page explaining the (alleged) Satanic origins of the KKK: "...the Catholic Church, run and controlled by the Jews had control of nearly all of the wealth and power..."

Whether the person who put that online really believes it, or it's some sort of practical joke, I don't know. And yes: I checked. the domain for that page is registered by an outfit in the United States.

As with so many other odd beliefs, there's a germ of truth there.

The Catholic Church is controlled by a Jew: and was founded by one. Jesus of Nazareth's mother and foster-father were both Jews. My Lord made no secret of his Jewishness.

I'm just glad that gentiles can join His outfit. (just a thought: check out Galatians 2, and read the whole chapter)

(more: "'Catholics and Muslims along with the fake Jews all are Satanic Cults' - Who Knew?," (April 2, 2009))

But That Couple was Living in SIN! How Can I Defend Them?

Yeah: I noticed that the couple had been living together before they were formally married. Not the best idea, I think: but putting a burning cross in their front yard isn't the right approach.

I've been over this sort of thing before:

"Catholicism Does Not Teach Hate

"I don't expect to convince true believers of contrary philosophies, but the Catholic Church doesn't teach hate. There are Catholics who hate others - and sometimes themselves - and some of them may believe, ardently, that the Catholic Church is on the same page as they are.

"They're wrong.

"The Catholic Church has some markedly counter-cultural beliefs about sin: for starters, that it exists. But hating a sin is not the same as hating a sinner. I wrote about that in connection with the supposed object of hatred in this crime, earlier this year. (March 13, 2009)

"I know: there are wack jobs who say that they're Christian and appear to have very little going for them except hatred for a short list of preferred targets: blacks, Jews, foreigners and Catholics often make the list. (October 2, 2008) But I don't assume that they're any more representative of Protestant Christianity, than politicos like Pelosi are representative of Catholicism. (March 8, 2009)

"And yes: these little 'First Church of Holy Hate' groups generally teach hate of homosexuals, too...."
(August 1, 2009)

There was a fellow in America, not too long ago, who killed a number of people because he thought they were having sex, the wrong way.

Oh, right: I've written about that, too:

"Having Sex With People You're Not Married to and/or Animals Isn't Nice

"The Catholic Church has made no efforts to conform the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium, to contemporary social fashions. One thing the Catholic Church is rather picky about is restricting people's sex lives to members of their own species - who they are married to. (2380, Leviticus 13:24) (The Church's concern for animals doesn't end there: Catechism 2417, 2418, for starters)

"To hear some people talk, you'd think the Catholic Church was against people having any fun at all.

"Murder isn't Nice, Either

"As I've written before, 'murder isn't nice, and you shouldn't do it.' (July 23, 2009) Not even if you're killing someone who's doing something you don't particularly approve of...."
(July 24, 2009)

Back to the question in the heading: how can I defend that couple?

It doesn't matter that the Church doesn't approve of shacking up without getting married first. Those folks are people who are due the same respect as anyone else: and who should have a reasonable expectation of safety in their home.

A burning cross on the lawn, given America's history, tends to make people who aren't 100-percent White Anglo-Saxon Protestant a bit uneasy. And I should think it would give a WASP cause for concern.

The 'interracial couple' angle? With my family connections, that really isn't an issue.

Catholicism and Emotions

I'm a very emotional man: but I didn't become a Catholic because of feelings. One thing that appealed to me about the Church was that you didn't have to be emotionally charged up to 'really believe' by Catholic standards.

On the other hand, Catholics can be as emotional as their nature permits - provided that they decide to make good use of their emotions.

"In themselves passions [emotions] are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, 'either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.'⁴⁴ It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.⁴⁵

"Strong feelings are not decisive for the morality or the holiness of persons; they are simply the inexhaustible reservoir of images and affections in which the moral life is expressed. Passions are morally good when they contribute to a good action, evil in the opposite case. The upright will orders the movements of the senses it appropriates to the good and to beatitude; an evil will succumbs to disordered passions and exacerbates them. Emotions and feelings can be taken up into the virtues or perverted by the vices."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1765)

Bottom line? By themselves, emotions aren't good and they aren't bad. But we're supposed to use our emotions, not the other way around. That's where morality comes in.

"The term 'passions' refers to the affections or the feelings. By his emotions man intuits the good and suspects evil.

"The principal passions are love and hatred, desire and fear, joy, sadness, and anger.

"In the passions, as movements of the sensitive appetite, there is neither moral good nor evil. But insofar as they engage reason and will, there is moral good or evil in them.

"Emotions and feelings can be taken up in the virtues or perverted by the vices.

"The perfection of the moral good consists in man's being moved to the good not only by his will but also by his 'heart.' "
(1771-1775)

Why Do I Reject Racism? I'm Just Following Orders

It's easy for me to assume that people should be accepted as people. Even if they didn't look just like me. But even if it weren't I'd do so.

Because I'm a Catholic, and it's in the rules.

"The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:

"Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design."⁴⁰

Not to seem confrontational, but if you've got a problem with that: don't take it up with me, talk to God.

Vaguely-related posts:

• "Jessica Logan, Sexting, Suicide, What Guys Want, and Malignant Virtue"
  (December 8, 2009)
• "Who Knew? Assertions, Assumptions and Assorted Weirdness from All Over"
  (most recent update: November 21, 2009)
• " 'I Hate Barack Obama' - Maybe Not the Best Message from a Pulpit"
  (September 1, 2009)
• "Tolerance: Yes, it's a Good Idea"
  (August 3, 2009)
• "Three Killed in Tel Aviv Gay Youth Club: There's No Excuse"
  (August 1, 2009)
• "Beach Killer Joseph Burges: A Case of Horribly Warped Christianity"
  (July 24, 2009)
• "Psycho Santa's Slaying"
  (December 26, 2008)
• "Obama, the Black Pope, and American Culture"
  (November 12, 2008)

---

A tip of the hat to FBIPressOffice, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the press release.

Public Displays of Devotion, a Diverted Flight, and Me

I've been wearing a crucifix around my neck for some time now. Since last Lent, if memory serves. It's not particularly large - a bit over an inch and a half high - but hard to miss. The priest with Our Lady of the Angels parish, here in Sauk Centre, recommended that we wear these, praying each day during Lent, then giving the chaplet (the crucifix plus the knotted cord it's attached to) to the person we were praying for. I gave mine to my father: the one I'm wearing now is an 'extra' the household had.



For me, that crucifix isn't a fashion statement. The jewelry I wear are functional, meaningful symbols: a ring to show that I'm married, a bracelet that identifies me as a diabetic - and now this crucifix, which identifies me as a Catholic.

At least, that's the idea.

One of the problems with the display of symbols to communicate is that not everybody knows what the symbols mean.

Like a passenger on USAir Flight 3079, run by Chautequa Air, here in America:

"Religious item led to false bomb scare on US plane"
Reuters (January 21, 2010)

"A bomb scare that led to the diversion of a US Airways (LCC.N) flight to Philadelphia on Thursday was caused by a mistaken belief that a religious item was a bomb, Philadelphia police said...."

"...A passenger was alarmed by the phylacteries, religious items which observant Jews strap around their arms and heads as part of morning prayers, on the flight from New York's La Guardia airport heading to Louisville...."

"Flight Diverted To Philly After Incident"
myFOX New York (January 21, 2010)

"A plane made an emergency landing at Philadelphia International Airport on Thursday morning after an apparent misunderstanding over a man using a Jewish prayer device. There were fears the device was a bomb.

"The plane was headed from LaGuardia Airport to Louisville. The plane was USAir Flight 3079 run by Chautequa Air. The plane was described as a small commuter plane that holds 50 passengers. It's unknown how many people were on the plane.

"Sources now tell Fox News that a man on a plane was using a teffilin, a leather box worn on the arm and head during certain Jewish services and he was praying on the plane. Teffilin are a set of small cubic leather boxes painted black, containing scrolls of parchment inscribed with verses from the Bible...."

Not All Phylacteries are Teffilins

In one sense, I'm wearing a phylactery, sort of, right now. It's a generic term that's gotten to have a very specific meaning in American English: "phylactery, tefillin ((Judaism) either of two small leather cases containing texts from the Hebrew Scriptures (known collectively as tefillin); traditionally worn (on the forehead and the left arm) by Jewish men during morning prayer) " (Princeton's WordNet) Merriam-Webster Online does a better job:

• phy·lac·tery
  • "Pronunciation:
    • \fə-ˈlak-t(ə-)rē\"
  • Etymology:
    • Middle English philaterie, from Medieval Latin philaterium, alteration of Late Latin phylacterium, from Greek phylaktērion amulet, phylactery, from phylassein to guard, from phylak-, phylax guard
  • 1
    • "either of two small square leather boxes containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages and traditionally worn on the left arm and on the head by observant Jewish men and especially adherents of Orthodox Judaism during morning weekday prayers"
  • 2
    • "amulet"
    (Merriam-Webster Online)

Today's passenger was wearing a tefillin. In American English, we call a tefillin a "phylactery."

Which, according to Merriam-Webster, is a sort of amulet.

Let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say about "amulet:" "a charm (as an ornament) often inscribed with a magic incantation or symbol to aid the wearer or protect against evil (as disease or witchcraft)". (Merriam-Webster Online) It's also the name of a hardcore punk band - but that's an entirely different topic.

Phylacteries? Amulets? How Superstitious Can You Get?

I can see where a nice, normal, all-American might assume that the crucifix I'm wearing is an amulet, sort of, in the Merriam-Webster Online sense of the word.

It's got inscriptions on it: "INRI" on the front and "Italy" on the back. Actually, the one I have has "INR" - the last "I" either got worn off - or didn't make it through the manufacturing process.

"Italy" is there, because that's where the pieces of metal were formed into their present shape. Nothing particularly magical there.

"INRI" - that's an acronym, standing for "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum", the Latin part of the sign on my Lord's cross. In English, it'd read "Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews." (John 19:19)

Nothing particularly magical about that, either: important, pivotal, vital, earthshaking (literally); but not magical. Except, maybe, in one of the definitions given by Princeton's WordNet: "...possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers..." (Princeton's WordNet [emphasis mine]) But, in my opinion, that's a stretch.

My Lord, Jesus? Yeah: as the Son of God, he's supernatural. in the sense of being above nature.

For that matter, I'm supernatural, too: and so are you. Every human being is a material body and a spiritual soul: both of which have a supernatural destination. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 360, for starters) Which is a whole different topic - and one that books have been written about.

But my crucifix isn't magic. Yes, it's been blessed: but that doesn't mean it's magic. It won't protect be from falling rocks, or keep me from getting caught if I decide to rob a store (I won't by the way).

On the other hand, it's pretty good for reminding me of who my Lord is; and what he did for me and all other people. (As I understand it, Jesus died for the salvation of all people - whether we take him up on his offer is up to each one of us.)

Who Told That Man to Wear a Phylactery?

Immediately, my guess is that the man on that airplane learned about wearing a teffilin from his father. The orders though, go back to God, as received by Moses.

"On this day you shall explain to your son, 'This is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.' It shall be as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead; thus the law of the LORD will ever be on your lips, because with a strong hand the LORD brought you out of Egypt."
(Exodus 13: 8, 9)

I think it's possible that some of the sons of Abraham have taken a metaphorical statement 'way too literally: but I've been wrong before.

Who is To Blame For Today's Incident?

Nobody, in my opinion.

USAir Flight 3079 would have gone more smoothly, if that passenger had recognized the teffilin for what it is. But not everybody is up to speed on the customs and observances of Judaism. And American culture isn't geared, again in my opinion, for understanding visual religious symbols.

After 9/11, and the attempted downing of an American airliner over the Christmas holiday: air travelers are going to be acutely aware of possible threats. (December 27, 2009, in another blog) It'd be nice if that were not the case - but it is.

I don't blame the man who was preparing for prayer for doing so.

I don't blame the passenger for being apprehensive and perhaps a trifle ignorant. Or extremely cautious.

Let's remember: it's possible to reschedule your itinerary, and apologize to someone for mistaking a pious symbol for a lethal threat. Raising a planeload of people form the dead? Not even the Supreme Court of the United States of America can do that.

It's a cliche, but "better safe than sorry" seems to apply here.

Still, I think there's room for improvement, in terms of Americans' knowledge of religious observance. Just a thought.

Can't We All Just Get Along? Sometimes, No

As long as I'm in a somewhat grim mood, here's something I ran across this morning. You've probably read it before:

"It also happened that seven brothers with their mother were arrested and tortured with whips and scourges by the king, to force them to eat pork in violation of God's law. One of the brothers, speaking for the others, said: 'What do you expect to achieve by questioning us? We are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our ancestors.' At that the king, in a fury, gave orders to have pans and caldrons heated. While they were being quickly heated, he commanded his executioners to cut out the tongue of the one who had spoken for the others, to scalp him and cut off his hands and feet, while the rest of his brothers and his mother looked on. When he was completely maimed but still breathing, the king ordered them to carry him to the fire and fry him. As a cloud of smoke spread from the pan, the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die bravely, saying such words as these: 'The Lord God is looking on, and he truly has compassion on us, as Moses declared in his canticle, when he protested openly with the words, "And he will have pity on his servants." '..."

Then the first brother died. Unpleasantly. The second brother had a few words to say, after the skin was torn off his head:

"...At the point of death he said: 'You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the world will raise us up to live again forever. It is for his laws that we are dying.'..."

Eventually, the king got around to the last young man. He wasn't any more willing to defy God than the others.

"...'...Like my brothers, I offer up my body and my life for our ancestral laws, imploring God to show mercy soon to our nation, and by afflictions and blows to make you confess that he alone is God. Through me and my brothers, may there be an end to the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation.' At that, the king became enraged and treated him even worse than the others, since he bitterly resented the boy's contempt. Thus he too died undefiled, putting all his trust in the Lord. The mother was last to die, after her sons. Enough has been said about the sacrificial meals and the excessive cruelties."
(2 Maccabees 7:1-6, 9, 37-42)

And you think you had a bad day?

There's More to This Than Pork

I'm a Christian gentile, and pork is one of things I can eat. That excerpt from 2 Maccabees isn't, really, about pork.

That mother and her sons had a fairly clear set of options: go along with a secular authority and defy God's law; or follow God's law and defy secular authority.

They decided to side with God, against some king. It could have been Seleucus IV. He ruled the Seleucid Empire. The Seleucid Empire wasn't in quite the same class as the Roman Empire - but it was a pretty big deal in its time.

Law and Order: But Whose?

The mother and her sons in that excerpt were in a difficult position. On the one hand, they knew the rules about eating pork. On the other hand, their secular leaders were determined to make the children of Israel give up all that God stuff.

The young men and their mother made a choice: Obey God, even if it meant defying the king. Then they died under extremely unpleasant circumstances.

I think they made a good choice. Today, something like 2,170 or 2,190 years later: God's still around and the Seleucid Empire isn't: and hasn't been for about two millennia.

Some folks, of course, have decided that God doesn't exist. I've written about that before. Sort of. (December 18, 2009, May 8, 2009, for starters)

I hope I never have an opportunity like the one that woman and her sons had. I enjoy breathing, and I really don't like pain. I also like to get along with the dominant culture and secular authorities.

But, sometimes, the people running a country do things that are a clear violation of God's law. When that happens, the state expects folks who take God seriously obey the state rather than God: just like everybody else.

I know who I'll be explaining my actions to, when I die; and who I want to be with at the end of all things.

Haiti's Enu Zizi? Ena Zizi: Any Way You Spell it, She's Quite a Lady

Before anything else:

From "Haiti quake appeal"
Caritas Internationalis (Caritas is "the Vatican's charitable organization". (Catholic News Service)

As if Haitians hadn't had enough to deal with: A 6.1 earthquake happened there this morning.

"...The U.S. Geological Survey said the new quake hit at 6:03 a.m. about 35 miles northwest of the capital of Port-au-Prince. It struck at a depth of 13.7 miles but was too far inland to generate any tidal waves in the Caribbean...."
(FOXNews)

The good news: This morning's quake may not have done all that much more damage.

The bad news: It's hard to tell, with so much of the country knocked flat by last Tuesday's 7.0 quake.

Ena Zizi, or Enu Zizi: Either Way, She's What Americans Call "Lucky"

I know: Lots and lots of people didn't survive the big quake, died before rescuers could get at them, or died a little later.

That's a tragedy.

I think I can be forgiven for being glad about the people who didn't die, though.

One of them's Enu Zizi. Or maybe it's Ena Zizi. "Ena" sounds more like a woman's Christian name in American English: and that's how the lady's name is spelled in the news here.


(from Catholic News Service's Photos on Facebook, used w/o permission)

On the other hand, Caritas Internationalis, the outfit whose rescue team pulled her out of the rubble, spells her name Enu Zizi. They're not Americans, not all of them, anyway. Caritas is headquartered in the Holy See ("the Vatican" for most Americans).

It doesn't matter much, except to folks who know her, how her name is spelled. The point is: as of a little earlier today, she's alive. Dehydrated, with a dislocated hip and a broken leg, but alive. (FOXNews)

Enu Zizi (Ena Zizi? like I said, depends on whose account you're reading) was - never mind. It's in the news:

"...Ena Zizi had been at a church meeting at the residence of Haiti's Roman Catholic archbishop when the shaking started, trapping her in debris. An ardent Roman Catholic, she said she prayed constantly. Zizi was rescued Tuesday by a Mexican disaster team that was created in the wake of Mexico City's 1985 earthquake.

" 'I talked only to my boss, God,' Zizi told the Associated Press. 'And I didn't need any more humans.'..."
(NPR)

There's a little more, from another source (which also used material from The Associated Press - I haven't found the AP story):

"...Ena Zizi had been at a church meeting at the residence of Haiti's Roman Catholic archbishop when the Jan. 12 quake struck, trapping her in debris. On Tuesday, she was rescued by a Mexican disaster team.

"Zizi said after the quake, she spoke back and forth with a vicar who also was trapped. But he fell silent after a few days, and she spent the rest of the time praying and waiting...."
(FOXNews)

The archbishop was killed: and it's likely enough that the vicar died, too. Quite a few people died in that earthquake - and are still dying.

Mexican Disaster Team: With "Caritas" on Their Uniforms

That Mexican disaster team? My guess is that the disaster team was, in fact, based in Mexico. I think that describing them as simply "Mexican" is a bit of an over-simplification. Quite a number of them had "Caritas" in big letters on the back of their jackets, though. (Caritas slide show)

It's natural enough for news services to write "Mexico" instead of "Caritas" - Lots of people have heard of Mexico. Caritas? Not so much.

Moving along.

Being Conventionally 'Spiritual,' Accepting Uncertainty

Anyway, Enu / Ena Zizi is alive.

Why?

Maybe it's just random chance. Maybe. Could be.

Then again, maybe not.

I think God is at work in Haiti. Also America, Malaysia and Zaire. And, that God is involved in what's happening in Haiti. And no, I haven't snapped and gone Pat Robertson.

Wanting Explanations, Accepting What Is

If Ena / Enu Zizi had been with one of the religious groups I was familiar with in my earlier years, her fellow-believers would have - likely enough - been talking about her rescue as a miracle (hallelujah!), showing (praise God!) how (amen!) there was A Reason (maranatha!) for her Miraculous Rescue (hallelujah!).

Maybe it was a miracle.

Lower the threshold, and every breath I take is a miracle. So is the snow outside. I thank God for all of the above.

As for why Enu Zizi lived, the archbishop and (probably) the vicar died - and why the confirmed death toll keeps rising? I don't know.

I - really - don't - know.

And that's okay.

I don't need to.

I'm not, thank God, responsible for keeping the world running.

Enu Zizi Prayed - Therefore She's Alive?

It's easy to assume that Enu, or Ena, Zizi lived because she prayed.

Maybe so.

On the other hand, 11-year-old Anaika Saint Louis died. Thanking God for life. "...'Thank you, God, because he saved my life,' she said. 'If I lose my feet, I always had my life.'..." (January 17, 2010)

Yeah, the 11-year-old girl lived - few a few more minutes or hours. Then, like I said, she died.

Thinking with my endocrine system, I could feel - deeply, sincerely - that (hallelujah!) Anaika Saint Louis's faith Saved Her. Then, on a whim, God let her die. I'm not gonna do that.

Or, I could concentrate on Ena Zizi and how her prayers saved her.

I could assume that Enu Zizi prayed enough, or the right way, or something: so she lived. And Anaika Saint Louis didn't.

I'm not gonna do that, either.

People Pray, and Live; People Pray, and Die

Most of my prayers are fairly routine affairs: thanking God for the food we eat, that sort of thing.

Then there was the time, seven years ago next month, when something went horribly wrong on the way to the hospital. My wife and I were expecting the birth of another child.

I didn't try making deals with God - I know too much to try that - but I did some very intense pleading.

Elizabeth died, my wife didn't.

And I still have no idea why.

But it doesn't matter.

And that's okay.

God Doesn't Owe Me an Explanation

I've read the book of Job. Job was a righteous man. He did all the right things. He was pious.

And he lost everything.

Job knew that what happened to him wasn't fair, and said so. At length. After quite a litany of his virtues, Job said:

"Of all my steps I should give him an account; like a prince I should present myself before him. This is my final plea; let the Almighty answer me! The words of Job are ended."
(Job 31:47)

The story picks up in the next chapter, with a young man named Elihu losing his temper with Job and his friends - all of whom were old enough to know better. Elihu goes on for several chapters.

I'll pick up where God gets involved, after Elihu's reality check.

"Then the LORD addressed Job out of the storm and said: Who is this that obscures divine plans with words of ignorance? Gird up your loins now, like a man; I will question you, and you tell me the answers! Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its size; do you know? Who stretched out the measuring line for it?..."

"...Have you entered into the sources of the sea, or walked about in the depths of the abyss? Have the gates of death been shown to you, or have you seen the gates of darkness? Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth? Tell me, if you know all: Which is the way to the dwelling place of light, and where is the abode of darkness, That you may take them to their boundaries and set them on their homeward paths?..."
(Job 38:1-6, Job 38:17-21)

Over the decades, dealing with bosses, I've learned when to argue my case: and when to say "yes sir," "no sir," or be respectfully silent. Sometimes it's been "yes mam," and "no mam," of course: but you get the point.

I'm pretty sure that last week's big earthquake in Haiti happened for a reason.

I'm even more certain that I can't understand what that reason is. The Lord of hosts, the great I AM, Father of my Lord, Jesus, is, quite simply, God. He's large and in charge: and under no obligation to provide me with either His reasons - or the ability to understand them.

And that's okay.

Enu (Ena?) Zizi: Quite a Lady

My hat's off to the lady who said "I talked only to my boss, God," after she was found. Even with a building dropped on her and death all around: she kept focused on what's important.

• "Major Aftershock Rocks Quake-Stricken Haiti"
  National Public Radio (January 20, 2010)
• "Quake survivor: I'm sort of alright"
  Press Association (January 20, 2010)
• "Haiti earthquake: Wednesday news updates"
  CNN (January 20, 2010)
• "People Flee Into Streets as Strong Quake Strikes Devastated Haiti"
  FOXNews (January 20, 2010)

---

A tip of the hat to CatholicNewsSvc, on Twitter, for the photo of Zizi; and to iamcaritas, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the slide show documenting Enu Zizi's rescue.

Those Realistic, Ghastly Crucifixes: There's a Reason

I ran into this post, in another blog. It gives one of the better explanations for those (by American tastes) ghastly, bloody crucifixes you see in parts of Latin America and elsewhere.

"Bloody Crucifix"
Adoro te Devote (February 16, 2008)

"Cathy has a great series of interesting posts on the Cross, and as a result I find that I must offer some thoughts on this subject as well.

"Lent is the perfect time to regard the Cross, with or without a corpus, whether we are following the Carmelite tradition of placing ourselves upon that cross to unite ourselves with the suffering of Christ, or whether we need to be faced with His extreme suffering on our behalf. (Please note: I mentioned the Carmelite tradition as they follow a very austere life and thus their cross is not representative of the Resurrection, but rather is its own spirituality of suffering taken on by each soul. Thus their 'corpus' is still present.) As Cathy points out in her posts, for the rest of us, we as Catholics need to see the corpus of Christ on the cross, for there is no Easter Sunday without a Good Friday. I would like to take this theme a little further, however.

"When I lived in Mexico, although I never attended Mass there (which I will forever regret as long as I live), I went to a lot of churches. And in many of them one can find Jesus laid out as though in a tomb, but covered by glass. There were prie-dieus (kneelers) so that the faithful could kneel and meditate upon their Savior, focusing on His terrible wounds. He was bloody, he was bruised, and He was a horror to behold...."

The people in what's now Mexico, remember, were Aztecs and their neighbors: folks about as soft and safe to be around as my ancestors were, when the first Christian missionaries reached them.¹ They didn't know about Christianity: but they understood the bloody, messy sacrifice of a chosen victim quite well.

Americans today live in a much more sanitized, antiseptic world. Those statues look like the body of a man who was tortured to death - and was tough enough to hold out through a really bad night and most of the next day. We're not used to seeing that sort of thing.

Lent is coming up. I generally make a point of thinking about what my Lord went through, particularly during Lent.

Which I see is coming up soon.

---

A tip of the hat to dontracy, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this post.

---

¹ My ancestors, as far back as the family has been able to trace them, came from northwestern Europe. Before missionaries came, we were a colorful lot.

Human sacrifice was part of the cultural tradition of the British Isles - and practiced in Viking country into the 11th century, according to Adam of Bremen.

It's arguable that we got chivalry from the Church's efforts to work with Europe's warlords. Which is one reason why I'm not upset with the Pope having diplomatic relations with the United Nations and individual countries. The Church has a long record of being willing to take people as they are, and work from there.

Haitians, God and Faith: Maybe Americans Can Learn Something Here

I'm glad to read this: but not terribly surprised.

"Many Haitians' religious faith unshaken by earthquake"
CNN (January 18, 2010)

"The steeple clock at Port-au-Prince's St. Pierre Catholic Church is stopped at 4:53, the hour at which a devastating earthquake struck Haiti nearly one week ago.

"The church gates were closed Sunday. The doors shuttered. But it seems Tuesday's quake has only strengthened the religious fervor many Haitians carry in their souls.

"'A lot of people who never prayed or believed -- now they believe,' said Cristina Bailey, a 24-year-old clerk...."

"...Most Haitians don't feel abandoned, Bailey said.

" 'People don't blame Jesus for all these things,' she said. 'They have faith. They believe that Jesus saved them and are thankful for that.'

"Perhaps few personified that deep belief better than 11-year-old Anaika Saint Louis, who was pulled from the rubble Thursday night and later died. Her leg had been crushed, and doctors thought they might have to amputate her feet. She said she didn't care.

" 'Thank you, God, because he saved my life,' she said. 'If I lose my feet, I always had my life.'..."

Sure, I could be conventionally dreary and worldly-wise cynical about Anaika Saint Louis and how she died anyway. You've heard it before: the futility of it all, the false hope of those deluded and/or self-righteous religious people over there. Standard-issue college coffee shop stuff.

Or, I could look at Anaika Saint Louis's words for more of a big-picture perspective: and realize that I have a shot at meeting her in God's kingdom. Foolish? Maybe. But, I'll risk it.

Haitians: They're 'Natives,' Right?

Give CNN credit: they identify this as one man's opinion:

"...'In Haiti, you have Protestants and Catholics, and you have your percentage of each,' said J.B. Diederich, a native-born Haitian who now lives in Miami, Florida, but returned to the Caribbean for several days after the earthquake. 'But everybody is 100 percent voodoo.'..."
(CNN)

I assume that Mr. Diederich believes what he says. On the other hand, I've read and heard so many whack opinions about America - and China and Japan and quite a few other countries - that I take his "100% voodoo" statement about as seriously as I do Pat Robertson's view of Haiti. (January 16, 2010) There's been a tendency for immigrants to America to over-do the 'I'm a regular American' assimilation. Which is another topic.

Haiti is All About Voodoo, Right?

As anybody who's seen "Live and Let Die" (1973) knows, black people in the Caribbean practice voodoo something fierce. And if you don't believe that venerable Bond film, check out "Voodoo Island" (1957) and "Zombies on Broadway" (1945).

Or, do what I did. Use an established reference, that's constantly updated by an organization with a reputation to lose if they publish tripe. It seems that about 80% of Haitians are Catholic. And, roughly half the Haitian population practices voodoo. ("World Factbook," Haiti, CIA)¹

I don't think there's much doubt that voodoo is an issue in Haiti. But, as I wrote before, "Haiti is not voodoo."

Life Happens: You Learn to Deal With It

Long before I converted to Catholicism, I realized that life wasn't one big bowl of cherries. I'd read Job. Besides, growing up with what amounted to an arthritic hip, having someone very dear to me kill herself, and a few assorted other little inconveniences encouraged me to consider what could - and could not - reasonably be expected.

Maybe it's my Norse ancestry, but that "Curse God and die" sort of advice never did have much of an appeal. I'm a stubborn - well, I'm stubborn: and long ago decided that I could out-endure problems.

I don't know how many Americans bought into the "health and prosperity gospel," a few years back. But I'm getting off-topic again.

Nobody Said Life Would Be Easy

Actually, I've had a pretty good life. Particularly the last few decades. I'm married to a wonderful woman, four of our six children haven't died - not yet, anyway - and my wife didn't die with the last one. Compared to what many people go through: that's a bowl of cherries.

How Can Haitians Have Faith? Look How Poor They Are!

Grinding poverty can be hard on a person's faith. So can abundant wealth. I'm pretty sure that there are temptations involved with a nice, 'normal' middle-class American level of wealth, too.

I do not equate poverty with virtue: but I think that people who aren't rolling in money have opportunities to see what's important, and what's not.

Related posts:

• "Haiti: Voodoo, Pat Robertson, and the Catholic Church"
  (January 16, 2010)
• "Haiti: About the Earthquake, Relief, and Related Topics"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (January 15, 2010)
  • Includes link list of charities
    • Secular
    • Catholic
    • Other
• "Firebase Earth"
  (April 5, 2009)

---

¹ For people who don't feel that the CIA blew up New York City's World Trade Center. I think that the "World Factbook" is a straightforward reference. For what it's worth, Reuters India gave the same percentage ("Pope activates world Catholic charities for Haiti," Reuters India (January 13, 2010))