Second Sunday of Lent, 2010

Readings for January 31, 2010, Second Sunday of Lent:

• Gn 15:5-12, 17-18
• Phil 3:17-4:1 or 3:20-4:1
• Lk 9:28b-36

---

Second Sunday of Lent, 2010

By Deacon Lawrence N. Kaas
February 28, 2010

Jesus took Peter, John, and James and went up the mountain to pray. While He was praying His face changed in appearance and His clothing became dazzling white.

I want to talk to you today about prayer. Prayer being the first of the three concerns we hear about in Lent:, Prayer, Fasting, Almsgiving. It should be clear to us that these three modes of living the Christian life should not be only a Lenten exercise but should give witness to who we are and to whom we belong, at all times of the year. In the quote I just shared with you Prayer changes everything about us too, as it did for Jesus. Prayer changes our appearance, our demeanor, our outlook on life, our very relationship with one another.

By the words of Father Harden we read that Prayer is the voluntary response to the awareness of God's presence. This response may be an acknowledgment of God's greatness and of a person's total dependence on Him (adoration), or gratitude for His benefits to oneself and others (thanksgiving). Or sorrow for sins committed and begging for mercy (expiation), or asking for graces needed (petition), or affection for God, who is all good (love).

In another place he writes that to Pray always, as recommended by Paul, is the desire to always be united to God. Is also called the prayer of the heart. He goes on to say that this prayer need not be conscious awareness of God's presence. It implies that a person is constantly ready to do the will of God.

It's interesting to note that to Pray implies that we use words. Doxology is formula of praise to God. For example, "Glory to God in the Highest," recited or sung at Mass is known as the greater doxology. "Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit" is the lesser doxology. "For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours, now and for ever," is a doxology that we say after the Our Father at each Mass.

This brings up the Our Father: You'll remember that one day the apostles asked Jesus to teach them how to pray as John has taught his disciples and Jesus said when you pray say, "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.' Amen

I've been reading of late that the Our Father is so perfect a prayer that all prayer must reflect what Jesus taught in The Our Father. It consists of seven petitions, of which the first three are concerned with the interests of God, and the last four are requests for divine assistance to man. Plus the fact that it is the common prayer of all Christians.

Knowing myself as I do, I must confess that the hardest part of praying for me is to keep my mind on what I am praying. I talked to a priest about this in the past and was not given much advice other then, join the human race. I stand at the alter with father and before long my mind is off to, God only knows where, pulling myself back to what's going on and making a new resolution and sure enough I'm back to my old ways. Why oh why? The most sublime prayer of all time is taking place and the mind roams.

I remember a retreat a long time ago and it came up that we must find ways of making our body to be a part of the words of our prayer. For example: that is why we fold our hands at Mass to help our mind to conform to the words of the Mass. It helps to pull us back to the reality of what is taking place. Why do we kneel other than to conform or body to the most important happening of the day in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Another example; we pray the rosary and about the third or fourth Hail Mary we have lost track of the mystery that we are supposed to be praying. Please don't tell me that I'm the only one that has this problem. I remember one Saturday we were having Catechism here in the west sacristy and I don't remember what was going on but Father challenged one of the boys that if he could go out and kneel in front of the Tabernacle and say a mystery of the rosary without distraction he would give him a dollar, a dollar was a lot of money in those days. He didn't take Father up on the challenge as he knew full well he would be thinking about receiving that dollar.

Why do we make the Sign of the Cross, rather then just saying, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Isn't it to give witness to our Words? Take it a step futher then, why not make the sign of the cross when saying, Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit?

When I was a young boy, mother was telling me how they prayed the rosary in German. Simply it was that you would insert in the Hail Mary a reflection of the Mystery. Some of you may already know this because sometimes I do pray the rosary this way in public.

Quick lesson: You would say, Hail Mary full of Grease the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women and blessed is the Fruit of your womb, Jesus, who was announced, Holy Mary - - - - -. That was for the Annunciation. You do this for each Hail Mary to keep your reflection on the mystery. For each mystery the reflection refers back to Jesus. Each mystery may go something like this: who visited, who was born into the world, who was presented, who was found, who was in agony, who was scourged, who was crowned, who carried the cross, who was crucified. This gives you an idea of what you can insert for each mystery. Here is something else you may not have considered; by carrying your rosary with you at all times is like you have the New Testament either in you pocket or handbag. And now that the Luminous have been add we really have a very complete New Testament, in the simple praying of the Rosary. Pray, Pray, Pray that you may be transformed as was Jesus. Amen

---

More:

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

Religion Doesn't Cause Intolerance?!

I was (briefly) part of a conversation in one of the more 'tolerant' and 'open minded' online communities. The subject was religion: does it cause intolerance.

I suggested that, although religion can be the subject of intolerance, it doesn't seem to cause it. Any more than cutting your hair to one length rather than another, preferring one sort of music to another, or having a skin tone that's not quite the same as your neighbor "causes" intolerance.

'Obviously,' I'm a quite ignorant person who doesn't know that religion causes intolerance. Everybody's heard of the Spanish Inquisition and stuff like that.

If that doesn't sound familiar, you haven't been in the Western hemisphere of Earth for the last couple centuries.

I recognize that there are people who are intolerant about religious matters. There are also people who are intolerant about quite a few things.

But I still don't think that wearing your hair shorter (or longer) than other people makes you intolerant. Although someone might have assumed that was the case during the sixties, from the furor over teenagers' fashion choices.

I've written about tolerance and related topics before. You don't have to believe me, by the way, when I say that religion - Catholicism, at any rate - really isn't all that 'intolerant' of people: I'm a Catholic, and 'everybody knows' what they're like.

• "Jesus Christ, Beer, Tobacco, Idols and Indian Law"
  (February 22, 2010)
• "Hating People: Not a Good Idea"
  (January 22, 2010)
• "The Manhattan Declaration: Hateful? - Who Knew?"
  (November 21, 2009)
• "Tony Alamo, 'Those Evangelists,' and Labels"
  (November 13, 2009)
• " 'I Hate Barack Obama' - Maybe Not the Best Message from a Pulpit"
  (September 1, 2009)
• "Afghanistan's 'Family Law,' Western Mores, and Catholic Teaching"
  (August 22, 2009)
• "Tolerance: Yes, it's a Good Idea"
  (August 3, 2009)
• " 'Dumb B*ch' Carrie Prejean: Faith, and an 'Apoplectic' Blogger"
  (April 21, 2009)
• "Pro-Life? You May be a Dangerous Domestic Terrorist! MIAC Says So"
  (March 23, 2009)
• "The Pope, Angola, and the News: No Wonder 'Everybody Knows' What Those Catholics Are Like"
  (March 22, 2009)
• " 'Get f****d, Catholic Church' - It Comes With the Territory"
  (March 18, 2009)
• "Sex, Condoms, AIDS, an 'Immoral' Pope, and What Everybody Knows"
  (March 17, 2009)
• "The Catholic Church and Homosexuals: Harsh and Soft, Judgmental and Understanding"
  (March 13, 2009)
• "American Catholic Bishops Intolerant! (I Should Hope So)"
  (November 13, 2008)

Foreign Priests, "Plunder," "Retail," and a Valid Point

I never know what to expect in 'Catholic' publications.

Earlier today I was reading an article titled "Foreign priests and the risk of plunder," and hit this phrase:

"...American Catholicism at the retail level...."
(National Catholic Reporter (February 26, 2010))

"American Catholicism at the retail level"?! Christian groups here in America, at least, have struggled - unsuccessfully, too often - with the idea that Christianity is a service industry, just like dry cleaning and fast food.

And "plunder"?? Over the decades I've run into '100-percent-real-Americans' who felt that foreigners were nasty, greedy savages who only wanted American dollars.

And, I've run into 'open-minded' people who were equally convinced that Americans are greedy savages who only wanted to rip off foreigners.

I don't agree with either of those camps - but that's another topic.

So, between "plunder" in the title and "American Catholicism at the retail level" two paragraphs in, I was apprehensive about what the rest would be like.

Turns out, the "plunder" is what the author perceives as America's load on the resources of the Catholic Church.

It's a valid concern, sort of. About one in six priests serving in America is foreign-born these days, according to the article. That's because, overall, we're not producing enough here.

Which, given the appallingly groovy nature of many American seminaries - in my opinion - isn't altogether a bad thing. About the last thing we need here in America is another generation of predatory pedophile heretics in the pulpit. Not that all American priests are off the rails, of course. Some - most, I trust - know quite a bit about Catholicism, and behave themselves.

I'm not sure that I share the author's concern with the burden that the Catholic Church in America is placing on the Church.

The last I checked, the estimated American population was 307,212,123: of which 23.9 percent are Roman Catholic.¹ Which makes the number of Roman Catholics in America around 73,425,000. (Not everybody will give this figure - I'm getting to that.) With over 1,200,000,000 of us world-wide, that puts roughly six percent of all Roman Catholics here in America.

I suspect that vibrant, active parts of the Catholic world, like sub-Saharan Africa, can stand the strain of bringing us up to speed.

Not that America is the only part of the world in trouble - but that, again, is another topic.

Besides knowing what the Catholic Church really is, I think priests who weren't run through the American academic mangle can teach Catholics here in America a great deal. Which the author points out:

"...Moreover, the growing presence of foreign priests is also a way of addressing the intellectual Achilles' heel of American Catholicism, which is a terribly insular frame of reference. Read any sampling of recent books or articles on Catholic affairs in America -- from left, right or center -- and generally the author's imagination stops at the water's edge. In reality, the 67 million Catholics in the States represent just six percent of the global Catholic population of almost 1.2 billion, and it's a blessing to be introduced to that wider and infinitely more complex Catholic world...."
(National Catholic Reporter)

I like being an American and, unfashionable as it is these days, I'm rather 'proud to be an American.' Not that we're perfect: but that is yet again another topic.

That said, the author has a point. Many Americans tend to forget that the rest of the world isn't America. Part of that, I think, is a matter of scale. The United States covers a large part of the North American continent. Between that much acreage and a population upwards of 300,000,000: it's a huge place.

But Earth is even bigger, and humanity passed the 6,000,000,000 mark a few years ago.

I've had more of a chance than many Americans, to get to know people from the rest of the world: and my interests encouraged me to learn about the world's people.

I think that priests from the rest of the world will help Catholics here in America realize that we're Catholics living in America.

Vaguely-related posts:

• "Clerical Narcissism - Something You Aren't Likely to See in the Washington Post"
  (February 4, 2010)
• "Pedophile Priests: In Ireland This Time"
  (December 11, 2009)
• "Pope St. Gregory VII: A Great Reformer (or Huge Pain in the Neck)"
  (September 1, 2009)
• "Kennedys, Catholicism, and Abortion: So That's What Happened"
  (August 26, 2009)
• "Experiences in Homa Bay"
  (July 19, 2009)
• "Year for Priests Kicks Off Today"
  (June 19, 2009)
• "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic"
  (November 3, 2008)

---

¹ United States, "World Factbook," CIA. Last updated February 4, 2010.

A tip of the hat to newadvent, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this article.

Medication for Depression? Yeah: The Catholic Church is Okay With That

---

Updated (February 27, 2010)

Another celebrity-related suicide, apparently:

"Marie Osmond's son commits suicide"
Entertainment/People.com, Today, MSNBC (February 27, 2010)

"Entertainment Tonight reports teen battled severe depression"

"Marie Osmond's teenaged son, Michael Blosil, has killed himself by leaping to his death around 9 p.m. Friday in Los Angeles, reports Entertainment Tonight, which quotes Marie's brother, Donny Osmond, as saying, 'Please pray for my sister and her family.'

"According to ET, Michael left a note explaining he intended to end his life after a lengthy battle with severe depression that left him, he said, feeling as if he had no friends and could never fit in...."

Even if I felt like it, I can't write a 'saner than thou' screed about how Michael Osmond should have 'risen above' his depression because it was 'all in his head.' This is a sad time for the Osmond family.

No pressure, but praying for them couldn't hurt.

---

I don't, as a rule, follow celebrity news, but a few names in this article caught my eye:

"Missing actor's body found in Vancouver park"
CNN (February 25, 2010)

"Actor Andrew Koenig, who had been missing since February 14, committed suicide, his father told reporters after his son's body was found Thursday in a park in Vancouver, British Columbia.

" 'My son took his own life,' Walter Koenig said at a news conference in the park.

The body of the former 'Growing Pains' star was found by several friends who conducted their own search of Stanley Park, where Andrew Koenig liked to walk, his father said....

"...He had stopped taking medication for depression about a year ago, his father said...."

First, my sympathies and prayers for the Koenig family, and everyone who is in a situation like this.

Needing Medication: It's Okay

I don't know what was going on inside Andrew Koenig's mind, or why he stopped taking mediation to control depression.

That detail jumped out at me, because I was diagnosed with major depression a little while ago (by my standards). I have been taking medication to control the physical side of that condition ever since. And, God willing, I am not going to stop taking medications that keep my brain working properly.

I don't like the idea of needing to constantly medicate myself: but I don't have to like it. I do, however, have an obligation to maintain my health.¹

'Relying on God:' and Not Being Stupid

You'll read, once in a while, about some bunch of particularly religious people who don't believe in medicine: on the assumption that "God will provide." They generally hit the news when one of their number drops dead of a treatable condition, and it gets into the courts.

'Relying on the Lord' is a very nice notion - and appropriate. In some cases.

God could, if He wanted to, keep me alive and nourished even if I never touched another piece of food with my hands. He could, again if He wanted to, put the food in my mouth and let me take if from there - or even skip the whole digestion process with a sort of Divine IV setup.

Somehow, though, I don't think it would be prudent to try a stunt like that. Not without orders from upstairs.

I've got hands, and a brain. I figure I'm expected to do something with them. Like feed myself, while I'm able.

Enough.

Seriously? If you're taking medications for depression of anything else: keep it up. It really is okay. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2288-2291)

Related posts:

• "Death, Dying, Dignity, Intravenous Tubes and Catholic Teachings"
  (September 22, 2009)
• "The Catholic Church Won't Even Let People Kill Themselves"
  (January 28, 2009)

In the news:

• "Missing actor's body found in Vancouver park"
  CNN (February 25, 2010)

---

¹ I pretty much have to 'rely on God,' since God continually upholds and sustains all of creation. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 301) Life and physical health are a gift from God, so I've got a responsibility to "take reasonable care of them." (Catechism, 2288)

Koua Fong Lee, Toyota, Prison and Life Issues

---

(Update November 5, 2010)

In view of several comments on this post, It's obvious that I did not make my central point clearly. I'll try to correct that deficit by repeating excerpts from later in the post here - and a bit of explanation.

First, the excerpts. You'll see the same words later in this post. I'm copying them, not moving them.

New Trial for a Convicted Killer?!

I don't think that Mr. Lee was driving a lethally defective car. I don't think that he wasn't.

I do think that his case should be reviewed. And - most certainly - that a concerted effort should be made to determine if his Toyota was defective. If it was, others of that age may be, too: and quite a few may still be in use.
(view this excerpt in context)

That excerpt was immediately followed by this:

Trusting the American Courts - to a Point

I've talked with people who have a great deal of faith in the American judicial system. They think, correctly, that this country has a pretty good method for sorting out fact from opinion and imagination in criminal cases.

But I wouldn't trust my life with the American courts - or anyone else's.

The problem I have is that I've read the news and researched some of the stories for quite a few decades now. And, I've got a pretty good memory.

You'll read, maybe once or twice a year, about some convicted 'rapist' who was released from prison. Not because someone felt sorry for him: because evidence taken at the scene, years ago, got analyzed with today's forensic technology.
(view this excerpt in context)

Please note: I think that some people who are convicted of serious crimes are, in fact guilty. I am quite sure, based on anecdotal evidence, that some are not.

The American judicial system can release a person from prison, if that person's innocence is later established. Saying 'oops, sorry about that' may not be much comfort - but at least the wrongly convicted person has some portion of his or her life left to work with.

Not even the Supreme Court of the United States of America can unkill a person. If someone is executed, and later found innocent, saying 'oops, sorry about that' is all that can be done.

That was, essentially, the point I was trying to make.

Perhaps this explanation will help.

Perhaps not.

Following is the post, in its original form.

---

In 1996, a car raced up an interstate ramp, going between 70 and 90 miles an hour. An innocent child and his father were killed right away, when the car they were in was rear-ended.

Are your emotions engaged yet? It gets worse.

Another child, a (no doubt darling) six-year-old girl, was paralyzed from the neck down, and died not long after the accident.

The driver of the runaway car had been driving for only a year - and was one of those foreigners. A mechanic, looking at what was left of the foreigner's car after the wreck, said that the brakes worked fine.

Obviously, that foreigner was to blame for two - later three - deaths.

That's what surviving family of the dead people thought: and a jury agreed.

He was sentenced to eight years in prison.

Shocked? Horrified? At such a short sentence, or that he wasn't put to death for his horrific crime?

Don't be. The foreigner may have been innocent.

The car he was driving was a Toyota, and his account of what happened in 1996 sounds just like what's happened to other Toyota automobiles.

You may have already heard about all this in the news:

"Ever since his 1996 Toyota Camry shot up an interstate ramp, plowing into the back of an Oldsmobile in a horrific crash that killed three people, Koua Fong Lee insisted he had done everything he could to stop the car.

"A jury didn't believe him, and a judge sentenced him to eight years in prison. But now, new revelations of safety problems with Toyotas have Lee pressing to get his case reopened and his freedom restored. Relatives of the victims - who condemned Lee at his sentencing three years ago - now believe he is innocent and are planning to sue Toyota. The prosecutor who sent Lee to prison said he thinks the case merits another look...."

"...At his 2007 trial, Lee testified he was certain he tried to brake. But a city mechanic testified the brakes worked fine, and Carruthers, the prosecutor, argued Lee must have hit the gas by mistake. Lee's attorney at trial, Tracy Eichorn-Hicks, seemed to concede as much, arguing Lee's actions fell short of gross negligence...."
(AP)

A 2006 Jury, Facts and Background

I don't have a transcript of the trial, and don't know what the jury had to work with: but what's come out in the news doesn't seem to show that they were particularly unreasonable.

Drivers have been known to get the accelerator and brake pedals confused (I haven't, and can't imagine doing so, but not everybody's like me, thank God).

In 2006, Toyota still had a reputation for building reliable cars.

The Camry Mr. Lee was driving is older than the ones that have been recalled - so far.

I don't think that Mr. Lee's ethnicity - he's Hmong-American, if that's the way you put it - had that much influence on the jury.

On the other hand, in 2004 Chai Soua Vang, another Hmong immigrant, shot eight people in Wisconsin, killing six. His account differed from that of the survivors: it's quite possible that he shot those people because one of them called him a bad name. I don't like being insulted, myself: but his reaction seems to have been a bit extreme.

Memories of that mass-murder, and the (in my view) misguided efforts by Minnesota's best and brightest to enlighten the Masses about their cultural insensitivity would have been fresh in the minds of quite a few people in 2006, when Mr. Lee's trial took place.

It can't have helped his case.

New Trial for a Convicted Killer?!

I don't think that Mr. Lee was driving a lethally defective car. I don't think that he wasn't.

I do think that his case should be reviewed. And - most certainly - that a concerted effort should be made to determine if his Toyota was defective. If it was, others of that age may be, too: and quite a few may still be in use.

Trusting the American Courts - to a Point

I've talked with people who have a great deal of faith in the American judicial system. They think, correctly, that this country has a pretty good method for sorting out fact from opinion and imagination in criminal cases.

But I wouldn't trust my life with the American courts - or anyone else's.

The problem I have is that I've read the news and researched some of the stories for quite a few decades now. And, I've got a pretty good memory.

You'll read, maybe once or twice a year, about some convicted 'rapist' who was released from prison. Not because someone felt sorry for him: because evidence taken at the scene, years ago, got analyzed with today's forensic technology.

DNA is wonderful stuff. It can show that someone left microscopic bits of himself at the scene of a crime. It can also show that the microscopic bits of someone couldn't possibly have come from someone who was convicted for the crime.

The stories that I've read, of men exonerated by new DNA evidence, have been of people who were in prison. Not of people who were executed.

I'm not a particularly calm, even-tempered man. I think I understand the feeling that so-and-so should die for some crime. That doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea.

American courts have the power to release prisoners.

But I doubt that the most earnest Supreme Court judge, back in the heyday of social engineering, thought that the Supreme Court of the United States of America could raise someone from the dead.

I've written about that sort of thing before.

Related posts:

• "Capital Punishment: for Troy Davis, it's Personal"
  (April 18, 2009)
• "The Catholic Church Won't Even Let People Kill Themselves"
  (January 28, 2009)
• "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic"
  (November 3, 2008)
• "Life: It's a Single Issue, and an Important One"
  (November 2, 2008)
• "Capital Punishment: Killing Those Who Deserve to Die"
  (October 2, 2008)

In the news:

• "Might Toyota's Troubles Mean Good News for Jailed Minnesota Man?"
  Law Blog, The Wall Street Journal (February 25, 2010)
• "'Toyota Defense' Might Rescue Jailed Minnesota Man"
  The Associated Press, via National Public Radio (February 25, 2010)
• "Toyota recalls may lead to new trial for MN man"
  KSTP (February 22, 2010)

New on the Blogroll: Denver Roman Catholic Examiner

I've added Denver Roman Catholic Examiner's Articles (Theresa Navarra) to A Catholic Citizen in America's blogroll. It's in the Media section.

As of late this afternoon, the most recent articles listed were:

• "Where can I get ashes in the Denver area?"
• "A Canticle for Our Lady of Lourdes feast day"
• "With God's help, you will accomplish things that you've never even dreamed of"
• "Look out, Santa, Father Joseph laughs jovially, too"

And, a bit farther down the list:

• "Oh, for the love of Mary! Addressing the alleged Catholic goddess fixation"
  (December 8, 2010)

It's a pretty good discussion about Mary, and the misconceptions some folks - Catholics included - have about her.

I had a soft spot in my heart for the mother of my Lord long before I converted to Catholicism. Nothing "spiritual" about it: not in the 'eyes rolled up' sense, anyway. She showed guts, accepting the assignment God had for her; and everything I heard about her indicated that she was quite clear-headed.

Besides, I'd read about the Cana incident.

Whenever we look to Mary, she has pretty much the same message as the one she gave the servants: "Do whatever He tells you."

Related post:

• "Mary, Mother of God, Mother of the Church: Yeah, She's Pretty Important"
  (August 11, 2009)

A Lenten Chaplet, Routines, and Catching Up

When I sat down at my desk this morning, the first thing I saw was an 8-by-10 printout of a photo of the Lenten Chaplet card. I've been using it as a reminder to pray the Chaplet each evening.

A rather nasty piece of adware got into my system in the morning - and it took the rest of the day to de-worm my computer. Since almost everything I do involves being online or using software to create graphics or to write, my routine was - well, there was no routine that day.

Back to the desk and this morning.

I could not remember praying the Chaplet yesterday. I'm pretty sure I did - but "pretty sure" isn't "certain."

So, I pulled the knotted cord through my fingers and said the prayers this morning. Again, I think - but if not, at least I'll have the total right by Good Friday. God willing, of course.

Am I upset? No, not particularly. There isn't anything magical about these prayers. They're prayers. And, even if I missed yesterday's, I was still less than 12 hours off the 24-hour routine that I've established.

Now, I've got work to do.

Death, Dying, Living: "Art of Serenity: A Journey of Faith" Coming this Summer

I know two of the people in this video quite well, so I'm biased. But I've also seen the material that Oasis Productions is working with: and I think "Art of Serenity: A Journey of Faith" will be a well-done documentary.

The production company released this video trailer today:

"Art of Serenity: A Journey of Faith"

anoasisproduction, YouTube (February 23, 2010)
video, 4:12

I've adjusted the video to fit this blog's format - so if it doesn't display well, check out "Art of Serenity: A Journey of Faith" on YouTube.

Aaron's first wife, Kelly, died of cancer. The video follows her experiences as her life ended, Aaron's, and now Sara's: Aaron's wife and my daughter. Like I said, I'm biased: I think this will be a very useful documentary. Particularly for people who are going through similar transitions in their lives.

Haiti, Death Toll & Lent

Almsgiving is one of the things we Catholics do during Lent.

There never seems to be a lack of people and organizations needing help - but news from Haiti is a reminder that folks living there are more in need of assistance than many.

"Haiti death toll could reach 300,000: Preval"
Reuters (February 22, 2010)

"The death toll from last month's devastating earthquake in Haiti could jump to 300,000 people, including the bodies buried under collapsed buildings in the capital, Haitian President Rene Preval said on Sunday...."

I prepared a list of charities and their contact information - Catholic and otherwise - for another blog, along with a regularly-updated list of posts I've written on what's going on in Haiti:

• "Haiti: About the Earthquake, Relief, and Related Topics"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North
  • I've put Catholic charitable organizations in their own category

That page also has a list of posts in this, and two other blogs, about Haiti.

This Diocese Raised About $250,000

I was glad to hear that the St. Cloud, Minnesota, diocese raised around a quarter-million dollars in a special collection for Haiti last month. That's nice, but it looks like we'll have opportunities to pitch in for quite a while.

This has not been a pleasant year for Haiti.

Jesus Christ, Beer, Tobacco, Idols and Indian Law

The image of Jesus Christ, holding a beer can and a cigarette, reminds me of the weird but (I trust) well-intentioned efforts in the sixties to make Christianity like, you know, relevant.

It's not. The image is in a handwriting workbook published in India.

The company that made and distributed that book made a really, really big mistake. India is one of those countries where deliberately offending someone's religious sentiments is illegal.

Which may or may not be a good idea.

Anyway, here's an excerpt from the news:

"Christians in India's northeast are outraged after a picture showing Jesus Christ holding a beer can and a cigarette was discovered in primary school textbooks.

"The image appeared in a handwriting book for children in church-run schools in the Christian-majority state of Meghalaya, where it was used to illustrate the letter 'I' for the word 'Idol'....

"...Police said they were hunting for the owner of the New Delhi-based publisher, Skyline Publications, who faces charges of offending religious sentiment, local police superintendent A.R. Mawthoh told AFP.

"The Roman Catholic Church in India has banned all textbooks by Skyline, while Protestant leaders called for a public apology.

"The state government also denounced the publication.

" 'We strongly condemn such a blasphemous act. Legal action has been initiated against the publisher,' M. Ampareen Lyngdoh, an education minister in the Meghalaya government, said...."
(myFOX New York) [emphasis mine]

Interestingly, here in American blasphemy is - according to the dominant culture - a constitutional right, guaranteed by the idea of 'free speech.' American academic institutions are particularly 'open minded' about blasphemy, since acts like trashing a page from the Quran and some atheist's book, driving a nail through a consecrated Host and publishing a photo of the lot are considered an exercise in 'academic freedom.'


(from PZ Myers, Pharyngula (July 24, 2008), used w/o permission)

Change Happens: Deal With It

America is growing away from being a country of devout Protestants: divided on whether using tobacco or using alcohol is an unpardonable sin; but united against those Catholics and other heathen foreigners. I'm exaggerating: but there are days when I feel like it's not much of an exaggeration.

Maybe America could learn something from India. That country has been learning to deal with differences in religious belief. Religious affiliation broke out this way in their 2001 census:

• Hindu 80.5%
• Muslim 13.4%
• Christian 2.3%
• Sikh 1.9%
• Other 1.8%
• Unspecified 0.1%
  (2001 census, via CIA World Factbook)

Legal sanctions for people who go out of their way to offend someone else's beliefs are, in my opinion, the same sort of juridical and philosophical mine field that America's 'hate crimes' laws are. On the other hand, there are times when I wonder if they might be a good idea. (More: "Tolerance: Yes, it's a Good Idea" (August 3, 2009))

Jesus and Beer?

I wasn't all that offended by the beer and cigarette. But then, I've spent a sizable fraction of my life as a Christian on college campuses, and grew up in the sixties: my 'offended' threshold is set pretty high.

As far as historical accuracy goes, I'm not at all convinced that my Lord wore clothes like that, or had those long ringlets. As for looking like a teenage boy in need of fresh air, exercise and an adequate male role model - I've been into that before. (February 15, 2010)

The beer bothers me only on historical grounds. It simply wasn't part of the culture where my Lord lived. When they were running out of drinks at that wedding in Cana, Jesus provided wine, not beer. Which I've discussed before, including this, from March, 2009:

"Marriage in the Catholic Church? Yeah, it's Kind of a Big Deal"

" On the threshold of his public life Jesus performs his first sign-at his mother's request-during a wedding feast. The Church attaches great importance to Jesus' presence at the wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ's presence.'
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1613)

"If you'd rather think that Mary having Jesus get more drinks for everybody is a purely spiritual thing: fine. As I said before, that's your business. Fact is, though, the party was running out of wine: and Mary was very insistent about her son doing something about it. Which he did...."
(The story's in John 2:1-10.)
("Annulment: Divorce, Catholic Style - NOT!" (March 27, 2009))

When it comes to booze, the Church teaches that we're not supposed to get drunk: not that alcohol is the work of Satan. (Catechism, 2290, for starters)

The Cigarette? Yeah, I'm More Iffy About That

A half-century ago, smoking or chewing tobacco wasn't, in my opinion, as wrong as it is now. Not because I think God changed His Mind: but because we know more now. I remember when links between smoking and some kinds of cancer changed from a pretty good guess to certain knowledge.

Up until around the mid-point of the 20th century, someone who smoked might not realize that there were serious health risks involved. And, as far as I know, the jury is still out on whether there is a safe minimum limit to smoking and chewing.

There was even a Pope - Blessed John XXIII (1958-63), I think - who smoked. It was either one or two cigarettes a day, again as I recall.

As with so many other things, it looks like moderation is the key.

My own opinion, by the way, is that we'll find that zero is the safe maximum for tobacco use: but that's no more than a guess. And, another topic.

'But I Read it in a Book:' Facts and Imagination

Then there's the story I've heard, that Pope Urban VIII forbade tobacco - allegedly because it was too sexy. Well, that could be true. Someone wrote a book that says so.

But then, Maria Monk wrote a book too - which quite a few people still buy - that's full of whoppers about those wicked Catholics over there. (September 26, 2008)

As I researched Catholicism and the Catholic Church, I discovered that quite a bit of what I thought I knew was centuries out of date - and much of the rest was flat-out wrong. Where the Urban VII story lies, I don't know.

For me, the idea that Urban VIII banned tobacco because he thought it led to sneezing - and that sneezing was too much like sexual ecstasy for his taste - sounds like one of those urban legends that's a little too good to be true. Sure, people who use snuff sneeze. But sexy sneezing reminds me, humorously, of the 'good old days' when sophisticated people discovered that sex was sexy and started talking and writing about sex. It was, like, "relevant." Fer sure.

"I" is for "Idol" - What 'Everybody Knows' About Those Catholics

What jumped out at me in this bit of news was the choice of words:

"...The image appeared in a handwriting book for children in church-run schools in the Christian-majority state of Meghalaya, where it was used to illustrate the letter 'I' for the word 'Idol'....."
(myFOX New York) [emphasis mine]

From Maria Monk's day to this, quite a few 'good Christian' people in North America (M.M. lived in Canada, as I recall) 'know' that those heathen Catholics worship idols.

There's a (tiny) grain of truth in this assumption. Catholic churches and Cathedrals are not, as a rule, the sensory-deprivation chambers favored by some Protestant groups. The Catholic Church noticed that most human beings can see, and has used visual imagery to get the Christian message across, since before the days when my ancestors were cobbling feudal Europe out of a network of local warlords.

So today you're more likely to see pictures and statues in Catholic Churches, than in Protestant ones.

The statues are illustrations, not idols. We do not worship idols. But historically we don't go out of our way to insult people who do. (Acts 17:22) And yes: I'm sure you've encountered a Catholic who did. What can I say? We're human beings: sinners, members of a fallen race.

It's idolatry that's on the no-no list. (Catechism, 2112-2114, for starters)

"...Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc...."
(Catechism, 2113)

Not all Statues are Idols

I don't expect to convince anybody whose mind is made up, and doesn't want to be confused with facts. My job is to present facts: what others do with them is their business.

As the Catechism explains, Catholics use statues and pictures to assist worship. Not because we don't believe the Bible: but because we understand it.

"The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, 'the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,' and 'whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.'⁷⁰ The honor paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration,' not the adoration due to God alone:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.⁷¹"

(Catechism, 2132)

I venerate (a few) people. I adore God: And I know enough not to get the two mixed up.

'Nuf said.

Vaguely-related posts:

• "Jesus, Men, and a Marketing Campaign Gone Wrong"
  (February 15, 2010)
• "Halloween's Coming: Why aren't I Ranting?"
  (October 29, 2009)
• "Tolerance: Yes, it's a Good Idea"
  (August 3, 2009)
• "Catholics Don't Believe the Bible: Who Knew?"
  (September 26, 2008)

In the news:

• "Image of Boozing Jesus Christ Upsets Indian Christians"
  myFOX New York (February 22, 2010)

Another Day, Another Chaplet

Thanks largely, I suspect, to my putting an 8-by-10 printout of a photo of the Lenten Chaplet card, I've remembered to pray the chaplet three days in a row now.

It's a simple set of prayers: The Apostle's Creed followed by seven repetitions of the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be. It take me roughly five minutes, start to finish.

Boring? No. I wouldn't recommend watching and listening to someone say this Chaplet: not as entertainment. But it's far from boring to say the prayers.

This evening I didn't see much while saying the chaplet, apart from the inside of my eyelids. Sometimes I've recalled pictorial representations of the life of Jesus, or other imagery. Tonight, I mostly just listened to the words and let my mind associate the phrases with ideas like forgiveness, faith, and the traditions I can draw on.

Three days down, 42 to go. That's right: 42. But Lent is 40 days long, right?

Well, yes. And, no.

But that's another topic.

A 'Victim of Society' - Specifically, of the IRS, Catholic Church & Big Business

Interestingly, Jospeh Andrew Stack didn't blame the Jews. When I was growing up, financial problems were often 'the fault of the Jews' - according to self-described "regular Americans."

Mr. Stack is dead. He apparently failed to kill his wife and daughter, but may have managed to take one or more people with him.

That's sad.

And, not to sound too pious, an opportunity to pray - for everybody involved.

I found out about Mr. Stack's exercise in self-expression when my wife came home from minding the store for her father. These excerpts from one article give a pretty good overview of what seems to have happened in Austin, Texas, today:

"Joseph Andrew Stack, the man the FBI believes crashed a small plane into an Austin office complex out of anger at the IRS, may have left a disturbing online manifesto in which he ranted against the IRS, the Catholic Church, tax loopholes, bailouts and his own sorry state of affairs...."

"...The FBI believes Stack burned down his own house Thursday and crash landed a plane into the Echelon building in Austin where the IRS maintains several offices. CNN reported that as many as 190 IRS employees work in the building.

"At least one person was missing and two people were taken to a hospital...."

"...Stack was angered by a 'handful of thugs and plunderers (that) can commit unthinkable atrocities' including bailed out GM executives and the drug and insurance companies who 'are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple.'

"He was pissed at politicians of all stripes and outraged at the IRS, which he believed unfairly gave tax loopholes to big corporations and the Catholic Church, but not regular Americans.

"He said he tried to exploit the same loopholes but it backfired. That 'little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0,' he wrote. ..."
(CBS News)

A few observations, by one of those Catholics:

• Suicide is naughty and we shouldn't do it
• Murder isn't nice, either
• Catholics, at least, are supposed to be good citizens
  • That includes paying taxes
    • Whether we feel like it or not

It's the suicide angle that bothers me the most about this. That's a personal bias, in a way. I lost someone very dear to me by suicide.

The Catholic Church teaches that suicide is wrong.

Does that mean that (hallelujah!) every sinner who kills himself is doomed to eternal fires? Like so many other things involving human beings, it's more complicated that. (more: "The Catholic Church Won't Even Let People Kill Themselves" (January 28, 2009))

I think the second-most-remarkable aspect of this sad affair, again from my point of view, is that he didn't blame the Jews. Given his apparent perception of victimhood, and traditional Euro-American antisemitism, I'm surprised they didn't make the list: at least in the CBS News account.

As for Mr. Stack's frustration at not being able to take advantage of (according to him) unethical 'loopholes' which (again according to him) were unfairly made available to the Catholic Church and big business and other people who weren't "regular Americans" - Amazing.

According to what seems to have been his world view, 'They' were able to do things that "regular Americans" couldn't. And 'They' used that power to do bad things.

So he, presumably a "regular American," tries to do the same bad thing - without 'Their' (presumed) power?

Even given Mr. Stack's assumptions about reality - that's just not reasonable.

Related posts:

• "Hating People: Not a Good Idea"
  (January 22, 2010)
• "The Catholic Church Won't Even Let People Kill Themselves"
  (January 28, 2009)
• "Psycho Santa's Slaying Spree - The Catholic Connection"
  (December 26, 2008)
• "Elections and Citizenship, Catholic Style"
  (September 24, 2008)

In the news:

• "Austin Plane Crash: Joseph Andrew Stack Left Sick Suicide Note for IRS to Take 'Pound of Flesh' "
  Crimesider, CBS News (February 18, 2010)

Laughing at Lucifer: Link

Good advice for Lent, or any time:

• "Laughing at Lucifer in Lent"
  Father Dwight Longenecker, Register correspondent, National Catholic Register (February 8, 2010)

The op-ed piece starts out by recalling a book you've probably read:

"In 1942 C.S. Lewis published one of his most enduring and endearing books. 'The Screwtape Letters' is a collection of imaginative epistles from a senior devil to his junior colleague, outlining how he should handle his 'patient.' Lewis wrote the book as a series of essays for The Guardian newspaper and confessed that the pieces were not fun to write.

"Over the years Lewis’ Luciferian letters have become ever more popular. In 2003 the Fellowship for the Performing Arts created a stage adaptation of 'Screwtape.' It ran for 11 weeks in New York City and is now...."
(National Catholic Register)

The idea of laughing at Satan isn't new:

"...Luther wrote, 'The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn.'

"For his part, St. Thomas More said: 'The devil … that proud spirit … cannot endure to be mocked.'..."
(National Catholic Register)

It's a bit on the long side for online publications - I think this started as a print-media article. On the other hand, it's fairly easy reading.

And, more to the point, has something to say about Lent and laughter. Despite the impression some people give, Christianity - Catholicism, at any rate - is a joyful faith.

---

A tip of the hat to MatthewWarner, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the Catholic News Service post.

Holy Father on Lent, 2010: Link

In case you missed this, like I did:

• "Text of pope's message for Lent 2010"
  Catholic News Service Blog (February 4, 2010)

The CNS Blog post has the full text, but you might prefer to read the same English translation on the Vatican's own website:

• "Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI for Lent 2010"
  "The justice of God has been manifested through faith in Jesus Christ" (cf. Rm 3, 21-22) [link to USCCB NAB mine]
  (The Vatican October 30, 2009)

---

A tip of the hat to CatholicMeme, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the Catholic News Service post.

Comments, Spam, and Having to Wait

Comments on A Catholic Citizen in America will be moderated from now on.

Sorry about that. I like to see the comments I make show up right away, and figure that you probably do, too.

Comment Moderation: Why This Change?

On the other hand, I've been getting too much obscene spam: which I don't like to see, and figure you may not, either. Particularly if you understand the language it's written in.

Unlike most of my blogs, comment moderation here may suggest that I'm engaged in censorship: removing comments that do not support my view. That's not what's going on here.

I've been finding, and removing, increasing numbers of comments which consist of links to pornographic services.

Catholicism is About the Real World: Which May Explain the Spam

I think the reasons for A Catholic Citizen in America's having received a disproportionate number of these - regrettable - comments is this blog's content. I discuss my view on what it's like to be human, Catholic, and an American citizen. I'm discussing some of the same aspects of what it is to be human that are exploited by pornographers: from a different point of view.

I suppose it's inevitable that their marketing efforts will find this blog and try to post links to their online services.

Excuse Me While I Rant

Maybe I'm taking this too personally, but I found it insulting that the most commonly-used language in these porno comments has been Chinese, with Japanese running a distant second. I'm somewhat familiar with both languages - and do not appreciate the implicit assumption that an English-speaking westerner is too ignorant to understand what's going on.

Which is another topic.

Being Polite to Visitors

More to the point, there's a pretty good chance that a visitor to this blog understands these obscene comments better than I do. And I don't want to subject anyone else to the sort of thing I've waded through.

Watch Your Language

The only language you can be sure that a reader of this blog will understand is English.

I speak - and write - in the American English dialect of the upper Midwest, but try to avoid terms which would be unfamiliar to, say, an English-speaking resident of London or Ludhiana. For example, I could write "That klutz is dynamite with glitches, but his reason for wearing that cheesy outfit was lame" - and you might understand what I meant.

Or, not.

So: if you're trying to communicate here, use a language that we'll all understand, please.

More: There's Always More

I rambled on about this more, in another blog:

• "Lemming Tracks: Comments and Spam"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 16, 2010)

New on the Link List: The Catholic Guide

New on A Catholic Citizen in America's blogroll/link list (under Something Else):

• "The Catholic Guide "...a resource about the Roman Catholic faith...." "...an experiment to see if the collaborative effort of the Roman Catholic community can create a valuable and accurate resource on the Roman Catholic faith...."

It's a wiki of sorts - I haven't contributed anything, myself. Not yet, but they're off to a good start, with items like "Project Catholic Encyclopedia" and "Annotated Bibliography covering Catholicism in Science Fiction".

If they learned from the pioneering Wikipedia's early blunders, I think The Catholic Guide will do well.

Pro-Life Blogs: A Pretty Good Resource

I found a new resource online today.

Actually, an administrator of ProLifeBlogs.com's Twitter account asked me if I'd seen their website. I hadn't, and a few minutes ago I had an opportunity to check it out.

From Pro-Life Blog's 'about' page:

"ProLifeBlogs.com is an independent news site created to capitalize on weblog technology as an uncompromising defender of the sanctity of human life.

"ProLifeBlogs.com disseminates unique news and commentary on life oriented issues and events that are ignored or under reported by traditional news sources. A diverse team of editors and contributors, each with news, reporting, commentary, or editorial experience, work to provide compelling content that will inform our readers, lead to a greater understanding, promote constructive dialog and facilitate change within our culture and society.

"ProLifeBlogs.com provides a network, database and news aggregator for independent and autonomous pro-life bloggers to interact and promote their life-oriented articles...."
("About Pro-Life Blogs)

I'd have put Pro-Life Blogs in this blog's blogroll/link list: but they're not specifically Catholic. And this blog is focused on my experiences as a Catholic convert in America, and on Catholicism in general.

Pro-Life Blogs looks like a fine resource, but it's not specifically Catholic: and so is too off-topic for inclusion in the blogroll. That's not a reflection of the value I place on Pro-Life Blogs: just my effort to keep this blog on-topic.

Actually, I'm delighted to see how many people who aren't Catholic now realize that life issues like abortion and euthanasia aren't something that 'those Catholics over there' care about, but reasonable people don't.

---

A tip of the hat to ProLifeBlogs, on Twitter, for the heads-up on their website.

Jesus, Men, and a Marketing Campaign Gone Wrong

Signing on to Twitter this morning, I read this: "Robert Colquhoun: Where can men find an authentic model of male Christianity?" That led me, through lukecoppen's account, to "Men, sex, and the Church," an article in yesterday's Times Online.

Here's the first paragraph:

"the problem of why there are so few male worshippers was addressed. This problem has been lingering for decades. Why is it that men and Church seem to be polar opposites? I grew up in an environment where it was distinctly unfashionable to be a male Christian. Church was for old ladies: cool, male and Christian were mutually exclusive words. To be a real guy, the mentality was that you had to 'get some' with the girls. Church therefore was emasculating because it prevented you from being a real man...."
(Times Online)

It wasn't all that different, here in America. Not when I was growing up, anyway.

I was born during the Truman administration. By nature and choice I'm a scholar and artist. I'm also a cripple. (More in "Medical Ethics and Human Experimentation: Why I Take it Personally ")

Since I enjoyed reading, and didn't participate in any sport, I had ample opportunity to question my sexual identity. It didn't take too long for me to figure out that I was intensely interested in the opposite sex — which still left open the question of who or what an appropriate male role model would be.

Jesus: "With the Face of a Consumptive Girl"

I was pretty sure it wasn't Jesus. At least not the weird, hippie-like 'meek and mild' fellow I kept running into in pictures and stories.

I had a really hard time fitting that image around the seriously tough man who overturned tables and took over crowd control in the temple. (Mark 11:15, 16, Matthew 21:12) Think about someone walking into a shopping mall and commanding the attention of everybody — successfully — with security and law enforcement nearby, and you may see what I mean.

Then there was the sequence of events leading up to what we celebrate as Good Friday. Yes, it was "meek and mild" of Jesus to walk back to Jerusalem knowing that he would be tortured to death.

Jesus of Nazareth was also astoundingly tough. Remember, after a night of abuse that could have killed someone — he carried his cross at least part of the way to Golgotha. (Matthew 27:27-32, Mark 15:16-22, Luke 23:26, John 19:1, 17 — the accounts aren't all that different: and clearly indicate that Jesus had a really rough day)

That pale, scrawny sort-of-a-guy in the pictures? I had a hard time picturing him lasting as long as Jesus did. Or, for that matter, making himself useful in the workshop, back in Nazareth.

Obviously, I'm not the only person who's noticed a certain lack of fit between some of the conventional Western depictions of Jesus, and the grim realities recorded in the Gospels. In a novel that the author called "A Modern Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups," one of the characters was drawn into events which didn't fit her ideas about how the world worked: but were impossible to ignore.

She tried to, though:

"...If it had ever occurred to her to question whether all these things might be the reality behind what she had been taught at school as 'religion,' she had put the thought aside. The distance between these alarming and operative realities and the memory, say, of fat Mrs. Dimble saying her prayers, was too wide....On the one hand, ... the great struggle against an imminent danger; on the other, the smell of pews, horrible lithographs of the Saviour (apparently seven feet high, with the face of a consumptive girl), the embarrassment of confirmation classes, the nervous affability of clergymen...."
(Chapter 11, "That Hideous Strength," C. S. Lewis (1946)) [emphasis mine]

(That word, "consumptive?" In this context, it means "afflicted with or associated with pulmonary tuberculosis" (Princeton's WordNet) Back in the 'good old days,' people with tuberculosis had trouble maintaining body weight, and tended to look like those emaciated fashion models who were 'in' a few decades back.)

From a Man Who Overturned Tables and Commanded the Waves to a Scrawny Girl

Looking at the man depicted in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — and at the weirdly effeminate proto-hippie in 'religious' pictures — I wondered what went horribly wrong?

Several years ago, I ran into an explanation for this strange transformation. It fits what I know of 19th century England — and the American culture that was more closely tied to that of the United Kingdom than it is today.

Briefly (for me):

The Industrial Revolution changed almost every facet of English culture. Including, and perhaps particularly, the family. Before, the wife and mother spent most of her time near the house — and so did her husband. Children saw their fathers a great deal. It may not have been "quality time," but it was time. In copious amounts. 'Meaningful dialog' is nice, but kids learn a great deal from observing their parents, too.

Long Commutes: Nothing New

Then the factory system took the jobs of some men away from the home, to a centralized location — removing the husband and father and father from the home for most (or all) daylight hours.

Parallel developments in business resulted in other men spending most of their time — not in or near their homes, but 'in the city.'

The railroad system made commuting practical — and responsible families saw to it that they raised their children as far away from the toxic air of the cities as possible. (Sound familiar? Things have improved, I think, but most American workers still commute.)

A Mixed Blessing

I do not think that technology is a bad thing, by itself. (June 30, 2009, in another blog)

I know enough about what life was like, before mass production and economies of scale made it possible for most families to own more than one bed. I don't mind living in a world where we don't have to have upwards of 90 percent of the population raising food.

But there were trade-offs. Particularly the way that the Industrial Revolution played out.

You had families with a largely-absent father, where the children learned a great deal more from their mother, than that other parent.

Women are 'Spiritual,' Men aren't?

It's been argued that women 'feel like' being spiritual more than men do. Maybe so. As we learn more about how the human brain is wired, it's become evident that men and women have tended to act differently because, inside their skulls, their brains are configured differently. Turns out, it's not just humans. (July 30, 2009, April 29, 2008, in another blog)

Whatever the biophysical basis of sexual dimorphism in human beings, 19th century pastors noticed that their churches were attended by a whole lot more women than men.

Apparently at least some churches in England operate the same way that many Protestant churches do, here in America: the pastor is hired by the congregation. Or, at least, by a committee formed by the congregation. It's very 'democratic,' and market-driven, but that's not how the Catholic Church operates. We get the priest our bishop assigns to the parish. Sometimes we like the situation, sometimes we don't: but it's the bishop who decides.

Back to the 19th century.

Your sort-of-typical family had the father off somewhere most of the time. Between long hours and hard work, he's often exhausted when he's home. Was it so surprising that he had an attitude toward that church stuff that was somewhere between ambivalence and apathy?

Think about it: let's say you're a man who spends spend the better part of each day in a noisy, smelly factory or a crowded office; and then your wife wants you to spend an hour or more in a closed room full of people you don't know, that maybe hasn't been thoroughly cleaned since James Watt patented his steam engine?!

Anyway, you had churches where most of the active congregation were women. And pastors whose jobs often depended on keeping the congregation satisfied.

Would a sensible, sane pastor — whose income depends on the people he preaches for — tell his audience things they'd just as soon not hear?

Ideally, pastors would rise above such mundane considerations — but when your meal ticket depends on informal opinion polls, I'd say it's 'way too easy to put marketing in front of shepherding.

Apparently, preachers in England — and America — started edging away from those rough, tough aspects of Jesus' life and the Bible in general, and started talking about how spiritual it was to soft, and gentle, and mild, and meek. All the things that proper Victorian ladies were supposed to be. And which were a pretty good fit for what many of the women wanted to hear.

The men? Never mind them. They don't go to church anyway.

So 'being spiritual' started to mean 'being feminine.' I can see where that'd go over real well with some of the ladies. By the new-and-improved definition of 'being spiritual' they were halfway to the goal, just by being born a woman.

For some reason, even more men stopped going to church.

And, by the time I was born, those pictures of seven foot tall scrawny girls with whiskers were close to being the default image of my Lord.

Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild — And More

Over the last century or so, many (most?) Christians in America have heard quite a lot about the "good and gentle Jesus".

And rightly so. The man who is the Son of God, king of patriarchs and courage of martyrs, is good and gentle.

What we haven't heard so much about is the Blood of Christ:

• That spilled to the ground
• That flowed at the scourging
• Dripping from the thorns
• Shed on the cross
• The price of our redemption
• Our only claim to pardon
• Our blessing cup
• In which we are washed
• Torrent of mercy
• That overcomes evil
• Strength of the martyrs
• Endurance of the saints

And so on. If you're a practicing Catholic, you've heard this. I hope. Those gory phrases are from the Litany of the Most Precious Blood. You'll find the Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus and Litany of the Sacred Heart of Jesus on the same page of the USCCB website.

I am not saying that men are 'more spiritual' than women — or better than women. God created humanity to be men and women. (September 26, 2009) Men aren't women, women aren't men — and we're all creatures of God, made to know, love, and serve God: and come to the happiness of Paradise. (January 5, 2009) But we're not all the same.

Personally, I think that'd be boring: but that's another topic.

That male role model? Jesus and his disciples, through the millennia, provide quite a few good ones. Take Saint Lawrence as an example. As he was being grilled over a slow fire, he said 'turn me over, I'm done on this side!' Not in English, of course — but I'm confident that's a fairly good translation. Guts? Bravery? Even bravado? Yeah, I think you could say that.

Lawrence the deacon wound up on the grill because he'd done what a local authority had ordered him to do: bringing the treasure of the Church to the Prefect. The Prefect of Rome didn't like what he saw, to put it mildly.

But that's another story.

Related posts:

• "Being Counter-Cultural: I am Not Now, Nor Have I Ever Been, a Hippie"
  (January 12, 2010)
• "Are You a Boy, or Are You a Girl?"
  (September 26, 2009)
• "Afghanistan's 'Family Law,' Western Mores, and Catholic Teaching"
  (August 22, 2009)
• "Modesty: Living in Balance"
  (August 16, 2009)
• "Bikinis, Burkinis, and Modesty: The Other Guy isn't Always Wrong"
  (August 16, 2009)
• "Beach Killer Joseph Burges: A Case of Horribly Warped Christianity"
  (July 24, 2009)
• "Annulment: Divorce, Catholic Style — NOT!"
  (March 27, 2009)
• "Sex, Condoms, AIDS, an 'Immoral' Pope, and What Everybody Knows"
  (March 17, 2009)
• "The Catholic Church and Homosexuals: Harsh and Soft, Judgmental and Understanding"
  (March 13, 2009)
• "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic"
  (November 3, 2008)

More:

• "Men, sex, and the Church"
  Times Online (February 14, 2010)

---

A tip of the hat to lukecoppen, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the article that got me started with this post.

Saints: That's so Medieval

I grew up in a very non-Catholic area. I've mentioned this before. Several times, actually.

And I'm a convert to Catholicism.

Growing up in a non-Catholic household, in an anti-Catholic area of an at-best non-Catholic country, I have a perspective that folks who grew up in the Church may not.

Like saints.

What is a Saint?

[Insert your favorite joke about New Orleans' football team here]

Saints as "King's Kids"

Listen to some preachers in America, and you'd think a saint is someone who is obviously a "king's kid:" with lots of money, and an expensive car, house, and wife. Which is another topic.

Saints: The American Football Team

Listen to a football fan, and it's the name of a team that - for the first time in history - won the Super Bowl this year.

Saints as People Who've been Dead for Centuries

Listen to many people, unless things have changed a lot since I was growing up,¹ quite a few people in America think that saints are are people who lived at least five or six centuries ago. And that most of them are characters in stories that people made up.

There's a (tiny) element of truth to that.

Many saints did live and die during the centuries between the birth of Jesus the Christ and the end of Europe's feudal period.

And the Catholic Church has, over the centuries, reviewed records and taken the names of some saints off the list. Not because they were naughty people: but because there isn't the sort of documentation that the Church requires these days.

Saints as Disciples of Remarkable Fidelity

Here's how the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it: a saint is "...a disciple who has lived a life of exemplary fidelity to the Lord...." (Catechism, 2156) That's in a section dealing with baptismal names. I'm named after Brian Boru, a king of Ireland in older times. To my knowledge, there isn't a "Saint Brian."

Actually, in a way, there is. Sort of.

" 'The Church . . . is held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy. This is because Christ, the Son of God, who with the Father and the Spirit is hailed as 'alone holy,' loved the Church as his Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her; he joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God.'²⁸⁹ The Church, then, is 'the holy People of God,'²⁹⁰ and her members are called 'saints.'²⁹¹"
(Catechism, 823)

I'm a saint?! May God help me: I sure don't feel like one. Note the capitalization, by the way: that was "saint" with a lower-case "s". A few people get the upper-case title.

"By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.³⁰³ 'The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church's history.'³⁰⁴ Indeed, 'holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal.'³⁰⁵"
(Catechism, 828)

I'll get back to canonization, but first this:

"After confessing 'the holy catholic Church,' the Apostles' Creed adds 'the communion of saints.' In a certain sense this article is a further explanation of the preceding: 'What is the Church if not the assembly of all the saints?'⁴⁷⁹ The communion of saints is the Church."
(Catechism, 946)

Canonization? Whadaya Mean, You Fire Someone Out of a Cannon?

There are rules (what else?) for getting someone recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church. It's a somewhat tedious process. Here's a really short description:

"Canonization: A declaration by the pope that a person who died a martyr or practiced Christian virtue to a heroic degree is in heaven and is worthy of honor and imitation by the faithful. Verification of miracles is required for canonization (except for martyrs)."
("Glossary of Church Terms," United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)

Okay: the fast track for being recognized as a saint is to die as a martyr. I don't like pain, and on the whole do like being alive. I'd just as soon not die as a martyr. But I've known for some time that I may have to. (October 5, 2007, in another blog)

It takes two verified miracles to make sainthood. And, yes: miracles do happen. Which is another topic.

Those Miracle-Working Saints All Lived Centuries Ago, Right?

Wrong.

St. Maximilian Kolbe died in the Auschwitz concentration camp, and he isn't the only saint of the 20th century. Saint Faustina Kowalska lived and died in the 20th century, and there are others. (Saint Faustina is the one who started the Divine Mercy Devotion - there's an active devotion to the Divine Mercy here in Sauk Centre, where I live.)

I think there's a good chance that there will be more saints coming in the 21st century.

Here's part of the news item that got me started on this post:

"Body of California bishop transferred in hope of increasing devotion"
Catholic News Agency (February 14, 2010)

"Next month, the body of a California bishop under consideration for canonization will be transferred from a Sacramento cemetery to the parish he served during his lifetime. Supporters of his canonization hope moving his body will make it easier for the faithful to ask for the late bishop's intercession. On March 27, the body of Servant of God Bishop Alphonse Gallegos, OAR will be exhumed from St. Mary Cemetery and moved to the Church of Our Lady of Guadalupe, a parish in the heart of Sacramento where he served, reports the Sacramento Bee.

Bishop Alfonso Gallegos Apocada is the son of Joseph and Caciana Gallegos and had 10 siblings. He was born in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on February 20, 1931. From an early age he suffered from eye problems and had difficulty reading...."

Bishop Alfonso Gallegos Apocada died October 6, 1991, while helping someone push their stalled vehicle. (No: that isn't "martyrdom" - he'll need to arrange for two miracles to make the official list.)

Right. I left something out. Those miracles? The two that saints are expected to perform, if they're going to make it into the official roll call of recognized saints? The bishop will be expected to perform now, after he died.

Vaguely-related posts:

• "Feeling Forgiven: My Faith and Emotional Perks"
  (November 24, 2009)
• "A Patron Saint of - Scientists?!"
  (October 25, 2009)
• "Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Going Against the Grain"
  (October 19, 2009)
• "Today is Saint Thérèse of Lisieux's Feast Day"
  (October 1, 2009)
• "Maria Goretti's Killer, Alessandro Serenelli: Sometimes People Change"
  (July 6, 2009)
• "Finding the Patron Saint of Just About Anything"
  (May 29, 2009)
• "Mother Teresa of Calcutta: She's No Princess Di"
  (May 8, 2009)

In the news:

• "Body of California bishop transferred in hope of increasing devotion"
  Catholic News Agency (February 14, 2010)

---

A tip of the hat to catholicism, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the CNA news item.

¹ They have. Changed, that is. I was born during the Truman administration. In my youth, glue sniffing was a major drug abuse problem, girls got pregnant out of wedlock - come to think of it, things haven't changed all that much. The change is more on of degree than of kind.

I'm not happy about contemporary America's divorce rate, the attitudes many people in this country have toward marriage, or the seriously whack philosophy apparently held by the dominant culture.

On the other hand, I remember the fifties. It wasn't exactly "happy days," except for a rather select part of the population. (January 12, 2010, and January 26, 2010, for starters)

People are still human beings: creatures with a free will, who were good at making - and getting into - trouble thousands of years ago; and still are.

"For mischief comes not out of the earth, nor does trouble spring out of the ground; ²But man himself begets mischief, as sparks fly upward."
(Job 5:6-7)

I don't see that passage as pessimistic. For me, it's a rather poetic way of saying that when you've got human beings, you've got trouble.

Making Your Marriage Work Takes Work

Marriage isn't fun.

Well, not all the time.

Maybe that's why so many people, in America at least, don't expect a marriage to last a lifetime. The shortest marriage here in America seems to have lasted 55 hours (Britney Spears/Jason Allen Alexander) (ChaCha, Shortest Celebrity Marriages, About.com:Weddings)

I remember hearing, several years ago, about a couple who had a fight minutes after the ceremony, and split up then: but haven't been able to track that one down for specifics. It could be the 90 minute special quoted by Cha Cha, presumably from the "Guinness Book of Records."

Most marriages in this country last well over a week, though.

Marriage: A Lifetime Commitment

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is for life. I've written about this before - check out the "Related posts," below.

Making a marriage work is, well, work.

Happily, there's help for people who want to make the effort.

Like For Your Marriage, an initiative of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. They've got "Celebrating Valentine's Day" on the website's home page today:

"This year, Feb. 14th brings double reason to celebrate, as World Marriage Day coincides with Valentine's Day. In addition, National Marriage Week is observed from Feb. 7-14.

Looking for ways to celebrate your own marriage? Here are some fun--and free--activities that can strengthen your marriage long after Valentine's Day is over...."

Then there's a link to "Celebrate Valentine's Day/World Marriage Day." From there, there are quite a few resources, including a "Marriage Quiz." ("Try these fun, non-scientific quizzes to open lines of communication about important issues.")¹

I found For Your Marriage on the USCCB website, in a 2008 press release: "For Valentine's, Do Something Special 'For Your Marriage'." Pretty good advice, actually.

Related posts:

• "Marriage, Catholic Beliefs, and This Catholic"
  (September 24, 2009)
• "Annulment: Divorce, Catholic Style - NOT!"
  (March 27, 2009)

---

¹You may want to take what's in the quiz with a grain or two of salt. One question, for example, under "Are We Intellectually Compatible?," was "I like to read and listen to public radio more than to do physical activity." With the usual Agree/Both/Disagree/Unsure scale.

There's a valid point there - but I got an earful of public radio's "intelligent" content when I was a disk jockey. Although I'll concede that public radio's geared to people on the high side of the 50th percentile, intellectually: it was also of, by and for people with a rather well-defined set of beliefs. And, from what I've heard on it lately, that hasn't changed.

I listen to NPR and MPR these days - but only when they're playing music. The dyed-in-the-wool liberal philosophies I get from their talk shows? I got enough of that in college, and if I ever want a sample I can always read something from The Progressive or the Huffinton Post.

From the point of view of America's dominant culture, that makes me rather unintelligent. I can live with that.

Charity Begins at Home: Where it Ends is Up to You

I just finished watching an episode of a television program (Cash in the Attic, BBC America, I believe), where a British couple sold a significant part of their household possessions at auction.

An Old Couple Sold Stuff: So What?

Between the auction and what a neighbor kicked in, they raised about £1,025, if my memory serves. I make that to be a little upwards of $1,600 USD.

Here in America, that'd get you maybe a week's lodging at a fancy hotel, a used van with upwards of 200,000 miles on it, or a pretty good computer.

Four Villages and a Wellhead

The British couple was raising the money to help upgrade a wellhead for four villages in Uganda. The folks there have serious, lethal, health problems that come from microbes in the water. Better, clean, equipment, which they can maintain themselves, won't solve all their problems: but it'll mean clean drinking water for generations.

Cliches are Cliches for a Reason

I suppose that 'sick kids in Africa' is a cliche by now. Maybe one you're tired of hearing.

I'll admit that I sometimes feel the shields going up when I see some of those fundraiser ads on television. It's not that I don't care. I do. But after dozens - hundreds - of tugs on the heartstrings, the appeals get wearisome.

Why is it Always Africa?

Actually, appeals for help aren't just for Africa. That tsunami a few years back was in the ocean off southeast Asia. My household recently pitched in a little to help the folks in Haiti recover from that earthquake.

But places in Africa to show up quite a bit in charity appeals.

I've run into a number of explanations for why Africa doesn't have more vibrant economies.

Earth's earliest civilizations got a boost from being able to float cargo up and down the rivers.

Africa's a bit short on large, navigable, rivers. Early civilizations flourished around the Tigris and Euphrates; the Indus and Ganges; the Yellow River, Yangtse, and West River; and the Nile. The last, of course, is in Africa. So is the Congo, for that matter. Maybe there are ruins of another ancient civilization, on a scale with the Babylonian Empire or Qin Shi Huang's China, still undiscovered under the grasses and trees of the Congo basin.

And yes: I'm aware that outfits like Great Zimbabwe and Aksum flourished in Africa. But somehow, they didn't leave the lasting impression of Rome or Qin Shi Huang's empire.

Another explanation is that there's a well-established trade connection between the Mesopotamian region in the west and China in the east. Remember: Marco Polo was able to walk from the north shores of the Mediterranean to China and back. When one of the 'big name' ancient civilizations declined, there was a very good chance that its neighbors would carry on - and occasionally take over the lagging lands. Africa was blessed - or cursed - by being rather hard to get to, except through Egypt.

Things Will Change

Africa won't always be a continent of needy people. It isn't now, in some places. In other places, like those villages, folks can use help.

Today.

Generations from now, I think people in Africa may be part of one of the most prosperous cultures on Earth. The continent is richer in natural resources than any other, except maybe North America.

But today, and for a few years - or decades - maybe centuries - to come, there will be people in Africa who desperately need clean drinking water. And who want to catch up.

Charity may begin at home: but it ends wherever you want it to.

Just a thought.