IF SOMETHING YOU READ SEEMS OFF - INVESTIGATE!

Don’t take everything that you read at face value even if it appears in the newspaper and is authored by someone who we are told, “is a professor of history emeritus at Northwestern University” and “is the author of ‘Why I Am a Catholic.”  Intelligence, wisdom and understanding are all separate gifts and simply because someone has a “high education” does not mean that they have a grasp on all three of these gifts or that all of their arguments are altruistic.

Such is the case with the editorial in Monday’s Beacon Journal by Garry Wills.  Even if someone might agree with his conclusion, his path to it was a strained one at best.  There are so many problems with this article that one post would not be enough to point them all out.  At least for today two will be pointed out.

The first is an unneeded exaggeration to help make his point.  It is dishonest.  Remember when God said to Adam, “From that tree you shall not eat; for from the moment you eat from it, you are surely doomed to die.”  Gen 2:17.  Later, when speaking with Satan, Eve reports, “it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘you shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die!’"  This is an exaggeration of what God said and makes God appear less reasonable and maybe even a little vengeful.  So when Mr. Wills says that the Church says, “You can be gay so long as you don’t do anything about it,” one must ask the question if this is really what the Church (and as Catholics we would ask is that really what Christ) says?  What it does say is that one may not have a sexual relationship with someone who is not your opposite gender spouse.  Is there far more compassion and room for living in that than the rather sterile and cold, “you can’t do anything about it”?  If a person really believes in the truth of their argument, then they should not need to rely on exaggeration or slights in order to make it.  It should stand on its own.  This is the first sign that Mr. Wills is not exactly confident of his theological position.

The second big area of difficulty is his understanding and use of natural law (which he labels as a “quaint theory.”)  Again, if you need to make light of something in order to make your point, you’ve already begun to weaken your position.  

But here is where I am stuck.  I am not sure if Mr. Wills understands Natural Law so poorly that if he had a similar application in a term paper he might flunk the course, or if he understands it so brilliantly that he is attempting to misapply it so ingeniously in order to lead people astray.  He makes the misleading statement that, “the first biological use of an activity is the only permissible use of that activity.”  (Again, see the Eve problem above.)  This would mean then, that a married couple is not permitted to enjoy sexual relations, that they must only engage in it for procreative purposes.  This is “absurd” he says.  As proof, he says that if we truly follow Natural Law then eating should only be for fuel and we would no longer be able to eat wedding cake or drink champagne.  I would agree with him if this actually had anything to do with Natural Law or actual Church teaching.  Yet he uses this example to say, in essence, if you see that as absurd, then one could logically see the ban on sexual relations outside of traditional marriage as absurd.  But here, once again, he hurts his case.

A married couple can enjoy sex.  There is a broad spectrum of activities in which they may engage.  They may, so to speak, eat cake and drink champagne.  What they may not do is eat things that are not good for them.  We are not permitted by Natural Law to eat road tar for the same reason a person should not put sugar in the gas tank of their car.  Neither should a person eat far more than they need for sustenance (that is called gluttony.)  Except in cases of emergency, we should not try ingesting food through orifices that are not designed for the intake of nutrition.  This is Natural Law, not the banning of champagne toasts.  

Mr. Wills did have some good points not the least of which is the unhealthy keeping of secrets that should not be kept.  But his arguments are so poorly concocted as to do more harm to his point than good - at least for those who are will not to just accept whatever it is that they are reading but to think well for themselves.

BRINGING ADULT CHILDREN BACK TO THE FAITH

At the last Theology on the Rocks, Fr. Kevin Klonowski gave a talk on how to encourage adult children back to a practice of the faith.  The venue was packed and people had to be turned away.  We will are now working on rescheduling the talk so that it might reach more people.  Keep up to date on the schedule of talks HERE.

That being said, Father gave his collection of "5 DON'Ts and 10 DOs" in the practice of encouraging your adult children back to the practice of the faith.  Someone wrote us a note on the comment cards and asked if these 15 points could be published on Adam's Ale.  Yes they can and here they are with some notes written by me since his outline did not contain the details that he shared!  Thank you Fr. K for sending me your outline.

THE 5 DON'Ts

1. Complain.

Who wants to belong to any organization or do any activity that tends to produce complainers?  And this topic is just further evidence that you do not like me for who I am.  This just divides. 

2. Nag.

When has nagging inspired anybody to do the good any further than to quiet the nagger?  Nagging does not transform.  It pushes, it does not lead, and when the pushing is done the momentum stops.

3. Yell or Disown.

When was the last time someone yelled at you and you thought, "Hey!  They are right!  They are only yelling at me and disowning me for my own good!  What a fool I have been!  I can't wait to turn into an exact copy of the person who is attacking me like this!"

4. Grow Discouraged

God works on his own schedule, not yours.  Never give up hope!  St. Monica was persistent in her hope for years and years.  My own Father did not come back to the faith until practically on his death bed.  But he did  Always have hope.

5. Underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit within you.

As Bishop Nelson says, "Never underestimate the Holy Spirit working in you, through you, and in spite of you.  God's will will prevail. 

THE 10 DOs

1. Become a disciple.

You can't give what you don't have.  If you want your kids to follow your example, give them something to imitate. 

2. Learn, know, and be able to articulate the story of our salvation history.

You never know when someone you love will be interested in knowing more.  The door may open for just a minute.  What will you say?

3. Promote the pursuit of truth.

There are three ways to God: through goodness, through beauty, and through truth.  If you children are seeking truth in some way, promote the effort in them and encourage them to dig deeper even if the subject is not directly that of faith because God is truth and the seeking of Truth can lead one to God.

4. Pray for all of you loved ones who have fallen away.

Pray is powerful.  Always remember that and employ it whenever the thought comes!  If you are washing dishes and think of your kids, don't plan on praying - pray RIGHT THEN.

5. Promote vocation to the priestly and religious life.

Pray that there will be more vocations to help aid the life of the church.

6. Support campus efforts for evangelization.

Campus life is often the first time young folks are away from positive influences in the practice of the faith.  They may even be more greatly challenged to abandon it (even in our Catholic Universities.)  Promote organizations that build up the faith on our campuses.

7. Encourage beauty.

Fr. Benedice Groeschel often said that "Ultimately beauty will save us."  Of the three transcendentals, beauty is the most difficult to refute.  God is Beauty itself.  Appreciation of beauty is appreciation of God whether one realizes it or not.  Promote beauty in your parish!

8. Put faith into action.

Our faith should lead us to pray but also to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, tend to the sick, visit the lonely etc.  Let it be shown that the practice of your faith makes for a better world.

9. Plan for you death.

Let you last act be in the embrace of the Church and her sacraments.  Perhaps seeing this, perhaps someone involved with your funeral may be able to touch something in your son or daughter.   This may be first time in a long time they have met a priest or been in church.  Who knows what God can do?

10. Love your children and will their good.

God is love.  Be the person to your child that you hope is their impression of God.  "I want to be like my parents who loved so much and the inspiration of their love was their Catholic faith."

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: AND NOW, IN THE CENTER RING

At one time it was against Canon Law for a lowly parish priest to wear any jewelry whatsoever.  That rule has been greatly relaxed.  I wear what looks like a wedding ring.  When I was ordained, one of my best friends, Cathy Paparella, gave me a ring and said, “Here.  Wear this.  I like my priests to wear rings.”  So I did and do.

They are pretty handy little trinkets.  One cannot always wear one’s clerics.  You don’t want to wear them while biking for example. They are impractical for such uses as well as being WAY too expensive.  So let’s say you are a Catholic priest and you are going swimming.  A ring on your finger helps unwanted attention if you understand what I am saying . . . 

Most of the time.

(Allow me to digress for a moment.)  Going to the beach with some priest friends, we were detained from going to water and so sat at the “soda bar” for a little while.  A lady started hitting on one of my friends.  She asked all kinds of probing questions, discovered that we were all together and finally that we were all priests.  Her disposition changed immediately.  “Oh.  You’re the boys who can’t have sex,” she slurred.

My friend, with all the dignity he could muster, replied, “Oh, but we can.  We choose not to.”

ANYWAY

Now that all the matrimonial clarifications have been made and the vows exchanged, and announcement that the vows have been exchanged, now bride and groom exchange rings to be placed on their fingers FURTHER signifying what amazing even has just taken place.  Is it not interesting that these rings are blessed?  They are a symbol of a covenant, a mark of a change of status, a public indication of behavior, a sign of something created in cooperation with God.  Rings are AMAZING and powerful.  The last thing you want around if you are going to cheat on your spouse is a ring (or its tan line.)  It kind of throws a damper on things.

Can you see all the fuss that is going on?  How much of a public witness this all is?  There is a rash of young people not wanting to get married.  Maybe it isn’t so much a sign that they don’t care, maybe they are a bit overwhelmed by what a gigantic, public, important institution that it is.  You can’t take this lightly.  And you will be marked by a band on your finger for the rest of your married life and that assumes certain public and private behavior - not unlike a habit or a priest’s collar.  

But it is not a sign so much of your vows, but of the vows of the person who married you, for that person says, “Receive this ring as a sign of MY love and fidelity.”  It is a sign that someone loves you.

IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT GOD

Imagine a world without God.

There is no Being to help guide the actions of man.

How are we going to establish right from wrong?

One might argue for Natural Law but that is a slippery slope.  Once you argue that there is inherent right way to live and wrong way to live in nature, then you start sneaking in an intelligence to nature and that will just ruin everything.

But wouldn’t it be good to not kill?  Could we not begin there?  Possibly.  But even there is a dangerous pin upon which to stand.  If this marvelous, complicated universe just happened, like snow flakes falling from the sky accidentally forming a snowman but WAY more intricate, then life really has no meaning except to the person who happens to have it.  Why should life be better than no life? Why should your life be important to me if you have something (land?) that I really want?  There can be no inalienable rights because that implies order, intelligence and meaning, which leads us to a discussion of God, which is something we want to avoid.

There can only be one answer in this type of universe:  The one with the most power decides what is right and wrong.  It could be an individual dictator, or committee, or even a whole voting nation.  We could vote in many of the dictates of any particular religion if we want.  And we could vote them right back out again.  It will, of course, lead to even greater meaninglessness with a thin covering of legitimacy.

Take, for example, marriage.  Back to the true pagans, it had to do with fertility and child raising.  In our modern age we have removed that definition completely so our brothers and sisters, or brothers and brothers could experience a type of permanent relationship, legaly binding, that we call marriage.  This particular route seems compassionate but this idea of marriage is destined to disintegrate.  If a desire to be married is the only requirement for being married and we have removed any ties to our history, then why stop at two people?  Why worry about a brother and sister who want to marry?  Why shouldn’t all the religious brothers of a monastery be recognized as one giant marriage to give them all of the protections that others have?  

The argument can’t be, “That just wouldn’t happen.”  What are you going to base a “This far and no further” law on other than right makes right?  (There are already legal attempts at similar scenarios of the above to this.)  In the end then, marriage will cease to mean anything unless the individuals want it to and have the freedom to do as they please by those in charge.

Now imagine we have formed a society that has bought into a meaningless universe.  Imagine further that you are frustrated young man who does not happen to be part of the society that makes decisions and has a voice.  You think culture is wrong and you see those you love and their ideas abused.  You have no power except to conform.

You are angry, powerless, and have no hope even in a next life.  What is to stop you from grabbing a gun or a knife and going on your college campus . . .

ADVICE FOR SINGLES WHO DON'T WANT TO BE

“Let’s go for walk.”

“No,” she responds.

He looks oddly nervous.  “Come on!  It will be nice.”

But she stands her ground.  “It looks like rain.”

“It won’t rain.  I promise.”  But yep, he thinks to himself, it does look a little like rain.

“I don’t want to go for a walk.”

A trickle of sweat runs down his back.  “Please.  I really, really want to go for a walk.”

She looks at him.  Why is he acting so strangely?  But now its a contest of wills.  “I told you, I don’t want to go for a walk.  You go for a walk.”

“No,” he say a little too emphatically and then tries more smoothly, “I really want to go for a walk with you.  Now.”  His eyes loose focus for a moment as his mind drifts to the very expensive ring he has buried in the sand.

One of my favorite parts of wedding preparations is getting to know the couple as a couple.  As part of that I ask how the engagement took place.  (This is oddly telling and the stories are great no matter how elaborate or simple the story.)  But after about 18 years of hearing these stories, I have a couple bits of advice for a couple that is hoping to be engaged:

Guys:  30% of the time the lady in these stories almost ruin everything because they don’t want to do the activity that you have picked out.  So many times I have heard, “And it almost didn’t work out because she started resisting this very carefully thought out scenario I had planned out.”  They laugh about it in my office but at the time they guy is one heart heart palpitation away from needing medical assistance.

Ladies:  If you think a proposal is in the near offing and your man starts acting strangely, consider going with it.  Here are some telltale signs:  Becoming unusually chatty.  Unusually concerned about time (which in his mind is timing.)  He keeps feeling for something in his pocket to make sure its there.  He is oddly insistent on doing something semi-romantic that you don’t want to do.  He might be overdressed.  He recently had time alone with your parents.  He seems distracted and slightly sweaty.  He may all of a sudden pull something like, “Let’s just go to the (pick unusual or meaningful place) before we go to the . . .” or “Let’s just stop at this spot for a moment,” while just a moment ago he was all concerned about arriving on time.

There are three possibilities going here.  You are about to be proposed to, he is just a hopeless romantic in general (a good thing to know,) or he wants to steal you purse.  Please be discerning.

HOW IS MARRIAGE LIKE CHRISTMAS?

I was out walking Sebastian this morning and a jogger stopped to say thanks to the Church for keeping Christmas alive throughout the Christmas seasons.  “I can’t believe how many trees I’ve already seen on the devil strip!”  

On the other hand, Sebastian was in need of a long walk last night after my duties were done and so we took a long night walk and I was very proud of my neighborhood as the number of lights and trees that we did see gave testimony that there are still some people out there who get it.

My jogging friend (who is always great for giving me things about which to mull over) said, “Christmas should be more like art.  The muse gives you inspiration and you contemplate the work, then you have the gift as the art is brought to life, and then you live in the presence.”

That is an apt expression of the Church’s liturgical life during this season.  Advent is the time to anticipate.  The Gift comes on Christmas day, and then we live in the presence of Christmas until the Baptism of the Lord when His public ministry begins.

As a society though, we eat most of the sugar first (trees, decorations, lights, good, parties,) have a duller moment of gift, and then are ready to go on a diet once the actual Christmas season begins.  

Does this not seem to mimic how society celebrates married life?  Traditionally it’s, “First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the couple with the baby carriage.”  But very often today first comes the sugar: living together and practicing married life without being in the season of marriage.  Then there is the duller moment of gift - there will be no firsts.  Besides the exchange of vows, life will continue as it did the month before with possible exception of a change in name.  Than it’s back to life as usual.  

I think there is something to be said for delayed satisfaction.  (It's no guarantee mind you, but I believe the odds are in its favor.): The season of anticipation, hoping, dreaming, longing - terrible, terrible longing.  The gift then is so much sweater!  At last!  Relief!  Satisfaction!  Satiation!  And THEN we settle in for an extra long season of living in the presence.  Of gratefulness.   

WITH THIS LUGNUT

Okay, I did NOT see this one coming.

 

Though I should have.

 

I remember having the discussion that if the definition of marriage was changed from its ancient understanding that was attached to procreation and family (or even sex for that matter) and base it solely on strong emotional bonds that it would lead to other forms of marriage other than just between two people and being told, “Oh no, that would NEVER happen.”  Well since then we have had the mother who wanted to marry her daughter in order to assist her in raising her daughter.  More recently we have had the case of the three women who married out west and one of them being inseminated in order for triumvirate to raise a family.

 

BUT I WASN’T IMAGINING CREATIVELY ENOUGH!

 

Yesterday (Wednesday) on NPR there was a story about the development of robots.  As they become more complicated and self-sufficient the question was asked at what point will they become “persons.”  The prediction was that their rights would develop over time.  Robots will slowing gain “rights” and eventually be able to sue.  Law suits could be filed not because the owner of a robot was seeking damages to his property but that the robot would be able to sue for violation of (his?) person.  The prediction was that 20 years following the first successful suing by a robot (against a human or another robot was not specified) there will be the first wedding.  (Again, they did not specify if it was between a robot and a person or two robots – but now we see almost anything can go.)

Here is another article on the topic.

 

Which all leads back to the sticking point: Once marriage can mean anything, it ceases to mean anything.

CHANGING FOUNDATIONS - CULTURES CULTIVATE

Continuing yesterday’s thoughts . . .

 

Let us just take one example from a current lively topic:  Marriage.  On the one hand we have a people with a certain set of foundational beliefs that go along with what has been the definition of marriage for the centuries and another with foundational beliefs that say marriage should be changed.  The first group claims that if changed, it will harm society.  The second group asks (rightly) the question, “So, same sex marriage was legalized in any number of places – did we see riots?  Did people start ransacking businesses?  Did schools go down the drain?  Did families disintegrate?  Did a nuclear bomb go off?

 

Well, of course not.  If same sex marriage were legalized in Ohio today, tomorrow Ohio would look much the same.  My cable would still work, Swenson’s would still sell hamburgers, and there would still be water in the tap when I turned it on.  But, like though the surface may look the same, underneath the foundations would be different and eventually those differences will start manifesting themselves.

 

Here is the subtle difference:  There is a reason (at least in the Catholic Church) there is no such thing as a “private” wedding.  There is a reason we publish bands, ring bells before and after the ceremony, and have it in the Church: because a marriage does not belong to the man and woman who are being married, it belongs to the whole community.  We all have a stake.  (Hence the worry that many priests have when a bride is too focused on having her perfect day.)  The ministry of love is to all these two who have become one flesh come in contact.  The purpose of marriage is to bring children into the world and raise them well within the community.  Beyond that, it is for the joy of the couple so that they may reach out. 

 

The new laws of marriage do not focus on community or for the interest of the next generation necesarily but the rights and joy of the couple.  It is not a marriage that the community necessarily has a stake in.  It can benefit in the way it benefits from any friendship or (chaste) love between any two (or more) people, but it is not the same as the fruitful, marital union of man and woman. Over time this foundational assumption will start to have an effect on every aspect of our lives.  Marriage and family, after all, are the building blocks of society and to change them is to change all of society.

 

True, there are horrible examples of marriage that at least have the façade of a true, traditional marriage, and there are shining examples of a more modern definition of marriage that seem to be life giving.  But the first is not a good marriage and the second would have the same effect on the community if the marriage were not recognized in this particular way.

 

There will be side issues thrown into the discussion also – infertile couples, legal protection for people, Christians proper relationships to their brothers and sisters with SSA, . . .  and these should be addressed.  But neither these nor the host of other issues that crop up have anything to do with the foundational belief system that undergirds them all.  What is marriage for?  It is an important issue too glibly decided and set aside without understanding the foundations that one is laying for society which will have an effect on every aspect of our lives.

LONE VOICES IN THE PAPER

Kevin O’Brien wrote a decent article in the Plain Dealer during Holy Week concerning the state of marriage.  He definitely spoke against the political correct position.  In part he said:

 

“Marriage is the fundamental basis of civilization and the smallest functional molecule of the organism that we call society.  One may reject the idea that God ordained heterosexual marriage as part of his plant for humanity, but one cannot reject the argument that nature ordained it as a matter of practical necessity.  Only heterosexual relationships can perpetuate the species.  There simply is no other way of going about it.”

 

That’s called Natural Law. 

 

He goes on further (and this is where I think he really makes his case) “If we put the law at odds with the order established and replicated though out nature, then how can anyone ever justify drawing a new legal boundary line?”  In other words, if we redefine marriage to be any two people who want to commit themselves to each other for life, why stop there?  What about polygamy?  Why should such people be denied the right to marry?  What about the case of the mother and daughter who want to be recognized as married, not for any indecent purpose, but because they want to team up to raise the daughter’s child and want legal protections and benefits?  Why shouldn’t the men of Saint Andrew’s Abby (who take a vow of stability) be recognized as all married so that they may be protected and receive benefits?  The harm?  Once marriage can mean anything, it ceases to mean anything. 

 

I’ve hear people say that it wouldn’t go any further than same sex marriage.  That the idea of it going any further than that is just silly.  But nobody can say why or what there would be to put such a boundary up to stop it there – a boundary that would now be clearly imaginary.

 

Unfortunately I think he hurts his case by saying people could start marrying across species and with inanimate objects.   Other species and such objects cannot give their consent. 

 

After finishing the article we said, “Man, is he going to get crucified tomorrow” and he was.  But if there is going to be any meeting ground on this issue, it will be with points such as this.  “God ordained it” as much as I may believe it is not going to wash with those who don’t believe that.

PUTTING YOURSELF OUT THERE

If you are looking to get married you don’t hide things about yourself in order to lure someone into marrying you.  One of two things might happen as a result: 1) You will be somewhat unhappy hiding something for the rest of your life or 2) Your spouse will be feel angry and betrayed when whatever it is you are concealing becomes exposed.

 

For some reason (and I occasionally fall for it myself) preachers do the same thing in trying to “keep the numbers up.”  Dicey and controversial topics are not brought up in homilies, prayer services, or classes because we might lose people.  So leading up to the last election much of the Catholic Church was caught with its pants down trying to proclaim a message but unfortunately for much of the Church it was too late: Catholics did not need to be reminded about what our faith says about many of these touchy topics, they needed introduced to a mindset that produces these beliefs.  A pamphlet or a homily one week before the election aint gonna cut it.

 

There is a gentleman who works at St. Sebastian who happens to not be Catholic.  One day he stopped me and presents me with a list of topics ranging from abortion to health care.  “When was the last time you preached on any of these topics?” he asked me for he was greatly saddened that he had not heard any of this talked about at all at his church ever.  “Our faith is supposed to help us understand these things.  If we don’t hear about them at church there are plenty of other people out there working hard to have us think the way they want us to think about them.”

 

Now I admit that I am intimidated to speak on some of these matters.  But they are what they are – they are who we are.  It is not matter of politics – it is Catholic 101.  That some of these topics happen to line up with hot button issues going on in politics is just happenstance.  And we must be honest about who we are for we are in covenant together and that means full disclosure as one would hope a future spouse would offer.

 

Just one last note: I know there is some amount of wiggle room in some of these topics.  I am just saying we must talk about them as Church.  Only then can someone make a clear, full, and free decision if they want to be part of (or leave) this intimate Communion of people.

THE SLAP THAT COST $250,000

Bluecoats is an organization that strives to take care of our emergency first responders who are injured in the line of duty.  I am lucky enough to be one of their chaplains.  Last night they had their annual banquet and yearly meeting.  They always have a great speaker and last night was no exception.

 

The speaker Mr. Joseph D. Pistone who served in the FBI for 27 years, 6 of which were spent undercover as a member of the Mafia.  His work led to hundreds of convictions the story of which is told in the critically acclaimed major motion picture, "Donnie Brasco" featuring Al Pacino and Johnny Depp.  Below is some outtakes from that movie.  You need not watch it but I wanted to make a comment about something that happens about 28 seconds into the clip.  He is shown slapping his wife.

 

During his talk last night he called special attention to this moment in the movie.  He desired to make absolutely clear that at no time in his life did he ever lay a hand on his wife.  The slap was completely fictional.  This was stressed in the most earnest of ways.

 

A little later someone asked how much of the movie did he have control over.  He responded that he was pretty lucky and that he had a bit of say so over the movie.  Joe was gone, however, the day that they shot the slap.  Becoming rather upset he shut down production for half a day.  "Eventually the director won out.  He was the "captain" of the ship as it were.  But I cost them about a quarter of a million shutting down the film for half a day."

 

Now as you can imagine, spending six years with the Mafia, Mr. Pistone probably did not lead a saintly life.  But what is it that led him to say, "This far and no further."  The attack on marriage, on his manhood, on his role as husband was more than he was willing to let go without challenge.  There is a lesson in there somewhere for all of our men.  How far are we willing to go.  I would personally be very flattered if anyone would want to make a movie of my life, pay me lots of money, and have Johnny Depp play me.  Would that trump my beliefs enough that I would bow easily to something that went against my core beliefs?  I desperately hope not.

GUEST BLOGGER: HERE CHICKIE CHICKIE CHICKIE

Actually "Guest Blogger" is not a being exactly honest.  In actuality I am reprinting Cardinal George's words about the whole Chick-fil-A controversy.  Before that, however, I must say that I was listening to NPR yesterday and heard them handle this issue.  They covered it well taking both sides of the issue (though everyone interviewed was for SS marriage) and asking hard questions of those on both sides of the debate.  I was astounded.  So since I point out their foibles so often I thought to give them a nod today.

It is a difficult topic to talk about.  How do you uphold your faith in the Catholic Church and not sound like a bigot?  One way on this topic is to not get side tracked about SS marriage.  This is about government decreeing favors or hinderances depending on your (currently anyway) perfectly legal point of view.

It is not adequate to debate Jesus here.  One of the persons being interviewed yesterday (and I am quoting loosely but not far off) that "Don't get me wrong.  The Bible is an important document in our history.  But it is outdated.  It is nearly 3,000 years old.  We have moved beyond it.  After all it condoned stoning wives and keeping slaves."  (I know, I know, it didn't.  That the problem with bumper sticker debating.)

Anyway, Cardinal George had some intelligent things to say on this so I thought to share it with you today.

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.” Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus. Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will? What are we re-defining?

 

It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage. Marriage existed before Christ called together his first disciples two thousand years ago and well before the United States of America was formed two hundred and thirty six years ago. Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female. The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women. Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

Both Church and state do, however, have an interest in regulating marriage. It is not that religious marriage is private and civil marriage public; rather, marriage is a public institution in both Church and state. The state regulates marriage to assure stability in society and for the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens. The state has a vested interest in knowing who is married and who is not and in fostering good marriages and strong families for the sake of society.

 

The Church, because Jesus raised the marital union to the level of symbolizing his own union with his Body the Church, has an interest in determining which marital unions are sacramental and which are not. The Church sees married life as a path to sanctity and as the means for raising children in the faith, as citizens of the universal kingdom of God. These are all legitimate interests of both Church and state, but they assume and do not create the nature of marriage.

People who are not Christian or religious at all take for granted that marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the sake of family and, of its nature, for life. The laws of civilizations much older than ours assume this understanding of marriage. This is also what religious leaders of almost all faiths have taught throughout the ages. Jesus affirmed this understanding of marriage when he spoke of “two becoming one flesh” (Mt. 19: 4-6). Was Jesus a bigot? Could Jesus be accepted as a Chicagoan? Would Jesus be more “enlightened” if he had the privilege of living in our society? One is welcome to believe that, of course; but it should not become the official state religion, at least not in a land that still fancies itself free.

Surely there must be a way to properly respect people who are gay or lesbian without using civil law to undermine the nature of marriage. Surely we can find a way not to play off newly invented individual rights to “marriage” against constitutionally protected freedom of religious belief and religious practice. The State’s attempting to redefine marriage has become a defining moment not for marriage, which is what it is, but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens.

Francis Cardinal George, OMI

RANT - COUNTER RANT: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE DO NOT THINK THROUGH THEIR OPINIONS

Jennifer Turley writes to the editor in the Akron Beacon Journal Tuesday May 29^th edition that she is interested in truth.  I am glad.  I hope she takes this analysis of her letter in that same vein.

Take this sentence from her letter; “How much longer must we endure the ‘traditional’ concept of marriage that’s being sullied by every celebrity on the planet (Kardashians anyone?) while those in loving, faithful, and devoted relationships are being denied the opportunity to solidify their commitment with a vow or ceremony?”

One might argue that not everybody who is in a “traditional concept of marriage” is trashing it nor are those not in “traditional” marriages honoring it.  And there certainly isn’t anybody preventing anyone from exchanging a vow or having a ceremony.  But I am fairly confident that is not what she means.  She wants these nontraditional marriages to be officially recognized by the government all of which sounds innocent enough.  I would also imagine that she realizes just because a same sex couple moved in next door to her that civilization would not come to a screeching halt, planes will not fall out of the sky, and the parousea will not begin.

She requests that nobody “thump a Bible” at her and I quite agree.  It will do little good.  To begin, not everyone in the United States believes in the Bible.  Further, not everybody believes that the Bible says the same thing.  As one Episcopal bishop put it about 10 years ago, “Don’t go quoting the Bible to me about this.  You can make the Bible say just about anything you want to.”  And he is correct.  That is what happens when there is no authority or tradition.

It is better to respond logically.  If I were a bettin' man I would wager that Turley did not write the title to her letter but that it was given by the paper.  It states, “Allowing Marriage for All Loving Couples.”  This title is rather short sighted and I would suppose that Turley would find it offensive and narrow minded.

Whereas the Church (and by that I mean the Catholic Church) cannot change its teaching on marriage because it would have to change the very definition of marriage thereby throwing most of its theology and tradition into chaos, the state is not thusly encumbered.  It can break with precedent (which in this case does go back to the Bible) and simply change its definition. 

 

But if this is done it spits amounts of toothpaste out of a tube most never imagine.  Once precedent is done away with, the definition of marriage can be whatever we want it to be.  (That doesn’t sound so bad does it?)  Here Turley states very well that marriage should be for those in, “loving, faithful, and devoted relationships.”  But who is to say that this should be between just two people?  Precedent is now done away with and the idea that having children (naturally) is done away with and eligibility for marriage is simply based on persons in a committed relationship, what is to prevent us from having three people married even if they be of the same or mixed sexes?  Why not 5 of various sexes and preferences?  Why not 20?  How can we possibly limit it to 2 people?  What is to prevent us?  What of those in truly committed relationships that are not in the “traditional” limit of 2? 

I contend that once “tradition” is breached then there are no safe guards, nothing to which we might refer that could morally or legally keep marriage to two individuals.  As long as there is a strong enough backing, marriage can come to mean just about anything.

It is not about hating anybody or depriving a good thing grom anyone.  It is about recognizing that when marriage can mean just about anything – it ceases to mean anything.

INFANTS AT MASS: GIFT OF GOD OR SPAWN OF SATAN?

The priest is just about to reach the grand crescendo of his homily and then the key sentence is obliterated by an infant’s “WhaaaaaAAAAAAAAAaaaaaa!”  It happens.  What do you expect?  These little one so recently from the womb are not the future of the Church, they are the Church.  They are home.  At home one must deal with such things.

That being said, Mass is not something that one can sit back and “let it happen to you.”  If you really want to receive as much out of the Mass as you can, it requires an investment of your body and your mind.  “Active participation” as called for by Vatican II does not mean multiplying made up ministries in order for people to “have something to do,” it means actively praying particularly when we are given the instruction, “Let us pray,” it means joining in with the prayers of the priest, it means paying attention to what is said in order to understand better.  All that can be pretty difficult if you have an air raid siren going off next to your ear.

There are two ways to look at this.  I am flipping a coin at the moment to see which one will go first.  Just a sec.  Heads – This is the view of some that screaming babies have no place at worship.  We are not simply talking about fussy babies or one terrifying scream, but loud and incessant screaming.  It is during these times that I know I am losing the attention of half the nave during the homily as heads are turning and faces are crumbling into annoyance.  “They should go to the cry room – or the narthex!” comes the hue and cry after Mass.  It is disrespectful to the rest of the community who cannot “enjoy” their Mass in peace.

There is some truth to this.  If it were an adult acting like this we might be forced to call the police.  And most parishes are equipped with a place for such parents and children to be so that they might still be present at Mass, but will somewhat contained the shouting.

The other is exemplified by something a priest said during a Mass when I was growing up.  He told the story (that I am sure is apocryphal) that one day a child in his tiny church (St. Mary in Barberton) was screaming during the homily and the mother stood up to take the child outside.  “He’s not bothering me,” said the priest.  “I know,” the mother replied, “You’re bothering him.”

The priest exemplifies the idea that little ones such as these are part of who we are.  “Let the children come unto me,” and all that.  It is a sign of life in a parish.  That is what it is to be a family.  “Cry unto the Lord!”  That these little ones are among us is a great homily in and of itself.

And cry rooms are not (usually) all that great.  Unfortunately some people use them as a sick room.  Studies show that many germs are passed on in these small confined spaces.  Others use it as a play room which is terribly distracting.  I recently heard that at one particular Mass we have certain persons making use of the cry room to escape the air-conditioning and are not particularly welcoming to persons with crying babies interrupting their quiet (and warmer) Mass.

So what do we do?  I definitely vote down the Cherrios solution (as does our cleaning staff.)  Of course there has to be some give and take on both sides.  It’s largely about being part of the family.  Families are sloppy conglomerations of people whose standards vary widely.  It’s the best of families that grant each other wide tolerance while hopefully trying to look out for the sensibilities of others.