IS THIS TITLE TRUE OR MERELY CLEVER?

I lost the reference for the following paragraph by it was from a magazine called, “The Sun” from an edition from this past year.  The author is going to make a statement.  After you read it, stop and think about it.  Do you agree with it or not and most importantly WHY? 

 

“The self is always moving.  It isn’t going to continue existing after you die.  The minute you buy into the idea that some part of you will hang around, you’ve removed yourself from this world of trees and clouds and birds.  And if you’re not in this flowing world of change, then you’re nowhere.”

 

Now stop, pray, and think.  Is this true?  If it is true or not true, why? 

 

Now that you have done that, here is one possible response:

 

The man who made this statement is a man of deep faith.  He bases his theory upon ideas that are no more “provable” than that of the Christian – I would argue even less so.  That nothing of us lives on is an assumed principle upon which the rest of his theory rests.  But even if we grant him this, does the rest of his hypothesis hold true?

 

If that to which he is referring is the Christian theology that is held by much of the Protestant world and that of some other religions that creation is bad and spirit is good, then he may have something.  Those who call the body evil (or at least opposed to that which is good) have to deny the body and focus on the spirit exclusively.  Mud is bad, angels are good.  Therefor the world is something to be used and discarded.  Its sole purpose is to steer us toward the spiritual.  Then it is true that we not ever really here and a part of creation.

 

But is the opposite true?  If nothing of us lives on does that ipso facto make us more here among the birds and the clouds?  If this is the case then there are no consequences for how we treat the nature other what than might recoil back on ourselves as the line goes, “Don’t pee in your own well.”  But when I die, I cease to exist.  Eventually there will be no one to remember me.  The Earth is a fluke that will one day also simply cease to be.  Humans will not even be a memory.  You might want to keep things nice “for the next guy” but in the end that would just because you want to not because there is any truth to the idea of “the good.”  Preservation is just as much a selfish act as abuse.  So why not suck as much life out of this earth as possible?  Throw another log on the fire, drink out of Styrofoam cup, and rev up the gas generator so that you can listen to some tunes on your radio.  If you are abusing anything, you are not really present to it either.

 

But what if, as in Catholic theology, everything that is is good.  God created all from nothing and he holds it in being.  Then everything to some extent participates in God.  The computer screen on which you are reading this is good.  The paper, ink, persons depicted, and form of a porn magazine are good.  What man did with those things is bad.  (Hence the true perversion of sin!)  If the world is good, if there will be an accounting of how we handled the world (as there was with Adam and the garden,) then won’t we appreciate more, be better to, be more aware of, and be more present to the trees, the clouds, and the birds?

 

I had a skateboard once that I used on the parking lot across the street from my house.  I would skate down the hill and then kick the board back up.  My Mom stopped me one day to explain how expensive that toy was and how I was expected to take better care of it.  Knowing that my actions would be seen, and being taught about the value of my board, I was much more present to it.

NOTHING NEW?

Perhaps you have heard the brouhaha over the new teacher’s contracts in the Diocese of Cleveland.  I do understand the angst about them.  Essentially there is nothing different about them per se, but on the other hand there is something very different about them.

 

What is not different about them is that there is no new information in them.  What was implied before is now spelled out.  A public life lived in accord with the faith was expected before and is expected now.

 

What is different is now it is spelled out on more controversial topics.  Living in invalid marriages, publically supporting abortion rights, and a host of other points have been spelled out more explicitly.  This is partly in response to the new healthcare mandates, partly to help stave off litigation, and partly to reestablish a stronger Catholic identity in our schools.

 

Is it a good idea?  Not being a lawyer or a politician I am not sold either way.  But there is an aspect of this whole dust storm that is coming to light that illuminates a profound misunderstanding about what we are (supposed to be) doing as Catholic schools.  A reading of some Letters to the Editor as of late give example.

 

One of these letters read something like this: “It is a shame that the Catholic Church is forcing the issue on what constitutes a good Catholic.  By limiting the pool of teachers, we will be missing out on great educators, which can only harm our schools and our students.  We want our kids to have the best teachers.”

 

Such a statement betrays a deep confusion of the nature of Catholic schools.  A Catholic school is not a public school, it is not even a private school, it is a parochial school.  Unlike public schools which are becoming more and more limited in passing on culture, discipline, ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, or even God, and unlike private schools who are there to simply provide a superior education (hopefully), a Catholic school is also about the formation of the human person, imbuing ideas of the good with very clear ideas of what that is.  She passes on truth, concepts of what is holy, beautiful, and how one should live embracing the respect of life, family, the dignity of the human person, and all that entails with the 2,000 year understanding of the revealed truths of the faith.

 

It is culture that we are passing on, not simply knowledge.  If it were not for the faith and the culture we would close our schools or make them profitable private schools as has happened to so many of our colleges and high schools. 

 

So let’s say there is a police officer that comes to your child’s school to teach about staying off of drugs.  He is very effective.  The kids love him.  He is popular with the parents.  But he also has a website promoting illegal drug use and the kids know it.  He admitted to the kids that he regularly uses drugs though they should stay off of them.  He was quoted in the newspaper as saying that drugs should be made legal and available.  No matter how good he is in the classroom and while in the school building, do you really want him teaching your kids about drugs?

 

Our faith is a culture, not a set of facts in a book.  It cannot be taught like math.  It is caught, not taught.  No one can “teach Catholicism” while living a life contrary to it for then it becomes a dead message.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: DON'T MESS WITH MY LITTLE SISTERS

Today I was poised (poised I tell you) to write a scathing article about reporters and editorialists who never took (or have completely forgotten or ignore) a theology class, a philosophy class, or an ethics class that dealt with the Catholic faith (which is a significant part of the population – more than half of all Christians are Catholic after all so this is no small matter) and then imagine they can think over an issue in the shower and come up with a sensible solution with which the Catholic Church, if it were in its right mind, should agree.  The problem being is that their level of competence is rarely up to the task.  This is not to say that they may not be extremely knowledgeable people in other fields, but sometimes I despair that it is obvious that a reporter has failed to even ask what an orthodox, faithful, and knowledgeable Catholic might have to say on a topic.

 

But then, Kevin O’Brien wrote an editorial in today’s Plain Dealer, E3 (January 8, 2014) concerning the health care mandate and the Little Sisters of the Poor entitled “Even the Little Sisters of the Poor are subject to Big Brother’s bullying.”  (On a side note, I am not sure why capitalization for titles is no longer in use in newspapers, but perhaps the rules have changed.)  I will grant that the article is a tinsy wincy bit acidic, but of course I like it because I agree with him.  But he nailed the issues that so many other news sources have not grasped, cared about, or have ignored for other motivations.  Read the article here.

 

It’s sad to see how much money the government is wasting defending desire to provide every man, woman, and child with contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations.  It is interesting to note that many of these very things have been offered for free from clinics for decades and others at very minimal cost.  Considering the vast amount of extremely expensive exemptions that have already been granted (government, you don’t have to participate – unions, you don’t have to participate) why is there such an effort to have the Catholic Church submit to this comparatively inexpensive item?  We are not opting out like the government itself is doing or unions, we just want this one exception.  (Not that I am recommending it, but it would be interesting to see how many decades the government could have supplied these services for free through clinics with the money they would have saved by just granting the exemption instead of having these expensive court battles that seem will continue well into the future.)

 

Of course, maybe it isn’t really about contraception or (an already very un-) level playing field.  Could it be that Catholics are not as worthy citizens as those who work for unions or in the government?  Is there another agenda at work here?  (Okay, maybe I am becoming jaded.)  But this seemingly little crack in religious freedom could be a hole in the damn.  Unless the Little Sisters stick their thumb in the hole, what will happen when another issue comes up effecting another matter or another faith and we look at precedent and decide, “Well, it was constitutional, for government interests, to force the Catholic Church to act against its core beliefs, therefore we may turn on you next.”

 

In this light, this is no small matter.

WORSHIPPING THE MIRROR

“I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members,” so said the comedian Groucho Marks.  I would probably say the same thing about a Church.  I don’t want a Church that says I have no need to grow and develop.  Nor do I need a Church that validates my held beliefs.  I want a Church that challenges me, asks me difficult questions, shakes up my assumptions, makes me think, urges me to growth, and ardently desires to transform me into a saint.

 

Many Christian Churches have, for the large part, abandoned this vision.  I was riding with a gentleman the other day who proudly spoke of his Church and how they do not even expect him to make an effort to look like Church is anything special on Sunday.  “I can go in ratty shorts and T-shirt.  And the music is rock and roll.”  He was in his upper 50s.  I said, “Wow.  My parish is kinda headed in the opposite direction.  I think it attracts the younger families more.  It is my goal to expect more of them.”

 

The same could be said of philosophy and theology.  Many Churches (non-Catholic) have changed their beliefs to an extraordinary degree.  Go back to even the year 1900, and if we could do a graph, the rate of change would start slowly and then skyrocket.  Really, what teaching in most Christian denominations do not simply mimic popular culture?  Abortion, contraception, same sex marriage . . . gads, why even bother listing them all?  Modern Church is about worshipping what we already believe and enshrining it in our weekend services.

 

Cultures cultivate.  And our current culture is cultivating our Churches.  It reforms them, informs them, coaxing God to change His mind on virtually any popular topic on order to match ours, the enlightened ones.  Glad God is catching up.

 

It is one of the strengths of the Catholic Church that it is also so terribly cultural on a world wide (and historical) scale.  It is a culture that cannot be voted into changing, or coaxed into matching the local thought beliefs, or pressured into accepting outside influence on its theology.  It is designed to influence culture, not be influenced by it.  If your faith, parish, or diocese is not working to change the family, city, or nation for the good, then it is failing.  (If it is more influenced than influencing, it is dying.) 

 

It doesn’t mean anybody has to listen.  But we are not excused from being loyal to the truths of the faith.  For if we are not leaven, we are salt that has gone flat.

PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVISM

There is a local church that has one of the few marquees to which I pay attention.  There is always something there that makes me stop and think, usually because it is a challenge to my belief though we share the same moniker of Christian.  The church considers itself progressive and innovative and advertises such quips as, “Planned Parenthood helps men too!”  This is, of course absolutely true.  As long as the man has not had the life snuffed out of him in his mother’s womb by Planned Parenthood, it will then help him later in his life, if appropriate funding can be found, even to helping him snuff out the life of his own son.

 

And so we have the march of progress.  In fact, that is one of their latest tag lines on their marquee: “Progressive churches make things happen.”  This little dandy caught my attention and occupied quite a bit of my contemplation time.  “What exactly is that supposed to mean?”  Like so many things we are presented with, it seems like it means something but if you take the time to think about it, it really doesn’t.

Consider firstly the word “progressive.”  What does it mean to be a church “of progress?”  After all, progress in science may allows us to have vacations on the moon, but we may not live to see it if our cancer progresses.  For progress to mean anything positive, there must be a goal to progress to.  For far too many people, progress simply means stumbling forward; doing something because we can, not because we are supposed to.  Not all moving forward is progress.  Cities, societies, even people move forward toward decay.  If you do not know who you want to be when you grow up, you might get older, but you won’t progress to anything positive.

 

In order for a Christian church to be progressive, there must be an ultimate goal and that goal must outline what is best both for the human person and for humanity in general physically, mentally, and spiritually.  It must be based on truth and being so, all true progress will move toward that truth.  Progress, then, is not a process of allowing humanity to go to seed as it wishes but to lift it up to an ideal; rather than broadening the path, it teaches men to walk the narrow road.

 

In this, then, I would argue there is not a Church as progressive as the Catholic Church in (when it is properly understood.)  It has an ideal to achieve and to which man is called; it calls each individual and collective communities to the highest standards of health, knowledge, and holiness.  When it moves men in this direction, it is truly progressive.

 

“Makes things happen,” the second part of the tag line, is a particularly value free statement.  A squirrel running past a dog in a china shop makes things happen.  That being said, if I had to guess at what the sign intended to convey I would supposed it implies that if you do not like the current state of affairs or the current idea of what progress is, then one should join them to make change happen.  (A whole other topic.)  As a whole, I like “things to happen.”  It is far superior to things not happening at all.  But there are things I would rather happen and other things I would rather not.  But in any event, if I am going to be part of a church that “makes things happen,” I hope it is truly a Church of progress and not simply a Church blindly moving forward.

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.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: YOUR DAILY DOSE OF MANNERS

Here is an example where understanding proper manners helps keep us away from uncomfortable situations which moderns often point out after a moment of silence by a lone person saying “Awk – ward.” 

Mrs. Fenner states rather broadly that, “Among Protestants an invitation to be a godparent is an honor that must be accepted.  A refusal is socially impossible.  Among Catholics this is not true.”  That is because of the promises that are assumed of the Catholic godparent.  This is not an honorary role but one with significant responsibilities.  It will assume that you are leading an upright Catholic life, attending the sacraments, are a person of prayer, and will help, in any way that you can, the young person to grow closer to Christ in the Church throughout his life.  One is not chosen because, “Mikey is the youngest brother and the only one that nobody has asked yet.  It would mean so much to him – once he gets out of jail for that terrorist bombing incident.”

Again quoting Mrs. Fenner, “If parents are themselves good Catholics who do their duty toward their child, the sponsor’s obligation is a slight one.  But one can never depend upon its being so.  The parents may fall away from their Faith.  They may die (oh dear) and the child’s upbringing be entrusted to non-Catholics, or they may hold their responsibilities too lightly.”  In cases such as these, the godparent, “must assert his rights and perform his duties as the spiritual parent of the child.”  If for any reason a person realizes that he is not up to this responsibility of becoming a godparent, he should decline the role and parents should gracefully accept the answer kindly and without asking those questions that would give them the opportunity to say “Oh, but we don’t care that you are having doubts about God’s existence!  You are a good person.  We want you to be godparent anyway!  By the way, what a nice crystal you are wearing.”  What a noble thing it is for someone to decline for the spiritual welfare of your child and that should be accepted.

It behooves parents to know who may and who may not be a godparent and what is expected of them before asking somebody to be a godparent.  It puts everyone in a foul and festering mood when the priest has to say, “I’m sorry, but that is an impossibility for that person to be a godparent (hence one of the reasons for the class mention last week.)

There is to be a godparent.  If there are two, one must be male and the other female.  There is no fudging on this.  They must be fully initiated and practicing Catholics.  They must obtain a sponsor certificate from the parish at which they are a member that they are supposedly supporting and are well known enough that the priest feels comfortable saying that he recommends them.  All of this because the godparent is welcoming them and guiding them into a way of living.  The godparent cannot be the mother or father of the child – you already have a job.

“But I already asked my brother Mike and his husband George, a Unitarian universalist, and their 5 year old child Feebee to all be godparents!  You have to let us do this Father!”  Fortunately for Father he does not have to refuse the parents demand.  It is no more in his power to grant this permission than it would be to give them permission to paint graffiti on the White House.  He will merely state, “I am sorry, there is nothing I can do.”  Having the rules in mind before asking can save worlds of hurt between family members, friends, and between the general public and the Church.

I thought there would be enough time and space to get into “Naming the Baby” but the topic is just too precious and long to tag onto the above.  So we will hit that next week.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN

“There’s always a king somewhere.”

Or so says Michner in his book, “The Source.”

I tend to agree with him.  No matter how democratic a democratic nation or organization might be, there is a person or small group of persons with undue influence on how things go.  There is a de facto person in charge.  Even if it is simply by natural selection there is that person that people will naturally turn toward as leader even if that leader is charged with making sure the democratic nature is upheld. 

I would also augment Michner’s statement to say, “There is always a pope.”  We could extend it further and say, “there is always a Tradition.”  And it seems the more a church fights against popes and tradition, the more they entrench the very ideas they wish to deny.

Take, for example, a typical non-denominational church where the very thought of having a leader acting as a universal vicar for Christ is taught as an abhorrent notion.  Where does that very notion come from?  The pastor of the church – perhaps in consultation with some form of elders.  Sounds very much like a pope in consultation with his cardinals.  There is an established hierarchy (even if there is a strong effort to deny and hide the fact) but the belief system is not left to chance.  There is a clear message with an authoritative leader.

“Ahhh,” a dissenter from this thought might say, “but that pastor or that church board is not speaking on its own but, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is only speaking the unadulterated truth of the Gospel and not adding anything to it.”  (Sola Scriptura as it is known.)  This is actually a very good retort and one that could be taken seriously if those who subscribed to such a belief did not splinter into thousands and thousands of churches on just about every point in the Bible. 

Take this example:  Baptism.  Some say that it is necessary for salvation, others do not.  Some say that it transforms who we are, others see it as a rite of passage.  Some see it as permanent, some do not.  Some see at as an assurance of heaven, some do not.  Some understand the Trinitarian formula much as the Catholic Church does, some are far from it.  If Scripture is so very clear so that all one has to do is read it and it will give you the exact instructions on what to do to be admitted into heaven, how on earth could there be so many interpretations of what it says?

And how do people of any given denomination (or so called non-denominations) know what interpretation to follow.  There is only one answer:  It is their Tradition – the very unbiblical interpretation of what they are reading and pass on from one believer to the next.  It may be voted on by a conference, a congregation, held in a writing of a founder, interpreted by a pastor, history book, or decided upon by grandma at the dining room table and passed on to her family but in any event it is a Tradition on how to interpret the Scripture being read.  (Even which version of Scripture to read is a Tradition.  The accumulation of the Bible itself is a result of Tradition.)

Every church you pass on the way to Mass has some form of pope and exercises some form of Tradition.  It is just much more transparent at your Catholic parish.

YOU'RE WELCOME

I don’t think (correct me if I am wrong) that any other religious denomination receives as much free advice as the Catholic Church.  I think we should take it rather a compliment that so many people want to be so helpful.  How often are there editorials telling the Episcopalians how to manage their affairs?  Or letters to the paper debating about the leadership of the Baptists.  Or Fox news telling Jewish people what they should believe by interviewing dissident Jews?  Or radio personalities touting non-practicing Methodists as experts on the practices of Methodism?  But the Catholic Church receives grand attention and in a back handed way I suppose we should take is as flattering that we are so (effective? numerous?  noticeable? counter cultural?) that we are deemed so attention worthy.

A recent article took the Catholic Church to task for having the name “Catholic.”  Catholic means, of course, universal.  (It reminds me of the true story of someone traveling overseas who saw a sign that stated, “Catholics fixed here” and what they meant was universal joints on your car.)  The Catholic Church is for all people, all times, and all places.  But if this is so, why do we not throw open the doors and let in all the people regardless of where they are in life? 

 

Held up for particular praise in this regard is the Episcopal Church.  Their “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You” signs, billboards, and advertising are most well known.  Their doors are wide and wide open.  One might think that if anybody was going to use the term “catholic” or universal, it would be them.  In fact, if you go to "Google Image" search and type in the words, "The Catholic Church welcomes you" all you will get is Episcopalian signs!

I wonder if Universalists would be surprised to discover that they are catholic (at least in name.) They could have signs that state, “The Unitarian Catholics welcome you!”  But I digress.

But having a church named “Catholic” does not mean that it is open to anybody regardless of what they believe, but that it is open to anybody willing to believe what the Church believes.  Whether you be poor or rich, young or old, male or female, of any nation, background, or of dubious history, you are to be welcomed into the Catholic Church if you hold her teachings to be true for she believes that it isn’t just about taking you no matter where you are or where you are going, but taking you from where you are to something greater – to what you are meant to be in light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is yours if you want it.  It is universally open to all, not universally open to interpretation. 

OF DOS AND DON'TS

Years ago I was riding the bus to downtown Akron and there was a man in the bus making the rounds of the passengers. He would say, “Have you been saved?” If they said no he would inform them of how they were going to hell. It did not take long for the passengers to catch on to his method and would immediately block conversation with him as he made his way to their seat. Interestingly this is one of my strongest memories of my very young years and it is a negative one.

In a similar way we spend much of our time passing on the faith through the negative. “Don’t do this!” We also make the practice of the faith through lots of deadlines and warnings. “You must have this in by this date or you will be terminated.” (Okay, maybe that was a bit extreme but you get the point.) That is not to say that we should throw out the “Don’ts” and the regulations, but if that is all we present, it makes religion seem like one giant downer.

I know I have a tendency to fall into this that I have to fight against. I was working up a program for our students when I realized it was all, “You must complete this by this date. Failure to do so will mean . . .” When I re-read it I realized I was turned off by the program. It makes it easier to manage but a drag to live.

Perhaps there was a time when people knew their faith well and all they needed was little reminders of, “Don’t.” Perhaps there was strong community and family support for faith projects and much more positive interaction with the faith so that all people needed was, “Here is your deadline!” But it is not exactly so today. The teachings of the Church are beautiful. But when they are reduced to “don’t” we miss the beauty. Sacramental preparation should be a time of community and growth, but when they are reduced to deadlines hoop-jumping they are as manipulative as the pressuring man on the bus.

What we need is to be careful the way we present our faith especially to our youth. They need the joy and beauty as well as the responsibilities. We need to help them become part of the community through our activities, not simply jump through a hoop to get the carrot. Now, I grant you, some people need to be told “DON’T” and some people are so uncooperative that hoop-jumping is about all you are going to get out of them if you are lucky. But we will let the positives rule, not the negatives.

I do realize there are no solutions here. It is easy to name the problem and walk away. But the cause is good – the solutions will come if we search for them.

HUMANISM VS HUMANAEISM AND THE MAN OF THE FUTURE

Today we will have a look at the prophecies of two men who speculate what humanity will be like in the future. The interesting part is that these predictions were written quite a bit ago so they should reflect how we are experiencing life today. They are quite different and interesting to compare. See which you thought came the closest.

The first is from the “Little Blue Book” series (number 1621) written by Professor William F. Ogburn and edited by E. Haldeman-Julius. Much of the book seemed to be on the mark but it did predict the decrease of population largely due to “the spread of the use of contraceptives.”

“So then, with a restricted population, a rapidly growing technology . . . we should expect to be untrue the often quoted prediction of Jesus, ‘the poor you ye have with you always.’

“If the use of contraceptives is extended radically, it will mean a revolution for women and children . . . the answer is that the production of babies, like the production of potatoes, will be governed by demand, now that the supply can be controlled.

“If the production of babies falls very low, the value of the baby will rise, according to sound economics. This appreciation of children will show itself in better kindergartens, playgrounds, and schools . . .The spread of higher education will be more rapiod than the growth of vocational opportunities utilizing this educational content. The result will be that the common laborer will be well versed in philosophy and the plumber will discuss Aristotle – and they will still be quoting Aristotle as well as members of the professions.

“The scarcity of children will mean not only that they will be appreciated more, but that women who bear children will similarly be more highly valued. This increased value will command a price and that price will be more opportunity.”

The second prediction of the future comes from His Holiness Pope Paul VI in his encyclical, “Humane Vitae.” He addresses the same concerns as the gentleman above but predicts a much different outcome.

“It can . . .be feared that the man who becomes used to contraceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and no longer caring about her physical and psychological equilibrium, come to the point of considering her a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.

“Consider what a dangerous weapon that would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who have no concern for the requirements of morality . . . Who will stop rulers from favoring and even imposing upon their peoples, if they should consider it necessary, the method of contraception that they judge to be most efficacious . . . the intervention of public authorities (in) the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.”

Care to weigh in?

A GHOST OF A CHANCE

A number of years ago I worked as a carpenter in a theater. As all theaters are rumored this one sported tales of its very own ghost who banged around in the catwalks at night scaring the night security guards. We were running way behind schedule and I found myself working late into the night, falling asleep in the theater several nights in a row. Sure enough I heard the banging. It was loud enough to wake me out of a very sound sleep. Was it a ghost?

Saint Thomas Aquinas tells us that at death the soul is separated from the body like a ball full of air that has been pushed underwater and then let go. Immediately the soul either soars to heaven or plunges into hell. So does that discount the possibility of ghosts according to Church teaching?

Not exactly. Most people, I think, would be shocked at how much the Church has not made a definitive statement on and ghosts are one of those things. There are allowances for the possibility of them. Some of those possibilities involve purgatory. Some souls are going to heaven but have not yet been completely cleansed of their earthly attachments and so must go through a purgation as nothing unclean will enter before the presence of God. We only have a sketchy and somewhat symbolic idea of what purgatory is. Is there a possibility that a soul might have some dealings with earthly things as part of its purgation? Maybe.

There may also be the case too that God might allow us to see either in dream or vision a person deceased in order to remind us to pray for them or to call us to holiness. Samuel prophesied from the grave and we readily accept for the possibility of saint speaking to us such as at Fatima.

Of course we also know that angels as a cosmic force act in the world. We have only to look at the Annunciation for that. But if good angels can act, so can evil ones. We see this in the demons that Christ regularly banished from people.

I am highly skeptical about such activity but still find it something not to mess around with. Every diocese has an exorcist and they aint around for kicks (though they are very seldom called upon). But the other world is like electricity. Properly experienced there is absolutely nothing dangerous or wrong with it. Improperly used it can kill you.

Are we forbidden contact with the next world? No! We do it all the time. But we do it as God bids us. It is called prayer and intercession. Even legitimate scientific study is not completely outlawed “provided there is no recourse to means that are essentially immoral or specifically forbidden.”

But trying to control cosmic forces, using spirits to gain knowledge from God’s realm, (a form of divination) evocation of the dead, these are all forbidden actions. Such actions lead to superstition, possibilities of being frauded, and the very real chance that one is dealing with a decepting spirit.

If you feel you are being visited by a “ghost”, I would probably think there was more likely a more earthly explanation. But if not, if it is of God there is nothing to fear. Pray. If it is not of God, you have nothing to fear for you always have God. Pray.

Though I tend not to believe in such things, tired of being kept up late at night in that theater I climbed up into the catwalks and said a prayer for the soul of our “ghost”. The banging stopped. From then on. That means I either prayed a cure for the hot water pipes, or perhaps a soul went to his reward. Who knows?

ART. WHAT IS ART?

What spiritual direction is to faith I need the equivalent in some aspects of modern art and architecture. I went to the see the new addition to the Akron Art Museum (a post for another day) and spent some time in the modern art section. I went to my most troubling pieces and tried to spend some quality time with them. There was one piece in particular I was going to try to “figure out”. I read the artist’s and curator’s explanation. Best of all I was able to be there while some people who did love the piece were able to coo over it. “Look at that line,” one said. Another, “look how flawless that surface is.” They bent and stooped over it, taking it in at different angles and obviously admiring it greatly. (I was hoping that there would be a picture of it on their web site so that I could share it with you but alas, there is not.)

It just didn’t work for me. I could appreciate the great skill that went into the piece and feel that it should be preserved for others to see as a technique of art that could be incorporated into something else, but I have a hard time classifying it as art. That does not mean that it is not art. Here are just some possibilities:

1 My definition of art is too narrow.
2 It is so far ahead of me that I just don’t get it. For example, it took me a long time to appreciate icon.
3 It speaks to something that I just happen to have no interest in but need to appreciate because to someone else it is extremely relevant.
4 The key to understanding it has not been revealed to me.
5 There is nothing to get, I am just reading too much into it.
6 It isn’t art.

So I am trying to stay open. If I am going to have a good opinion on this however whether it be positive or negative (or somewhere in between) I am going to have to meet with a qualified “spiritual art director”.

That is the kind of approach that is needed when one questions the faith life. I find it interesting when someone vehemently disagrees with Church teaching and when asked why they disagree with a particular teaching the response is, “It’s not fair,” or “I don’t like it,” or “God wouldn’t say that.” When pressed for further details such as how do they know or if they know why it is that the Church teaches as she does, the conversation is blown away with the swipe of the arm as if going after an annoying fly thereby brushing off any chance that a meaningful exchange of ideas could even occur.

No teaching of the Church stands on its own. It is like a carefully constructed ball of yarn and to yank at one thread is most likely to effect many other teachings. Each teaching is not a referendum item that can be voted in or out without effecting the greater understanding of the whole.

For example many people want the Church to change her teaching on same-sex marriage. Ultimately that teaching would not stand on its own, it would effect the teaching on the meaning and purpose of marriage, sexuality, the purpose and meaning of man and life, and ultimately the way Scripture may be interpreted and how Tradition and the lived experience of the faithful for the last 2,000 years are seen. In truth, it would change the entire fabric of the faith.

That is the artwork of the Catholic take on faith. A visceral response to a limited understanding of its teaching does not make it false or untrue or unbeautiful. I find even those who make the time to understand the depth of a teaching and still disagree with it at least respect the logic, breadth, beauty and history of it while holding a contrary or modified position.

Does some teaching of faith from the Church strike you as wrong? Sit with it for a spell. Learn not just that it is being taught but why. Speak to someone knowledgeable about it. Be open to the possibility that it may be something more than what the newspapers report it to be. There is the possibility that it may be art and that it may touch you. And if it turns out that it doesn’t, you will not have lost out on anything but will at least understand better your brothers and sisters point of view.