tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20166292538605230382024-03-13T00:44:51.028-04:00Romish PotpourriThoughts on the Faith, culture, and contemporary issues from a lay Dominican.Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-86463821798511874982021-06-02T19:03:00.006-04:002021-06-02T21:22:55.762-04:00Response to Fr. Massingale on Prioritizing Racial Concerns in the Church<p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /><span>I realize that white people are not supposed to be allowed to have any opinion other than submission to the prevailing cultural headwinds, that we may not dispute or contend that things are different than they are presented by BLM and BLM-like advocates, and yet, here I go..</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Contrary to the binary mentality promoted these days on all sides, that is, you either fully agree with me, or you are my enemy and evil, I assert that we can and should be allowed to argue about these things in a reasonable, respectful way. To that end, I offer some critiques of <a href="https://youtu.be/TOLfWNycD4A" target="_blank">this interview</a></span><span><a href="https://youtu.be/TOLfWNycD4A" target="_blank"> and some of the positions asserted by Fr. Massingale</a>.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Possibly the most “problematic” thing I take away from the interview is the effusive condescension. This is maybe not something new, but it seems to have gotten to fever pitch these days. As I said above, white people are, effectively, being told to “just shut up and listen.” “Your perspective on race is completely worthless and meaningless, because you are white.” (If you think about how racist that kind of talk is, it is rather shocking, but I digress.)</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Not only that, the Father here goes on at great length to tell us how white people think, what our problems are, what our failures are. Again, this is based on the simple fact of the color of our skin (yikes). But if we use the prevailing logic of our culture nowadays, he should have zero grounds to speak on what white people think and what our experiences are—because he’s not white. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We have been told by the broader culture that if you are not <i>the thing</i> then you have no valid standing to speak on it. This applies to being a woman, being a mother, being of color, being gay, trans, etc., being married (i.e., if you are a priest), and so on. If you personally do not have lived experience, your opinion is worthless and meaningless. So, following that logic of the Left, on what basis does Fr. Massingale assert what <i>all white people</i> think, believe, have experienced, and so on? It’s mind boggling the scale of broad generalization that he is undertaking, and yet he does it with such conviction and certitude.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">He says that we white people are cowards—that is our core problem. Okay. Wow. Maybe some of us are. Maybe some of us aren’t. The broad assertion is kinda farcical, when he is speaking to a white interviewer who is giving him a platform to speak on this issue. And let’s not forget how so many white people (of a certain mindset) have fallen over themselves to appear to be advocates, especially in this last year. In this social moment, it is far more unpopular and risky to voice criticism of the BLM movement than not—at least in the broader culture.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The thing is, I happen to agree that there are (or seem to be, so far as I can tell from my “ignorant” white perspective) remaining race-related issues to address in our country. What I oppose is the overreaction we are seeing along these lines. I have seen/heard some persuasive cases made that we do in fact have some forms of effectively institutionalized racism. (Whether or not those things were in intention racist is another debate entirely.) But as a pragmatist when it comes to something as practical as government and people’s lived experience of human dignity, I think the rationales/intentions are less important—now—than the effects, which do seem to be problematic for at least some non-white people. (Though rarely are these practical issues simply a matter of racism but are also tied up with social class/economic background, so focusing only on racial thinking is only solving part of the core causes.)</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">What I do not jive with is the ongoing demonization of white people, as a whole, our country’s history—as a whole, and the current social situation—as a whole. I need not provide examples. It is everywhere we look these days. There are even vocal people who cast the entire history of Europeans as being “white supremacist.” Utter hogwash. A case of forcing a pre-determined point of view onto the data of history, which is no better than what white people are accused of, only these “enlightened” social activists today should walk their talk.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So back to Fr. Massingale. He notes how well received he has been in South Africa. He asserts (and I have no reason to doubt him) that South Africa has prioritized dealing with racism as its #1 challenge and that he perceives little to no resistance on that. Whereas, he can only attribute American resistance to such prioritization as, well, racism (or cowardice!).</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I checked Wikipedia, and the white population of South Africa is around 8%—and seems to be dropping. That not only inverts the reality in the US, but even more than that. In the US, the non-hispanic white population as of 2019 is 60%. Only 13% are black/African American. Perhaps the most obvious explanation for resistance versus non resistance is simply population-based. And in the past (1960 for example), we had 85% non-hispanic white population. Needless to say, for most of our history, we have been very much mostly white, by a very large majority, and it is only in recent decades that trend has been slowly changing.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The point is, the assertion that there is always and everywhere white supremacy as the key social driver in the US is rather better explained by simple demographics—the overwhelming majority of people were white. So it’s normal (not evil) for them to be culturally white, to write history from a white perspective, and so on. And to demand and pretend that history is better retold in a distorted way as some kind of social justice corrective does not really make sense. And I say that as a trained historian. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Nowadays we are being told everywhere that we should force diversity—even where it doesn’t actually exist. Diversity is some new supreme virtue. It should also be forced on history. Not only that, we are told implicitly and sometimes explicitly that any good that white people have done—in the country or the world—is negated by racism. Thomas Jefferson was not a great man—because he held slaves. George Washington was not a great man—because he held slaves. And so on ad infinitum. I think we can all agree that it was certainly a moral flaw and, more than likely, a moral blind spot for so many in those days. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But that moral failure does not negate everything good they may have done in their lives. Especially considering the prevailing culture and mindset in those days, it would be anachronistic to expect every person who did great (momentous) things to have been outstanding in their day with regards to the issue of racism. As terrible as racism is and was, we have to see things in their historical context and judge people by their historical context, if we are to judge justly. And what should social justice advocates be concerned with if not justice?</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Similarly, if we are to understand prevailing social currents today, we need to do so in context. Applying how South Africa thinks about racism to the US and trying to equate our contexts does not hold water. There are other important differences beyond demographics between us, and to blithely assign the cause of the difference in our responses to racial activism today to moral failure is unjustified. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Fr. Massingale also notes (as have others) that if you go into a mostly white Catholic parish today, you will see mostly white depictions in the artwork. This is, largely, true of European art as well. Again, why? Not because of overt racism or even so-called subconscious racism. These people have simply been making art based on the reality that they lived on a day to day basis. When most (by far) of the people you interact with are of a certain skin color, your art will de facto reflect that. If we go by actual proportions, we might want to see like 1 out of 10 images (historically, at a national level) non-white, but the point—let’s be VERY clear on this—of religious art is the RELIGIOUS subject. It is oriented towards God as its end and primary concept. It is not inherently </span><span>a matter</span><span> of</span><span> (nor should it be preoccupied with) promoting the idea of skin color diversity. That is a very, very historically novel concept—the idea of consciously (and often artificially) forcing “representation” into art.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Now, I do not disagree with his point that if we live in and are exposed to greater diversity, it will permeate our consciousness and eventually be reflected in how we think. I do not even, really, object to the idea of adding more diversity in our religious art, especially as we are ever becoming a more diverse society. It just makes sense, and humans being humans, it will happen naturally as the demographics change. Go to any culture round the world, and you will see their art reflects who they are. That is not inherently racism or xenophobia or any other -ism. It’s just human nature (and nothing inherently wrong in that aspect of human nature, to boot). </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Further, you will not find a priest today who will say no to art because it is “diverse.” (Of course, when I generalize, there are doubtless exceptions, but this is a rule we can rely on.) Not “prioritizing” making this happen is, again, not racism. It is a matter of logical priority that each parish/priest faces. Making ends meet as parishes close all around us is, I dare say, likely to weigh more heavily in priorities for the average parish. (And that's just one of many possible reasonable examples of things that may take higher priority without inherently, implicitly, much less explicitly being racist.)</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So again, my objection is based against the assertion that it is racism (implicit or not) that has driven this reality of non-diverse art. It is rather better explained as simple demographics and the nature of humans for their art to mimic their perceived reality. And on top of that, the purpose of the art is religious, not so much cultural, and so there is even more reason to not presume any ill intent or latent racism. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I am sure there are those, if anyone is still reading at this point, who will agree with most of this. I am also sure that there are those who would disagree and, likely, feel like I am nit picking on these points. To that I reply that these points are simply emblematic of the larger, broader problematic trend in our social discourse today. For those of us who have not already kowtowed to the prevailing social zeitgeist because it makes us feel more socially woke, IF the desire is to actually change hearts and minds of those who resist, then coming at us with this kind of “you are all and have always been moral failures” messaging is just going to go nowhere and fast. That is, of course, presuming there is an intent to win over hearts. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>If we want a more realistic explanation of the resistance today, it is largely and simply drawn on political lines. Because we have politicized EVERYTHING. And when our favored talking heads say “this is what you should think about this,” the VAST majority fall into lock step behind that. This is true on both the Left and the Right. And so, when the Left champions BLM, the Right picks up their rhetorical weapons on the other side. This is not inherently about racism. It is political tribalism, plain and simple, as is the case with nearly every social issue we face. The resistance is not about being white and racist against people of color. It </span><i>is</i><span> about NOT being a Democrat, NOT being a “socialist” or “communist” or "bleeding heart liberal.” </span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As soon as caring about still-existing racism is seen as part of the Democrat agenda, it’s game over for about half the population on that issue. It doesn't help that a BLM founder openly admitted she is a "trained Marxist," either. If you actually look at what "the other side" says, they worry a lot about "socialism" and "communism," and they focus more on the rioting that came with BLM and the diminution of the lives and service of police men and women ("blue lives matter"). These are not, no matter the facile assertions to the contrary, racist motives for resisting. And that doesn't even get us into actual, substantial differences about what to do (if anything, some might argue) about the problem. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And then, for those who tend to try to think more independently of parties, we see the exaggerations and vilifications, and when we are the target of them, we naturally are going to be defensive and resist. It’s not about “not wanting to feel uncomfortable.” That is a remarkably cheap rhetorical ploy from the BLM playbook. I have put myself in plenty of “uncomfortable” conversations and listened to plenty of people that I had a good sense would really rub me the wrong way (as in this case). I have made an effort to push through that discomfort, hear the other side, ponder their points of view, and I have actually amended my opinion on some things based on these experiences. But I am not going to lie down and let people walk all over me, just because they say I should--because of my skin color, my gender, my sexual orientation, etc. I will not be emotionally manipulated into submission. And I certainly will not stand for wholesale rewriting of reality based on a very flawed epistemological lens just because some people who had my skin color did bad things in the past towards people of other skin color. If you want to have a reasoned discussion, I’m all ears, though.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So if we want real social progress, real increasing of the common good, we gotta stop with these extremist rhetorical tactics. We gotta stop giving voice and support for bad history rewrites and fallacious generalizations, however well intentioned it may be. We gotta stop vilifying people—today and in history—based solely on skin color or their not being activists against the prevailing social systems. We gotta be honest about what the data say and where we have insufficient data, we need to 1) have humility to acknowledge that (and not fill in the gaps with our prejudice) and 2) work to get better data. Case in point is policing in the US—we need better data/transparency to make more informed decisions about how and what to change. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Everything is not about race. It just isn’t. And trying to make everything about it is not progress. It is </span><i>not</i><span> advancing social justice. It is simply hardening hearts, on both sides of the aisle. We may have underemphasized its impact and role in the past, but “correcting” that by a corresponding error of overemphasizing it now is not a winning strategy. And, we also have other real, serious issues to face—as a country, states, locally, AND as a Church. </span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And as for the Church (which ought to be the focus here, given it was America magazine interviewing a priest!), to make racism THE issue of the Church would be a great reduction of what the Church is, why Christ founded it. The Church exists to help souls to eternal life with God, starting here in this life. I guarandamntee that buying into the cultural moment’s emphasis on racism is not why Christ died. He did not, even, die for social justice in general. He died BECAUSE of our sin—the fundamental and greatest injustice of preferring ourselves to Him, to heal that wound, primarily and pre-eminently on a spiritual level. And because we are embodied beings, that healing should have real-world, this-life consequences, among which are, indeed, healing the wounds of racism. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Fr. Massingale is right—if a Catholic harbors racism in his heart, that is wholly incompatible with the Gospel and needs to be dealt with. If we refuse to do the good plainly before us, that too would be a moral failure. But let us not de facto equate resisting what is—at best—a <i><b>very</b></i> mixed bag of a social movement with such failings. To make our primary focus “racism” and fixing what remains to be fixed in that area is an example of the danger of particularity I wrote about here: </span><a href="https://www.churchsacrificial.com/the-danger-of-particularity/"><span style="color: #dca10d;">https://www.churchsacrificial.com/the-danger-of-particularity/</span></a><span>. Another example, just to ruffle some feathers on the other side of the political spectrum, is the practically exhaustive focus on criminalizing abortion, or, say, the promotion of sexual chastity. All of these are pressing moral matters of great import facing our society today, but they are not THE issue that every last one of us has to be inordinately preoccupied with in order to be “good Catholics.” Having the “wrong” opinion on how to pursue these does not ipso facto make one a “bad Catholic,” either.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">For any Catholic to insist that we must make these particular things THE MOST IMPORTANT THING for the whole Church is, at best, putting the cart before the horse. Our primary focus is precisely what Christ told us: Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. Helping people to do that is always and everywhere the primary mission of the Church. And by virtue of Her doing that, she also inescapably follows the second greatest commandment: love your neighbor, as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “in God and because of God.”</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I can’t help but think of Christ’s counsel to Martha: “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41) This is not to say that we have no social moral responsibility—obviously—but it is a counter to the prevailing political-activist mentality that has become so prevalent in the Church, which is itself a manifestation of being more conformed to this world than to Christ (see Rom 12:2).</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">God will guide us into the actions that we need to undertake (Eph 2:10), but we should first and always foremost be people who keep our focus and priority on conforming <i>our own selves</i> more and more to Christ, through prayer and worship. When our hearts, minds, and wills are conformed to God’s, we <i>will do</i> the good works he has prepared for us. As we seek God diligently, he will reveal to us those areas in our lives that may need amendment. And, as opposed to artificially imposed from without as a generalization for all Catholics (or all Catholics of a certain color, or all Catholics of a certain political persuasion), this revealing will always be infallible and absolutely and utterly applicable for each person, coming as it does from the Holy Spirit’s action in each individual believer’s life.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Rom 12:1-2) This clarity comes through our continual prayerful worship.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I pray God that we will as the people of God regain the urgency <b>first and above all else</b> to seek God (Matt 6:33) <b>without ceasing</b> in prayer—as bishops, as priests, as religious, and as lay persons. This exhortation (1 Thess 5:17) applies equally to all. May we never prioritize social activism over, nor think it is more worthwhile or important than, a genuine and enduring life of prayer.</span></p>Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-32071399361649442042020-11-16T11:29:00.000-05:002020-11-16T11:29:19.814-05:00Prayer Before Work (Working from Home)<p> I thought about calling this "Prayer Before Work (COVID-19 Edition)" because so many more people are working from home since the pandemic began. Or maybe you are like me and were working remotely before. In any case, I found I needed to update the old <a href="https://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2012/03/prayer-before-work.html">Prayer Before Work</a> that I shared here some years back because it refers to entering a workplace, walls, and traveling and such. That's not so applicable when working from home. :) So I updated this and figured I'd share for anyone else. I try to pray it before settling in to starting work each day. </p><p>I did not write the original, even though I tweaked it from the one I found before sharing in 2012. I do not remember where I found it. I have some vague memory it was on an Orthodox blog, but searching now it is all over the place, making it harder to attribute. Anyways, it's a good prayer regardless of where it originated. </p><p>---</p><div data-en-clipboard="true" data-pm-slice="1 1 []" margintop="0">My Heavenly Father, as I enter into my work, I bring your Presence with me. I speak Your peace, Your grace, Your mercy, and Your perfect order into our endeavors today.</div><div><br /></div><div>I acknowledge Your power over all that will be spoken, thought, decided, and done within my company. Lord, I thank You for the gifts with which you have blessed me. I commit to using them responsibly in Your honor. </div><div><br /></div><div>Give me a fresh supply of strength to do my job. Anoint my projects, ideas, and energy so that even my smallest accomplishment may bring You glory. Grant me keenness of mind so that all that I set my mind to will bear good fruit; grant me also focus, freedom from distraction, and diligence, so that I may begin and complete my work in justice. </div><div><br /></div><div>Lord, when I am confused, guide me. When I am weary, energize me. When I am burned out, infuse me with the light of Your Holy Spirit. May the work that I do and the way I do it bring faith, joy, and a smile to all that I come in contact with today. </div><div><br /></div><div>And Lord, when I complete my work today, give me mercy. Bless my family and home to be in order as I return to them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lord, I thank you for everything You've done, everything You're doing, and everything You're going to do. In the Name of Jesus I pray, with much love and thanksgiving.</div><div><br /></div><div marginbottom="0">Amen.</div>Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-89010942263916355892020-10-15T23:19:00.007-04:002023-04-15T11:52:51.750-04:00The Five Non-Negotiables Concept Is Not Catholic Doctrine<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l8ELZoYhaNY/X4kQ5ZOOcZI/AAAAAAAAkn0/hMM4YNfdDeQD3gvapyrtQmgW-eSoqdtcwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1280/IMG_2140.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="1280" height="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l8ELZoYhaNY/X4kQ5ZOOcZI/AAAAAAAAkn0/hMM4YNfdDeQD3gvapyrtQmgW-eSoqdtcwCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h300/IMG_2140.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>For at least the last two election cycles, maybe more, a concept has popped up that has gained popularity amongst those of a conservative Catholic political bent. They call these <a href="http://www.catholic365.com/article/4293/the-5-nonnegotiables-explained.html">the "five non-negotiables" (5NN).</a> Several priests who are popular amongst some Catholics have promoted them, along with some similarly popular lay Web sites/orgs. That is the context for this post, and particularly because today two good friends of mine shared a priest's homily that leverages them. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Where I Am Coming From</h3><p>Let me start by making clear my own commitments, because too often people assume all sorts of things and are quick to be dismissive of those with whom they disagree. They want to label them, put them in a box, and tuck them neatly on a high shelf in their figurative closets, or they want to toss the box out in the trash. </p><p>I am a Catholic convert from Protestantism. I came to the Church through a deep study of Christian history and, correspondingly, Christian thought from the Apostles on down to the present. I by no means claim to be an expert on all of Christian thought. That would be, quite frankly, impossible for any one human in this life. But I have studied a lot, and it was my study and ever growing love of the fullness of truth as expressed in Catholic doctrine that led me to the Church. (That and the Holy Spirit, I like to think!)</p><p>My study has not stopped. I joined the Dominican Order in 2007 as a <a href="https://www.laydominicans.org/">lay Dominican</a> and made life promises on 6 August 2011. Study is one of <a href="https://www.laydominicans.org/lay-dominican-life/four-pillars/">the four pillars of Dominican spirituality</a>, and "veritas" (truth) is one of our mottos. (Hey, after 800 years, you pick up a few..) None of that gives me special authority or gives me any guarantee to be free from error, but I hope it at least illustrates my commitment to the Truth, not just intellectually but also spiritually. I live by a daily rule that includes the Divine Office and the rosary, among other things such as daily reading of Scripture and study that pertains to our Dominican vocation oriented towards the salvation of souls.</p><p>I was married in 1999, and as of writing, I have seven lovely children, ranging in age of two to nineteen. My wife and I (my wife mostly!) have almost exclusively homeschooled our children and made every effort to raise them in the Catholic faith. We also, for what it is worth, have attended an FSSP parish for a year when we lived in Tulsa, and (later) a parish in NJ with a flourishing Latin mass community for some years that we were an active part of. I personally have great fondness for the Extraordinary Form, particularly high solemn masses. </p><p>Politically, I am an independent, although I have pretty consistently voted for GOP candidates, and that was informed not a little bit by my concern over abortion. My bias, such as it is, is center leaning right, if I had to put a label on it like that. It really depends on the issue in question though, because my actual political party affiliation is none. If anything, it would be closest to the American Solidarity Party because they, like I, at least try to take an orthodox Catholic stance on all the issues. In matters of society and politics, I try to follow the whole social doctrine of the Church, and I have read many encyclicals pertaining to this, the bishops' guides to faithful citizenship, and (perhaps most importantly) the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html">Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church</a>, cover to cover. I have the highlights to prove it. 😇</p><p>I hope this illustrates I am anything but the stereotypical "flaming liberal." And I hope it at least earns a thoughtful reading, in a cultural environment in which we are far too quick to dismiss anyone who even has the slightest disagreements with us. I am ever committed to seeking the Truth, and living in accord with it as best I am able. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">What is Wrong with the 5NN - #1 Political Motivation</h3><p>And so, that gets us to the point at hand. While I do appreciate the intent behind the 5NN, I find it to be too much of a reduction of the full, beautiful teaching of the Church. More than that, I fear that its popularity has been, unconsciously I am willing to grant, driven more by political commitments than by an honest appreciation and presentation of the social doctrine of the Church. That every person who promotes it uses it either to directly criticize the Democratic Party and/or to directly promote voting for the GOP appears, to me, evidence of that. </p><p>And I fear that far too many Americans who are members of both major parties are too uncritical of the problems with their own party platforms/candidates, while being overly critical of the other. This feeds nicely into our baser tribal instincts and also the very tempting but ultimately false binary thinking that is so prevalent. "If you are not for [my party], you must be for the [other party]." "A vote for a third party is a vote for the [other party]." These and many others like them are asserted against those of us who will not comply and fully throw our weight behind either major party. It is a cross we bear. (shrug)</p><p>But I do not want to get too focused on politics as such. My focus here is in no way to say we should or should not vote for this or that party. I believe everyone reading this is adult enough to form their own judgment on whom to vote for. It is not, I assure you, that I do not have significant criticisms of the major parties, and it is not, even, that I think they are both equally problematic. I simply do not see the good in adding to the "you should vote for my party" noise. </p><p>And to be honest, this is a big reason I am not a fan of the 5NN. It is <i>not</i> because they are not part--even a "pre-eminent" part--of Catholic social teaching. It is that they are hijacked to uncritically support the GOP.</p><p>You may scoff at my suggestion that there is a lack of criticism, but in the circles that promote the 5NN, I have yet to see a single criticism of the GOP (or, rarely if at all, Trump). A good example of this is the video I mentioned of a homily from a certain FSSP priest in Maryland. In it, while disclaiming that he was telling anyone whom to vote for, he spoke at length about the many problems of Biden/Harris with nary a criticism of Trump or the GOP. And this is, as I say, par for the course. This good priest is, naturally, relying on the aforesaid binary mentality in our country that, if I clearly cannot choose Biden/Harris, my only choice is to vote Trump/Pence.</p><p>If you make this observation (as I have) to a Trump supporter/GOP party member, that person will inevitably fall back on the claim that all of the problems with the GOP are simply matters of prudential judgment (i.e., the "negotiables" in the 5NN concept). But as I hope to show, this is not at all the whole picture. (And I hope everyone will keep in mind that the point here is NOT to tell you not to vote GOP. I promise.)</p><h3>What is Wrong with the 5NN - #2 Too Much Reduction</h3><p>Unfortunately for us Catholics, the choice ain't so simple. We are called to learn, value, and uphold the <i>whole</i> of Catholic doctrine. Not only that, we are guided to weigh not only the underlying issue and principles at hand but also how those principles come to bear practically for any given action.</p><p>By action, I am including voting, but we should remember these are meant to guide our daily lives, not just how we vote! Judging by the amount of fervor that is expended on elections, particularly the quadrennial presidential election, one would not fault someone for thinking that many Christians only think that their duties with regards to the social doctrine of the Church extend so far as casting a ballot. But I digress..</p><p>The <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html">Compendium</a> is hundreds of pages long. And it is a <i>compendium</i>, that is, it is meant to be a <i>concise</i> collection of our teachings. It isn't even, in a sense, the full teaching of the Church that is meant to be our guide. But it is most assuredly a good guide. It puts a lot of important meat on the bones, and it also teaches us, very clearly, that many of the political ideas we have been inculcated with from birth, even some cherished American sacred cows, are not as sacred as we might have been led to believe. As true children of the Church, we ought to be teachable and to amend our political opinions accordingly, rather than insist on our own way, clinging stubbornly to political ideals over the truths of the Faith.</p><p>Even <a href="https://www.usccb.org/offices/justice-peace-human-development/forming-consciences-faithful-citizenship">the bishops' guide</a> is 45 pages long, and you can think of it as a compendium of the Compendium, perhaps, with some extra guidance as applies for our situation in the US today. Given the complexities of life and, especially, how those are encountered at the national or international levels, there are no silver bullets, there are no "perfectly clear" choices. Even if the American Solidarity Party were one of the major parties--and it sets out to explicitly conform its platform to Catholic social doctrine--it is not a given that voting ASP would be a slam dunk for Catholics. </p><p>No party, I repeat, no party has any kind of special guarantee from Christ that they best represent Catholic social doctrine. And so we must, as mature, adult Catholics, do our best to consider all the many important issues and how each party does more or less to promote the common good, as understood through the guidance of the Church's Magisterium--which <i>does</i> actually have the special guarantee from Christ not to lead us into error! This, I have to point out, very much includes the teaching of our Holy Father Francis, as I <a href="https://www.churchsacrificial.com/the-blessing-of-obedience-and-submission/">elaborate on in a recent article</a>.</p><p>As Catholics, we should be mature enough to live with the ambiguity inherent in all this. Some principles are crystal clear, but how they are realized and applied in the complexities of life and through national and global systems are anything but simple. Saying this in no way denies the fundamental clarity of the principles themselves. By the way, has anyone looked at the length of the <i>Summa Theologica</i>? It is 3011 pages in the five volume set I have, and it is "only" dealing with faith and morals. It is supposed to have been an "introduction" to theology.</p><p>It seems to me that we have to accept that 1) we cannot fully comprehend the complexities of the systems at play in large scale politics and governance, 2) we cannot ever fully predict how a given policy will definitely play out and what repercussions it will have, and 3) few if any of us is able to balance the full social doctrine of the Church against all of these with anything approaching perfection. We need to accept and appreciate these with humility, and that humility ought to guide us and make us less certain and sure that our political choices (and parties) are right. </p><p>That should, as well, give us all a sense of bonhomie with <i>all</i> our fellow citizens. <i>We are all in this boat together!</i> None of us gets it perfectly right, even when we have certain fundamental principles to start from. We all, yes even our political "enemies," are seeking some conception of the good, however imperfectly. We are all fallible humans in need of redemption. Political differences should not be held so strongly for these reasons. There is an almost certain likelihood that any policy, especially at higher levels of government, will not pan out as planned and have very many unintended consequences, many of which are not good. </p><p>As Christians, though, we ought not to despair. We can live with the ambiguity and uncertainty and still make the best decisions we can based on what we know and understand at any given time. We can, and we should. But any time we start getting certain that our party or candidate absolutely 100% has it right or, especially, that any particular candidate is going to realize our principles with any meaningful degree of certainty, we need to step back. That kind of thinking is what leads to all of the sinful polarization and mutual demonization that is so common today. <b>Let's let <i>humility</i> be the key principle we start from and cling to.</b></p><h3>What is Wrong with the 5NN - #3 Confusing/Misleading Language</h3><div>The Church does not really use the language of "negotiable" or "non-negotiable." The problem with using this language is that it is readily converted into, on the one hand, an overly restrictive understanding of the implications of the non-negotiables and, on the other hand, an overly permissive understanding of, well, pretty much any other issue! </div><div><br /></div><div>Let me be clear. If you say, "these five are non-negotiable," then you are saying that if a given party does not align with the Catholic teaching on them, then that party <i>must</i> not be supported--it is non negotiable. So let's take abortion for example. The Catholic teaching is that it is only permissible when the abortion is not the end or means in view, but that it may be allowed when the death of the child is a consequence (even a known consequence) of a procedure intended to protect the life of the mother.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, if we are truly saying that the Church's teaching on this is literally non-negotiable, then we may not vote for any party based on this alone. (Maybe the ASP, but that's it.) The GOP does not have such an "extreme" view against abortion. They as a rule allow it in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. So again, if we are to use the proposed language of "non-negotiable," then we cannot negotiate with the GOP and say "well, it's okay because you mostly support our view." No, we are not allowed to negotiate!</div><div><br /></div><div>And while we are here, it is worth noting that the Holy Father has now made capital punishment into one of these "non-negotiables." The Catechism uses the language "inadmissible." So, again, if we were going to be literalists and absolute on such matters, we obviously could not vote for the GOP, which openly supports capital punishment, nor especially Trump, who has reinstated it with actual killings to date at the federal level. </div><div><br /></div><div>Clearly, then, we must either be consistent, and not vote for either major party, or we must allow ourselves room to "negotiate." And this "negotiation" is precisely what our bishops actually teach us we must do (#<a href="https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one">32</a>):</div><div><blockquote>Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and <b>"the art of the possible."</b> At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, "limiting the harm done by such a law" and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (<i>Evangelium Vitae</i>, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.</blockquote></div><div>We have an obligation to always oppose, but to wrongly translate that into "never negotiate" would, in effect, make achieving the goal impossible. Our bishops have a whole section on prudence and how to reason about applying these principles to our concrete realities. That is what we informed, faithful citizens must do.</div><div><br /></div><div>So that is the problem with "non-negotiable." The problem with "negotiable" is, as I said, the inverse. It leads into a certain too-easy flexibility on the supposedly negotiable items, to the point of their not actually factoring in at all in our choice of how we vote. We feel free to effectively ignore them. This is contrary to what the Church teaches, as our bishops note (#34 of the same):</div><div><blockquote>A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, <i>if the voter's intent is to support that position</i>. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, <b>a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity</b>. (emphases mine)</blockquote><p>This section clearly contradicts the whole concept of "negotiable" and "non-negotiable." Not only are "non-negotiables" paralyzing in the political sphere we live in, if we take them truly to be such, but the Church through the CDF and our bishops clearly teaches that it is possible to vote for a candidate who favors policy promoting an intrinsically evil act so long as we in no way intend to support that position. This strikes down any notion that, for example, a candidate's admittedly repugnant stance on abortion is completely non-negotiable. They continue, to be even more explicit (#35):</p><p></p><blockquote>There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act <b>may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons</b>. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.</blockquote><p></p><p>And (#36):</p><p><span></span></p><blockquote>When <b>all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act</b>, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed <b><i>less likely</i> to advance such a morally flawed position and <i>more likely</i> to pursue other authentic human goods</b>.</blockquote><p></p><p>Speaking of intrinsically evil acts, "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable." (see <a href="https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/catholic-teaching/upload/Contraception-2.pdf">here</a>) What GOP candidate promotes this teaching? Do they not rather, as a rule, follow and promote the "standard" American view that contraception is just fine and normal? And, can we for a moment pretend that the GOP upholds what the Church teaches on the indissolubility of marriage? Or sex outside of marriage, even? Masturbation? And yet, these all involve intrinsically evil acts, and all parties and nearly all candidates fall short on this measure. Exactly zero of them are campaigning to bring back true "traditional marriage," stopping far, far short of the Church's teaching and implicitly or explicitly promoting such intrinsic evils. </p><p>The purpose here, again, is not in any way to minimize the necessity of our opposition to intrinsically evil acts. Quite the contrary--the Church is very clear on that duty. It is simply to highlight that, contrary to the 5NN concept, when it comes to working for the common good, no single issue or issues always and everywhere invalidate voting for or working with a particular party or candidate to find what seems to us the best way to achieve the common good and to fight against all the very many grave injustices in the world today.</p><p>Again, if we were to take an absolute, non-negotiable stance on abortion, we could not even vote for most GOP candidates due to their support of abortion exceptions that are not allowed in Catholic teaching. And so, we may rightly determine to vote for them despite their support for that intrinsically grave evil. Indeed, not every Democrat supports fully unrestricted abortion. So while we can say that the GOP is certainly much preferable in their far more restrictive stance, they all still allow it to some degree.</p><p>I am not just being clever with words here nor trying to make some rarified academic point. They really, truly all have serious problems and to varying degrees support policies and law that promote intrinsic evils. We should never pretend that a vote for either of our major parties is free of such problems. We have to determine which has the greatest good that offsets those problems, and that applies when considering both major parties and any other party or candidate. </p><p>Similarly, the admonition that "a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity" clearly rules out any possibility for single issue voting for a faithful Catholic (or five issue voting). </p><h3>What is Wrong with the 5NN - #4 Devaluing Other Gravely Important Matters</h3></div><div>I touched on this above, but it needs to be highlighted further. As a rule, we Republican-leaning Catholics are far too quick to dismiss, wave hands, and claim "prudential judgment" on those things that are not in the 5NN. I can only imagine the ready defensiveness on this is for fear we be seen to lean towards positions more closely associated with the Democratic party. We see this in the massive overreactions to <i>Fratelli Tutti</i>, for example. Pope Francis criticizes unbridled capitalism (in lock step with Catholic social doctrine for over 120 years) and people lose their minds! He's a communist! (That is sarcasm.)</div><div><br /></div><div>War is a grave evil. Pope Francis teaches compellingly and authoritatively in his role as supreme pastor (<i>Fratelli Tutti,</i> 258): </div><div><br /></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;">We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”.<b> Never again war!</b></div></blockquote><p>Even admitting the possibility of just war, as Catholics we are called, as a rule and basic stance, to oppose it as invariably leading to grave evils. This is in stark contrast to the hawkish, nationalist stance that the GOP has taken, especially under Trump. He makes no beans about his readiness to use our military might to advance his America First policy. This should be a serious problem for Catholics.</p><p>The America First policy itself is hugely problematic from a Catholic principles point of view. It is fundamentally a selfish policy that prioritizes our collective national good over the good of every other nation in the world. We would not tolerate such selfishness on a personal level, nor should we tolerate it on a national level.</p><p>Climate change is another area where the GOP, as a rule, is way out of sync with Catholic social doctrine. Pope Francis has repeatedly highlighted for us (from his global vantage point that none of us has) the grave injustices done throughout the world to human beings as a result of our carelessness towards the environment. This is no matter of being a tree hugger or exalting some kind of mother-earth animism. It is about protecting and caring for the most vulnerable among us. </p><p>The destructive effects of how we have been living are observable already even today. I am not talking about abstract concerns about rising temperatures, although those increases do endanger very, very many vulnerable poor people. The impacts on human beings and God's creatures are undeniable. And the GOP's denial, deregulation, pulling out of environmental accords, and the like promote an irresponsible laissez faire attitude, contrary to the careful stewardship we are called to, and the concern for the poor around the globe who suffer as a result of our lackadaisical attitude. </p><p>Treatment of immigrants is another grave area for concern. We must not pretend that there is a dichotomy--completely closed borders or completely open. But not having followed current regulations for immigration does not strip a person of their human dignity. Being an "illegal immigrant" does not make a person subhuman and therefore beyond the scope of our care. </p><p>As Catholics, we know better. The example of the good Samaritan that Pope Francis draws so heavily on in <i>Fratelli Tutti </i>applies, along with all the many corporal works of mercy that are the ancient and enduring tradition of the Church. A nation may have a right to protect its borders, but there are just and unjust ways to do that. The GOP under Trump have moved in the wrong direction and, in general, promote a careless and even hostile and fearful attitude towards those extremely vulnerable persons--the immigrants and refugees--who need our love and care.</p><p>Another area of grave concern is how we collectively care for the poorest among us in our own country. The free market does not give a damn about the poor. The increasing disparities in the world and our country between the very rich and the poor should be alarming to us. Policies that disproportionately favor corporations and the wealthy can only go so far towards the good. Again, this is not a binary thing. It is not communism <i>or</i> unbridled capitalism. It is not no taxes for social welfare <i>or</i> complete redistribution of wealth. Too often we reach for reactionary words and a mindset that resists reasonable compromises that would enable us to better serve the poor through our pooled resources.</p><p>Yes, prudential judgment does apply, but it applies to <i>all</i> of the concerns that bear on our action in the world and especially to politics and how we vote and the policies we craft. We are not any more free to deny our duty to help the poor than we are free to deny our duty to protect the unborn. Indeed, the two are not unrelated, given the poor disproportionately seek abortions. We are not free to turn a blind eye towards systems of injustice any more than we are free to turn a blind eye towards promoting chastity and the sanctity of marriage. How we achieve all these just and good goals is the matter of prudential judgment and working it out in our political sphere. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Is There Anything Better Than the 5NN?</h3><p>The reality and problem with the 5NN concept is that it is not, in point of fact, what the Church teaches us about our duties in the social and political spheres. It is too reductive, too selective, and serves more as a tool of the Republican party than of forming consciences according to the fullness of Catholic social doctrine. It reinforces the already prevalent misconception that as long as we vote pro life (or pro marriage), we're good, and it wrongly releases us from other very grave concerns and obligations. </p><p>We need to realize we are not free at all to be cozy with and uncritically supportive of either major party. I have focused on the GOP here because criticisms of the Democratic party (in such circles as I often find myself in) are aplenty. I see this post as a necessary corrective to urge us all to start thinking more holistically <i>with</i> the Church. We can, despite protestations to the contrary, vote for either major party, given that both support intrinsic evils but both also promote the common good in their respective ways. I <i>do not say</i> that I think they are both equally good, all things considered, but it is by no means an easy choice, depending on what serious issue you consider at a given moment. If we are not struggling with this, we are not doing it right--we are not giving all the serious matters due consideration. Certainly if we think that the 5NN are sufficient to choose, I say we are just being lazy.</p><p>We Catholics have to accept our adult responsibility. This means no meme or handy five-point program is sufficient to form our consciences with regards to our social responsibilities, which are in fact the particulars of our duty to love our neighbors as ourselves. If there is any valid reduction of Catholic teaching, it is what Christ gave us in the two greatest commandments. But all of us need to expend more time and energy to form ourselves in the Faith. </p><p><a href="https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-title">Our bishops' guide is only 45 pages</a>. That is not too much to read and seriously ponder for such matters of import. I'll warrant most of us spend more time watching a Netflix show in one night than it would take to read that. Get started. Go read it, or read it again. I know I will.</p><p>And when you are done, consider carving out 10 minutes a day to read through the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html">Compendium</a>. That is, actually, how I managed it. One little bit at a time. You can do it, and you will be better formed for doing so, I guarantee it. Just sincerely pray for the Spirit to help you to keep an open mind and to allow yourself to be formed by the Church rather than our political parties and/or what we may have previously held. If we read it only looking for that things that confirm our thinking, we are wasting our time.</p><p>After (or even before) that, go read our Holy Father's <i><a href="http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">Laudato Si</a></i> and <i><a href="http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html">Fratelli Tutti</a></i>. They both speak to important considerations to keep in mind, are part and parcel of the tradition of the social doctrine of the Church, and they are as pertinent for our times as <i>Rerum Novarum</i> was in its time.</p><p>Any and all of these are better than the 5NN to more effectively form our consciences in the Faith for action in the world. I urge us all to dive deep in them!</p><p>Peace, my brothers and sisters! Remember the key of humility!</p>Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-78065830826364539642019-11-19T18:00:00.000-05:002019-11-19T18:00:09.444-05:00Creation Matters<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SuEkw1NN64A/XdRzLHw2nqI/AAAAAAAAj8I/mber-B6qzAUOo0EHoTM7vuXJ-l-yU2ywACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/IMG_1517.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="900" height="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SuEkw1NN64A/XdRzLHw2nqI/AAAAAAAAj8I/mber-B6qzAUOo0EHoTM7vuXJ-l-yU2ywACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/IMG_1517.jpeg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">'All the trees of the field will clap their hands.' Is 55:12</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />St. Thomas Aquinas instructs us that religion is our duty in justice towards God. Part of that duty, which is also squarely in line with Scripture, is stewardship of God's creation.<br />
<br />
How can it not be offensive to God when you treat His creation with flippancy and disrespect? We are <i>part</i> of His creation, and by the very fact of being His creation, creation implicitly has value and is, as He said, "good." That our value as rational beings endowed with eternal souls is greater does not in any way mean that the rest of creation Has little to no value.<br />
<br />
How do we worship God? We worship Him in and with His creation. The bread and wine that we offer are fruits of creation. Our bodies and, yes, even our spiritual nature, are His creation. The church buildings we erect, the altars upon which the Supreme Sacrifice is made present to us, the liturgical vestments and sacred vessels, our icons, statues, and flowers, even the human bodily nature of Christ that we participate in, is all God's creation.<br />
<br />
We also offer sacrifices of the things we produce, whether distilled in the form of money or not. These are good things that God has created and given to us that we offer back to Him. Sometimes our sacrifice is to abstain from partaking in what is otherwise a good part of His creation, and what makes it a sacrifice is precisely that we are freely offering that which is good to God, rather than partaking of it for our own good. These are all forms of worship, doing what little we are able to do in our duty towards God.<br />
<br />
We can also worship God through acts of charity, and that charity can be towards non-rational nature or towards being endowed with rational nature--or <b>both</b>. Because we are in nature, because we are created beings and part of creation, we are not freely distinct from it. If you firebomb the countryside in which you live, you will not be able to live there long (to provide an extreme but simple example). And so when we care for nature, we are caring both for God's non-rational creation and for other human beings as well.<br />
<br />
I have heard folks be dismissive of Church leaders--including our Holy Father--who are vocally concerned with the environment. Most of these, I'll wager, either haven't read <i>Laudato Si</i>, or only read it cursorily with much prejudice--looking for excuses to dismiss, downplay, and ignore it. But a faithful Catholic ought to be receptive to the teaching of the Holy Father. I'll say that again: <b>a faithful Catholic ought to be receptive to the teaching of the Holy Father</b>.<br />
<br />
One of the things that Pope Francis illumines greatly is the connection between how our abuse of the environment directly and negatively impacts many human beings, particularly the most poor and vulnerable in the world. Few U.S. Americans are faced the the horrors of abject poverty that come about through how we have <i>not</i> been good stewards of creation. So it's easy for us to dismiss such concerns, but they are real. You can learn about them easily if you look.<br />
<br />
This isn't about raising the temperature of the globe a degree or two. This is real, directly observable badness that you can see comes about from abusive consumption and disregard for both nature and human life in and around areas whence we source our raw materials. Only willful ignorance can make one blind to it.<br />
<br />
When Christ speaks of separating the sheep from the goats, He doesn't talk of who has this or that theological point perfectly in their minds, or whether or not we use incense or Latin in mass or any such thing. He speaks, rather, of how persons have treated the poor and needy among them. This is hand in hand with His statement that the second-greatest command is like the first--to love your neighbor as yourself.<br />
<br />
It is <i>like the first</i> in that our love of neighbor and of creation is an extension and expression of our love for God in Himself. <b>Our willing the good of God's creation is precisely love for God.</b> It is how we pay duty and honor and respect to Him, in justice. That is why St. James can say that your faith is dead if it has not such works. Our charity towards God's created nature and our neighbor are the manifest stuff of our love of God and, ergo, proof of our faith in Him.<br />
<br />
A focus on contemporary environmental concern is nothing more than this--a faithful response to Christ's instruction that we care for the poor and needy and a proper and good response to God's entrusting his creation to us, to be <i>good and wise stewards</i>. It cannot be rightly separated from sharing the Gospel in the sense of bringing people to faith in Christ.<br />
<br />
As if to prove the importance of created, physical nature, God took that nature upon himself and divinized it. Further, he promises us a resurrection of the body and a New Jerusalem. We are not rarified spiritual beings or consciousnesses just loosely associated with our bodies, trapped by them and waiting to be freed. That is a gnostic error condemned since the earliest days of the Church. We are not beings of pure intellect either. We are, always have been, and always shall be beings intertwined with physical nature.<br />
<br />
As Christians, we are <b>not free to ignore</b> or downplay the importance of stewardship and of loving God and our neighbors through it. The Gospel is not purely intellectual content, nor is living it purely a simple response of intellectual faith. <b>We must live that faith out in the real world</b>, and that includes caring for the rest of God's creation and our neighbor. This is by no means a "Modernist heresy," nor is it any less important than other aspects of the faith.<br />
<br />
Where folks on both sides of the spectrum go wrong is when they create a false dichotomy between love of truth and love of creation and our neighbor. Language and human intellect are important and part of God's creation. So are our bodies, the things that our bodies need, and all of non-rational creation. We can give disproportional concern to both.<br />
<br />
There's an old adage that every heresy is just taking some aspect of the faith to an extreme, and so far as I can tell, it seems to be true. It's an ancient tool of the Devil to trick us into becoming obsessed with one particular good to the exclusion of others and the balance of moderation.<br />
<br />
Both areas of concern are areas calling out for attention. They always have been. We have always had spiritual darkness and error and heresy and a need for reformation and better instruction in the truths of the faith. And we have always had an insufficient care of the poor (and for most of us, our own bodies) and poor stewardship of God's creation.<br />
<br />
To say that we ought to neglect one in favor of the other is an improper response to the challenges facing us. It may be true that, individually, we can't respond equally well to all areas of need, but as a group, we surely can do much, much better.<br />
<br />
God gives different people different gifts, and our faithful response to use these in service of him would no doubt, if we all fulfilled our God-given potential, leave us in a starkly better place than we are in now. St. Paul cautions us against presuming that "our gift" is better or more important than the others. We would do well to keep that caution in mind.<br />
<br />
Because God may be calling you or me, personally, to focus more on living the faith through communicating the intellectual content of the faith does not mean that others (even most others) ought not to focus on living the faith through care of God's creation and the corporal needs of other human beings. Nor does it mean we cannot do both to various degrees in our lives. It may be (and seems to be so) that the Holy Spirit is instructing us, as a Church, to do just that through the teaching of the current Vicar of Christ.Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-49879084432639797662019-10-19T13:58:00.000-04:002019-10-30T21:27:28.016-04:00Letter to Editor: Potential Formation of GSA at Fannin County High SchoolThis is the text of a letter I sent to our local News Observer newspaper. There has been some controversy recently about a proposed GSA. I felt I had to respond to try to clarify what I believe are misrepresentations of Christian understanding in this area. It was published in the 30 October 2019 edition.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="376">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hashtag"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Unresolved Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Link"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
</style>
<br />
-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dear Editor & Fellow Subscribers:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I read with concern the letter by Lane Bishop about the
proposed Gay Straight Alliance at Fannin County High School, as well as the
following letters by John Sugg and Rebecca McKevitt. While I agree that many
Christians have (and still do) unjustly discriminate against those with
homosexual tendencies, that does not mean there is not a just discrimination in
these matters. We need to discriminate having deep-seated homosexual
attraction from acting on it. It’s not a sin to experience homosexual attraction.
It would be a sin to act on that attraction.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mr. Sugg is right to point out that there are plenty of
other sexual sins, and that we ought to have an equal concern to avoid those
and to speak against them as the occasion presents itself. However, he is wrong
to suggest that because Christ did not use the term “homosexuality” that He
never spoke about it and thus somehow considered our sexuality and sexual
behavior unimportant compared to other concerns like social justice. It’s not
an either-or proposition. We are called to personal holiness <i>and also</i> to
charity. The two cannot rightly be separated.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Christ did in fact touch on the topic of sexuality and
marriage explicitly. Anyone who reads the words of Christ (for example, Matt
5:27-32) can see that He clearly presumes heterosexual relations when speaking
of sex and marriage. And when the Pharisees tested Him in Matt 19, He said, “Have
you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and
female, and said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and
hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no
longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man
separate.” (ESV)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So it is very clear that Jesus has a “traditional” view of
sexuality and marriage and that marriage from the Christian point of view is
between one man and one woman. It’s clear that no matter our subjective
experience of our sexuality, that God has a definite purpose and plan in mind
for human sexuality. We are male or female, and as far as sex is concerned,
it’s intended to be expressed exclusively within a lifelong male-female mutual
self-giving with openness towards the blessing of children. That is Christian
marriage.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mr. Sugg also rightly points out that we do not observe all
of the Hebraic Law as recorded in the Old Testament, but that does not free us
to willy-nilly choose our own morality. Most Christians make a distinction
between ritual and moral law. Ritual law is always changeable, but moral law is
immutable. And while the temporal (here and now) punishment for a given sin is
changeable, changing or even removing the temporal punishment does not entail
changing something that was morally illicit into something now morally licit. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As Christians, no matter what our stripe, we consider the
entirety of Scripture to be the Word of God, not only the words of Christ. And
all Christians up until very, very recently (historically speaking) have well
understood that homosexual behavior is sinful, <i>as is all extramarital sexual
activity</i>. That’s because Scripture is clear on the matter, as is Christian
Tradition. Just because it may be possible to re-interpret Scripture to suit
contemporary sensibilities does not make such eisegesis as viable an
interpretation as what the Christian Church has held since day one. I have no
doubt that the many pastors today who are complicit in misleading their flocks
on this will be called to account on the day of judgment. (Jas 3:1)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
None of this justifies hatred or mistreatment of those who
believe they are or may be homosexuals. Proverbs 6:16ff names seven things that
are an abomination to the Lord. A proud look. A lying tongue. A heart that
devises wicked plans. And so on. I am sure most of us have been guilty of such
sins and many others, and we no more deserve mistreatment or special
condemnation than those who act on homosexual inclinations. The Good News is
that Christ came to redeem us all, for all have sinned and fallen short of our
calling to holiness. The right response to sin is repentance and throwing
ourselves on the mercy of God, and urging others to do likewise. It is only by
the grace of God that any of us are saved.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We need not fear having a GSA at our high school, should one
be formed. As parents, if we’re doing our job right, our children will clearly
know right from wrong in this area (which includes not mistreating those who
are different from us). If we are counting on public schools to teach our
children our morals, I think we will be in for a rude awakening. Especially at
the high school age, we need to be equipping our children to bravely encounter
a world that is often at odds with our morals and now more than ever needs
strong, loving Christians who can compassionately share the truth of the Gospel
without exchanging truth for a lie. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
J. Ambrose Little<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Epworth</div>
Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-59197342835208571342019-08-30T12:45:00.000-04:002019-08-30T13:35:05.466-04:00Why People Love False Christianity<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q83fzugoL-E/XWk0i502veI/AAAAAAAAjdM/uXAN1o3gVKMxWBa2crfnyFpSHFPpXevUQCLcBGAs/s1600/group-hug.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="446" data-original-width="540" height="330" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q83fzugoL-E/XWk0i502veI/AAAAAAAAjdM/uXAN1o3gVKMxWBa2crfnyFpSHFPpXevUQCLcBGAs/s400/group-hug.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo Courtesy of https://www.pinterest.com/pin/13792342584492054/</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I awoke this morning to this headline: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/opinion/trump-religion.html">Why People Hate Religion</a>. Oh boy. So in the spirit of the headline, though admittedly with far less clickbait power, I am writing about why people so love false Christianity.<br />
<br />
You see, it’s because it doesn’t challenge them. It doesn’t make them feel uncomfortable. It doesn’t call them to repentance. It tells them that whatever they already believe and whatever they feel is good and to be embraced. It tells them that if something or someone challenges them, then that thing/person is to be shunned as evil.<br />
<br />
The religion this guy suggests is precisely that flavor of “Christianity.” “I’m okay. You’re okay. As long as you’re not a Trump supporter, or even a social conservative.” “Jesus was just this nice guy, ya know?” <b>It is a reductionism of Christianity to secular humanism—using religious terminology that is void of theological and soteriological content.</b> Just “be nice and be nice to people” is all this version of Christianity demands, which is all that secular humanism calls for.<br />
<br />
The NYT article author, Timothy Egan, says, ‘Archbishop Thompson says he tries to be “Christ-centered” in his decisions. If so, he should cite words from Christ condemning homosexuality, any words; there are none.’<br />
<br />
Oh really. How about Matt 19:3ff:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning <b>made them male and female</b>, and said, Therefore <b>a man</b> shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to <b>his wife</b>, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
In Christ’s only explicit teaching about marriage, he very clearly says that it is a lifelong, sexually exclusive union of male and female. If Christ were the sexually-progressive person our contemporaries try to make him out to be, he surely would have been careful to avoid being clear that Divinely-instituted marriage is between a man and a woman. (And not only that, that "binary" sexuality is also of Divine origin.)<br />
<br />
But let’s not stop there, because <b>the suggestion to "cite words from Christ” for any Christian teaching is fabulously ignorant on its face.</b> While on this planet, Jesus went to great lengths to make it clear that he considers himself to be the eternal Son of God, as Pope Benedict XVI so compellingly showed in his wonderful book, <a href="https://amzn.to/2L7gbue"><i>Jesus of Nazareth</i></a>. And that has been unalterable Christian dogma since the beginning of our Faith. (It was precisely this claim that got him into such hot water with his Jewish contemporaries.)<br />
<br />
Christ is, as the beginning of the Gospel of John makes evident, the eternal Word of God. Christian theologians have ruminated on this doctrine since the earliest times, and why that is particularly significant, in our context here, is that the entire canon of Christian Scripture is “The Word of God.” This means, through simple, syllogistic logic, that <b>the entire canon of Scripture is "words from Christ."</b> Christ, being the eternal and incarnate Word of God, therefore speaks directly through <i>all</i> of our Scriptures—not just the quotes attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. And there is plenty in the Word of God about sexual morals (including about homosexuality but by no means limited to it), all pointing toward what Christ was saying—that our sexuality is only rightly expressed within the bounds of that lifelong union of man and woman.<br />
<br />
<b>Simply put, if you do not believe that Christ is the eternally-begotten Son and Word of God, you are not a Christian.</b> End of story. There can be no debate on this point. You can cite the words from Christ all you want, but you do not hold the Christian faith.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, that same Word of God teaches that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15). That same Word of God teaches that Christ anointed his apostles with the power to forgive and retain sins (John 20:22-3). That same Word of God (in John 16:13), quotes Christ telling those same Apostles that when he did give them the Holy Spirit (by breathing on them as recorded in John 20), that the Spirit would lead them into all truth--even after Christ in his human person left the Earth. That same Word of God is where we find Christ anointing Peter as the rock upon which he would build his Church and conferring on him the power of loosing and binding (Matt 18:18-19).<br />
<br />
And so, <b>not only is the truth from Christ expressed in more than just the "words from Christ" attributed to him in the Gospels in Scripture, that truth is also to be found in the Church that Christ founded upon Peter. </b>It is in that Church--when submitting ourselves to the authority granted by Christ to his apostles--that we are led into all truth through the charism given by Christ to the apostles and their successors. It is in the Church that we can rightly understand the Word of Christ, the Eternal Word of God.<br />
<br />
And so we come to the teaching of the Church, which is supremely clear on these matters, not only on matters of morality (sexual or otherwise) but also on what the content of the Christian faith itself is. All of this is comprehensively but approachably explained in <a href="https://amzn.to/2ZIw4eR">the Church's Catechism</a>. Our bishops, with all their warts and flaws (some of which are direly serious), are our pastors, our shepherds. Under the headship of Peter's successor, they are the inheritors (not due to their own personal holiness but due to their office imparted by the laying on of hands) of the Apostolic charisms that Christ imparted, and it is in our union with those successors of the Apostles that we find the fullness of the Christian faith.<br />
<br />
All of that is a somewhat long-winded way of saying that when judging what is or is not the Christian faith, and judging what is or is not part of the Christian approach to morality, one can't just consult the quoted words of Christ. Egan's version of Christianity is wholly insufficient and, in places, just plain wrong, especially in his following the notion of "be nice" as our primary guiding principle.<br />
<br />
To be fair, he is right in some respects, as well. Part of Christian morality is to help the weak and the poor. (One can't help but wonder if he'd extend that principle of help of the weak to the not-yet-born.) He and the sister he quotes are right, in as much as our guiding light in the humanitarian work that we do is that we recognize the image of God in each person--no matter what condition they are in, no matter their developmental stage, no matter their mental or physical capabilities.<br />
<br />
But in criticizing Christians for standing by the morals of the Faith that are not in line with popular secular culture, he is dead wrong. <b>Perhaps the most fundamental principle of the Christian faith is the universal call to holiness</b>. We are all called to be holy all throughout Scripture--it is the overarching theme. We are all called to repent from our sins and conform ourselves to the will of God (Romans 12:1-2). We know the will of God by his revealing it to us in creation, in His person, in Scripture, and within the guidance of His Church. Just being whomever we find ourselves to be is not a Christian way of life; it is the way of the world. No matter what our sins and inclinations are, we are called to take up our cross and follow Christ--and God gives us the grace to do that, especially through the Sacraments, especially through baptism, confession and reconciliation, and the Eucharist.<br />
<br />
This personal, individual, on-going conversion is so often overlooked, particularly by those who want to change Christianity to fit our popular culture today. The Christian faith is completely opposed to the notion that whatever we feel, whatever we are inclined to do, is OK as long as it is not harmful to others. Furthermore, our Faith is wholly opposed to the notion that harm means challenging someone, that is, telling someone that, "no, 'you do you' is not OK," that there are in fact objective morals and objective truth, a standard of living to which all are called, no matter what our genetics and upbringing and social context, that we are all bound to respond to that universal call to holiness as best as we are able.<br />
<br />
Sure, we Christians can and often do screw up, both in our responding to the call as well as in how we communicate it, but the call remains. And we are bound, as Christians, to share the whole Gospel--not just the parts that feel good and are acceptable to our contemporary cultures. We are bound to help the poor and weak <i>and also</i> correct the sinner, in addition to doing our best to conform our own selves to God.Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-5744924952954744372018-05-10T22:17:00.000-04:002018-05-10T22:20:13.308-04:00Ascension Thur-Sunday<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-htSbBGriekA/WvT8495xVdI/AAAAAAAAg_w/RDoEb4FK-v4beEuEe5VDXMiMaJx-jgKbACLcBGAs/s1600/acension-thursday.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1200" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-htSbBGriekA/WvT8495xVdI/AAAAAAAAg_w/RDoEb4FK-v4beEuEe5VDXMiMaJx-jgKbACLcBGAs/s400/acension-thursday.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
It's Ascension Thursday again, and with that comes the yearly opining about the fact that most dioceses in the U.S. have moved its observation to the following Sunday, and how it'd be soo much better for us all to observe it on the actual day.<br />
<br />
I do get it. In an ideal world, society would be arranged in a way so that observing holy days would not be problematic at all. I wish we lived in that world, but of course we don't. There are reasons that the Church has allowed bishops to move the observance.<br />
<br />
Here's something worth considering, or so I think. Absolutely no precept prevents anyone from going to mass <i>on</i> Ascension Thursday, even if the local diocese does not observe it then. And nothing prevents you (as an individual) from praying the Office for the Ascension on Ascension Thursday. So why is it so important to people to make Ascension Thursday a holy day of obligation for everyone else?<br />
<br />
I know I'm getting soft in my old age, but I've gradually come to recognize the superior wisdom of the Church in many of the "relaxing" changes made over the last 60 years (and the relaxations before that). Here's what I see as the wisdom in moving mid-week holy days of obligation to Sundays:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>More people who might not otherwise make it will make it, just by the fact of being in church on Sunday--more people de facto get to celebrate the feast day.</li>
<li>Nobody--particularly those with rigid work schedules--has to be put in the position of missing an HDO and worrying (justified or not) that they are sinning--or actually sinning.</li>
<li>Those who like me will do the necessary to go don't have to make special arrangements with schools and/or drag the whole fam to relatively inconveniently timed masses.</li>
</ol>
<div>
In short, our society has made it progressively more difficult to observe holy days during the week.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
Now, if there's a compellingly good reason not to move it, so be it, but if we can accommodate and move, I say do it.<br />
<br />
I've noticed that there is some rigorist/traditionalist notion that making things harder and more inconvenient makes them somehow better and more desirable. I think this notion stems from spiritual pride--particularly in the cases where one looks at others and thinks ill of them ("they're just lazy/not devout enough") for not being inclined to take up the same, more rigorous forms of devotion. I don't think most people who feel this way are even particularly conscious of it, but I suspect if they examined their consciences, they may find it is so. I know for myself, I have progressively become more aware of such tendencies in my own life over the years.<br />
<br />
As for myself, I've decided to submit my judgment to that of the Church. If She says that, in our current cultural milieu, this or that is or is not required, I'll follow it. I won't try to make up new obligations for others that She doesn't give us. I may (and actually do) take additional devotions and even obligations upon myself, both personal and as a lay Dominican, but I don't think everyone should do those, much less that they should be enshrined into canon law.<br />
<br />
This is not to say that "doing the minimum" is a good aspiration by any means, only that I think we should not "tie up big burdens that are hard to bear and lay them on others' shoulders." (Matt 23:4) It's one thing to challenge and inspire people to be better by the excellence of one's own life, quite another to try to insist that they be better (<i>and think ill of them when they aren't</i>).<br />
<br />
The reality is that <b>we are <i>all</i> called to be perfect as Christ and the Father are perfect </b>(Matt 5:48, Jo 10:30). That's a tall order that none of us is able to achieve of our own accord (Ro 3:10,20). The obligations of the Church walk a fine line between inducing us towards living up to that ideal and creating opportunities for yet more sin. St. Paul wrote about how the Law, in a sense, created sin (Ro 7:7ff). He also wrote about the grace and freedom we have in Christ--that it is not our perfection that makes us perfect but rather the merits of Christ being attributed to us through grace (Ro 3:24, <i>passim</i>). Does that mean we should sin more that grace may abound more? "Absolutely not!," he answered emphatically (Ro 6:2). And yet it remains that our fundamental orientation under the New Law is towards grace and perfection <i>in</i> Christ, not of our own works--lest anyone of us should boast (Eph 2:9).<br />
<br />
So I think the Church, while Her various laws and precepts have changed over the years, is wise to minimize those which may inadvertently lead to yet more sin. And besides, surely there are plenty of ways to encourage and lead people to greater holiness than ecclesiastical law?<br />
<br />
<br />
P.S. One of my Facebook buddies suggested the idea of simply making it not an obligation but still observing it on Thursday. That's not a bad idea, in my book.Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-34532791547915726522017-10-15T21:25:00.000-04:002017-10-15T21:25:29.884-04:00On Filial Submission to the Roman Pontiff<i>Contra: The Charge of Ultramontansim</i><br />
<br />
Why is it that papal critics rashly jump to the accusation of ultramontanism if you defend the pope against their criticism?<br />
<br />
How many times have I been told, "you know, the Pope is not infallible in _everything_ he says?" I'm like, "duh. Yes, I know that. Say hello to my little friend, Mr. Straw Man. You two seem to know each other already."<br />
<br />
Saying that we should receive papal teaching, whether infallible or not, from a standpoint of filial submission is not, I believe, ultramontane. Saying that we should presume the most generous interpretation that is in accord with Tradition is not, I think, ultramontane.<br />
<br />
Can you believe Pope Francis wrote this?? "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me' ... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians [or random laity on the internet]."<br />
<br />
Oh wait, he didn't. That was Pope Piux XII in Humani Generis, 20.<br />
<br />
<b>Baltimore Catechism</b><br />
148. Did Christ intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone?<br />
<br />
Christ did not intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone, but intended that this power should be passed down to his successor, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Church.<br />
<br />
<b>Code of Canon Law</b><br />
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; <b>therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it</b>. (my emphasis)<br />
<br />
<br />
One could go on. Our Tradition is firmly in the camp of preferring filial submission to the Pope. The fact that the Pope, when not speaking ex cathedra, _can_ be wrong does not change this basic posture or give one license to unrestrainedly level public criticisms and suggestions or outright claims of promoting heresy.<br />
<br />
Our response, when the Pope teaches something that challenges our own understanding of faith and morals, should be to question our own understanding rather than the Holy Father's. It should be to generously try to interpret what the Holy Father is teaching within the context of Tradition.<br />
<br />
It should not be to rattle off an anxious and accusatory article or blog post, start blabbing about our concerns and criticisms all over the internet, start demanding "clarification," creating "open letters" and collecting signatories, and so on. Posting "public theses" on the "door" of the internet is a distinctly Protestant act, not Catholic.<br />
<br />
And so I think those who are inclined to do such need to be much more reticent: more reticent in their criticisms of the hierarchy--especially the pope; more reticent in how they choose to criticize (i.e., using proper ecclesiastical channels if there is real concern, rather than the internet), and more reticent in their completely unjustifiable accusations of ultramontanism when they are challenged for such behavior.Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-26115178737441378652017-09-17T01:45:00.000-04:002017-09-17T01:58:28.413-04:00Wherein Fr. Martin Does Actually Go Too Far<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gHWRe0ix9p0/Wb38D9TLYTI/AAAAAAAAgWg/njPvdecU3DwAMXZSds8Z3VK0qHnT3XlFQCLcBGAs/s1600/pink10raiseyourglass.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="265" data-original-width="490" height="216" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gHWRe0ix9p0/Wb38D9TLYTI/AAAAAAAAgWg/njPvdecU3DwAMXZSds8Z3VK0qHnT3XlFQCLcBGAs/s400/pink10raiseyourglass.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I usually find myself needing to explain/defend Fr. Martin from his many rash and ungenerous detractors. But there are times where I do think he crosses the line of letting his good intentions lead him astray. And I do firmly believe he has the best intentions, including a desire for the salvation of souls. I have little doubt that God has, does, and will use him to draw people to himself who might not otherwise be able to hear His calling.<br />
<br />
But as all of us do, sometimes we make missteps, and for someone who lives as publicly as Fr. Martin, those may be more noticeable and noticed than your average person. I think <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/theology-in-dialogue/id1213903092?ls=1">Fr. Martin's recent interview with Brandon Ambrosino</a> is one of those cases.<br />
<br />
Brandon, a professional journalist, is a public gay Catholic (as in, he writes about it as a journalist) who is engaged to be married to another gay man. I say this to ward of the usual accusations that I am making his private bedroom business my own. No, he makes it our own by making himself a public figure with regards to this aspect of his life. So, fair game..<br />
<br />
In discussing his public gayness with Fr. Martin, he relates how he wants to kiss his partner in Church during the kiss of peace but doesn't feel he can/should. Fr. Martin reacts, saying, "You have internalized rejection already. You don’t even need to be told that you’re rejected in the Church, you’ve internalized it and that’s very sad. A lot of the people that Jesus came into contact with did the same thing." Such a sense of rejection is sad, to be sure, but Fr. Martin goes on to say, "So I hope in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or soon to be your husband. Why not? What’s the terrible thing?"<br />
<br />
I understand this is part of Fr. Martin's larger impetus (which he rehashes in the interview) to call out Christians for singling out this sin, and calling us to "build a bridge" to persons who identify as LGTBQ. But, instead of saying that the Church should equally call out these other sins that Father mentions, he seems to say that we should rather be as laissez faire about homosexual behavior as we are about other sins.<br />
<br />
What's "terrible" in all of this is the sin itself. It's terrible not because anyone has a personal revulsion/fear of it but because <i>sin, in principle and reality, damages one's relationship with God and others</i>. What's terrible is the suggestion that the Church should turn a blind eye to sin. Fr. Martin is right that we have often unfairly singled out homosexual sin in the Church, especially in recent years since it's been a hot topic in our society, but he seems to have the wrong solution--to not only acknowledge that we are all sinful but also to further normalize that sinfulness, in a public way. To say, it seems, that "it's okay," that we ought not to care or feel a need to repent.<br />
<br />
Brandon and Fr. Martin offer a few other examples, like ignoring a homeless person or abusing power. Should people who do that not be allowed to kiss in Church? This to me seems to miss a key distinction, which is that--by his own admission--part of Brandon's motivation is to normalize homosexual relationships in Church, in the context of the mass. <a href="http://time.com/3938518/gay-marriage-response">Brandon openly argues that homosexual unions should be blessed and be considered to be sacramental</a> and indicates that his kiss is not simply one of, say, Christian brotherly love, but is meant to be a public display of affection within the context of his sexual relationship with his partner.<br />
<br />
There are two things wrong with that.<br />
<br />
1) It misunderstands the whole purpose of the "kiss of peace." This is not an opportunity for us to share our personal affection towards our brothers and sisters in Christ. It is an opportunity for us to share <i>Christ's peace</i> with each other. The purpose is for us to share the love of Christ, his peace, and be reconciled to one another, which unites us all in Christian community. It's not at all necessary (or even relevant) that we have any sense of personal affection. In Brandon's defense, this is a common misconception about the Peace in the Church.<br />
<br />
2) A kiss between two people that is meant to be a public display of affection of an immoral sexual relationship (such as two gay men in a sexual relationship, two lesbian women in a sexual relationship, an unmarried, cohabiting sexually active straight couple, a man and his mistress, and so on) is at least sinful in itself, and it is compounded by its being public and in the context of mass and in the context of the kiss of peace (which again is not supposed to be PDA but an expression of Christ's peace). All of that adds up to it being completely wrongheaded and (I don't use this term lightly or often) scandalous, not in some prudish sense but in the formal Christian meaning of the term.<br />
<br />
A Christian who is trying to live a converted life to Christ <i>should</i> feel that such a display is inappropriate, and our response should not be "let's hope people are cool with it in 10 years." It is scandalous because the intent behind it is to convince others that such relationships are not sinful, which not only confirms the ones doing it in their sin but also contributes to the decay of the Christian community's moral sense in these matters--leading to a deadening of conscience and the likelihood that others, too, will fall into similar sins. That is the scandal.<br />
<br />
This situation is decidedly different for those who have sinned in other ways that do not pertain to the expression of the kiss. So it is apples and oranges and incorrect to suggest that we are unfairly discriminating between those in immoral sexual relationships and those who, for instance, have stolen from the poor. Both are sinful, but in the one case, the kiss is a public expression of the sin, while in the other it is entirely unrelated.<br />
<br />
And I am serious that this is not just about homosexual relationships--it applies to <i>any immoral sexual relationship</i>. We should feel the same lack of comfort with a straight couple who are living in an immoral sexual relationship. That feeling is appropriate to a properly formed Christian conscience.<br />
<br />
Now, what we do with that feeling is important, too. We don't tackle them and pull them apart. We don't "tsk tsk" at them audibly or wait until they look in our direction and glare. We don't withhold the Peace from them. We don't otherwise make a scene. At a very minimum, we ought to say a prayer for them. Each situation is different, but I'd say it'd be <i>potentially</i> appropriate to counsel the couple privately about it, if you have an existing relationship with them that allows for that to happen in a way that they might actually listen. To be clear, I am not advocating for public shaming or anything like that; I am only saying that our reaction, as a community, should not be that "there's nothing wrong with it," which seems to be what Fr. Martin is hoping for.<br />
<br />
Fr. Martin also hems and haws about not being a theologian and how that some other teachings--he names <i>Humanae Vitae</i>--have not been accepted, much like the purported majority of Catholics approve of gay marriage. He suggests--if I understood right--that for a teaching to be authentic Christian teaching, it must be accepted by the Christian faithful. I can only assume he is alluding to the <i>sensus fidelium</i>.<br />
<br />
I have to be honest and say that this, more than anything I've seen from him, gives me pause, because it seems to suggest that he does actually believe that these teachings are wrong and that we should (and eventually will) change them. Up to now, my take has been that he's just overly focused on being tactful and welcoming, but this makes me question if that's the case...<br />
<br />
I also am not any kind of official theologian, but my understanding is that this inverts the function of the <i>sensus fidelium</i>. It is primarily meant to be an expression, to quote the famous phrase by Vincent of Lerins, "that which has been believed everywhere always by all" [of the faithful]. So if we are to apply this here, it would be clear that the traditional belief of the Catholic faithful is that such things are immoral, not the other way around. Further, the idea that the laity can be right <i>in opposition to</i> the hierarchy is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_fidelium#Views_of_laity_alone">officially excluded as a valid interpretation</a>.<br />
<br />
The Catholic Church's teachings that are most notably at odds with current Western/American culture tend to be those having to do with sexuality and related issues (such as abortion). The fact that they are resisted and not accepted by all of us has no bearing on their veracity or standing as part of true Catholic doctrine. It is, rather, more of a reflection on our current cultural separation from our Christian roots.<br />
<br />
It is not at all surprising that, especially, cradle Catholics--who have typically not been well-catechized and who are inescapably immersed in a culture that is on some points at odds with Catholic doctrine--should not be accepting of those points of doctrine, especially when there are equally influential aspects of our culture, such as self-determination/actualization, unfettered "freedom," democratic governance, and relativism, that incline us to believe that we, as individual persons, are the ultimate arbiter of truth as it applies to us. All of this is a kind of perfect storm to create a condition where large swaths of baptized Catholics reject teachings, often based on cultural and political affiliations, but also based on a lack of personal fortitude--some teaching are just hard. I should know!<br />
<br />
So contrary to what Fr. Martin seems to be suggesting here, the laity do not--in contradiction to the hierarchy--determine what is true Catholic doctrine. On these points--artificial contraception and other various forms of sexual behavior--our collective inability to accept them is no indicator that they are wrong or false or subject to revision. It is simply that we are flawed human beings who face an immense challenge to overcome both our carnal passions as well as our cultural predispositions.<br />
<br />
Believe me, I am sympathetic. Catholicism, indeed pretty much any form of traditional Christianity, is not an easy way of life. It requires sacrifice. It requires a life-long endeavor (and even after this life if need be) to conform ourselves to God. The way of the Cross is hard, but the grace of God is there to help us if only we will avail ourselves of it. And with it comes immeasurable peace and joy in this life and the next.Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-18890701597028292352017-08-15T20:47:00.001-04:002017-08-15T20:47:38.776-04:00Polarization and the Golden RuleI’m sure people who think Trump can do no right are gonna see <a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/399712-trump-charlottesville-statement-race/">this</a> as after-the-fact justification. Maybe so. OTOH, I agree with the principle of waiting until you have good enough info to speak and act. Too bad he doesn’t apply that standard evenly as is amply evidenced on his Twitter feed.<br />
<br />
As I recall, Trump made his “equivocal” statement before the news broke about the car homicide, and at the time, having watched some of the video feeds myself, it seemed that both sides were indeed acting out and inciting each other, which is pretty much par for the course for so-called “peaceful demonstrations” these days.<br />
<br />
There have also been many violent and ugly protests (and riots) incited by folks on the left side of the political spectrum, many against Trump himself. This is not tu quoque. I am not excusing what happened. I am indicting both the left and the right for our ongoing extreme polarization and the violence that this leads to.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/ambroselittle/posts/10156542743400968?pnref=story">As I said on Saturday</a>, have said before, and will probably say again, racism is a great evil and a great sin. There is no excuse for it. I am personally disgusted by the behavior and talk of white supremacists, and I abhor and denounce that ideology in all its various pernicious forms.<br />
<br />
What I am addressing here is not the particular ideology of the particular latest demonstration-turned-riot. I am addressing the larger issue that we, as Americans, so very many of us, are increasingly becoming incapable of viewing each other as fellow human beings and fellow citizens with whom we may happen to hold significant disagreements.<br />
<br />
Instead, we vilify, demonize, and shout down. We refuse to listen and refuse to discuss as rational beings. We imagine we know each others’ hearts, and we rarely question our own. This can only lead us to one end: hate and violence. And that, in itself, only breeds more of the same as recriminations escalate.<br />
<br />
We see this in the workplace. We see this in the public square. We see this among friends, and yes even among family. This is a dark, dark path we are going down, far more deleterious than any saber rattling by governmental powers.<br />
<br />
But it’s not too late to reverse it. Each one of us can make the effort, no matter how personally offensive someone’s ideas are, to remember that this is indeed another human being we are dealing with and to treat them like we would want to be treated.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that if we stand for anything, someone will take offense and objection to our positions, no matter how right we think we are, no matter how much we think we are ‘on the right side of history’. So it behooves us to engage in the Golden Rule, especially when we disagree and are inclined to see the Other as our enemy.<br />
<br />
Those with political power (even in a democracy) will always be tempted to use it to unjustly oppress and suppress others. We have never been immune to this, even in a country founded on liberal ideals, and we are anything but immune to it today. We should not forget our own history, and we must ever be on guard against the temptation to use power—even in the service of arguably good ideals—to treat others as less than human. This includes the power of government and the power of the mob, in whatever form that takes.<br />
<br />
We are all, witting or not, members of the government or the mob or both, that is, some society of individual persons who by banding together wield collective power, and so it is on each of us—individually—to resolve to use what power we have to respect the Other and to treat the Other as we would want to be treated.<br />
<br />
And Christians, especially, are called to an even higher standard—to LOVE the Other, to seek the good of the Other, even when it doesn’t personally benefit us. We ought to be examplars of how to live at peace with each other, not ever backing down from confronting evil but also never conflating the evil with the person. “Love your enemies...” May God give us the grace to love perfectly.Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-13318297441479657172017-07-22T11:44:00.001-04:002017-07-22T11:44:19.450-04:00Tenders of SignsWhen I first read of <a href="https://vimeo.com/226376027">Bp. Paprocki's decree on those in homosexual unions</a>, I thought it was unfortunate in terms of timing and narrow focus on this particular area of morals, because people are so sensitive about this right now in our society. Harping on it seems to set the wrong tone in calling people to repentance. As an approach, it seems to more lend towards hardening people's hearts and resistance to the Gospel than helping.<br />
<br />
Others I know think the timing is exactly right because of the mass cultural delusion of acceptance of immoral sexual behavior (and I don't just mean homosexual behavior). They are of the mind that we must repeatedly and simply restate that such behavior is immoral because they believe that without doing this, people will remain and/or become more confused about sexual morals.<br />
<br />
They seem to believe that the call to repentance, that is, evangelization, consists in simply telling people what is sinful. Or at least this seems to be the main feature of such an approach to sharing the Gospel. They often excoriate those, especially our pastors, who do not follow this approach, while lauding those who do. "Finally, someone is speaking the truth clearly!" they exclaim.<br />
<br />
Bp. Paprocki is both well within his rights and duties as bishop to issue his decree. He is right that he is simply and objectively applying long-standing Church teaching to a new societal situation. Within the context of an internal memo to his priests, there would be little to criticize because it's not intended as an exposition of Catholic sexual ethics but merely clarifying his diocese's treatment of a new social situation.<br />
<br />
He explains the timing of his decree has to do with the recent acceptance of civil homosexual marriage, and our society's shifting attitudes with regards to homosexual behavior (as being a morally acceptable alternative to heterosexual sex within marriage). That is understandable.<br />
<br />
Of course it would be naive to think that such a decree would not become public when concerning such a controversial matter, and I am sure the bishop is not that naive. I imagine he is of the persuasion I outline above, that is that more or less simply restating Catholic doctrine as applied to this new situation is our most appropriate response to the new situation. His video here seems to support this inference.<br />
<br />
For my part, I am inclined to think that it takes all types. Some people are at the place in their journey that benefits from simple statement of truth, kind of like a shock to the system, a jostling out of one's comfort zone. Others more likely need a gentler approach. They need time and more indirect means of warming to the necessity of turning away from this or that sin that is dear to them. They need a kind hand on the shoulder, an assurance they can do it.<br />
<br />
I think that God works through all kinds of different approaches in drawing people to himself, and the Holy Spirit can use even our human blunders to reach people's hearts.<br />
For my part, however, I tend to think at the social, public level, it's time to err on the side of gentility. It's too easy for people to harden their hearts and simply tune out of the truth. On this matter, especially, our zeitgeist sends a reinforcing message that this tuning out is exactly the right response. "These people are just homophobic bigots," it whispers. "They're just hateful. You don't need to listen."<br />
<br />
And so they will become or remain lost--precisely because we have reinforced this notion, that being a faithful Christian means you have to be a bigot. Who would be attracted to that? Who would want to leave behind something that they feel brings them some amount of happiness in order to become like that? No one. That's who.<br />
<br />
Jesus almost always erred on the side of gentleness and compassion with sinners. He saved the majority of his anger and direct confrontation for the religious leaders of his day, particularly those who were very good at articulating every detail of the Law, following it to the letter, and all-too-ready to condemn those who didn't. He wasn't ever unclear about the need to repent, but his approach tended to be more indirect and aspirational--stirring desire towards God rather than scaring people away from sin. That's the approach I would rather try to emulate.<br />
<br />
It's just not enough to simply tell people what sin is and that they are sinning. That's not even the message of the Gospel. The Gospel is the grace of God acting in our lives, ever renewing us and strengthening us. The Gospel is that God's mercy is greater than our many sins--sexual or otherwise--and that no matter how many times we screw up and fall back into them, God is always there, ready and waiting to pull us up out of the ditch, tend to our wounds, and strengthen us to continue our journey towards eternal life with Him.<br />
<br />
Yes, we need signs telling us which road to follow, we need warnings about the dangers and drop offs, but those are just means to our One, True End. I think we need to be less worried about sign maintenance and more worried about being the helping hand that God uses to pull people out of ditches and being the person God sends to accompany them on the way. Having someone who knows the way travel with you is immeasurably more valuable, appreciated, and effective than any number of signs.Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-83566253827370705102016-12-11T15:14:00.000-05:002016-12-11T15:17:35.870-05:00The Eternal Advent<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Th2JJRKhinA/WE20Nj7l9EI/AAAAAAAAUlE/rjy_tG285SEqf666MId9g4ZwK7QrydGlwCLcB/s1600/interior_dante_divinecomedy_par_31_1.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img alt="Dante's Paradiso" border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Th2JJRKhinA/WE20Nj7l9EI/AAAAAAAAUlE/rjy_tG285SEqf666MId9g4ZwK7QrydGlwCLcB/s320/interior_dante_divinecomedy_par_31_1.jpg" title="" width="288" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">(Revelation 1:4-8)</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">The Eternal Advent, that is, God--He who was, who is, and who is to come. Fr. Yves Congar, O.P, notes in</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span><i style="font-size: 12.8px;">The Word and the Spirit</i><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">, that the Hebrew word for 'truth' comes from the verb that means to be stable, firm, sure, reliable, and that in the 132 times it is used in the Old Testament, more than half are used of God. The concepts of truth and faithfulness (steadfastness) are therefore linked, and they are rooted in God's very being. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">"I am who I shall be" is, according to <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traduction_%C5%93cum%C3%A9nique_de_la_Bible&source=gmail&ust=1481573495087000&usg=AFQjCNEHiBDzJTxO14-4WORODsc4LimAgg" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traduction_%C5%93cum%C3%A9nique_de_la_Bible" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">the TOB</a>, a more favorable rendering of the name God reveals of himself in the burning bush (more commonly "I am who I am"). In this rendering we see an echo of Revelation above--God was, God is, and God will be, He who is to come, <i>and always will be to come</i>. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">While the primary mode of Advent is anticipation of the celebration of the Incarnate Word's Nativity, we know it also is a time to reflect on His Second Coming, and in the above Scripture, we see also that it can also be a time of reflection on God in Himself, a coming of Being that will always be. This is a joyful anticipation that we always have had, we have now, and will have in eternity. God is sure. He will always be. What a great joy it is to know this!</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">So let us now welcome God, in union with the Word and Spirit: </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. (Rev 22:17)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span></div>
Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-85232897190943578702016-11-26T15:17:00.002-05:002021-11-02T16:34:42.961-04:00Ambrose's Corollary to Godwin's Law (Arian Appeals)<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DlamUM6Mzdo/WDnle3SJUVI/AAAAAAAAUfk/4KOJt8UsL98vfBwiJpO7SQDnkvxhnZw1QCLcB/s1600/Nicea.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="First Council of Nicaea" border="0" height="266" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DlamUM6Mzdo/WDnle3SJUVI/AAAAAAAAUfk/4KOJt8UsL98vfBwiJpO7SQDnkvxhnZw1QCLcB/s400/Nicea.jpg" title="First Council of Nicaea" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="background-color: white;">Oh my, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161127124801/http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/attacks-on-four-cardinals-aim-to-silence-the-truth-says-bishop-schneider/">the persecution complex is in full swing</a>. It couldn't possibly be that it is these few men who are acting improperly against the rest of the Magisterium. Nope. Clearly we are all Arians, and these few are the orthodox. And really?!? "Attacks" and "violence"? Until I see a modern day St. Nicholas slapping one of these guys, crying "violence" is a bit much, to say the least. </span></span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="background-color: white;">This useful quote from </span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">Ralph Waldo Emerson couldn't apply more than in this case:</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"> </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." Sorry, but having the majority of Christendom respond critically to a handful of cardinals who publicly threaten to "correct" the Pope is not persecution. </span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="background-color: white;">I propose a corollary to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law">Godwin's law</a>, only for Catholics: </span>As an online discussion between Catholics grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Arius approaches 1," that is, if an Catholic debate (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will claim that his interlocutor is the equivalent of an Arian and that all those who disagree with him are like the Arians in the Arian controversy--especially if the vast majority of the Church disagrees with him.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"> It happens all the time (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170313053524/http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2016/11/suspense-of-magisterium.html">another immediately current example</a>).</span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">But let's take a closer look at the history around <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_controversy">the Arian controversy</a> (and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism">here</a> and <a href="http://newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm">here</a>). At the <i>ecumenical</i> council of Nicaea, all but a tiny handful of voting participants ultimately decided in favor of what we now think of as orthodoxy. This means the </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">overwhelming majority, a <a href="http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/575/article/real-story-council-nicea">full 95% (301 of 318)</a>, were in favor of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy won, big time. It was not a small minority, some remnant fighting against the majority, but a majority soundly overcoming the minority.</span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">So those who try to represent their minority views in parallel with the orthodox in the Arian controversy find little support in the history. Granted, for some decades following the Council of Nicaea, numerous flavors of Arian and semi-Arian views gained ascendancy in eastern parts of the Roman Empire, which did lead to a persecution of the orthodox in those areas, largely thanks to certain influential/powerful people in the eastern empire's political elite, but it still did not amount to anything like the Church as a whole--and the valid bishops of Rome at the time along with most of the western empire remained orthodox, often sheltering and defending the chief defender of orthodoxy in the East, St. Athanasius.</span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">There was never an ecumenical council that overturned the orthodoxy established at Nicaea (and that would not be possible anyways, in Catholic ecclesiology). And frankly, it's a common pattern for the heterodox whose positions are excluded from orthodoxy as a result of an ecumenical council to not just go "oh well, I guess we were wrong." </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">Such reactions are par for the course; it just so happens that the heretics in this case got the support of influential imperial officials and temporarily gained ascendancy. Thank God for Emperor Theodosius who eventually corrected this problem in the east and made orthodoxy the official imperial view for the whole Empire, after which Arianism largely died out except among some of the Germanic tribes outside the Empire.</span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">Contrast this to the folks in our time who summon the specter of the Arian controversy when their views are challenged. Their positions are always a small minority in the Church. The say or imply that the vast majority of the Church has apostatized--including virtually all bishops and priests (and usually the pope). Thus they are usually opposed to the living Magisterium. There is now no major political power, like the late Roman Empire, that has immense influence over the Church hierarchy and property and uses that power to enforce the views of that political elite. In short, beyond the vague association with the persecuted minority in some regions of the Church 1600+ years ago, there is no real parallel. </span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">And beyond that, <b>playing the Arian card is no real argument at all</b>. It is completely fallacious, not just from an historical point of view, but also from a logical point of view. Even if you could establish a thorough parallel, the argument is nothing but an emotional salve for its proponents. It does nothing to address the issues at play. It simply appropriates a feigned mantle of orthodoxy and rightness. It is exactly like the "you're on the wrong side of history" arguments made by progressives in other areas of contemporary debate. </span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">So to all those who espouse this, as in the article linked at the top, please do us all a favor and stop crying foul and stick to pertinent arguments. If Cardinal Burke and those of similar minds truly believe that they are sticking up for orthodoxy in the face of heterodoxy, they need to be prepared for the ensuing conflict and opposition. They should not be shocked. This is not persecution. It is contradiction. (For the record, I have not seen Cardinal Burke appealing to this himself.)</span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">The mere fact that some are being opposed by an overwhelming majority is no indicator that they are right, nor should anyone take comfort in that fact. It is far more likely that they are wrong for this reason. As in the case of all of the ecumenical councils--including Nicaea--it is the <i>majority</i> that decides, in union with the pope, what is orthodox, not the dissenting minority, especially not the minority against the pope. </span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><i>Amoris Laetitia</i> is a post-synodal exhortation. It comes as the culmination of two universal synods involving not only bishops from all over the world, including those of different rites, but also many lay people. The bishops debated and discussed and made resolutions. The Pope issued his exhortation with all of that in mind. It is, as such, reflective of the universal Church in union with the pope. While the pope has the authority to issue a letter such as this on his own, that is not what happened here. He is not, as I've heard said, smacking down those who disagree with him and not allowing for open and honest debate--we had a multi-year synod on the subject for goodness' sake.</span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">As I see it, the pope has wisely refused to issue simplistic, rigorist affirmations of current rules. He <i>has</i> affirmed the unchangeable doctrine and basic Catholic moral framework, so suggestions and accusations of heresy are just plain wrong. He has wisely chosen (so far) to not respond to the answers for "clarification," because doing so would work against what he has chosen to do, which is defer to his fellow bishops to issue guidelines and encourage priests to use their judgment and discern the appropriate course of action after considering individual circumstances <i>in light of our doctrine and current laws</i>. All of this was affirmed in his letter to the Argentine bishops, which some find unaccountably disturbing. </span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">As <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/11/amoris-laetitia-has-already-been-clarified-many-times.html">others have noted</a>, clarifications abound already, and what the heck, <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2016/11/responses-to-cardinal-burke-francis-dubia.html">I wrote one attempt myself</a>. And <a href="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-pope-francis-in-flight-interview-from-lesbos-to-rome-97242/">Pope Francis has in fact already responded to the request for clarification on <i>Amoris</i></a>:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">Frank Rocca (Wall Street Journal): ... For a Catholic who wants to know: are there new, concrete possibilities that didn’t exist before the publication of the exhortation or not?</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica";">Pope Francis: I can say yes, period. But it would be an answer that is too small. I recommend that you <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/cardinal-schonborn-gives-clarification-on-communion/">read the presentation of Cardinal Schönborn</a>, who is a great theologian. He was the secretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and he knows the doctrine of the faith well. In that presentation, your question will find an answer.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: helvetica;">
Those who don't like Francis, this is not an Arian moment. There is no Arian card to play here. </div>
</div>
Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-62732392675585644672016-11-26T13:08:00.000-05:002016-11-30T23:32:32.862-05:00Responses to Cardinal Burke et al's DubiaI figured I'd take a whack at responding to <a href="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia">doubts proposed by Cardinal Burke and his three cardinal colleagues</a>. This is how I imagine Pope Francis might answer, though I would not presume to actually speak for him or anyone but myself. My intent is to balance objective moral truth against the messy reality that is life, and I think that's really what Pope Francis is urging that pastors do. I think he's said as much on numerous occasions.<br />
<br />
I will grant that I am no theologian or canon lawyer, and that my understanding of Catholic moral tradition is less than others'. Despite that, I think my answers are orthodox, even if not a wholly traditional Catholic approach. It's good to keep in mind that the discipline and application of definitive truth can change without necessarily doing damage to the truth. It tends to be a matter of personal judgment on whether a specific change incurs actual damage to the truth. They are not independent of each other, but they are not so bound up that it is impossible to change practice/discipline/law (as is manifestly evident from Church history).<br />
<br />
Traditionalists/conservatives tend to err on the avoid changing things to be safe side of things; progressives/liberals tend to err on the side of being more concerned with contemporary adaptation in the hope of addressing new challenges (perceived or real). Where one falls on this tends to be a spectrum and not a binary, and I am certainly somewhere in between.<br />
<br />
The proposers of these doubts suggest that they can be answered in a simple yes or no; however, they take pains to preface and then elaborate on each of them. While theoretically such questions can be answered yes or no, I do not think it is reasonable to expect a simple yes or no, nor have I bound myself to that stricture. In fact, I would say that simply answering yes or no, especially given the way the questions are asked, can easily lead to faulty interpretations and actions, based on such a simple answer. I suggest that expecting a simple yes or no puts the power in the hands of the question framers, and so it would not really be appropriate for the CDF or Pope Francis to answer with a simple yes or no.<br />
<br />
If I had to guess why no answer has been given so far, it is because the Holy Father well knows that no matter what answer he gives, even with clarifications, it will only engender more debate, debate which I'm sure he feels has been given due space in the synods leading up to <i>Amoris Laetitia</i>. The contemporary Church is not given to expressions of <i>anathema sit</i>, and even/until an actual ecumenical council were called (and warranted) to address these concerns, no matter what the Pope teaches, there will be dissenters and differing interpretations and applications of laws. When Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were in office, we had plenty of "confusion" and dissent in the Church; those who pretend that Pope Francis is new in this way, only think so because it is now their positions which are challenged. The Church always has had and will always have its share of dissenters and divergences of opinions and interpretations.<br />
<br />
And <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2016/11/ambroses-corollary-to-godwins-law-arian.html">as we have seen with even ecumenical councils</a>, there remain dissenters even after those definitive gatherings. So the fantasy that a clarification by Pope Francis on these items would end differing opinions, create unified pastoral guidance, etc. is just that--a fantasy. Suggesting that his not doing so is somehow indicative of his intention to signal approval of heresy is simply outrageous and is bitterly ungenerous, presumptuous, and potentially sinful in itself.<br />
<br />
I welcome thoughtful dialogue on the answers below. But if you start out by telling me I'm a heretic, or if you simply assert that my answers are heretical or unorthodox or not Catholic or anything along those lines, be prepared to be ignored. If, however, you want to argue for alternative positions or point me to some definitive teachings that seem to call my answers into question, I will gladly consider those. My desire is always to remain faithful to God and his Church.<br />
<br />
Know that I do not consider canons or prior legislative texts or this or that Vatican congregation or this or that bishop, cardinal, or pope weighing in on something as de facto infallible or irreformable (again, in keeping with Catholic Tradition). Not even everything in our current Catechism is infallible or irreformable or not subject to further discussion and development. That is to say, if you use a text to support your position, be prepared to surround it with argumentation as to why you think it is authoritative in the context and how it supports your view. Proof texting, even from Scripture, is an impoverished practice in such dialogue.<br />
<br />
Now onto the dubia...<br />
<br />
<b>DOUBT 1)</b> It is asked whether, following the affirmations of <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person <i>more uxorio</i> without fulfilling the conditions provided for by <i>Familiaris Consortio</i>, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by <i>Reconciliatio et Paenitentia</i>, 34, and <i>Sacramentum Caritatis</i>, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live <i>more uxorio</i>?<br />
<br />
I ANSWER THAT given sure knowledge of the specific conditions enumerated here, particularly definite knowledge of the validity of a prior union and no intention of living in continence in the new union that is acknowledged to be adulterous, it would not be appropriate to absolve such a penitent. It is a given that Divine law requires a repentant heart for forgiveness.<br />
<br />
It is possible to absolve, however, if the validity of prior unions is uncertain (or even doubtful). This is particularly true if the new union appears more likely to be valid than prior unions, even if if has yet to be adjudicated as such. <br />
<br />
It may also be possible to absolve if the penitent clearly expresses a firm intention to amend his life, even if it seems unlikely he will be able to do so (and even if he has a history of not being able to do so), particularly in situations where, as Pope St. John Paul II wrote in <i>Familiaris Consortio</i>, 84, taking the objective actions necessary to prevent future sin would involve committing new injustices or would otherwise be impracticable. The pastor should be generous and supportive of the intention, whatever doubts he may have.<br />
<br />
In certain cases, it may be that the penitent cannot honestly apprehend that his new situation is sinful, perhaps due to serious personal doubts of the validity of the prior union (even having tried to adjudicate nullity without success) or failure to apprehend the true nature of marriage even now (which should cast doubt on validity of either union). These could be a defect of knowledge and, consequently, of full consent. Pastors should endeavor to determine if such is willful ignorance or a defect in intellect or some other mitigating factor, always with a preference for generosity if the penitent displays honest intention to live a holy life and grow in sanctification, accompanying and guiding the penitent toward that life.<br />
<br />
In all cases, the pastor should counsel according to the teaching of the Church to help the penitent correctly discern his situation, encourage and help the penitent to seek a decree of nullity if possible, and offer practical advice to help the penitent avoid sin.<br />
<br />
<b>DOUBT 2)</b> After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical <i>Veritatis Splendor</i>, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?<br />
<br />
I ANSWER THAT, yes, there are indeed absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts (and as such objectively, intrinsically evil acts do definitely exist). Murder. Adultery. Blasphemy. Idolatry. And so on.<br />
<br />
It is not, however, an objective fact that someone who has been married was definitely validly, sacramentally married. The fact of an ecclesiastical legal system and tribunals that adjudicate the validity (or nullity) of marriages is sufficient evidence of this, as is Church teaching on what is necessary for a valid marriage to occur in the first place.<br />
<br />
Given this, it is possible for someone to objectively be in a second union without, by virtue of that objective fact, committing adultery. And given the known terrible state of catechesis today coupled with secular cultural norms that directly contradict a Catholic understanding of marriage and sexuality, not to mention a growing understanding of human physiology and psychology, it is reasonable to be more uncertain in contemporary times that all, or even most, marriages--even those celebrated in Catholic churches--are valid. In short, it is not a safe assumption that someone who is remarried is, by the simple fact of being remarried, committing adultery, and more than that, it is arguable that this is more doubtful today than at any point in Christian history.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, there are still objective actions that can be assumed to be adultery, such as sleeping with someone who is married without being in any form of marriage with that person. The distinction here is between a married couple where one of the individuals is divorced and remarried, versus two people having sex outside of marriage, with one or both being in a marriage (confirmed to be valid or not). It is beyond a doubt in the latter case that such is extramarital sexual relations, without regard to determining the validity of the prior or current marriage. So cohabiting unmarried people who engage in sex, those having sexual affairs, keeping a mistress, etc. would fall under the objective adultery category.<br />
<br />
<b>DOUBT 3</b>) After <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (<i>Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts</i>, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?<br />
<br />
I ANSWER THAT it is still possible to affirm this when the sin in question is public and indisputable, for example, in the case of a politician repeatedly, obstinately pursuing governmental policies that promote an intrinsic evil. However, in the case of adultery (and sex in general), which is by nature private, we cannot assume, even by the nature of a public commitment such as marriage, that adultery is habitually occurring by the simple fact of persons living together (married or not). This is as true for a minister of Communion discerning the application of Canon 915 as it is for any lay person observing another.<br />
<br />
However, if adultery is determined publicly and an individual publicly manifests an intent to continue in that sin, a minister of Communion could infer an objective situation of grave habitual sin and act accordingly by applying Canon 915. This seems like it would be rare. Most people do not affirm adultery publicly. It is arguable that if a person, say, prominently were to keep a mistress, then Canon 915 could apply, even if the person did not explicitly affirm that adultery because the nature of keeping a mistress is that it is an actively sexual relationship, as would typically be an affair. In such cases, there are no other reasons for two unmarried people to be together.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, a remarried (or even cohabiting) couple may have other practical reasons to to remain together, and assuming the relationship is adulterous is less of a reliable assumption than in these others. This is not to say that it is not reasonable to think that such a relationship is sexual, only that it should not be assumed that it is with regards to the application of Canon 915 or a general perception of an objectively adulterous situation. In short, unless they express in private to a minister or in public that they are living as man and wife, one should be willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.<br />
<br />
What should be obvious is that pastoral discernment is still required even when one may suspect grave sin and that in general both clergy and laity should not presume sexual sin simply based on external circumstances alone. And the public act of refusing Communion should be based in a commensurately public grave sin. It is better, in most cases, to counsel such persons privately to discern whether or not to approach the sacrament, as is the clear intent of St. Paul in 1 Cor 11.<br />
<br />
<b>DOUBT 4</b>) After the affirmations of <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical <i>Veritatis Splendor</i>, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?<br />
<br />
I ANSWER THAT yes, one ought to regard that teaching as still valid. No matter the mitigations of personal circumstance that diminish culpability, an objectively evil act can never be transformed into a morally acceptable choice much less a good, considered in itself. It's worth noting that this does not mean that other goods cannot accidentally accompany or follow as a result of objectively immoral actions, but such goods do not change the nature of the evil act in itself.<br />
<br />
<i>Amoris Laetitia</i> 302 does not seek to countermand this teaching. Rather, it calls to mind the well-established distinction in Church teaching between objective grave sin and subjective mortal sin.<br />
<br />
<b>DOUBT 5</b>) After <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical <i>Veritatis Splendor</i>, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?<br />
<br />
I ANSWER THAT it is not the role of conscience to <i>make</i> an act moral or immoral. It is the role of the conscience to discern the path of good from the path of evil. <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> 303 suggests that it further can discern the best that a specific person can do in a specific situation. This is no commentary on the objective nature of the acts in question. It is, rather, a recognition of the limitations of the person in question to choose the good, i.e., to maximize the good and avoid the evil in as much as a person can. It, in itself, does not determine whether or not such an action is actually good or evil; it can only determine what is in its best judgment the best path.<br />
<br />Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-42472322946351279442016-10-11T23:33:00.000-04:002016-10-12T00:42:34.132-04:00We're Not Anti Choice and They're Not Pro Abortion<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iQN0n6O-R30/V_spHZtwziI/AAAAAAAAUco/Nx2TMHD1a9oxXW18g04Nmapn1H0n11gfwCLcB/s1600/woman-in-pain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iQN0n6O-R30/V_spHZtwziI/AAAAAAAAUco/Nx2TMHD1a9oxXW18g04Nmapn1H0n11gfwCLcB/s320/woman-in-pain.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I know it is preposterously optimistic to hope that people on the different sides of the abortion debate can ever work together to end abortion (or at least make it rare). But hey, <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2012/08/lets-teach-politicians-how-its-done.html">at least some of us want to try</a>, still. I think that starts with reducing polemical rhetoric, increasing mutual understanding, and searching for common ground to build from.<br />
<br />
I grew up in the staunchly pro life Bible belt. I was raised pro life. I was surrounded by pro life people, i.e., evangelical Christian Republicans mostly, and I converted to Catholicism at twenty-two. I consider myself absolutely pro life, in the most "extreme" (i.e., consistent) way possible--from conception until natural death. I make no exceptions for rape or incest (why impose the death penalty on a child for the sin of a parent?). I am even for the abolition of the death penalty. I am opposed to euthanasia. I am for welcoming and <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2012/01/yes-we-really-do-think-contraception-is.html">being open to children</a> and large families (and <a href="http://dotnettemplar.net/Towards+More+Perfect+Family+Life.aspx">practice that</a>--we now have six).<br />
<br />
I think these positions are demanded by a consistent pro life ethic, and defensible without relying on religious rationale, although they are certainly strengthened by Christian, Catholic faith. We also need to structure society as much as we can to minimize cases where people feel that taking life is a good choice. I do not see these as an either-or proposition--we can make the right to life inalienable <i>and</i> compassionately help people in need. We must.<br />
<br />
I published my first <a href="http://dotnettemplar.net/On+The+Right+Of+Abortion.aspx">pro life article in 2004</a>. I wrote <a href="http://dotnettemplar.net/How+Do+I+Choose+Whom+To+Vote+For.aspx">in 2008 on how I prioritize life and related issues</a> in deciding whom to vote for. I've <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-recent-exchange-with-congressman.html">written my Congressman</a>. And written <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2010/03/pro-abortion-people-are-not-monsters.html">here</a> and <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2012/03/human-is-human.html">here</a> and <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2013/04/where-is-all-righteous-indignation-now.html">here</a>. I have had innumerable conversations on social media, email, and in person defending and advancing the pro life position. I teach my children to be pro life. I have voted for many pro life candidates, with that issue playing a big part in my choice. I contribute bi-weekly to the <a href="http://www.blessedmargarethome.org/">Blessed Margaret Home for Crisis Pregnancies</a>. (I note that to advertise the good work they do and suggest others consider supporting them or similar homes. As one of my pro choice friends said recently--that should be something even pro choice people can get behind.)<br />
<br />
There should be no question that I am staunchly pro life. I live it. I speak it openly and publicly.<br />
<br />
<b>Not Anti Choice</b><br />
All that said, I am not "anti choice." Putting restrictions on abortion and, ultimately, making it illegal, does not remove a person's free will to choose. We have all kinds of laws, and people still choose to break them, with varying degrees of knowledge and consent. We have oodles of legal groundwork for <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/31/when-abortion-was-illegal-women-were-not-jailed-for-having-abortions-heres-why/">what it looks like for abortion to be illegal</a>--the women are not punished by those laws, and they certainly <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/about/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue">still made the choice to abort</a>, even when it was illegal.<br />
<br />
<b>A person who is pro life is no more "anti choice" than is a person is who thinks that pedophilia, rape, or murder should be illegal.</b> On important issues, society has to draw the line and say "this behavior is not okay." And come on, riding a bike without a helmet and speeding is also illegal--talk about being anti choice... Abortion takes the life of a human being. It should not be legal. It should not be an inconsequential "choice." By wanting to make it illegal, pro life people are saying that this is a line that should not be crossed--even knowing that some people will still choose to do it.<br />
<br />
<b>Not Pro Abortion</b><br />
Similarly, I'd like to address my pro life friends who tend to like to use the term "pro abortion" to apply to anyone who is pro choice. (I admit to doing that myself--to make a point.) "Pro abortion" is a polemical choice of language. It does not accurately reflect the view of most of the people to whom it is applied.<br />
<br />
Some claim that "pro choice" means a choice <i>for</i> abortion. But the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/">CDC says</a> that in 2012 (the most recent data we have), "the abortion ratio was 210 abortions per 1,000 live births." That means that roughly 2 in 10 women chose to abort. So factually, the claim is false. Women currently have the legal choice to choose abortion, and 80% choose life (as of 2012). I don't know what the ratio was prior to Roe vs. Wade, but I suspect it wasn't a lot different. People in desperate situations often still choose to break the law if they feel they need to.<br />
<br />
Even if you're not direly poor, carrying a baby to term, giving birth, and being responsible for it for life is <i>a big deal</i>. I don't care how wealthy you are, that's a big life change--real pain, potential impact to your livelihood/ability to work, and years of responsibility. For the vast majority, it's not a flippant choice to make at all. Even choosing to give a child up for adoption is not an easy choice, even though it may be the best choice. I feel like in all the emotional fervor of the pro life movement, we often lose sight that abortion is by no means a choice that most women freely want to make.<br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/.../06/27/5-facts-about-abortion/">this Pew 2016 data</a>, only 15% think abortion is morally acceptable, while 56% think it should be legal. That means that by far, most do not think abortion is good--they are not <i>for</i> (pro) abortion, but they think it should be a legal option. Again, <b>the data contradict the claim that being pro choice is being pro abortion</b>. We know that such truly pro abortion people exist, but they are a small minority of pro choice people.<br />
<br />
Also, it is noteworthy to see that while 56% think abortion should be legal, a full 80% actually <i>act</i> pro life and <i>choose life</i>. That's a good thing. Can you imagine if everyone who thought abortion should be legal actually chose abortion? That'd be almost 3x as many abortions per year. Thank God that people <i>act</i> more pro life than they <i>vote</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>The Impasse</b><br />
Now, the Catholic bishops in the U.S. have made it abundantly clear (in line with the universal Catechism of the Church and unbroken prior teaching going back to apostolic tradition as seen in the <i>Didache</i>) that formal cooperation in abortion is objectively, intrinsically, gravely evil. On that, someone who is faithful to Catholic teaching and practice cannot disagree. We will never be able to turn a blind eye to abortion. We will never be able to see it as a morally acceptable choice, so the case is very strong to make it illegal in our view.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/about/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue">Data for abortion mortality</a> show that legalizing abortion led to less danger for those women who will choose to do it whether or not it is legal. It is difficult to reconcile that with criminalizing it again--nobody wants women to be endangered. But I admit that I find it more difficult to reconcile keeping something legal that is the (often brutal) murder of an innocent child. That people will choose (even under duress) something that endangers them does not mean, in itself, that it should be legal--especially when the chosen action results in the murder of another human being.<br />
<br />
On the flip side, pro choice advocates have shown little, if any, willingness to budge. And it seems even in recent years that this conflict has only increased antipathy towards the pro life cause while at the same time galvanizing the pro choice folks and even making their positions more extreme. What are we to think when the "and rare" qualifier is abandoned from "safe, legal, and rare"? Clearly, this culture war has only resulted in greater polarization and impasse. And I can't deny I think it's largely due to the posturing and pandering of politicians.<br />
<br />
<b>Reconsidering the Focus of Pro Life Action</b><br />
Pro life advocates often use rhetoric that makes it sound like that by making abortion legal, we essentially created the problem of abortion. "By not criminalizing it, we are killing N number of babies every year/minute." I have even thought and argued that in the past. But as I learned more, I discovered that not only has this evil always been with us (which of course I knew) but also that the numbers have always been high. Indeed, data show that <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2016/restrictive-laws-do-not-stop-women-having-abortions">restrictive laws do not correlate with low numbers of abortions</a>.<br />
<br />
While I do not agree with the fallacy that essentially says we should make murder legal because people will do it anyways, the numbers do indicate that our efforts to criminalize abortion would not have a significant effect on the actual number of abortions. And it's certainly not as if criminalizing it will reduce that number to zero, as is implied by the rhetoric. So this argument that often pushes people into prioritizing voting for pro life politicians based on these numbers doesn't hold up. People even use this argument to justify voting for Trump, which is unfortunate to say the least, considering everything he has going against him from a moral/common good point of view and that he appears to be only nominally pro life.<br />
<br />
Again, that doesn't mean we <i>should</i> keep something that is intrinsically evil legal. It just means we need to put the practical impact of the laws in perspective. It seems that the terrible numbers of abortions will not be greatly impacted by criminalization. Proportionally, then, the common pro life argument that this issue is far more urgent than others does not appear valid. And in the last twenty or so years, even while legal, the numbers have been dropping. Each side has their rationale for that drop. I suspect it is a combination of many factors, not the least of which are pro life awareness efforts and efforts to help women in crisis pregnancies.<br />
<br />
Another observation is that in the pro life movement, there is a lot of focus on overturning Roe vs. Wade. But even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, that doesn't guarantee each state would criminalize it (indeed some states had decriminalized it before then), and even after 40+ years of trying, we still haven't managed to reverse it. We still today have a majority of people who think it should be legal. Something isn't working, and not for lack of trying!<br />
<br />
I am anything but a pro abortion apologist (as I doubtless will be called by some for posting these thoughts), but I think we pro life people have to consider these data. So, so, so much energy and passion is invested in this war to reverse Roe vs. Wade and re-criminalize abortion. We do this for good reason--abortion <i>is</i> intrinsically evil; it is at least as evil as any murder and even more repulsive given the circumstances of it being a defenseless baby in its mother's womb. But given the considerations above, is focusing so much on criminalization still the best way we can fight this evil?<br />
<br />
Without giving an inch that it is intrinsically evil, could we shift more of our energies to 1) something that has a greater chance of actually happening and 2) has a more immediate, significant impact on making abortion rare? Like fighting the things that cause women to feel they need an abortion? Like enabling women to feel they have a real option to choose life? Like evangelizing our culture so that even more women will <i>choose</i> life? <i>At this point</i>, are we maybe working against ourselves to focus so much on criminalization? It seems to be the epicenter of polemical divisions that prevent us from working with others to truly make abortion rare.<br />
<br />
For the record, I do not want to downplay the immense efforts that many pro life persons make in concretely helping women and educating the populace on abortion-related issues. I literally support them. But I am thinking particularly of our political efforts, which are front and center right now. Is it possible that, in politics specifically, we've let ourselves be manipulated into letting criminalization shape our thinking so much that we are spending too much of our energies there when they could be better spent in other areas? Is it possible that it is suboptimal to think of being pro life as primarily voting for people who will work to criminalize abortion? Have those we voted for to that end delivered on that promise? Have they and we neglected other considerations that could more effectively, actually reduce abortion, not to mention other issues of grave importance? What more should we look for in a pro life platform and political action?<br />
<br />
This is not a call to surrender. It is a call to reprioritization and a call for honest reflection on what our current strategy has done and not done and probably will or won't do in the future. <b>It's a call to think more about how--if we really do care about all these babies and all those women--we can really, actually save and help them.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Some Questions for Pro Choice Folks</b><br />
For those who are pro choice, given that so few believe it is an acceptable moral choice, how do you true that up with thinking it should be legal? Isn't something off in our society when it is illegal to drive a car without a seatbelt, but it is legal to kill an unborn baby? What restrictions on abortion might be acceptable restrictions? What can you do--assuming you think it should remain legal--to help society not become numb to the horror that it is? What can you do to educate people about the terrible realities, including the emotional pain that haunts most women for life? Would making it illegal help people to understand the severity of the evil? What can you--we--do to help enable women to choose life?<br />
<br />
I also know there are those who really see nothing wrong with abortion, who don't think it is killing a human person. Even for those, surely we can agree that even just considering the often negative impact on the women who have them, it's not a good thing. And can you be absolutely certain that it is not a human person deserving of equal protection? Is it worth taking the risk given that it might be a human person? Seems to me that it's still safer and better to work to reduce abortions.<br />
<br />
<b>Can We Work Together?</b><br />
To all, the common ground seems to be fighting the causes that lead to the perceived need for abortion, educating people on the realities of abortion, and ensuring that we have social structures and services to help women who find themselves in crisis pregnancies--to help them choose life. <b>It's a tall order, but it touches on so much that could be better in our society. I think it's worth the effort.</b>Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-20082337068652203482015-04-17T21:39:00.000-04:002015-04-17T21:39:19.055-04:00Junk Sex<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
I'll never understand how being a foul mouthed obnoxious jerk is something people think is a good, desirable thing to be. The fawning over this person's behavior I've seen is disturbing. How is it that being so ugly to others is attractive to some people?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
I agree that the presentation sounds pretty poor and does a huge disservice to not only abstinence but also a healthy, chaste understanding of sex. It's not good to rely on fear mongering, scare tactics, and misinformation to get your point across no matter what the subject.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
But still, this commentator's behavior is not really any better.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
You certainly don't have to be a prude or "right wing extremist" to understand the value of abstinence, especially for teens:<br /><a href="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/abstinence" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://www.plannedparenthood.org/l…/birth-control/abstinence</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Excerpt:<br />Special Advantages for Teens</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Sexual relationships present risks. Abstinence is a very good way to postpone taking those risks until you are better able to handle them.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Women who abstain until their 20s — and who have fewer partners in their lifetimes — may have certain health advantages over women who do not. They are less likely to get STDs. Because they are less likely to get an STD, they are also less likely to become infertile or develop cervical cancer.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
...</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Sounds like a pretty attractive option.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
You don't have to be a slave to your body's desires. Just like people can practice discipline to moderate their hunger for food and can exercise to stay in shape, we can moderate our sex drives and engage in healthy, close, meaningful, and loving relationships without sex.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Hookups are the junk food of sex. Life-committed (married) love that embraces sex for all it naturally is is not only the safest but also the most fulfilling. It is the health food of sex. The fullest outcome of sex is the intimate bonding of two persons out of which comes a new person to be cherished and nurtured in the context of that same loving relationship.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-top: 6px;">
Is junk food enjoyable? Sure! Is it the best thing for you? Hell no. And we shouldn't pretend otherwise.</div>
Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-2458556165472201762015-01-02T16:16:00.000-05:002015-01-02T16:20:21.580-05:00Review: 2013 Nissan NV3500 HD Passenger V8<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pMduk5CaYsg/VKcDznrN-BI/AAAAAAAAPyc/6WpJhuwnIm4/s1600/iain-in-the-bin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pMduk5CaYsg/VKcDznrN-BI/AAAAAAAAPyc/6WpJhuwnIm4/s1600/iain-in-the-bin.jpg" height="320" width="290" /></a></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
If you're in the market for a big vehicle for a large family, a passenger van is probably your only real choice, and I can definitely recommend the <a href="http://www.nissancommercialvehicles.com/nv-passenger">Nissan NV3500 HD Passenger van</a>. This is a review of our experience with it over the last year and eight months.<br />
<br />
We currently have five children aged two to thirteen, and we may have more. Needless to say the usual options--minivans and SUVs don't really cut it for us, especially not for a new vehicle investment for the family.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
So what's left? Passenger vans and a couple other oversized SUV options. Armadas and Suburbans are overpriced and barley top the common 7-passenger options, with not much room for stuff. </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
As I said, we didn't want to invest in a new vehicle only to have to go bigger in a couple years. So a passenger van was the choice. </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
I've never been a fan of the van look or the big honking bench bench bench approach. So I was thrilled to see another option. The NV may not be the most beautiful vehicle, but I think it's a head above the standard van look. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of it as a van--more like a truck or maybe a big SUV. </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
And its looks do grow on you; if nothing else, it is striking. Everywhere we go, we get comments--usually complimentary. In Russellville, I stopped by the Nissan dealership there, and the guys were like "wow, we've never seen one in person!" :) Be prepared for the comments--it's a common theme from other reviewers, too.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The seating is as awesome as the marketing makes it out to be. We haven't figured out the 300+ configurations, but the flexibility is awesome. We removed the last row (for now) and scooted the 2nd & 3rd rows back, which gives tons of leg room and copious cargo space, while comfortably seating eight.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
We bought this in April 2013, just before an epic road trip. We put 2800 miles on it during that trip. Up and down mountain gravel roads, along highways, and of course city. Since then, we have taken a family trip to the Shore (here in New Jersey) as well as another, even more epic road trip from NJ to Russellville, AR to Dallas, TX to Tulsa, OK and finally back home--3300 miles. The rest of the time it is for lugging family around nearby, and it does fine for that, too. </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
I am a big guy--over 300lbs and six foot one. I was impressed how comfortable it was for many hours of driving. The kids were comfy, too, and my wife even rode in the 2nd row with the baby for some hours, although she reported not finding it super comfortable in the back mainly due to lack of reclinability. You will want to turn the headrests around in front because they force your head forward--that's a trick I learned from another reviewer.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
The integrated seat belts are nice indeed. The back doors with the magnetic locking is great--worked with wind on an incline in the mountains. We love the sliding door--no more worrying about kids banging into things. As other online reviewers have reported, this particular model/year had problems with the sliding door locking mechanism. I would just expect that and let the dealership know others have had the same problems.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
If you want to get a mat for the rear cargo area, be prepared to either go custom or jury-rig one of the generic ones. I ended up on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CAKIN0M/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00CAKIN0M&linkCode=as2&tag=ambrlitt-20&linkId=CQROL4CN7ZD2772X">this one</a>. It doesn't cover the whole area (with the last row removed), but it does a good enough job and definitely is better than mucking your carpet up. The dealer-supplied mats are good for the other rows/front. We are using the winter rubber options in the two front seats--too bad they don't have that for the rear seating. </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
We did remove the second row (and third) and were able to pick up a game table, four swivel chairs and a tall side table with four stools, so it is a great option for transporting big stuff when you need that. There really is no shortage of space. It feels very comfortable and roomy, even on long trips. The pic above is our youngest at one in the center console--lots of storage room there, too. :) </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
We opted for the V8 SV with towing and tech. We haven't towed yet, but there is plenty of power. Sucker will get up and go when you need it for sure. I wouldn't go off roading, but as I said, it managed to power up the gravel mountain roads fully loaded with fam and cargo. Be nice if there were an AWD/4WD option, but no biggie most of the time.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
MPG - we seemed to average around 14-15 mpg on the trip. You can get better if you stay closer to 55/60; I guess the drag at 70/75 pulls you back, plus of course stop and go--it will gulp gas, but you don't get this for its gas mileage. It's comparable, actually impressive, given what a big box it is. My V6 2004 Ram 1500 averaged 15mpg...</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
One thing I liked was the minimal options. I hate sifting through tens of options when configuring a car, always not sure about the choices, feeling like I'm wasting money or missing out, and ending up with a ton more $$ on the price tag. This one starts at a very, very good baseline, and doesn't burden you with too many options.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
I'd say that the tech package is a must have just for the back side camera--you can't hardly see behind you, and sonar only goes so far. That said, I am very underwhelmed with the radio and nav. We kept comparing the built-in nav (which requires a subscription to keep it up to date) and maps on our phones, and the built in nav usually didn't pick the most optimal route, and it didn't give you specific other options. </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
I couldn't believe that it doesn't support Bluetooth audio streaming. Isn't this a 2013?! It requires you to use USB, and it doesn't have a pause--you have to turn it off and on. It also seems to get confused sometimes and you have to turn off and on and unplug to get it cooperating. Factory audio never fails to disappoint. The rear camera is integrated, so replacing it isn't much of an option.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Other than that, we wanted the front sonar, but you only get that with the top level trim, which forces you to get leather seats. Given we have a bunch of small kids, we opted to stick with the easier to take care of cloth in the SV trim and just miss out on the front sonar. Turns out this wasn't risk free--wifey has scraped the front bumper twice pulling into our driveway, which has stone pillars on either side. Not sure if sonar would have prevented this, but possibly. :) </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
You will have to practice parking in this behemoth, but just park a bit further out and give yourself extra room. Generally look for spots with an empty one on the far side (away from you), so you have plenty of room to swing in. As a rule, if it is tight, I find backing in to be more reliable as you have all the mirrors and camera to help. I have to admit this aspect worried me most, since the wifey is the primary except on trips. But it comes with the territory I suppose. You can get used to it.</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Overall, we really do love it. It's perfect for us, and probably quite good for any large family. </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Oh, and if you're in central NJ, I highly recommend <a href="http://www.route33nissan.com/index.htm">Haldeman Nissan in Hamilton</a>. They sell a lot of these (commercial), so they are familiar with them. Don Goldberg there went way over the top for us. He has since moved on, but I also leased a Leaf from them in 2014, and the sales guy Don recommended--David Borden--was equally pleasant to deal with. I like that dealership--very low pressure and they treat you fairly, in my experience.</div>
Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-12287776721860619502014-12-22T14:48:00.001-05:002014-12-22T14:48:59.696-05:00No, Correlation Really Does Not Equal Causation<a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/12/21/religions_smart_people_problem_the_shaky_intellectual_foundations_of_absolute_faith/">This author's claims</a> fall prey to his own suggestive criticism of theism. The reason that higher education in the sciences and philosophy purportedly reduces religious belief has as much to do with contemporary popular antitheistic indoctrination in those fields as any supposed increase in knowledge, much less baseline intelligence.<br />
<br />
In other words, you send young, malleable minds away from their social/familial roots when they are wanting to strike out on their own and make their way as independent adults (i.e., college age), and you put those minds into environments openly hostile to religion as most secular academic settings are today, and it is no surprise that the result is the lessening of religious belief amongst those who come out of those institutions.<br />
<br />
And because of this phenomenon, it is also extremely socially unpopular to be strongly religious amongst highly educated and intelligent people today (I should know). The amount of ignorant, bigoted treatment religious people get amongst educated colleagues is inversely proportionate to those aspiring irreligious folks who run is less educated, less secularized circles.<br />
<br />
In both cases, the argument is fallacious, trying to establish suggestive causation where none exists. He even admits the argument is fallacious ("correlation does not equal causation") but nonetheless moves full ahead suggesting that it does in this case. I point it out in case someone finds the suggestions somehow compelling--the basis for the argument applies equally to its antithesis (i.e., the claims of indoctrination and the desire for social acceptance).<br />
<br />
Further, the same can be said of his claims for why intelligent religious people defend their beliefs (i.e., because we want to rationalize what we already irrationally believe). That's just human nature, and it applies equally to whatever we believe/hold dear, be that theism or antitheism. At the end of the day, we are all human beings trying to grapple with problems bigger than we can actually fully grapple with. This means antitheist or theist, you will believe things without good reason, you will rationalize things you already believe, and you will make logical jumps and leaps of faith based on your existing understanding of life, the universe, and everything.<br />
<br />
This article is all boring, boilerplate contemporary antitheist arguments that are chock full of both fallacies as well as healthy doses of ignorance and prejudice, and the only way they make sense is if you already agree with his conclusions.Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-79561307416884317022014-12-12T15:51:00.000-05:002014-12-13T09:00:10.069-05:00All Dogs May or May Not Go to Heaven<div><b>Update 13 Dec 2014</b>: Turns out I was right to seriously question the veracity of the story and its lack of credible sources: <a href="http://www.religionnews.com/2014/12/12/sorry-fido-pope-francis-not-say-pets-going-heaven/" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">http://www.religionnews.com/2014/12/12/sorry-fido-pope-francis-not-say-pets-going-heaven/</a><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">. Still, the points made below are valid. :)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">----</span></div><div><br></div>There has recently been circulating that Pope Francis "<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/12/pope-francis-says-all-animals-go-to-heaven/">broke from Catholic teaching</a>" on whether animals will go to heaven. I have yet to be able to find a reliable reference that has the quotes in context. The closest I've found is <a href="http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/heaven-open-animals">this America Magazine article</a>, but it cites <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/world/europe/dogs-in-heaven-pope-leaves-pearly-gate-open-.html">the NYT article on the subject</a>. I still can't find anything close to an official published text, but let's assume Pope Francis' words are being reporting in good faith. What does it mean? Does it really somehow definitively change Church teaching?<br>
<br>
As the NYT and America article allude to, the short answer is no. The Pope made an off-the-cuff remark to comfort a child. He did not "declare" anything, much less define it infallibly (ex cathedra). I am typically not one to go around trying to reinterpret the Pope's words, but the brouhaha ensuing from so little substance here is just too much. (And also, a friend of mine asked me to share my thoughts on this blog.) So here you go. ;)<br>
<br>
Doctrinal authority/certainty is a very nuanced topic in Catholic theology. There are degrees of certainty with regards to Church teaching. I try to summarize them in a <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2013/03/theological-grades-of-certainty.html">prior post on this blog about theological grades of certainty</a>. I really do recommend reading it, not because I think my writing is awesome but because I have used reliable Catholic sources to help summarize the subject. I won't restate it all here. If you read it, it will definitely help you understand where the Pope's remarks fall in our view of things.<br>
<br>
Now back to the subject at hand.. Certainly we can hope and wish that we will somehow be reunited with our loved animals, but that is a far cry from making any kind of authoritative definition on the matter. Personally, I could see such a position being more plausible with regards to the <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2013/03/we-believe-in-resurrection-of-body.html">General Resurrection</a> than to heaven--because that is bodily resurrection, and it would fit better that some animals we love could be bodily resurrected (without implying that they have immortal spirits/souls, which I think is pretty indefensible from a Catholic point of view).<br>
<br>
Many people get pretty sentimental on this topic, but sentiment is not a good way to discover and understand truth. Many say, "if my [pet] isn't in heaven, then it isn't really heaven, and I don't want to go there" or some such. I would suggest that these people ought to be more concerned that they themselves make it to heaven rather than worry about their pets. It is not a little presumptive to treat the question as if it were just a matter of <i>what we would like</i> our own personal heaven to be like. St. Paul cautions us to "<a href="http://usccb.org/bible/philippians/2/12">work out our salvation with fear and trembling</a>." We are not even assured of our own presence in heaven, so to make definitive pronouncements about the presence of our personal pets seems a bit off, to say the least.<br>
<br>
Let me put it this way. Traditional Catholic teaching--which is founded in centuries of solid Scriptural, theological, and pastoral reflection and shouldn't be easily dismissed based on personal whims or desires--is such that 1) animals are different from us; they do not have immortal souls like we do, and 2) neither do animals have moral faculties (and so neither can sin nor need redemption, in the sense of from personal/original sin). 3) There is, to my knowledge, very little foundation in our Tradition to claim that individual animals (e.g., my pet cat Aelfric) will be part of the Resurrection, much less in heaven prior to that as some sort of spiritual being.<br>
<br>
So anyone, the Pope included, who wishes to offer a theological opinion to the contrary, has a lot of work to do to provide support for such an opinion. And for it to be taken seriously, it has to be more than "because I want my pet" or "because it wouldn't seem fair" or "because it would make little Johnny sad" or anything like that. It has to be more than some vague belief in God's goodness or broad extrapolations from a phrase or two in Scripture. It should square and be reconciled with what we do know as definitively revealed (see theological grades of certainty) and ideally fit well even with less definitive teachings.<br>
<br>
<b>IN ANY CASE, characterizing the pope's off the cuff consoling remarks to a child as some dramatic change in Catholic teaching is nothing but absurd sensationalism.</b><br>
<br>
As I said, while many would classify me as a conservative (though I see myself as a firm centrist), I am not one of those purported reactionary conservatives who feels threatened by Pope Francis. <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-benedict-lover-defends-francis.html">I love Pope Francis</a>. I love his pastoral style. I love how he challenges my preconceptions and makes me reconsider them. I love how he leads by example. I love how he emphasizes Gospel witness.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-riches-and-poverty-of-church.html">I also love Father Benedict</a>, and Pope St. John Paul's writings (especially <i>Evangelium Vitae</i>) were instrumental in my joining the Church. Despite ignorant characterizations to the contrary, <b>the traditional Catholic position on this question of animals going to heaven or not (and related considerations) has absolutely zero to do with some kind of animosity towards creation, nor is it some weird desire to feel special/different/superior to the rest of creation</b>. It is simply a matter of thinking through the consequences of what we know of Divine Revelation and nature itself.Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-90053709614489593722014-08-25T18:30:00.000-04:002014-08-25T18:38:08.762-04:00On Encouraging Religious and Priestly Vocations<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3c41sbRqxsQ/U_ubE5mldtI/AAAAAAAANco/p0nsWHZkiUQ/s1600/domsaints2-angelico.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Dominican Saints by Fra. Angelico" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3c41sbRqxsQ/U_ubE5mldtI/AAAAAAAANco/p0nsWHZkiUQ/s1600/domsaints2-angelico.jpg" height="320" title="Dominican Saints by Fra. Angelico" width="219" /></a></div>
I have had an interesting experience with people over time as I've been a parent now for some thirteen years. Every once in a while, for some reason or other, I mention that maybe insert-name-of-child-here will be a sister or monk or friar or priest. And it is kind of surprising to me how often my Catholic friends are quick to tell me, "or they could be a parent!" Or they say more directly, "you shouldn't pressure him/her to be religious. Being married is equally good." Something like that.<br />
<br />
I'm trying to wrap my head around why Catholic friends are so quick to downplay the value of religious and priestly vocations. I think these would be the same folks who would readily pray for vocations to the priesthood and religious life and generally be supportive of parish awareness/promotional type activities for these vocations.<br />
<br />
Why would it be great and okay and no reservations to pray for and encourage these vocations in the <i>abstract/general</i>, but when applied to a <i>particular parent and child</i>, we are all too quick to downplay it and really push that being a mom/dad or single lay person is just as grand?<br />
<br />
I have had one explanation a couple times--"you don't want to force them into it, not that I think you would ever do that [but still I felt I should tell you this because I probably am not sure that you wouldn't]."<br />
<br />
<b>What are we so worried about? What would be so terrible about encouraging a child towards a religious or priestly vocation? </b><br />
<br />
Let me say that I am not calling any of my friends out, and I do not intend to fault people for offering such a caution--it is a perfectly understandable concern to have, and I know they have good intentions. The reason I am taking issue is that I think we all need to second guess this tendency we have to make comments like this.<br />
<br />
<h1>
"Don't Pressure Them"</h1>
Part of their motivation seems to be extrapolating from the all-too-common story of parents wrongly pressuring their children to "follow in their footsteps" or discouraging them "from their dreams." I know that in our individualistic society today, such pressure from parents seems categorically wrong. It is certainly portrayed that way in popular media, over and over and over again. Whether it is choosing one's spouse or choosing one's profession, it's always the bad parent pushing against the freedom of the child.<br />
<br />
Here's the thing, though. Not all parental pressure is bad. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of it is good--when it is done for the good of the child. Even when parents can be mistaken about the good or go too far with the pressure, it would be a dereliction of parental duty to essentially wash our hands and say, "you do whatever you wanna do." <b>Parents have a right and a duty to guide their children towards what is good for their children.</b><br />
<br />
Granted, that doesn't mean that parents always know best nor that they don't sometimes mix up their own personal good with that of their children. Sometimes parents can't see past their own prejudices for the good of the child. Sometimes parents just don't know their children well enough to provide informed guidance.<br />
<br />
But when it comes to religious or priestly life, I have a hard time seeing how we could go wrong in encouraging our children to consider pursuing it, especially if we think we see signs of such a vocation. If we see a tendency towards art, would we not consider encouraging them to pursue that? If we see a tendency towards engineering, would we not encourage them to consider that career path? If we saw them showing interest in become a fireman or doctor, would we not encourage that?<br />
<br />
<h1>
"But Marriage is Equally Good"</h1>
It seems there is another underlying motive behind these kinds of comments. In the past, there has been a sense in the Church that downplayed the value of lay vocations. To counter that, there has been a concerted effort since Vatican II to promote the value of lay vocations and, in particular, lay participation in the life of the Church. I get that. It is good and right.<br />
<br />
But I can't help but feel that we are not somehow overreacting and in our eagerness to promote the value of lay vocations, we feel we must somehow downplay the value of religious vocations. Or even say that they are equally good.<br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, both our Lord (Matt 19:10-12) and St. Paul (1 Cor 7) indicated that unmarried life for the sake of the Gospel is superior to married life--for those who can accept it, for those who are called to it. The Council of Trent put it a bit more forcefully, and definitively (<a href="http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch24.htm">Session XXIV, Canon X</a>):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.</blockquote>
Saints have also noted that religious life, in particular, is a better way. (Several are mentioned <a href="http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/sacrificing-religious-life-on-the-altar-of-egalitarianism">in this article</a>.) As that author notes, even recently Pope St. John Paul II said in his apostolic exhortation <i>Vita Consecrata</i>: “it is to be recognized that the consecrated life… has an objective superiority.” St. Thomas expounds at some length <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3186.htm#article1">the interrelationship between the state of religion and perfection</a>.<br />
<br />
The constant teaching of the Church is indeed that a life of consecration to God is more excellent than that of the lay life because of the very many graces and helps it provides towards perfection in charity. She also teaches that for those who are called to it and can accept it, they should. Strictly speaking the married state is not equally good, from an objective point of view.<br />
<br />
At the same time, this does not deny the value of lay life, nor lay contributions to the Church, much less lay contributions to the world, which is our proper sphere of activity and responsibility. More importantly, not every person is called to consecrated life. This means that for an <i>individual</i>, it may or may not be better for him or her to choose consecrated life--it depends on what God has called them to do.<br />
<br />
<h1>
We <i>Should</i> Encourage Vocations to the Priesthood and Religious Life</h1>
As the author of the article referred to above ("Sacrificing Religious Life on the Altar of Egalitarianism") points out, though, we cannot expect religious vocation to be obviously desirable in our contemporary culture. It is a way of total renunciation of worldly goods. In our fairly hedonistic, consumeristic, materialistic society, it is in many ways far more difficult to appreciate the good of religious and priestly life than it is to appreciate the good of lay/married life. Not only that, it is considered "normal" for people to get married and have kids and enjoy the good things of this life.<br />
<br />
For children to even consider consecrated life, I propose that we actually <i>do</i> need to actively encourage it <i>more so</i> than lay/married life. We do <i>at least</i> need to clearly teach our children that it is an objectively better way of life. <b>We <i>do</i> need to encourage them to seriously consider it and seek God's will to know if he is calling them to that life, and even more so when we see signs of such a call in them ourselves.</b> <i>Any</i> inclination and willingness to look into it should be met with lots of encouragement.<br />
<br />
We need not worry much about pressuring our children towards consecrated life for the wrong reasons. For most parents, having a child pursue such a life--especially if they have few children as is common today--is also a kind of sacrifice and renunciation for the parent. You are renouncing the good of grandchildren and, potentially, "the carrying on of the family name." You are renouncing the potential that they will "follow in your footsteps." You are renouncing the chance that they can take care of you when you are old or infirm. In many ways, all the toil of raising the child becomes a gift to God and the Church.<br />
<br />
Granted, there is some small danger for pride to slip in, but I'd say that it's generally much easier to just go with the flow and let your children be "normal" and that we have far more wrong reasons to hope that they do not pursue such life. So <b>if we need to be on guard against anything, it would be against apathy towards consecrated life, against a false sense of egalitarianism, against our own natural desires for our children to have the many good things in this life that they would have to renounce should they choose consecrated life.</b><br />
<br />
We humans need help to participate in God's grace, and choosing consecrated life is no different. God may be calling many people to it who are not responding because they are too caught up in this world, because they never seriously considered it, or because their parents and friends didn't even mention it much less encourage them in it.<br />
<br />
Similarly, parents need encouragement to encourage their children in this way. What they don't need is to be made to feel wrong or bad or defensive for encouraging religious and priestly vocations in their children.<br />
<br />
Not only that, other adults in children's lives need to offer this same kind of encouragement. When children see what their parents teach them confirmed by others in their lives--especially others that they respect or perceive to be wise or authorities in some sense--then it can only help them to feel freer to consider this as a good and viable option for themselves. But above all, they need their parents' support and encouragement.<br />
<br />
So the next time you hear a parent being thoughtful or wistful or excited or (especially) worried about their child considering religious or priestly life, I suggest that you encourage them rather than dissuade or warn them. And if you know the child, by all means, encourage him or her, too!<br />
<br />
---<br />
Some notes for the nit-picky..<br />
<br />
1. I realize there is a distinction between religious and priestly life. That is why I have tried to be careful about my terminology here and mentioning both despite its repetitiveness. That said, they both involve degrees of renunciation of worldly goods and are countercultural, so I think the discussion here applies to both.<br />
<br />
2. I know first hand that marriage and parenting in particular (especially for large families) require many sacrifices that also help us on our way towards perfection in charity. I am not devaluing that here; however, I do maintain with the Church that religious life offers a more sure path towards perfection in that it requires more absolute renunciation of worldly goods.<br />
<br />
3. This is written primarily about Catholics and to Catholics, even though it is on my public blog. So this is not the time or place to discuss how crazy consecrated/religious life may sound to non-Catholics. If such comments are made, they will be deleted. You can contact me personally if you want to discuss that.Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-61264522916263271952014-03-18T09:51:00.001-04:002014-03-18T10:01:50.609-04:00The Myth of Science vs. Faith"Right here we have the major lie at the heart of modern anti-religious scientific propaganda: the war between faith and science." (<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2014/03/dishonestcosmos/">see</a> and <a href="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/historians-of-science-critique-new-cosmos-series/">also this</a> for more on the historical facts about Bruno)<br />
<br />
Yup. That about sums it up. It's a real shame, too, because I <i>love</i> science, and especially as it pertains to cosmology, and I really wanted to enjoy the obviously well-produced <i>Cosmos</i>. Plus, I like many others it seems have an odd fondness for Neil deGrasse Tyson, so it pains me to see him promote rubbish. :-/<br />
<br />
It's high time we are done with the myth that religion is antithetical and antagonistic to science. It's time the Galileo type mythology be laid to rest and the actual history be rooted in its historical context, where it belongs. Even if you refuse to accept the historical facts and to take the time to understand the historical context around the cases like Galileo, you can't refute that these things happened 3-400 years ago. Talk about beating a long-dead horse..<br />
<br />
The reality is that "religion" (a broad term indeed, and hard to generalize about) is not inherently antithetical to science, and specifically, <b>Catholics and the Catholic Church are <i>pro</i> science</b>. And it is <i>because</i> of our religious beliefs that we are pro science, not in spite of them. God is the very foundation of truth, of reality, and science is a way for us to discover and understand more about this reality, which again, is ultimately rooted in God.<br />
<br />
Science and faith are two, complementary paths to discover truths about this reality we find ourselves living in. They work together and can only ever be complementary when understood with clarity and honesty--because they both illumine the truth.<br />
<br />
One of my own patrons, St. Albert the Great, was a well known natural scientist in his time (the 1200s), and the historical facts are that many, many scientists (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists">among them some of the most notable</a>) were Catholic (and are today), including many priests and vowed religious. Ask yourself how it could be that there are and have been so many faithful scientists if faith and science were so incompatible as some would have you believe.<br />
<br />
It is a historical fact that <i>the very idea of the university</i> came out of Christendom, at the very height of <i>medieval, Christian, Catholic</i> culture. That's right, those supposed "dark ages" brought about the birth of the university, of hospitals, and of most of the notions that imbue our current conceptions of the "common good." Even the so-called "Enlightenment" came out of this "dark" Christian past, and it wasn't in spite of it but because of it. The notion of "progress" itself, of a dogged pursuit of self-improvement towards an ideal of perfection--that, too, is a fundamentally Christian notion.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, our contemporary notion of natural science as a pursuit in itself also has its Christian roots. It is a fact that the scientific method was formalized and popularized in the West by a Catholic bishop (Grosseteste) and a Franciscan friar (Bacon). None of this is to imply (obviously I hope) that the practice of science is inherently dependent upon Christianity; the point here is to simply recognize that historically science grew from Christian roots (remembering that this is contra the myth that the two are somehow antagonistic).<br />
<br />
It is also a historical fact that the proposer of the Big Bang theory that laid the groundwork for a lot of modern cosmology was a Catholic priest (Lemaître). It is a historical fact that the father of modern genetics was a Catholic monk (Mendel). The list goes on and on.<br />
<br />
It is a historical fact that many popes have made pro-science pronouncements and sponsored, supported, and established many scientific institutions. It is a historical fact that our official, most authoritative doctrinal documents are pro-science (e.g., <a href="http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/cat-sci.html">the Catechism</a>).<br />
<br />
Despite the overwhelming weight of historical and doctrinal evidence, many atheists and even some theists continue to foster the delusion that faith and science are incompatible. This is either inexcusable ignorance or dishonest malice. There is no good, honest reason to perpetuate this myth. If you up to this point believe this myth, please educate yourself.<br />
<br />
Surely we <i>do</i> have enough <i>real</i> disagreements to sort out without manufacturing and perpetuating patently false ones.. let me suggest something--the core issues that drive our real disagreements and is the true driver behind a lot of this myth and its popularity. It is twofold: 1) the relative value and trustworthiness of knowledge that comes from faith versus the knowledge that comes from science/reason and 2) the propriety of constraining scientific inquiry.<br />
<br />
It is my hope to cover these two topics in upcoming posts. Stay tuned. ;)Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-63238123385780502272013-10-21T10:41:00.000-04:002013-10-21T10:42:02.783-04:00Proclaim the Word!<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Beloved:</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Remain faithful to what you have learned and believed,</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
because you know from whom you learned it,</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
and that from infancy you have known the sacred Scriptures,</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
through faith in Christ Jesus.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All Scripture is inspired by God</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction,</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
and for training in righteousness,</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
so that one who belongs to God may be competent,</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
equipped for every good work.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus,</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
who will judge the living and the dead,</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
and by his appearing and his kingly power:</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Proclaim the Word!</span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient;</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
(from the second letter of St. Paul to St. Timothy, <a href="http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/bible/2timothy/3:14">3:14-4:2</a>) Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-11907818160193012013-08-26T15:40:00.002-04:002013-08-26T15:40:29.030-04:00Avoiding Misunderstandings and OffenseLife is full of misunderstandings. We all experience them. Stories are told about them. They can cause all sorts of trouble in this human sphere, sometimes serious. Many of these misunderstandings occur through no particular fault of any given party. It's just a consequence of the nature of our limited perceptions/perspectives and the boundaries imposed by language.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Life is going to give us enough of these without our help. We can do our part to minimize them. Here are some possibly obvious but terribly challenging guidelines for doing so:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Don't assume people know what you know. Do what you can to ensure a mutual understanding of relevant information.</li>
<li>Don't expect something of another without making it clear to that person what you expect. Be prepared for the unavoidable cases when they may not agree that your expectations are fair, reasonable, or realistic.</li>
<li>Don't expect everyone to see things the way you do, nor to value the same things you value. In fact, it is basically a given that they don't, and it's just a question of scale in how much you differ.</li>
<li>Be patient with others and try to understand things from their perspectives, in as much as you can.</li>
<li>Don't guess at others' motivations. Doing so is a source of much unnecessary ill will in the world. Often people don't even know what their own motivations are, so how much more likely is it that we don't know what they are? Instead, give people the benefit of the doubt, ask questions to understand, and honestly, truly <i>listen</i> to them.</li>
<li>Don't take offense. Just don't. It's basically never a good thing to do.</li>
</ol>
<div>
This last one calls for some clarification. This is not to say that you should never <i>feel</i> offended. It's also not to say that your feelings of being offended are wrong, though they very well could be (and probably often are, especially where personal offense is concerned). The point is not to <i>take</i> that feeling and embrace it, wallow in it, or otherwise stagnate in it. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If your conscience is well formed, then it's entirely possible that your sensibilities are good, and that when they are offended, it is an indicator that something is not good. On the other hand, I would argue that very few of us, and maybe not any of us, have such perfect consciences that we should uncritically trust them. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The main problem with taking offense is that it tends to throw logs on the fire of anger, and when we get angry, we tend to stop thinking clearly. We start from the offended sensibility that tells us we (or someone else) was wronged, and then we get angry, and then it makes it that much harder to think critically about if our feeling of offense was right, was true.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A better way is to be on our guard in relation to the feeling of offense, to train our minds to immediately set aside the feeling and go through a self-examination and reflection when we feel offended. </div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Are we feeling offended because of our own pride? If so, it's probably not good and should be dispatched immediately. </li>
<li>Are we feeling offended on behalf of another? If so, what are the rational grounds for that feeling? Is it because we have affection for them? If so, then we need to examine the supposed offense more carefully with a view to whether or not we are reacting due to our emotional attachment and not for good reason. If we are not attached to them, is there some real injustice?</li>
</ul>
<div>
If we think we have discovered a real injustice, the next thing to do would be to ensure that the offense was intended (see above). Chances are more often than not, the offense is due to some misunderstanding, and it would be better to find that out than to move on under the assumption that the offense was intended and that your emotional response is justified. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In any case, the way forward is not to hold onto the offense but rather to <i>move on from it</i> to a more soundly-based motive for further action, one that doesn't tend to shut the brain down. Likely what needs to happen is to recognize our own failing, our own pride or unqualified affection; maybe we just need to discover and dispel a misunderstanding, or maybe it is a real injustice that we need to counteract. Whatever it is, it's highly unlikely that taking offense and staying offended is the best way forward.</div>
</div>
Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-5076695114835618562013-07-30T22:00:00.000-04:002013-07-31T12:01:17.965-04:00Disconnecting from Catholic Social MediaAfter the latest brouhaha resultant from <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2013/07/fearology-of-body.html">this post</a> (and the convo before it I mentioned), I have been pushed over the edge. I'm done with Catholic social media.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's not like this hasn't been <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2009/04/i-am-not-watchdog.html">long in coming</a>. It seems what passes for the majority of Catholic blogging, and perhaps more so social media, is a sludge of conservative outrage inducing link regurgitating. The echo chamber is in full effect, and it has gotten worse <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-benedict-lover-defends-francis.html">since our new pope has been elected</a>. Now it's not just the broader decadent Western culture that has the watchdogs frothing at the mouth, but apparently the Pope himself is not Catholic enough for them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Enough already. It is downright embarrassing and, for me, infuriating. <b>It's all just so much gossip</b>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We conservative Catholics need to stop conflating political ideals with Catholic doctrine, as if the Right has a corner on truth and goodness. We need to stop vilifying those on the other end of the political spectrum. We need to stop overreacting to everything homosexual and abortion-related. We need to stop setting ourselves up in our own personal popedoms. We need to relax about the liturgy. We need to relax about the world's sexual profligacy. We need to relax. Chill out a bit. Take a deep breath and <b>stop wigging out every time something in the world doesn't align with the way we think it should be</b>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It goes without saying (for me) that I'm not suggesting keeping silent when we should speak. I'm not suggesting not being active in the political process how we should be. I'm not suggesting ignoring or suppressing Truth, Goodness, or Beauty. I am by no means suggesting we don't share the Gospel--exactly the contrary!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Look. Either God is in control or he isn't. If the world is going to hell in a handbasket, that ain't nothing new. The way things used to be ain't as great as we like to pretend it was in our whitewashed memories. Human nature is human nature. It always has been. Mass sinfulness has always been with us; it's just the predominate kinds of sin that change with the passage of time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thankfully, God doesn't judge us by the political order and culture we live in; he judges us individually by what we as individuals think, say, and do. If God intended to set up a perfect political party or government, we'd have that. But we don't, and it's not our job to try to set it up.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What we do have is the Truth. What we have are the Sacraments. <b>What we have is each other. <i>Real people</i> whom we are called to truly love, even if we don't agree with them.</b> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And don't tell me about "<a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2013/06/speak-truth-in-love-barf.html">speaking the truth in love</a>." Hogwash. The Truth is easily abused and can be wielded as effectively to drive people away from God as it can to guide them to Him. The Truth is also understood incompletely, by us. It is often miscommunicated, by us. It is also often misunderstood, and we are responsible to minimize that--we must be sensitive to where people are and adjust when and how we share the Gospel with them. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And this extends beyond social media (it just seems exacerbated by it, as are most things online, where it's so easy to <i>reduce people in your head to mere ideas and words, stripping them of the dignity and love they deserve from us</i>). My own dear lay Dominicans were recently discussing a situation where one of them found out that someone they have do some handyman work is gay--who was "married" recently. Apparently this was the source of great anguish--should she keep <i>paying him to do a job</i>? What if he brings up his gayness?? "You have to share the truth [in love] with him," says someone. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Really?!? Have we become so oversensitized to this issue that it becomes a major personal crisis to find out that someone you have hired to do a job that has absolutely zero to do with their sexuality is gay? Are we really obligated to foist our opinion of their life choices on them uninvited? Must we all shake our heads and tut tut about it? Would we have the same crisis if, say, we found out that they were a terrible gossip or an <a href="http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/speaking-of-abominations.html">inveterate liar</a>? Somehow I doubt it, especially if their sin was also one we personally struggle with.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And that's the crux of it. If this behavior is not the very definition of <a href="http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/7/3">what Jesus was counseling against in Matthew 7</a>, I don't know what is. All this outrage-inducing "socializing" does is keep our focus on others' sins and errors rather than our own, <i>much less does it help us to share the Good News</i>. <b>I'd say the Devil is pretty pleased with the state of Catholic social media right now.</b> Pretending for a moment that this is "New Evangelization" is utter self-deception.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<b>Sharing the Gospel is the key</b>. It's not good enough to say something is a sin. That's sharing the Truth incompletely. That, at its best, is ethics. Being a "good person" doesn't get anyone to heaven. What we really need to share is not "you are living in sin" but "Christ can transform your life, give you joy and give you peace." That's the message. That's the focus. Sin is just an opportunity for us to receive God's grace. We need to share that <b>the mercy and grace of God is greater than all our sins put together</b>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>We need to stand with our fellow sinners</b>, not so as to condone sin but rather in recognition that <i>we are all sinners</i>, that we all fail, that we all utterly need the grace of God. If we are not truly <i>with</i> them, then we are not truly loving them. Compassion is the word. Suffering with others. Us versus them is not authentic love. Pointing out sin is not authentic love. It is pride masquerading as love.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And, so, for myself, all this outrage-rich social media is a very near occasion to sin (not to mention a waste of time and talent), because I am repeatedly tempted to hold these brothers and sisters in disdain, because I myself become preoccupied with <i>their sins</i> rather than my own, and so, give into pride. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Therefore, I am <a href="http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/9/43">cutting off that aspect of my life</a> rather than continuing to fall into sin. I have deleted circles. I have unliked pages on FB. I will continue to cull these things from my life as they come up. As I slowly rebuild my Catholic social connections, I will use this as a bar: Does this person refrain from fostering outrage and indulging in judging and condemning others? Does this person share things that build people up? Does this person appear to be truly concerned with sharing the Gospel and will they help me to? </div>
Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016629253860523038.post-18587157942180064932013-07-26T11:28:00.001-04:002013-07-26T11:28:26.451-04:00Getting a Firearms Permit in New JerseyFinally got my firearms permits! w00t!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7F6pIfUL9hA/UfKF4WidciI/AAAAAAAAEtc/a8OS-WaItJ8/s1600/nj-firearm-permits.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="355" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7F6pIfUL9hA/UfKF4WidciI/AAAAAAAAEtc/a8OS-WaItJ8/s400/nj-firearm-permits.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
In NJ, it is quite the process, and mine was somewhat exacerbated.<br />
<br />
<b>A Little Background/Why I Did It</b><br />
It all started back in the beginning of April when I decided to pull the trigger (ha ha) and go through the process. It's worth mentioning that I grew up in OK and AR, where gun ownership is no big deal. My first rifle was a gift from my step-dad--a very old, somewhat crusty bolt action .22 cal. I spent a lot of time restoring it, and in the end, it was an effective rifle even without a scope. I guess seeing how I took care of that one led him to give me a newer one that had a scope.<br />
<br />
My other family also had guns, mostly rifles and shotguns, and we weren't rabid hunters, but we did hunt sometimes. As a teenager, I took a gun/hunting safety course, in addition to being mentored by my family. I've also spent a fair bit of time at ranges shooting rifles and the occasional handgun.<br />
<br />
When I moved to Florida in 2003, I left my rifles with my dad because I didn't expect to need them and thought he could make use of them. Since then, I haven't had a gun, but mostly just because I was busy with other things.<br />
<br />
This year, though, the gun debate heated up again, and it got me thinking about it. I also don't live in the safest city in NJ. And I wanted to experience what it is like for a law-abiding citizen to exercise his constitutional right to bear arms in a highly restrictive state like NJ. Together these things foisted me out of my complacency, and I began the journey.<br />
<br />
I'm hardly a gun nut, but I am definitely on the "right" side of the issue. I think <a href="http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/">Larry Correia sums up the reasons</a> why better than I can. (BTW, since I read that, I started listening to his Monster Hunter series--good stuff!)<br />
<br />
<b>Step 1 - Figure Out What You Gotta Do</b><br />
The easiest way is to Google something like "getting a gun in NJ." That ultimately landed me on what I thought would be a reliable source--the <a href="http://www.njsp.org/faq.html#firearms">state police Web site</a>. I also read up on the actual statutes (not fun reading, as you might expect). I was surprised to learn that to get a permit to carry, you basically have to have evidence that your life is being threatened by, e.g., a stalker, or that you need it for your job. I figure living where I do is justification for me to carry--considering that all the criminals around here do, but hey, I figured I'd save that battle for a different day.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 2 - Download and Fill Out the Forms </b><br />
So I downloaded and filled out the forms from the state police Web site and called my local PD, who told me to just drop it off.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 2.3 - Drop Off Forms in Person</b><br />
I went to our police HQ (in an even-less-great part of town than I live in) and dropped it off. Next day I get a call from the detective in charge of permits, who says I filled out the main form wrong, was missing a form, and that I needed to type up my application using the editable PDF (the one I had already filled out by hand). He said to come and pick up a "packet" to apply. Then, once I had the packet done, I was to set up an appointment with him to go over them.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 2.5 - Pick Up the Forms</b><br />
So I went back to the HQ, stopped by the desk, and asked for the "gun permit application" package. The lady handed me a package, and I said thanks and left.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 2.7 - Fill Out the Forms Again</b><br />
There were more forms in the packet, including the mental health history form, as well as a handful of other things (like making copies of your DL) to do. I did all that and called the detective back. We set an appointment for Tues at 10a. Great--things are moving along.<br />
<br />
<b>Step Minus 1 - Get Appendicitis and Miss Appointment</b><br />
Unfortunately, the Sunday (4/14) before my appointment, I came down with acute appendicitis and went into surgery for an old-fashioned appendectomy in the middle of Monday morning. So I had to call the detective and cancel. He said he had to put permits work on hold due to an investigation and wouldn't be able to get back to it for a few weeks. That happened to work for me because a little less than two weeks after my surgery, I had my family vacation planned. So we agreed to meet after that.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 3 - Turn in the Forms & Meet</b><br />
It ended up being 6/5 before we could meet. I showed up with completed package in hand, only to find out that the lady gave me the wrong one--the renewal package instead of the new one. Thankfully, the detective was kind enough to let me fill out the correct extra forms right there (which included referral requests from people who will vouch for my character).<br />
<br />
In addition, he gave me a new set of forms that I had to take to a local fingerprinting agency, which was also a surprising <b>$57.50</b> that I was not expecting. That agency didn't have an available slot until 6/13, so more waiting...<br />
<br />
<b>Step 4 - Get Fingerprinted</b><br />
Go to a separate agency, pay them about $60 to put all your fingers on a digital scanner a few times. Oh yeah, there was another form for this you have to fill out, both online and on paper.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 5 - Take Fingerprinting Form Verification to Police</b><br />
Amazingly enough, even though the fingerprinting is digital and even though there is a digital form you fill out with the agency online, you still have to manually take the completed/verified form back to the police HQ and drop it off in person. It's almost as if they don't want you to get guns...<br />
<br />
<b>Step 6 - More Waiting</b><br />
The detective warned me that his backlog is longish, so not to expect a rapid turnaround. Okay, by this point I am become one with the waiting, so I go with it (as if I have a choice). They have to do the background check and referral check.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 7 - Call to Check on Status</b><br />
As I said, I am one with the waiting. Plus, it's not like I am in urgent need here, so I give it until 7/23. I called and asked to verify he got the fingerprinting paperwork and just to find out where we are. Next thing I know, the following day I got a call from the front desk lady saying my permits were ready to be picked up.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 8 - Pick Up Permits</b><br />
Okay, phew. One last (I hope) trip to the police HQ. I stop by, and the lady takes me back to the detective's desk. The permit card is all filled out, but I guess they wait until you pick it up to put the date on the handgun permit--because they expire. That was considerate. She fires up an ancient typewriter and plops the date on, has me sign the card and the handgun permit, and fingerprints me <i>again</i> on the actual permit card.<br />
<br />
Oh yeah, the rifle and shotgun permit is $5, and each handgun permit (you have to apply for those individually) is $2. I had to bring that in cash, exactly--they don't make change.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary</b><br />
Okay, so I had to go to the police HQ <b>FIVE TIMES</b> in person to get my permit. In addition, I had to go to a separate agency for fingerprinting. That's a total of <b>SIX interruptions of workdays</b>--as with most government offices, they have restrictive hours you have to show up in (8a-4p). Luckily my employer is flexible about stuff like that, but I can't imagine how most working (i.e., upstanding citizens) folks whose employers are not so flexible would have to deal with it.<br />
<br />
I started this process at the beginning of April, so it took roughly four months to complete the process. Who knows if I hadn't called if it would have been longer--I doubt they had just happened to finish it then. State law says that once the app paperwork is done, the department has 30 days to complete. And you'll note on the card, it was supposedly issued on 7/13--one month after I turned in my fingerprinting forms. ;) Now granted, I had a few-week interruption that was my fault, so we could say <b>it took three months</b>.<br />
<br />
In terms of money, there is obviously the cost of transportation for those six outings. On top of that is the $57.50 for the fingerprinting and the $7 for the permits. So I spent probably <b>$65-70 just to get the authorization to purchase guns.</b> That's not the cost to buy an actual gun, to buy the ammo, to buy the safe to keep it safe. That is just to get authorized to buy.<br />
<br />
On top of that, the closest gun range to me is 45-50 minutes away. There are some private ranges, but you have to go through a whole, multi-year process to get into those, not to mention do community service with them. In order to get any kind of competency then, I am going to have to <b>drive about 2 hours to a range</b>, pay someone to train me, buy a gun (or more). Living in a city, I can't just practice in the backyard. ;)<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Commentary</b><br />
As I said, part of the reason I did this was to go through the experience of just how much of a pain in the ass it is to legally get a gun in NJ. So far I've only been authorized to buy one, but what a pain. Time off from work. Several trips to agencies. Spending $70. All of this to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right.<br />
<br />
Now compare that to voting, another constitutional right. Certain people scream from the rafters if you even suggest that we require something as simple as a photo ID, which the vast majority of upstanding citizens already have. They yell about disenfranchising.<br />
<br />
And yet, look at what it takes to exercise our 2nd Amendment right in NJ. How many citizens--especially those who live in areas where they might realistically need a handgun for self-defense--could afford to go through that process? Talk about disenfranchising.<br />
<br />
More importantly, how many people who would abuse firearms would go through that process? I live in a city with high incidence of gun crime. I regularly see reports of illegal firearms on crimemapping.com in my area.<br />
<br />
All this crap doesn't work to prevent the vast majority of gun crime. Further, it adds an apparently significant administrative burden to our already-stretched-thin police departments. If it takes that long to process permits, that's time that could be spent actually fighting actual crime instead. And yet there is a whole bunch of silliness about adding even more restrictions--even here in NJ. Heck, how about creating less overhead to get citizens guns and reinvest the time saved in free, police-led training programs for citizens? That sounds like a far more effective approach to me..<br />
<br />
<b>Next Steps</b><br />
On the positive side, at least with some effort, money, and patience, we here in NJ <i>can</i> actually exercise our rights. Now that I'm allowed to exercise my constitutional right (as odd as that sounds), I'll be figuring out how to make some time to get to a range and do so. Glad to be through the process!Ambrose Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14594837944119047630noreply@blogger.com