Category: Culture

Posted on

Wondering About the "Mosque" at Ground Zero and the Logic We Use.

I wonder if we have considered the wider implications of the controversy about a “mosque” near the World Trade Center Site? I put “mosque” in quotes since I am not sure that it actually is a mosque, formally speaking. Rather it seems to be more of an Islamic Center. I will admit to not knowing fully the distinction between a mosque and an Islamic Center though my premise is that such a center may have a wider purpose than just as a place of worship and would probably include places to gather to study or for social interaction such as receptions and the like. It would seem that there are already two mosques within a dozen blocks of the proposed site.

I suppose if you ask me, I don’t think building the center so near ground zero is a good idea. It has obviously proved incendiary and, if the original purpose was to promote mutual understanding the whole thing has back-fired. There are surely many reasons for this and plenty of blame to go around. There may have been some fear-mongering by those opposed. There were some problematic statements by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf . And when the politicians entered the picture, it was like gasoline being poured on the already smoldering topic.

But what I want to consider are the possible implications of this event beyond the Muslim Community to our own Catholic Church. The matter that most concerns me is that many who oppose this Mosque (though not all) seem to be asking that the Government prevent its construction. Perhaps this would be done by revoking construction permits or through zoning changes.

I’ll be honest, I don’t want the Government to have a thing to do with refusing permission for the mosque (or center). Because, truth be told, if they can intervene in a matter about a mosque they can just as easily make life difficult when it comes to building churches too.

There are many in this land who distrust Muslims and dislike many aspects of the Muslim Faith. As a Catholic I surely have many strong disagreements with what the Muslim Faith teaches.  Distrust is a more complicated question. Most Americans are willing to distinguish between extremist Islam and mainstream Islam. But here too the failure to hear of strong denunciation of violence from Muslim leaders makes Americans wonder. Further, the lack of religious tolerance in many Muslim Countries also causes consternation. To some extent this distrust makes it easier for some to demand the government step in and prevent the Mosque.

But let’s be honest and sober. We as Catholics are heading south in the popularity ratings too. There are increasing  numbers in this country who consider us hateful, backward, sexist, homophobic, judgmental, and so forth. They think this of us because we have not signed on 100% with the cultural, sexual and social revolution. Many also distrust us on account of our handling of the Clergy Sex Abuse Crisis. It is not that far of a stretch to consider that within the next decades we too will discover many obstacles toward building Churches in prominent or visible places. At first opposition to us will be rooted in complaints that we will cause traffic etc. But the next step will be to refuse us zoning easements because we are sexist (no women priests, opposition to abortion) or anti-homosexual (No Gay marriage), insensitive (e.g. no Euthanasia),  and thus our “values” do not comport well with the community in question or our presence causes some to experience outrage or hurt. Hence our prominent presence in a community could be denied simply because others experience hurt or rage. (I do not say that such feelings about us are fair or right, I simply note their current existence).

Now this may seem far-fetched, but is this not some of the logic being applied at the ground zero site? And those who think that the Government should intervene at the ground zero site should carefully think this through. It is a very poor basis on which to ask the government  to act. And we may be next in the cross hairs of this sort of logic.

We ought to be very sober about encouraging the Government to continue to expand its involvement in how private citizens use their land and resources. In the last 40 years the government has become increasingly intrusive when it comes to building anything. There are increasingly picky zoning requirements, declaration of historical districts, nature preserves, etc. And eminent domain (allowing  the government simply to take your land for its own purposes in exchange for a price it deems fair) which was once rather rare and for serious reasons  has now become shockingly common. There are certain western states that are almost wholly owned by the Federal Government and where private ownership of land has become rare. As one who has built a large building on Church property, I can personally attest to how frustrating it is to build. There are endless permits, delays, regulations, zoning waivers, delays, forms, and did I say, delays?

Now I realize that not every one who opposes the Mosque is asking the government to intervene. But for those who are, think very carefully. And even for those who are not asking the government intervention, be careful of the logic used. That a mosque causes grief and anger, fear or suspicion at ground zero may at some level be understandable but it is a poor basis on which to tell someone they cannot build a building. For I fear that same logic will be used against the Catholic Church sooner than we think in certain areas of this country. It is not a great leap of (tortured) logic to say that a mosque cannot be built because it evokes negative feelings to saying that a Catholic Church cannot be built for the same reasons. We ought to be very careful about the logic we use.

What do you think? I know that this article needs some distinctions, qualifications and factual additions. Remember this is a discussion I have started. I do not intend this blog  it as a pronouncement. I am grateful if, in addition to any comments about the issue in general, you might address the specific question of the logic of demanding the non-existence of a building on the basis that it will cause hurt or anger and how it might ultimately affect us as Catholics.

Here’s an interesting interview about the Mosque (Islamic Center) before it really heated up:

Posted on

Satan Has Many Disguises

It would be easy if Satan came as he is often portrayed, with horns and a pitchfork. We would naturally flee this ugliness.

Alas, he often comes cloaked in beauty, in sheep’s clothing. He claims to offer us freedom and autonomy from an unreasonable God and Church, liberation from rules and being “told what to do.”  He cloaks himself in the false righteousness of being “tolerant” and “not judging others.” He exalts us by telling us we have finally come of age and can disregard the “hang-ups” and “repression” our ancestors had of sex and pleasure. He flatters us by extolling our scientific knowledge and inflates us by equating it with wisdom and moral superiority over our “primitive” fore-bearers. He reassures us by insisting we are merely the victims here, victims of biological urges, bad parenting, economic injustice, that we are not depraved, just deprived. He humors us by making us laugh at sin, making light of it in comedian’s routines, sitcoms, music and otherwise turning sin into a form of entertainment. He anesthetizes the pain of guilt and sin by sending us teachers who tickle our ears and assure us that what we know deep down to be wrong is actually fine, even virtuous. He affirms us by insisting that whenever shortcomings in us have been called to our attention it is simply unfair since other people are surely worse, that self esteem is something owed to us and others who lessen it are unkind.   He  sings us the lullaby of presumption assuring us that consequences and judgment will not be our lot and with this lullaby we drift off into a moral sleep of indifference and  false confidence.

But in the end, there is a wolf under the sheepskin. Satan is ugly. He enslaves, condemns, ridicules and ensnares. His “reassurances” bring pain and grief as the awful effects of sin unwind: hatred, fear, resentments, revenge, suffering, disease, addiction, bondage, strife, divorce, estrangement, war, insurrection, disloyalty, scorn, bitterness, depression, anxiety, depletion, poverty, loss and deep, deep sorrow.

Beware, Satan has many disguises and he seldom presents as he really is. The movie The Passion of the Christ brilliantly presented Satan in the Garden. At first there was almost a strange beauty. But a closer look revealed increasingly hideous details: cold, fixed eyes, sharp and discolored nails, sickly pale skin, suddenly androgynous qualities, and a disgusting maggot crawling in and out of the nose. An audible moan came from the audience in the theatre where I first saw it. Would that, beyond the movie, we could sense this revulsion and clarity as to the evil of Satan and his truest reality.

Here is a very powerful video on the disguises of sin:

t

Posted on

All Creatures of Our God and King – On the Dignity of God’s Creation and the Special Dignity of the Human Person

I was recently challenged by a reader to saysomething about cruelty to animals. At first I thought this sort of topic was secondary but as I prayed I thought I’d like to offer a thought or two here on animals and humans.

Avoiding Extremes – As Human beings we seem to have exhibited some extremes in how we have regarded animals. At one extreme was the concept that they were mere brutes with no real sense or “feelings” at all. My own experience with the pets I have had over the years is that animals are more than mere instinct or devoid of feelings. The cats and dogs I have had seem to experience some degree of real feelings: happiness when I return home or hint at food, sadness or fear, even anger when I had to scold them, stress and anxiety when it was necessary to confine them. They also seemed to be able to interact with me at some level, knowing some of the words I used and exhibiting reaction to them. I could ask my dog to sit and he did, tell him to bark and he did. I could announce that we were going for a walk and he’d leap for joy and head for the door. The cat I currently have is less responsive to verbal interaction but he does meow and scamper about upon my return and reacts when I announce food, his tail swishes and he heads for the bowl. He is also able to express desire for a back rub or food. So it seems that animals, at least the higher mammals are not brutes. They seem to have something of an “inner life.”

But the other extreme is to regard animals as no different than us. This extreme does not really exult the animals, rather,  it diminishes us. We are clearly in a wholly different category than animals, even the higher mammals that exhibit a certain intelligence. Animals do not write poetry, build cities, fight for justice, build shrines and churches to worship God. They do not seem to form lasting governments or have a culture that builds upon the wisdom of previous gernations. They have not acquired medical or scientific advancement, gone to the moon, and do not seem to ponder higher things such as the meaning of life, truth, and the looming fact of death. Indeed, we human beings are clearly unique and have a highly developed inner life. We manifest a longing for things outside ourselves. We have what the philosophers call capax Dei (a capcity for God).

So, it is not wrong to insist that animals be treated with some respect and that we refrain from cruelty due to the fact that they experience pain and stress etc. But it is wrong to say there is no difference between them and us.

The Unique Dignity of the Human Person – Scripture confirms that God gave man dominion over all living creatures  and instructed us to fill and subdue the earth (Gen 1:28-29). God  also supplied man with a special dignity by breathing his own Spirit into man making man “a living soul” (Gen 2:7). He did not do this for any other living being. Hence our soul has a special capacity, a spiritual nature (capax Dei) that opens us to God and the things of God. Further, no other living creature is said in Scripture to have been created in the image of God (cf Gen 1:27).

Reverencing the Gift and the Giver is Key – Therefore we are to make use of the plants, animals and resources of creation with reverence for God who gave them and with respect for nature and limits of the animals and resources involved.  Cruelty to animals is dehumanizing for us. If we are sensitive we note that animals are NOT mere brutes. They experience physical pain as well as mental stress and that they do seem manifest at least rudimentary feelings. It is wrong for us to merely disregard this. Even if we must employ them as “beasts of burden” we ought to care well for their needs, feed them well, tend to their injuries and allow them proper rest. That we use animals for food is allowed by scripture (cf Gen 9:1-5). However we ought to kill them as quickly and painlessly as possible. Recent reports have sometimes indicated that slaughter houses are deficient in this manner and we ought to improve our methods, making them swifter and more merciful.

So, in the end a balance is necessary. Humans have a unique dignity that must be recognized. Yet it is also true that animals are a gift from God and they ought to be treated with respect by that very fact. It would be wrong for me to take a gift from you and misuse it, that would not only be wrong for me, it would be offensive to you. However, if you give me a gift you also expect me to make use of it. You might well be offended if I just cast it on the shelf or under a bed and made no use of it. Hence we do well to make use of the animals in ways God intends. As for cruelty, there is absolutely no place for it. Rather, we should imitate God who richly provides and cares for all his creatures.

By the way the Cat at the top of this post is my rectory cat “Daniel.” He’s a great mouser and a good friend and was curled up on my desk next to the computer as I typed this post!

This video show the capacity even for certain birds to interact with us. It is of a Parakeet with an incredible vocabulary. God really does remarkable work. Enjoy this video.

Posted on

Why Anne Rice is Wrong: The Intersection of the Church and Politics Cannot be Reduced to Simplistic Labels.

The recent and public proclamations of two prominent women, one Catholic the other Protestant, highlight the growing conflicts at the intersection of faith, politics and culture. Author, Anne Rice, who had returned to the Catholic Faith in 1998, recently “renounced” her Christian Faith. And Kirsten Powers, a Fox News analyst and former Clinton Administration official, has written in her defense. The comments of both women show how increasingly difficult it is for the Church to negotiate the delicate balance of proclaiming moral truth and yet not transgressing  political and cultural boundaries by “taking sides” or forging alliances with parties and movements.

Here are some quotes from these women:

  1. Anne Rice from her Facebook Page –   “I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”
  2. Kirsten Powers writing yesterday in The Daily Beast – I feel your pain, sister. Like Rice, I developed a deep faith later in life and, like her, I brought with me liberal views that aren’t normally associated with devout Christians….American Christianity is suffering from a hangover from decades of indoctrination by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and a host of other religious leaders who falsely cloaked right-wing Republicanism in biblical principles. Worse, these leaders modeled the decidedly un-Christian behavior of treating certain groups with contempt. Even if Robertson et al. were actually justified in viewing liberals, gays, feminists, and Muslims as their enemy, their response is simply not rooted in Scripture. (See, for example, “love your enemies” and “bless those who persecute you.”) A popular bumper sticker—”I love Jesus but I hate his fan club”—reflects this growing frustration with the church among devout Christians. Something needs to change, or more Anne Rices are going to walk away. The full article by Ms. Powers is here: Kirsten Powers on Anne Rice’s Christianity Crisis

Now there are any number of things I personally object to in Ms. Rice’s comments. Referring to us as “infamous” borders on Religious bigotry. In her “anti”  list I particularly object to the anti-science, and anti-gay labels. The Church has a very nuanced and smart position viz. science wherein we respect science’s role and only object when certain scientists  transgress into philosophical and religious pronouncements. As for being “anti-Gay:”  It is difficult when an individual or group wants to insist that its entire identity be described by particular form sexual activity which the Scriptures we revere and must obey call sinful, it is unreasonable to expect approval from the Church. But disapproval does not equate to hate as many claim or simple and crude “anti-gay” agenda. The Catholic Church is not anti-gay, we simply cannot approve of any sexual activity outside of marriage and have a principled, Biblical understanding of marriage and sexuality. What is demanded of us is unreasonable. In fact her whole diatribe is simplistic in that it lacks any proper distinctions or respect for the nuances of Catholic and Christian views.

As for Ms. Powers’ comments she too uses words that are unnecessary. Why must she describe Christians as treating certain groups with “contempt?”  Is it now contempt to disagree or stand opposed to the seismic cultural shifts that have taken place in West?  And why the word “enemy?”  Is the fact that Christians oppose aspects of the gay agenda, for example,  mean that Christians necessarily see Gays as enemies? Why are such words used and do they not express the contempt for us that they criticize? Is it not possible for Christians to have principled differences with advocates of the new morality without being charged with contempt and being told we are treating people as enemies, that we are unloving and refusing to bless others?

But the deeper issue I want to explore is the implied critique that Catholics and Traditional Christians are wrong to build alliances in the political and secular realm. The simplistic form of the charge is that traditional Christians (to include Catholics) are just an arm of the Republican Party. I want to suggest that this is both simplistic and inaccurate. I also want to address the charge that it is wrong for the Church to develop alliances.  Let’s begin with a little history.

There is a long history of alliances – While the Church has never officially embraced a political party, political alliances have historically been evident. In the past, until the emergence of the Regan Democrats, Catholic voters were  a reliably  Democratic voting block. There were also many alliances forged between Church leaders and Democratic leaders. Issues such as labor, and labor unions, justice, minimum wage, and care for the poor forged deep alliances between Catholics and Democrats at all levels in the Church. In the years of the Civil Rights Movement the Christian Churches were the central pillar of that movement and a large number of Catholic Clergy, Sisters and lay leaders were active in the movement. The Civil rights movement forged important alliances with civic and political leaders to evoke lasting change. There were also countless alliances that developed between the Catholic Church, Protestant denominations and civic and political leaders to address a wide variety of local issues such as education, economic justice and development in poor neighborhoods, crime, traffic hazards and the like. So there is nothing new about the Church being out in the community and in the political realm forging alliances for matters deemed important.

Now in the first 70 years of the 20th Century the social and moral issues of abortion, euthanasia, homosexual activity, stem cell research and the like were not largely disputed and some didn’t even exist yet. Most Americans agreed essentially on such matters and that they were wrong. Generally then in these years the alliance was strong between the Democratic Party and Catholics due to the issues involved and the politics of the time.

After 1973 and the Roe v. Wade decision the alliance began to experience its first rifts. But not at first. In the initial years after Roe many prominent Democrats were against Abortion. For example Al Gore, Harry Reid, Jessie Jackson and others protested abortion. Abortion was not at first a strongly partisan issue. But in the decade following Roe, the pro-Choice position began to become Democratic orthodoxy. Pro-life democrats were increasingly hard to find and the party’s platform became officially pro-Choice. Little by little the Republican Party stood forth as increasingly pro-Life and this position was adopted as the official position of the GOP platform. One by one the other moral issues began to divide out along party lines as well.

And here we are today with a host of critical moral issues of which the Church cannot remain silent but in which political divisions are sharp. So sharp are these political divisions that when the Church speaks on what ARE plainly moral issues (eg. Abortion, Homosexual marriage, contraceptives and abortions to minors, stem cell research etc.) she is said to be getting too political, or to talking politics from the pulpit, or promoting a Republican Agenda. And yet these are clearly moral issues which fair minded individuals realize the Church cannot simply ignore.

And hence, new alliances are forming between the Church and the world of politics. Since most all these matters involve public policy, public funds, legislation and the like, the Church cannot be part of the discussion and seek to influence outcomes without bumping up against legislators who, by the way, also happen to be politicians. So the Church and other Christians do what we have always done, we form alliances to address these issues and influence their outcome. It is not just the Church that does this, everyone does this.

Now the point thus far is that political alliances are nothing new in Catholicism. While not being a partisan faith, it is just a fact that strong partnerships have been formed over the past 100 years between the Church and the Democrats in the past, increasingly the Republicans now. Seismic shifts in the culture have led to seismic shifts in the political landscape and led to shifting alliances.

Now that some of these alliances are seen as conservative or Republican some say, “tisk, tisk.”  But such scolding did not come from these same people or  secular media when the alliances were more left of center.

But what of the charge that the Catholic Church is merely an outpost of the Republican Party? It is true,  as has already been stated, there are more alliances withthe right of center and the Republican Party than in the past. This is for the reasons stated. But the fact is, the Catholic Church holds many positions that do not conform to “right-wing politics” and has alliances far broader than one party. The Church is generally pro-immigration, opposes the death penalty, and insists on proper care for the poor. The Pope and most of the Bishops opposed our initiation of the Iraq War. More locally my own parish and most other parishes in the City of Washington belong to a non-partisan group called the Washington Interfaith Network (WIN). Together with Protestant congregations, we number over fifty congregations who develop partnerships with City government and civic organizations to ensure the availability of affordable housing, redevelopment of blighted neighborhoods, restoration of public libraries and recreation centers. Most recently we gathered the Candidates for Mayor and City Council Chair and  secured their promise to work with us on a detailed and multi-faceted jobs initiative to get people back to work. Every month, I along withother clergy and Church leaders in WIN are down at the District Building holding their feet to fire and developing alliances to ensure that these promises are fulfilled.

It is also true outside the Interfaith Network that we Catholic Clergy, along with some Protestant Ministers worked hard to fight the Gay “Marriage” Bill. We have also fought hard for opportunity scholarships for inner city kids and opposed any expansion of Abortion funding.

So what are we? What is the Church? Is it really true to say that we are just shills for the Republican Party? That hardly seems fair. What if we are just Christians who fight for what we value? And the truth is, those values aren’t so easily categorized as Anne Rice and Kirsten Powers think.  We, like everyone else in this country form  alliances, to fight for what we value. But in the Catholic Church those alliances are not as monolithic as some of our critics claim.

Perhaps a personal litany to end: I am against abortion and they call me a Republican. I oppose Capital Punishment and they call me a Democrat. I am against Gay Marriage and many aspects of the Gay agenda and they say, “O see he’s a Republican!” I work for affordable housing and insist that jobs be the priority for the City agenda and they say, “See he’s a Democrat.” And all this time what I was trying to be is a Christian.

Posted on

It May be Friday, But Sunday’s Coming

Some years ago in a previous parish assignment, St. Thomas More, in Washington DC,  I was accustomed to take a Friday afternoon walk to focus on my homily for Sunday. At the beginning of the walk I’d often stop by the nearby house of an elderly parishioner, Lillian, and give her communion. She was quite elderly, her mind was beginning to fail and for these reasons it was difficult to get to Church. In mild weather she often be in her wheel chair on the front porch and, as I’d walk up she’d say, “Oh Father! It must be Sunday!”  “No, Lillian,” I’d usually say, “It’s actually Friday.”  And she’d usually say, “Oh, I’m sorry to hear that.”

I was thinking of the calendar most times I answered her, but she she was long past worrying what day the world said it was. And so, Friday after Friday, as I’d stop by she kept asking if it was Sunday. Friday it was, but she kept looking for Sunday.  “Is it Sunday, Father?”…. “No Ms. Lillian, today is Friday.”

The world has a saying: “Thank God, it’s Friday.” But in the Church, especially among African Americans whom I serve, there is an older expression: “It may be Friday, but Sunday’s coming.” It is a thoroughly Biblical reflection wherein Friday represents our sufferings, our own “Good Fridays” and Sunday represents our rising from the dead, our joy and the fulfillment of our hopes.

When Lillian saw her priest, she thought of Sunday, she thought of Jesus and Holy Communion. So, in a way for her it was Sunday, for a moment. But, to be sure,  Lillian was in the Friday of her life. She had all the crippling effects of old age: dementia, arthritis, weakness, hearing and eyesight problems, sugar, and you name it.    “I’s gotten ooooold, Father.”    Yes, Friday had surely come for Lillian.

At her funeral I could think of no other way to begin the homily than to say, “It’s Sunday Lillian.” And the congregation nodded, some just hummed, others said, “Thank you Jesus.” Lillian had gone to Jesus and Sunday had come. Surely she, like all of us, needed some of the cleansing purgation wherein the Lord wipes away the tears of all who have died (cf  Rev 21:4) lifts the burdens of our sorrows, regrets and sins for the last time. For those who die in the Lord, die in the care of the Lord.  The souls of the just are in the hand of God (Wis 3:1).

Yes, Sunday, glorious Sunday, for all those who trust in the Lord. The Fridays of life will come but if we trust, Sunday will surely follow.

 “Oh, Father! It must be Sunday!” ….”Yes, Ms. Lillian, it is surely Sunday.”

Posted on

The Fixation of Modern Culture: Stuck on Teenage

Psychologists define fixation in the following way:

Fixation refers to a persistent focus of pleasure-seeking energies on an earlier stage of psychosexual development. A fixation occurs when an issue or conflict in a psychosexual stage remains unresolved, leaving the individual focused on this stage and unable to move onto the next.

I would like to argue that our modern culture seems to manifest many fixations on the teenage years. In fact, one way to describe our modern culture is to see it as developmentally like a teenager. This of course presents rather serious problems for our culture not only in terms of facing life with the necessary sobriety, seriousness and maturity but it also means that there are many people in our culture who never grow up.

Let me try to illustrate some examples of what I see as a fixation on teenage issues and mentality.

  1. Wanting all the rights but none of the responsibilities– It is not uncommon, as a child approaches adulthood the hear them declare that, since they are now and adult, they can do what they want. They often boldly declare this to their parents. If a parent is smart he or she will teach the child that adulthood does not magically happen at 18. Rather adulthood happens when they move out, get a job, pay their own rent, pay their own bills, drive a car that they own, purchase their own insurance etc. In other words, adulthood is about accepting and exercising responsibility for one’s own self. But the teenage mentality claims the rights of adulthood (self-autonomy etc.) without wanting to accept the responsibilities that come with it. This is very often the case with our culture today. Strident claims are made regarding our rights but little is said of our duties.  Accepting responsibility for our actions is often cast aside by excuses that blame others: “I’m not responsible, my mother dropped me on my head when I was two, I grew up poor, I have ADHD”  and so forth. There can be legitimate excusing or explaining factors in life  but we have made an art of it. Our culture has a hard time insisting that people take responsibility for their actions. Those who do suggest such things are called insensitive and harsh. Not only do many make excuses for their bad beahvior but they also try to shift blame, “What about him!”  Further, we often see that in our culture people increasing expect others to provide them what they ought to provide themselves. There are expansive notions of entitlements on both the right and left. Surely there are some basic needs that government and industry can and should provide, and there are those among us who truly cannot care for themselves, but the list grows ever longer and money it seems is no object. All of these behaviors I have described tend to overemphasize rights but underestimate personal responsibility. I am arguing that this bespeaks a teenage mentality. An adult attitude respects the need to take responsibility for our lives, ask for help when we need it but does not ask other to do for us what we can do for ourselves. An adult attitude also takes responsibility for the consequences of decisions that are made and does not shift blame for things I have done.
  2. Sexual immaturity– Teenagers experiencea powerful sexualawakening and their bodies flood with hormones. This leads to a number of effects. First of all there is a general silliness about sexuality that sets up. There is giggling and off color jokes. Everything is thought of in terms of sex and many ordinary words and references have ulterior meanings. There is a kind of obsession with sex. They begin to dress provocatively and “strut their stuff.” Sadly too teenagers struggle a lot with sexual misbehavior and very bad judgment about sexual matters. This is all the more prevalent since we do not often chaperon and oversee youth in the way we should, neither do we teach them well in regard to sexuality and modesty. American culture too often exhibits a teenage mentality and immaturity about sexuality. There is the incessant chatter and exhibition of sex in movies, music, books and the general media. In many ways our culture seems like a sex obsessed teenager. There are off color jokes. Many comedians devote lengthy sections of their monologues to sex and speak of it in very demeaning and unedifying ways and everyone thinks its a big joke. Surely too there is great irresponsibility today with regards sexual behavior: premarital sex, babies out of wedlock, the even greater tragedy of abortion, adultery, homosexual behavior and on and on. People often exercise very poor judgement about sexuality. Further many celebrate lewdness and sexual irresponsibility often applying moral thinking  more reminiscent of a college frat party than a truly thoughtful and responsible perspective on the matter. An adult and mature attitude accepts that sex is a very beautiful and personal gift given to the married. It is holy and good and is an important part of life. It has its place but is not the only thing there is. The obsession, silliness and out of control quality exhibited in our culture bespeaks an immaturity that reminds one of untutored and uncorrected teenagers.
  3. Hatred of Authority– As children grow into the teenage years they begin to push the boundaries with parents and other authority figures. They test limits and ask tough questions. Now this is not all bad. They are not little children any longer and increasing autonomy is sought and often times incrementally appropriate. However, teenagers also can go too far and be both disrespectful and disobedient. At times they engage in inappropriate power struggles with their parents and other elders. They start to assert that no one should tell them what to do and some even go through periods of intense dislike and contempt for their parents and any who would try to direct them. So too our culture today struggles with the issue of authority. One of the geniuses of the American Political System is a balance of power and that elected officials should be accountable. So there is such a thing as healthy and vigorous debate and a proper limiting of the power of authority. However, some of the snide attitudes toward legitimate authority, not just government officials, but police, supervisors at work, pastors, and community leaders et al. seems at times a bit immature. Whispering behind their backs, dragging of feet, ugly comments, outright disrespect of elders and leaders all seem a bit teenage. One might argue it has always been this way. But there seems to have been a major uptick in this sort of beahvior starting in the mid to late 1960s. Rock music helped to usher in very negative attitudes about authority and that thinking has become widespread in our culture. An adult attitude respects the place of authority and the need for it. It does fear authority but speaks sincerely, truthfully and respectfully to those who have it.
  4. The “It’s not Fair!” Mentality– One of the most common cries of children and teenagers is that something isn’t fair. It is usually a plaintive cry that is self serving. It usually means that “I didn’t get what I want but it seems like others did.” Basically this cry is “all about me.” Truth be told life is NOT fair. Both my brothers were smarter than I was. Neither of them seemed  to have to study much and they still got “A’s” I had to struggle mightily just to get C’s and B’s. Not fair. But I had other gifts they didn’t have. Bottom line is that we all get dealt the cards we have and we have to play them. No one has exactly the same cards. In our culture too the plaintive cry often goes up about something not being fair. The most troublesome version of it comes in relation to moral and doctrinal  issues. The Church is often excoriated for her positions in ways like this: “Are you saying Gays can’t get married? That’s not fair. Are you saying women can’t be ordained? That’s not fair! Are you saying that people who are dying can’t commit suicide by euthanasia and that they have to accept suffering? That’s not fair. Are you saying a woman has to carry her child to term and can’t abort?  Not fair especially since the man can usually walk away. Again, notice that most such claims of unfairness are rather egocentric: Something isn’t fair because I can’t do what I want. An adult attitude accepts that life is not always fair. An adult attitude DOES fight against true injustice. Not all of life’s inequities should be tolerated. But here too an adult and mature attitude distinguishes between matter of true justice and merely getting what I want. The battle for true justice usually involves the needs of others and the whole community not just personal or egocentric concerns.

So I offer you this analysis. I do not say everyone is equally afflicted. But the big picture looks pretty teenage if you ask me. We take a very long time to grow up in our culture and some never do. We seem stuck on teenage issues. You may not agree with my view, or you may want to add to it. Please use the comments and weigh in. I do not want to seem harsh in this analysis but it seems more and more clear to me that we’re stuck. Seeing it for what it is the first step to correcting the tendency.

….Until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.  14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.(Eph 4:13-16)

This brief video shows the usual sitcom scenario: parents (especially fathers) are stupid and kids are smart and that it’s OK for them to be sassy, and disrepsectful. Afterall it’s a teenage world.

Posted on

Vacation and the Kingdom

Summer is a time when the fortunate can get a little time to “vacate” (to get away). As you do consider this as an “Image for the Kingdom.”  The road to Emmaus shows us two disciples who encounter Jesus while on journey and, as the walk they talk with the Risen Lord who gives them insight into Scripture and the true meaning of all the events they have recently experienced (his crucifixion and death). Eventually they enter a house for a meal and come to recognize him in the breaking of the bread.

There is an image of the Kingdom at work here:  The image is “Walking, Talking and Dining.”  It’s also not a bad plan for vacation: lots of walking, talking and dining. Encounter the Kingdom on your vacation! Lot’s of walking, talking and dining (don’t forget to rest)! And remember that, as you do these things, the Lord walks, talks and dines  with you and helps unfold the meaning of your life and puts things in perspective. If you can get away, enjoy a foretaste of the Kingdom.

Just for fun: V-A-C-A-T-I-O-N  by Connie Francis:

Posted on

Protecting a Pregnant Woman’s Health

Have you ever been in a conversation with someone who accuses the Church of sentencing pregnant women to death because it doesn’t allow abortion? Or someone who is against abortion “except in the case of the mother’s health”?

There is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about the teaching, especially for those of us who aren’t medical doctors.

“Abortion is never permitted…Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”

This one-page article from Zenit clarifies the teaching and offers concrete examples, and I highly recommend reading it.

Even Catholics who have heard bits and pieces of the story of St. Gianna Beretta Molla might not understand why she is a saint.

At two months pregnant, she found out that she had a uterine fibroma. The doctors gave her three choices:

– have an abortion to end the pregnancy which was increasing the pain of the fibroma and later have it removed; have a hysterectomy to remove the entire uterus, including the fibroma and her unborn child; or have a myomectomy to remove just the fibroma.

Abortion is never permitted. A hysterectomy would have been permissible if it could not have been safely postponed until the unborn child was viable. Being a doctor herself, she knew that it was possible to carry the child to viability, so she chose a myomectomy to preserve the life of her child.

When it came time to deliver her child by C-section, she knew there would be complications. She was very clear that she wanted her child’s life preserved over her own, if the choice needed to be made. Though she made it through the pregnancy, she died a week later.

Gianna’s sainthood stems from her acceptance of suffering for the sake of her baby’s chance at life. Sadly, in 1973, the U.S. court said of abortion, “Medical judgment may be exercised in light of all factors–physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age–relevant to the wellbeing of the patient…All these factors may relate to health.” This practically means that if the mother is suffering in any way, a doctor can decide whether it would be “healthier” for her to kill her child.

We must continue to pray that we ourselves accept the suffering in each day (as Christ suffered for us) and that, like Gianna, pregnant mothers and medical doctors value human life over comfort.