I think some who look at my blog wonder why I am Catholic. I am proud to be a member of this Church, BUT am extremely upset over two things: Its increasing 'clericalism' and its sick--yes sick--attitude on sexual matters. Let me deal with the sick sex syndrome in this post, and return later to the clericalism.
Let's take the Palin girl's pregnancy. We should be sorry for her. But the Church screams 'no sex and possible pregnancy' outside marriage. Now, I agree. Maybe for reasons slightly different than the Church, but still sexual intercourse should be confined to marriage.
And, as we all know, the Church gets way out of shape on abortion. I personally oppose abortion, but do not consider very early abortion murder. But, never mind, I do oppose abortion.
Now why is the Church sick? Miss Palin at the age of 17 became pregnant. I CAN FIND NO CHURCH OFFICIAL critisizing her in any way. Not even wicked old Archbishop Chaput. Indeed they will probably praise her. After all she didn't have an abortion!!
So my advice to teen age catholic girls. Get pregnant before you marry. But carry the child to term. The Church will lavish you with praise, and your name will much more likely to be put up for sainthood than the poor girl who remained a virgin until married. Sick, sick, sick, of course. But just check the Republican convention with its cadre of Catholic "right to lifers." I hope you get the point. I'm waiting for some Catholic prelate to announce this as the best chance of sainthood!!! Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are you SERIOUS? You are complaining that the Church is NOT getting on the case of a poor 17 year old girl who did something wrong? Are you seriously saying that you think, when Frank confessed to the priest the things he had done, that the priest should have said, "oh, what a horrible sinner you are"?!
ReplyDeleteThe Church should only ever publicly chastise someone for a sin if and when (1) the person or sin is very public and (2) it is clear that the person is unrepentant or doesn't believe it was a sin in the first place. And even then, I'm not sure the Church should chastize them publicly instead of in private.
The Palins are not going around claiming that Miss Palin did nothing wrong when she got pregnant; they are merely saying that they love her and will support her, which is as it should be. There is simply no good reason that I can think of for the Church to get on Miss Palin's case at this point.
God bless,
Anna
But Anna, come on be reasonable. The Church publicly attacks all those who support 'choice.'None I know have had abortions. Now which is worse? A says I think people should have the legal right to an early term abortion OR B actually has sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Please check your theology. An opinion vs. an act.
ReplyDeleteBTW when Frank has children; he instructs them in sex education, and a daughter becomes pregnant before marriage, I think that is legitimate political discourse if he runs for Vice-President of the U.S. I was not critisizing the girl, but Church hypocricy. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteAn act may be worse than an opinion, I'm with you there, but an opinion is the kind of thing that should be publicly corrected, so everyone knows, whereas actual individual sins should be dealt with in private, for the most part.
So if someone goes around publicly saying abortion or premarital sex is ok/good, then the Church should publicly correct them. But if someone actually has an abortion or premarital sex, the Church should counsel the person in private.
BTW when Frank has children; he instructs them in sex education, and a daughter becomes pregnant before marriage, I think that is legitimate political discourse if he runs for Vice-President of the U.S.
Seriously? If a VP candidate tried drugs as a teen, got a DUI when he was 21, or their kid has been to jail, does that disqualify them? Or is it the topic of legitimate political discourse? I mean, if we actually expected politicians to have been well-behaved youths, I'm not sure any would qualify. And if we expected their kids to be well-behaved, then we'd end up with a lot of childless candidates. :) It actually might be nice if we held politicians to moral standards, but I am in favor of not holding people's pasts against them too much, too. And kids have free will, so I think it's hard to draw any hard-and-fast conclusions about the parents based on the kids' behavior.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, you are always clear, BUT that first/second paragraph just plain lost me. So I say blacks should be discriminated against , but I don't. But my friend lynches a black, that is private???I just can't follow that.
ReplyDeleteSecond paragraph. If you are running for President these facts should be known. And if you favor teaching your children about sex, and they get pregnant, to me, that is relavant.
Mrs. Bush killed a high school friend by running a stop sign. She made no complaint about it being public.
How should the Church publicly correct for my pro-choice position? Newspaper ads? Homilies? Should the church correct all heretical opinions by all Americans? Anna that is what I call dangerous, unamerican, and blatantly theocratic. No wonder people suspect the church!!This is America, not Vatican City.
When I see what our Church could be and could do and then see people like Chaput degrade it to you have to let me tell you everything to believe, it gets discouraging. Jack
I agree with you on this one Jack.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget Sarah Palin preaches abstinence. The super conservative answer to birth control.
How's that working for you Ms. Alaska runner up?
Jack,
ReplyDeleteIf someone is publicly advocating for lynching blacks, then they need to be publicly disagreed with so that people don't start thinking it is ok to lynch blacks. But if someone is actually lynching blacks, they should first be approached in private and convinced to stop lynching blacks. If you deal with someone's sins in public, then you shame and humiliate them, which can be dangerous for their soul. Doing that should be saved as a last resort, for people who refuse to listen to private counsel and continue in their sin.
How is Bristol Palin's pregnancy relevant to her mother's ability to govern a country? At best, it could be used as anecdotal evidence for/against an educational policy about sex; and if you want to accept HER anecdotal evidence, then I think it would be hypocritical not to accept and analyse everyone else's anecdotal evidence as well. It makes much more sense to me to rely on good studies, if available.
Mrs. Bush killed a high school friend by running a stop sign. She made no complaint about it being public.
As far as I know, none of the Palins are complaining, either, about their family business being made public. But I can't think of any reason for the public to care about something like that except that it allows them to delight in the humiliation of a public figure. In fact, I was very impressed by Obama's call for families being off-limits. That was real classy of him.
As for accusations of a theocracy, come off it, Jack. It's not like I'm advocating that the Church seize control of the government and refuse to allow anyone else free speech. The Church has as much right as anyone else to preach the truth and publicly correct people's wrong opinions.
As for how this is done, I think it is wise for the Church to primarily use homilies, to use public bishop's statements when it deals with a public figure, and to primarily correct people when it is a Catholic speaking the error or when it is someone misrepresenting what the Church teaches. So, no, I don't really think the Church should waste its time trying to correct every single thing every single person ever says wrong. But the major errors that large amounts of people believe, and the things that get said that deal with representing the Church, those are areas where I think it is highly appropriate that the Church speak out.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, Kristol's pregnancy is important because it shows the Governor did not do a very good job in her sex advice and two the Governor's willingness to hold her daughter up to the public 'shame'(maybe not justified)for Mother Palin's gain is close to child abuse.
ReplyDeleteDo you approve of the Republicans picturing Paris Hilton as an empty celebrity?
But Anna, please, please, please are you saying Bishops condeming 'choice'politician to hell, publicly is alright. I thought you said they shouldn't. Anna you're making me dizzy!! Are not the Bishops trying to "shame" politicians who disagree with them!! And, Anna, lynching a person is more 'private' than talking about discriminating is mad:)!!
Of course Anna you are not recommending we become a theocracy, but I think the arrogant bishops are. To have letters from the bishop read in church urging people to vote Republican---a bit sick to me. And not even in line with catholic doctrine!!
Anna, please do not faint in extasy when Mother Palin speaks:) We still love you. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteAnna, Kristol's pregnancy is important because it shows the Governor did not do a very good job in her sex advice
You are so strange, Jack. Is what you are really saying, that Gov. Palin must be one of those anti-contraceptive types (like the Catholic Church), and that is why her daughter is pregnant? And because you disagree with being anti-contraceptive, then you think Palin is unqualified to be VP? Is that your argument?
Because, personally, I think both (1) that it is ridiculous to say that a teenage kid having unprotected sex is necessarily the parents fault and (2) that it is ridiculous to say that the quality or lack thereof of a parent's sex advice has any serious bearing whatsoever on how good of a VP they will be.
and two the Governor's willingness to hold her daughter up to the public 'shame'(maybe not justified)for Mother Palin's gain is close to child abuse.
Is this one of those double standards for men versus women thing? Joe Biden's daughter has been arrested for interfering with the police. Are you going to say that this is the result of Biden's bad advice to his daughter about the police? Are you going to say that Biden is close to child abuse for running for VP and exposing his daughter to public shame?
Obama, at least, showed some class in this: he said families should be off-limits. It is those of us in the public who make politicians' families into a big deal who ought to be ashamed, not the politicians for the simple act of choosing to be in politics.
Do you approve of the Republicans picturing Paris Hilton as an empty celebrity?
I don't really know much about Paris Hilton; I try to ignore most celebrity-related news. Is she related to a politician? I am more opposed to publicly revealing people's wrong-doings than I am to just simple following people around with the press, but I suspect that I would disapprove of a lot of the publicity regarding Hilton.
But Anna, please, please, please are you saying Bishops condeming 'choice'politician to hell, publicly is alright.
I'm not saying that it is ok for a bishop to say that anyone is going to hell, no. But it is ok for them to publicly say that abortion is a sin and that those politicians who support abortion are wrong.
Are not the Bishops trying to "shame" politicians who disagree with them!!
They *shouldn't* be. It is possible to correct people, even to correct them sternly, without trying to humiliate them in front of other people. For the most part, I think the bishops do a reasonable job of just trying to correct people, but there are probably times when they cross over the line and say things in an uncharitable manner.
And, Anna, lynching a person is more 'private' than talking about discriminating is mad:)!!
Why is that mad? Opinions are what belong in the sphere of public debate. Isn't that, after all, what public debate is for? To talk about what we believe? But airing people's sins as if the public is capable of knowing all the facts and judging them, or as if talking about it does any good... eh. If a politician is themselves sinning in some ongoing way that relates to his or her job, then I guess that could be a matter for public debate, to decide if we want impeachment or not. But otherwise, I don't see any useful purpose served.
I've heard priests give homilies which come pretty close to telling people to vote Republican (or at least to vote pro-life), although they are never explicit. I've also heard priests giving homilies which, without being explicit, clearly support voting Democrat. This isn't an attempt to be a theocracy; even with one party or the other in office, the Catholic Church is in no danger of taking over the government. Personally, I don't know why priests and bishops shouldn't have as much right as anyone else to tell people how they think people should vote. Although I respect them more when they just give a balanced presentation of the Church's positions on different issues, which should make it clear to most people that neither party is just right.
God bless,
Anna
I am curious, wondering what thoughts came to Anna when she first heard about Britney Spears' little sister's pregnancy? I sure that little voice in her head had a vastly different reaction!
ReplyDeleteAnna, sometimes you are on target. Other times I think you have been drinking:)
ReplyDeleteLet me start by saying the Church, the 'evangelicals' started the "culture wars" with the Republicans. These groups began the discussion of religion in politics.Now that they started it, they don't want to play.
Rather than a line by line rebuttal and since your folks started it let me put some questions to you. Some will be frank.
Do you believe God told George Bush to run for president?
Do you agree with Ronald Reagan in the "rapture"?
Do you believe Mrs. Reagan was correct in setting her husbands schedule based on astrology"
Do you believe JFK when he said his Church would not influence his decisions,but the constitution he swore to uphold?
Should the majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court follow the dictates of the Church as Wiegel suggests?
Do you agree with pastor Hagee that the Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon" and that catholics should forget that and join hands to elect Bush?
Do you believe this country should be defined as a "Christian" nation and favoritism given to Christian rites and symbols in public places and in public schools?
When your bishop tells you in essence to vote Republican do you think he speaks for God?
If the Church has more than one social teaching, why do the bishops never speak of the others as criteria for voting?
Do you believe parents should not try to teach their children morals; or is that useless as you seem to imply?
Had you ever heard of Gov. Palin before 3 weeks ago?
If you were Gov. Palin and you knew your daughter was having sex before marriage would you advise her to use 'protection.'
Is the Church going too far when it determines individual sex practices, such as withdrawal?
Do you recommend the use of Benzagaine (?) to protect against the sin of premature ejaculation, as recommended on Catholic answers?
Does a Catholic office holder owe primary responsibility to the Pope or his oath?
Is believing in early term abortion but not practicing it a sin?
Is not accepting the absolute truth of God as revealed to the Pope not a grave sin for all. After all God has not spoken directly on contraception or abortion, but he has told the Pope the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are true. What should we do with any politician that defies God?
In your opinion should any non-catholic be allowed to hold public office, thus defying God?
If you could have your way would any religion be legal in the U.S.except Catholicism? In trying to do this would you not be doing God's work? If your answer is "NO" why?
Should catholic doctrine be taught in public schools since God has guaranteed its truth through the Church?
Should only abstinence be taught in sex ed. classes or should such classes not be allowed?
Do you regard priests as the best instructors on how to raise children?
Since I cannot think of a single issue McCain has not changed his position on, is this because of "conversion" or political gain?
How do we know McCain's story of specific tortures is true?
Did you approve of the Republican attacks on Obama's pastor?
Is thinking I would like to kill a person worse than killing someone?
Help me! McCain official biography listed him as Episcopal, now he says Baptist, but no Baptist preacher will back him on this.Is there a possibility this change might be for political advantage?
Does McCain open admission of have extra-marital affairs make you think more of him?
This will not be a question, I just assume you thought the Palin girl is very holy because she did not use protection.
Do you believe the church's anti-gay position is somewhat incongruent in that it is clear the church has a disproportionate number of homosexuals in the priesthood?
Do you believe as do many African catholic leaders (and Opus dei) that female sexual mutilation is a good policy to lessen sex drives? This applies to boys as well.
Can you name any other religion that claims there is NO question that its teaching must be true?
Is not realizing that one MIGHT just be mistaken a mark necessary for a healthy democracy?
Other than Ashcroft can you name another American leader who is or was pentecostal?
Do not the Assemblies of God have the lowest level of formal education of any other religion?
What did you think in Gov. Palin's adress exhibited Christian charity?
If you saw her speech can you explain one proposal she advanced?
Do you believe in Alaska leaving the Union as her hsband does? Does not her religion teach the wife should be submissive to the husband? I believe you have said you so believe. What would that mean if she became president?
Do you believe it was good taste to have the boy who impregnated her daughter on the stage?
Just getting started. Let me make it CLEAR: I oppose Candidates having to swami to Hagee's AND bishops. America was founded on the idea religion was private and should not be a criterion for Public office. "Nor shall any religious test be required for holding public office"? Are the bishop's not going against this in principle? Should catholics be told, as they are, how to vote?
When I was young these issues were never brought up. Charles Percy, for example. The 'evangelical/catholic axis started us down the other road, which is the road to religious dominance. Not compatible to democracy, in my opinion.
Now Anna you are going to respond that I am not answering your comments. So, if you will please, respond to mine. BTW we may be closer (or further) from each other than we both think.
I have ordered Chaput's book but it is not available in bookstores now. All I know is that s catholic reviewer said Chaput argues 'this is a Christian nation'. Sorry, all others. Jack
Anna, BTW priest and bishops do have a right to express their political preferences in church. BUT not if they wish to retain tax exemption. The catholic church is partiularly duplicitous in this matter. Jack
ReplyDeleteSuddenly Sixty,
ReplyDeleteI am curious, wondering what thoughts came to Anna when she first heard about Britney Spears' little sister's pregnancy? I sure that little voice in her head had a vastly different reaction!
The very first time I heard that Britney Spears even had a little sister was yesterday or the day before when I caught some of Leno's program that my husband had on. Leno was cracking jokes, mostly regarding Palin, and made some comparison between her and the Spears girl. I didn't get it, so my husband explained. I think my reaction was to roll my eyes at Leno's joke, and probably thought it was too bad that Spears' sister had been having sex. Mostly, though, I think my internal reaction was that I hate the intrusive, obsessed media coverage of celebrities. The celebrities may enjoy it, and the media does it because people like to watch it, but I think it gets just plain unhealthy pretty quick.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, sometimes you are on target. Other times I think you have been drinking:)
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is, I don't drink. :) I mean, aside from the fact that I'm 9 months pregnant, I just have yet to find an alcoholic drink that I can stand the taste of. Maybe someday... :)
Do you believe God told George Bush to run for president?
I have no idea what God's opinion of Bush being president is, but I highly doubt that Bush actually knows how to hear God's voice to him personally. Does that answer that?
Do you agree with Ronald Reagan in the "rapture"?
I don't know what Reagan thinks of the Rapture. I do know that the Rapture, as a Christian belief, is incompatible with Catholic teaching, and I do not believe in the Rapture.
Do you believe Mrs. Reagan was correct in setting her husbands schedule based on astrology"
I think astrology is superstition at best and demonic at worst.
Do you believe JFK when he said his Church would not influence his decisions,but the constitution he swore to uphold?
Do I believe that he meant it? He probably did. I suspect he was a politician first, and following the constitution was more popular with the people than following the pope, so he put that first. Of course, this is the political cynicism in me talking; I don't know JFK well enough to know if he had any real integrity as a person or not.
Should the majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court follow the dictates of the Church as Wiegel suggests?
I don't know how far Wiegel goes in what he says. I do believe that the Supreme Court, regardless of their religion, should overturn Roe vs. Wade; it was not only immoral, but bad law.
Do you agree with pastor Hagee that the Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon" and that catholics should forget that and join hands to elect Bush?
Um, obviously I don't think the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon? I don't remember hearing of Hagee before. Bush isn't up for election anymore; we should not vote for him. ;) I certainly don't advocate Catholics leaving the Church to put their faith in any politician or political party.
Do you believe this country should be defined as a "Christian" nation and favoritism given to Christian rites and symbols in public places and in public schools?
I wouldn't mind if it was. It annoys me, in a very mild way, when people try to get rid of Christian references that have been around for awhile. But I don't know that there is any great need to show any favoritism to Christianity in things that are being built now.
When your bishop tells you in essence to vote Republican do you think he speaks for God?
No. To be sure, I haven't seen any bishops implying that I need to vote Republican, only priests and lay Catholics. (And I've seen priests and lay Catholics implying that I need to vote Democrat, too). I think all of these people are giving their personal judgments about the situation, and I feel entitled to my own judgment. There are some things in which I have a great respect for the non-binding judment of Church officials, but usually this is when a bunch of them, like a majority of Catholic bishops, agree on something. And they don't agree on any need to vote Republican.
If the Church has more than one social teaching, why do the bishops never speak of the others as criteria for voting?
They do. In the document Faithful Citizenship, which is the bishop's official voting guide, they talk about a variety of things. Or go to this website for a rundown on Church social teaching issues, beginning with immigration. (A topic Cardinal Mahony is outspoken on, I believe).
I think the problem with unbalanced voting guides is not so much with the bishops as with a few outspoken individual priests and with a large group of conservative lay Catholics. Especially those who are on the internet. They often portray voting as if you have no choice but to vote pro-life, i.e. Republican. But that's not really coming from the bishops, who do care about other things, at least most of the time, and who generally have more nuanced takes on voting.
Do you believe parents should not try to teach their children morals; or is that useless as you seem to imply?
Of course I think parents should teach their children morals. I just don't think it is possible for parents to MAKE their children behave morally. Sometimes, kids mess up. And maybe there are different attitudes or approaches that parents can take to make it less likely that a kid will mess up, but there is no guaranteed successful approach to make your kid do what you believe they ought to do, so kids' behavior is not automatically a reflection of a failure of the parent and should not be treated as such.
Had you ever heard of Gov. Palin before 3 weeks ago?
Yes. One blog that I have read sporadically happens to be by an Alaskan mom. She mentioned Palin on her blog months ago. I remember that the blogger was impressed by Palin, and I think she linked to an article online that talked about Palin keeping or planning to keep her Down's Syndrome child, which did impress me. (Have I mentioned that I'm cynical when it comes to politicians? A politician actually carrying through on something they said, when it affects them personally, that impresses me.)
If you were Gov. Palin and you knew your daughter was having sex before marriage would you advise her to use 'protection.'
Mmm. When a teenager I knew started having sex before marriage, I did not recommend that she use protection. I still wouldn't recommend using the pill or most other birth control, but these days I might recommend using a condom to minimize the chances of getting an STD. That's assuming I can't talk them out of having sex, of course. (Although if it was a teenage daughter living with me, I might think about grounding her until she earned my trust back.)
Is the Church going too far when it determines individual sex practices, such as withdrawal?
No. They all bear on the same principle, of not violating the connection between sex and babies that God intended the act to have.
Do you recommend the use of Benzagaine (?) to protect against the sin of premature ejaculation, as recommended on Catholic answers?
I'd never heard of Benzocaine. Does Catholic Answers really call premature ejaculation a sin? Because that is a ridiculous claim. Last time I checked, it wasn't a voluntary action, and if it isn't voluntary, it can't be a sin. Not that someone might not want to take Benzocaine anyways, but I don't think there would be any moral obligation to.
Does a Catholic office holder owe primary responsibility to the Pope or his oath?
Neither. A Catholic office holder owes primary responsibility to his conscience. It's hard for me to picture someone's conscience obligating him to violate his oath, but I suppose it could be. Given our reasonable popes, it's hard for me to picture someone's conscience obligating him to refuse the Pope, too, but I suppose it is hypothetically possible.
Is believing in early term abortion but not practicing it a sin?
In and of itself, I can't think why it would be. Mostly I think it is error, although it might be the sin of scandal to spread that error to others in defiance of the legitimate authority of the bishops.
Is not accepting the absolute truth of God as revealed to the Pope not a grave sin for all. After all God has not spoken directly on contraception or abortion, but he has told the Pope the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are true. What should we do with any politician that defies God?
A grave sin? Catholics (not everyone) have an obligation to try to form their beliefs according to Catholic dogma. That's not the same thing as saying that it is always and everywhere a sin (much less a grave sin) to not believe it. And it's not really the case that we believe that God “told” the Pope something; we just believe that he protected the Pope from speaking error when he made the ex cathedra declaration.
As for what we should do with a politician that defies God – not vote for him? I don't recall hearing of a politician that actually DEFIES God.
In your opinion should any non-catholic be allowed to hold public office, thus defying God?
You remember how, at some point during or after Vatican II, the Church declared that Protestants aren't necessarily guilty of the sin of heresy, even though some of what they believe is erroneous and technically classified as a heresy? That means that not being Catholic isn't the same thing as defying God. And yes, I think that non-Catholics should legally be allowed to hold public office.
If you could have your way would any religion be legal in the U.S.except Catholicism? In trying to do this would you not be doing God's work? If your answer is "NO" why?
Catholicism, all of Christianity, is fundamentally about a person's choice to turn away from themselves and towards God. We have free will. It is not even possible to force someone to love God and be holy. Any attempt to do so is just going to backfire. I firmly support our country's basic policy of freedom of religion, as long as that is not taken to mean freedom to do whatever you want, including immoral acts like rape and abortion.
Should catholic doctrine be taught in public schools since God has guaranteed its truth through the Church?
Hmm. If the public was ok with teaching Catholic doctrine in public schools, I would think that was an ok idea. (Although it gives the risk that parents will slack off on their own responsibilities in that field). Since a majority of the public would not be ok with teaching Catholic doctrine in public schools, I think the anger and fighting that would result would be a heck of a lot more damaging than any potential benefits, and thus a bad idea.
Should only abstinence be taught in sex ed. classes or should such classes not be allowed?
I don't really mind if public schools teach the biological side of sex, and I don't even really mind if they describe birth control methods to students. But (1) parents need to be able to opt their kids out of any and all sex ed; (2) I object to students being exposed to the attitude that says teenagers WILL have sex as if they have no control over themselves; (3) I object even more strongly to the idea of students being exposed to the attitude that they SHOULD have sex at their age; and (4) I object to the idea of students being told that homosexual sex, oral sex, sadomasochism, etc. is all perfectly good or that they should use birth control. I do think students should be encouraged not to have sex before they are ready to have babies.
Do you regard priests as the best instructors on how to raise children?
Not particularly. I think priests may have some valuable advice sometimes, and some of the time their contribution might be only in vague principles, without saying how to apply those principles. The best instructor I can think of on how to raise children is probably my dad.
Since I cannot think of a single issue McCain has not changed his position on, is this because of "conversion" or political gain?
I have no idea? I think the only issue that I really know what his position is, is immigration. As far as I can tell, any change his position went was because he tried to pass immigration reforms and couldn't, so now he thinks that it is a political reality that we need to focus on border control before people will deal with the other issues. I wouldn't exactly call that either conversion or political gain. In general, not knowing anything much about McCain on other issues, I would guess his position changes are some for political gain and some for other reasons.
How do we know McCain's story of specific tortures is true?
I haven't heard anyone doubting it, until you just said this. I would assume that if there were good reasons to doubt his story, journalists would be all over it and it would be quite a public debate.
Did you approve of the Republican attacks on Obama's pastor?
I don't know much about official Republican attacks, but many of the attacks that I saw from various people were WAY overboard, accusing Obama of hating America and nonsense like that. It might be possible to reasonably question Obama's judgment in listening to the pastor's views, but the attacks I happened to see did not generally strike me as reasonable. (And, really, I think a couple of extreme speeches by a pastor isn't necessarily a reason for Obama to abandon him; maybe if it was a habit by the pastor, then it would be worth it for Obama not to expose his kids to it, but if we all judged our pastors by their worst moments, we'd be in trouble.)
Is thinking I would like to kill a person worse than killing someone?
Worse? No. If you go with Jesus' speech about hating your brother, then it might be AS bad for you spiritually, but even so it does less objective damage, so it is better for the rest of the world if not for your soul.
Help me! McCain official biography listed him as Episcopal, now he says Baptist, but no Baptist preacher will back him on this.Is there a possibility this change might be for political advantage?
I don't have the faintest idea. All things are theoretically possible, but I'm not sure what political advantage it would be for him to be Baptist.
Does McCain open admission of have extra-marital affairs make you think more of him?
That he was honest is good; that he had extra-marital affairs is not. On balance? No, I don't think more of him for that.
This will not be a question, I just assume you thought the Palin girl is very holy because she did not use protection.
lol. Seriously? Why would I think a teenager is HOLY for not using protection when having pre-marital sex?
Do you believe the church's anti-gay position is somewhat incongruent in that it is clear the church has a disproportionate number of homosexuals in the priesthood?
That depends on what you mean by the “anti-gay position”. If you mean the Church's teaching that homosexual sex is a sin, I do not think that it is at all incongruent with having lots of gay priests. If you mean the Vatican (not the whole Church's) position that those with “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies should not be admitted to the priesthood, then I would call it not so much incongruous with having lots of gay priests as rather a sign that Americans haven't been thinking along the same lines as the Vatican announced.
Do you believe as do many African catholic leaders (and Opus dei) that female sexual mutilation is a good policy to lessen sex drives? This applies to boys as well.
I have NEVER heard of a modern African Catholic leader supporting female sexual mutilation. (Or of boys). In fact, the couple times that I remember the topic of mutilation being mentioned on John Allen's column, I'm pretty sure it was in the context of African leaders, bishop or lay, who were listing sexual mutilation as one of the offenses against human dignity that they wanted to change about African culture. As for Opus Dei, I don't really think they support female sexual mutilation, either, at least not as a whole movement. (There might be a few individuals in it who do support it, for all I know.)
Can you name any other religion that claims there is NO question that its teaching must be true?
Every other religion I can think of? Fundamentalist Christians usually have that anti-questioning attitude more than the Catholics I know; Muslims teach that its teaching must be true, as far as I know.
Is not realizing that one MIGHT just be mistaken a mark necessary for a healthy democracy?
Not necessarily? It is good for people to recognize the limits of what they really know, but it's also good for people to stand up for what they believe in, and that won't happen if they have to go around thinking they might be mistaken about everything.
Other than Ashcroft can you name another American leader who is or was pentecostal?
I couldn't have named Ashcroft. I don't really know the religious affiliations of most American leaders. I guess I know that Kerry and Biden are Catholic, and Palin, Bush, and Obama aren't, but that's about it.
Do not the Assemblies of God have the lowest level of formal education of any other religion?
I have no idea. My brief association with an AoG member did not give me that impression, but who knows?
What did you think in Gov. Palin's adress exhibited Christian charity?
She repeated something... something about a servant's heart, that might qualify. She said a lot of nice things about McCain – do you think that qualifies? ;)
If you saw her speech can you explain one proposal she advanced?
Well, her point that drilling for oil in America is better than doing nothing at all about our energy needs was a valid one. I remember reading someone online saying that we needed to not put all our eggs in one basket; that if we got some energy from oil, some from wind, some from solar, etc. that we would be less taxing on the environment. That made a lot of sense to me, so I was glad that Palin said that she and McCain would try to develop other domestic energy sources in addition to oil. Although I don't know how likely they are to follow-through on that, and I have reservations about drilling for more American oil than we already are, given that the main reason we haven't done so already is because of possible negative environmental effects. (Or so I understand).
Do you believe in Alaska leaving the Union as her hsband does? Does not her religion teach the wife should be submissive to the husband? I believe you have said you so believe. What would that mean if she became president?
No, I don't believe in Alaska leaving the Union. As for the wife being submissive question, that's interesting. I had never thought about what that might mean for a married woman president. She is, still, of course, bound by her conscience, so that she must do what she believes is right for the country. Depending on how much respect she has for her husband's opinion, that might sometimes mean she goes along with his advice. I don't think the obligation to be submissive means that a woman ever has to violate her conscience, though, so if she really believes he is morally wrong about something that he tells her to do, she must follow her conscience instead of him.
Do you believe it was good taste to have the boy who impregnated her daughter on the stage?
Heh, was he the one that was chewing gum? THAT was tasteless, albeit funny. Having him up there, though; given that he is engaged to Palin's daughter, I think it was appropriate that he be there. If her daughter was 30 instead of 17, and engaged to another 30-yo guy, I would not think it bad taste to have him stand with the family. Their youthful age does not change that.
Just getting started. Let me make it CLEAR: I oppose Candidates having to swami to Hagee's AND bishops. America was founded on the idea religion was private and should not be a criterion for Public office. "Nor shall any religious test be required for holding public office"? Are the bishop's not going against this in principle? Should catholics be told, as they are, how to vote?
America was not founded on the idea that religion was PRIVATE. It was founded on the idea that the government should not interfere with people's practice of their religion. (There's a difference between those two statements.) I do agree that religion should not be a criterion for public office. I do not see how the bishops are going against that idea. They're not advocating that you have to be Catholic to be in office; they're not even advocating that we only vote for Catholics; heck, when they urge people to vote pro-life, that sometimes means voting for non-Catholics over Catholics. So, no, I really don't think the bishops are violating any of our founding principles.
As for whether the bishops have any right to tell Catholics how to vote – I'd say they have some right to urge people to vote a particular way, when they see serious moral issues at stake, because it is their job to guard people's souls, and moral issues affect people's souls. However, given the complicated state of today's politics, I respect it more when the hierarchy limits itself to pointing out the whole variety of issues involved, and letting people make their own judgments, rather than just arguing for one side or the other.
When I was young these issues were never brought up. Charles Percy, for example. The 'evangelical/catholic axis started us down the other road, which is the road to religious dominance. Not compatible to democracy, in my opinion.
Eh. There have always been majorities imposing their will on minorities. The only difference that I can tell is that now, especially with the internet, minorities get their voices heard a lot more than they used to.
I have ordered Chaput's book but it is not available in bookstores now. All I know is that s catholic reviewer said Chaput argues 'this is a Christian nation'. Sorry, all others. Jack
Why would you order Chaput's book if you dislike him so much? And you read all those blogs that say things you hate – sometimes I just don't get you, Jack. :)
Israel is a Jewish nation, but it allows people of other religions to practice their religions. Is that wrong? Saudi Arabia *could* be an Islamic nation but still allow Christians to practice Christianity. Why can't America be a Christian nation that allows people to practice any religion they want?
Anna, BTW priest and bishops do have a right to express their political preferences in church. BUT not if they wish to retain tax exemption. The catholic church is partiularly duplicitous in this matter.
Yeah, I'm not sure I get the point behind requiring tax-exempt organizations not to express political preferences. But, on the whole, I think the Church hierarchy does a reasonable job of talking about issues instead of advocating for one party or the other. I've only seen exceptions a couple of times, and I've heard of the bishops getting on the cases of priests who pushed the limit too far. (Because the bishops, at least, know that they don't want to lose their tax-exempt status).
Whew! That was a lot of writing. :)
God bless,
Anna
Anna, just erased several paragraphs so here goes again. I put these questions ecause I am tired of being told on catholic blogs and by commenters "The Church sats so, so that's right." Kind of a conversation stopper. YOU HAVE NEVER USED THIS ARGUMENT, but I just wanted to check:)BTW I can't stand the taste of alchohol either, but if the taste is hidden, I will take a drink.
ReplyDeleteOn Roe v. Wade, the majority decided on precedent as it should have. That is not immoral. I think it is good law. Certainly you are not saying it should be decided on the Church's philosophy.
I am surprise you have not heard of Pastor Hagee of the "catholic church is the whore of babylon." McCain may a special trip to get his support, which Hagee gave. Hagee then went to NYC to meet with Donahoe on The Catholic League.They didn't settle their theology differences but decidedelecting McCain was more important. When McCain "found out" what Hagee had been calling the Church for years he turned down his support. Either McCain woke up or he thought he could get away with it.
Anna you really disturb me on the "Christian Nation " thing. Even the most Catholic, conservative, right wing justice (except for possibly Thomas) would faint to hear you say what you did.As a nation, our govenment has no religious preferences. An atheist is just as much an American as anyone.Scalia, maybe the most conservative justice on the Court says "Religion has nothing to do with my decisions." A devout Catholic, as you know. What you suggest is the road to theocracy and even fascism to a degree.A democracy is not just what the majority wants, but also protection for the minority.I hate to say this Anna but what you are suggesting, and some catholics and fundamentalists, is nothing short of mob rule.
You don't give parents much play.Mother Palin opposes sex education in the public schools. She said 'I'll do it." Well great job,sister. I think almost 90 percent of my ideals come from my parents. No, I didn't always come through, but your appraoch seems a bit cavalier.
You say you haven't seen any bishops involve in this election. Hell, Anna, they're falling over each other like people in a theatre fire to Endorse McCain. Of course not by name. Ya, the Church has other social justice issues. Alice has been very active in this for 20 years. Not ONE lordship to my knowledge has even mentioned any other teaching other than abortion this campaign year!! And yess clerics have a right to their opinion but the law clearly states they cannot use a charitable front to meddle in partisan politics. Hell, this isn't Franco Spain. BTW the exemption of billions upon billions of church property from taxation makes an atheist pay higher taxes. Take that!!
Anna, please send me the Church's Official Manual On Approved Sex Positions. Written I believe by a celibate 98 year old monk.
Benzacaine is an ointment that deadens feeling. Under the imprimatur of Two west coast bishops they say premature ejactulation is bad,because you can control it by exercises I will not describe or by applying Benzacaine to the male to deaden the feeling. Now, Anna, please, admit that is funny.
On the Immaculate Conception and Mary Assumption---this is why some people distrust catholics. Of course, WE know that God does not directly tell the Pope what to say. BUT saying he can saying anything, but God won't let him make a mistake is a difference without any real meaning.Oh, I know only faith and morals. But who determines that. The Pope, of course.
No, I know of no mainline religion that says there is no chance we could error. Oral Roberts, but that ain't mainline.
An interesting point here. Most evangelicals say one is not saved unless they know they are? Catholic, quite rightly, reject this. Catholic piety says it is
quite normal to have doubts at time. Remember Mother Teresa. She was just expressing Catholic doctrine.
Office holders owe responsibility to their oaths to uphold the laws.In writing laws they may consider their conscience. But not just the church's direction alone. That would be an impeachable offense. Newman, asked to toast the Pope. "I toast the Pope, but to my conscience first."
I ordered Chaput's book, because I want to see what he says. I hope he is not attacking the American system, substituting catholic doctrine.
On politicians defying God. Would you vote for a kind, loving, generous, caring etc. atheist over a child molesting, hateful, cruel. stingy theist like Palin. Joke. But please don't say neither one.
You scare me on the abortion thing. It IS legal in our country at this time. Should we teach our children to burn abortion clincs. Seems like that is the implication of what you are saying. I don't like the law so I am free to physical interfere with those who follow the law. Hmmm.
I assume you know McCain made propaganda tapes for the North Vietnamese when he was a POW. The democrats won't use them. And you know Mother Palin's minister said "God damn, America." You know she said "So Sambo beat the bitch" after Obama defeated Hillary.But, of course, the Republicans are the party of family values. So excuse, me.
Anna, stop listening to Paul Harvey!!The idea of the first amendment on religion was that religion should not interfere with government.
The African bishops I've heard about say ' we don't want to interfer with local customs.' Wink,Wink.
Hey, our exchanges are theolocical. But we are not 22. Has Frank written you anything about a calendar? Alice and I have a mild disagreement. I told Frank to get your opinion. If you have a chance give him and ME advice. If you will, I will burn down an abortion clinic of your choosing.:) You can put the advice on either Frank or mine blog or both. Thanks
Jack,
ReplyDeleteTo be sure, I do think that if the Church has really said something, then that is a good reason for taking it to be true. But Church doctrine is one thing, and what comes out of the mouths of every priest, bishop, or Catholic blogger is another matter entirely.
On Roe v. Wade, the majority decided on precedent as it should have. That is not immoral. I think it is good law. Certainly you are not saying it should be decided on the Church's philosophy.
Roe vs. Wade wasn't decided on precedent. It was bad law. I don't expect the Supreme Court to rule a particular way just because someone in the Church says so, but I do believe that morality has its role to play in their decisions.
A few quotes about RvW being bad law:
"One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Laurence H. Tribe, "The Supreme Court, 1972 Term–Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law," 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973).
"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather." Edward Lazarus, (former clerk to Harry Blackmun) "The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell's Nomination Only Underlined Them," FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002
"Blackmun's [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference." William Saletan, "Unbecoming Justice Blackmun," Legal Affairs, May/June 2005.
"What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it. . . . At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking." John Hart Ely, "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade," 82 Yale Law Journal 920, 935-937 (1973).
Anna you really disturb me on the "Christian Nation " thing.
I think freedom of religion is generally compatible having a dominant state religion, as long as some safeguards are in place. For instance, I can understand that Saudi Arabians want to have Islam as the state religion there. I don't object to that part; what I do object to is that they don't want to allow people to practice Christianity. I don't mind if they require women to wear burkhas, since that is a moral issue for them. I do mind if they require men or women to attend services at a mosque or pray five times a day or not go to a Mass, since that is an issue of worship rather than morals. As far as I know, Judaism is the state religion of Israel, but they allow people to practice any religion. In the same way, I would be ok with Christianity being the official religion of the U.S.A., if that meant we legislated according to Christian morals and used Christian symbols and references in our public works. But I would not be ok with America in any way requiring people to be Christians or legislating how people worship or pray or requiring them to be Christian to be in office.
So many places used to have, what are they called, "blue book laws"? Where businesses were required to be closed on Sundays, to observe the Sabbath. The ten commandments on display in a courthouse, the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, these are all ways in which we can see that we have always been a Christian nation, even while we have always respected everyone's rights to practice their own religion. (Heck, if you look closely, I think you will see that the nation has always been dominated by Protestants, which narrows it down even more than just 'Christianity').
The only reason people are beginning to think that Christianity should have no relevance to the nation or politics at all is that secularism/atheism is growing into the dominant philosophy/religion of America. When I look at the struggles over religion's role in politics, it usually seems to me, not that the Christians are trying to politically force others into Christianity (or trying to force Christianity into politics), but that the secularists are trying to force the Christians out of politics.
Oh, and our country is NOT founded on the idea that religion should stay out of politics; it is founded on the idea that politics should stay out of religion.
You don't give parents much play.Mother Palin opposes sex education in the public schools. She said 'I'll do it." Well great job,sister. I think almost 90 percent of my ideals come from my parents. No, I didn't always come through, but your appraoch seems a bit cavalier.
Do you really think that sex education in the public schools is a pressing political issue?
There's this book called Hold Onto Your Kids by Gordon Neufeld and Gabor Mate, that outlines how our culture has radically shifted so that kids are oriented towards their peers instead of their parents, and how this leads to all sorts of things, one of them being an increase in teen sexuality.
Not that it exactly excuses Palin, but it's hard for me to hold it very much against her that she isn't able to counter the effects of an entire culture plus a kid's free will.
You say you haven't seen any bishops involve in this election. Hell, Anna, they're falling over each other like people in a theatre fire to Endorse McCain. Of course not by name.
Got any links that show what you mean?
Not ONE lordship to my knowledge has even mentioned any other teaching other than abortion this campaign year!!
I think putting out an entire website with articles about all the different issues counts as the bishops mentioning them, personally.
Here.
Here.
From here, a quote:
"Leonel Martinez: Thank you, Cardinal Mahony, for providing us with this valuable forum. During this election year, many in the church believe that Catholics cannot, in good conscience, vote for an elected official who supports abortion rights, gay marriage or stem-cell research. Others say Catholic voters must weigh all the issues and cast their ballots accordingly. What does the church teach on this issue?
CardinalMahony: Leonel: a really great question! Let's face it: there is no candidate, nor will there ever be one, who supports our Catholic beliefs 100%. Therefore, we must study the issues, be informed on Catholic teaching, and vote for the one we believe will do the most good following the most of our values and principles. A great booklet to help: Faithful Discipleship, published by the USCCB. You can find it on line."
Here.
This one puts an emphasis on right to life, but mentions other issues as well.
Here.
Back in January.
Anna, please send me the Church's Official Manual On Approved Sex Positions. Written I believe by a celibate 98 year old monk.
It's not the position that matters; it's the act. Oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, contraception, and withdrawal are all condemned because they all take away the sacred potential for creating life that God intends for sex to have.
Under the imprimatur of Two west coast bishops they say premature ejactulation is bad,because you can control it by exercises I will not describe or by applying Benzacaine to the male to deaden the feeling. Now, Anna, please, admit that is funny.
It's not funny, it's gross. But you said it was on Catholic Answers, yes? I didn't see any reference when searching - can you find it?
On politicians defying God. Would you vote for a kind, loving, generous, caring etc. atheist over a child molesting, hateful, cruel. stingy theist like Palin. Joke. But please don't say neither one.
Generally speaking, I don't vote for politicians based on how nice I think they are, but based on what overall impact I think they and their policies would have on the nation. If I don't like either of the major party candidates (which has been the case for all the presidential elections I've voted in so far), I will vote third party.
Should we teach our children to burn abortion clincs. Seems like that is the implication of what you are saying. I don't like the law so I am free to physical interfere with those who follow the law. Hmmm.
How the heck do you get out of what I say, that we should burn abortion clinics? Or that I ever implied physical interference of any sort is the solution?
The African bishops I've heard about say ' we don't want to interfer with local customs.' Wink,Wink.
Well, I haven't heard of them saying any such thing.
I told Frank I didn't know what he should do about the calendar. God made bodies beautiful, and being a prude about it isn't the solution. But modesty is a virtue and our culture likes to make people out to be just sex objects, and this is wrong. Calendars featuring attractive people is, to me, right on the border between a good and a bad, so I don't really have a clue what he should do.
God bless,
Anna
On Roe v Wade, I am very familiar with those quotes. But go further. These people are talking about technical legal issues. I have just finished a lengthy discussion on another blog on this. The dispute is over what reasons were used to make the decision. NONE of the writers Iknow are suggesting its basic effect be overturned. Roberts, Alito,for example have not commented on this, There have been opportunities to overturn its effect. This has Not been done. Indeed even Scalia's only objection is that it should be a state matter, which most admit would not make much difference.
ReplyDeleteAnna, I have named three bishops that say it would be wrong to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Egan, Slattery, and the bishop of Philadelphia and others I cannot name. You name me One bishop that has said the opposite. Token bows to the other social justice issues only.
Anna I am most disturbed by your statement that Christianity should be the dominant religion of the U.S., but other religions should be tolerated . Anna, that is not you. That would violate everything we stand for. I beg you reconsider.
I believe we are just playing games on the govt/religion issue. It is clear to me, and has always been upheld by our courts, that they should not be involved with each other. Chicken-egg controversy. But the final point is they do not go hand in hand.
Anna, again your acceptance of "a dominant state religion." I can't believe you believe that.
Anna, on the benzagaine thing, I read it but can't find it. Catholic Answers is hard to 'decode' but it was there. You will just have to trust my honesty.
Anna, you may think I am losing my mind, but on an official state religion.....the first amendment establishment clause? Please anna please are you just tormenting me?
Anna, please, I just cannot and will not believe my which candidate would you prefer question? Your answer completely implies, to me, that you think clergy sexual abuse of boys is okay. It's just one of those things.
Anna, please let me go on to Frank's problem. You have discussed this with Frank? Thank you.
My position. The calendar is not bad, but it puts the wrong emphasis on education. College educations is not about football(I love it!!) or beautiful bodies. Kind of sends the wrong message.
Alice. Frank is very fine looking. So why not. It won't hurt anything.
To try and end on a light note: Emily called me the other night at 11:30 and said she wanted Frank to do what was right but"she loved him and wanted the best for him." I almost had heart attack and went to look for shotgun the next day since I own no guns.
I ask your opinion because you are younger, I am old. Just give me your opinion on the 'taste' issue. The rules are very strict for the pictures so I'm not worried about porn. Is it bad taste to have your body photographed for others to stare at? Of course, I'm cheating by saying "stare." But please give us an opinion. Jack. Sometimes I think Frank and Derr got bad breaks for looking as good as they do. Just a little lecture from an old man who had that temptation once, but not near to the degree these boys have. Thanks.
Jack,
ReplyDeleteJust a quick answer on the calendar thing. It isn't *necessarily* bad taste to have your body photographed to be looked at. I mean, Michelangelo and the Greeks did extremely realistic sculptures of bodies; we stare at those, and I certainly don't think that's bad taste. :) On the other hand, a picture doesn't have to be technically pornographic to be in bad taste. Think about some of the Victoria Secret's commercials; they're not technically porn, which is why they are allowed to be shown on public TV, but they are pretty dang close to it.
So... it depends on the judgement of the photographer, what the guys are wearing, how they pose them, things like that. It might be perfectly alright; it might not.
Looking good is a temptation for the boys, yes. But at the same time, both of them have been put down a lot by their father, and some of that is related to their bodies. So something like this calendar - it might add to his temptation, it might make him see himself as just a good-looking body and nothing more, BUT it might make him appreciate himself a little more and help him see that other people appreciate something about him too. So... I don't know. It could go either way.
I wouldn't worry much about it distracting him from his education unless you see him spending less time studying or something like that.
I told him to pray about it, to ask God what he should do, and then listen for an answer.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, I give you a "B" in philosophy/science but an "A" in advice to old men and the lovelorn young (Frank). You lay out the issues perfectly. I have seen the rules for the pictures and there is no chance for anything really sexy other than bare chests and feet. I know I should just say "let Frank decide" but as he has said "I'm not too good at that, at least in the past." We will let you know.
ReplyDeleteShould I be worried about Emily's statement 'she loves him.' Alice says that is just girl talk they get from the movies etc. Would you be worried? I know both have been good with each other to this point.Maybe I'm getting too old to advise young men this age. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't mind having Christianity as a sort of official or dominant religion, (as long as safeguards were in place to protect the political rights of other religions) but I certainly don't think we need to have it be that way.
Roe vs Wade is bad law. The judges made up a right to abortion that wasn't there. Sure, anyone who is pro-choice is going to support having a right to abortion, even if they agree that RvW is bad law. But the point is that people already let their personal convictions change how they do law; reversing RvW would only put things back to how they were before.
Honestly, Jack, I'd be pretty surprised if Emily did NOT say she was in love with Frank at this point, given how long she's been going out with him. Girls that don't fall in love with their boyfriends within a few months frequently break up with them. I would guess he probably loves her too, although I don't know if he'd say so yet or not.
It shouldn't really change anything; it just means that they are continuing to grow closer to each other. Let them keep dating, keep up your rule about no girls upstairs (and any other rules to "keep them being good"), and see where the relationship goes. Either they will eventually break up, or they will continue to grow closer and end up engaged down the road.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, let's stay off changing the bill of rights. Okay? I have never heard any one seriously advocate abolishing the first amendment. We could discuss whether soething violates that amendment, of course. Alright?
ReplyDeleteFrank reads your ideas like the bible. I've told him, it's gonna have to be up to him. I print them out for him. I think he has taken them to Emily to discuss.
Anna, every time I see his back and butt and the other unmentionable places his father scared him by beating, I swear I will kill his father if I ever see him. I'll work on this. Jack
Okay, Anna, I won't kill him; I just like to let both of these boys beat the hell out of him. I will never say this in front of them. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteI think I like the first amendment just fine, I'm with you there. :)
I know what you mean about Frank's father. It's hard for me to believe that any guy would actually do those kinds of things to his son, or talk to his son (Derr) the way he has. I have to remind myself that the dad, too, is a beloved child of God, gone astray though he has. You know, I read this book just recently, called Left to Tell, by Immaculee Iligabiza. (She survived the Rwandan genocide, and she talks about finding God and forgiving her family's killers.) I definitely recommend it. Maybe all of you could read it - the boys, too, so that they *don't* beat the hell out of their father. They (and you) will be much happier if you can forgive the guy, though he doesn't make it easy.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, I will get the book. The reason the old man did not beat the hell out of Derr, I think, is because Derr is older and would have fought back. I know you don't like what Frank did that caused the beatings; that is why I sometimes get so mad at the Church. I don't think they should make this so bad, because it is universal. But forget that: He didn't deserve to be beaten. Anna, hold on to your chair. I believe the Church is really moderating on this.
ReplyDeleteYou made my day on the first amendment. Jack