Mother Church

I indicated in a comment yesterday that I would summarize my disappointment with the Catholic Church today. My point may take a couple of posts since we are in the final leg of "who gets in the NCAA basketball championship tournament" and I have 3 or 4 games to follow. But here goes.

Vatican2 was most attractive to me. Its message in all areas seem to be that the Church was for all---laity and clergy. Since then however there as been a growing and now dominant counter insurgency to restore the Church to an autocracy. The Church is not a democracy has been a shibboleh for Catholic apologists for centuries. Vatican2 tried to modify this a bit. But it now appears to no avail.

I posted recently on the Church as "mother." This has more meaning than many think. If the autocratic church is our mother, then the laity are the children. And in dealing with children we recognize the appropriateness of the "economy." That is, being under no obligation to be completely forthright. We allow, indeed encourage, parents to have their children believe in Santa, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, 'mean' germs---the list is endless. This is fine. Now, our mother, the Church, acts in the same way. As our "mother" it tells us what it thinks is good for the laity, even though what it teaches may be 'dressed up' a bit. I believe the leaders of the Church, the hierarchy, thinks it is being kind; and maybe it is, but such an attitude, well meaning as it may be, has a definite downside. Later I will deal in more detail with blatant superstition. But just an example here. The church's attitude to apparitions is judged basically on its belief in such apparitions as an aid to the spirituality of some members of the Church. This end justifies the means approach leads the Church in an awkward position. Events that even the very credulous find difficult to accept receive the imprimatur of the Church. O, I know the Church does not require me to believe the notorious fantasies of children, But it 'approves' belief in such. What does 'approve' mean. But I will deal with this later.

Now how do Catholics approach these fantasies. Well, my wife, a devoted life long Catholic, argues that the Catholics she has known over the decades simply regard these as 'fables' for the uneducated. And I think most bloggers do as well. I have brought this up before. For example, Padre Pio. And no blogger does more than ignore the issue or profess no interest. Indeed on the items I mentioned in my previous post, my wife goes considerably further than I do. Of course, she says, we tell kids the storyof Jonah and the Whale, but no one really believes the story is factual. So her attitude on Fatima . A child's make believe story; and she adds in 65 years of mass attendance in the thousands she has never heard a homily on Fatima, much less 'dancing suns.' The same with her Catholic college courses. The same with her clerical family and friends. She is just as hard, if not more so, than her non-catholic friends on Mary/Jesus in your cereal, tortillas, patio doors, in the clouds, in your shaving cream etc.

Now as to the abortion issue; the sine qua non of Catholic Christianity. My wife and I are both opposed to abortion, maybe for different reasons than the Church, but still opposed. Now it seems quite clear to me, my wife and most of the Catholics I know, that here the Church is playing "mother" again. It's just too complicated to explain why abortion is a bad choice; so we'll just call it murder, even if we are just talking about ONE cell. This 'murder' position is not accepted by any Catholic my wife and I have ever met. And polls show it is rejected by close to 90 per cent of American Catholics. So, the Church decides to send out "the hammer", no not Tom Delay, but Chaput to "rough up" the laity. Of course, the Church does not really believe that ALL abortions are murder as they claim. We see this when she says the women who solicit the murder should not even be punished legally. The church's effort to proclaim one cell as a 'person' as much as a five year old would create unbelievable confusion in our legal and all other systems. Just a small example: Is a women pregnant with a child allowed to count that cell as a dependant on her income tax? Obviously absurd!!

I think the point I am making here is quite clear.The Church sees herself as a "mother." And as such, is entitled to the mother's priviledge of 'dressing' up the truth for what she perceives as a good goal. So go ahead kids; if you see Mary in your porridge, if that makes you 'better', yah, I see Her too. Jack. Be back tomorrow.

Sixteen Reasons

A couple of years ago I came to "blogdom" with the main purpose of learning. One thing I wanted to learn was were there any Catholics of a reasonable and, yes, liberal bent. Well, there may be a few. I have not found them, despite a good faith effort. So I will change my profile to reflect my findings. For the time, I will list, not exhaustively, why I find the Catholic Church difficult to understand and follow.

I have difficulty being in a church that:

One. Teaches that over 99 percent of its members have no say in its beliefs and operations.

Two. Teaches being married is an impediment to a close relationship to God.

Three. Teaches having children is an impediment to a close relationship to God.

Four. Uses "double" talk. For example, John Paul II says authenticity of Shroud of Turin is to be decided by science then says it is the burial cloth of Jesus; makes gesture to accept evolution then insists all births are a special act of God, who constantly guides the evolutionary process; says abortion is murder but that the murderers should not be punished.

Five. Teaches the loss of one cell lost by spontaneous abortion or deliberate abortion is as tragic as the loss of a five year old.

Six. Claims that over 85 percent of Americans encourage the murder of children.

Seven. Claims that the President of the U.S. encourages the murdering of children.

Eight. Claims that voting for Democrats is voting to kill children.

Nine. Teaches that any male orgasm out side a women's vagina is a sin.

Ten. Holds people up as scholars when there only purpose is to advance Catholic doctrine. For example, George Weigel and Robert George.

Eleven. Believes judges in a democracy should decide cases not on the law but on the direction of the Church.

Twelve. Attacks homosexuals stridently, when 40 to 80 percent of Catholic clergy are most probably gay.

Thirteen. Endorses or acquiesces in the most blatant superstitions. Fatima, Lourdes, Padre Pio, crying statues etc.

Fourteen. Endorses corporal mortification; encouraging the faithbul to inflict physical pain on themselves as a method of acheiving a closer relationship to God.

Fifteen. Teaches that no decision maker in the Church should have any sexual thoughts.

Sixteen. Removes all social justice teachings except one; others are optional;a blatant effort to control thought and action in our country.

Enough for now.

Questions they won't answer!!

Yesday I posted on the abortion issue, as I have many times before. Some bloggers refuse to even discuss this issue on the grounds it is too devisive. I said yesterday the issue was not as divisive as many thought. Most people just do not try to think it through; they just rely on slogans---women's right to control their bodies vs. there is no right to kill children. Both are dreadful oversimplifications.

But today and in my next posts I want to post on 'where is this debate going?' Does the abortion issue have any solution?

The Supreme Court decision, Roe Vs Wade, is, to most, the center of controversy. We all have a good idea of the general scope of that ruling. The 'pro-life' groups want this ruling overturned. So what would such overturning mean?

Reversing Roe V. Wade would simply return the issue of abortion 'rights' to the states. It would not make abortion illegal in any sense in any state. And what would the various states do? It seems most probable that many states would increase restrictions on abortions, and indeed some might totally outlaw the practice. I think the latter---complete abolition of abortion is highly
unlikely. Most states, I think it is clear, would leave open some abortion loopholes, for example, life of the mother, rape, incest, possibly others.

Other states would take a far more permissive view and allow abortions in line with the current Roe V. Wade guidelines.

So assume there would be a split among the states, would not a person desiring an abortion simply go to another state if her state had strong restrictions. We saw this in prohibition. Some states were "dry." Others were "wet." So people just crossed state lines to get their liquor. I am quite sure the same would apply with abortions. If you had the money and wanted an abortion would you not just go to a state where abortions were allowed? But what about those not able to afford to leave the state. Two choices would emerge it seems quite clear. One is that 'pro-choice'
defenders would set up programs to help pay the expenses of those wanting an abortion but needing to leave the state. The second choice would be to return to the practice of getting an abortion from an unlicensed source--the so called "back alley" abortion.

Now, another issue arises. Assuming the women lived in a state that "prohibited" abortions. What would be the penalty if the women proceeded with the abortion anyway. The Catholic Church position I believe is that the women would not be subject to legal penalties. After 45 years in this debate I have never received an answer as to why the women would not face penalties. Yes, the doctor performing the procedure would be subject to penalty. This does seem to be a glaring contradiction. Some Catholics, to be sure, argued the women should be legally penalized as well. This group is at least consistent.

And what would the penalties be. If abortion is murder of a person sould not the penalty for both doctor and women be commensurate with other murder penalties?

Now, I know if any such questions are put to those pro-life people they will uaually say "Well this is a boring subject; we have been through this a thousand times." This, of course, is just a way to avoid hard answers, hard choices.

Chaput and the other Catholic bishops simply refuse to answer these questions. Indeed they will not even entertain such questions and I think all people seeking real answers and not just pushing an underlying agenda know why.

Finally, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT: Just reverse what I have posted above and ask the 'pro-choice' advocates what is their position on having an abortion, an hour before birth. I am quite certain they will not answer either.

So again, I say. Both 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' advocates are advancing agendas, that touch the abortion issue, to be sure, but go much deeper. Jack

Silent Majority

I was planning this week and next to record my comprehensive beliefs on abortion, contraception, sexual morality. But that makes for long blogs. So I will break down the parts into several separate blogs.

First, I want to challenge the belief that the abortion issue is so polarizing that hope for any agreement is futile. Instead I believe there IS an approximate consensus of the issue. If you look at the polling on this issue you consistently find three groups.

One. Those who favor the right to abortion under ALL circumstances. This positionn is held by about 20 percent of the population.

Two. Those opposed to abortion under all circumstances. This position is held by about 12 percent of the population.

Three. Those who believe the legality, the 'rightness', of abortion is based on the particular situation. This group represents about 70 percent of the population.

In this third group there are clearly differences as to where the line should be drawn, legally and morally. BUT THERE IS CONSESSUS THAT POSITIONS ONE AND TWO ARE NOT THE ANSWER. Yet the two extremes totally dominate the debate. Both "one and two" positions refuse to give an inch for fear, as I have posted before, that accepting even the slightest modification of their positions will lead to a 'slippery slope' of either government control of personal decisions or the killing of all the 'unborn.'

So my position is simply that of the great majority. Saying that one cell is just as much valued as my 5 year old grandson is rejected by the vast majority. And saying that a mother has a right to kill her child anytime before actual birth is also rejected.

If I get any comments they will come from, I am sure, groups one or two. The vast majority will be 'silent' as old "Tricky Dick" use to say. Jack

Miracles???

One of my favorite bloggers commented to me a while back that miracles were quite logical because certainly God could suspend or overturn the laws of physics in regard to Padre Pio if He so desired. Theoretically a good answer, but not very convincing.

Suppose my son-in-law and my boys are fixing my patio. They unload a 80 pund bag of dry cement mix and drop it on the patio to get it ready to pour, and the bag goes UP not DOWN. Could an almighty God cause this to happen? Well, yes, but what would be the consequences? Should we be cautious everytime we put something down because it might go up? So when I try to lay my fork down, should I fear it might fly up and hit me in the eye?

Throughout history millions of people I am sure have reported strange occurrences that defy the laws of physics. How should we approach such incidents? I won't go as far as Hume and say the possibility that the unusual event not occurring must be greater than its occurring. That is the possibility of the fork not going down must be more improbable than it going down. So we need a criterion to deal with strange events, such as a person being in two places at one time or a person defying gravity and floating in the air. The rule of thumb that has come forward in recent years is: Events claiming to void natural laws requireEXTRAORDINARY proof. So God might implant the image of Mary or Jesus in my tortilla or pancake. But I need the extraordinary proof. And the same goes for Padre Pio being in Moscow and Atlanta at the same time. I' m waiting for the evidence. If we do not follow this criterion then we should be afraid to go outside. As we go down the steps we might just fly up to the roof. Jack

Open Letter to Chaput

An Open Letter to Archbishop Carles J Chaput.

I not sure exactly how to refer to you---the most exalted, your lordship or what---so for the sake of informality I will just, as I want to be personal, refer to you as "Chubby."

I noticed you have recently answered a hypothetical question as to "Is the church obsessed with sex?" Your answer was something to the affect that since society is sex-mad you need to speak out against this obsession.

May I suggest that YOU are the one almost totally obsessed with sex. In a negative manner, yes, but still obsessed. I have hundreds of friends over the years and I am not aware of any who said at a young age "My life is going to be devoted to sex actions and thoughts."

Now, Chubby, on the other hand, you said at one time that for the rest of your ("natural"--quotes intended) life you would completely refrain from any sex activity, indeed any sex thoughts, because only by doing so can anyone hope to reach the closest union with God. This is clearly shown in the catholic catechism. This refraining from ANYTHING even remotely related to sex is most clear in that only those who do so can be given any sacred powers by the Almighty. And as you also know, sex MUST always be open to having children; that no male orgasm can occur outside of the women's vagina, that the universal practice of masturbation by young men is "gravely disordered", if not a sin; that all unmarried persons must repress or sublimate any sexual thought, much less sexual action. You also insist, with no evidence whatsoever, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a perpetual virgin, and you recognize that only the tiniest percentage of saints were married because I assume of their lust for sexual pleasure.

So you say 99.999 percent of the World's population is your probable inferior in that such a percentage probably reflects those who have, at least, sexual thoughts, if not sexual actions.

So my question to you, Chubby, is who has an obsession with sex?

Now as to controlling these vile sexual thoughts I would suspect you support our church's position on 'corporal mortification." As a person who has children what do you suggest as most effective in curbing the evil of sex actions and thoughts?

One, self flaggelation which the church does not condemn. As you know one of our earlier saints whipped himself over 70,000 times in three days. Would you recommend this?

Two. the wearing of chains and cords and ropes tightly binding body parts to the point of causing bleeding in some cases as Opus Dei recommends and whose founder is a saint.

Other painful or punishing acts such as sleeping on hard floors at least twice a week, denying yourself water on the hotest of days, as Our Lady praised the Fatima kids for doing. Do you have other suggestions? Remember they must be uncomfortable, and , at best, quite painful.

Leaving actual physical acts of inflicting pain on oneself, should I advise my sons to think of 'fecal matter' if they have a sexual thought as priests are so advised or should such thoughts arise while in the shower should they try as hard as they can to imagine worms crawling all over themselves, which some catholics recommend.

I know, Chubby, you are into heavy matters like how to make all people in our country follow your personal views (fears) on sex and almost all other matters, but any of your suggestions would be enlightening as you are a 'pastor' as well as the only legitimate voice in your area on moral matters as your good friend, the bishop of Scranton, Pa. has made quite clear. Jack

"Our Mother"

Off my "lists" for a couple of days, and back to religion/theology/philosophy.

I ,at times, tussle with a young catholic convert who loves the term "holy mother church." Now I have been around many catholics all my life and never heard that term except from yesterday's convert. Older catholics, cradle catholics, never use this term.

But there is some wisdom in the "holy mother church" moniker. The Catholic Church is huge--over a billion members. Included are some of the greatest minds in the world, the simplest minds, and, yes, the great middle group. And there's the rub.

This is the year of Darwin and his discovery of the fundamentals of evolution. The 'great' mind group has no trouble with this doctrine in relation to Catholicism. The 'simplest' really don't think about such things; but Oh, that middle group. They're read a few pages on evolution, listen to a few crank scientist ( apparently only two) and decide to make their own judgment. So the Church, with children of all levels of knowledge, and especially under B16, wants to satisfy every member to a degree. So what does the Church do. Well it affirms evolution as a scientific fact, but then to throw a few crumbs to the "I have an opinion, and it's just as good as yours based on my 2 pages of information" group the Church's representative says: "Each human person is the object of a singular creative act by God, who also inserts himself naturally in the homo sapiens species, and appears at the end as the culmination of an immense evolutionary process about which some secrets are now being discovered." WHAT???

In this century A.J. Ayer wrote "Language, Truth, and Logic". Basically it dealt with the three 'levels' of statements. First were statements of fact, that is things we can verify. E,G, Dallas is in the state of Texas. Second were 'emotive' statements, e,g, "I hate country music." Such emotive statements tell us something about what the speaker feels but not anything about country music. And third---look at the quote above beginning with "Each human person....."statements that are meaningless. 'Meaningless' does not mean false, nor true, but since such statements are not verifiable, they give us no real knowledge. They are just words; there is no way to test the statement's truth or falsity. Yes, we argue about them, but our arguments really go nowhere. The statement is not subject to any test that would show its truth or falsity.

So, maybe "mother church" is wise. Affirm what science shows and knows, but throw a meatless bone to the pompous, self important, group to keep them in the fold. The Church is our 'Mother' and sometimes we need to say yes to our 'youngest,' in knowledge and reason, ' children'.

Great Tenors

To continue a bit on my "lists." For about 55 years I have been particularly interest in tenor singing. I think I had a very large collection of recording of great tenors. I have listened to these year after year and in 2001 published my list of my favorites. Really more than my favorites, because I consulted every book I could find on these singers to check to see that others, much more qualified than I, might give me an insight I needed. One caveat: All of these men made recording in the "electrical" era. Many of them were also active in the "acoustic" era. But I do not include on my list singers who recorded ONLY in the acoustic era. Not in order of preference.

John McCormack
Tito Schipa
Richard Tauber
Jussi Bjoerling
Ferruccio Tagliavini
Carlo Bergonzi
Guiseppe de Stefano
Antonio Cortis
Frita Wunderlich

I heard in person Bjoerling,Tagliavini,Bergonzi,de Stefano

At Heavens Gate

I've had a great day!!! You know Newman and B16 said music was a way to touch the higher world. Today I was just fooling on the computer and found that some of my favorite music can be found on You/tube.

I usee to have about 5,000 records (LP's and Cd's and DVD's.) When I moved to my condo I had to get rid of most of them; just didn't have space. But playing on the computer I found many of my favorites. In my book, I mentioned 4 extended operatic excepts that I would HAVE to have on a desert island. I found video of all four.Here they are:

Act I of Madam Butterfly

Act III of La Boheme (outside the gates of Paris)

Wotan's farewell to Brunnhilde from Act III of "Valkyrie"

Final trio from R.Strauss's "Der Rosenkavalier"

Have to get back to looking.

Just a few of great works that move me as Newman and B16 say.

I hear these and others and say the catholic hierarchy is hardly worth my time.

B16 a dreadful Pope, but knows music. So I'd like him as a neighbor, but not as Pope!

Ten Best Movies. To Me.

In 1937, my mother began keeping a journal, not on a daily basis, but approximately weekly, about our family life and her other interests. She continued these until her death in 1984. These are now my possession. Some members of the family have suggested we publish them. But they would be a little general interest because she concentrated on family affairs and did very little on events of the day, such as the Second World War. Practically all members of our family, direct and extended, have read parts of these journals.

In 2001, I published a short book sumarizing my life and views. I did write a good deal about our family, but also wrote about my interests. I usually did this by making lists of what I thought were outstanding things I had read or heard about or concluded. On the lists I usually gave a reason for my preferences and choices. So I am going to rerun some of these lists for family members and friends that do not have access to the journals or the book. I will not give reasons for my choices, but just the lists.

First, a list of favorite movies. The first movie I saw was "The Little Colonel" in 1938. I can actually remember going to the movie, a vague memory to be sure, but still a little feel of the theater, the crowd, etc. I have been a fairly regular movie 'goer' since then. So here is my list of the best movies I have seen, with one update since the book. BTW not in order of preference.

Casablanca
Doctor Strangelove
E.T.
Psycho
Lonliness of the Long Distance Runner
The Third Man
The Last Picture Show
The Big Sleep
Bonnie and Clyde
Slumdog Milliionaire

My original list had about 8 others, but top tens is the tradition of lists.

My grandsons Jack,11 and Joe,5 Click on picture to enlarge