Blog Guide

Waiting for the big games. So a few words on "blogs," the greatest invention since---well, I won't say it. But it starts with s and ends with x and has 3 letters.

Blog clubs. A lot of blogs are kind of like college fraternities and sororities in Mississippi. They have their own "members", they will let others come by, but its really better to be in the club. A good example of this is a catholic blog run by a real nice lady. She's liberal, so you can say about anything. But if her "members" don't like you and you comment on this lady's blog, she immediately breaks into poetry. I ask her to use Kilmer's "Trees" once, but she was sharp enough to realize the old saying (Myabe Chesterton) that the God who made the trees also made the fool who made the poems about trees. Still a fine blog. There are several other "club blogs.' I suspect the members have a real, and I mean REAL close relationship. They like to talk about getting drunk together.

Episcopal blogs. There are a whole bunch, but you can never get on. You have to sign affadavits, know codes, and wait for an anwer which NEVER comes. No joke. But I think I know the answer----there are no Episcopal/Anglicans left in America. The archbishop of Canterbury puts them up to act like there are still LIVING Anglicans here.

Catholic blogs. Well, at least, they're always home. Just be sure not to comment on one of these that you DON"T think a single cell is the same as a million cell organism. If you do, you could be threatened by drowning in Lourdes water.

Worst blog I've ever seen. Well, I won't give the name but it is run by an Anglican priest in England. This blog greets you by the blog owner saying something like 'I'm a nasty bastard, so don't cross me.' This blog has collected some of the foulest mouth, vicious people all over the world. The favorite word is various forms of the "F" word. A friend of my went on, by invitation I might add, and was met with salacious comments, and comments from a regular on the size of his sexual organ, just as examples. Then the blog reverts to lachrymose(Ya, I know I can't spell this) comments about friends of the blog who are ill or something. This is a VERY popular blog here in America, by the way, but be ready, measure the size of your organ ( not musical) if you're male and watch out!!!

Blogs ARE great. But this little guide could come in handy. Jack

Words--are these all the same?

Still keeping one eye on basketball, but what to know if any looker sees any difference in these words. Every time I try to find views about abortion, I get so many "words" thrown at me. So are their differences between:

human being
life
baby
homo sapiens
child
person
embryo
human life
personhood
cell
the unborn (new, but very popular)
innocent human life vs. guilty human life
human
human rights
cell rights
and others

Every time I get in a debate we spend half the time on the right words. How 'bout some help. These seem to be different things to me, but others think they all mean the same thing. Jack

liberal catholic staying cool-----HELP!!!!!!!

Hey, "official catholics staying cool." I am still trying to reach you; but no luck. Respond here and give me help.

The above is a new blog which really looks great. But as a computer "nerd"( I mean idiot) I cannot find how to comment on this new blog. You can find it by putting liberal catholic staying cool in the google search box.

Help me liberal catholic staying cool. I can find your blog and have submitted several queries, but I don't think they get through. Jack

Opportunities for Benny!!!

Laying off Benny's silly comment about condoms, let's look at the hierarchy's mounting attack on the laity. Our dioscesan magazine had a veiled, but vicious attack on marriage. Of course this is the hierarchy effort to assert their spiritual and holiness superiority. Benny said something the other day about overemphasizing the role of the laity. And other efforts at the local level to 'discipline' members and on the national front to call 90 percent of Americans supporters of killing children.

And the trip to Cameroon: the future of Catholicism many claim. And why does the Church push the 'African/Southern' strategy. Lots of prospects in Cameroon. Life expectancy, 50 years; infant mortality, 76 per 1,000 live births (one of the highest in the world); literacy, overall 63 percent, women about 50 percent. You see a perfect place for old style Catholicism to make roots.

Dress up Benny in one of his great new costumes, send him to an underdeveloped, poverty stricken country dressed in his latest Vegas costume, promising 'magic'---well if that's not a winner for the old guard Catholics, what is?

The Catholic "Church" big dance!

Ina couple of hours we will know about the big basketball "dance." That is who will be in the 65 team field for the NCAA national basketball championship. In the meantime I am amusing myself with the Catholic dance over "what or who is church?". I say amusing because at least a lot of Catholic bloggers are trying to wiggle themselves out of the 'web' that is the battle between clergy and laity.

I am not saying the attitude toward sex is the only difference between laity and hierarchy, but it is certainly one of the central issues. And the struggle is amusing because both sides---laity and hierarchy---frantically try to act like the attitude toward SEX is only a minor issue, if an issue at all.

Simply, but obviously, to any objective observer the issue may be framed as follows:

Hierarchy. Sex is only an acceptable as a means to an end. It cannot be an end in itself. It must be justified by some end other than personal/mutual gratification.

Laity. Sex is a natural human drive that needs no justification as an end in itself.

Clergy are celibate and believe only by abstaining from all forms of sex can a person clear his way to total holiness.

Laity are usually not celibate in reality or desire and reject the idea that celibacy is the 'fast track' to holiness.

Taking only one example, abortion. The hierarchy---the official teachers of the church---say abortion in ALL circumstances is tantamount to murder. The laity generally opposes abortion but says there are exceptions. Poll after poll confirms this.

But the hierarchy has thrown down the gauntlet. Accept our point of view or you are not a true Catholic. The hierarchy has placed all its chips and its future on its ability to make the laity accept their position. If the hierarchy gets the laity 'back in line' on this one issue, they have won. The hierarchy, then, is the savior of the Church, the controller of the thought of millions, and a powerful secular political influence, and their individual power is secure. If they fail, the game is over. The laity is Church.

The issue is quite simple, no matter how the bloggers squirm to reframe the conflict. Most bloggers try to avoid the issue above by claiming it is boring or not relavent. I say they just don't like to face facts. Jack

Big Dance!!!

Still not good at posting pictures. So I have to do another post, when I wanted just one. The "Big Dance" is getting close so I will give free tips here. Now, my favorite teams are Oklahoma State, Oklahoma University, Tulsa University, Kentucky, Marquette. OR any team that can beat my least favorite teams, which are: UCLA, Conneticut, Florida, Louisville.

I may have just two favorites in the tourney. Marquette---a long shot because of injury to key player--- and Oklahoma University---saging a bit at the end of the season.

Tulsa is a long shot to even get in Tournament; and Oklahoma State must win Wednesday against Iowa State to get in the tournament in my opinion. (Leave out "humble")

Looking way ahead, I think there are three teams a cut above the others. Connecticut,Pittsburg, North Carolina.

Yes, I live in Oklahoma which is raw meat for eastern slobs, pardon me, eastern SNOBS.

Notice player of the year below!!!!!! Jack

PLAYER OF THE YEAR!!!!

PLAYER OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!!

Sex, Contraception, Abortion

As I wind down this series of posts on the Church I probably have two more to go. In this post I want to concentrate on the Church's attitude toward sex and sexual activity.

The three BIG ones in the Church's thinking on sex can be sum up under three headings: Sexual activity, Contraception, and Abortion. I believe these three are really only ONE question or choice: Sex can be an end in itself OR Sex is only a means to an end. The latter of course is the Church's position.

Sexual activity. The official position of the church is that sex can only be a means to another end.
All sex much be open to procreation. Sex without at least this possibility is disordered behavior and sinful. Take masturbation for example. Disordered behavior and a sin, the Church says, despite its almost universal practice. And why is this a sin. Because it most usually does not lead to procreation. And the same with any male orgasm outside the vagina. Supposedly this is based on Natural Law. And what is natural law and where can we find its 'laws'. Well this highly amorphous concept is easy to find. Paul6 said the Church has the final authority as to what natural law requires. In this area of sex then natural law need not be sought---the Church will simply tell you where to find it (the Church) and what it requires( the Church will tell you). A bit circular---the Church tells us what Natural Law is and Natural Law is what the Church says. Certainly I do not recommend masturbation as the main interest of young men; but neither do I think spending hours in cold showers imagining worms crawling all over you is really helpful or wise advice to the 17 year old boy. Many Catholics seem to think that is good advice. The Church is more helpful on ejaculations outside the vagina. Catholic Answers recommends the use of benzacaine on the male sexual organ to prevent accidents, by deadening feeling.

On contraception, the Church is very opposed to what they call "The Contraceptive Mentality." All sexual activity must be oppen to procreation, as I noted. Any one who tries to prevent possible procreation by "artificial" means is violating the natural law and the church teaching based on the natural law. In place of "artificial" contraception the Church offers Natural Family Planning. NFP is quite simple, the Church says. Keep a calendar of fertile periods by keeping records of periods and temperatures, allow for a margin or error avoid intercourse during these fertile periods and you will not sin. This is expecially effective for a 20 year old just married couple on their wedding night. See, there is nothing "artificial," blocking true love, in NFP!!!

Now the real biggie____ABORTION. I oppose abortion in most cases, but have real trouble with the Church's position. The Church says as soon as the spem touches the egg a PERSON, just like all the persons we have known, is there. That one cell, with no body, no organs, no nerves, no brain cells is just the same as the Pope. Well, the Church says so. And what about the millions or billions of spontaneous abortions every year. Each of those is the death of a person just like your 3 year old. Certainly the Church MUST have an extensive program and be doing extensive research on preventing women's menstrual process to save the lives of these millions/billions of killed persons each year. When I think how many real persons my wife and I may have caused to be killed over against the two children we have-----well, maybe on balance the Church is right!!! You see, I think the Church's position may be well meaning but is not honest. The Church believes it is too complicated to explain when abortion IS bad, as almost all of us believe it is at some stage. So not to confuse anybody, the Church says abortion is bad from the time of intercourse. Very simple; easy to explain. The problem is, no one, or a very small minority (about 10 percent) believes the Church on this issue. Of course, the majority could be wrong is the reply I get, and such reply has the same merit as the majority could be right.

In sum, then, I think it is clear that the Church's age long hostility to sex is still here. Hidden by natural law, murdering children and the other thoughts. And, of course, it HAS to be noticed that this Church who lays down the rules on sex allows ONLY unmarried, celibate, males who have sworn never to have sexual activity, physical or mentally to have any say on 'sex rules.'
I suspect for reasons which I will delicately call "self-serving." But I have covered that before. Jack

A Leap So Great

I said in an earlier post that the Catholic Church encourages the most egregious forms of superstition.

This does not mean that the majority of Catholics accept such beliefs. The members of my family and friends who are Catholic pay little attention to Padre Pio, for example, and if pressed show great skepticism to his alleged 'marvels.' And the same with Lourdes and Fatima. The reasonably well educated catholics I know never mention these shrines and have no interest in visiting these sites.

We know today that young children are most likely to have a fantasy world, which charming for their age, is not to be taken seriously. I think most Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the McMartin case and other cases where young children have accused innocent adults of the most shocking actions, including sexual molestation. Any fair analysis of the evidence, absent adult pressure, sees these cases as blackmarks on the American judicial system.

If a child runs to us asserting he just saw a flying pig, we laugh and understand the age of the child. But in the Church young children and early adolescents find a welcoming hearer to apparitions of Holy Figures. Certainly, the great amount of research and understanding of these childish 'sightings.' has clearly established the relative frequency of such childish events. But the Church, with no evidence that would satisfy the questions of even the moderately credulous is perfectly willing to give its approval to these fabulous tales.

But even adults claim such miraculous happenings. The stigmatics, none of whom were tested to a degree satisfactory to establish even a low problability of their 'gifts,' abound in Catholic legend. And Padre Pio, the Church's Rasputin, is working his way into some Catholic mainline thinking. I noticed at a mass at my church two weeks ago a Catholic Charities plead for money for the Padre Pio fund, I believe it was called.

Yes, I am aware that the Church rejects some of these incredible maifestations of 'miraculous' happenings. But the criterion is very low for rejection. For example, we have no evidence whatsoever that Lucia "saw" anything at Fatima. The Church simply looks for evidence that what she reported was NOT true; that being almost logically impossible, the 'sighting' is 'accepted.'

Let me add to this post something I was not going to post about until I read today some information about the Pope's upcoming visit to Africa. In the two countries he is visiting the Church is proud to point to the number of minor seminarians in each country. The two countries have a very low education level and a very low economic level, indeed two of the poorest countries in the world. And as I read about the Church's future resting in these improverished and lower educated countries of the 'South' as they are euphemistically referred to, I wonder if this Church emphasis on such countries is not well calculated. Go to countries where economic distress is alarming and where the people are so poorly educated---go to these countries to find new fields for those willing to believe, not just the Creeds, but the elaborate superstitous dressing of the faith. After all, are not children and the uneducated, our least knowledgable, the most likely to accept superstition. And one wonders what type of supervision is in place along with what is taught to these young boys by their celibate priests in these minor seminaries? Is there not a danger here in countries with legal standards so far below the developed countries?

Yes, religion does require, as Kierkegaard said, a leap of faith. Many of us are willing to make that leap. But a transcontinental leap is probably too much for most.

?????????????

My wife works two days a week at a needlepoint store. One of a co-workers, a Presbyetrian, for the last two years had skipped lunch for Lent. She didn't this year because she felt it put pressure on the other ladies because they hated to ask her to take her turn in going out to get lunch and bringing it back since she was not eating lunch.

At mass yesterday , the young priest told the congregation that a man had told him he gave up soft-drinks for Lent and the man had become grumpy an ill-tempered with his family. The priest praised the man saying what we give up during Lent should "hurt."

I guessed I missed the point as did my wife.