So my parents and I spent 3 weeks in Ireland, we were gone from July 13th - Aug. 3rd. I had a wonderful time, and it's nice when you cousins actually do stuff with you. Granted the cousin that did most of the entertaining was the cousin that was out visiting with his family last October and was in essence returning the favor, but I have a feeling he would have done it anyway.
We spent most of the time visiting family, and as my dad got a standard shift car, I couldn't drive. I don't blame him as it was cheaper, but he doesn't like to drive at night, so that can put a damper on things despite it not getting dark until 10:30pm. He also didn't want me driving on the roads over there, which maybe I wouldn't have been so damn freaked out if my father didn't have me thinking my side of the car was going to be in a wall every time he pulled over. I had to laugh when my cousin drove over there and didn't budge when the on coming traffic came. Long story short despite not seeing the Guinness factory like I wanted to, again my dad won't drive to Dublin, and any relatives that live in Dublin were away, but if I had the car I might have ventured it, oh well, I will just have to add that to the plans for a future visit.
My family always asks me would you live in Ireland, and I almost always say, no, I'd need a city, considering where I come from. Though I have thought about this question since returning and maybe it's just the memories of drinking in my cousin's living room and laughing and having a good time, but I'd venture to say I would try it. I don't know how long I'd last living over there, but at least it's an English speaking country.
Last time I was over in Ireland I was in my last year at Seton Hall, so I got asked the what are you going to do question, I don't remember how I answered it, but I was a religion major after all, so that probably stopped any further questions. This time I had to deal with the "what do you do question?" and I usually answered teacher,babysitter/nanny. Which is what I was doing, I stayed away from the oh the kids are going to school full time in September so I don't know what I'll be doing answer. I felt bad as I was in essence lying to my family, but I wasn't, however I noticed that most of then could really care less. I am for the most part "more educated" or shall I say further educated than my cousins. I speak of the older cousins as the younger ones and those my age have probably had a University education, though I could be mistaken.
My cousins Brendan and PJ are a carpenter and a mechanic and I noticed that despite the schedules they keep, Brendan who works for himself has added on 2 weekend jobs and PJ has a repair shop on the side are happy and their families are happy. They make time to go out with each other, granted it's for a few pints, but it got me thinking. I began to think it would be nice to have what they have, a family that doesn't seem to judge them. I mean so I have a BA in Religion, what am I going to do with it, who knows. Everyone is so relaxed and laid back over there, there was no rushing out the door to get somewhere, no one trying to better the other. Maybe it's because of where my dad's family is from in Mayo, and that's where we spent most of our time, but even in Galway City they didn't seem to be rushed, granted Dublin might be a bit different, but it's still not the NYC area.
For so long I've sought that youth ministry, religion teacher, church ministry job and I've watched it slip away or seen it go to someone else, all the while I'm thinking "there I go again being too conservative for the Church." There is something wrong with that statement, I'm not too conservative for the Church, just some of her members and you know what I'm tired of that. I'm tired of being the one who follows the Church, who knows she will be judged more harshly by God than those that didn't know. I want to work for the Church but find that most of those positions are taken by "liberals." When my parish got our new deacon, whom I met once and haven't seen since then, I saw myself thinking, oh there goes my shot at this position, and then it hit me, he's the one who should be doing these jobs, he's the one about to be ordained. It's nice that the laity can work for the Church, but after a while, there gets to be too many people running the Church.
Now I find myself accepting a new retail job at a camera store, and it seems like a great opportunity for me. As I can work for a year or 2 while going to school for my Master of Arts in Teaching from a local school, I am leaning towards Montclair State, but one never knows. I've found myself the more I try to pull away from teaching the more I get sucked into it. I enjoy teaching the CCD classes that I have, and I like the idea of summers off and other such days. I realize that had I actually gotten an education major I probably would still at the 1st school I worked at. All that is missing from me teaching religion is how to make a lesson plan and discipline. I know I'm a softy, I don't like yelling at people. I will tell a child to behave if I see them misbehaving and maybe that's what I'm called to do, to teach the little ones.
This blog turned away from Ireland fairly quickly and into something else. I'm off to go look at local colleges and Post Baccalaureate education degrees. :)
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
It's probably the beer talking...
or the fact that I don't feel like going to be yet. There's honestly nothing I want to blog about, unless I get on the topic of the transitional deacon my parish has received. He is AWESOME! He was officially introduced to the parish over the weekend and he preached every Mass. My parents come from the 8:30am Mass (I usually go to the 12pm) and my mom said "I don't want to tell you, but you'll like him." Now when Mom says that I'm going to like the guy, she's usually right.
Let me tell you, I nearly cried tears of joy during his homily. A young man with a few years on myself came out swinging, talking about No Salvation Outside the Church, which threw me a little, but we do have the fullness of truth. He compared the questions asked about Jesus and His "brothers" to people asking about the Church and what they don't like about the Church. The homily was a tad heavy with theology, but I was in love. He spoke about Mary's perpetual virginity, how abortion is an intrinsic moral evil (he won me over with that one, and I had an ear to ear grin and tears in my eyes)and how brothers in the Gospel meant cousin or friend, and how Faith without works is dead.
It was refreshing to hear that from the pulpit. Another thing that struck me was his "conservative" behavior. I use conservative, but it's probably more traditional than conservative. Our new deacon studied at the North American College in Rome and it's easy to see his influences. I know he's a good 20 if not more years younger than our permanent deacons, so to see him kneel at the altar vs. stand next to the priest for the Consecration was a change. I also noticed he received Communion on his tongue. He also sings which is a change from our two priests who don't. When this young man is ordained at the end of August, I pray that he keeps his fiery spirit and runs with it. I hear rumors of him returning to Rome for his Masters for two years and then returning to our parish, however those are just rumors, but it would be a blessing for our parish to have him.
It was a refreshing change from hearing people on the liturgy committee complain about how conservative things are. When our new pastor first arrived he commented on how "more conservative" our liturgies were compared to what he was used too. I don't want to know what went on at his old parish, but I see nothing wrong with our liturgies, as they are from the actual rubrics, which is how it is supposed to be.
I just don't like being lumped into the category of conservative because I like Mass the way it's supposed to be said. I like that our Tabernacle is back in the middle of the altar. Yes it's at the back altar, but it's the focal point of the Church as it's supposed to be. For years it was off to the side and people didn't even know it was there. It was at the "Sacred Heart altar" but it was on the side and most people weren't respectful of it. So our last pastor took the initiative from Rome and moved it back. Someone was complaining that the laity can't go near the Tabernacle any more and blah blah blah. Guess what, the laity shouldn't be up and near the Tabernacle, as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, I an very conscious of how special a ministry it is. I know that I am not worthy to distribute Communion to people, but God has let me, Jesus lets us eat Him, enter into our skanky bodies. I'm not afraid to go near the tabernacle, but we need to remember that the Blessed Sacrament is in there and that we should take care when going to it and in all honesty why would the laity being going near the Tabernacle. I am a woman in the Church and I do not feel powerless because I am a woman, rather I try to model my life after the great disciple, Mary, the Mother of Jesus.
I do not want to be or feel the need for woman priests, and it pisses me off when I hear priests talk about how one day maybe women will be at the altar. NO, as our new Deacon so nicely preached and said, in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. It is no longer Father whatever, but Jesus back there, hence why he says and we hear, this is MY body... this is MY blood. Jesus was a man, I am a woman I can not be in persona Christi. Rather I'd love to find a good Catholic man to marry and give birth to sons who enter the priesthood. I often laugh when I hear Bishop Serratelli say, pray for vocations, give us one of the boys of the parish, give us one of your sons, I often thing to myself find me a Catholic man to marry and you can have all the sons you want. ;)
Oh well, I think our new deacon will be a wonderful addition to our parish and I wish him all the best for his upcoming ordination and subsequent priesthood. He will be one of the good guys, he sticks me as the type who would learn how to say a Latin Mass, which would be interesting. :)
Let me tell you, I nearly cried tears of joy during his homily. A young man with a few years on myself came out swinging, talking about No Salvation Outside the Church, which threw me a little, but we do have the fullness of truth. He compared the questions asked about Jesus and His "brothers" to people asking about the Church and what they don't like about the Church. The homily was a tad heavy with theology, but I was in love. He spoke about Mary's perpetual virginity, how abortion is an intrinsic moral evil (he won me over with that one, and I had an ear to ear grin and tears in my eyes)and how brothers in the Gospel meant cousin or friend, and how Faith without works is dead.
It was refreshing to hear that from the pulpit. Another thing that struck me was his "conservative" behavior. I use conservative, but it's probably more traditional than conservative. Our new deacon studied at the North American College in Rome and it's easy to see his influences. I know he's a good 20 if not more years younger than our permanent deacons, so to see him kneel at the altar vs. stand next to the priest for the Consecration was a change. I also noticed he received Communion on his tongue. He also sings which is a change from our two priests who don't. When this young man is ordained at the end of August, I pray that he keeps his fiery spirit and runs with it. I hear rumors of him returning to Rome for his Masters for two years and then returning to our parish, however those are just rumors, but it would be a blessing for our parish to have him.
It was a refreshing change from hearing people on the liturgy committee complain about how conservative things are. When our new pastor first arrived he commented on how "more conservative" our liturgies were compared to what he was used too. I don't want to know what went on at his old parish, but I see nothing wrong with our liturgies, as they are from the actual rubrics, which is how it is supposed to be.
I just don't like being lumped into the category of conservative because I like Mass the way it's supposed to be said. I like that our Tabernacle is back in the middle of the altar. Yes it's at the back altar, but it's the focal point of the Church as it's supposed to be. For years it was off to the side and people didn't even know it was there. It was at the "Sacred Heart altar" but it was on the side and most people weren't respectful of it. So our last pastor took the initiative from Rome and moved it back. Someone was complaining that the laity can't go near the Tabernacle any more and blah blah blah. Guess what, the laity shouldn't be up and near the Tabernacle, as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, I an very conscious of how special a ministry it is. I know that I am not worthy to distribute Communion to people, but God has let me, Jesus lets us eat Him, enter into our skanky bodies. I'm not afraid to go near the tabernacle, but we need to remember that the Blessed Sacrament is in there and that we should take care when going to it and in all honesty why would the laity being going near the Tabernacle. I am a woman in the Church and I do not feel powerless because I am a woman, rather I try to model my life after the great disciple, Mary, the Mother of Jesus.
I do not want to be or feel the need for woman priests, and it pisses me off when I hear priests talk about how one day maybe women will be at the altar. NO, as our new Deacon so nicely preached and said, in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. It is no longer Father whatever, but Jesus back there, hence why he says and we hear, this is MY body... this is MY blood. Jesus was a man, I am a woman I can not be in persona Christi. Rather I'd love to find a good Catholic man to marry and give birth to sons who enter the priesthood. I often laugh when I hear Bishop Serratelli say, pray for vocations, give us one of the boys of the parish, give us one of your sons, I often thing to myself find me a Catholic man to marry and you can have all the sons you want. ;)
Oh well, I think our new deacon will be a wonderful addition to our parish and I wish him all the best for his upcoming ordination and subsequent priesthood. He will be one of the good guys, he sticks me as the type who would learn how to say a Latin Mass, which would be interesting. :)
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Back but not for long
I spent the past two week teaching at my parish's "Summer Religious Education Program." I love being able to pass on the faith, but it breaks my heart that a 4 year old knows the "rules" of being Catholic better than most of the 6th graders that I thought.
All that has been on the news over here is that Michael Jackson died, mind you Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett and now Billy Mays all died too, but MJ is all over the news. I get that he was a great influence to music and the MTV generation, but I'm not in tears over the man's passing. He was strange to say the least. He needs prayers has he did live a strange and troubled life. Farrah seemed to live a normal life as did McMahon, and well Billy Mays despite his infomercial personality seemed to a private and decent man. May they all rest on peace.
In roughly 2 weeks my parents and I will be off to Ireland for 3 weeks, that means the next two weeks will be spent shopping for stuff, like transformers, clothes (there's apparently a heat wave over there), and other such stuff. It's also the 4th of July over here, which means BBQs and fireworks, if your town isn't too cheap to have them this year.
Oh well that's where I've been and will be. ;)
All that has been on the news over here is that Michael Jackson died, mind you Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett and now Billy Mays all died too, but MJ is all over the news. I get that he was a great influence to music and the MTV generation, but I'm not in tears over the man's passing. He was strange to say the least. He needs prayers has he did live a strange and troubled life. Farrah seemed to live a normal life as did McMahon, and well Billy Mays despite his infomercial personality seemed to a private and decent man. May they all rest on peace.
In roughly 2 weeks my parents and I will be off to Ireland for 3 weeks, that means the next two weeks will be spent shopping for stuff, like transformers, clothes (there's apparently a heat wave over there), and other such stuff. It's also the 4th of July over here, which means BBQs and fireworks, if your town isn't too cheap to have them this year.
Oh well that's where I've been and will be. ;)
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Where oh where have I been...
Life has been a bit crazy for the past few weeks, meaning I'm not on my normal/regular schedule for babysitting. My mom's sister-in-law (who lives in Ireland) died unexpectedly last week from a massive brain hemorrhage so that threw everything off. I helped my dad with babysitting my niece and nephew. Kerri and Sean, my niece and nephew, loved it as they always love when I do stuff with them. Mom got back from Ireland this evening. She started talking to me about the funeral and the Mass and other things on the way home and I half paid attention.
It's only 5 weeks before I join my parents for a 3 week vacation in Ireland and my brother, sis-in-law and the kids are joining us for the last week. This week should be just as crazy as I'm babysitting tomorrow and Tuesday and on Wednesday I take my Nurse Entrance Exam aka the SAT for nursing school. Then it's the parish feast, which means I spend most of my time, more so this year than in the past, with the youth ministry Ice Cream booth. "The Feast" is the parish's biggest fundraiser with carnival rides, booths and of course the food, the food is mostly home cooked or as close to it as possible. A lot of work goes into it including the time spent behind the tables in the booths.
So I might go missing for a while again, but I'm working on it. ;)
It's only 5 weeks before I join my parents for a 3 week vacation in Ireland and my brother, sis-in-law and the kids are joining us for the last week. This week should be just as crazy as I'm babysitting tomorrow and Tuesday and on Wednesday I take my Nurse Entrance Exam aka the SAT for nursing school. Then it's the parish feast, which means I spend most of my time, more so this year than in the past, with the youth ministry Ice Cream booth. "The Feast" is the parish's biggest fundraiser with carnival rides, booths and of course the food, the food is mostly home cooked or as close to it as possible. A lot of work goes into it including the time spent behind the tables in the booths.
So I might go missing for a while again, but I'm working on it. ;)
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Life in General
It's been a while since I've blogged about myself, that's because not much has been going on. I've been babysitting and am now looking for work on a part time basis as I'm thinking of going to nursing school in September or late August depending on when the program starts.
I'm confused, perplexed and in essence disappointed that I haven't been able to get job in Church ministry. I'm tired of being too Catholic and conservative for the Catholic church and school. Seriously, I'm upholding the teachings of the Church, going to Mass like I'm supposed to and I get shafted for someone who's more ecumenical.
I'm torn between Masters of Theology studies and nursing studies. It's too late for most programs for Theology and I'm very picky about where I would go. Only a traditional Catholic school, by that I mean the likes of Stubenville or Christendom, will do for me. I'm sure I'd fair well in another Catholic school, but I don't know if I'm up for it. I dealt with Seton Hall for the 4.5 years that I was there and I'm honestly getting tired of having to defend the Church to the Church. I don't know the harder I try to get away from ministry the faster I get pulled back by Cornerstone Retreats, teaching CCD over the summer or something else.
Sometimes I wish life would just lay itself out the way you planned after college, but alas that is not how it works.
I'm confused, perplexed and in essence disappointed that I haven't been able to get job in Church ministry. I'm tired of being too Catholic and conservative for the Catholic church and school. Seriously, I'm upholding the teachings of the Church, going to Mass like I'm supposed to and I get shafted for someone who's more ecumenical.
I'm torn between Masters of Theology studies and nursing studies. It's too late for most programs for Theology and I'm very picky about where I would go. Only a traditional Catholic school, by that I mean the likes of Stubenville or Christendom, will do for me. I'm sure I'd fair well in another Catholic school, but I don't know if I'm up for it. I dealt with Seton Hall for the 4.5 years that I was there and I'm honestly getting tired of having to defend the Church to the Church. I don't know the harder I try to get away from ministry the faster I get pulled back by Cornerstone Retreats, teaching CCD over the summer or something else.
Sometimes I wish life would just lay itself out the way you planned after college, but alas that is not how it works.
Bishop Serratelli's weekly column from 05/14/2009
Bishop Serratelli kept his political but not political streak going this week, it really makes me wonder what next week's will be on, I doubt it will be on Notre Dame, but one never knows.
Prayer: Power Beyond Politics
Storefront churches, stone cathedrals, synagogues, temples and mosques break the secular landscape of the United States. Their presence stands as a witness to the voices of believers raised to God in prayer. In fact, recent polls claim that 92 percent of Americans believe in God or an Ultimate Being and nearly six out of ten Americans pray every day. (Jacqueline L. Salmom, “Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds,” Washington Post, June 24, 2008).
Traveling to the Holy Land aboard his Alitalia charter jet on May 8, Pope Benedict XVI spoke on the power of prayer. He said, “As believers, Christians are convinced of the power of prayer. It opens the world to God, and we are convinced that God listens and can work in history. And I think that, if millions of believers pray, this is truly a force that can have an influence and advance the cause of peace.”
In the United States, this belief in the power of prayer gave birth to a national day of prayer. In 1952, President Harry Truman first established it. Then, President Reagan signed a resolution in 1988 to make the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer each year. Every president thereafter has done the same. This year, President Obama proclaimed May 7 as our National Day of Prayer. He called “upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love.” (I don’t know how I feel about this considering yes I do want our military to come home from Iraq but at what cost to the people over there. I don’t get how people can say Iraq was better under Saddam, I just don’t get it. I don’t get the feeling that Obama is a huge fan of our troops, don’t ask me why it’s just a gut feeling.)
Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush used to mark the day with a White House observance. Under previous administrations, the White House hosted an interfaith service. Protestant, Catholic and Jewish leaders were invited for an event at the East Room. This year, the President chose not to have such an event. (Not too much of a surprise, so what type of event did he have for National Day of Prayer, no prayer at all?)
Some people found this decision an occasion to praise the President for distancing himself from our National Day of Prayer. The prayer service at the White House offends some because it is a public act of religion. (Isn’t Mass or any type of religious service a “public act of religion:, is my saying a Rosary in a park, or across the street from an abortion mill (clinic gives the idea of them actually doing something good, mill sounds more appropriate in my crazy brain.) a “public act of religion, how about when I make the Sign of the Cross when I walk or drive in front of a Catholic church, isn’t that also a “public act of religion.” I know I’m being petty about it, but really it makes me think.) It disturbs others because it is not inclusive enough. (Inclusive of what, the major religions are there, there was no mention of Islam, but that could have been an oversight. Do people want Satanic worship and Wicca included, really come on, people can be so strange.) On the other hand, there were those who expressed disappointment that the President did not seize the opportunity to unite people of so many different faiths in a common act acknowledging our need for help from God.
Lost somewhere in the cross fires of the discussion was another decision that the President made. (Bishop seems to refer to our President as President more than President Obama, I just happened to notice that, I wonder why.) Near the end of Bush's second term, members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Madison. They petitioned the judge to put an end to the custom of prayer proclamations issued by presidents and governors. They view the day as disenfranchising the millions of Americans who do not believe in God or do not pray. Obviously, they do not follow the polls about belief and religion in America. (Nice little zinger in there at the end, considering Bishop Serratelli mentions said poll at the beginning of his column.)
The Obama administration has asked U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb to dismiss the case against proclaiming public days of prayer. As the President said in his proclamation, “Throughout our Nation's history, Americans have come together in moments of great challenge and uncertainty to humble themselves in prayer.” His words ring true at this moment of challenge and crisis for our country. (Obama’s doing something good and right, wow! He, Obama, might as well have tossed in the whole there are no atheists in fox holes when speaking of great challenges not to mention all the prayers being said for a change of heart for him.)
The real discontent with our National Day of Prayer is much wider than opposition to a public display of religion. The day is too cozy a relationship between Church and State for those who wish to put a chasm between the two. (From what I’ve heard the separation of Church and State was to keep the State out of the Church not the other way around, but I wasn’t around when this started and don’t know if it’s true, but I like the sound of it.) In a word, the opposition to the day springs from the desire to silence the voice of religiously committed individuals from the public discussions of major issues.
Since 1978, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of 12,000 atheists and agnostics, has been working to keep Church and State separate. Nontract #6 of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. states: “ Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics (honestly, just say Catholics as if one follows Christ’s teachings one would realize that one should be conservative on certain issues.) would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. (I always find this one amusing as all should also include the pre-born but obviously it does not as they mention “women’s rights” which if the fancy way of saying, “allow women to suffer as they let someone kill their baby”) History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.”
Such a strong characterization of religious people fails to see that, when it comes to Catholics and the Catholic approach to common good, Catholics offer the wisdom of a 2,000 year tradition of ethical reflection. When speaking to the issues of public concern, Catholics bring their contribution based on the natural law. The natural law knows no religious boundaries. It is open to all. It is gross misstatement of truth to label arguments based on reason as simply the religious convictions of the narrow-minded.
We cannot let some make religion today the dividing social issue that race was in America in the past. We are religiously more diverse today than in the last century. Presently there are more American Muslims than there are American Episcopalians, Jews or Presbyterians. Los Angeles, with more than three hundred temples, has welcomed the largest variety of Buddhists anywhere.
With such religious diversity, a National Day of Prayer is a blessing for our country. Prayer places our country in the hands of the God “who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). Prayer that opens our hearts to God also opens our hearts to others, whatever their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Prayer is truly a power beyond politics. (It does, and I need to start saying some more prayers, not just for our President and country but for other things as well, such as good holy bishops and good holy men to enter the priesthood, and good, holy women and men to enter religious life and marriage. So much to pray for more than likely not enough time to do it.)
Prayer: Power Beyond Politics
Storefront churches, stone cathedrals, synagogues, temples and mosques break the secular landscape of the United States. Their presence stands as a witness to the voices of believers raised to God in prayer. In fact, recent polls claim that 92 percent of Americans believe in God or an Ultimate Being and nearly six out of ten Americans pray every day. (Jacqueline L. Salmom, “Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds,” Washington Post, June 24, 2008).
Traveling to the Holy Land aboard his Alitalia charter jet on May 8, Pope Benedict XVI spoke on the power of prayer. He said, “As believers, Christians are convinced of the power of prayer. It opens the world to God, and we are convinced that God listens and can work in history. And I think that, if millions of believers pray, this is truly a force that can have an influence and advance the cause of peace.”
In the United States, this belief in the power of prayer gave birth to a national day of prayer. In 1952, President Harry Truman first established it. Then, President Reagan signed a resolution in 1988 to make the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer each year. Every president thereafter has done the same. This year, President Obama proclaimed May 7 as our National Day of Prayer. He called “upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love.” (I don’t know how I feel about this considering yes I do want our military to come home from Iraq but at what cost to the people over there. I don’t get how people can say Iraq was better under Saddam, I just don’t get it. I don’t get the feeling that Obama is a huge fan of our troops, don’t ask me why it’s just a gut feeling.)
Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush used to mark the day with a White House observance. Under previous administrations, the White House hosted an interfaith service. Protestant, Catholic and Jewish leaders were invited for an event at the East Room. This year, the President chose not to have such an event. (Not too much of a surprise, so what type of event did he have for National Day of Prayer, no prayer at all?)
Some people found this decision an occasion to praise the President for distancing himself from our National Day of Prayer. The prayer service at the White House offends some because it is a public act of religion. (Isn’t Mass or any type of religious service a “public act of religion:, is my saying a Rosary in a park, or across the street from an abortion mill (clinic gives the idea of them actually doing something good, mill sounds more appropriate in my crazy brain.) a “public act of religion, how about when I make the Sign of the Cross when I walk or drive in front of a Catholic church, isn’t that also a “public act of religion.” I know I’m being petty about it, but really it makes me think.) It disturbs others because it is not inclusive enough. (Inclusive of what, the major religions are there, there was no mention of Islam, but that could have been an oversight. Do people want Satanic worship and Wicca included, really come on, people can be so strange.) On the other hand, there were those who expressed disappointment that the President did not seize the opportunity to unite people of so many different faiths in a common act acknowledging our need for help from God.
Lost somewhere in the cross fires of the discussion was another decision that the President made. (Bishop seems to refer to our President as President more than President Obama, I just happened to notice that, I wonder why.) Near the end of Bush's second term, members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Madison. They petitioned the judge to put an end to the custom of prayer proclamations issued by presidents and governors. They view the day as disenfranchising the millions of Americans who do not believe in God or do not pray. Obviously, they do not follow the polls about belief and religion in America. (Nice little zinger in there at the end, considering Bishop Serratelli mentions said poll at the beginning of his column.)
The Obama administration has asked U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb to dismiss the case against proclaiming public days of prayer. As the President said in his proclamation, “Throughout our Nation's history, Americans have come together in moments of great challenge and uncertainty to humble themselves in prayer.” His words ring true at this moment of challenge and crisis for our country. (Obama’s doing something good and right, wow! He, Obama, might as well have tossed in the whole there are no atheists in fox holes when speaking of great challenges not to mention all the prayers being said for a change of heart for him.)
The real discontent with our National Day of Prayer is much wider than opposition to a public display of religion. The day is too cozy a relationship between Church and State for those who wish to put a chasm between the two. (From what I’ve heard the separation of Church and State was to keep the State out of the Church not the other way around, but I wasn’t around when this started and don’t know if it’s true, but I like the sound of it.) In a word, the opposition to the day springs from the desire to silence the voice of religiously committed individuals from the public discussions of major issues.
Since 1978, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of 12,000 atheists and agnostics, has been working to keep Church and State separate. Nontract #6 of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. states: “ Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics (honestly, just say Catholics as if one follows Christ’s teachings one would realize that one should be conservative on certain issues.) would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. (I always find this one amusing as all should also include the pre-born but obviously it does not as they mention “women’s rights” which if the fancy way of saying, “allow women to suffer as they let someone kill their baby”) History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.”
Such a strong characterization of religious people fails to see that, when it comes to Catholics and the Catholic approach to common good, Catholics offer the wisdom of a 2,000 year tradition of ethical reflection. When speaking to the issues of public concern, Catholics bring their contribution based on the natural law. The natural law knows no religious boundaries. It is open to all. It is gross misstatement of truth to label arguments based on reason as simply the religious convictions of the narrow-minded.
We cannot let some make religion today the dividing social issue that race was in America in the past. We are religiously more diverse today than in the last century. Presently there are more American Muslims than there are American Episcopalians, Jews or Presbyterians. Los Angeles, with more than three hundred temples, has welcomed the largest variety of Buddhists anywhere.
With such religious diversity, a National Day of Prayer is a blessing for our country. Prayer places our country in the hands of the God “who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). Prayer that opens our hearts to God also opens our hearts to others, whatever their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Prayer is truly a power beyond politics. (It does, and I need to start saying some more prayers, not just for our President and country but for other things as well, such as good holy bishops and good holy men to enter the priesthood, and good, holy women and men to enter religious life and marriage. So much to pray for more than likely not enough time to do it.)
Bishop Serratelli's weekly column from 05/07/2009
Bishop Serratelli has taken the past few weeks to make his column not necessary political, but along those lines. He never came out and said Notre Dame was wrong and I am surprised and disappointed in that, but then again maybe he waited to see the whole thing play out and that is what the 5/21/09 column will be about, then again I have not read the column from 5/14/09. From the topic I see that the Bishop has kept the political, but not political stance. As usual my thoughts are in red and I have added my emphasis to it as well.
President Obama and Lady Justice: The Supreme Court and its Judges
In the Old City of Berne, Switzerland, there stands the famous “Fountain of Justice” (Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen) . From the 16th century until modern days, Hans Gieng's statue of Lady Justice has graced the fountain. It is the oldest representation of Lady Justice blindfolded.
This image of Lady Justice traces its origins to Themis, the Greek goddess of divine order and law, and to Justitia, the Roman goddess of justice. In her left hand, Lady Justice holds a scale. This signifies duty to measure the strengths of each case, weigh the evidence and then decide the case. In her right hand, she wields a double-edged sword. This signifies her obligation to execute her judgment with precision for one party or against another.
Coins from the days of ancient Rome depict this image of Lady Justice without the blindfold. Her eyes are open and she sees all the evidence before her. But ever since the Renaissance, Lady Justice has appeared with her eyes blindfolded. In the dispensing of justice, there should be complete objectivity. Blind justice. No cowering before the powerful. No trampling of the weak. No favoritism to any party. Complete impartiality.
This symbol of Lady Justice blindfolded is found in our courthouses and halls of justice. Could this symbol lose its meaning? (I think it already has considering most times it’s guilty until proven innocent vs. innocent until proven guilty.) Should the very notion of justice in an era of change be redefined?
With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, our new President will have his chance at appointing his first Supreme Court judge. Other appointments will surely follow. The President has made clear his own understanding of the qualifications needed for the post. The President has reiterated the tried and true requirements of extensive legal training and experience as well as a devotion to the rule of law and a sound ethical record. But he also has added another prerequisite.
In July 2007, at a conference of Planned Parenthood, the President, prior to his election, had said this about future judges: “We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.”
On Friday May 1, 2009 during the White House press briefing, the President said, “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation… I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.” The President once again is remaining true to another promise that he made during his campaign for the presidency. (Obama’s consistent at least, he mentioned empathy both times. However he doesn’t know my struggles, the pain I have watching him and other politicians drag this country down by allowing abortion to happen. Yes I am a one issue voter I’ll admit that a person’s stance on abortion is what makes me vote for him/her, but I believe that life is one of the most precious gifts we can give someone and it shouldn’t be taken from the most defenseless, the pre-born. Yeah another promise that hurts the babies even more.)
For centuries, Western civilization has tried to achieve equal justice under the law. Does the requirement of empathy in a judge mean Lady Justice must now take off her blindfold? Is this a change for the better or not?
The President’s insistence on empathy as a quality in a good judge can claim biblical precedent. When Solomon began his rule, he prayed at Gibeon. He asked God not for riches and wealth, but for “an understanding heart, to govern [his] people and to distinguish between right and wrong” (1 Kgs 3:9). God granted him his request for empathy and his judgments became legendary. (Of course the Bible scholar would find something to quote and compare it too.)
In 1 Kings 3:16-28, the Scriptures relate an example story of Solomon’s ability to judge because he was empathetic. One day, two prostitutes came before Solomon. They both had a son, but one son died. Each woman claimed that the son that was alive was hers. Solomon was empathetic to the feeling of the true mother. He knew that she would prefer her son to live. And, so when he proposed cutting the live child in half and giving each woman half, the heart of the true mother was revealed. She preferred the other woman to have her son alive rather than each to be given half his dead body. (And he chose a story that most people will know.)
Solomon as a judge was empathetic. It was his “understanding heart” that saved the life of the child of a marginalized woman who was a true mother. “The wisdom of God was in him to do judgment” (1 Kgs 3:28).
Is Solomon the appropriate paradigm for the role of judge today? It is good to remember that the empathy that served Solomon well was not something he acquired on his own through training or experience. It was a gift that God gave him in answer to his prayer. Furthermore, Solomon was not limited to one role in governing his people. He was king and legislator as well as judge and last court of appeal.
Centuries have passed. Today in our democratic society, many people would be very uncomfortable in trusting to one individual, no matter how wise or spiritual, all the power that Solomon wielded in his day. We are in an imperfect world. In such a world, we have a system where the legislator is separate from the judge and where rights are guaranteed by law. ( Only the rights of some are guaranteed by some, the pre-born are forgotten by some laws; not the killing of a pregnant woman, then they are acknowledged. This country is so strange.)
Courts decide between the guilty and the innocent. Courts do not make the laws. They make their decisions on the basis of rights guaranteed in the law. Therefore, in a court of law, economic condition, sexual orientation, educational background can never be the determining factors. If a judge is to give special consideration in his decision to his own empathy, the question then arises, to which party in a case should he be empathetic? Would this be the death knell to impartiality? Will we suffer the tyranny of the courts where judges refashion our society according to their own opinion or political agenda?
Legislators elected by the people make the laws. Judges appointed by the government apply them. The distinction works. Lady Justice is blindfolded. But if the blindfold is going to be removed by a President who makes empathy a requirement for Supreme Court judges, will we have judges like Solomon? Will we finally have judges, as in the case of Solomon, with “an understanding heart,” judges who recognize a true mother always safeguards the life of her child? Will we have judges who protect the life of children, even those not yet born? Without empathy to those most vulnerable, there is no justice for all. (I don’t think I could have said it any better, that last sentence is quite true.)
President Obama and Lady Justice: The Supreme Court and its Judges
In the Old City of Berne, Switzerland, there stands the famous “Fountain of Justice” (Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen) . From the 16th century until modern days, Hans Gieng's statue of Lady Justice has graced the fountain. It is the oldest representation of Lady Justice blindfolded.
This image of Lady Justice traces its origins to Themis, the Greek goddess of divine order and law, and to Justitia, the Roman goddess of justice. In her left hand, Lady Justice holds a scale. This signifies duty to measure the strengths of each case, weigh the evidence and then decide the case. In her right hand, she wields a double-edged sword. This signifies her obligation to execute her judgment with precision for one party or against another.
Coins from the days of ancient Rome depict this image of Lady Justice without the blindfold. Her eyes are open and she sees all the evidence before her. But ever since the Renaissance, Lady Justice has appeared with her eyes blindfolded. In the dispensing of justice, there should be complete objectivity. Blind justice. No cowering before the powerful. No trampling of the weak. No favoritism to any party. Complete impartiality.
This symbol of Lady Justice blindfolded is found in our courthouses and halls of justice. Could this symbol lose its meaning? (I think it already has considering most times it’s guilty until proven innocent vs. innocent until proven guilty.) Should the very notion of justice in an era of change be redefined?
With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, our new President will have his chance at appointing his first Supreme Court judge. Other appointments will surely follow. The President has made clear his own understanding of the qualifications needed for the post. The President has reiterated the tried and true requirements of extensive legal training and experience as well as a devotion to the rule of law and a sound ethical record. But he also has added another prerequisite.
In July 2007, at a conference of Planned Parenthood, the President, prior to his election, had said this about future judges: “We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.”
On Friday May 1, 2009 during the White House press briefing, the President said, “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation… I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.” The President once again is remaining true to another promise that he made during his campaign for the presidency. (Obama’s consistent at least, he mentioned empathy both times. However he doesn’t know my struggles, the pain I have watching him and other politicians drag this country down by allowing abortion to happen. Yes I am a one issue voter I’ll admit that a person’s stance on abortion is what makes me vote for him/her, but I believe that life is one of the most precious gifts we can give someone and it shouldn’t be taken from the most defenseless, the pre-born. Yeah another promise that hurts the babies even more.)
For centuries, Western civilization has tried to achieve equal justice under the law. Does the requirement of empathy in a judge mean Lady Justice must now take off her blindfold? Is this a change for the better or not?
The President’s insistence on empathy as a quality in a good judge can claim biblical precedent. When Solomon began his rule, he prayed at Gibeon. He asked God not for riches and wealth, but for “an understanding heart, to govern [his] people and to distinguish between right and wrong” (1 Kgs 3:9). God granted him his request for empathy and his judgments became legendary. (Of course the Bible scholar would find something to quote and compare it too.)
In 1 Kings 3:16-28, the Scriptures relate an example story of Solomon’s ability to judge because he was empathetic. One day, two prostitutes came before Solomon. They both had a son, but one son died. Each woman claimed that the son that was alive was hers. Solomon was empathetic to the feeling of the true mother. He knew that she would prefer her son to live. And, so when he proposed cutting the live child in half and giving each woman half, the heart of the true mother was revealed. She preferred the other woman to have her son alive rather than each to be given half his dead body. (And he chose a story that most people will know.)
Solomon as a judge was empathetic. It was his “understanding heart” that saved the life of the child of a marginalized woman who was a true mother. “The wisdom of God was in him to do judgment” (1 Kgs 3:28).
Is Solomon the appropriate paradigm for the role of judge today? It is good to remember that the empathy that served Solomon well was not something he acquired on his own through training or experience. It was a gift that God gave him in answer to his prayer. Furthermore, Solomon was not limited to one role in governing his people. He was king and legislator as well as judge and last court of appeal.
Centuries have passed. Today in our democratic society, many people would be very uncomfortable in trusting to one individual, no matter how wise or spiritual, all the power that Solomon wielded in his day. We are in an imperfect world. In such a world, we have a system where the legislator is separate from the judge and where rights are guaranteed by law. ( Only the rights of some are guaranteed by some, the pre-born are forgotten by some laws; not the killing of a pregnant woman, then they are acknowledged. This country is so strange.)
Courts decide between the guilty and the innocent. Courts do not make the laws. They make their decisions on the basis of rights guaranteed in the law. Therefore, in a court of law, economic condition, sexual orientation, educational background can never be the determining factors. If a judge is to give special consideration in his decision to his own empathy, the question then arises, to which party in a case should he be empathetic? Would this be the death knell to impartiality? Will we suffer the tyranny of the courts where judges refashion our society according to their own opinion or political agenda?
Legislators elected by the people make the laws. Judges appointed by the government apply them. The distinction works. Lady Justice is blindfolded. But if the blindfold is going to be removed by a President who makes empathy a requirement for Supreme Court judges, will we have judges like Solomon? Will we finally have judges, as in the case of Solomon, with “an understanding heart,” judges who recognize a true mother always safeguards the life of her child? Will we have judges who protect the life of children, even those not yet born? Without empathy to those most vulnerable, there is no justice for all. (I don’t think I could have said it any better, that last sentence is quite true.)
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Bishop Serratelli's weekly column from 4/30/2009
The second part of Bishop Serratelli's 2 part series on Tolerance. I've been slacking in posting because the pollen and the trees have been kicking my butt.
Tolerance: The Trojan Horse of Secular Liberalism- Bishop Serratelli’s weekly column from April 30, 2009 with my emphasis and comments.
In today’s society, the principle of tolerance has become the clarion call for people of diverse views, moral convictions and religious beliefs to live together with a sense of civility to one another. By its definition, tolerance is inclusive. It seeks to embrace all individuals in a society that does not condemn individuals simply because they are different. In terms of liberal secularists, tolerance is based on cultural diversity. It is a pragmatic way to keep the peace.
Yet, tolerance alone does not always work. The drive to equate same sex unions with marriage and to give them the same legal definition as marriage has also become an occasion for intolerance. Those who are committed to marriage as an institution designed by the Creator for a man and a woman are labeled discriminatory and unjust. (That we are.)
Most recently, this type of attitude surfaced during the Miss USA 2009 pageant. On April 20, 2009, one of the judges, Perez Hilton, who is quite open about his views, asked Carrie Prejean, Miss California, her view on legalizing gay marriage. Miss Prejean was not unaware of the trap that was being set for her. (Of course she wasn’t, this wasn’t your typical “beauty queen” question.) After affirming the freedom of choice (interesting choice of words, then again I’m on high alert with Obama being at Notre Shame next week.) that Americans enjoy, she went on to say, “…I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.” Some in the audience booed her response, but others applauded even louder.
Miss California did not express an outrageous conviction. But Perez Hilton believes that her answer cost her the contest. His subsequent name calling of Miss California clearly revealed the inability to allow someone to disagree with the agenda that is behind the move to redefine marriage. (These so called promoters of equality for all, are so prejudiced it’s not even funny.)
Miss Prejean should be commended for her honesty and integrity. (I totally agree, God bless this young woman for standing up and not conforming to what society says she should believe and be.) Not everyone agrees. The Executive Director of Miss California USA/Teen USA has stated that he is “personally saddened and hurt that Miss CA USA 2009 believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman.” In a word, there is no room for disagreement. Is this not a form of intolerance? (I dare to say it is.)
The issue of tolerance and intolerance on the issue of marriage is not an academic question. If society labels those who oppose the legalization of gay marriage intolerant and discriminatory, the trajectory is set to curtail religious freedom. Anti-discrimination laws can then be invoked to monitor and control churches in the areas of sex education in the schools, the hiring of employees, the use of church facilities and in many other areas. (Unfortunately, even in our own diocese, this is happening, because children and their parents are in the public school frame of mind and CCD or Religious Education programs leave a lot to be desired when it comes to teaching Catholicism. Often times I feel that I’m too conservative for a Catholic school or church or as I like to say I’m too Catholic for them, which is sad, as I do nothing other than my duty as a Catholic, go to Mass on Sunday and uphold and teach the teachings of the Catholic Church.)
In our culture, tolerance has come to mean different things for different groups. But it certainly does not mean neutrality. This is clearly the case in growing confrontation between the secularist agenda and the Catholic Church in terms of health care. (Yes, which makes my decision to attend nursing school an interesting one, however it is at a hospital affiliated with the Catholic Church. I have yet to hear about my application, in case anyone was wondering.)
The Church has always favored responsible parenthood and has taught natural family planning as the moral means to achieve this goal. (While I am not a fan of natural family planning, I understand why it is used by some, but it is to be used to plan a child not to say we don't want a child right now so we're going to use NFP to not have children.) Based on the objective nature of human sexuality, the Church teaches that artificial contraception contradicts an authentic expression of marital love between a husband and a wife and, therefore, is morally unacceptable. For this reason, Catholic institutions do not include contraception in their health insurance for their employees. (I remember wanted to call him, Bishop Serratelli with an issue I had with my coverage when I worked for the Diocese of Paterson, but I don’t remember off hand what it was. I know the Archdiocese along with Oxford offers Catholic care which falls under this, maybe things have changed since I last had health coverage.) Up until recently, the laws included exemptions for conscientious objections clauses and protected the freedom of Catholics to live according to Catholic teaching in this area.
Today, however, secular liberals are experiencing great success in removing this freedom. At least eighteen states have enacted "contraceptive mandate" laws. The laws bear names such as The Women's Health and Wellness Act or The Women's Contraceptive Equity Act. These laws mandate health insurance plans to cover the costs of contraceptives. Any failure to do is punishable as discrimination.
Without the freedom to express one’s views and not be punished for them, without the freedom to hold to one’s moral and religious beliefs and live according, the dignity of the human person is denied and the common good of society itself is diminished. Government does not have the right to treat believers as a “divisive minority whose rights must always yield to the minority secular agenda, especially when religious people are overwhelmingly in the majority” (Cardinal Pell, “Varieties of Intolerance: Religious and Secular,” Divinity School of Oxford University, March 6, 2009).
Both Homer in the Odyssey and Virgil in the Aeneid relate the story of the Trojan horse. After a long, unresolved 10-year siege of Troy, the Greeks built a huge figure of a horse. Inside the horse, they left their warriors and sailed away. The Trojans took the horse into their city as a trophy for winning the war. During the night, the Greek warriors stealthily crept out of their hiding place, opened the city gates for the rest of the Greek army that had returned under the cover of dark and destroyed the city. What, at first, was seen as the sign of victory actually became the cause of defeat.
Today, our society has happily overcome many prejudices that divide us. We have managed to live in peace with people whose views and religions differ from one another. Secular liberals, however, market a truncated tolerance that leaves no room for those who oppose their secular agenda. If society welcomes such tolerance within its city gates, will it not be the Trojan Horse that brings the demise of a free society? (Oh it probably will be, this country is so far away from where it was with morals, and the sad part is that we, America, are not as bad as other countries.)
Tolerance: The Trojan Horse of Secular Liberalism- Bishop Serratelli’s weekly column from April 30, 2009 with my emphasis and comments.
In today’s society, the principle of tolerance has become the clarion call for people of diverse views, moral convictions and religious beliefs to live together with a sense of civility to one another. By its definition, tolerance is inclusive. It seeks to embrace all individuals in a society that does not condemn individuals simply because they are different. In terms of liberal secularists, tolerance is based on cultural diversity. It is a pragmatic way to keep the peace.
Yet, tolerance alone does not always work. The drive to equate same sex unions with marriage and to give them the same legal definition as marriage has also become an occasion for intolerance. Those who are committed to marriage as an institution designed by the Creator for a man and a woman are labeled discriminatory and unjust. (That we are.)
Most recently, this type of attitude surfaced during the Miss USA 2009 pageant. On April 20, 2009, one of the judges, Perez Hilton, who is quite open about his views, asked Carrie Prejean, Miss California, her view on legalizing gay marriage. Miss Prejean was not unaware of the trap that was being set for her. (Of course she wasn’t, this wasn’t your typical “beauty queen” question.) After affirming the freedom of choice (interesting choice of words, then again I’m on high alert with Obama being at Notre Shame next week.) that Americans enjoy, she went on to say, “…I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.” Some in the audience booed her response, but others applauded even louder.
Miss California did not express an outrageous conviction. But Perez Hilton believes that her answer cost her the contest. His subsequent name calling of Miss California clearly revealed the inability to allow someone to disagree with the agenda that is behind the move to redefine marriage. (These so called promoters of equality for all, are so prejudiced it’s not even funny.)
Miss Prejean should be commended for her honesty and integrity. (I totally agree, God bless this young woman for standing up and not conforming to what society says she should believe and be.) Not everyone agrees. The Executive Director of Miss California USA/Teen USA has stated that he is “personally saddened and hurt that Miss CA USA 2009 believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman.” In a word, there is no room for disagreement. Is this not a form of intolerance? (I dare to say it is.)
The issue of tolerance and intolerance on the issue of marriage is not an academic question. If society labels those who oppose the legalization of gay marriage intolerant and discriminatory, the trajectory is set to curtail religious freedom. Anti-discrimination laws can then be invoked to monitor and control churches in the areas of sex education in the schools, the hiring of employees, the use of church facilities and in many other areas. (Unfortunately, even in our own diocese, this is happening, because children and their parents are in the public school frame of mind and CCD or Religious Education programs leave a lot to be desired when it comes to teaching Catholicism. Often times I feel that I’m too conservative for a Catholic school or church or as I like to say I’m too Catholic for them, which is sad, as I do nothing other than my duty as a Catholic, go to Mass on Sunday and uphold and teach the teachings of the Catholic Church.)
In our culture, tolerance has come to mean different things for different groups. But it certainly does not mean neutrality. This is clearly the case in growing confrontation between the secularist agenda and the Catholic Church in terms of health care. (Yes, which makes my decision to attend nursing school an interesting one, however it is at a hospital affiliated with the Catholic Church. I have yet to hear about my application, in case anyone was wondering.)
The Church has always favored responsible parenthood and has taught natural family planning as the moral means to achieve this goal. (While I am not a fan of natural family planning, I understand why it is used by some, but it is to be used to plan a child not to say we don't want a child right now so we're going to use NFP to not have children.) Based on the objective nature of human sexuality, the Church teaches that artificial contraception contradicts an authentic expression of marital love between a husband and a wife and, therefore, is morally unacceptable. For this reason, Catholic institutions do not include contraception in their health insurance for their employees. (I remember wanted to call him, Bishop Serratelli with an issue I had with my coverage when I worked for the Diocese of Paterson, but I don’t remember off hand what it was. I know the Archdiocese along with Oxford offers Catholic care which falls under this, maybe things have changed since I last had health coverage.) Up until recently, the laws included exemptions for conscientious objections clauses and protected the freedom of Catholics to live according to Catholic teaching in this area.
Today, however, secular liberals are experiencing great success in removing this freedom. At least eighteen states have enacted "contraceptive mandate" laws. The laws bear names such as The Women's Health and Wellness Act or The Women's Contraceptive Equity Act. These laws mandate health insurance plans to cover the costs of contraceptives. Any failure to do is punishable as discrimination.
Without the freedom to express one’s views and not be punished for them, without the freedom to hold to one’s moral and religious beliefs and live according, the dignity of the human person is denied and the common good of society itself is diminished. Government does not have the right to treat believers as a “divisive minority whose rights must always yield to the minority secular agenda, especially when religious people are overwhelmingly in the majority” (Cardinal Pell, “Varieties of Intolerance: Religious and Secular,” Divinity School of Oxford University, March 6, 2009).
Both Homer in the Odyssey and Virgil in the Aeneid relate the story of the Trojan horse. After a long, unresolved 10-year siege of Troy, the Greeks built a huge figure of a horse. Inside the horse, they left their warriors and sailed away. The Trojans took the horse into their city as a trophy for winning the war. During the night, the Greek warriors stealthily crept out of their hiding place, opened the city gates for the rest of the Greek army that had returned under the cover of dark and destroyed the city. What, at first, was seen as the sign of victory actually became the cause of defeat.
Today, our society has happily overcome many prejudices that divide us. We have managed to live in peace with people whose views and religions differ from one another. Secular liberals, however, market a truncated tolerance that leaves no room for those who oppose their secular agenda. If society welcomes such tolerance within its city gates, will it not be the Trojan Horse that brings the demise of a free society? (Oh it probably will be, this country is so far away from where it was with morals, and the sad part is that we, America, are not as bad as other countries.)
Monday, April 27, 2009
Bishop Serratelli's weekly column from 4/23/2009
As is usually the case for when I actually read the Bishop's weekly column I usually enjoy it and agree with what he has to say. The bold and italics are my additions for the most part there are a few I tried to bring over from the article. My comments are in the parentheses and are red.
Tolerance When Politics Reign Supreme
In 1878, President Hayes and his wife Lucy officially opened the White House grounds to the children for an egg roll event on Easter Monday. Except during the two World Wars, weather permitting, all the Presidents after Hayes have continued this tradition. Each Easter Monday, thousands of young people show up for this fun-filled event. Not only is it one of the oldest presidential traditions, it has become the largest annual event held at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
In any event held at the White House, politics is never far from sight. This year, the first egg roll of the new administration was not any different. The souvenir egg was deliberately designed to signal concern for the environment. This certainly is part of the President’s agenda and not without merit. We are caretakers, not simply consumers, of the goods of this earth. (Exactly, we should care for the environment, but you don’t need to go overboard, God did create the Earth.) But there was a second innovation this year that carries with it a message that the White House wishes to give to the country. (One can only imagine what is it!)
The President enthusiastically welcomed the crowd. Mrs. Obama said, “Our goal today is just to have fun. We want to focus on activity, healthy eating. We've got yoga, we've got dancing, we've got storytelling, we've got Easter egg decorating, and we've got basketball, soccer as well.” But there was more to the event that just fun. It was a political statement made in bright colors. (Of course it was!)
The Washington Times (April 14, 2009) reported that same-sex parents wore rainbow-colored leis to the event. They were clearly drawing attention to their sexual orientation. What a sad situation. An event in which people of different religions, ethnic backgrounds and diverse moral convictions come together to have fun with the youngsters became a moment for some to push their agenda of changing the culture. (I wonder what would happen if I showed up wearing a Rock for Life or other Pro-life shirt, stating that abortion is murder, or one saying Proud to be Catholic, or even better one that said I’m a heterosexual, don’t know how much they would like that.)
But this was not a spontaneous demonstration on the part of the participants. It was orchestrated by the White House itself. (How sad, that the White House orchestrated it. I guess people would bitch and moan if something promoting a respect for life as in stopping abortion was started by the White House.) In a studied effort to make a statement about the future of marriage in this country, the White House allotted tickets for the event to gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples. Representatives from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and other groups that promote same sex unions as equal to marriage reported that they had been encouraged to have their members come out to the event. (How disgraceful, and I know I’m going to sound bigoted and homo-phobic, but I’m not, you can live your life as you want, just live it chastely as all people are called to live and celibate, like all single are called to. Marriage is a sacrament and we need to start teaching it that way again and looking at it that way, it’s a calling, it won’t be easy and it’s all about just living with each other.)
Events like this are staged, organized and executed on the principle of tolerance. Today’s secular liberalism has espoused tolerance as its foundational truth. But secular liberals do not apply tolerance to every situation with equal zeal.
In the same week that the White House made a point of showcasing its gay- friendly agenda, the White House also issued a request to a Catholic institution that violates the very concept of tolerance. Before the President made his first speech as President at Georgetown, the prestigious Jesuit University, the White House, according to the Los Angeles Times, asked Georgetown University to cover all religious symbols (Guess Obama doesn’t like competition, or just can’t admit that he’s human, and that it doesn’t matter what is written above his head.) at the scene of the President's economic speech.
When President Obama gave his speech on economics on April 14, he spoke on a stage in Gaston Hall. Behind the place where the President stood, there is normally seen the monogram IHS. These letters are the first three letters of the name of Jesus in Greek. For the President’s speech, the university covered the letters. (It’s just sad how “Catholic” Universities have forgotten how to defend Christ and His Bride.)
Why is it acceptable that the President of the United States can be seen one day with gays and lesbians publicly displaying their convictions, but on the very next day cannot be seen in a Catholic institution with a symbol of its faith on display? (I wish I knew Bishop Serratelli, I wish I knew. It’s a good question that the Bishop puts forth, seems ironic that Obama can’t be tolerant when it comes to the Church.)
One can only wonder about the courage of an institution that hides the symbols of its own faith. Has the symbol lost its meaning? Does the institution value faith as the life-principle of its intellectual pursuit of truth? (This reminds of the first homily I heard Bishop Serratelli give. Seton Hall have the Bishop the honor of saying our Mass of the Holy Spirit, the opening Mass of the year. During his homily, Bishop Serratelli came and said WE NEED TO BE CATHOLIC, not just in our actions, but in how we teach as well. I am paraphrasing as the homily was a good nine or eight years ago, but I do remember how forceful and how poignant it was that the Bishop a professor at SHU was basically telling off his co-workers, and I was proud to call him Bishop then and still am today.)
The White House’s request for a Catholic university to hide a symbol of Catholicism in order to accommodate the presence of the President is a gross example of the intolerance that has infected the relationship of the State to the Church. (Quite true!) At the least, the university’s compliance with the request missed an opportunity to make a statement about a right understanding of tolerance. When partisan politics reign supreme, tolerance for opposing beliefs will quickly vanish. In a just society, tolerance cannot be a one way street.
+Arthur Serratelli
Well said Bishop, well said. He’s been quite on the Notre Dame situation but I’m thinking that might come out next week as I think this is a 2 part series on tolerance. I’m hoping he says something about Notre Dame, it’s not like him to be this quiet about something in the pro-life movement or something that can be used as teaching moment, he’s done it before.
Tolerance When Politics Reign Supreme
In 1878, President Hayes and his wife Lucy officially opened the White House grounds to the children for an egg roll event on Easter Monday. Except during the two World Wars, weather permitting, all the Presidents after Hayes have continued this tradition. Each Easter Monday, thousands of young people show up for this fun-filled event. Not only is it one of the oldest presidential traditions, it has become the largest annual event held at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
In any event held at the White House, politics is never far from sight. This year, the first egg roll of the new administration was not any different. The souvenir egg was deliberately designed to signal concern for the environment. This certainly is part of the President’s agenda and not without merit. We are caretakers, not simply consumers, of the goods of this earth. (Exactly, we should care for the environment, but you don’t need to go overboard, God did create the Earth.) But there was a second innovation this year that carries with it a message that the White House wishes to give to the country. (One can only imagine what is it!)
The President enthusiastically welcomed the crowd. Mrs. Obama said, “Our goal today is just to have fun. We want to focus on activity, healthy eating. We've got yoga, we've got dancing, we've got storytelling, we've got Easter egg decorating, and we've got basketball, soccer as well.” But there was more to the event that just fun. It was a political statement made in bright colors. (Of course it was!)
The Washington Times (April 14, 2009) reported that same-sex parents wore rainbow-colored leis to the event. They were clearly drawing attention to their sexual orientation. What a sad situation. An event in which people of different religions, ethnic backgrounds and diverse moral convictions come together to have fun with the youngsters became a moment for some to push their agenda of changing the culture. (I wonder what would happen if I showed up wearing a Rock for Life or other Pro-life shirt, stating that abortion is murder, or one saying Proud to be Catholic, or even better one that said I’m a heterosexual, don’t know how much they would like that.)
But this was not a spontaneous demonstration on the part of the participants. It was orchestrated by the White House itself. (How sad, that the White House orchestrated it. I guess people would bitch and moan if something promoting a respect for life as in stopping abortion was started by the White House.) In a studied effort to make a statement about the future of marriage in this country, the White House allotted tickets for the event to gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples. Representatives from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and other groups that promote same sex unions as equal to marriage reported that they had been encouraged to have their members come out to the event. (How disgraceful, and I know I’m going to sound bigoted and homo-phobic, but I’m not, you can live your life as you want, just live it chastely as all people are called to live and celibate, like all single are called to. Marriage is a sacrament and we need to start teaching it that way again and looking at it that way, it’s a calling, it won’t be easy and it’s all about just living with each other.)
Events like this are staged, organized and executed on the principle of tolerance. Today’s secular liberalism has espoused tolerance as its foundational truth. But secular liberals do not apply tolerance to every situation with equal zeal.
In the same week that the White House made a point of showcasing its gay- friendly agenda, the White House also issued a request to a Catholic institution that violates the very concept of tolerance. Before the President made his first speech as President at Georgetown, the prestigious Jesuit University, the White House, according to the Los Angeles Times, asked Georgetown University to cover all religious symbols (Guess Obama doesn’t like competition, or just can’t admit that he’s human, and that it doesn’t matter what is written above his head.) at the scene of the President's economic speech.
When President Obama gave his speech on economics on April 14, he spoke on a stage in Gaston Hall. Behind the place where the President stood, there is normally seen the monogram IHS. These letters are the first three letters of the name of Jesus in Greek. For the President’s speech, the university covered the letters. (It’s just sad how “Catholic” Universities have forgotten how to defend Christ and His Bride.)
Why is it acceptable that the President of the United States can be seen one day with gays and lesbians publicly displaying their convictions, but on the very next day cannot be seen in a Catholic institution with a symbol of its faith on display? (I wish I knew Bishop Serratelli, I wish I knew. It’s a good question that the Bishop puts forth, seems ironic that Obama can’t be tolerant when it comes to the Church.)
One can only wonder about the courage of an institution that hides the symbols of its own faith. Has the symbol lost its meaning? Does the institution value faith as the life-principle of its intellectual pursuit of truth? (This reminds of the first homily I heard Bishop Serratelli give. Seton Hall have the Bishop the honor of saying our Mass of the Holy Spirit, the opening Mass of the year. During his homily, Bishop Serratelli came and said WE NEED TO BE CATHOLIC, not just in our actions, but in how we teach as well. I am paraphrasing as the homily was a good nine or eight years ago, but I do remember how forceful and how poignant it was that the Bishop a professor at SHU was basically telling off his co-workers, and I was proud to call him Bishop then and still am today.)
The White House’s request for a Catholic university to hide a symbol of Catholicism in order to accommodate the presence of the President is a gross example of the intolerance that has infected the relationship of the State to the Church. (Quite true!) At the least, the university’s compliance with the request missed an opportunity to make a statement about a right understanding of tolerance. When partisan politics reign supreme, tolerance for opposing beliefs will quickly vanish. In a just society, tolerance cannot be a one way street.
+Arthur Serratelli
Well said Bishop, well said. He’s been quite on the Notre Dame situation but I’m thinking that might come out next week as I think this is a 2 part series on tolerance. I’m hoping he says something about Notre Dame, it’s not like him to be this quiet about something in the pro-life movement or something that can be used as teaching moment, he’s done it before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)