Dear Old Friends

Even before I could read, I have loved reading. I remember looking at picture books, listening to Mom help my brother with reading; he was sick for much of First Grade and got far behind the other students, so truly struggled with the foundation of reading and writing. I wasn't invited into those lessons because I was too little, and so I would ask Mom to read me books, and in so doing, would try to memorize them so I could perhaps make the connection between what I was hearing and the figures on the page.

I strongly recall picking up a book I was CERTAIN I remembered, and, bringing it to Mom and Dad, announced that I had learned to read and I was going to PROVE it!

Unfortunately, when I opened the book, to my chagrin, I could not understand those characters and was forced to make up a story which turned out to be very lame; after all, since I couldn't read, I didn't actually know what the book was about. Mom and Dad laughed, said that was cute, and left me to look at pictures.

Ultimately, learning to read was never a struggle with me...when it was finally time, I took to it like a fish to water. My particular problem was that I would pick up books, fall in love with them, and set that particular book as a "gold standard". I would have books read to me, such as the Laura Ingalls Wilder books, and because I wasn't quick enough on Library days to get that particular book, and I wasn't at the top of the elementary grade "A-list", to get the library's only copy of any given Little House book, I was forced to peruse the shelves, looking for something I actually wanted to read.

We had the most freedom in Fourth Grade, and it was that teacher who, frustrated with me always being the last to choose a book, quickly but carefully grabbed one for me and forced it into my hand. "Go check out. You're reading THIS."

I would go to the Librarian, pouting because it wasn't what I wanted to read. But because of that vigilant teacher, I read books that taught me something MORE, for the popular books with the other girls, the ones I could never obtain, were the ones our teacher had already read to us as a class. She didn't want me to stick with the status quo, but rather, to branch out to many genres and most importantly, discover new territory. She didn't object to students reading on their own the books she read us in class, but didn't want us to remain there; she wanted to use books to inspire us, to discover new adventures, new worlds, and of course, improve our reading and grammar because we WANTED to read.

She was successful but I must confess that my propensity to be loyal to favorite authors has never died, and even as an adult, I return to the literature of my youth.

The Best Friends a Girl Could Have

My family moved to Minnesota when I was in Fifth Grade, and sometime that year or perhaps between Fifth and Sixth Grade, I came home one cloudy, humid, rainy day to find a few large boxes on the floor of my room, all containing musty-smelling hardcover books.

"Where did these come from?"  I demanded.

"Your Aunt Laurie. She read all of them and thought you would enjoy them. Take care of them; she wants them back when you're done reading."

One by one, I pulled the books out. The Bobbsey Twins, one about Barbie and the Florida Keys, and about thirty books about a girl named "Trixie Belden".  A couple Nancy Drew.

I didn't want to read ANY of them, but at the time, I wasn't reading anything else, the weather prevented other activities so I began with the "single"  books, putting off the lame-looking "Trixie Belden" series, certain I'd hate them.

To my surprise, I enjoyed the first few books I read, and began to see my aunt in a new light. Maybe she DID know what she was talking about in recommending these books. Even though I wasn't enthused about the Trixie books, I realized I should at least read one of them; that way I could give those boxes back to my aunt in good conscience, even if I didn't like them.

Much to my surprise, when I opened the cover of the first book, Trixie Belden and the Secret of the Mansion, I found I couldn't put it down. One by one, I absorbed each book voraciously, and if a one was missing in the sequence, I'd go to the public library with the desperation of an addict.  Over one summer, I was at the library every other day, looking for the next book and placing orders for interlibrary loans.

Because of my enthusiasm and "frequent customer" appearances, I got to know the Librarians, especially one named "Laurie" (not my aunt, her agreeable name merely a coincidence).

Over time, I finally exhausted both my aunt's books and the library's resources, even through interlibrary loans. Some of the books simply weren't available anywhere, although we continued to look. Some were being reprinted and I ended up receiving a couple of the later books as gifts or by purchasing them myself.

I read and re-read my favorites of the series, but realized, as my Fourth Grade teacher had taught me, that I couldn't stagnate. Laurie, the Librarian, seeing my consternation at running out of my beloved Trixie books, strongly recommended Nancy Drew, and so I moved on to that series, too, and before long, was coming to the reference desk to ask her to place more orders for interlibrary loans.

Nostalgia

 When I left for college, I think,  I had to finally release my aunt's books back to her, so I'd carefully packed those old friends away while suppressing the tears. Over the years I'd read and re-read those books I had initially not wanted...and like so much of life, learned that what we think we'll hate is often what others realize is just perfect for us.

I also knew that one has to move on to greater things, and as much as my old friends Trixie, Mart, Brian, and Bobby Belden, Honey Wheeler, Jim Frayne, Dan Mangan, Di Lynch, Regan, Miss Trask, Tom Delaney, Nancy Drew, Midge....had become nearly "real" to me, one must always grow up. Instinctively I'd understood that the series had ended because the characters had to grow up, too, and life doesn't ever remain the same...not even in storybooks.

Still, I didn't go to college untouched by these mere "childhood" books, even though I didn't realize until recently how much they have impacted my life.

Good Literature does not point to itself...but to even GREATER Literature

Recently I went to the public library and admittedly, somewhat abashedly, entered the "Children's" section of the huge hub, and went through the fiction stacks. Although I found Nancy Drew, and knew from a previous computer search that this library DEFINITELY had SOME of the Trixie Belden books, I couldn't find a single one. I looked under both author names under which the 39 books in the series had been penned. Nothing.

Shamefacedly I approached the librarians and confessed I could not find my beloved Trixie Belden, and they helped me locate it on the shelves - under Title, not author, simply because of the duality of authorship.

For the last week or so, I have been DEVOURING these books and realize how much they contributed to my own formation in my teenage years.

Although they were written in the '40's and '50's, and use archaic words such as "dungarees" instead of "jeans", and to this day, I still have no idea what a "sharkskin suit" is or why it is considered to be "cool" for a hot day, I took to heart the moral lessons within the pages. Now that I am re-reading as an adult, I can see the values instilled in the characters, but still the personalities, temperaments, and utter teenage stupidity that made the books so appealing.

It is because of Trixie Belden that  in my Jr. High years I took it upon myself to read Edgar Allen Poe, the works of Shakespeare, and inquire about other classic literature - simply so that I would be able to understand the references the characters made. In fact, because of these books, I questioned why I had never had to study these greats, and why we didn't touch them in English classes or other electives until High School?

Through Trixie Belden and Nancy Drew, I became interested in the world around me, not just my immediate locale, but the larger world, and suddenly, History became important, and other cultures became even MORE interesting than they had been before.

It didn't stop there, though. I can't help but notice the words being used and how cleverly the authors of the series clearly sought to elevate their readers to the next level. Julia Cambell, "Caroline Kennedy" (pseudonym for several authors), and Katherine Keene (Nancy Drew author) did not talk down to their young audience but sought to increase their vocabulary. Perhaps they did this unconsciously, for it does not read as "gimmicky" but like books written by readers for readers out of respect for the intelligence of readers everywhere.

I can't help but recognize the influence of these authors upon my own writing, both in fiction and that which I use on my blog, and I wonder sometimes if I am channeling Mart Belden - and if I'm not, I wonder if perhaps he could have stepped in to become my muse on occasion, especially when having to compose academic treatises. (Only Trixie Belden fans will understand this reference).

Dear Old Friends

For years I have been reading some pretty hard-core stuff:  between real-life autobiographies to deep Theology and some Fiction, it has been Flannery O'Connor, some CS Lewis, murder mysteries, and well...some serious adult content consistent with my history and training in Criminal Justice. Because I enjoy "BONES", the TV show, I have read Kathy Reichs, the series upon which the production is based, and even though it interests me scientifically, it still makes me occasionally scream and want to write to Ms. Reichs about what she's getting wrong about Catholic theology. So often, when I read even FICTION these days, it feels like work, because as a theologian now, I can't help but take what I know and interpret everything through that particular lens.


 [Remind me to write to Dr.. Reichs and offer my services as a specifically Catholic theological consult. She's made some really embarrassing errors with regard to Catholicism both in the books and on the show - or her current "theologian" on her payroll has, anyway. It makes her look like an idiot and she has a HUGE Catholic following to whom she is doing a great injustice and has been for a long time. *sigh* ]

Because life has been so burdensome of late, I realized I needed something lighter, and so I turned to my old friends. I found that it's been so long I have forgotten the plots of these "juvenile" mysteries, and even though the core of the story has remained, I can still re-read these books as if for the first time, introduced all over again, entertained all over again, reminded all over again.

I love turning these precious pages, getting lost in the stories in a way I could never really  be lost in theology, for both forms utilize the intellect in different ways. I realize that I have to get back in touch with my own roots, my own motivations, the very basic love of literature at the simplest level, engaging my imagination so that I can once again gallop along the bridal paths (an experience I've actually finally had in real life), once again thwart the bad guys (another experience I've had in real life), once again enjoying the camaraderie of great friendships in good times and in bad (an experience that is ongoing as long as the sun rises and sets.).

Ah, my dear friend Trixie, how much you taught me about life, about literature, about selflessness, about manners, about goodness, about adventure, about the very mystery of life. How much I would like to be like you, even now...but still am grateful for many of my adventures in real life were inspired by your fictional ones.

Thank you.

Now, my readers, please excuse me...I have books to read and many old friends with whom I have been longing to be reacquainted.

Consider this an invitation to meet them, too:

Trixie Belden

Nancy Drew (I read only the original series and always saw the later "files" and such as bastardizations of what was originally a good story and good character gone to agenda.)

What Why How

Last spring, or summer or fall...whatever it was...I had to attend a training through work. I didn't want to go but to my surprise, something I learned that day was actually useful, and didn't involve the motivational speaker telling me that I'd be living in a van down by the RIVER! (As I had feared, even though I MIGHT end up living in a VAN down by the RIVER eventually.)

So often, (please forgive me) I have been frustrated by the commenters who take my posts out of context, pulling out this or that sentence or point and trying, it seems to make my post about something it is not.  Much of this failure is mine;  often I am not clear, often it is a difficult thing, and sometimes it is something that can only be understood by someone who is going through the same thing I am while I write about it.

Sometimes I try to address within the post what I know will become a stumbling block for this or that type of reader, but it seems, always, that my most introspective posts manage to invite comments by those who simply cannot grasp where I am coming from or where I am going. It's impossible and unwieldy to even TRY to make ever commenter happy in catering to their needs. Thus, in the end, the frustration is with myself, in my inability to be all things to all people.

Truly, I don't expect people to understand me,and yet, idiotically, I somehow expect people to understand me. 

(Do you see me rolling my eyes at myself yet?)  

Some time ago, while trying to keep my frustration under wraps, I found a way to express it by writing a humorous post about what would happen if St. Augustine had blogged "Confessions."  I didn't pick on any commenters in particular, but admittedly went for reality to include the rational and annoying both.  You can find that post here. Any blogger could relate and add to the commentary.

This is where I circle around to bring in my actual subject matter for this post:  I have come to realize the speaker I was forced to listen to that day had a point, and truly, there are three types of people in the world, and all of them have commented at my blog at one time or another.

Understanding the types of people (therefore readers/commenters) can go a very long way towards responding to them according to who they are, and this leads to blog success.  More specifically, it leads to success in evangelization THROUGH the blog - or any other medium, for that matter.

(Yes, I'm shameless. Why are you shocked?)

Without further ado, I introduce you to the three types of people found everywhere in the world through every single medium, including blog com boxes:

The "What" People:

These are the people who just want to know WHAT the problem is if there is one, or if not, WHAT the subject is about and therefore, WHAT they should do.  These are the same people who want short blog posts and who are looking for the fine points in any given published article or online post.  They favor bullet points over paragraphs and wouldn't be able to survive without printers and highlighters

In some sense, I think that they might be the most likely to take longer posts out of context, just because of their inherent nature to ask "What the hell are you talking about so I can respond and get it over with?"  These are the people who look to the Passion of Christ as a necessary business, but would prefer not to emote too much over it.

The "What" people are pragmatic, practical, to-the-point, realistic, logical, and want to prioritize. They don't have time for trivialities and quickly tap their feet when confronted by both the "Why" people and the "How" people, whom they see as being extremists and polar opposites.

To evangelize them one must focus mainly on who Jesus is and the fittingness arguments as to the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection.  The challenge in formation for the "What" people is often to bring in both doctrinal and mystical theology to make sure they do not focus only on outcome, i.e., "getting the job done."

Many "What" people are most probably Thomists or Scholastics.

The "Why" People:

These are the people who are the most empathetic among us. They tend to be the most optimistic, the ones who most desperately flee any semblance of suffering in favor of "looking to the good things", often to the degree of outright denial of the necessity of obstacles.  In their empathy they are looking for the same empathy they offer out of their own inherent virtue, and are often bitterly disappointed, but to be fair, are honestly confused when others aren't as "Resurrection-oriented" as they are. They suffer greatly in this area and struggle to maintain their optimism.

The "Why" people tend to be the ones who are most offended and have the thinnest skin when it comes to the reality of sin in the world, wanting both to deny it in general and for themselves, focusing so desperately on the "positive" that they willfully deny the very important positive point of redemptive suffering.

This group is the most difficult to evangelize; they are emotionally driven to the deprivation of the intellectual. It is therefore important, when evangelizing a "Why" person, to find points of identification, such as that provided  by the Saints.  Find a Saint that most resembles the individual, build the points while you build the relationship of friendship and support with that individual.

Keep in mind that with a "Why" it isn't about facts or history or doctrine...it is all about whether they like you or not, and whether you can transfer their affection for you to affection for Christ so that He reigns.  It's a long-term project, and it means that you're going to become family members and best friends long before the "Why" finally accepts the teaching of Christ.  Why?  Because it's all about emotion and trust. It's entirely possible for a Why to adapt to a more realistic approach, but it takes time and patience. When it happens, though, get out of the way for the Why can easily become a How when they recognize the importance of their mission, and NOTHING stops them!

You'll find a lot of "Why" people focusing on Catholic Social Teaching, but the challenge in forming them tends towards the emphasis of  the doctrinal teachings and why they are important. They are excellent in the field of encouragement and intercessory prayer (you'll never find someone more dedicated to intercession!), make great motivational speakers, and are often found peddling politics and special causes.

These are the "doers" of society who keep things running.

The "Why" people are the ones most likely to find a philosophical basis in conceptualism and/or relativism. They can be guided towards Scholasticism and may adopt other philosophies according to their formation and emotional approach to spirituality.

The "How" People:

Oh, this is probably the most complicated of all.  They are perhaps the bane of my existence.

The "Hows" are the concrete-numbers-only-literalists among us.  They tend to be engineers and mathmeticians, or even worse, actuaries.  They might even be librarians (although most librarians are more flexible and personable.)  Most likely, they work for the IRS, the KGB, or the CIA.  Or maybe the DMV.

These are the people who, upon being notified of a meeting, demand to know the topic, the content, what they should bring, and then prepare spreadsheets with all sorts of complicated figures so that they will be certain to know each and every detail and be able to contribute to influencing it.

You'll never find a politician among this group. The "How" people are far too intelligent to ever condescend to mere politics. They make up the backbone of any organization, the unsung heroes in the dingy basement office of the highest skyscraper, spending their days with numbers, printouts and ever-changing computer code.

Evangelizing a "How" is quite difficult. If they are not already faithful, they tend towards the atheistic spectrum, although do have a special love of logic. The only people who can really evangelize a "How" have a deep grasp of philosophy, a love of concrete facts, and only bring in the mystical when it is absolutely necessary AND when the How is ready to go to the next level.  It's a very tricky task, but once a How has converted...get out of the way!

"Hows" make the best Scripture Scholars and Systematic Theologians.

The challenge in the formation of a How is in the realm of true pastoral relations and divine pedagogy;  making sure that the person receiving the message is actually prepared to receive it.

Philosophically speaking, the "How" people tend to cross the spectrum; but once converted, tend towards Thomism, Scholasticism, Moral Ethics, and Natural Law.

Conclusion

I have detailed above the three types of people, and having had a year or so to consider it, have come to the conclusion that the speaker was correct. I work with all three types of people and their combinations.

Most people belong to a combination of categories. For myself, I am a What-Why, only rarely tapping into How.

It is no surprise that I sometimes become frustrated when I am not understood through this medium, and probably, my readers likewise are not understood.

Although I've taken a (dry) humorous approach on this, I invite my readers to look at the categories (What, Why, How), suggest your own take on philosophy, evangelization, and characteristics, and post them in the com box.

Keep it light, keep it fun, and keep it real.

:-)

It might be Lent, but that doesn't mean we have to give up being geeks!

On the Implication of the question, "Why?"

I've been pondering something for several days now, and because of the comments on my previous post, I've decided to tackle the issue. It's something I've noticed for a long time, and in fact, I finally understand an instruction received when I first began working in adolescent psych during my college years.

During the week of our new employee orientation, the trainer, who was the Patient Advocate, explained to us that every question beginning with the word "Why?" was a reasonable question and should be answered. At the time I didn't really understand why we needed to be offered this information. To my way of thinking, if someone was asking any question, it was a real question.  Why was it necessary?

Therein is the problem. Look at the last sentence of the above paragraph. It begins with the word "Why?" followed by a question mark. And in reading that sentence, it seems to presuppose a negative answer, and perhaps to the degree of the implication by the query that his direction to us WASN'T necessary!

Yet, I would argue, it was necessary, as I have come to learn. 

Over the years I've often asked the question "why?" which was an implication of my own presuppositions that, sadly, assumed either there wasn't a satisfactory answer, or none at all.  Of course, I have also asked many questions knowing that in order to further my knowledge of a subject, I had to ask for the reason, thus, necessarily used the very intelligent query, "Why?"

Still, it seems that overall, if that question is used, no matter what the interlocutor's intent, it is read as a negative, or even as a criticism.

I can give several examples of this:

"Why are you doing that?" ~ May imply that one is doing something wrong - tone or facial expression would give this question a positive connotation.

"Why doesn't the Church allow women to become priests?"   ~ Oh, just go to an apologetics forum with that question, stated just like that. Just WATCH the responses go crazy and descend into the assumption that the person making the query is attacking the Church!  It's worse than yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, or "Bomb!" in the security line at the airport on the day before Thanksgiving.

"Why is this happening?"  On the surface, this seems to imply a negative. Is it? Or might it be reasonable to ask?

"Why do we need to learn this?"  I can think of a lot of positive answers to that question. Is the question itself negative, or is the person asking it seeking a real answer?

"Why is this important for us to know?"

"Why is there suffering in the world?"

"Why am I earning this degree?"

"Why do you wear your hair in that style?"

"Why are you wearing that outfit?"

"Why do we have to get up so early?"

In all of the above questions, it is very easy to read the negative into it and assume the person asking the question is asking it not out of a sincere desire for knowledge, but rather, out of argument. I've made the same mistake with people, and have often had to chide myself, remembering the instruction given to me by that trainer long ago.  Yet I can't seem to stop assuming that if that question is asked, it must be coming from a standpoint of negativity or even dissent! It's very easy even to fall into the trap of assuming that someone who asks, "Why?" is looking for an argument.

It's a curious thing, isn't it?  

I know someone who left the Church and became an Evangelical Pastor because of how his own "Why?" was not answered.  (Yes, there's more to his leaving than that, but that was where his journey out began.)

My friend told me several times, that he was raised Catholic. He remembers Vatican II, and the disciplines that changed.  He explained to me that one day, eating meat on a Friday was a mortal sin. The next day, it wasn't anymore. (This is how he reported it...I'm not making a judgment in this case as to whether or not this was true.)  Of course he was confused and asked the Priest who was teaching his class WHY this was the case.  He had an honest question, and honestly assumed there was an answer to it. He was not being snide or smart.  He was confused.

He said that the Priest snapped at him, told him to sit down, shut up, and stop asking questions.  (Again, this is how my friend reported it. Please don't go into "defense" mode in the combox...focus on the topic at hand.)

You see, my friend asked a reasonable question:   "Why?"

For some reason, the predominant opinion of the public, whenever they are hit with the question "Why?" they assume it implies a negative or arises out of argument.

It doesn't - well, not usually, anyway. Certainly the question may ARISE out of a negative situation, but in its essence, the question belongs to reason; it is asking for a REASON for something, and often assumes a positive answer.  In the questions I posed above, certainly non-verbal communication such as body language, facial expression, and vocal tone will help the person being asked understand the intent of the person asking the question, but not always. Some people have a very flat affect. Some just like to yank people's chains.  Others may go around with perpetual scowls and a dark cloud overhead, but it can't be assumed that they are being snide or contentious.

This being a human being stuff is complicated, isn't it?  And it's even harder when limited to the written medium.

My post from a couple days ago was misread by many people, and I agree that the overall tone was a bit melancholic. However, that tone doesn't define my overall interior attitude, and in fact, I was disappointed that my own "Why?" queries were taken out of context of the overall post and interpreted as self-condemning or even worse, condemning of God. Yet I understand why that was taken out of context, for I asked the question, "Why?".

What I was doing in that post was engaging my reason with rhetorical questions. which ultimately were an expression of my prayer to God.  Why am I getting this degree?  I don't know, I don't understand.  The path is not clear for me, nothing is obvious.  Thus....WHY? Would anyone seriously argue that I not offer these questions? After all, there are all sorts of people in my family and friends who have often asked me "Why" I'm getting a degree in Pastoral Theology. I have never had an answer for them for I don't know that answer. Nor have I assumed their questions posed to me to be in the negative;  rather, they expect a positive response.  Their attitudes only change when I express a LACK of an answer, but those who have faith just shrug and say, "God will reveal it."  (Those are also the people who would like to pursue the same degree or field!)  :-)

Making that "why" statement, contrary to seeming popular opinion, is not indicative of an attitude of negativity, but rather, actually touches on a very human principle:  when we are confronted with the deepest issues in life, we ask questions. God expects those questions and has answers for them. This is why it is REASONABLE to ask "Why?" and doesn't presume wastefulness of education, for example, or a lack of answers. Rather, it presumes that there ARE answers even though they may not be readily apparent.

Someone who is asking the question "Why?" is seeking to go deeper;  they are seeking Truth.

I understand now why the Patient Advocate had to point out the reasonableness of that question, and I understand many more things that I was not afraid to pursue simply because of the answers I received when I had the courage to ask the question, "Why?"  In some cases, I learned more because there WASN'T a satisfactory answer, which led me to dig deeper, go further, and amass more knowledge.

"Why?" opens doors. It doesn't slam them shut.

Challenge  yourself.  Consider all the "Why?'s" you've asked in your life and check your reaction when someone around you begins a question with that query. Think about your gut-reaction when that question is asked, and how it is tempered when you then take in the other cues surrounding it.  You may actually be surprised at your own assumptions and how wrong they may be.

In my personal experience, I'm one to assume the negative, too, and have often had to quell my response to people by remembering that instruction from years ago. It has caused me to respond with reason to a question asked in reason, and it has often been the very thing the caller or customer needed to know. Perhaps they did ask out of  a bad situation, but in responding to their need, the situation was resolved...through reason.

Think about it. "Why?" isn't a bad word. It's perhaps the BEST word in the English language! Use it liberally!

Why not?

:-) 

Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Fridays in Lent?

I don't know about you, but I'm weary of hearing both Catholics and non-Catholics trot out the "saving-the-fish-industry" tripe in explanation as to why Catholics may eat fish on Fridays.

I did a quick google search today and saw all kinds of weird questions, such as:  "Where does it say that in the Bible that we have to eat fish on Friday", and "Why do Catholics have to eat fish?"

Those are the wrong questions!

Let me address this:

Catholics DON'T have to eat fish on Fridays in Lent!

This is why the "fish industry" myth is so ridiculous, and I'm flummoxed as to why it is so popular and remains so unquestioned!  When it comes to Catholics and public opinion about us, what happens to critical thinking?  Why is it that myth reigns and weird outta-left-field-ancient-ignorant anti-Catholic attitudes become such a part of our lenten practices?

And really, I also wonder why ANYONE cares whether or not Catholics eat fish on Fridays? Why is something so inane even a topic of discussion? Who had the pettiness to invent this myth, and who is so petty as to pass it on especially in this day and age?  If this myth were true, wouldn't it actually be a GOOD thing, for it would have been an exercise of the Church's teaching on social justice and charity for the poor?

My dear friends, if you run into someone who lodges this accusation, please point out to them that at NO point in the history of the Church were Catholics EVER ordered to eat fish on Fridays.  If they continue to press the point, ask in turn that they locate the Church document that ordered the practice of EATING FISH.

It isn't there. It doesn't exist. If you think it does, please find it and send it to me. I would be very interested in reading it.

FACT: 

What we are asked to do is to offer a universal penance in honor of the death of Our Lord on the Cross, by abstaining from meat.  That is a FAR CRY from the claim that we "have to eat fish on Friday."

But as Fr. V. at Adam's Ale said in a perfect summary of fallen human nature:

 "When we feast we feast. When we fast, we cheat."

THAT (read the whole post to understand "that") is why the Church asks us to practice a common discipline, a common penance, during lent. NOT because the fish union went to a pope and said that they needed help getting people to eat their slimy offerings. “Please make Catholics not eat meat on Fridays so that we can improve our bottom line!” If that were the case the pope would have said, “Eat fish on Fridays!”

We do not eat fish on Fridays. We abstain from meat. The reason so many Catholics eat fish on Fridays is that when we feast we feast, and when we fast we cheat. “They didn’t say we couldn’t eat fish so let’s eat that!” And Holy Mother Church rolls her eyes and says, “Fine, eat fish instead.”

Now, that's ONE explanation, but there is another that gives us some insight into the actual DISCIPLINE of this particular penance.  The fact that there is a tradition (small "t") of SOME Catholics eating fish during Lent goes back to the allowance of fish in place of meat. And I can tell you, growing up, while I LOVED to go fishing, I HATED eating the catch. I hated everything ABOUT fish:  the smell, the taste, the texture, the fact I had to eat it anyway if I wanted dessert, etc.  For me, eating fish on Fridays was a very real penance.  (I don't mind fish now...I've grown up. But I still don't eat it on Fridays especially during Lent. I tend to go vegetarian instead.)

But I digress, as usual. So let me offer you another explanation that comes from St. Thomas Aquinas himself:  (Thanks to Taylor Marshall at Canturbury Tales  for the tip to look to this part of the Summa: check out his post and comments as well.)

From the Summa Theologia, IIa-IIae Q.147.8:

Whether it is fitting that those who fast should be bidden to abstain from flesh meat, eggs, and

milk foods?

I answer that, As stated above (a. 6), fasting was instituted by the Church in order to bridle the  concupiscences of the flesh, which regard pleasures of touch in connection with food and sex. Wherefore the Church forbade those who fast to partake of those foods which both afford most pleasure to the palate, and besides are a very great incentive to lust. Such are the flesh of animals that take their rest on the earth, and of those that breathe the air and their products, such as milk from those that walk on the earth, and eggs from birds. For, since such like animals are more like man in body, they afford greater pleasure as food, and greater nourishment to the human body, so that from their consumption there results a greater surplus available for seminal matter, which when abundant becomes a great incentive to lust. Hence the Church has bidden those who fast to abstain especially from these foods.


Reply to Objection 3. Eggs and milk foods are forbidden to those who fast, for as much as they originate from animals that provide us with flesh: wherefore the prohibition of flesh meat takes precedence of the prohibition of eggs and milk foods. Again the Lenten fast is the most solemn of all, both because it is kept in imitation of Christ, and because it disposes us to celebrate devoutly the mysteries of our redemption. For this reason the eating of flesh meat is forbidden in every fast, while the Lenten fast lays a general prohibition even on eggs and milk foods. As to the use of the latter things in other fasts the custom varies among different people, and each person is bound to conform to that custom which is in vogue with those among whom he is dwelling. Hence Jerome says†: “Let each province keep to its own practice, and look upon the commands of the elders as though they were the laws of the apostles.”


* Cf. P. I., Q. 118, a. 1, ad 3. † Augustine, De Lib. Arb. iii, 18; cf. De Nat. et Grat. lxvii.
e “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas. Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Second and Revised Edition, 1920.

******* 

Well! That's interesting, isn't it?   Keep in mind, before you start arguing about what science tells us about nutrition, that the questions regarding the discipline of Lent really don't have anything to do with nutrition at all. They have to do with SACRIFICE and controlling our passions in order to be better conformed to Christ.   You can read the entire question of fasting here.  Note how the Angelic Doctor uses the term "flesh" and its relation to humanity and thus to Christ.

We don't eat fish on Fridays by any decree from Rome. In fact, I'd argue that Lenten Fish Fries go against the spirit of Lent, except for the fact that they are usually held for the purpose of giving alms, another Lenten requirement.  (Yes, we are called to fast and offer our savings from the food we AREN'T eating to the poor, or offer alms in some other form.)

I loved fishing and have written of my memories of fishing with my Dad as a little girl. But I hated the smell, the taste, the processing of the fish, and found the seeming obligation during Lent to eat fish to be truly penitential, but for a few exceptions.  I don't mind it now, but tend to make it a point to deny even the fish that I like in order to experience the deprivations and penance required by the true spirit of Lent which point to the sacrifice of Christ and our obligation as Christians to become more like Him.

The fact is this: 

As Catholics, EVERY Friday throughout the year is a commemoration of Good Friday, thus it is a penitential day. EVERY FRIDAY requires us to do some kind of penance. In America, in most dioceses, we can decide what we want to do as penance. Most observant Catholics continue to give up meat on Fridays as it is easy to remember and consistent...and when there are social plans that may involve meat, say, at a friend's home, it reminds one to recall Christ's own sacrifice and maybe give us a chance to proclaim our faith even if in social discomfort.

I don't know why, but the Jews and the Muslims don't seem to have a problem proclaiming their faith through observance of their dietary laws and observances. Why is it such an issue for Catholics?  When did WE turn into such complete wusses?

News for most Catholics:  it's a sin to NOT do some sort of penitential observance on Fridays throughout the year! It's not a "Lenten" thing, but a WEEKLY thing!  

During Lent, though, we are required to abstain from meat in union with all Catholics throughout the world, and if you want to focus on the Social Justice end of it, in union with all the starving peoples everywhere, to whom you can give the money saved so that THEY can have meat for once.

What's so hard about that, and why is it such a cause for controversy?

If you're one to attack the practice, Stop it! Turn your heart and soul to Christ in place of bitterness.  He did not die for any of us so that we could be free to be jerks.  He died so that we might follow Him, take an example from His own Holiness, and rise above our fallen nature in cooperation with Grace. Lent and the imposed disciplines of Lent help us to do that.

It really is that simple.
*

Incompetent Gardener

I've long known that my role in catechesis is to plant seeds and allow the Holy Spirit to do His work.  After all, my own conversion was long and varied (and continues as does my vocational discernment!). The reality is, though, that where the seeds go, I don't know.

I don't know if I'm planting the right seeds at the right times, providing the proper nourishment that belongs to my role, and I don't even know what SEASON it is for planting. All I can do is pass on what's in my hands when someone asks for it.

There are many people I know who are involved in religious education and who frequently quote someone (the name of the personage escapes me) in saying (or some variation):

 "God is the Manager. I'm in Sales."

Certainly that's true, for the biggest role of someone involved in passing on the Catholic Faith  is SELLING the Gospel, the theology, and the whole package, to all souls. Sure, it's delivered in bits and pieces and it's assembled with the assistance of the salesperson, but the analogy is correct:  evangelization is greatly a sales position.

For me, though, the "Sales" analogy doesn't work. 

People in Sales can "sell" their product. They can show them something amazing and make them BELIEVE it, and in their delivery of this wonderful thing, they prove themselves as wonderful and gifted motivational evangelists.

I've come to realize, though, that I'm not a sales person. I can't even motivate myself to get out of bed in the morning!  (That's why I have dogs!)

I am an Incompetent Gardener.

I have a bunch of seeds, I'm scattering them where and when it seems appropriate, and I'm hoping for the best.  Unfortunately I will never see the results, because these seeds are not annuals, they are not perennials, but rather they gestate for YEARS before they finally begin to bloom, and then it's someone else's job to encourage them to grow. Unless, of course,  I happen to trip on the tender bloom in my typical klutziness, and that usually means I need to pass the bruised reed in question on to someone else (like Jesus through the Sacred Ministry of the Priesthood) to be restored to full potential. If the damaged bloom is amenable, that is.

Besides, if I trip on the bloom it's just because a more competent gardener has managed to plant the seed in the right place in the right soil, and, well, the Holy Spirit has done His work.

That's what it comes down to, really.

Our roles don't matter. We are ALL, through Baptism, required to pass on the Faith throughout the world. We all contain the seeds that need to be spread, and all are called to do so in different ways.  Some are white-collar Sales people, others of us are lowly blue-collar Gardeners  (both are found among the clergy and laity, active and contemplative religious alike) and we work together to bring life out of the impossibility of the soil we find at our very feet.

My job isn't to convert anyone or to make them a Saint. That task belongs to God alone.  

My job IS to provide the seeds (information) to others so that the love of the Holy Spirit may take root and carry them from darkness into light, from nothingness into fullness, from death into life NONE of us can possibly imagine!

If I only plant the right seeds at the right time in the right way...there will be fruit. Eventually. Through the action of the Holy Spirit, who really doesn't NEED me to do anything at all. It's a privilege to be able to "help."

It is freeing to be a lowly incompetent gardener...may I, through God's Grace, always be so.
Amen
*

Wanting to be Liked...and MORE!

Holiness isn't found in an instant. I'm constantly reminded it's found in the little moments, the small decisions we make every day. We don't seek holiness for accolades, but because we love God and want to be closer to Him.

The holier we are, the less we worry about what others think of us.

That's the problem, isn't it? We all want to be liked. We all want people to love us, and it really wounds us when someone we know expresses dislike in some way, or if we simply can't get along with them for some reason.

This is something I've often had to face since I began working in a parish.

Given that I came to this position with long experience in male-dominated fields, I'm pretty used to being the "bad guy". Given that I've worn a uniform a certain percentage of the world hates on sight, I can withstand the "evil eye" shot in my direction, especially considering that it's not personal.

I was surprised, then, in starting parish work, to find that the "evil eye" from a parishioner was devastating.

To be perfectly honest, never in my life have I ever hit such directed, personal hatred as I did when I began working in a Catholic parish and ran aground of the people who saw that I was disrupting the comfortable status quo.

Oh, yes, it was personal, and it was hatred. Let's call it what it is; the reality is that this happens across the spectrum of orthodoxy or lack therof. I see and lament it enough in the blogosphere, and I've even been a part of it.

Yes, I know I rant (on my blog), but I try to keep the rant general, not about the people, but the issues that we face. I may look at Sr. XYZ in her navy pantsuit and detest her eco-spirituality, but maybe I like her as a person and find her fun to talk to as long as the topic has nothing to do with theology. I've spoken with dissident priests, seeing in them something truly wonderful (one who had just absolved me after a very powerful confession), gritting my teeth against some of his expressed theology. Yet...in him I saw great compassion, understanding, and proper knowledge of Christ in the Sacraments. Something that in fact, led me closer to Jesus, lent to a greater ability to trust Him.

You see, I'm trying hard (still working on it) to separate the people from the issues. We are all sinful creatures in need of mercy.

It really hurts like hell when someone we know we are supposed to love directly targets us, takes aim, and fires.

That's what happened to me my first year. I didn't set out to alienate anyone, and actually tried to deliver Truth gently, making sure to incorporate myself and my own culpability in our Faith. I didn't do a very good job...some of my wording WAS too harsh. It wasn't all wording, though. The message itself is sometimes harsh, and if it's never been brought to the forefront, those it impacts the most repel it violently.

Some of the problem was that no matter how gently a message is delivered, there are those who won't accept it, and want to remain with the status quo, which in our day and age involves pluralism and relativism. Anyone who speaks truthfully of the Church, of Christ, is therefore going to offend anyone who rejects those teachings. The "offended" person, wearing the label belonging to the objective teachings, seeing that they don't actually match the label they claim, gets very defensive and lashes out.

They make the attack personal, in a way only an "offended" human can: viciously, with defamation of character and snarkiness. Never in person, though. In person, they are sweet as southern pecan pie. In any case, it's much easier to attack and silence the messenger than it is to go to the Cross and destroy Christ. Or, in someone open to the message, to actually take it in and experience conversion.

It's been some time now, and people at my work have gotten used to me and have gotten to know me as I've also gotten to know them. I recognize so many more faces these days, even if I don't know the names, and have to confess that in knowing them, I want to be liked by them as well. I want to be on their side, I want them on my side. Even though I am but an employee there, I am also a Catholic, therefore I see us as family.

I will their good, and so I teach/preach what I believe to be for their good, and I try to do it in such a way that all can handle the message...and desire more of it.

I guess that's the problem with being "family". Sometimes speaking the truth and doing my job means ruffling feathers. Sometimes it means having MY feathers ruffled. It means being challenged.

It means I have to be dependent upon God, for if I am not, I will be eaten alive.

I'm giving a few talks this week to a group of parents, something I have to do every year, and have to admit I don't think it's fun. I don't think I'm a very good speaker and wish I could just provide the information to someone else and have someone else deliver the message.

This afternoon I expressed this to my boss, saying that all the work was done; all someone would have to do is to step in and READ it!

Laughing she told me, "Adoro...just READ it!"

No! I meant SOMEONE ELSE!

OK, never mind...I'll go.

The core of my problem isn't any real phobia, or anything else. It's fear, of knowing I'm going to speak the Truth and some people are not going to like me because of it. The Truth is uncomfortable. I know it well...it still makes me uncomfortable, as it should.

But maybe the worst thing: I don't want to experience that because I want people to like me.

Oh, it's painful to admit that fact about myself.

Certainly, it's very necessary, in apologetics, in evangelization, to have a relationship with the other party. If I'm not friendly with Mr. Y or Mrs. M, why should they trust anything I say, or especially that it is coming from an eternal source, not just the Gospel according to Adoro?

In meeting big groups, I find it harder to deliver the message of the gospel, because I'm talking AT people. When I get to have these same discussions with small groups, or individually, they can ask questions as we go, which makes it more interpersonal. If I've been unclear in my presentation, they can ask for clarification. If I am in error, they can call me on it! (So far my biggest errors have actually been typoes, clerical stuff, not theology!)

But still, the key is in the relationship. I think it is easier now to speak to these groups because I know them, and consider many to be friends. I had to speak tonight and had among that crowd several parents I actually would have said didn't have to be present because they were last year or the year before. One said she wanted to be there for support, and after my talk, said she appreciated how the message was delivered.

I was glad to have her there. Her presence DID help, especially because I'd told her she didn't have to be there and I could just meet with her separately with any details.

There were others who didn't even ask, and I knew they were there not for the information, but to give support, to get anything new, to offer what they could. Wonderful people.

It's good to be liked. It's good to have friends. We can't survive without friends, or without their support.

But we can't depend on that or allow that to define us.

We can't fear delivering the message of the Gospel for fear someone won't like us anymore if we do. Or maybe that they'll outright hate us for simply professing our belief.

We live in challenging times, where it is "uncool" to be religious, unless we are "religious" in the pluralistic self-serving sense, that everything is truth, and truth is subjective, personally defined.

We who work in parishes have to wander through such muddy waters and help souls come out of it into the light that is Christ alone. It's tough work, we're going to take barbs, we're going to have fishhooks impale us, and we're going to bring up old boots when we go diving for lost souls.

But we can't give up. Whether we work for a parish or simply love Jesus and want to bring Him to others, we're going fishing in the muddy bottoms, and if we give up, it'll be too late. We're going in for rescue...not body recovery. When it gets to the latter, it's too late.

It's really no surprise that some we bring up through the muddy waters flail about and scream at us and express anger. It's no wonder they are defiant and combative. In emergency medicine, people who have been deprived of oxygen are often combative. It's a HUGE sign, and never one to take personally. They simply don't know what they are doing. Once they have breathed clean air for awhile, they come to their senses, they come to themselves....they come to Life.

Year for Priests

Before I worked in a church, I really didn't understand what priests deal with every day. I know that what I do is a privilege, for I speak with his authority, through the Bishop. If I give Church teaching...it needs to be Church teaching. Father trusts me to do that, the Bishop, by extension, trusts me to do that...on up to the Pope.

But there's more. People often look at priests without realizing the depth of what they do, who they are. Their parishes ARE their families, their parishioners...their children. I think they even have special concern for their employees (although I haven't much pondered this and need another viewpoint.) Myself, I see the priest I work for differently than I see my own Pastor; the relationship is definitely different, as it should be.

Still, though, it's not the same as secular employment. Faith changes EVERYTHING.

I know I am not called to parish work, although it's where I am now. It has changed me, it has given me a more mature perspective, something I needed, especially as a blogger. It has given me the chance to see people as they are, in all their needs, and the Church, in the depths of her true warfare.

Priests see this too, even MORE deeply. I know that if all I wrote in this post is true, it is even more deeply so for a Priest, who has charge of the parish. When I go home at night, my responsibility is done, but for my moral life. When a priest goes home at night...well...he never leaves. He IS home.

And because he is human, he wants to be liked, too. He wants to be loved. I know guys are not so emotional as we women, but foundationally we are all social and have this same need. I'm sure that it wounds Priests even more than it does me when they have to face the ire of their parishioners, for whom they have laid down their lives.

Pray for priests. Never let a day go by that you do not pray for your own Pastor, for his sanctity, for God to guide him in all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and for his safety.

This is his prayer for you as well. Don't let that prayer be one-sided.

****

You CANNOT be Christian and Support Abortion!

This post was originally published on June 22, 2007. Given that Advent begins in a week, and given that this weekend we celebrate the Feast of Christ the King, I can think of no better way to honor Him than by fighting for the life of the unborn by citing Jesus as the most perfect example of an "unplanned pregnancy." Those who profess to believe in Christ speak with forked tongues if they proclaim Christ in one moment and deny life to the unborn in the next.

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."
29 But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.
30 Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,
33 and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
34 But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"
35 And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
36 And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren;
37 for nothing will be impossible for God."
38 Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.
39 During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah,
40 where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.
41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,
42 cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
43 And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.
45 Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."

It is not possible to be a Christian and support the "right" to an abortion. It is not possible to be a Catholic Christian and support the "right" to abortion. You certainly have a choice...you are EITHER what society calls "Pro-Choice", OR you are a Christian.

If this is not clear to you, re-read the text of Luke 1 which I posted above. Especially focus on the parts in bold.

When the angel appeared to the Virgin Mary, he announced to her she would conceive and bear a son to be named Jesus. The birth of Jesus would follow the conception, because that's how it works. The angel did not announce to her that she would conceive and lay and egg...he announced that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her, and AT THAT MOMENT she would conceive in her womb the Christ, the Holy Redeemer.

Something very special happens to each woman at the moment of conception, the very same thing that happened to Mary when she conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. Every single human life begins in the same way; with a touch from God, a touch that infuses body and soul together, forming a complete human life in the most minute detail.

When the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Blessed Mother, the human and Divine nature of Jesus were fused together. As we know that Jesus, born of a human woman, was fully human in all ways, we also know that he was fully Divine.

Any Christian would certainly be offended at the idea that Jesus was a lump of flesh or just a conglomeration of cells until he was born. Scripture clearly spells out the fact that the children in the wombs of Mary and Elizabeth were, in fact, children, not accidents of the universe. They were not cancer, they were not impersonal "fetuses"; no, they were CHILDREN, they were God's wonderful and abundant blessings, and through the womb of Mary, the Mother of God, Jesus, both Human and Divine, emerged to redeem humanity.

He did not become Jesus from birth; he was Jesus from conception.

Christ, the Redeemer of the world, is the one who penetrated in a unique unrepeatable way into the mystery of man and entered his "heart". Rightly therefore does the Second Vatican Council teach: "The truth is that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a type of him who was to come (Rom 5:14), Christ the Lord. Christ the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling". And the Council continues: "He who is the 'image of the invisible God' (Col 1:15), is himself the perfect man who has restored in the children of Adam that likeness to God which had been disfigured ever since the first sin. Human nature, by the very fact that is was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his Incarnation, he, the son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man. He worked with human hands, he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin"47, he, the Redeemer of man.(RH, 8)

From the very moment of his Conception, Jesus was both God and Man; as by his conception he dignified humanity even further, it cannot be denied that EACH AND EVERY HUMAN LIFE has an innate dignity, raised even even more by virtue of the Incarnation of God, the Word made Flesh who dwelt among us (John 1), showing us by EXAMPLE of his very own CONCEPTION that this is a child of God FROM THAT VERY MOMENT!

I can understand how atheists or agnostics or religions that do not believe in the Virgin Birth can argue when life begins. But I simply cannot FATHOM how those who claim to be Christian, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, can support the unmitigated and unquestioned slaughter of the unborn children of God. The reality is that the Holy Spirit overshadows all women at the time of conception in order for the soul to be infused into the moment of conception; God touches each one of us at that moment. God touches each woman especially at that moment, a blessing of life, a blessing of love, in the creation of a unique human being designed from the beginning to grow according to the will of God.

If you have the audacity to claim that abortion is an authentic "right", then at least have the integrity to announce you are no longer a Christian. To do anything else is to deny the Lord, the Redeemer who shed his blood so that you might live and have eternal life.

Should you be faced with an unexpected pregnancy, spend some time meditating on the passages of Luke, on Mary's fiat ("let it be done unto me according to your Word"), meditate on the face of the Crucified Christ, place your hand over your womb where that child grows, and consider how God has literally touched you and the life you carry within you. Imagine the face of the Christ child, the infant, and realize that just as Jesus, who loves you enough to die a horrible death for you, loves your child just as much. Imagine how the two natures of God, both Human and Divine, were joined at the moment of Jesus' conception, just as the body and soul of your unborn child were also joined in that same blessed moment.

Do any of us really want to deny life to any of the children of God? To do so is to justify the abortion of Christ Himself.


Bibliography:

"The Redeemer of Man (Redemptor hominis), Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II", Pauline Books & Media, 1979, p. 16

A Soul is like a Car Wreck

Sometimes God gives us a glimpse of His Mercy in unexpected ways.

About a year or so ago, when I worked as an Insurance Investigator, I was handling a claim that was very fishy. It was a stolen vehicle claim, the car was really a mess, and was at the shop, waiting for us to complete our investigation. However, I knew the customer was lying and that the car WASN'T stolen. It had a security system that had not been defeated, and his story as to how a thief had allegedly gotten his keys simply didn't ring true. The location of the car made no sense...unless the owner himself had been driving it at the time of the accident.

When I took his statement, I even confronted him and asked him directly, "Are you sure that you weren't just drunk, crashed your car, and fled the scene?"

He denied it. And yet...I knew he was lying. So the investigation dragged on as I continued to interview his witnesses, obtain reports, etc.

Finally it came down to the wire. If he didn't come clean with me, I was going to have to take the claim to a conference call with the big heads and legal, and obtain permission to deny the claim: the car wasn't stolen. It was time to have what we in the biz call the "Come to Jesus" speech.

"Come to Jesus"

It was a long conversation. And over the years, in fact, I'd gotten rather good at these types of dialogues. There are two keys to this: 1. you first have to convince the other party that you do indeed know the truth but need confirmation of it, and, 2. that you do truly have their best interests at heart. That means you have to highlight the bad result and direct them towards the good. In other words, "Come to Jesus."

I'd already given him several chances to tell the truth. I'd given him all the consequences and the possible outcomes, I'd even thrown several bones by way of helping him tell me the truth, indicating that was all I needed. I wasn't the police; I was his insurer, and I needed to know the truth because I wasn't willing to testify in court to a lie should a victim come forward and have a claim to present.

Nor should this guy want to be in court with this story...he'd be torn to pieces.

So, on that last opportunity, I laid it out. I explained that I knew he wasn't being truthful, I suspected the reason why, but if he didn't admit what really happened, the people over my head were going to make a decision that didn't bode well for him. I laid out all the legal ramifications of our denial of his claim, should that be the decision. I gave him dollar values, and knowing there was third party damage, I gave him a quote on that bill, which was destined to come his way.

It was a good conversation; I was matter-of-fact about it, encouraged him to be honest, and did my best to let him know that it was in his very best interest to come clean and tell the truth. I knew that if he did, I could proceed, all would be well, and this entire mess would be done. He was becoming more and more nervous, and more and more interested in our dialogue. He asked questions, hemmed and hawed, and I could hear him take several deep breaths, trying to calm his shaking voice. I knew that SOMETHING I'd said had struck a chord, and he was FINALLY understanding what he was facing.

And then I used a technique I learned long ago in law enforcement training: silence. He agonized in it, and came to a decision. I asked if he needed a moment, said that I could take another statement, but if he had to think about it, I understood, as I'd just thrown a lot of information his way. I also said that I would remain available for questions or other concerns.

More silence. Silence is key.

But no; he didn't want to wait, had no more questions, and didn't want to call back. he was ready. He took another deep breath and told me to start the tape, which I did, giving the standard introduction, and just asked him to tell me what happened in his own words. He admitted that he'd been drinking, he didn't call a cab, he didn't lose his keys, but chose to drive. En route home he lost control and crashed, hard, into something he couldn't identify. (It was a cement median pole...dunno how he hit THAT, but he did. Really hard.) Frightened, he ran away and called his friend (a witness who had given me the key to the real deal) who gave him a ride home. I had only a couple question; did he have any passengers? No. And was he injured? No. (Amazing, actually...you should have seen that car...massive impact.)

I thanked him, turned off the recorder, and said, "OK, that's it. I'll call the shop and tell them to start repairs, cut the check out for the estimate I've written so far, and will call the rental company to accept the bill."

He was shocked. One moment he'd been terrified to tell me the real story, the next moment I simply accepted the truth...and went ahead with what he needed.

"That's it?" He asked, increduously, "That's all? .....THANK YOU!"

And I'd never heard such relief or joy in someone's voice.

What he did was what we both needed him to do, and for good reason. All along I'd known, and knew what to do when he finally came clean...and what would happen if he didn't. But he didn't know, couldn't see it, and was acting out of fear in hiding his sin.

A Glimpse of God's View

That night when I was driving home, it hit me: that's how God sees us. That was an example of His own mercy. When we sin, we do the same thing - we try to hide it. We suffer guilt, we tell ourselves that things will be made worse if we are honest and speak the truth. We expect to be berated, or punished. We steel ourselves against an onslaught of righteous anger.

None of us ever gets over the idea that we're going to "get into trouble". We are forever fallen children.

And that's why God's Mercy is so incredible; for even though we DESERVE the worst punishment, when we come to Him, we experience nothing but love and mercy. All God wants us to do is to come to Him, to be honest, and to stop trying to hide the things in our lives that He already knows about. It is only when we take this action that He can work to restore us to our original dignity. Our souls cannot be repaired without our permission.

I knew the sound of relief in my customer's voice on that day; for his relief, and his words, are often my own. His nervous, shaking voice...also mine. His ducking and denials of what I knew to be the truth...me, all the way. And in the end, his relief, at finally speaking the words of what really happened...that is familar as well. It was followed by grateful joy when he learned that truly, I delivered what I promised all along, and it was over. He could move on. Yup...I've been there, too.

He even exclaimed at how good it felt to tell the truth.

All I did for that man was my job, but I see that even the work that I did operated on the hierarchy of God's Providence, revealing to both my customer and I different facets of God's love, and His ordering of the world. On that day, I got to participate in both God's justice and His Mercy...and my customer was the recipient. And in that participation, I obtained a glimpse into the "other side" of Mercy: that of dispensing mercy; for to do so IS just!

I have to be honest; that customer helped me to see Our Lord, and the blessed Sacrament of Confession through new eyes. One thing that I think we as the laity often miss is that on the other side of the screen, or in the other chair, the guy with God's Authority is also a human being. Maybe Father doesn't know all the details about someone that I knew as an Investigator, or perhaps he does, if he knows the person well. And how he must pray mightily that a soul will "come to Jesus" and obtain the grace he needs.

But how well he must know the interior struggle of that person, and how well he must rejoice when the penitent sitting in front of him (0r behind the screen) exclaims, "That's IT?!", nearly weeping in relief. And that dear Priest, dispensing Mercy in the name and person of Christ Himself, knows the feeling, too.

I gotta say it; we're all a bunch of car wrecks waiting for repair, but if we can't admit where and why we made a wrong turn, there isn't a shop in the world that can restore us. Only Christ can do that, and we have but to ask. Mercy awaits.

What are YOU waiting for?
*

It's NOT the Children we have to Catechize

...it's their PARENTS.

This week I attended a meeting during which we discussed the needs of children whose parents are clearly taking them through the "Sacrament Factory", never to darken the door of a church again. Ever.

Yet they call themselves "Catholic" and they think they are making their children Catholic...but they are doing so in name only. They are exposing the children and themselves to certain obligations to God and to the Church community, and then they are withdrawing, literally tearing their little Saints away from Our Lord.

And the Sin does not belong to the children...it belongs to their parents. The sin of the parents is compounded when one considers that one day those children will grow up thinking that it's OK not to go to Mass, to claim to be Catholic and support abortion, to claim to be Catholic...but not have the slightest idea what it means to be Catholic. Even when those children grow up and become adults, they can't really be held responsible, for the ignorance of their parents is being lived out in them...the Sin belongs to the parents.

I can't stress this enough:

Parents...don't take your children to religious education classes in school or in a faith formation program only for the Sacraments if you have no intentin of attending Mass and living the Faith. To do this means you are putting not only YOUR soul in jeopardy of Hell, but your CHILD'S as well.

A parent's job is a big one, and a wonderful one; get your child to Heaven! And the same duty will later apply to a child if they are well formed; get your parents into Heaven!

We don't live in a vacuum. God created our society based on inequality; we have to depend on each other for our needs.

Going back to the topic of our meeting the other day, I lamented that while we worry so much about the children (as we should!), our real outreach efforts should be towards their parents.

Sadly, we are a Church of lost generations. I am a part of that "lost generation", one of them, anyway, and as I look around my parishes, I see very few people my age. My peers may be parents, but they aren't coming to Mass. They're dropping their kids off at the curb and driving away, and that's the ONLY time they actually approach the church.

There are a few generations now who have suffered through "catechesis" that consisted of banner-making and crafts sporting the word "Jesus" on it somewhere. I can honestly say that I didn't learn anything about Jesus by doing that, although I'll never forget how to spell His name. And I long to wake up to the scent burning felt in the morning.

All kidding aside, if we as educators, as good Catholics ANYWHERE want to make a difference, we shouldn't be focusing so much on the children; we NEED to bring back their parents. Teachers in Catholic schools (of the few schools that actually ARE Catholic) and Catechists in Religious Ed. programs have the children for a limited number of hours each week. It's not NEARLY enough to reveal the mystery of God to them. Faith is learned in the home.

We could eliminate all religious education programs from the schools and churches...and faithful families will still raise faithful children, and faithless families will still not come to Mass.

I really question what we're doing. We can't educate the children and leave them to the wolves that are their faithless parents. We NEED to reach out to their parents, find out WHY they've fallen away, establish a relationship, and bring them back into the Church. There's very little hope for the children if their parent's refuse to acknowledge God.

People fall away for a myriad of reasons, and some of them are simple; some of them are complicated. But they identify themselves as Catholic, and they need a hand to come back. Maybe it's just a phone call. Maybe it'll take lots of work. Maybe they're angry, or they've been hurt somehow, or maybe it's just a complete lack of catechesis. Maybe they've been so secularized that they don't even know that God exists or WHY they're sending their children to a Catholic school or religious education program.

Yet this is the group that is most difficult to reach; their myriad of reasons for not practicing their faith are legion, and the idea of reaching out to them is daunting. But if we don't do it, well...then we are to blame. They are OUR responsibility. If we identify the problem through their children, then we also have the obligation to find a way to reach out to these lost souls and give them a way to come back.

I'm not saying it's easy, but we have to do it.

I don't care if we're Catechists, Directors of Religious Ed., Youth Ministers, Priests, or the Average Person in the pew...we ALL have an OBLIGATION to our lost brothers and sisters! God has given us all a hand in Salvation, and we ALL know Catholics who are not practicing, or are maybe just floating on the edges. Sometimes all they need is an invitation.

Let me tell you a secret: I was once one of those people. I was DYING for SOMEONE....ANYONE to invite me to Mass with them. I was DYING for a connection, a way back Home. All it would have taken was an invitation. I had invites from Protestant friends, but I wasn't interested. I knew where Home was, but I couldn't seem to get there.

Not ONE. SINGLE. PERSON. ever invited me to go to Mass with them. Not once.

Thank God He sent me an anti-Catholic, otherwise I fear I'd be dead right now, in mortal sin and maybe physically. I never got an invite; instead I got a bullwhip. (Which, as Isaiah points out...the Ox and the Ass know their Master...)

It shouldn't take an attack; all too often, those attacks against faith pull people away from the Church, into error and apostasy. Therefore, we should be out there inviting, reaching out, living our lives as a witness. And let me tell you....living it sometimes isn't enough. Evangelization may be quiet sometimes, but other times actually demands something of us, and that "something" is literal action.

Offer to drive your fallen-away neighbor to Mass, even if it's not convenient to your regular schedule. Invite your cousin or friend to Mass with you. Sit down with your friend and talk about faith...and see if you can get to the root of their anger. You don't have to have the answers; you only have to provide your ear and maybe a shoulder. And if your friend needs to beat on someone...offer yourself. Hold your tongue and just listen.

Volunteer with your parish to head up a committee to reach out to fallen-away parishioners. Where to start? Maybe those who don't contribute financially. Some of them are in need of services and would never ask for help and are ashamed, but would be grateful for an offer. Others maybe have moved. Others...just feel estranged and never attend. Others maybe attend but don't use the envelopes, and your conversation with them could make a huge difference.

Figure something out. And then do it.

It's not about you, it's not about me...it's about the fact that the Church is here to save our souls, and we are members of the Church.

The burden, the weight of that responsibility falls upon ALL of us, not just our Priests. It is their job to instruct us in how to be holy; it is OUR job to carry that holiness into the world. If we don't do it...no one will.
*

Audience Hostility

A comment by Maureen in the previous post brought something to mind, and I have to wonder if it is what has made me more sensitive to audience dynamics.

Anyone who has spent any time on stage knows the phenomena; each audience has its own personality, its own dynamic. I was playing Ms. Minchin in "The Little Princess" as an 8th Grader when I first learned about this. Because that was one of the principle roles, I was on stage a lot, and got an inkling, even under my nervousness, of the energy of the audience that fed my own performance.

A couple years later, in Community Theatre, I got an even stronger sense of "audience participation" in their responsiveness or lack thereof. There was no heckling, but rather, a sense of performing to a brick wall or to a living breathing organism. Sometimes the audience was so appreciative it was literally felt and absorbed by us, and returned to them in our renewed enthusiasm. A dismal audience dampened us just as thick fog inhibits echoes.

Speaking to a hostile audience is similar, and in looking back, I have to wonder if my time on stage, as long ago as it was, gave me the ability to tune in to that group dynamic. I know that when I'm at work and speaking to a group, I can tell when they're bored, not paying attention, etc. I can feel it when they've disengaged with the topic.

And boy, if I'm the speaker, I sure can feel it when I'm being heckled! (Yes, literally!) Last fall, I remember preparing for my talk, hoping it was engaging, informative, and useful. Hoping that this group would be as receptive as RCIA had been the year before. But I hadn't accounted for the fact that the parents I was speaking to didn't want to be there, they had questions I didn't know to anticipate, and even as they sullenly arrived, the pre-speaking butterflies multiplied in my stomach.

That first night was worse than speaking to a brick wall..it was more akin to whistling in a dark alley as I waited for Freddie to appear with five razors on his left hand. There was a palpable WALL meeting my every word. In desparation, I was looking around the room, making eye contact, and connecting with the people who were nodding, or neutral, or even slightly smiling. There were some who literally had turned their chairs around so that only their backs were to me. I remember one in particular who spent the time chatting with her best friend at her table.

The absolute rudeness was shocking to me. I was amazed at the brazen disrespect. Even though throughout my life I've attended things I didn't particularly care about, and maybe even disagreed, somewhere along the line I learned to, at worst, just be bored. I've never glared at a speaker. I've never turned my back on a speaker. Maybe it came from having to give speeches in Jr. High...we all knew we had to be up there next, and we all knew how hard it was.

The next time I speak, I may address this head on for the benefit of those who might be hostile; I have to wonder, if I reveal this human side of me, maybe they'll be softened enough, remembering their own Jr. High experiences, and be willing to listen even if they disagree. It's a tactic that might be worth trying.

But it's hard to know how to handle hostility, for we don't always know WHY people are hostile. We can be certain there's a reason, and usually that reason comes from a direct personal harm, or at least something taken personally.

We are part of a Church that has, for a couple generations, not been well catechized. A week ago in class, one of our professors remarked that he's always amazed by people who make fun of the memorization methods used with the Baltimore Catechism. They could quote the entire Catechism chapter and verse, question and response. Yet they ripped on the method, stating they never learned anything, they weren't changed by it...maybe so. And he would agree...rote memorization isn't sufficient when our faith should exist to change us interiorly, not just intellectually.

But he had a good response, one I feel as well. To those of you who condemn the Baltimore Catechism and joke that you can quote it to this day: AT LEAST YOU HAVE THAT! You know more than those of us who weren't even taught the most rudimentary articles of faith. AT LEAST YOU HAVE THE ANSWERS, IF YOU WERE TO BOTHER TO TRULY ASK THE QUESTIONS.

It makes me want to cry; we are so lost. And there are so many who are lost who haven't even BEGUN to question their faith and learn about it, content with the seductive relativism of our society that pitts sports against church activities and "fun things" against God. Most of the time, the "faithful" are choosing worldly endeavors because church is a "Sunday thing", if even that.

So it stands to reason that if someone comes along and actually provides real Church teaching, the audience, even a claiming-to-be-Catholic audience tends to get very hostile. They don't know the Catechism. They get their Catholicism from the likes of Nancy Pelosi, and they learn Social Justice from groups that do social work devoid of the necessary Moral teachings that have ALWAYS guided Social Justice.

Of COURSE they're angry! Of COURSE they're insulted! But if they had the time to sit down in the presence of Our Lord, they'd realize that the source of their anger wasn't the speaker, or the teaching itself, but the anger at the spiritual poverty thrust upon them that allowed them to be without God for so long. To not know God. To give lip service but with a forked tongue.

And because they never learned, they are living a privation of good...they are living evil, and it makes them angry, because EVERYONE knows they deserved better formation.

That doesn't really help us, though, does it? Because it means that Priests who speak up, their Faith Formation staff that speak up, the average Lay Catholic who speaks up is going to take a beating from nearly everyone.

I've lost friends, and so have most of my Catholic friends who take our faith seriously. It's not because we're "judgmental" or mean about our beliefs. It is that we've been forced by the friends we thought we had to take a stand...and we can't be a part of something evil. To distance ourselves from, say, being a proxy on a Living Will that asks us to murder our friends...no, we can't do that. And so, rather than our friends hearing us out and simply taking our names off of a form, those "friends" remove us from both the form and their lives.

That's another type of audience hostility, albeit it's a smaller audience, but one that is a LOT more painful.

I truly, truly encouage those of you who are crying out for your Priests and Bishops to "have a spine!" to put your own words and lives where they put theirs. Get involved in RCIA, in Faith Formation. Are your children receiving the Sacraments this year? Offer to give a testimony, and don't mince words. Speak the Truth in love, don't be afraid to do EXACTLY what you expect your Priests and Bishops to do...and then stand up and take the backlash.

You'll have a whole different and better appreciation of what you're asking...rightfully asking. And you'll be spending a lot more time praying for those you so love to criticize, because only by experiencing that lash can you ever appreciate the agonizing pain.

If you're not a public speaker, then take your concerns and pray Stations of the Cross for the person you think should be speaking in a certain way, and withhold your unjust criticisms as a penance in honor of that person. You may be amazed at what is revealed to you through such a devotion, and the power it has for the person for whom you're praying.


It's hard to be a faithful, practicing Catholic in our world, and sooner or later we're all going to suffer for it in some way. As I've said before...make it worthwhile.
*