For The Rebel Children

I, myself, am a rebel, just so you know.

And a couple of weeks ago, I had the honor of being a chaperone on our parish's Confirmation retreat. If you don't know, Catholic kids receive the Sacrament of Confirmation sometime during their high school years; and before that occasion, they usually attend a retreat in order to prepare and reflect upon the graces they will receive from that Sacrament, as well as what it means to be a Catholic.

The retreat that I helped with was a very good one. It included prayer and music and speakers -- including teen speakers -- and Mass and Confession and Eucharistic adoration. It was very well-run and the kids seemed to enjoy it.

There were some kids there though, who were rebels, in the best sense of the word. These kids are people who question the status quo, who have merciful hearts, who have a great sense of justice, who are compassionate, who are creative. And they don't always like what they are seeing in the Catholic Church.

And I guess what concerns me is that these kids didn't seem to get much of a chance to have their voices heard during this retreat. It seemed to be, basically, assumed by the retreat organizer that everyone was on the same page concerning the moral authority of Church teaching. And these kids were very well-behaved, not really wanting to make waves.

But -- you know -- if we Catholic "grown-ups" aren't careful, we will lose these kids. Because these kids are smart and their questions are legitimate ones and they are not being answered. Oftentimes, too, the Church (at least where I live) doesn't act in a way that is very tolerant of different points of view. So, if a kid does have the guts to speak up and ask a difficult question, they might be given a solid answer, but that answer comes with the attitude that "it's this way or the highway." And that's not how it should be. Not everything is black and white in the application of Church teaching. There is the primacy of conscience. So, we need to be careful. The Church needs these young people. They are strong and they are smart and they are good. And they need to be taught in a way that respects their intelligence and their sense of justice and their compassion. They need to be taught in a way that respects their consciences and their creativity. Yes, we need to teach them Church doctrine accurately, but there needs to be space for discussion. AND they -- the rebel children -- need to know that we want them in the Church. At least I want them in the Church.

Why?

Because rebels bring fresh perspectives and honesty. They force us to look at ourselves. They shake things up; they force us to clean things up. They remind us of what is essential. They encourage us to behave respectfully toward different kinds of people. They keep us from living in an echo chamber.

So, my prayer for the rebel children receiving Confirmation is that the Holy Spirit will assure them of God's unconditional love for them and give them the graces of wisdom and understanding and confidence that their voices matter in the Church and in the world.

God bless the rebel children. Amen.

Catholics and Birth Control and Legal Circuses

Here are some rambling, probably rather disconnected, thoughts about current events.  And I'm probably going to get excommunicated, or in trouble.  Whatever...

That being said, I am willing to admit that maybe I am wrong about many of these things.  These are just my opinions and observations, based on my own 50 years of experience.

I guess I'm the kind of person who doesn't really worry about what others think of me.  That probably stems from my childhood.  I was rather bullied in elementary school, because my mother had some rather interesting ideas about "fashion," which did not particularly conform to the trends at my Catholic school.  So, I learned, at a rather early age, to stand in my own truth (or whatever that expression is).

I do respect the Church.  I feel that it is a good thing when people actually read the actual teachings of the Church (as in the official documents) before making their own decisions about the merits of these teachings.  There is a lot of misinformation out there -- a lot of misunderstanding.  And some of this misunderstanding is the Church's own fault, as when it uses terms like "inherently disordered" -- which sounds a lot more frightening and harsh than it is really meant to be.  "Inherently disordered" is a term which causes many people to totally freak out unnecessarily.  In fact, when most of us read things that come from the PTB's of the Catholic Church, it is kind of like reading medical textbooks with no medical education.  So, now I have just contradicted myself.  I have recommended reading the official documents of the Church, and then I went and said that this will cause misunderstanding if you don't have the background to understand them properly.  I guess it's just that you have to realize that when you read the documents, there will be things you might not completely comprehend.  But, it may be good to go ahead and do some self-study, anyway -- without relying completely on Fox News.

The Catholic Church in our country is currently engrossed in the issue of contraception -- specifically, should Catholic institutions be required to provide medical coverage which includes contraception?  Much legal back-and-forth is going on.  One thing that amused me is the much-feared (by conservatives) liberal activist Judge Sonia Sotomayor is the one who granted the emergency stay (or whatever it's called) so that these Catholic institutions didn't have to start providing this coverage as of January 1st.  Now, maybe she didn't have any choice.  Maybe it was her turn to grant stays and it was a foregone legal conclusion that such a stay should be granted.  Maybe she just is a nice lady, who agreed to spend her New Year's Eve doing this, while Judge Alito went to a party.  I have no idea.  The whole thing just caused me to smile.

I guess we just like to talk about sex and fight about sex a lot in our country.  And while all this is going on, I have a lovely young friend with a lovely new baby.  This little baby has eczema and needs a prescription.  The anti-eczema prescription is not covered by my friend's insurance.  But, she as she exclaimed, "Birth control is free!."  Maybe my friend would rather go down to the corner drug store and pay cash for some condoms (after all, I don't believe she is Catholic) and have the anti-eczema prescription covered by her insurance.  But, it is not to be.  This is America, so my friend can just eat it while we all debate whether or not a school that has a total of about six female employees (including two who are most definitely past reproductive age) should have to provide coverage for the "morning-after pill" for these ladies.  I know, I know -- it's the principal of the thing.

And this leads me to some other thoughts.  (I told you this would be rambling.)

My mother -- when I was a teenager -- told me that a group of nuns in some Central or South American country (I forget which) got raped by some bad guys.  It was a terrible situation.  And guess what?  The "Powers That Be" in the Church down there allowed them all to take that era's version of the "morning-after pill."  At least, that is what my mother said.

Also -- and this is just me wondering -- what about women who take birth control pills for reasons that are other than contraception?  The Church does allow this.  I myself was treated for an extreme hormonal imbalance after my last child was born with birth control pills.  Basically I felt like crap.  I felt like I was going nuts.  And my family was paying for it.  I went to my wonderfully kind ob-gyn and told him my plight.  I said, "I feel like I'm going insane."  He put me on The Pill, saying, "It will even out your hormones and you'll feel better."  And he was right.  Those little pills were like a miracle.  I stayed on them for about a year and then stopped taking them.  All was well again.  So, would the Church allow for this type of "birth control" to be covered by insurance plans?  And if so, wouldn't it be unnecessarily intrusive if the doctor had to explain on the prescription form WHY he was prescribing a certain medication for a woman who was employed by a Catholic institution?  Then people who do not need to be -- and should not really get to be -- privy to her medical condition suddenly would become privy.  The Church -- in this case -- kinda starts looking a little like Big Brother.

I don't know.  Maybe I'm over-thinking this.  Maybe there are things I don't understand.  There probably are.  I guess I can just see it all both ways.  I don't like to see the Church being forced into acting in a manner that is in direct contradiction to its long-held moral teachings.  But, on the other hand, maybe women need to be respected and trusted to make medical decisions that are in their best interest.  Of course, Catholic women can study the moral views of the Church.  That is called "informing one's conscience."  And then -- perhaps -- they can be left alone to make their own decisions, in consultation with their spouse and/or doctor and/or pastor. 

This reminds me of another thing my mom told me when I was growing up.  She said that many Catholic doctors -- of her generation -- performed hysterectomies on women after they had 5 or 6 kids.  She said that -- in her conversations with these women -- she wondered if they really needed the hysterectomies.  She said that these women tended to be "rather overwhelmed" by all their children.  My mom told me -- she actually said -- that she had a sneaking suspicion that the Catholic doctors felt they were doing the women a kindness by telling them they needed hysterectomies.  Now, of course, many women need hysterectomies.  But, the circumstances of these particular hysterectomies caused my mother's very keen detective-like instincts to be aroused.  My mother was nobody's fool.  What does this have to do with all the legal battles going on?  Maybe nothing.  It just seemed like a good time to tell this story.  I guess this is the thing.  Catholic women have always had a lot to bear when it comes to sex.  I have heard many stories from many women concerning this.  And I feel kind of bad for them as their decisions and rights are debated publicly, vociferously, and -- sometimes -- without much sensitivity. 

Because -- you know what? -- Natural Family Planning can be hard.  Really hard.  And sometimes, this fact is not acknowledged.  The brochures and books on NFP are often graced by pictures of smiling, happy, healthy couples and their smiling, happy, healthy babies.  All is made to look romantic and beautiful.  Well, let me let you in on a little secret.  That ain't always the case.  I could go on and on about the difficulties inherent -- for many couples -- in NFP.  But, I won't do that right now.  I'll just tell another little story illustrating one aspect of this issue.

One of the most difficult times to use NFP is after you have a baby.  The hormones of nursing can cause you to have fertile-looking cervical mucus, and you can't get a good basal body temperature because your new baby won't let you sleep enough hours in a row to make that possible.  And "ecological breastfeeding" -- which is supposed to stave off your fertility for at least six months -- does not work for all people.  Like me, for example.  I practiced all the principles of "ecological breastfeeding" religiously and my fertility returned after one month.  ONE MONTH.  So, there I was with a new baby, my mucus signs were all screwed up, and I couldn't get a good BBT because my baby was an insomniac.  Believe me, nobody would have wanted to put a picture that accurately illustrated my state of mind on the cover of any Natural Family Planning booklets.

Admittedly, the difficulties of NFP are not directly related to the current legal circus regarding "the birth control mandate."  But, I can admit to seeing both sides of things.  To me, it's not necessarily a "religious freedom" issue.  It's more of an issue of personal rights (of the woman) versus the rights of an employer (albeit a religious one).

And another thing that comes to my mind is this.  The Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions.  Does that mean that employees of this church's institutions (or businesses owned by Jehovah's witnesses) should not have to provide insurance coverage for blood transfusions.  Now that I think of it, though, most insurance plans don't cover blood transfusions.  Is this why?  Was there a Jehovah's Witness lobby?  I don't know.  But, the point is this:  What if a particular religion found a particular medical practice objectionable?  Like vaccines, for example?  What if a church was founded by people who did not believe in vaccines for ethical reasons?  Could that church move to have vaccines excluded from the insurance it provided its employees?  I think you can see my point here.  It starts to get tricky when churches can object to medical practices based on their religious beliefs, and have those practices excluded from insurance plans.

Of course, there are those who say that birth control is not really necessary for life or health.  Using myself as an example (see above), I pretty much disagree with that, at least to a certain degree.  And frankly, most of the medical profession does view contraception as legitimate medical care. 

But, anyway, I'm done rambling for now.  If you have hung in there with me until this point, I thank you.  And I don't mean to anger anybody or act like a "bad Catholic."  These are just some of the thoughts that go through my mind as I go about my laundry and dishes.  I also realize that the legal issue in this case basically centers about religious institutions being "compelled" to do something more than it really has to do with contraception, per se.  Although, many people are compelled by the government to do things that go against their moral views.  Some people, for example, don't think the income tax is Constitutional.

Oh, well.  I'm going to shut up now.

Pax.

Dear Cardinal Dolan...

I wish you would speak a bit differently about "marriage equality."

For example, I wish you wouldn't say that the Church has been "outmarketed" on the issue.

Since when did the Church become about "marketing"?

The Church is supposed to be about teaching; its message an invitation.  That's what I was always led to believe, anyway.

To be fair, you have said many things about the issue of marriage equality.  This is just one of them, and I don't want to blow it out of proportion.  But, I am becoming more and more concerned about how the Church is handling this issue.  So, when I saw this word -- "outmarketed" -- I just felt like responding.  I don't mean any disrespect.

First, here is a little story.  My daughters, who are both young adults -- who have both been educated at institutions of higher education which have the Mandatum -- teach high school students who are preparing for Confirmation at our parish.  They have told me that the majority of their students -- who attend both public and Catholic high schools -- have come into their class believing that the Church hates gay people.  Now, these are students who have been raised Catholic, who have (supposedly) attended Mass and CCD classes and/or Catholic schools all during their childhood.  And they think the Catholic Church hates gay people.  This should not be blamed on "Hollywood".  This one is on the Church.  These kids have been sitting in your pews and in your classrooms for years -- and they think the Catholic Church hates gay people.  Of course, my daughters are quick to straighten them out. 

And this is why I believe that the Church has put the cart before the horse in its teaching.  People -- including Catholic people -- don't understand why the Church teaches what she does.  And they don't understand that the Church also teaches the concept of free will.  Nobody is to be forced to accept her ideas.

What do I mean by "putting the cart before the horse"?  What do I think should be different in the Church's approach?

Basically, I think it should be emphasized -- first and foremost -- that God loves ALL people.  Unconditionally.  It should also be emphasized that the Church puts forth her ideas respectfully -- respectfully inviting people to consider them.  There should be no "marketing" campaign.

Secondly, the Church needs to teach her theology of sexuality from the roots up.  Right now, she's got everybody's attention on individual leaves.  People aren't seeing the tree as a whole.  People do not understand that the Church's theology of sexuality springs from her understanding of the Trinity and how this understanding can be reflected in our human relationships.  The Church believes in the Father and the Son, who have an eternal relationship of love.  The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from this relationship.  The Church teaches that marriage should mirror this Trinitarian relationship.  The permanent love of the husband and wife is what brings forth (at least potentially) the fruit of children.  It should be explained to people -- starting with the ones in the pews and religious education classes and Catholic schools -- that these basic ideas are the roots from which all of the Church's ideas about sexuality spring.  These are the roots from which the Church derives her teachings on divorce, contraception, masturbation, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polygamy, and gay marriage.

Thirdly, the Church hierarchy needs to remember that people have free will.  This is part of human dignity.  Put forth your teachings, but do so respectfully and charitably.  And then remember that people are free to choose whether or not to agree.  And then -- MOST IMPORTANTLY -- treat with love and compassion those who disagree.  Don't make them your opponents in a "marketing campaign" or in a "culture war".  The people who disagree with the Church teaching on the issue of marriage equality are still our brothers and sisters, made in the image and likeness of God.  They are not our enemies.  In fact, in many ways, they probably do feel hated by the Catholic Church.

Why?

Because we seem to be forgetting that these people do love each other.  They make commitments to take care of each other.  They have children.  They are families.  And you are making them feel as though their families are under attack.  They are legally married, yet they fear you will take that away.  (Because you would, if you could.)  They have children, but both parents in a same-sex marriage aren't allowed to be the adoptive parents of a child that they are raising together.  So, when you accuse the LGBT people of being "aggressive" in their marriage equality campaign, they probably are.  And, perhaps, some of it may be unfair.  But, some of it isn't.  Because they are PROTECTING THEIR FAMILIES.  I would protect my family.  Now you may say, "But, you have a legitimate heterosexual marriage and family."  And, yes, I do have a marriage of which the Church approves.  But, if I was a non-Catholic lesbian, legally married to a woman in California, and we had children, I would pretty much feel under attack by the traditional marriage folks.  I would want to be left alone, with my wife, to raise our babies.  I would not want to constantly have to worry that somebody from "on high" was going to declare my marriage null and void.  So, I might get a little "aggressive." 

So, please, Cardinal Dolan and all you Catholic leaders, remember that you are dealing with human beings who love each other and are raising families.  Think about how you sound to them.  Think about how you make them feel.  You are not in the "marketing" business.  You are in the business of bringing the love of Jesus Christ to people.  And -- yes -- that involves teaching the Church's philosophy of sexuality.  But, please do it a little more thoughtfully and charitably and wisely.  And remember that not everybody is obliged to agree with you.  Maybe we need to make room for that.  Maybe we need to figure out how to live our faith while -- at the same time -- allowing others to make their own life choices, according to their own philosophies.  Maybe we don't need to do all this fighting.

I will just end with a few stories.

One of my daughters, in a job she held for a while, worked with a gay couple -- two men, who had been together for many, many years.  One of them was ill (not with AIDS).  She told me how much fun they were, how nice they were to her (even knowing she was a traditional Catholic), how they had such wonderful senses of humor, how the well one took such good care of the sick one.  She was impressed with how they cared for and loved one another.  She was impressed with their commitment.

This daughter also had a male boss who was married to a man.  He knew she was a traditional Catholic.  They got along famously.  He was a wonderful boss, and he always had her back.  She, for her part, respected his relationship as he viewed it.  Some of her friends got on her case for referring to her boss's husband as "his spouse".  "We're not for gay marriage, so you shouldn't be referring to these people as 'spouses'," was the basic message of my daughter's friends.  "Well," she told them, "this is his relationship.  And I am going to respect that."  I was (and am) very proud of my daughter.  She understands her faith, she is living it, she is sharing it.  But, she is not pushing it on people.  She is respecting people's right to make up their own minds about things.  And she realizes that these gay
married couples are good people, with whom we can have positive relationships.

I know couple of other gay couples.  One lives down the street.  They are the best neighbors you could possibly have.  And they are always nice about my dog peeing on their lawn -- a rare thing in suburbia.  Another one of these couples we know socially, through mutual friends.  They are two men who have been together for a very long time.  They are well-educated, smart, hard-working, funny, and kind.  I spoke to one of them for a long time after the recent DOMA ruling.  I hadn't known all that much about the issue.  But, after talking to him, I came to see why they had been feeling discriminated against.  It was sort of an eye-opening conversation.

To conclude, I know you are doing your best, Cardinal Dolan.  I know you are under a lot of pressure.  I don't mean to be disrespectful.  I get concerned, though, when I see how the Church speaks about gay marriage.  I think it can be done better.  After all, Jesus did say that His Kingdom is not of this world.  So, perhaps, when we say "Thy Kingdom Come," it is not about getting Washington D.C. to conform to all of the Church's ideas.  And I -- and many people I know -- are tired of all the fighting.

Pax.









 

Why I Will Not Fight A "Culture War"

"Culture War"

A pretty popular term right now.  As I understand it, this basically means the Conservatives pitted against the Progressives over whose values will prevail in society -- both culturally and legally.

Of course, there is always a push/pull in every society.  I mean, let's face it, no two people are exactly alike.  So, when you put millions of individuals together, you're going to have lots of disagreements on how things "should be."  And this, to me, is fine and natural.  There should be discussion and debate.  But, not a war.  At least, not in my opinion.  Especially when there is plenty of room for negotiation.

Pope John Paul II spoke out a lot against war.  He spoke against the war in Iraq.  He spoke against war, in general. He spoke of the harm caused by war to innocent people.  He spoke of civilian casualties.  He spoke of men and women in uniform and how their lives should not be endangered without truly just cause.  He spoke of how both sides in a war -- both the victor and the defeated -- suffer.  Yes, he said even the victors are damaged by war.  This means, to me, that when you are in the position of getting your way (and keeping it) through force, you are not actually gaining the cooperation of those you defeat.  And those you defeat -- who are kept "in their place" against their will -- are not just going to roll over and adopt your positions.  They are going to try to figure out a way to rise up and put you down, in turn.  This just leads to more hatred, more conflict, more war.  John Paul II argued that negotiation should be the primary means of resolving conflict; and he stated that negotiation is often neglected or not given enough of a chance to succeed.  What are the advantages of negotiation?  Negotiation seeks to allow everybody as much freedom of choice as reasonably possible.  People are required, through negotiation, to try to see the individuals on the "other side of the table" as human beings with free will, dignity, hopes, dreams, and needs.  In a negotiation, everybody has to give something up in order to gain something.  There is not a "winner" and a "loser."  The needs and desires of all -- even of those you disagree with -- have to be taken into account.  And this helps all of us to remember and respect the humanity of those from whom we differ.

You may be thinking to yourself, "Well, the Culture War is not a literal war, like World War II or the war in Iraq."  But, I disagree.  I think a lot of the same dynamics exist in the Culture War as in a war in which actual bullets and bombs are employed.   What are some of these dynamics?  First of all, each side starts to separate from the other -- socially, geographically.  How many barbecues have you been to lately where Dems and Reps freely mingle and enjoy the company of one another?  How often nowadays do we see neighborhoods -- or even whole towns, cities, and states -- that are predominantly of one political ideology or another?  And after the separation comes the demonization.  We start thinking of each other as "enemies."  We can't listen to each others opinions -- especially via the internet, the radio, or the TV -- without becoming apoplectic.  And this leads to more separation and more demonization.  It is easy to demonize people with which you don't have to personally interact.  And once we separate and demonize, it is easier and easier to hate.  It becomes easier and easier to want to "put the other side down" by some kind of force.  It becomes easier to believe that making everybody live the way that you deem "correct" -- the way that makes you feel comfortable -- is right and just.   It becomes simpler to make "straw man" arguments out of the ideas of your opponents, so that you can joke about them and ridicule them, instead of giving them the respectful and intelligent consideration they deserve.  And all of this does just as much damage to us as individuals and as a society as a literal war --  not physically, perhaps -- but, psychologically and spiritually.

What is the solution?  Negotiation -- as John Paul II advocated.  Each side in this "Culture War" needs to listen fairly and openly to the concerns of the other.  Then we need to make room for each other, even if it might make us a bit uncomfortable to do so.  I have been a fairly conservative person most of my life (even though I am a bit of a hippie on the inside), and it concerns me when I hear "my" side say, too often, that this, that, or the other thing is "non-negotiable."  It just seems like we say it too much.  And then the progressive people feel threatened and disrespected and they don't really feel like dealing with us and all our "non-negotiable items."  And I don't really blame them.  We come across as a bit obnoxious and intolerant sometimes, fellow conservatives. 

Also, frankly, I really like the idealism of the Progressives.  And the vast majority of Progressives are lovely people, who are kind and charitable, who are just and merciful, who are great fun.  And I count many of them as my good friends.  I'm not going to have a war with them.  I will give them room to follow their consciences.  And I trust that they will give me room to follow mine.  Also, our consciences have more things in common than not, because we all strive to be people of goodwill and moral integrity, even if some of our opinions differ.

One final thought:  When we war with one another culturally, there is something we often forget.  We forget about the actual people whose choices and orientations and lifestyles we are putting under our little microscopes.  For example, in the vociferous and often unkind debate about gay marriage, conservatives sometimes seem to forget that there are actual gay couples who genuinely love each other.  There are actual gay individuals and couples with beautiful children.  And these people love their children just as much as I love mine.  We need to avoid hurting these people by our words and attitudes.  We need to respect these families.  We need to be charitable.

As one of the saints once said, "In all things, in ALL things -- charity."