The Pope And Kim Davis -- A Jesuit "Fast One"???

I have often been accused of being "Jesuitical" in my way of thinking. I say "accused" because those who observed this about me were not being complimentary. Not at all. I used to be rather ashamed of this fact about myself, as I do think it is an accurate observation. As I have entered midlife, though, I have chosen to embrace it.

So, here we go.

I was thinking about the Pope's meeting with Kim Davis. This has some people wringing their hands and others jumping for joy. But -- let us remember -- the Pope is a Jesuit. And I'm wondering if the Pope pulled a Jesuit "fast one."

I am probably going to get a phone call from the Vatican because of this blog post, telling me that I am ALL WRONG. That's okay. It would be sort of cool to get a phone call from the Vatican. And I still think that what I have to say might be worth considering, even if it's not a Slick Jesuit Papal Maneuver.

I was reading the NPR article on the Pope's visit with Kim. (I just love NPR, don't you? They are always so calm and professional. I also love Ezra Klein on Vox. He is witty and hilarious and sort of a sexy nerd. But, I digress.) In this article, I noticed that the Pope used the term "conscientious objection" when discussing his visit with Kim. This is very interesting to me. VERY interesting.

I grew up during the time of the Vietnam War, and there were many conscientious objectors. My parents and their group of friends were rather divided on the validity of being a conscientious objector. Most of them thought that these individuals were, basically, unpatriotic cowards. Some of them, though, admired the values and courage of the "peaceniks."  I once dated a guy -- for a little while -- who had been a conscientious objector. I decided that it was probably a good thing he had been thus, because he basically couldn't seem to stay awake. EVER. The dude would have been a very poor soldier. I would not have wanted to go into battle with this dude. He did have a cool car, though. And he helped me on a limnology project that I basically would have failed without his assistance. After said project, I never saw him again. I suppose traipsing around all those bodies of fresh water convinced him that I was MUCH too energetic for him. (OMG. I am digressing SO much today!)

Let's think, though, about conscientious objectors. In Vietnam, anyway, they were excused from the draft. I guess some of them did non-combat jobs. But, NONE of them performed the duties to which they objected. Why? Because they were excused/dismissed from the job which entailed those duties, meaning they were excused/dismissed from the job of being a soldier.

And this is the point. A conscientious objector was not allowed to become a soldier and then decide -- according to his conscience -- which of his duties he was going to perform and which of his duties he was not going to perform. Either he was in. Or he was out. And if he wanted to conscientiously object, he was OUT.

This is relevant to the case of Kim Davis. If she wants to hold the job that she has been holding, she needs to do that job. ALL of that job. As in the case of the soldier, she does not get to decide which duties she approves of and which she is going to abstain from. That kind of thinking brings chaos and anarchy. We would soon be a country resembling Gotham, if everybody got to do that. (Have you been watching the new season of "Gotham"? It is INCREDIBLE. They totally gave it a face lift from last year's season. And -- yes -- I have digressed again.) So, if the law has changed and Kim conscientiously objects to it, that is her human right. As the Pope stated. But, I bet the Pope is clever enough to realize that a conscientious objector needs to be excused -- or excuse himself/herself -- from the job to which he/she objects. Just as the soldier does not get to define his role, neither does Miss Kim. Perhaps this is the Pope's indirect and understated -- but, very Jesuitically clear -- message. And even if it's not his message, it's mine. ;-)

Now, I do think Miss Davis is a decent lady. She has basically been emotionally hijacked by and made a pawn of religious right-wingers. So, I kind of hope that the county for which she has worked will find her a new position that is both amenable to her conscience and provides for her needs. Do I think it's necessary for the county to do this? No, I don't. But, I think it would be decent. She probably won't need another job, though, because she's probably going to make a lot of money off the right-wingers. You know? With public appearances and podcasts and a YouTube channel and a book. There will probably even be a movie made about her by a certain university with which I am acquainted. Maybe I'm being cynical. I don't know.

Pax. :-)

No Hate

No
H8

You see a lot of talk about "hate" these days.  A lot of people feel hated -- on both and all sides of the political and religious divide.

LGBT people often feel hated by conservatives and by people who belong to more conservative religions and by the Catholic Church.

And conservatives and people who belong to more conservative religions and members of the Catholic Church can also feel hated by LGBT people and their supporters.

And, I am not naive, I know that there is actual hatred out there.

So, I think we all need to consider a couple of things.

First of all, nobody should be hating anybody.  Short of that, nobody should be acting in an uncharitable manner toward anybody -- in thought, word, or deed.  I admit, I think particularly of Catholics here, because I am a Catholic and I hang around with a lot of Catholics.  I have seen Catholics who do not even attempt to understand the position of the LGBT community and their supporters concerning gay marriage and gay rights.  I have heard Catholic lay people and clergy express the opinion that the LGBT community wants to discriminate against us and persecute us.  Some Catholics have even said that the LGBT community would make martyrs of us -- not by killing us, mind you -- but, by forcing us to photograph and cater the food for and even officiate at their wedding ceremonies.  These attitudes, though, are not really expressions of hatred.  They are more expressions of fear.  And what I don't like is when influential Catholics stoke this fear with their words and deeds.  Because when fear is stoked, hatred can develop.  Now, to be fair, somebody told me that there was a case where a wedding photographer was sued -- and lost -- because she didn't want to photograph a same-sex wedding.  I don't know the details of this case.  Although, I have the feeling that there were probably some interpersonal missteps along the way.  Perhaps there were some misunderstandings that could have been resolved between the individuals before the whole situation became a legal conflict.  And this leads me to my next point.
 
Have we forgotten that we can disagree without hating?  Have we forgotten that we can RESPECTFULLY disagree, that we can live and let live?  This goes for ALL people -- religious, secular, conservative, progressive.  It is both fruitless and counter-productive to try to force somebody to accept your view of the world.  It is even more fruitless and counter-productive to accuse somebody or a whole group of people or an institution of hating you because you disagree over an issue -- even an important issue.  The Catholic Church, for example, has a very complex theology regarding marriage.  This theology has developed over 2000+ years.  It is reflective of how the Church views God and creation.  It is not meant to discriminate against anybody.  Are there people who use the Church's teaching to discriminate?  Yes.  And this is not right.  But, it is not the intent of the Church -- at least, I don't think it is -- to have her teachings used to discriminate against people.

On the other side of the coin, it is quite wrong -- and Pope Francis has spoken about this -- to try to force others into your religious views.  Respect for human dignity requires us to actually respect that others do not all accept the Catholic way of looking at things.  The Church also requires us to look at people and situations with compassion.  For example, I am the kind of person who has a hard time being alone in life.  It has always been quite valuable to me to have somebody to share myself with -- spiritually, emotionally, physically.  So, I can easily imagine being a lesbian and wanting to have a life partner.  I can imagine how hard it would be to be denied that, especially in the civil law.  I could understand if certain religions didn't want to perform my wedding ceremony, because of their long-standing theology.  But, I guess I would also feel discriminated against if religions were speaking about me and the person I loved as being harmful to society, especially if we just wanted to live a quiet life in peace.  I would also feel discriminated against if I could be legally married in my state and yet not allowed marriage benefits -- like social security -- on the federal level.  And I suppose having to live with all this lack of consistency in the law -- lack of consistency which would cause me and my spouse actual and concrete hardship -- might make me feel hated.  So, as a Catholic who tries to be compassionate, I put myself in the shoes of my lesbian sisters and have a desire to treat them fairly.

There are some who think that it is the job of Catholics to make the civil law reflect the Divine Law -- at least, the Divine Law as these particular Catholics see it.  The people who think this are not trying to be cruel to others of different ideas.  They just believe that the Catholic version of Divine Law will bring with it what they see as true justice, liberty, and equality.  The problem is, though, that there are too many different people of too many different ideas in our society.  And a lot of those people would feel discriminated against if they perceived that the Catholic Church was dictating how they lived their lives.  People need to be able to make their own choices -- especially about their adult lives -- as freely as possible.  Laws are necessary, yes.  But, a big function of the law -- in my opinion, anyway -- is to keep people from treading on each other unfairly.  We need to be able to co-exist, like that bumper sticker says.  Sometimes, I want to get a Reagan bumper sticker, an Obama bumper sticker, a Catholic bumper sticker, and one of those co-exist bumper stickers, and put ALL of them on my bumper.  Along with my Harley-Davidson sticker.  This is because I am, as my mother always said, a "shit-disturber."

I hope, then, that all of us -- secular and religious, conservative and progressive -- will strive to have more mutual understanding.  I hope that our government will strive to make laws which allow all of us to live lives of peace, according to our consciences.  I hope that people and institutions are not unfairly accused of hatred.  And I hope that where hatred does actually exist, that it is rooted out, in the only way it can actually be rooted out -- by love.

Salt, Leaven, And Light

As we are all well-aware, unless we are a hermit, there is much political debate going on concerning certain "hot-button" issues.  The things going on in Texas right now are especially engrossing.  And the Catholic Church as an institution and Catholics as individuals have thrown themselves into the fray.  I'm not saying that they shouldn't, but the frantic attitude of some of them disturbs me a little bit.  It's like they think the only way to stop Western Civilization from collapsing is through their political activity. 

Again, I'm not saying political activity by Catholics -- or by anybody else -- is wrong.  But, watching the drama swirling about me has led me to contemplate a few things about which Jesus spoke --   especially his words telling us that we should be "salt," "leaven," and "light" in the world.

As I think about these three things, I am struck by their characteristics, especially in the way Our Lord uses His imagery.  And this blog post summarizes my ponderings.  Take it or leave it.  As you wish.

Salt.  It enhances the flavor of our food.  But, we use it sparingly.  Accidentally put too much into your recipe and said recipe is ruined.  An over-abundance of this wonderful substance doesn't enhance -- but totally masks -- the wonderful flavors of many of our favorite foods.  And I think about this when I think about Catholic political action.  If it is too heavy-handed, it doesn't work.  We are called to be a gentle presence.  Subtle.  Like salt, when used properly.  Maybe overwhelming people with our Catholicism is like putting way too much salt in our chocolate chip cookies.  It only makes people gag.

Leaven.  Like salt, it is used sparingly in cooking.  But, just a small amount makes the dough rise dramatically.  Maybe we should think about this in our interaction with others, in our political activity.  We don't need to overwhelm everybody with our "correctness."  We don't need to act like steamrollers.  We don't need to scream and shout and flail.  We can be like the yeast in the bread -- mixed, almost imperceptively, throughout the dough, but having a powerful effect.  What type of an effect?  A rising, a lifting, an enhancing of the whole body of the dough.  The dough is kept intact and whole, growing larger and lighter.  Not imploding or exploding our collapsing.

Light.  Jesus speaks of a lamp on a lampstand.  When I reflect on this image, I think of a dark home sitting on a hill in the night.  The lamp is lit.  What type of light does it give off?  Is it the light of the high-beams of an oncoming mack truck, blinding you as you try to drive on a winding road at night?  Is it the glare of fluorescent lights in an impersonal office?  No.  It is a warm, inviting light.  It is the kind of light that says, "Come in and rest a while.  Have a cup of tea and a cookie and a chat.  I know you are weary.  Let me offer you my hospitality."  It is also the kind of light that says, "In my conversation with you, I will listen to your concerns.  I will hear your heart.  I will respect you and care for you."  Maybe we should think about being this kind of light when we deal with those on "the other side of the aisle."

Why?  Because "those on the other side of the aisle" are not evil people.  They have good intentions and good hearts and good will.  They are honest and hard-working and intelligent.  They would help you out if you were in a jam.  Maybe they even have something to teach you.  And we need to recognize these things, or we are going to tear our country, our culture, our civilization -- and each other -- apart.  And that doesn't seem very "Catholic" to me.

Bridget, Ben, and Fred...

...Fred Nietzsche, that is.

As you may or may not know, last week was the Season 5 finale of "SouthLAnd."  In an interview he did before it aired, Ben McKenzie discusses his character (Ben Sherman).  He says, if I recall correctly, that Officer Sherman has come to see himself as the arbiter of good and evil.

My daughter Bridget -- student of philosophy -- upon thinking about this, created a meme which she sent to Mr. McKenzie via Twitter.  This meme involved a photo of the book "Beyond Good And Evil -- Prelude To A Philosophy Of The Future" by Friedrich Nietzsche.  The meme also included the words, "Ben Sherman's Slippery Slope."  She sent this meme to Mr. McKenzie accompanied by Mr. Nietzsche's statement, "He who fights with monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."

I guess this pleased Mr. McKenzie because he Retweeted it.

And that got me to reflecting on political relationships in our country.

Bridget is, in a nutshell, a traditional Catholic.  Ben McKenzie appears to be, in a nutshell, a progressive.  Yet, they seem to agree that proclaiming oneself to be the "arbiter of good and evil" is a bad idea.

This got me to thinking about conservatives and progressives, in general, and how they view each other.  And how they might be misunderstanding one another.  And how -- even though there are issues on which they will probably never agree -- they might be able to stop fearing each other.  Because I do see a lot of fear, of the progressives by the conservatives, and of the conservatives by the progressives.  And it makes me sad.  How can we, after all, move forward as a country if we fear each others "agendas?"

This is where the Ben and Bridget thing can, perhaps, help us gain a better understanding of one another.

The conservatives I have spent time with (most of whom are traditional Catholics and other varieties of Christians) feel that the progressives are making themselves the arbiters of good and evil -- especially on the issues of abortion and gay rights.  Most religious conservatives see God as the ultimate arbiter of good and evil and react negatively to the progressive view, which they see as human beings trying to take the place of God.  Many of them see the progressive view as erring in the same way that Adam and Eve erred in the Garden of Eden -- pridefully believing that they could decide right and wrong for themselves, disdaining the Lord's ultimate authority in this area.  

The more progressive people I have spent time with, though, have expressed to me the following idea:  They feel that the conservatives/Christians/Catholics are making THEMSELVES the ultimate arbiters of good and evil by trying to impose their belief system on the rest of society.  They get a little freaked out when they hear the Pope or the Bishops or other religious people telling them what they should believe and do based on (what appears to them) to be their personal religious opinions.  These progressives -- especially secular ones, but even some religious ones that I have known -- believe that there needs to be adequate space for non-religious people to make their own moral choices, without being pressured by either religious authority or religious individuals.

So, to me, this is how people of seemingly very different worldviews can hold a common idea -- in this case, the idea that it is not wise for an individual to view himself as the ultimate arbiter of good and evil --  but how they can view that idea from different perspectives.  And if these different people can come to understand one another better, then maybe we can converse with each other instead of fearing each other.

Maybe Bridget, Ben, and Fred have shown us a little bit of the way forward.

Dear Catholics. When we speak of abortion, gay rights...

...and all the other issues which elections tend to bring up, whether the elections be secular or papal, let us remember that there are actual people who are touched -- for good and for ill -- by our words and actions.

Let us remember that we must, first of all, LOVE.  Let us remember that without love, we are just clanging cymbals.  Let us remember that without love, we are just going to alienate and hurt people -- people Jesus loves.

Maybe we should start by standing in the shoes of The Other.  By trying to see things their way.

For example, pro-choice people do not hate babies and mothers and families.  I have personally had three friends who worked for Planned Parenthood -- two as volunteers and one as an employee.  One of the women who was a volunteer helped to stock and staff a center where poor, unwed mothers could come and get needed supplies for their babies.  This was an actual Planned Parenthood center.  The other volunteer worked a phone line where people could call for information about sexually transmitted diseases and contraception.  She was very excited to do this work, as she believed it helped people to stay healthy.  She did not view her job as encouraging people to engage in irresponsible sex.  She was very much in favor of people taking responsibility for their actions; and she viewed her position as assisting them in that endeavor.  The third woman I knew worked as a counselor in an abortion clinic.  She was a kind and unassuming young woman.  She knew I was Catholic.  She knew we did not agree about this issue.  But, she accepted me as a friend, anyway.  And I accepted her.  And this friendship allowed me to talk to her about her ideas.  She told me, basically, that she did not see abortion as an actual "good," but that the women who came to the clinic were in very difficult circumstances and felt that they had no alternative. 

I did have these experiences many years ago.  I know there are many more resources now for women with unplanned pregnancies.  But, the whole need has not been filled.  So, to me, instead of fretting about the law, I ponder how I can actually reach out to and help women in difficult circumstances.  Without judging them.  Loving them no matter what their final decision about their situation might be.

Pro-women's rights people are also (rightly) concerned about certain things they see in developing countries.  They see women and children who suffer disproportionately because of ill health and poverty.  And it cannot be denied that this ill health and poverty can, at least to some degree, be attributed to having many babies in impoverished circumstances in cultures where women are often viewed as property.  So, the progressives believe it is important to empower women in societies where they have no voice.  They see it as an issue of human dignity.  And part (and only part) of the formula for this empowerment, in their minds, includes contraception and abortion. 

So, even if we Catholics don't agree on this part of their solution, we should still admit that there is a problem.  We should express some understanding for the pro-choice view of things, for it is understandable.  And, with understanding, perhaps there can be some real dialogue.

Gay marriage is another hot-button issue of our day.  Many Catholic people speak vociferously of how gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage, children, society, religious freedom.  What concerns me most about this is that we tend to forget that there are actual people we are touching with our words -- words that can, at times, be legitimately construed as unkind.  We must remember that gay people do actually love each other and their children.  They have the same desires as the rest of us for companionship and love and family.  These are human desires.  So, as we discuss these issues, let us contemplate how difficult and lonely it would be to go through life without a spouse or children.  We need to have a real sensitivity to that.  We need to have compassion and kindness.  The gay people I know do not wish to "persecute" me for my religion.  They are just fine with me practicing my religion as I wish -- and even speaking about it with them.  They just don't want to be pushed around.  And they feel that we religious people want to push them around.  They feel that we want to "persecute" them. 

Finally, let us remember the failings of our Church and the horrific suffering these failings have caused.  Let us reflect on the priestly abuse crisis.  Let us fall to our knees in sorrow and humility.  And before we open our mouths, let us remember, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone."

The Catholic Church And The Gay People

My daughters, who are 22 and 24 years old, have begun teaching a group of 11th graders who are preparing for the Sacrament of Confirmation.  Their first class was last night, and something very interesting came up.  It turns out that the majority of the young people being taught by my girls thought that the Catholic Church "hates" gay people.  One of the kids actually thought that the Church categorically condemns gay people to hell.  Now, I presume that most of these teens have attended church and religious education classes at least fairly regularly throughout their lives, otherwise they would not be enrolled in the Confirmation class.  Something, therefore, has gone awry in their instruction, if this is what they believe the Church's attitude toward gay people to be.  And I am wondering if many Catholics -- and people in general -- have this same erroneous belief.

I don't want to brag about my kids, but they do have a proper understanding of Church teaching when it comes to morality; and they recognized that some corrective action needed to take place immediately in this situation.  So, they located a Catechism and read this aloud to the young people:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible....  They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.  These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives...."

Not really hateful, is it?  Not really condemning.  Now, what the Catholic Church does advocate -- for EVERYBODY -- is the idea of chastity.  Chastity is, basically, reserving the sexual faculty for its highest purpose -- the bonding together of husband and wife in marriage and the bringing forth of children to be loved and raised in a stable family situation.   Is this easy for ANYBODY?  Absolutely not.  And the Church recognizes that it is ESPECIALLY difficult for gay people, as they are attracted to persons of the same sex and do not (generally speaking) wish to enter into marriage with somebody of the opposite sex.  So, the Catechism also states the following (emphasis mine):

"By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they (homosexual persons) can and should GRADUALLY and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Apparently, then, the Church does not expect gay people to suddenly and effortlessly stop being gay -- with all that entails.  (Note the word "gradually" in the above statement.)

You may disagree with this teaching.  I understand that.  I do have a lot of sympathy for the position that many people hold, which is that gay people are that way by nature, and should not be criticized -- let alone condemned -- for entering into relationships, and even marriages, with people of the same sex.  But, if we are going to have any kind of discussion in our society regarding these issues, we need to start from the correct premises, one of which is that the Catholic Church does not hate or condemn gay people.

I also am willing to admit, after hearing what those teens in my daughters' class thought, that perhaps the Church has often fallen down miserably in helping people to have a compassionate and loving attitude toward homosexual persons.  With all the heated debates that are raging concerning gay rights -- especially the issue of gay marriage -- the Church has gone to bat very heavily to defend the idea of traditional marriage. And it has pointed out the danger (frightening many people) that Catholics may be forced to "approve of" gay marriage, under threat of civil lawsuits for not performing religious marriage ceremonies for homosexual persons and/or providing services for their wedding receptions.   I do not know how real these supposed "threats" to our religious and civil liberties are.  I am tempted to think they are being exaggerated to "encourage" Catholics to vote the "right" way.  But, I am realizing that in its current defense of traditional marriage, the Church has perhaps forgotten to -  first and foremost -- instruct its members in the proper attitude toward the homosexual person.  An attitude which should be one of "respect, compassion, and sensitivity."  For even if we "win the battle" for traditional marriage, we will have lost the "war" if the Church fails in this regard.  And by the "war", I mean that we as Christians are obligated to show all people -- including gay people -- the love which Christ has for them.  So, if we just make people with same-sex attraction abide by our moral ideas, but we do not show them the love of God through our love for them, I don't think we will be making Jesus very happy.  I think we will have dropped the ball in our calling as Christians.

Maybe the Catholic Church has put the cart before the horse here, at least somewhat.  And maybe it's time to reverse this.  We need to show people -- ALL people -- true charity before attempting to instruct them in anything.  And by "true charity", I mean loving them unconditionally.  Even if they do not wish to adopt our positions -- religiously, morally, or politically. 

Hell, No -- I Really Don't Know

Do I know what makes a relationship work?  Hell, no... 

I have been married for 25 years to a really great guy.  We have had our ups, downs, and in-betweens.  We have had smooth sailing, and sometimes we have hung on for dear life.  Catholic talking heads, like the kind you see on EWTN, would say that we have stayed together because of:  our shared faith, the Grace of the Sacrament of Matrimony, our embrace of the teachings of the Church in sexual (and other) matters, and our regular participation in Mass and the Sacraments.  In short, certain Catholic talking heads would attribute our marital success to our Catholic-ness.  They would probably have a good point. 

I have been reflecting on relationships lately, though.  And just this morning, I had a lovely exchange with my husband that has inspired me to write about this topic, and its seeming complexity.  Because things aren't always as cut-and-dried as they may seem to be.  Thank the Good Lord.

(Back Story:  On Sunday, a couple of men who I really like and admire were criticizing modern Church music.  These men really do not like modern Church music.  At least that's the impression they give.  And they were describing how certain lyrics of certain songs promote the "gay agenda".  Now, I have been singing these particular songs for years.  And it has never entered my mind that the lyrics promote the "gay agenda" in any way, shape, or form.  In fact, I have found these lyrics to be a balm to my soul at certain points in my life.  Now, I don't know for sure the intentions of the composers of these songs.  But, I do know that things can be taken in many different ways, and I have always felt that you should not attribute bad motives to others unless you are absolutely sure and it is absolutely necessary.  Sort of like that "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" song.  There is more than one way to look at it.  And even if the lyrics are, in fact, promoting the "gay agenda", is that necessarily a bad thing?  Because, as far as I can tell, the words are simply a baring of the true self to God, with faith in God's love and mercy.  And if you actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church concerning gay people, you will see that God has much love for them, right where they are.  So, when these men were voicing their opinions about these songs, I went and opened my big mouth and told them the opinion that I just stated for you.  They seemed to be a little taken aback, and one of them was very apologetic.)

So, this morning, my husband said to me, as he was getting ready for work:  I was really proud of you on Sunday, for standing up to so-and-so and such-and-such about the song lyrics and the gay people.  I agree with you.  And I was really proud of you.

Wow. 

Now, my husband is a very traditional Catholic.  He accepts all the teachings of the Church on faith and morals.  Sometimes, we have had heated debates over these things, when I have had a harder time accepting some of them.  So, on Sunday, I was not sure what he thought about what I said.  He stayed pretty quiet throughout the "conversation" I had with the two dudes.  But, he was proud of me.  And he told me so.  It made me think he was very sexy.

So, what makes a relationship work?  Grace.  All is Grace.  But, sometimes Grace is not where or what or how we expect it to be.  I have met people who think that if you follow the "right" Catholic formula, all will be well with their marriage.  And I have seen this not turn out to be the case.  I have seen people pronounce that those who have pre-marital sex or who live together before marriage will have bad marriages.  And I have seen this not turn out to be the case.  I have heard it proclaimed that using contraception will wreck your relationship with your spouse.  And I have seen this not turn out to be the case.  Alternatively, I have been told that if a couple practices Natural Family Planning and shuns all contraceptives that they will have a good marriage.  Again, I have seen this not turn out to be the case.  I have also heard it said that a person who "leaves" the Church and marries a person not of the True Faith is dooming that relationship to ultimate failure.  Yep -- not always the case.  In fact, the people I know who have done this have very happy, very successful, marriages and families.  They are leading outstanding lives.

Now, I am not proposing that Catholic people leave the Church, throw away Humanae Vitae, and do whatever they please.  That is not at all what I am suggesting.  I am simply suggesting this:  God and His Grace are a lot more complicated than we think they are.  The factors that affect a relationship are not so simple.  So, perhaps we should not be too quick to judge how another couple's relationship might go.  Perhaps we have no right to judge another couple's relationship at all.  And, maybe, we should not take the success of our own marriages for granted, even if we are doing all the "right" things.

So, what makes a relationship work?  I really don't have a definitive answer.  I have seen too many unexpected things in my life.  But, there are a few things I do know, which were brought home to me today when my husband told me how proud he was of me.  If you want to be loved, you've got to love.  If you want to be cherished, you've got to cherish.  Even if you don't feel like it all the time.  You've got to let the other person know that he or she is valued, that his or her thoughts and opinions matter to you, even if you don't agree with all of them.  You've got to let the other person know that you're in his or her corner.  That you are together in this adventure called "life".

And if we see the ship of another couple's relationship hit the rocks and shatter, let's not jump to conclusions, let's not judge.  Because it might have been our relationships hitting those rocks.  Heck, it might someday be our relationships hitting those rocks.  Even if we do everything "right".  

How Being The Sex Tutor Brought Me To The Bar Mitzvah -- Reflections For Today

Lots of accusations being hurled about right now.  "You want to take away my religious freedom."  "You want to force me to have children when I am not ready."  "You want to remove all consideration of God from public life."  "You want to keep me from having someone to love."  And on and on....

One thing that concerns me about all this?  The idea of MOTIVATIONS.  It seems to me that people, on both sides of the important issues being discussed in our society right now, are quick to assume the worst possible motives on the part of those who disagree with them.  I was talking to my husband about this on Saturday night, and he told me that there is a Catholic idea which holds that you should always assume that others have the best possible motives.  Seems wise to me....

So, I was thinking about an experience I had when I was about 19 years old.  While attending San Francisco State University, I was the student assistant for a class entitled:  Human Sexuality.  As you can imagine, this was a very popular class.  Three to four hundred people usually signed up for it each semester, so it was easily the largest class on campus.  And the teacher was a kind, funny, Jewish man, who was married to a kind, funny, Jewish lady.  The two of them had a kind, funny, Jewish son.  I spent a lot of time with this family, as my job for the class entailed quite a bit of work, which the professor and his wife often helped me with. (Yes.  I just dangled a preposition.  I am such a rule-breaker.)  There were tests to be written, typed, and graded.  Exam scores to be recorded.  Grades to be calculated.  And, sometimes, I even got to help plan and deliver lectures -- something which greatly appealed to the "ham" side of my personality.  And I can be quite a ham.  Around campus, I was often fondly referred to as the "sex tutor", which caused me great amusement.  All in all, not a bad job.

Since I spent much time at the home of this family, I was invited to their son's Bar Mitzvah.   It was a great occasion --  a beautiful ceremony at the Temple and a wonderful party, with traditional Jewish dishes and much music and dancing.  If you have never had the opportunity to attend a Bar Mitzvah, I would recommend immediately making some Jewish friends, as you would not want to miss out on the experience. 

Now, at this lovely party,  I was seated next to a beautiful Jewish woman who was probably in her early 40's.  She was an administrative assistant at the university, and was pretty high up the "totem pole", as far as administrative jobs went.  As we were enjoying our food, she turned to me and asked, "You are Catholic, aren't you?"  To which I replied in the affirmative.  She then said, "Well, then you are probably against abortion rights.  I am for abortion rights."  She then proceeded to tell me all about why she was for abortion rights.  I was a little taken aback that she would bring this topic up on this particular occasion, but I listened to her, as I was interested in what she had to say.  (I was also basically "trapped" in my seat, giving me really no alternative but to listen to her, even if I hadn't been interested.  Divine Providence, I believe.  God is truly at work at Bar Mitzvahs.)

In a nutshell, her reasons for supporting abortion rights were, in many ways, my reasons for not supporting abortion rights.  We were both concerned about upholding the dignity of women.  We were both concerned that children would be loved, cherished, and well-cared-for.  So, when I hear people who are against abortion rights accusing pro-choice people of not caring about women and children, it irritates me.  They do care.  So, let's not assume their motivations are evil, because they are not.  It's not that they believe abortion to be an actual "good".  It's not that they assume everyone with an unplanned pregnancy should have an abortion.  It's that they actually do believe that women should have a real choice.  They believe that the lack of this choice is a type of manipulation of women that undermines their dignity.  And, on the other hand, people who oppose abortion rights should not be labelled as enemies of women.  Most people who oppose abortion rights, especially these days, want to truly help both the woman and her child.  Many of them donate much of their time and resources for women in difficult circumstances.  When I was younger, I admit that there were a lot of "pro-life" people who were basically mean in their attitude towards women who became pregnant in difficult circumstances and who wanted to choose abortion.  I knew people who would accuse these women of being "baby killers" and would condemn them to hell and would not even want to offer them to much help.  "She dug her grave.  Let her lie in it," was an attitude I encountered more than once.  I have come to see, though, that the vast majority of the younger people who are against abortion rights are not this way.  They are truly interested in loving and helping women and children, whatever their circumstances.  They are much more charitable, in general, than those of my generation.

So, as we have this important discussion about reproductive rights in our culture, I hope we can bring ourselves to assume the best possible motivations from The Other.  And we want to remember the women in these very, very difficult circumstances.  We don't want to add more pain and heartache to the pain and heartache they are already suffering.  That is cruelty.  There is no excuse for it.

And in all our discussions about all the important issues of our day -- national defense, the social safety net, gay rights, environmental issues -- let's try to assume the best possible motives from each side, instead of jumping to the worst possible conclusions about those who disagree with us.  It seems to me that charity demands this.

John Cooper And This Catholic Lady

I homeschooled my kids for 15 years, during which I didn't have much time for movies or TV.  And when I did turn something on, it had to be at least pretty kid-friendly, with all my kids gathered round the set.  So, I wouldn't have watched something like SouthLAnd during those years, because I wouldn't have wanted to try to explain why Officer Sherman was in bed with two ladies.  Call me lazy...

The kids grew up, though, and one of them earned a college degree in "Communications Media, With An Emphasis In Entertainment Media".  In short, a "film degree".  Hence, she watched many movies and TV shows while completing her education; and upon her return home after graduation, continued to watch many movies and TV shows in the house.  Thus, I was drawn in.

Through a series of events, involving my daughter's love of a TV show called Numb3rs, Twitter, and a very kind actor named Chris Bruno, I was led to watch SouthLAnd.  YES!  I am going to talk about SouthLAnd again!  But, today I will not be discussing Ben McKenzie's character, but a character named John Cooper, played most excellently by Michael Cudlitz.

John Cooper is an officer in the LAPD.  And he is a gay character.  And he totally changed my idea of Hollywood and the "gay agenda".

As I educated my children, I hung with people who were mostly very conservative in their views.  I am mostly conservative in my views; but I do have kind of a rebel side, as you know if you have been reading my blog.   The prevailing opinion of the people I hung with is that Hollywood is aggressively promoting the gay lifestyle, trying to get us to accept and condone it, threatening us with "white martyrdom" if we don't.  And, I admit, this became my point-of-view as well, even though I never actually watched any movies or TV shows dealing with gay-rights issues or involving gay characters. (And please don't take any of this as a criticism of homeschooling.  All homeschoolers are individuals, and should not be stereotyped.  This is just my personal experience.)

But, as I watched the character of John Cooper in SouthLAnd, I came away with a different view of things.  In this show, the gay man John Cooper is portrayed in a way that could be construed as very Catholic.  He is portrayed, first and foremost, as a man -- a human being.  He is a man of integrity who works hard, is a good friend, is trustworthy and honorable, with his own share of demons (having to do with an addiction to prescription painkillers).  He is a person like any person -- gay or straight.  And his sexual orientation is just part of who he is as a person.  It is not paraded around by the writers of the show in a way that is aggressively promoting any kind of political agenda.  And when, on a police call,  he has to talk to a teenage boy who has just come out of the closet to his parents -- causing a near knock-down, drag-out fight in their home -- he takes the boy outside and gently encourages him to give his parents time to adjust to this new reality in their lives.  He tells the boy that it is a lot for his parents to digest, and encourages him to have patience.  The feelings of the parents are treated with respect by the show's writers -- even though they are not "politically correct" -- through the character of John Cooper, and I was quite touched by this.

So, this has me thinking.  Maybe Hollywood is not necessarily trying to promote a threatening agenda, but is trying to encourage the idea of gay people as human beings, first and foremost.  Perhaps there is a legitimate concern that gay people have been abused by many in our society, including by many Christians, just because they are gay.  We can debate gay marriage and other gay-rights issues.  But, as we do, we need to correctly discern the concerns of those with opposing views.  We need to try to understand those concerns.  And we need to remember that there are human beings at the center of this debate.  Human beings who want to have what we all want to have -- freedom to live their lives without fear and persecution, compassion, friendship, family, and love.  All of us in our society need to pursue truth, but we need to pursue truth in charity.  In ALL things -- charity.