If your hand causes you to sin...

Fr. Daniel, pastor of my parish, made a profound remark in this morning's homily. In the gospel reading from Mark, Jesus admonishes his followers, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." Too often I've read commentators or heard preachers attempt to soften the extremity of this advice. After all, we wouldn't want anyone actually maiming or blinding themselves; God couldn't possibly want that! Jesus must have been speaking hyperbolically.

Well, perhaps. But Fr. Daniel pointed out a literal interpretation that brings sharp clarity to our Lord's admonition. "How hard would you fight to keep your hand? Then fight that hard against sin! How firmly would you hold onto your eye? Then cling that firmly to Christ!"

For myself, I too often find myself slipping into sin -- not because I am compelled or coerced, but because it just seems easier or more pleasant. To stay in bed when I need to be awake, to play a game when I have bills to pay, and so on. But if I recognize that it is myself -- my hand, my eye, my very life -- that is at stake, then the path of vice is revealed as in fact harder and more painful, with its destination in death.

And that can be rather motivating.
Rabbert blathers on....

Just plain cool: water on the Moon!

Yep, you heard it. Confirmed by three different spacecraft. I'm getting my spacesuit and rubber raft ready for a wild ride down--

Wait, you say it's only trace amounts? Maybe a Big Gulp's worth for every ton of lunar soil?

Oh, bother.
Rabbert blathers on....

Writing sample: Tips for the Twitter-Challenged

Here's another writing sample. Comments and critiques on any of my writing is most welcome! The assignment for this was a 250-300 word blog-style post on Twitter tips:

Tips for the Twitter Challenged

Don't you hate being the last one to figure stuff out? Twitter is a great example: a powerful and dynamic resource that favors the resourceful. Here are a few tips on getting the most out of Twitter.

Bone up on your txt. You'll need to understand the abbreviations people use, and you'll be able to say more if you can use txt effectively. Do a web search for "txt dictionary".

Use widgets and apps. Twitterers have built widgets and applications to add power to Twitter, whether you want to keep track of followers, connect to content on other sites, or include images or video. A widget connects your website to Twitter; an application allows you to use Twitter more powerfully. The "Goodies" link at the bottom of your Twitter home page will get you started.

Hashtag your tweets. Hashtagging makes it easier for people to find your tweets and join in the conversation. It's easy: just add a pound-sign (#) in front of key words. For example, to hashtag this post, it might start or end with "#tips".

Search, search, search! Use the search feature on words you use in your tweets, (especially key words that you hashtag,) to see who else is tweeting about the same topics. Then you can start conversations with those Twitterers and build new relationships.

Twitter has more possibilities, and new applications are popping up every day. But these basics will help you start strong on Twitter, and build a solid base. And if there's one last tip to remember, it's this: don't be afraid to ask questions. After all, everyone on Twitter loves to talk!

Rabbert blathers on....

Writing sample: My Child Has Diabetes?

I'm applying for some freelance writing gigs, so I'll post the writing sample assignments that they give me. Here's the first, a 400 word article on childhood diabetes:

My Child Has Diabetes?

Perhaps the most frightening event in a parent's life is discovering that a child has, or may have, a life-threatening disease, such as diabetes. A thousand questions collide in your head. It is easy to swing from uncontrollable fears of worst-case tragedy to irrational hopes for instant cures. But children with diabetes usually can learn to manage their condition and live long, active, healthy lives.

Only about 0.2% of Americans under the age of 20 are diagnosed with diabetes. Diagnoses fall into two categories: Type 1 and Type 2.

Most children diagnosed have Type 1 diabetes, which used to be known as child-onset or juvenile diabetes. No one knows for sure what causes the onset of Type 1 diabetes, but the result is that the child's pancreas is unable to produce sufficient insulin to move glucose from the blood to the other cells of the body. Treatment is simple: injecting insulin into the body to supply what is lacking. In some cases, rather than periodic injections, a pump can provide a steady supply of insulin. In either case, both the child and caregiver must learn to recognize warning signs, and develop habits of regularly checking blood glucose levels and supplying appropriate amounts of insulin. With treatment and good self-care, a child with Type 1 diabetes can lead a normal and active life.

Although children with Type 2 diabetes make up less than a quarter of diagnosed cases, the incidence of Type 2 diagnoses are rising. Type 2 diabetes occurs when the cells in the body lose the ability to use insulin efficiently. This puts a strain on the pancreas, which can then lose its ability to produce insulin. Type 2 diabetes is associated with inactive or sedentary lifestyles and obesity, among other factors. Treatment may include insulin or other medications, but certainly involves habits of self-care, such as healthy eating patterns, increased physical activity, and disciplined monitoring of blood glucose levels. All these steps help the body to use insulin and glucose more efficiently.

Although diabetes has no definitive cure, there are various promising avenues of research. In the meantime, diabetes has become a treatable condition through a combination of healthy diet and exercise, self-monitoring, and medication. Diabetes is a serious condition, but only becomes life-threatening if it remains unmanaged. As a parent, instilling regular habits of self-care is the most important step you can take to keep your child healthy, both now and throughout his or her life.

Rabbert blathers on....

Commitments

I find it's difficult to keep a commitment that is too general. For example, it's hard to say, "I'm going to write more" or "I'm going to exercise more". It's easier to keep a concrete, measurable commitment. So, I'm setting a goal of writing at least 500 words every day. (Yes, this blog counts!) It's a small goal, but I know when I've reached it, and it doesn't stop me from doing more; it just keeps me from doing less.

This is part of a larger trend for me. Yesterday, a friend asked me whether I were an optimist or a pessimist. After some thought, I replied that I was an idealist. I tend to think in terms of what should be rather than what actually is. This means that I think and act in ways that sometimes look optimistic (because of the height of my hopes) and sometimes pessimistic (because of the depth of my disappointment). It also means that I tend to pay too little attention to the real world that I in fact live in. I tend to think of goals in terms of "I should write a perfect story or article" rather than "I should write five hundred readable words". Keeping the goals concrete helps keep my feet on the ground. Which is exactly what an idealist like me most needs.

On the other hand, I'm still working on that exercise goal. Right now, I'm thinking a 15-minute walk every day should be do-able. What do you think?
Rabbert blathers on....

Gallup-ing through the church?

It's a commonplace today for people to be "spiritual" without being "religious". By that, most people seem to mean that they are interested in matters of faith and spirituality, but not interested in membership in an institution. My guess is that institutional membership feels like a burden, an obligation. In any case, the result is a steady downward trend in church membership and participation over the past several decades. Even if there are new members entering a community every year, there also are members dropping out.

A program offered by the Gallup Organization -- source of all those Gallup Polls -- promises to reverse those trends, to make the local churches places where people will really connect with the institution and deepen their faith. The program is outlined in the book, Growing an Engaged Church, by Albert L. Winseman. His main thesis is that, contrary to the old wisdom that belonging follows belief, deep belief and growth in faith actually follows as a result of belonging to a living and lively community.

This makes a certain instinctive sense to a Catholic. Unlike many of the Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Emergant approaches to Christianity of recent years, institutional memberships really matters theologically to Catholics: we are baptized into the Body of Christ, not into an individual relationship. But Winseman notes that engagement means much more than mere membership. He proposes four areas in which congregational engagement can be measured:

• What do I get?
• What do I give?
• Do I belong?
• How can we grow?

These areas, of course, become the basis for a poll which can give statistical measurements of the "health" of a particular congregation. As he puts it,

Measuring engagement, and implementing strategies to improve it, is just like preparing the soil to produce an abundant crop. It is no secret that there are some churches that produce abundant fruit of the Spirit; and there are others that seem as dry as a withered fig tree, bearing no fruit. Increasing engagement in your church is simply employing the latest research and discoveries -- preparing the soil -- so God can produce a bumper crop; it's creating a receptive climate for the work of the Holy Spirit, so God can do great things in your midst.

I have no argument with any of this. Even my parish, which is known in the Archdiocese for being particularly fruitful and lively, recognizes that it is far from being the "good soil" described by our Lord's parable. And I think that the Gallup system does one very good thing that it sets out to do: it tests the soil to see if anything will grow.

Moreover, Winseman suggests three concrete tactics for increasing engagement:

• Clarify the expectations of membership
• Help members discover what they do best
• Create small groups

Again, taking these steps cannot help but improve the relationship between the individual and the institution. The first step alone could solve any number of problems in my parish, where misunderstandings are as rife as anywhere else on the planet.

But what Winseman misses is that it takes more than "good soil" to bear good fruit. In the Gospel parable, as in life, a seed must be sown for a plant to grow. All that the Gallup system really promotes is an atmosphere of strong membership in an institution. It doesn't really provide faith.

Now, as Winseman points out early in his book, faith involves membership in the Church; but membership alone is not a sufficient condition for the growth of faith or of the charity which is faith come to full fruit.

Perhaps this is because faith is not something that can be programmed institutionally. All an institution can do is provide an opportunity for faith, an opportunity for the encounter with Jesus which is the seed of faith. Winseman admits this, but says nothing more about it. He seems to see "preparing the soil" as the only work that we can do, and that everything else is entirely up to God. In short, this approach is entirely about how a particular congregation engages its members, and not at all about why a church seeks to engage anyone.

This is exactly where the seams show. This entire approach to churches is based on a model (called "The Gallup Path") originally designed with business in mind, where the ultimate goal is to increase profit for the company. But a church -- of any faith -- does not exist for the purpose of profit, and its members do not relate to leadership as employees to employer. The goal cannot be assumed, since the content of the goal varies dramatically from one faith to another. Rather, the content of the goal is exactly what divides churches and religions and cultures.

In short, what people are engaged in -- or better, whom they are engaged with -- is at least as important as how they are being engaged, when it comes to religion. And this is something Winseman studiously ignores and even dismisses as not significant.

Now, as I mentioned above, a church can certainly gain from the methods outlined in Growing an Engaged Church. I would simply warn that this book and the Gallup Path is not sufficient in and of itself to bring people to the fullness of life in Christ.
Rabbert blathers on....

Mark Shea on evil

After all, if there's anyone who would know evil inside-out, it's Mark Shea!

In this case, he makes the point with exceptional clarity:

The Church does not see evil as the "opposite" of good precisely. That's because we are not Manichaeans. We do not believe that evil is a power equal and opposed to good. Rather, we believe that evil is a parasite on the good, a perversion and (mark this) a thing that must always depend on the good in some way for its very existence, while the good exists without needing evil. Because of this, we can always say of any evil that there is *something* of the good about it. Even Satan still retains the good gifts of existence, power, and intellect that his Maker gave him (perverted though they are). To deny this is to deny that God is the absolute Creator of All.

This is in the midst of a post on his own attempts to think with Christ and the Church. Worth a read, like most everything he writes.
Rabbert blathers on....

Shameless self-promotion

As I've mentioned before, I'm between jobs at the moment. So I thought I'd post my resume here, for two reasons:

1. To see if anyone has comments or suggestions for me
2. Just in case anyone reading this happens to be hiring

Anyway, since Blogger only allows graphics to be uploaded, here is my resume as a .png (click on the image for full resolution):
Next, I'm available for speaking engagements large and small, on a variety of topics. Drop me a line at king[dot]rabbert[at]gmail[dot]com. Some topics:

• Developing virtue in your life
• The process of discernment
• A Catholic View of the World: what, why, and how Catholics think

Also, I'm getting a group blog started called "The Good, the True, the Just". The idea is to promote virtue in both personal and public life. My own perspective is that of Catholic morality and social teaching, but I hope it's interesting and accessible to non-Catholics and even non-Christians. Do let me know what you think!
Rabbert blathers on....

Historical perspective

In 1943, this was cheering on an ally:

In hindsight, it's rather creepy. To paraphrase the wisdom of others, we should never call someone great before their life is completed.
Rabbert blathers on....

Mmm... walnuts

Trust me. You'll want to devote a half hour to this episode of the Dick Van Dyke show.
Rabbert blathers on....

Larry asks...

In a comment on my recent health care post, Larry asks:

But what is "society"? In America today, that means tax money. And that's not just politics; it's our culture.

Now, I would say that "society" is a somewhat fluid category. I guess I would define society as the subject of solidarity and subsidiarity together.

I trust I make myself obscure.

Really, this discussion brings us back to the whole "common good" question. (Sorry, Amy. But at least I won't quote G.K. Chesterton this time.) It brings us back to the common good because

Solidarity is the recognition that each of us shares much in common with others. It's perhaps something like empathy, but in philosophical terms rather than psychological. (Yes, Larry, I know about the Personalist use of empathy... but bear with me a bit.) So the subject of solidarity is everyone with whom I share something in common. At its broadest, this includes the entire human race: we all share human nature in common. But it can be applied more narrowly as well: I have a particular solidarity with other Catholics, or with other Seattleites, for example, that I don't share with Buddhists or Utahns. I have a very particular solidarity with members of my family, because we share so very much in common.

Subsidiarity is the recognition that each and every individual, and group to whom that individual belongs, has something valuable to contribute to the community. So, the subject of subsidiarity is everyone who makes a contribution to a given community -- that is to say, everyone who is in solidarity with a given community. Again, this can be taken more or less broadly, but the implication is that communities based on a broader solidarity provide broad and foundational support to communities based on a more focused solidarity. Issues that affect the entire nation must be dealt with on a national level, while issues that affect the neighborhood must be dealt with on a neighborhood level.

So, any individual person is a member of multiple communities, multiple societies, ranging from one's nuclear family to the entire human race, with various forms of local, economic, recreational, and political ties in between. And each society has a certain responsibility for its members, based on the kind of solidarity they share.

Now, I'm talking in pretty abstract terms. But I do think it's important to recognize that the "Government" itself has various levels and forms, and these do not entirely encompass the organization of all "society".

In other words, yes Larry, society involves all of culture; no Larry, society does not just mean tax money. But, yes Larry, we Americans tend to think that social responsibilities are carried out through government agencies, so tax money is the first place we think to look. But this need not be the only way to work. After all, various entities of the Church provided medical services for anyone, regardless of creed or ability to pay, for generations -- because they recognized their solidarity with all humanity and took responsibility in whatever concrete way they were able.

Now the Catholic hospitals and clinics are dying, for reasons too complex for a Rodent of Very Little Brain like myself to understand. I don't think that attempting to re-create that network of hospitals is likely to succeed. But I do think that, even if a public health care option is passed through Congress, we need to take direct responsibility for the health of those in our community.

Some of us will take more direct and hands-on responsibility than others, since we all have different gifts and callings; but we all must take responsibility for our own.

Easy to say; hard to do. Let us pray for one another.
Rabbert blathers on....

Self confidence?

So I've had rather a tumultuous couple of days. As I've said before, I'm unemployed at the moment. I'm a little afraid I'm unemployable. Or maybe just too lazy to find a real job. And the last couple days my own lack of discipline and drive has become viscerally real to me.

The thing I love most in the world is writing. Really, it's telling stories, and I love film as a way to tell stories; but it takes a cast and crew to make a film, while all I need to write is my word processor and a little privacy. So I write. And when I write, frankly, that is the only time I feel entirely at home in the world.

Now, all my life I've avoided anything that could lead to a professional writing career. I didn't study English or Journalism in college; didn't pursue internships or submit articles to the school paper or to local papers. I didn't know if I was good enough. I was afraid I wouldn't be, and then what would happen to my hope for happiness?

I was told I had low self esteem, that I needed more self confidence. I think the problem was the opposite: I had/have outrageously high self esteem, and I'm very careful to guard against anything that could threaten my self image as the most brilliant writer and thinker in the world. It's like a hot air balloon: very high and lovely to look at, but ultimately empty, and if it's at all damaged it will come crashing down to the ground.

What I've always lacked was trust. I've never trusted other people to see or understand the things I'm so passionate about. I've never trusted my parents or my teachers or my bosses with my hopes or desires, and never trusted them to help me pursue them. I've never trusted God, who promises to provide all that is necessary and never to test us beyond our ability. In short, it's not self confidence I lack; it's other confidence. It's God confidence, friend confidence, family confidence.

So, today I am making a decision to trust. I am going to put my work out for others to see, if only in small ways. I am going to devote myself to pursuing my goal of publishing and producing the stories I feel compelled to tell. Perhaps like Jonah, I will face the task that both calls me and terrifies me.

After all, running away from it hasn't worked out so well for me.
Rabbert blathers on....

Catholic criteria for health care reform

The Catholic Bishops in the U.S. have, both individually and collectively, sought reform of our health care system for many years. It was part of their support of labor unions, part of their preferential option for the poor, part of the greater ideals to which they have called the sheep of their flocks, and particularly our political leaders.

However, they have always held that health care reform should be true reform: that is, it is currently deformed, and needs to return to its true form. Health care must truly care for the health of all people.

In a letter to Congress [.pdf], the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops set out four main criteria for authentic health care reform.

1. A truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity
2. Access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of legal immigrants
3. Pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options
4. Restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers

This is very similar to a list which they articulated back in 1993, when another president was attempting to push through major health care reform. In fact, they also have re-issued this message, because its argument remains valid.

Note that the Bishops are not supporting or opposing any legislation. Rather, they are giving principles based on human nature, and which can be understood and accepted without any other relation to Christ or Christianity. They simply are voicing the concerns that arise from a Christian worldview.
Rabbert blathers on....

Approach the truth with reverence

I'm reading a book by Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR which, to be frank, doesn't do a whole lot for me. Mostly a matter of taste. I prefer arguments to allegories, and syllogisms to sentiment. De gustibus non disputandem.

However, in the midst of it he cited this passage from Ven. John Henry Newman:

For is not this the error, the common and fatal error, of the world, to think itself a judge of Religious Truth without preparation of heart? "I am the good Shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of Mine." "He goeth before them, and the sheep follow Him, for they know His voice." "The pure in heart shall see God:" "to the meek mysteries are revealed; " "he that is spiritual judgeth all things." "The darkness comprehendeth it not." Gross eyes see not; heavy ears hear not. But in the schools of the world the ways towards Truth are considered high roads open to all men, however disposed, at all times. Truth is to be approached without homage. Every one is considered on a level with his neighbour; or rather the powers of the intellect, acuteness, sagacity, subtlety, and depth, are thought the guides into Truth. Men consider that they have as full a right to discuss religious subjects, as if they were themselves religious. They will enter upon the most sacred points of Faith at the moment, at their pleasure,—if it so happen, in a careless frame of mind, in their hours of recreation, over the wine cup. Is it wonderful that they so frequently end in becoming indifferentists, and conclude that Religious Truth is but a name, that all men are right and all wrong, from witnessing externally the multitude of sects and parties, and from the clear consciousness they possess within, that their own inquiries end in darkness? (University Sermons 10.43)

And it struck me just how much I take for granted -- no, really I consider myself entitled to -- understanding the truth about the world and other people and God. Which reminded me of something that Pope Benedict XVI noted in his recent encyclical Caritas in veritate (34):

Truth — which is itself gift, in the same way as charity — is greater than we are, as Saint Augustine teaches. Likewise the truth of ourselves, of our personal conscience, is first of all given to us. In every cognitive process, truth is not something that we produce, it is always found, or better, received. Truth, like love, “is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings”

In other words, truth is not something that belongs to me, that I can possess or control, that I can require of the world or of other people. My first attitude toward the truth -- the truth of anything, whether it be science or history or other people -- my first attitude should be humility; and my attitude upon learning anything -- again, anything at all -- should be gratitude.

Moreover, when I have been given a truth, even the truth about my own experience, that is a treasure that I am responsible to use wisely, as a steward. It is a gift that I can and should give to others who need it. I may give different gifts to my close friends (e.g., the truth of my deep experiences) than I give to strangers on the street (e.g., the truth of the time of day) or to partners in a discussion (e.g., the truth of some knowledge or of my perspective), but in every case, I only give what I have received as a gift.

This is rather a new way of looking at things for me. As I mentioned, I have an overly-developed sense of entitlement, and a woefully under-developed sense of gratitude. But, thank God, I do seem to have some capacity to learn.

Indeed, thank you, all of you friends and strangers who have given me the gift of truth throughout my lifetime. I will endeavor to use your gifts well.
Rabbert blathers on....

On professionalism

Screenwriter John August posts a guest lecture he gave at Trinity University in San Antonio. The main point: be professional, all the time.

I happen to agree with him. It's a matter of treating other people with respect.
Rabbert blathers on....

History and heros

Maybe it's because my family name is "King" that I've always had a fascination with great monarchs. My top three favorites are David (of Judah and Israel), Lear (of Britain), and Arthur (of Britain). What I love is the mythos, the wonder of how a single person can change the shape and direction of a whole people, even of the world. It's also no coincidence that all my favorites are tragic kings, who ultimately failed in their quests. After all, perfect victory over evil and injustice does not lie in this life, but in the next. Christ, the King of kings, died -- not to save us from the cross -- but to save us through it.

It's also no coincidence, then, that my favorite kings are all accused of being legendary rather than historical. I happen to, respectfully, disagree; and I've just finished reading a book which has helped me to articulate why. The book is The Discovery of King Arthur, by Geoffrey Ashe. In it, he notes that historians have tended to ask the wrong question in searching for the "historical" King Arthur:

The historical line of inquiry, pursued with a strict regard for fact, leads to a near-nullity. Yet that is paradoxical. The Arthurian legend is far from being a near-nullity. In its various versions it is a fact itself, a very great fact, one that has survived through the centuries with extraordinary richness and vitality in most of the languages of Europe and America. Far from being pruned away, it needs to be drawn back into the investigation. The Arthur question is literary rather than historical. The proper question is to ask, not 'Did Arthur exist?' but 'How did the legend originate, what realities is it rooted in, what was its starting point?'

In other words, the historians have neglected to regard as sufficiently historical evidence the very documents which occasioned their question in the first place. (I could note that a similar fallacy seems to pervade Biblical studies, especially of the New Testament; but, not being a Biblical scholar myself, I shall refrain.)

Yet, whatever its virtues and arguments in historiography, that is, the theory of doing history, Ashe's book points out another theme in the development of Arthurian legend: the longing for a hero.

As Ashe presents it, the character of Arthur originated as a restitutor, or restorer, figure -- a kind of messiah. In the Roman Empire of the fourth century A.D., of which much of Great Britain was a part, the emperors attempted to reclaim the empire's former glory in the face of growing threats from barbarians and in the aftermath of massive internal crises. Needless to say, none truly succeeded, and Rome itself was sacked in 410 -- the first of many such victories by various barbarian peoples. The citizens of the empire asked how and why this happened, and how their honor could be restored. St. Augustine wrote one of his most famous treatises, The City of God, to answer this very question. His answer was that Jesus was the longed-for restorer, and that his kingdom was not of this world. But that failed to satisfy the longing for victory and honor now.

In the first "complete" biography of King Arthur, Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, portrays him as first a defender of the Britons against the invading Saxons, Angles, and Jutes; then as a campaigner in what today is France against the Roman Empire. In other words, Arthur is a sort of British restitutor. Ashe's argument is founded on finding a historical basis for such a British figure, whether attached directly to the name "Arthur" or not.

But perhaps a greater theme is the persistence of the messianic longing which Ashe points out. England (ironically named for the Angles that Arthur fought) awaits a hero, Arthur returned, to save them in their time of need; and several English monarchs have adopted the Arthurian aura to legitimate their rule. Nor is America immune from such a longing. After all, we have legends surrounding General and President George Washington, President Abraham Lincoln, and even President Theodore Roosevelt -- not to mention the explicit Arthurian metaphors applied to President Kennedy. And witness the fervor of expectation surrounding President Obama's election, and the disappointment in many that the world did not change suddenly upon his inauguration.

In my own life, I find that I tend to waffle between fantasies of becoming just such a world-restoring hero, (especially after watching an action movie or some such thing,) and fantasies of having all my troubles solved by such a hero, (even if the hero who saves me is also the damsel in distress whom I rescue!) As one of my therapists challenged me, I have yet to learn to be a "mere mortal."

Now, I think there really is something to the first fantasy: life is full of challenges and adventures which, to the outsider, may appear mundane but in fact are calls for courage and heroism. Not all of us will have epic poems composed in our honor, but all of us have opportunities -- perhaps more than we would like -- to demonstrate heroic virtue. The danger is to pursue the honor more than the virtue.

It is the second fantasy that, for myself at least, I am most wary. The persistent desire for someone else to take care of my problems, to make everything perfect, with no effort expended on my own part -- in short, the vice of sloth -- remains my primary temptation. As I said before, perfect victory over evil is not for this life. I have no ground to condemn the imperfection of anyone else's achievement, much less to refrain from myself attempting some good, simply because it will not be perfect. This life is not for perfect. This life is for tragedy -- but tragedy which leads to perfect joy in the one true restitutor: Christ.
Rabbert blathers on....

Perfect for a Saturday morning

Jesus died on the cross so that we could eat bacon.

Oh yeah, and our eternal salvation and stuff, too.
Rabbert blathers on....

Why does anyone get married anymore?

I am extraordinarily fortunate that my parents are still married to each other. It wasn't easy for them. They both have had second thoughts, and even separated for a time to figure things out. But they realized that divorce would not actually solve any of their problems, and that their best chance at happiness was to work at loving each other better.

On a larger scale, I've noted before that so-called "no-fault" divorce is at the root of many of our social problems with marriage. It seems to me that "no-fault" divorce cheapens marriage to the point of worthlessness. I mean, why take vows "till death" if it really only means "till divorce"?

It seems that at least one other person out there agrees with me. And science bears it out: no-fault divorce does not, in fact, lead to better or happier marriages, or even to happier individuals. At the same time, the National Catholic Register reports on a study showing significant correlation between divorce and certain health issues. (Full article is only available to subscribers.)

This is good for me to see, because I'm always afraid that my idealism is out of touch with reality.

But here's where I get into trouble: I don't see a practical, sure-fire means of correcting this problem. I mean, I can say that what we need is a cultural return to understanding marriage as a lifelong bond. I can talk about the philosophical teleology of man and woman, or about the public and social nature of the marriage covenant. But the fact is that divorce is one of the basic assumptions of our society, almost at the level of being considered a human right. We watch "Kramer vs. Kramer" and wonder what all the controversy was about. And I don't know how to change things on the level of our culture or our society.

But I guess I can offer some suggestions for small changes that might make things better for individual marriages.

1- Remember that a spouse does not exist to make you happy. And vice versa. Marriage is not a toy and is not entertainment. It is a way of giving love, not merely of receiving love.

2- Make your marriage about more than just you two. If marriage is a way of giving love, it's a way of giving love to everyone. Your spouse is the conduit for your love to reach anyone and everyone else around you. Children are the most obvious and natural example of this; but even one's friendships change and shift when one gets married -- because you are not a friend alone, anymore. Friendship includes the spouse.

3- Take time to argue. Seriously. If you are always 100% in full agreement on everything, then something's wrong. Stepford wrong. It's only by discovering where you differ from each other that you'll be open to learning from each other and truly growing closer. It's only by facing conflict that you're able to resolve it.

I'm sure that other people probably have more and better ideas than these, and I know it's horribly dangerous to give unsolicited advice. So please forgive me -- and also correct me! -- if I overstep my bounds.

On the other hand, why should advice columnists have all the fun?
Rabbert blathers on....

Because sometimes we need to laugh

Rabbert blathers on....

Proper respect

There's lots of indignation for Rep. Joe Wilson, the Congressman who shouted "You lie!" during President Obama's speech last night. Rep. Wilson himself has apologized to the President. The word I've heard most to describe his behavior is "disrespectful".

I guess I'd like to ask, disrespectful in what way? Disrespectful for interrupting the President's speech? Well, what about all those standing ovations? They stopped Obama in his tracks several times -- often in the middle of a sentence. Disrespectful for showing open disagreement or disdain for the President's proposal? What about all the others who held up signs, or competing bills, or who simply refused to clap?

I can understand "stupid" or "unfounded", but politics is an open forum for argument, and if you take the applause you have to take the heckles as well. I, for one, would gladly let go of the veneer of "respect" if it would promote more direct and honest dialogue.
Rabbert blathers on....

Once in a lifetime event

Okay, twice in a lifetime if you count AM and PM.

9:09:09 on 09/09/09

I'm sure it means something significant.
Rabbert blathers on....

More Chestertonian stuff

I'm reading Chesterton's 1910 classic, What's Wrong with the World. So far, it is (as one expects from Chesterton) a very witty retort to common misconceptions of his age, often turning platitudes on their heads. But also, (as one expects from Chesterton,) many of his points remain just as sharp today as they were a century ago. For example:

But the difference between the two mental methods [of dogma and prejudice] is marked and unmistakable. The essential of the difference is this: that prejudices are divergent, whereas creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each other's way. A creed is a collective thing, and even its sins are sociable. A prejudice is a private thing, and even its tolerance is misanthropic. So it is with our existing divisions. They keep out of each other's way; the Tory paper and the Radical paper do not answer each other; they ignore each other. Genuine controversy, fair cut and thrust before a common audience, has become in our special epoch very rare. For the sincere controversialist is above all things a good listener. The really burning enthusiast never interrupts; he listens to the enemy's arguments as eagerly as a spy would listen to the enemy's arrangements. But if you attempt an actual argument with a modern paper of opposite politics, you will find that no medium is admitted between violence and evasion. You will have no answer except slanging or silence. A modern editor must not have that eager ear that goes with the honest tongue. He may be deaf and silent; and that is called dignity. Or he may be deaf and noisy; and that is called slashing journalism. In neither case is there any controversy; for the whole object of modern party combatants is to charge out of earshot.

In our current culture, it is almost impossible to avoid the Scylla of relativism without falling into the Charybdis of prejudice. That is, either one denies any real difference between one's opponents and oneself, or one judges them to be irrational and arguing in bad faith.

For example, I pointed out to a friend that, while health care of some sort is presented as a basic human right in Catholic social teaching, there is no requirement or expectation that the government will in any direct way provide such care. Rather, the role of the government is to ensure that health care is not denied to any who need it. His immediate response was to call me insane. No reasonable person, he said, could call for universal health care without at the same time making it a government department. In short, he was unable to actually make an argument in favor of government-run health care exactly because he could not accept any argument against it.

I don't know what it would take for our society to discover some other mode of debate besides shouting as loudly as possible, but until we do we will drown in our own increasing irrational prejudices.

Rabbert blathers on....

My recent absence

I know how much you all depend on my posting to give meaning and purpose to your lives, and I have felt the increasing weight of responsibility each day that I have not been able to post recently. *sigh* Here is my explanation.

On Friday last, I was part of a team making a major presentation to the staff of my parish. We're doing great things there, and trying to do even greater. Anyway, the prep took most of my time and energy leading up to it, and then I spent the entire weekend recovering.

Oh, and yesterday I was babysitting Mr. Tooth all day.

Note that this is not an apology. My dad has enforced one of Gibbs' rules: Never say you're sorry; it's a sign of weakness.
Rabbert blathers on....

Health care myths

An interesting article from the WaPo of a couple weeks back: 5 Myths about Health Care around the World. Here's a quote that caught my eye:

The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.

The main problem with the article's proposals is that it would require a complete overhaul of our current medical insurance system. That's something the current administration is dead-set against doing. Strange: you'd think an administration that ran on the slogan of "CHANGE" would be interested in, well, change.
Rabbert blathers on....

Morals! Virtue! Patriotism!

I'm ever so proud to be an American!

Rabbert blathers on....

Subsidiarity

One of the political principles that has become very important to me in my recent researches is Subsidiarity, which is essentially the principle of dealing with problems at the level of society affected by them. In short, deal with local issues locally, and personal issues personally.

Here are a couple good articles on why this doesn't necessarily mean a "least common denominator" approach.
Rabbert blathers on....

Good News report!

In a world where only the most superficial forms of affection seem to get attention, truly heroic acts of love often go unnoticed. But here are a mother and father truly loving their child -- even though he was diagnosed in utero with a fatal genetic defect.



Hat tip to Mark.
Rabbert blathers on....

Attempting realism

I was having a conversation with a friend about the current health care proposals going through congress. My friend is a devoted member of one of the major parties, and is a lawyer to boot. He's been following politics much of his adult life.

Meanwhile, I have spent most of my life as a political cynic, which was my excuse for remaining ignorant and inactive while reserving the right to snark. Nowadays, though, I've been describing myself as an idealist. The philosophy I have most affinity for is Distributism, but I remain woefully ignorant even of that approach.

My friend's response to my questions and arguments often took the form: "That's just not the way things work! Politics doesn't work that way!" And when I asked why not, he would list a number of causes, such as the need to campaign or the need for groups to express their interests through lobbying, and so on. He would note longstanding practices which have become a foundation for taking political action.

My questions, on the other hand, tended toward the speculative: why are things the way they are? Is there some other way things might be? How can we move toward something better? He would reply that such questions are largely counter-productive, because they don't deal with the world as it actually is right now -- a situation that I am largely ignorant about.

So ... I have been trying to educate myself so that I am not so ignorant. At the same time, I have no attachment to the current American government, nor even to the American form of government. The more I learn about it, the more it either confuses me or frightens me. Sometimes it turns my stomach. And yet, as my friend points out, a complete change of government does not seem to be a realistic option -- and even if it were, what chance is there of a better government taking its place?

The defensive part of me wants to hold strong for philosophy and ideals and justice. I refuse to believe that government, even our government, requires the level of complication and corruption and compromise of principles that appears to be the daily order of business in D.C. and in state capitols and city halls and so on around the country. But am I just being defensive? Am I clinging to a pleasant fantasy? Am I just plain naive?
Rabbert blathers on....