Mendication

I'm a slow learner, really. It's only just now that I've figured out how to give other people my Amazon Wish List.

Oh you who are gifted with gift-giving resources, behold your opportunity!
Rabbert blathers on....

An interesting proposal

According to the non-profit group Downsize DC, both houses of Congress have eliminated requirements that Representatives and Senators hear and/or read -- or even have full copies of -- legislation that they vote on. They have therefore submitted a bill entitled The Read the Bills Act and are trying to get a Congressman/-woman to introduce the bill.

They are having little success.

Now, much of the Downsize DC agenda seems to be taken from the Libertarian handbook, and I don't want to imply support for their agenda; but this piece of legislation seems pretty common-sensical to me. Is there any real objection to such requirements as a full verbatim reading of legislation before a quorum of each House? or a seven day waiting period between the final text of legislation and a vote thereon?

I'm asking real questions. If there are real problems with this bill, I'd like to know.

[Crossposted at The Good, the True, the Just.]
Rabbert blathers on....

Speaking of names...

Another friend pointed me to a Hobbit Name Generator, which has dubbed me (variously) Hugo Hornblower and Grigory Deepdelver.

Not sure which I prefer.
Rabbert blathers on....

A God, by any other name, would be as divine?

This may only be of interest to Christians, but I'm very interested also in how non-Christians would respond.

My friend Sherry posts some thoughts about how American Catholics (and maybe others, but she's speaking from her direct experience) seem reluctant to use the name Jesus in their prayer or in speaking about their faith. Here's a quick quote:

We talk incessantly about the Church. But not about the Lord, Savior, Redeemer, and Head of the Church. Not Jesus. Not by name. Not spontaneously without the liturgy to give us "cover". To do so, seems so naked, so unsophisticated, so pietistic, so what - Protestant??

I am not the only one who has noticed this aspect of American Catholic culture. A Catholic scholar friend of mine has mischievously coined a memorable phrase to describe it: Jesus is "He who must not be named".

Meanwhile, in my own spiritual journey, I've noticed a tendency toward using what I think of as God's "full name": Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship has asked that the name given in the Old Testament, usually Englished into "Yahweh" (or "Jehovah"), not be used in music during mass.

My first observation is that this emphasis on the importance of names, whether to be used or to be avoided, seems to be a feature of Abrahamic religion. Observant Jews do not pronounce the name of God, and some even avoid the common (though capitalized) noun, spelling it G-d. Muslims have a meditation on the ninety-nine names of Allah, which they recite in a manner similar to the Catholic rosary. Christians have the famous passage from St. Paul (Philippians 2.9-11):

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

But I'm not aware of any such devotion to the Buddha, or to any Hindu or Celtic or Germanic or Native American deities. I don't know of any particular attention among the Romans or the Greeks to the name of Jupiter or Zeus. My neo-pagan friends are fond of using various and multiple names for their ideas of the divine or supernatural, but seem to have at most a personal devotion to one name or another. (I'd welcome correction if I'm missing something here.)

I don't know what conclusion to draw from this observation, except the obvious one that names are very important for Christians and for the Abrahamic religious tradition.

Next, I suppose I want to admit that I found Sherry's post quite challenging. Having grown up in the Pacific Northwest, where any religion is preemptively suspect, I have a gut-level reluctance even to mention that I am Catholic, to say nothing of bearing witness to the name of Jesus, my Lord and my God. I've noticed the name of Jesus appearing in my prayers more at some times and less at others. My current meditative practice (when I take the time to meditate) usually involves a simple repetition of his name. But I almost never say the name of Jesus aloud, or in the presence of others.

I'm not sure how exactly to answer this challenge. On the one hand, I want to be unafraid and unashamed of Jesus and his name. On the other, I know that, when many people hear his name, it raises all sorts of false or distracting or painful associations. I've often described my sense of vocation as preparing the way for Jesus, so that when people hear of him they recognize him as they one they have long desired. But am I merely capitulating to the fear of offending someone?

In any case, your input is most welcome.
Rabbert blathers on....

The Farce is Strong ...

How could I help myself?
Rabbert blathers on....

No Bright Line on the Horizon

I've been having a conversation on Facebook about the difference between the cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance) and the theological virtues (faith, hope, and love); and also talking to lots of people about health care (both on-line and off), and in both cases I've found people looking for a bright line dividing one thing from another. With virtue, it's a line separating nature from grace. With health care, it's a line separating "basic" health care from "extraordinary" care. I've seen the same kind of search for bright lines in defining torture, the status of a fetus, the viability of a terminally ill patient, environmental impact, and so on.

But I'm not sure if such lines really exist. Or, at least, I'm not sure that looking for such lines really help us out. After all, whenever we try to define something too strictly, we can always find exceptions, or we look at "hard cases", or we just plain find that strict lines or rules force us away from our own everyday lived experience.

I'm not trying to do away with definitions -- far from it! I'm simply saying that the more our definitions try to attain abstract mathematical perfection, the more they will depart from the reality of the world. Instead of trying to fit the world into our definitions, I think we need to fit our definitions to the world as it actually is.

I don't have a perfect answer for how to do that. In fact, I'm hoping that some readers out there will have some good ideas to contribute. But I'd suggest, as a starting point, a recognition that every thing and every event and every person in all of God's creation is absolutely and utterly unique; there never has been, nor ever will be, the same thing or event or person again. At the same time, every thing and event and person is truly and deeply related to every other -- some more closely, as family members, and some more distantly, as a butterfly's flight in China affects the weather in Bolivia. Searching out the ways in which a thing is unique, and also the ways in which a thing is connected and related to other things, I hope, will bring us closer to understanding the world around us.

Clear as mud? Any thoughts or ideas?
Rabbert blathers on....

Weekend Update

Good Intentions + High Aspirations = 0

There's one thing more needed: Positive Action. The lack of which is described by Dear Thomas.
Rabbert blathers on....

Quote of the day: Benedict XVI

From the new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate:

Pope Paul VI noted that "the world is in trouble because of the lack of thinking".

He's referencing Paul VI's Populorum Progressio. The Vatican translation reads, "It must be admitted that men very often find themselves in a sad state because they do not give enough thought and consideration to these things."

I think I like Benedict's take better.
Rabbert blathers on....

Perry Hotter and the Bathtub Rinse

I think it may have been a mistake to have read the Harry Potter books before seeing the movies. It's next to impossible to see the film as a work in its own right. I can't help but notice what's missing from the book.

Now, Half-Blood Prince easily wins my top prize among the Harry Potter novels. It reaches more deeply than any of the others into the loves, conflicts, and hopes of the characters. It explores the dynamic of its magical world more fully, and defines the lines of the central conflict between Voldemort and Potter. It even displays a depth of moral discernment not found in the rest of the series.

And I'm afraid that's what I missed from the film. I found myself too busy wondering where the dynamics of relationship and morality were to take more than passing notice at the quality of acting (still improving with each movie; I'm finally accepting Michael Gambon in place of the late Richard Harris) or the flashy special effects (well-executed, but lacking imagination). The film payed passing lip service to the moral questions around Harry's use of the Half-Blood Prince's textbook, and failed entirely to look at the issue of the sectem sempera spell. Regarding Dumbledore, the film portrays only what is needed to keep the action moving, so his role as wise father-figure is lost. Even the jealousy dynamic between Ron and Hermione, and Harry and Ginny, feels perfunctory and tacked-on, whereas in the novel it is at least somewhat integrated into the other moral quandaries the teens face.

Now, I'm not a huge Potter fan. I enjoyed the books, mostly, but on the level of light entertainment rather than as real literature. Rowling has a rightly acknowledged gift for inventive language and playful bits of magic. But her grasp of human nature and morality tends toward the shallow; at her deepest, she merely raises questions rather than truly exploring them. She's no Dostoyevski or Tolkien.

On the other hand, she's no Philip Pullman, either. She's not to blame for the rising popularity of "witchcraft" and occult magic. She's not out to destroy humanity or the Church, and the stories don't even have that unintentional effect -- except that they do ride the tide of popular ideas common in our culture today, such as: intention is the main factor in morality; authority is usually wrong, especially when enforcing rules; victory is ultimately in our own hands; etc.

Still, I did enjoy the movie, and did not wish for my money back. I think I'm hard on Harry because I develop such high hopes -- for characters, for insights, for drama -- and then am disappointed when I find the actual book or film falling short. Perhaps I, like Dumbledore, simply ask too much of Harry.

2hr 33min; Directed by David Yates; rated PG.
Rabbert blathers on....

Thinking about universal health care

My dad, who gets most of his information from radio and TV, is adamantly opposed to President Obama's proposal of a government-run health insurance program. I, on the other hand, get most of my information from the far-more-reliable internets, and so-- wait a sec.

Maybe we both ought to think for ourselves for a moment.

Let's start with a few principles. First, it's hard to deny that a basic level of health care is a fundamental human right. No one seriously believes that, if you get the flu, you should or could be denied the bed rest and clear liquids and chicken noodle soup required to get over it.

But I have some friends, one of whose kids is hydrocephalic. I have another friend who is undergoing treatment for breast cancer. In order to survive, to say nothing of living "normal" lives, they require costly and time-consuming treatments -- more costly than they are able to afford on their own.

Is such treatment a human right? Were all the generations of humanity with the misfortune to live before the mid-twentieth century deprived of their rights? What about citizens of poor or "undeveloped" nations today, who don't have access to the cutting-edge research-driven medicine of the United States of America?

This is where the notion of "rights", so foundational to our political discourse these days, might get in the way of thinking clearly. Society as a whole has the responsibility of distributive justice, meaning that we have to allocate (or distribute) the goods and resources we hold in common to our members in a just fashion. So asking, "to what level of health care do we have a right?" or "what constitutes the basic health care (to which I am entitled)?" leads the conversation in the wrong direction. I think the question should rather be, "are we using our medical resources in a just manner? do all the members of our society have access to the goods available to us as a whole?"

From a Catholic point of view, the question is asked out of charity as well as out of justice: in other words, while "strict justice" might ask what the minimum level of health care is that we must provide, charity asks how much health care are we able to provide to those who need it?

So, that said, universal health care is certainly a human right, but it will look different from one society to another depending on the resources available.

Which leads to the second principle: that society as a whole has the responsibility for providing this health care.

Now, theoretically, there are lots of ways that this can happen. We could support doctors and other medical professionals directly through patronage or sponsorships. The Church could provide health care and hospitals, as she has in decades past. We could have various private medical providers compete to offer the best care. Or, we could offer insurance policies, in which a company pools resources from individuals to pay for health care. The government may wield a strong hand, or almost no hand, in any of these systems, so long as they proceed to work justly.

I can fully understand those people, like the ones my dad has been listening to, who see dangers in too much government involvement in health care. Especially the U.S. government. Can we really trust them to be efficient? to be fair? to provide consistent treatment? Will the government legislate what "health" is? force doctors to perform abortions or euthanasia? force pharmacists to distribute contraceptive drugs? force citizens to undergo sterilization or other unnecessary medical procedures? take away a patient's choice and control of his/her own treatment?

However, morality is always the art of the practical: what do we do here and now? So, with these principles in hand, let's take a look around and see what the practical possibilities are.

It seems to me that there are only two institutions that have the scope and breadth to offer (much less guarantee) health care to the whole of society: the government and the Catholic Church. (As for a third option, starting a new private endeavor, I say: Good luck with that.)

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Church took advantage of its vast, inexpensive, and well-trained workforce of religious sisters to establish hospitals and clinics all around the nation to serve the poor and those who could not otherwise afford health care. However, those sisters are no longer so numerous, nor do Catholics contribute financially to the Church as they did, nor is the training needed to provide quality health care so readily available as it once was.

Which leaves the government to pick up the slack.

After all, left to themselves, our largely for-profit medical providers will simply do whatever they can to turn the greatest profit and reduce their own expenses and obligations. This will not lead to a just distribution of health care resources.

So, I see two practical options: either to accept government-run health care, as imperfect as it is; or to devote our time and energy and money to building and supporting a Church-run health care system on a scale we haven't seen since the 1950's. If you don't like Obama's proposal, then are you giving to the Church? Are you writing the bishops and heads of sisters' congregations? Are you volunteering your time and talents? Are you supporting young men and women to give their lives to the work of caring for the sick and injured?

To do neither is to allow our society to remain unjust with regard to health care.

[crossposted at The Good, The True, The Just]
Rabbert blathers on....

Profit, justice, and charity

There's plenty of blamestorming about the causes of our current economic troubles. Some look to George W. Bush, some to Clinton, some as far back as Nixon. But I have another proposal to make: let's blame the Supreme Court.

No, not our current Court. Let's blame the 1919 Court, who decided Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. According to this Wikipedia article, (I know, Wikipedia! -- but it covers the main points so non-lawyers can understand, and it links to the actual ruling), the argument was over whether a company should use its profits to enrich shareholders or to engage in charitable activities. That's not really accurate, as the quotes show: the real argument was over whether a company's first responsibility was to the shareholders or to the products (or services) it was providing -- and selling for a profit. The Court ruled that the shareholders have a right to a significant share of the profits.

As the article notes, this ruling has been used to justify a policy of maximizing profits for shareholders, of making profit the primary motive of businesses and the purpose of being in business in the first place. That is, the purpose of business is seen to be creating wealth and "growing" the economy.

The article also notes that the ruling does not necessitate this interpretation; but this is the interpretation that has ruled business practices and business law for nearly a century -- almost to the extent that we cannot imagine another purpose for business.

I'd like to propose one: what if business' first priority was to provide goods and services to society, to promote the common good, to make society a better place. I'm not saying that profit would disappear, nor should it; but it would come second to improving the a company's ability to provide needed or appropriate goods for the community. In other words, what if Henry Ford had won the case that the Dodge brothers brought against him?

Perhaps then, banks would not pursue such risky courses of investment in search of higher profits. Perhaps then, companies would not use cutbacks and layoffs as the first defense against a slumping market. Perhaps then, the computers and cars and toasters we buy would not be built to break down three days after the warranty expires. Perhaps...?

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that these are possibilities worth exploring. What do you think?

(Crossposted at The Good, The True, The Just)
Rabbert blathers on....

Prayer request: personal

My family is going through a difficult trial right now, though I'm not really able to give details. Still, please keep us all in your prayers. Thank you, and God bless you!
Rabbert blathers on....

A good cause: Walk for Life 2010

I've participated in the Walk a couple times, and it is one of the most peaceful, joyful events I've had the honor to be a part of. If you can, please send some support! And if you can get to San Francisco in January of 2010, even better!

Dear Friends,

We are writing to you to ask for your financial support for the 6th Annual Walk for Life West Coast on Saturday, January 23rd, 2010.

The Walk for Life is powered by a team of dedicated volunteers; our total volunteer workforce allows us to field this event for a fraction of what it would otherwise cost. However, we do have hard costs that are unavoidable – a major sound system, event insurance, facility fees, speaker fees and travel, porta-potties, shuttle buses, bus parking, signage and advertising to name the large ticket items – that total roughly $45,000.

For the first time since the overwhelming success of the inaugural Walk for Life in 2005, we need to appeal to our supporters for funds to meet the expenses of putting on the event. Each year we have been blessed with grant support and unsolicited private donations. Due to the economic downturn, those sources have dried up. Because a major part of the mission of the Walk for Life is to support the ‘trench’ work of the pro-life battle, we have been careful to not draw much-needed funding from other pro-life organizations trusting that if the time came when we needed to solicit funds, the generosity of our supporters would carry the day.

That time has now come. We are writing to you today to ask you to consider prayerfully a generous (and tax-deductible) donation and to please forward this email to like-minded friends of life. Please know that each dollar donated goes directly to the cost of the event; we have no administrative overhead.

Thank you in advance for your support. You are enabling the continuation of what secular society said couldn’t be done – to raise-up a voice for life in beautiful San Francisco.

For ways to make a donation, please go to our donation page.

Thank you and God bless you,

The Walk for Life Team

Rabbert blathers on....

Torture and its discontents

Last night, while driving home, I heard a radio program called "Interrogating Torture" (sorry, no audio) looking at "harsh interrogation techniques" in Israel and Great Britain in light of the memos recently released by Obama's administration.

Somewhat to my surprise, I discovered that both Israel and Great Britain abandoned such techniques years ago, while being reluctant to name them "torture", for a variety of reasons. The primary reason, in both nations, was that abusive interrogations of prisoners and suspects, over time, added fuel to the fires of hatred among their enemies. (All the pro-torture interviewee could say in response was that torture is only one reason among many that radical Islam and other terrorists hate us.) Even facing the same threats of terrorism they have faced before along with new threats from al-Qaeda, neither is interested in returning to a policy of "extreme" measures in their treatment of prisoners.

A professor at Georgetown (whose name I forget) added that there are some depths no civilized society should stoop to. He gave the analogy of slavery: how would we respond if, in order to combat global terrorism and protect our population, we began to enslave people again. It would only be a small number of slaves, of course. We might pay them $0.02 per day, so that technically it would not be slavery. And by gum it would work! Productivity would increase and we'd show those enemies of freedom what for!

I thought his analogy apt. At this point in history, thank God, I hope we would rather suffer military defeat or terrorist attack than resort to enslaving human beings. But, I had also hoped that we would rather suffer than resort to torturing prisoners.

I can only return to the ancient maxim: it is always better to suffer evil than to commit evil.

Rabbert blathers on....

Cars on film -- UPDATED

Ask and ye shall receive:

Here are photos of the actual color of my car. Note the pink lettering on the hatchback!

You can see how difficult it would be to shout at crowds exiting movie theaters from the hood. The roof, maybe...
Rabbert blathers on....

Phinally, a phat ride

Yes, I got a new car recently, after not having a car for several weeks. Those car-less weeks were trying in a number of ways. But now ... ah, the freedom, ah the power! (Okay, only four cylinders of power, but it'll reach freeway speeds!)

Unfortunately, the car is neither high nor rat-colored. And I can't stand on the hood for fear of slipping and falling off. *sigh*
Rabbert blathers on....

This Christopher West dude -- follow-up

Truth is, some other things came up and I didn't make it to his talk. So, sorry to disappoint you who were awaiting my words with baited breath, who were suspending your own judgment until you heard the wisdom that I would impart, who were ready to conform your opinions entirely to mine in recognition of their absolute and perfect truth.

Yep, you're just going to have to think for yourselves a little longer. Sorry!
Rabbert blathers on....

Recent Reading: Josef Pieper's The Four Cardinal Virtues

This morning I finished reading The Four Cardinal Virtues for the third or fourth time. It's most definitely worth reading and re-reading.

This volume is a collection of four separate essays Pieper wrote between 1954 and 1959; but they fit together very well because each of them explains Thomas Aquinas' thought on one of the virtues, and brings it into the context of the twentieth century world. Pieper's understanding, not only of history and philosophy, but of the world he lives in, make his observations timely even in the early days of the twenty-first century.

So, what are the four cardinal virtues? I'm glad you asked. They are, in the traditional order:

1. Prudence
2. Justice
3. Fortitude (aka Courage)
4. Temperance

The adjective "cardinal" derives from the Latin word cardo, which literally means "hinge" but figuratively is the center-point around which other things turn or spin. These four virtues form the center-point of the good life.

And what is the pin that holds this hinge together? Pieper shows that the common feature of all four virtues is connection with reality. So, Prudence is the virtue of recognizing and understanding reality as it truly is; Justice is that understanding put into action, acting in line with what is real; Fortitude resists external pressures to depart from reality; and Temperance removes internal obstacles to living in accordance with reality.

He examines the virtues from a philosophical standpoint, showing how the cardinal virtues relate to each other and how other virtues or acts relate to them. But he also shows the connection of these "philosophical" or "natural" virtues with the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love. (Indeed, another volume collects his essays on those three virtues.) He notes that a full understanding of and relation to the real world includes relating to the God who created the world. Coming from the Catholic tradition, of course, he assumes the revelation of Jesus Christ; but his point is as clear to a Muslim or Hindu or atheist. The religious questions really do matter, even to aspects of life which at first blush appear "secular" or "natural". Because, ultimately, if nature was created by God, then "supernature" is intimately connected to "nature", and we cannot fully deal with one without at least acknowledging the other.
Rabbert blathers on....

The coersive, pervasive, unavoidable propaganda engines of the Vatican

Yes, the Vatican, which controls all media outlets everywhere and directly controls the minds of its slobbering zombie subjects via microchips implanted in what's left of their brains ...

... somehow failed to make a big splash in announcing the Pope's new encyclical, Caritas in veritate.

I'll let you know what I think of it once I've read it.
Rabbert blathers on....

Ah... Facebook

Yes, I have a Facebook page. And I've been cross-posting this blog over there. And I've been getting some good comments over there -- but they're not really publicly accessible.

My main goal with this blog is to spark conversation. So, if you happen to know me via Facebook, please post your comments here on the blog rather than on the FB page. (I know, it's another click or two!) It's worth doing because it opens the conversation to a broader public.

Mucho danke.
Rabbert blathers on....

This Christopher West dude

This evening, my local parish is hosting Christopher West for a talk. I had dinner last night with a couple friends who attended a week-long workshop with West about a year ago, and they were raving about him. I myself have been rather ambivalent about West: his presentation style doesn't suit my personality, and I have some quibbles with his approach to theology; but I think he's done a great job of bringing the Church's teaching on sexuality to a broader audience. So I'm very much looking forward to seeing him in person and perhaps clarifying some of the questions I have.

I'll let y'all know how it goes!
Rabbert blathers on....

Obligatory Independence Day post

I was born in the United States of America, and I have reaped untold benefits from my education, my economic situation, and the political liberties that come with life in the U.S.A. I therefore love my country out of duty.

I know that I will make few friends in saying that, but I consider honesty to be among the highest of duties, and closely connected to the duty of patriotism. True patriotism is not, after all, "my country, right or wrong." True patriotism is a kind of piety: it is the duty of gratitude and honor we owe to those who have given us gifts we cannot repay. It is the love and respect we give to our parents and our country and our benefactors.

But just as it does not honor our parents to lie to them about their errors or wrongs, or to support them in any depraved action they might take, it does not honor our country to pretend that she is "the greatest nation on earth" or "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

The United States of America, more than any other nation I'm aware of (possibly excepting Imperial Rome, Nazi Germany, and the U.S.S.R.), portrays itself as a moral power as much or even more than it is a political or economic or military power. We proclaim "the American way of life" and "the American dream" as if these are the highest of human aspirations.

But it does this country no honor to ignore the millions of our own citizens killed by abortion; the thousands of foreign nationals detained against our own law and international treaty; the hundreds or more people, both U.S. citizens and foreigners, subjected to the very tortures for which the U.S. prosecuted other nations; nor the slavish relationship between government and business which treats citizens as mere consumers or producers, mere economic units, rather than uniquely valuable persons.

So I cannot muster any personal affection for my country, for my homeland. But I can and will love it as best I am able, by speaking what truth I can in whatever small way I am able. And I will pray night and day for the growth of truth and virtue among her leaders and among her citizens. May God indeed bless America.
Rabbert blathers on....

Did I mention...?

... that I'm discerning a call to religious life?

Which is why a chum of mine forwarded a NY Times article on nuns in the U.S. to me. We've been having a fascinating email conversation about what's wrong with Catholic religious orders in the U.S., and then it occurred to me: isn't that why I have a blog? So that I can state my own half-crazed views on what's wrong with the world and how it should be fixed?

But of course! So, from my lofty perch upon my soapbox, I herewith begin my rant. (Warning: Churchspeak ahead!)

First off, as to why this scrutiny is directed at women religious rather than men: there are a number of reasons, some of which are historical and fairly arbitrary, and others of which are historical and theologically significant. But I think the main reason is historical and bluntly practical: most men's religious orders, whether they started this way or not, have become in the past couple centuries essentially communities of ordained priests. So, being in Holy Orders as well as in religious vows, they are under an additional structure of authority. They have to answer, not only to their religious superior and to the head of the congregation for religious, but also to their local bishop and to the head of the congregation for clergy. And let me tell you, the congregation for clergy gets involved at the local level a lot more than the congregation for religious. Anyway, this means that men religious, for the most part, have more checks to keep them in the straight and narrow, and also undergo this kind of scrutiny on a far more regular basis than the women religious. In short, it's just not news when it happens with the guys.

What makes this of personal interest to me is that, so far as I can tell, I'm not called to the priesthood. So I'm looking at religious life, but not at being ordained. And this is where my chum comes into the picture. He notes that the core of many religious communities was service to some part of the Church, such as serving priests or serving Church institutions. After the Second Vatican Council, the emphasis shifted to serving the world rather than serving the Church. But, as my friend notes, this came across as saying that serving the Church was somehow bad.

Along with the notion that service was somehow bad came the concomitant notion that those serving others had been oppressed [by those they served], and must rise up and throw off their oppressors.

So the Church herself began to be viewed as oppressive, and serving the Church appeared to be undignified, at best.

And yet, service is what we're all about as Catholics. Serving the world is the way we grow closer to God, whose Son came to serve us. So the question for any Catholic, lay or ordained or consecrated, ought not to be, "How can I avoid the indignity of serving?" but, "Whom am I called to serve, and how can I best serve them?"

My friend made five suggestions. I'll repeat them here, with my comments in red.

We need to re-establish a few things with modern religious communities [And, I would add, bishops and really all Catholics]:
1. It's OK to have a mission that doesn't involve service to the clergy. But every mission involves service to Christ and to his people.
2. It's also OK to have a mission of service -- yes, even to clergy. [After all, clergy are people too, and they need help as much as anyone else!]
3. Catholic religious orders [and all Catholics] need a Catholic identity. [Otherwise, why be Catholic? Why not just be a social service organization?]
4. Mission statements need to be simplified or thrown out on their ear. [And any mission statement must reflect the mission of Christ, else see #3.]
5. Religious orders offer a way of life that cannot be found in "the world." It's not to say they are better, but to point out that theirs is a different way of life. Put simply, quit throwing out the habits and pretending you're like everyone else, because you are not. If you are like everyone else, what's the point?

I have more to say about my own thoughts on the future of religious life, and on my own discernment, but they'll have to wait for another post. This one has grown too long already.
Rabbert blathers on....

Underpants theology

I am a member of an elite class of highly intelligent people who are fans of "Pearls Before Swine". Unfortunately for me, the local paper doesn't carry this critical item. However, I have wonderful friends who forward to me notable episodes, such as the following:

Now, having studied a bit of both philosophy (loving a chick named Sophie) and theology (THE-ology, or THE science), I have to agree with Goat that, whatever support Pig may have, it is not support for his theology.
Rabbert blathers on....

More sex talk

I've noticed a number of espresso stands in my neighborhood springing up advertising "sexy barristas!" and staffed by scantily clad women. I'm talking pasties scanty. Predictably, the cars line up on weekday mornings, leaving the Starbucks across the street empty. But if I were to object to this business model, do you think I'd be welcomed as a model of virtue? I fear I'd be pooh-poohed as a prudish Victorian throwback.

And I thought we men were supposed to treat women as persons rather than as sex objects. Silly me.

I'm currently reading The Four Cardinal Virtues, by Josef Pieper (a German, but one who writes remarkably clearly nonetheless!) He noted, in 1954, that in the current "state of affairs,"

in contradiction to the true grading and order of things, the realm of sex ... has moved to the center of attention in the general moral consciousness. In addition to this, and despite all contrary statements of principle, a smoldering subterranean Manichaeism casts suspicion on everything pertaining to physical reproduction as being somehow impure, defiling, and beneath the true dignity of man.

He goes on to note that the pleasure and instinctive urge for sexual intercourse is -- and has always been considered in the Catholic tradition -- good and noble, partly because pleasure is a good in itself but largely because it is intimately connected to one of the greatest goods that human beings can accomplish: the introduction of children into the world.

On the other hand, I can't help but notice the common thread that runs through all the sexual "liberties" that people clamor for today: a disregard for or outright enmity toward children. Sex outside of marriage risks bringing children into a difficult or dangerous situation at the most vulnerable time of their lives. Contraception, masturbation, pornography, etc. all attempt to separate the pleasure of sexual intercourse from what Pieper calls "the intrinsic purpose of sexual power": procreation.

I know that some will object that sex is about much more than having babies, and that not every act of sexual intercourse necessarily results in the birth of a child. Granted. But this is no reason to excise children from the realm of sex altogether. I could just as truly say that not every act of sexual intercourse is physically pleasurable, or emotionally satisfying. Is it fair then to say that pleasure and emotions have no place in the sexual realm?

I think it's only because various voices in western culture have been trying to separate the inseparable for the past couple centuries that sex "has moved to the center of attention in the general moral consciousness." Denial leads to untruth leads to lies to cover the untruth leads to grasping for any kind of cover to keep from facing what one is denying. As Frank Herbert noted in a different context, a culture that talks too much about how it values peace must have a long experience of war. Our culture, which promotes sexual "expression" as one of the highest goods, is in reality attempting to cover up our decades of self-abuse.
Rabbert blathers on....