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....

MPG brag

I did a little quick math after I filled up my car yesterday. 42MPG. Not bad for a 13-year-old car!
Rabbert blathers on....

Song so not great!

This one goes out to the one I love, so to speak:

Or, as Alex says, "1980's, how we miss thee not..."
Rabbert blathers on....

Real threats of socialism - UPDATED

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with government running a health care program; it's a practical matter of whether this is the best way to provide health care to all.

On the other hand, there is a very real problem with government preventing parents from educating their children. The right to an education means that government must guarantee access to education for all, not that government has the right to indoctrinate kids against the will of competent and caring parents.

UPDATE: Amy points out that, since this case involves a divorced couple in dispute, it probably is not the best example. However, I stand by the principle that education is first and foremost the right and responsibility of parents, not government.
Rabbert blathers on....

My other excuse...

... for not blogging is that I've been busy with other things, including my babysitting gig. The following is a fairly accurate representation of my godson's activities:

There's one exception: they must have done some neat editing to take out the feedings and diaper changes. Neither of my charges could go four hours without food going in or going out.
Rabbert blathers on....

Clarifying Chesterton

So, I have many excuses for not posting much in the last week or so. But the one I'll use is this: it's not easy to speak more clearly than G.K. Chesterton!

Anyway, here's my attempt to describe what I think Chesterton means when he says the first principle of democracy, i.e., the common good, is: "that the things common to all men are more important than the things peculiar to any men."

Let me take a few examples, and see if that helps clarify things. How about 1) air, 2) a pair of glasses, and 3) the English language.

Air. We all breathe. This is not an option for us. Part of being human is breathing, and when we cease to breathe we also cease to live a human life. So air is good for us, and is good for all of us, and is good for each of us. This need for air is something that we all have in common, and therefore that none of us can own or claim exclusively. The atmosphere is a resource for all humanity.

Now, imagine a scuba diver. There is a sense in which the air in (flipping a coin for gender: male) his tank is "his own". But let's say he comes across another diver whose tank has sprung a leak, while our diver's tank is quite full. It would be inhumane for our diver to deny "his" air to the drowning diver. The air is not "his" in the sense that he can, in time of need, claim it exclusively or bargain with it economically. It is a good that belongs to the human nature we all share in common, and so it is far more important than, say, the flippers that the divers are wearing, or the color of their wetsuits.

Glasses. I have worn glasses since about fourth grade, if my memory is correct. I've worn them so long that I think my face looks funny without them, and so do most of my friends. (Some friends think my face looks funny with them, too, but that's another issue.) But these glasses really are mine, not just because I own them, but because they are made particularly for me and won't work properly for anybody else. And this is an amazing thing.

However, far more amazing than my glasses is the miracle of sight itself. That we are able to receive light and interpret it into an accurate portrayal of the world around us is something to be wondered at. It is something to be delighted in. So the whole human race seeks out visions of art or nature that delight the eyes ... and the other senses as well. This is something so basically human that we recognized blindness as a tragedy and deficiencies in vision as a medical problem requiring correction. In short, vision is something common and basic to human life and human society, while my glasses are a particular accommodation that really doesn't belong to anyone else, and, for that matter, that I wouldn't desire for anyone else.

English. I've spoken and read and written English for as long as I can remember. I literally cannot recall learning to read; the ability is part of my earliest memories. For several of my friends, English is a second (or third, or fourth) language. I expect this is true for some readers of this blog. However, for those living in Great Britain or any of the former colonies of the British Empire, English is not only a means of communication but a means of cultural connection. Certain words stir up associations -- humorous or patriotic or vulgar -- and we guess at where each other is from by our accents.

(Can you guess where I'm from?)

This is true of other languages, too, of course. Language itself is, again, something common to all humanity. And, while there is no single "human language" that is common to every one of us, we all would consider it a crime deny anyone the ability to use language. More than that, we would consider it insane to deny anyone the language that others around them use, that is, to deny them the means to communicate with their fellow human beings. So language is common to all people, but it is never something that we can hold abstractly: in fact, it is only by holding some particular language (be it English or Arabic or Chinese) in common with others, with a community, that we can have language at all.

In other words, the only way for some things to be good for me is for them to first be good for everybody, for the whole community. And that, I think, is what is meant by the "common good".

Do let me know if I've only muddied the waters further.

Rabbert blathers on....

Lies, damned lies, and the Seven Deadly Sins

This is great fun: statistical maps of the Seven Deadly Sins!

Before you take this too seriously, ask yourself......why the entire west coast and most of the northeast is "statistically" lust-neutral?

Hollywood? Really? San Francisco? Really? Seattle? Really? New York City? Really?

I mean, Vermont I understand, but come on!

(hat tip: AmP)
Rabbert blathers on....

Because I read too much...

Amy accuses me of having read too much philosophy, and therefore of quoting unclear passages. I, after graciously setting aside the incalculable personal offense I take at such an indictment, and refraining from unleashing my armies of ultra-violent yet super-secret agents to erase all memory of her existence from the face of the earth, hereby deign to reply:

I do not read too much philosophy! Darn it!

However, not everybody has the unique combination of perspicacity and perspicuity that I have, so I acknowledge that some of those I cite (such as the eternally obfuscating G.K. Chesterton) write with less than perfect lucidity.

That said, I pledge to add my own expoundation on Mr. Chesterton's notions in the near future. Until then, I assure you that I understand him perfectly, which should be sufficient for you to place absolute faith in the veracity of his statements.
Rabbert blathers on....

Democracy and the common good

The "common good" is one of those concepts that is so plain and obvious that it outwits our attempts to define it -- or at least, outwits my attempts. But I have stumbled upon a particularly clear definition from G.K. Chesterton, in his 1909 book Orthodoxy (Ch. IV):

The first [principle of democracy] is this: that the things common to all men are more important than the things peculiar to any men. Ordinary things are more valuable than extraordinary things; nay, they are more extraordinary. Man is something more awful than men; something more strange. The sense of the miracle of humanity itself should be always more vivid to us than any marvels of power, intellect, art, or civilization. The mere man on two legs, as such, should be felt as something more heartbreaking than any music and more startling than any caricature. Death is more tragic even than death by starvation. Having a nose is more comic even than having a Norman nose.

This is the first principle of democracy: that the essential things in men are the things they hold in common, not the things they hold separately. And the second principle is merely this: that the political instinct or desire is one of these things which they hold in common. Falling in love is more poetical than dropping into poetry. The democratic contention is that government (helping to rule the tribe) is a thing like falling in love, and not a thing like dropping into poetry. It is not something analogous to playing the church organ, painting on vellum, discovering the North Pole (that insidious habit), looping the loop, being Astronomer Royal, and so on. For these things we do not wish a man to do at all unless he does them well. It is, on the contrary, a thing analogous to writing one's own love-letters or blowing one's own nose. These things we want a man to do for himself, even if he does them badly. I am not here arguing the truth of any of these conceptions; I know that some moderns are asking to have their wives chosen by scientists, and they may soon be asking, for all I know, to have their noses blown by nurses. I merely say that mankind does recognize these universal human functions, and that democracy classes government among them. In short, the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves--the mating of the sexes, the rearing of the young, the laws of the state. This is democracy; and in this I have always believed.

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

Thinking about evangelization

I'm reading a book that's sort of a "how to" on sharing the Gospel in a postmodern cultural setting. Something was bugging me about it, but I couldn't put my finger on it till I talked with my dad about it over some ice cream. (He had chocolate, I had rainbow sherbet.)

Now, my dad has been a salesman for most of his life. He sees everything through the lens of sales. And, as we were talking, he pointed out that the book was describing sales techniques for selling Jesus.

"That's it! You nailed it!" I said. See, people are not objects of sales. Relationships are not commodities that can be exchanged. So, the attitude of sales is just plain wrong for drawing people to a deeper relationship with God.

But then, what exactly is evangelization about? What does Christ mean when he commands his followers to "make disciples of all nations"?

My current thought, well open to revision, is that a "matchmaker" analogy is much more appropriate than a "salesman" analogy. Our task as Christians is to bear witness to Jesus Christ, both who he was historically and who he is now in our individual lives, and to introduce people to him.

This analogy fits very well with our individual-freedom-oriented culture today, but it seems passive compared to the command to "make disciples." Unless it is like saying that a matchmaker has a mandate to "make spouses of all peoples." Still thinking thoughts about it.
Rabbert blathers on....

Hot town

I'm camping out here in Jersey City, New Jersey, just across the Hudson from Manhattan, helping some friends prepare for their wedding. And I am growing in my already abundant appreciation of the clear, not-so-humid atmosphere of my home in the Pacific Northwest.

So as I was walking to my friends' apartment this morning, I saw a truck driver honk and call out to a young woman who was wearing too-tight jeans and a low-cut tank top. She didn't react at all. I was stunned, not because I'm a prude (which perhaps I am), but because I'd never actually seen a man behave that way toward a woman. So I guess I'm just sheltered. Neither the truck driver nor the pedestrian woman nor anyone else around seemed to find this behavior either unusual or unacceptable.

And it got me thinking: how do we, as a society, actually show respect toward other people -- particularly members of the opposite sex? Are there ways to encourage people to treat each other respectfully? Are there ways to demonstrate the value and dignity of the people we meet, whether briefly or over the course of our lives?

Then I remembered a newscast I saw this morning, a town hall meeting with some politician, and how frequently I heard the words "my" and "me", and how rarely the words "ours" and "we" came up. And it occurred to me that our cultural tendency seems to assume that each individual is isolated from every other, and only has relationships of choice. But what if we recognized every other person as a member of our common family? What if each of us saw every other person as connected to him-/herself, a member of one's own body?

True, I'm an idealist, and I don't know if such a worldview could ever become common. But isn't this an ideal worth striving for?

Rabbert blathers on....

Weird and Wonderful

Rabbert blathers on....

In case you wanted to know...

I'm pretty sure that this is the text of the much-talked-about "Obama health care plan." The official title is H.R. 3200. In case you wanted to know what it actually, you know, said.

It's also available in .pdf format.
Rabbert blathers on....

The logic of gifts

Way back in 1980, before I was even fully aware of my surroundings, Pope John Paul II published an encyclical titled Dives in misericordia, or Rich in Mercy. Some time in the mid- to late-nineties, I finally read it, and discovered something that confused me greatly: JP2 said that justice was incomplete, insufficient, and inhumane without mercy.

This was confusing to me because I thought, as many of my friends did, that mercy was something that overrode and (in a way) contradicted justice.

It's now many years later, and I've just finished reading Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical, Caritas in veritate, or Love in Truth. Pope Benedict says something very similar, that justice and charity are intimately connected, and that justice is false without charitable love. In fact, he implies that charity is actually the foundation for justice.

He explains this by focusing on one central aspect of charity, of love: giving a gift. It seems that justice, which is a relationship in which someone owes something to someone else, is always a result of a gift, a free act which establishes or alters a relationship.

That's kind of abstract. Let me give a few examples.

Let's look at babys. It's hard to deny that parents owe their children the sustenance and support needed to grow to adulthood. Children have a right to such things as food, clothing, shelter, education, and so on. Parents who do not adequately provide such things for their children are called "child abusers" and are subject to legal coercion. And yet, what has the baby done to "deserve" these rights, to essentially put his/her parents in debt to him/her? Nothing -- except to receive the gift of life which those parents freely gave to him/her.

Okay, so some might object that parents are not perfectly free in bringing a child into the world, for a variety of reasons. I will not argue that point just now. But what about a couple who marry each other? Surely there is no constraint or obligation on either toward the other. No one can make me marry anyone in particular, nor force me to marry at all. However, once the spouses do marry, they discover that they are obliged to one another. Infidelity, to take the most obvious example, is (among other things) unjust to the spouse. It's a matter of justice: a wife has a right to demand faithfulness from her husband; and vice versa. Even though the law continues to distance itself from spousal obligations, we still recognize that an unfaithful husband does wrong to his wife.

Well, maybe some kinds of justice are based on a gift, but are all forms of justice? Well, let's take the example of a worker who is offered a job. Here is an exchange of gifts with different kinds of freedom on each side. Sure, the employer needs workers to do business, and the worker needs income to support him-/herself; but neither is under any constraint or obligation to arrange for this particular person to be given this particular job under these particular arrangements. There is a sense in which a worker's agreement to do the work and the employer's agreement to compensate the worker is an exchange of gifts, because each is free in offering something to the other. But based on this exchange of gifts, real issues of justice arise: a worker who does not fulfill his/her obligations, or an employer who does not properly compensate his/her workers, wrongs them.

What about criminal justice? Is there a gift involved at the foundation of rights to property or safety? Isn't the city, or the state, or the nation, obliged to provide protection for these things? This may be a bit more subtle, but here is where B16 provides an insightful perspective: gifts not only require the freedom of the giver, they also require, perhaps even more so, the incapacity of the receiver to make, or take, or require the gift. So, my capacity for health or safety or ownership of things is not something I can acquire for myself. It is not something I can earn or "deserve". I cannot give myself life; all I can do is take care of the life I have, and protect it. I cannot give myself intelligence or freedom or the other faculties needed to own property or interact socially; all I can do is use the abilities -- often explicitly called "gifts" -- I have to live in society. We do not make property or health or safety; we only use and take care of what we receive as given to us.

As St. Paul asks, "What do you have that you did not receive?" The answer, literally, is: nothing.

It is only after we have received what we have not made and have not earned that we can speak of justice, of what is due or owed, of rights and responsibilities. Of all the many profound insights of this encyclical, the logic of gifts is what has struck me most deeply.
Rabbert blathers on....

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....

Free movies: Dead Again

On Hulu: Dead Again is the film that first made me fall in love with Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branaugh. Their personal lives have been something of a disappointment, but this film shows the amazing chemistry they had, and Branaugh's talents as a director. Rated R for violence, I suppose.
Rabbert blathers on....

Let's talk about sex

I'll admit it: I'm just plain confused about sex.

I mean, people want the Church and the Government to stay out of their bedrooms, but they also want public recognition and protection for their sexual behaviors, such as lower ages of consent, free access to condoms and other contraception, and so on. The phrase "comprehensive sex education" seems to mean "focusing on contraception rather than the full workings human reproduction." I think the best example is the desire to get married, and also insisting on the right of no-fault divorce. (To those who see the same-sex marriage movement as a huge threat to marriage, I say: we haven't had that spirit here since 1969.) Honestly, I'm not quite sure what the point of marriage is when fornication is widely accepted or even encouraged, and divorce is an easy option at any time.

I'm also confused because friends of mine seem to want to keep their sex lives private, but at the same time want to define themselves according to their sexual behavior. This is most obvious in the "gay rights" movement, in which "coming out" is a sort of defining moment in a person's life: it's a public declaration of what someone does in his or her private life, which no one has a right to know or question, but which everyone must publicly acknowledge and support. It just seems kind of schizophrenic to me.

This has come home to me personally in recent days. I'm a Roman Catholic, and do my best to keep the moral teaching of the Church, i.e., sexual intercourse and behaviors belong within the marital relationship without exception. I'm not perfect, but I also make no excuses for my failures and I do my best to change my habits and behavior. Since college days, I've had lots of friends -- sometimes my closest friends -- who in one way or another have believed or acted differently from the Catholic teachings. Sometimes we'd talk about it, sometimes not. It didn't seem a big deal to me, not really my business.

But in the past year or so, I've had to face a number of people on exactly this issue. Some are people in active sexual relationships outside of marriage who nonetheless receive -- and even distribute -- communion in church. Some are people who are entering into marriage (or domestic partnerships) with unreliable people or for unwise reasons. I've heard of (though not witnessed myself) priests who advise couples to "try each other out" before marriage, or to explore same-sex attractions by engaging in same-sex intercourse.

More often than people in such situations come to me directly, mutual friends approach me to talk about them. It's hard to draw the line between commiserating or sharing advice and gossip in such situations. That's why I'm being so vague about persons and situations. But they ask me what to do, and they say things like, "We can't just talk to them about it." I reply, "Why not?" And they say, "But it's private." In other words, the "private" and "public" aspects of sex and marriage are interfering with each other, and are as confusing for other people as they are for me.

I don't have any final answers, of course. I don't advocate creating an equal sign between Roman Catholic teaching and U.S. law. At the same time, I believe that there is a natural law that describes the proper role of human sexual expression, and that should be reflected in the civil laws of every nation. I think it's no coincidence that every human culture has some kind of marital customs and regulations.

But I would begin by bringing the whole sex discussion out of the shadows. Let's talk about sex without euphemisms. Let's really look at what is public and what is private about sexual relationships, and why. It amazes me, for example, that in a class on fertility awareness methods, engaged couples should be so squeamish about diagrams of the genital organs, or of words like "cervix". I thought our culture was supposed to have been sexually "liberated"! And yet, one friend told me that she learned more about her own reproductive system from the introduction to a book on Natural Family Planning than she had from all the health and biology classes she'd taken in high school and college. That's a sign that we're not really talking about sex in a way that's accessible to all and freeing for the human person. If we want sexual liberation, I suggest we start with a self-critique of our own contradictions. I suggest that with sex, as with every other area of our lives, we begin with a clear understanding of reality.

Rabbert blathers on....

Icons and ikons

Today saw the passing into the netherworld of Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett. May God grant eternal rest to them, and let his perpetual light shine upon them. May they, and all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.


I was not really a fan of either, though I loved Charlie's Angels in syndication as a kid, and cannot imagine a world without Jackson's music. They both, each in his/her own way, defined a time in history by stepping beyond what was thought to be possible. Today, Fawcett's trademark hair is considered a prime example of camp, and Jackson's signature dance moves inspire as much mockery as nostalgia; but at the time, they set these people apart as belonging almost to another world, to a stellar Olympian realm which graced us mere mortals with glimpses of transcendent glory.

In this way, they played a quasi-religious role in American and even global culture. They became a window through which we viewed the heavenly realms -- even if those heavenly realms are notoriously deceptive and illusory. They gave their fans an experience of transcendence, of connection to something beyond themselves and beyond their experience of the world. They provided a kind of hope for something greater than this life of fear mixed with pleasure and suffering mingled with joy.

So it's no surprise that crowds are assembling en masse to honor and to mourn and to try to sort out what to do next. For those whose lives have been defined by Jackson and/or by Fawcett, a pillar in the temple of their worldview has toppled, and the whole structure shudders. It would be as if all the copies of the Bible were suddenly lost; or as if overnight the United States adopted a Marxist constitution. The question arises for many: what is left to define my life? what is my foundation? what is truly sacred?


I'm tempted either to say nothing more, or to ramble on for pages. But I will simply say this: I pray that the experiences of glory they gave to so many people will open minds and hearts to the far greater glory and joy found in Jesus Christ. This is the reason Christians of all ages have created works of art, and often depicting saints or Christ himself: to give us a window to the splendor of the heavenly realms, a glimpse of divine transcendence. And God is never absent from any experience of heaven.
Rabbert blathers on....

Great Moments in Musical History

This brings back so many memories.
No, I won't tell you which ones.


Rabbert blathers on....

Edumacation

For the moment, I'm making a little cash babysitting for some friends. Their eldest just turned three, and they've got him going to a preschool. But school days are coming, and they're wondering ... what to do?

Meanwhile, some other friends of mine, who home-school according to what is billed as a "classical" education, suddenly became concerned when the stumbled upon this article on a site which advertises a really truly purely "classical" education. It blasts home-school curricula that are based on an article Dorothy Sayers wrote sometime in the last millennium.

I wasn't aware of Sayers' influence on home-schooling curricula, or on the idea of "classical" education generally. I suspect that she would have been more exacting had she been writing an actual curriculum, rather than an op-ed article. At the very least, it's clear that her critic has not learned the art of humor.

Anyway, the value of a "classical" education is not in its age or pedigree, but in its ability to teach the art of thinking clearly. Better, an education should form a child to use his/her gifts and skills as an adult. Doesn't matter if you use a brand spanking new method or the same method that frustrated Socrates -- the goal is for the child to learn. What the "classical" method has to recommend it is simply that it has been tested through time. But it suffers from the drawback of not actually being a "method."

See, "method" itself is a recent concept, being invented in the so-called Enlightenment and associated with the moniker "scientific" in order to denigrate the forms and arts of medieval and ancient learning. Medievals and ancients didn't have a "method of education." They had a way of life, and their kids grew up into that way of life and learned what they needed to fit in there. And Rome had a different way of life (and therefore what we'd call "pedagogy" or "method of education") than Athens did, and different again from what Jerusalem had, and from Beijing, etc.

My take on the whole dilemma is that the biggest problem with education today is that we've focused so much on "method" that we've forgotten the two most important parts of education: the person who is learning, and the world that person is learning about. This is one big benefit of home-schooling, I think: it pays a great deal of attention to the individual student and to his/her particular gifts and needs. It also has the potential to introduce the student to the actual world that he/she will be living and working and making a life in as an adult.

I don't want to bash "method" altogether, or basic curriculum or pedagogy. I simply want to put it in its proper place: at the service of the actual student, not as a mold to fit students into whether they fit nicely or not. No unique individual fits any mold very well, and molds (or models) only really work to give general outlines or ideals to aim for. They aren't suited to actual concrete situations.

Okay, I'm off the soapbox ... for now.
Rabbert blathers on....

Back on the trail

So, thanks to techno-issues, I've been off-line a bit longer than I expected. But I'm back, more or less, now. Thanks for your patience ... those of you who actually read this blog.
Rabbert blathers on....

Temporary hiatus

I'll be on the road and off-line for the next week or so. Life has been rather somewhat busy of late anyway. But I hope to return to semi-regular blogging soon.
Rabbert blathers on....

To all parents, and all who deal with children

Dawn Eden points out a good resource on helping children learn safe behaviors and avoid abusers.
Rabbert blathers on....

Not Alone

One rather large aspect of my life at the moment is that I'm discerning a vocation to religious life. For anyone outside Catholic circles, and even many within Catholic circles, this translates to: I'm trying to sort out whether I ought to be a part of a community vowed to lifelong prayer and service in the Church. Even more explicitly, I'm trying to figure out if that's what God is asking me to do.

There are lots of issues and questions (and sub-issues and sub-questions) involved here, and I expect it will take at least a year to work through it all. I don't want to get too personal here -- I'm not blogging to bare my soul to the world or anything. But I do want to "share the fruit of my contemplation" in hopes that it might help others who are asking similar questions.

The first thing I want to note, though, is that most people I talk to about major life decisions tend to give advice like, "You have to follow your own heart," or, "Don't worry about what anyone else thinks." And there's a certain truth in that. But I've discovered that I don't have to stop there. My heart, my mind, my loves and desires -- all these are only one aspect of discovering where I belong in the world. I've also discovered, much to my joy and relief, that there are some ways my friends and family know me better than I know myself. When I'm utterly confused, at a loss for which way to go, I know I can turn to them and find answers.

Most of the time, they don't have explicit or direct answers waiting for me. Instead, they sort of hold up a mirror to me so that I can see myself more clearly, so that I can see my surroundings from a different perspective. They ask questions about my questions, and help me to understand exactly what it is I'm asking in the first place. And yes, once in a while, they give me some piece of actual advice, which I either take or reject. In all of this, they are helping me to become more myself. And that's what discernment is all about: becoming who God made me to be in the first place.

It's a huge relief to me, seeing that I don't have to navigate this foggy chaos alone. I may not always have guides, but I certainly have companions. These companions are gifts to me from God, and sometimes messengers of his voice.

Rabbert blathers on....

So wrong it's right

The new archbishop of Omaha, NE is ... wait for it ...

George Lucas.

I kid you not. Check out the Archdiocesan website.

Oh, did you think I was talking about that George Lucas?
Rabbert blathers on....

Newman: Morality 101

My only business is to ascertain what I am, in order to put it to use. ... My first elementary duty is that of resignation to the laws of my nature, whatever they are; my first disobedience is to be impatient at what I am, and to indulge an ambitious aspiration after what I cannot be, to cherish a distrust of my powers, and to desire to change laws which are identical with myself. (John Henry Newman, Grammar of Assent, II.9.1)

I've spent a great deal of my life trying to become a Jedi Knight. When most of my peers were struggling with the existence of Santa Claus (in whom I never believed), I was instead wondering why I wasn't able to "influence" minds and levitate distant objects. My eventual realization that the Jedi are entirely fictional crushed also my capacity for faith in religion and in any kind of truth whatsoever. To this day, I still catch myself asking, "Why should I believe this?" whenever I face anyone's assertion of some truth or fact.

The problem lies, not in the stars -- however much I would like to blame Lucas for my malady -- but in myself believing that I was a star. My shrink calls this "grandiosity", which is I guess a more politically correct term for "megalomania". I'm constantly striving to be something that I'm not, and when I fail to live up to my fictional and outrageous expectations I consider my attempts and my entire life to be a failure. In fact, my only real failure is to accept reality as it is: to accept myself as God made me to be.

Since I can't accept myself, or (as Newman puts it) since I am impatient with what I am and distrust my powers, aspiring after other powers, I'm often off base when it comes to figuring out the world around me. This makes interacting with other people, well, interesting, to put it politely. I frequently misunderstand fairly simple statements. I usually interpret somebody talking about their own life as if they were talking about mine. Someone says, "I wish I were more organized," and I reply, "Hey, I'll clean up my mess when I'm good and ready, so get off my back!"

The solution is, obviously, to face reality. But would you trust somebody who thought the Jedi were real to figure out what's real and what's not? Would you trust someone who believed in Santa? Okay, so we're in the same boat, then. I guess that's why I don't judge too harshly people who believe that the Republicans really will bring an end to bloated and/or immoral government, or that the Democrats really will eliminate poverty or social injustice. They're appealing fantasies. I'd love to believe them, too -- except that I've learned my lesson. There are no Jedi, there is no Chosen One to bring balance to the Force. There's only us: a bunch of people who are, more or less, out of touch with reality.

This is the lesson I take from Newman, and from my own experience: if I act based on a false idea of what's real, then I'm going to end up doing stupid or even horribly harmful things. So my first duty, the basis of all my moral decisions, has to be to check out what's really real. That's more effort than I usually want to expend, and I often don't have time to sort out every last aspect of the situation I have to deal with. But I do the best I can, and I try to learn from my mistakes. I try to take a step closer to reality.
Rabbert blathers on....

Great moments in musical history

Do I love you or do I hate you? You decide for yourself:


Rabbert blathers on....