My cardiologist is a very decent sort of chap, even when he is thumping away at my aorta, pushing on my left ventricle and bellowing “Breathe through your mouth.” However, my last exam became a role reversal situation when he startled me by revealing a disillusionment at his brother’s departure from a religious Order. Confused as I was, I felt that somehow I was expected to minister to my physician “minister”. But what does one say to offer consolation or even a word of explanation on Religious severance after 15 years of presumably devoted, sincere service to the Lord’s people?
The ex-religious explained his departure by his perception of “unbearable hypocrisy” of the Religious whose Community life he shared. He seemed surprised to discover that people in religion are just as selfish, lazy, manipulative and phony as the average fellow who works as a Wall Street trader or the lady who sells hats at Bergdorf Goodman. I, myself, have lived for 64 years in religious Community, given countless retreats and lectures to clergy and religious and have found similar human behaviors but that is only half the story.
How did he miss the abundant generosity, kindness and friendliness that pervades most religious Communities—even today when widespread secular narcissism has seeped into God’s own acre? Did he not meet the broken person striving for holiness who, contritely, makes amends after being sarcastic or cold to a fellow religious? Did he not see the day by day attempts at prayer in the midst of very busy and demanding service to others? Did he not see these vessels of clay wrestling with their God to make sense out of much of the nonsense of their lives? Did he never hear the testimony of saints, such as John Berchmanns who painfully admitted that Religious Community life is a Purgatory? A Purgatory which highlights and magnifies human failings as well as human splendor? Of course selective friendships and greetings are rampant as are hurts and slights and even unChristian shunning. I once lived with a fellow religious who had a list of people he wouldn’t talk to! It was a common joke to ask another Religious if he was “on the list.” Of course, there are innumerable instances of this kind of “hypocrisy.” But isn’t there another side of the coin?
I am surprised that he was surprised. My assumption is that Catholic religious know and reasonably understand the basic doctrine of Original sin whereby all of us, intelligent or dopey, young or old, healthy or ill, will be tempted to be proud, envious, lazy, lustful, angry, mean, avaricious and vengeful. The priest who is too busy or annoyed to meet the request of an anxious Catholic for sacramental Confession is, on first impression, beneath my contempt, but I try to understand that there are unconscious and conscious dynamics working in him that are beyond my awareness. It is not for me to judge. Perhaps, in every human being, we might find weaknesses and modes of behavior that might be labeled hypocrisy!
The Catholic Church teaches that there is a fundamental incompletion in all human beings. No one escapes. Only Jesus Who was God (as well as man) and His Blessed Mother (by singular theological exception) can claim true and complete integration. Even on Ash Wednesday, the Church reminds us that we are dust, and highly limited by space and time. I am surprised that a modern religious is unaware that all religious communities represent a slice of that population we call the human race. That tainted and broken human population is the pool from which come all religious vocations. Ideally, I would like my religious leaders, male and female to be perfect human beings, always loving, always, intelligent, always kind, always “there” for me! If I really believed that, I would suspect that there is “something” in the water I drink.
Yet, it seems to me that some of the most terrifying words of the gentle Jesus were reserved for those whom he called “hypocrites.” These were the ones whom He labels “whited sepulchers”……..clean looking on the outside but rotten inside. It surfaces for me a recollection of the old Roman god, Janus, who had two faces to be used expediently according to the “appropriate” situation. Clearly, there is a difference between keeping personal secrets to oneself (a moral choice) and pretending to believe something one does not (or even pretending not to believe when one does). While there is no moral need to splatter one’s total self all over the landscape, there is a vital Christian imperative to try to match one’s behavior with one’s stated belief.
In fact, this principle applies not only to religious people but to anyone who seriously pursues what we call the Will of the Almighty, the Lord, Himself. When, as reported in a New York newspaper recently, a local Rabbi cajoles women congregants to have sex with him under the guise of some kind of Jewish ritual, he is a hypocrite. As is the Catholic priest who has sexual relationships with adolescents under the pretense of helping them to mature. He is a desperate hypocrite. Or the public high school teacher who molests his intimidated students, too fearful to resist or report him. Or any son or daughter of Adam/Eve who “feigns” virtue, belief or even feelings.
How many times I have heard the old saw from fallen-away Catholics that the reason for their non-practice is the hypocrisy of Catholics who attend Mass on Sundays!! It is alleged that these Catholic hypocrites go only to show off their high couture or possibly to maintain some kind of social or professional contact. While this might be true in isolated instances, particularly with politicians who pointedly carry big, highly visible Bibles, on Sunday mornings, it is insulting to the millions of good hearted people who do attend their various denominations sincerely and with full intent of living godly lives. Who are the real hypocrites? It is fascinating to me to discover that many of the people I have encountered with that rationalization, are themselves engaging in or living with situations which are antithetical to the codes of the Great Religions. To attend services in Temple or Church might be too anxiety provoking for this critic. Attendance could mean a challenge to his laziness or his carnality or his dishonesty. To call others hypocrites becomes an excuse for him. Yet, his rationalization relieves him of a strenuous effort to please God. Those faithful persons who worship their God with dignity and silence do not need to trumpet their prayer life. They are well aware of the basic spiritual axiom: God Who sees in secret, rewards in secret. Perhaps, the noisy criticism of those who are too involved with Mammon is all the reward they will get.
If believing people (of any religion) fail in their prayers or their charity or their self control, do they repent and reform and try again? If so, then these people are truly sincere—even if they fail. The critic doesn’t even try. In one of the recent Courage[2] meetings, a newcomer to the Group who had broken free of the Gay lifestyle, commented on the absence of self loathing in the verbal witnessing of the members. His previous experience with SSA people, in other groups, had been rife with self hatred and self depreciation but the Courage people seemed pervaded with a sense of self respect. The explanation derives from the Catholic insight of the “Second Chance” and the “Constant Resurrection” (i.e. the sacrament of Penance or Reconciliation). Coupled with the insistent Catholic teaching that all men and women are loved by God Who sent His Son, Jesus, to die for all of us and our sins (translated as Value of a person), the encouragement to “pick oneself up and try all over again” takes root in one’s self identity. Then the soul hears the message: Keep on trying. Keep up the good fight. Don’t quit. You are basically good if marginally wounded. Miracles do happen.
Courage teaches its members the meaning of Original sin and its illumination on human behavior. It teaches that the disciplining of the disordered tendency for same sex can be a “platform of holiness” as in the Blessed apostle Paul mode with his “ thorn in the side”. Even if the disorder is never removed, it can be contained by God’s great grace and can allow the person to reach spiritual heights he never imagined! This is not hypocrisy. This is real virtue wherein these SSA people do not “feign”. They face the facts of their lives and struggle for the sake of the Lord to achieve and maintain interior Chastity. Is it that the cynical critics dislike struggle or effort and prefer the instant gratification so cherished in modern culture?
Still, fakery (or hypocrisy) and not-revealing “things” are two different issues. Cardinal Levada, in an address to the seminarians at the North American College in Rome, recently suggested that an SSA priest would be well advised to keep his sexual ambiguity to himself. The need of some “Gay” priests to publicize their “gayness” to Catholics whose interest is more in sizzling bacon and Sunday newspapers, speaks, not to the spiritual good of parishioners, but to underdeveloped psyches playing at being Clergymen. Keeping one’s sexual preferences to oneself could well indicate some attempt at generosity in protecting the Faithful from confusion and disillusionment. To argue that such self disclosure on a Sunday morning is necessary for the priest’s own honesty is to high light the perceived priorities of the "Gay" priest. He is interested in himself and not in the peaceful growth of God’s people.
Christian spirituality necessarily involves some form of the Cross which, in effect, translates into affective love of the Lord. While human failure is inevitable, in priests and peasants, laddies and lassies, and in all children of Adam, the splendor of human goodness still shines through all the muck and hypocrisy. Let us then sing the praises, under God, of being human!
________________________________________
[1] “..feigning of beliefs, feelings or virtues that one does not hold or possess; insincerity” Dictionary of Houghton, Mifflin Co.
[2] a Catholic apostolate formed to assist Same Sex Attracted Persons (SSA) to pursue Chastity and holiness in the Roman Catholic style
Friday, March 10, 2006
Saturday, February 25, 2006
A Psycho-Social View of Same-Sex “Marriage”
Any attempt to demonstrate the destructive essence of Same-Sex “marriage”, if based on religious reasoning, will usually be brushed aside by the average American as “Bible thumping” craziness. Even more rejecting is the historical sense of fair play whereby we hold that all citizens must be treated in the same way with equal rights for all. On the face of it to prohibit a certain group of Americans from enjoying the joys and rights of the marriage state---because of non-standard sexual orientation---might seem unfair, un-American and discriminatory. Particularly, this might be true if is one is non-religious or morally/ socially uninterested. I am reminded of the Preacher who said that the trouble with the country is ignorance and apathy. One of his listeners yawned and said of the troubling item, “I don’t know and I don’t care.” Perhaps, our citizens are uninformed about Same Sex Marriage (SSM) or worse perhaps they are indifferent.
Yet, our American society has enacted, currently and historically, some discriminating laws which prohibit a certain class of people from engaging in certain behaviors. We prohibit those under 16 from driving a car. In some states we prohibit a certain class of people from drinking alcoholic liquors—if they are not of a certain age. There is some discrimination going on here—which most Americans accept as fair and correct.
Why does Society do this? By what right does Society pass these kinds of laws?
Tim Leslie, a California congressman, insists that the real case against SSM is social.[1] The origin of society’s right to pass certain kinds of laws focuses on the General Welfare. Certain practices, rather than benefit society, will destroy it. He argues that since Government is obliged to promote the General Welfare, it has the profound duty to protect children from the ill effects of drinking as well as to protect society in general from the dangers associated with youths driving powerful machines on public roads. These are called Prudential Judgments. Along these same lines, the General Welfare dimension can be reasonably applied to the case against SSM.
So, to the social and psychological questions.
Does society derive any benefit from two men (or two women) having sexual pleasure with each other in a kind of “marriage”?
Does society derive any benefit from a man and woman having sexual pleasure with each other in marriage?
If the reason for marriage is primarily for two people to have sex with each other, then there is no difference in the coupling—in terms of Purpose of marriage. Then, indeed government has no need or right to insist that Marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. Assemblywoman Sally Lieber (D. California) remarks “I don’t see how my marriage is any more moral that the same-sex couples I know.” As Tim Leslie observes this makes sense only if marriage is primarily for companionship and sexual pleasure.
If marriage has a deeper reason more beneficial for society’s good, then Sally’s remark seems somewhat superficial. Indeed, her superficiality is confronted in the street smart talk of my youth in Hell’s Kitchen, New York, where the observation of homosexual coupling was evaluated by the colloquial expression “the parts don’t fit.” One male genital plus one male genital equals nothing. One female genital plus another female genital equals nothing. In these cases, we can say that one plus one does not equal two. What does this imply? The plain truth of history is that the heart of marriage is the begetting and education of children. The happiness of two same-sex attracted persons – as such - does not produce definitive benefit to society. Families with children do!!!!
In the experience of the human race, the family is the very bed-rock of all things. Virtually, everything that happens in society, “for good or ill” can be traced back to family and family life. So, the basic reason for opposition to same sex “marriage” is that it would not only undermine marriage as it exists, it would effectively destroy it. Marriage is very weak in our times but it would be cheapened unbelievably should SSM be legalized. Marriage would become just another choice among others. Marriage would be enormously weakened. We would slither with greater speed down the slippery slope of social distress, confusion and Chaos.
Leslie argues that SSM would mean huge increases in marital infidelity and broken homes obviously inclining children toward all kinds of antisocial behaviors. Apart from the uniformed and apathetic, it is obvious, even from “Gay” sources[2], that only emotional fidelity is usually required, not sexual fidelity. Mary Mendola[3] studied 400 homosexual couples and found a definite distinction between sexual and emotional exclusivity. Leslie opines that this translates “into an almost unfathomable degree of sleeping around.” He reports on an Amsterdam study which found a cheating average of 8 partners annually. He notes that the average active homosexual has between 100 and 500 different partners in a lifetime! He notes a study which showed that 26% of homosexual persons have had 1,000 or more sex partners in a lifetime! On the other hand, most studies of heterosexual marriage stability report that around 75% of husbands are faithful and that 85/90% of wives are likewise. Explanation is patent. Emotional and sexual fidelity are linked.
So, against such a background, does one speak of gays “adopting” unwanted children? Generally, children growing up in a traditional home have problems but of a significantly diminished degree[4] over those who are from an SSM background. They have better emotional health, engage in less risky behaviors, less likely to engage in premarital sex and do better educationally and economically. But one of the most powerful arguments for traditional marriage and the standard is complementarity between the sexes. Regardless of wisecracks from Television comics, Dan Quayle had a point. Mothers have unique emotional gifts for children unlike the unique gifts which fathers have. Tim Leslie refers to a study of character traits by David Popenoe of Rutgers University which basically demonstrates that “…both dimensions (sic: male and female) are critical for an efficient, balanced and human child rearing regime.” The obvious conclusion is that SSM can never contribute to such optimal rearing of children. Leslie also notes that SSM partners are not only more promiscuous, but more prone to physical and mental health problems, die sooner and have short duration of their relationships. Is this a healthy world in which to raise children?
More frightening is his citation from the journal Adolescence which reports that 29% of children adopted by homosexual “parents” have been molested by one of the parents as compared with 0.6% of molested children with heterosexual parents. Being adopted by homosexual parents apparently increases the risk of incest by a factor of about 50.
To bring in the red herring of the menopause marriage in an attempt to justify the SSM movement is illogical. A basic principle of logic is that one does not equate the “particular” with the Universal. Here the anatomical parts “fit” ---something one can value from Nature’s point of view.
Leslie notes, also, that the pro-SSM group fails to take into account the experience of institutions which relaxed strictures against admitting same-sex attracted people. It is almost laughable when one hears how vigorously lobbyists pushed for the admission of gays into the Catholic priesthood on the grounds that the celibacy strictures would aid the Gay to be chaste. In spite of the hype and the sentimentality and pleas for tolerance, the Catholic Church suffered a terrible scandal mainly because of unchaste homosexual priests. Almost 90% of all cases involved homosexual priests. Sadly, we find even now that there is woeful sexual infidelity among homosexual Catholic priests.
Leslie frightens us even more when he quotes activist Michael Signorile who says “that the goal is to fight for same sex marriage…to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…. the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…..is to transform the notion of “family” entirely.”
It is, then essential, that SSM not be declared legal since it would seriously damage our society and culture. Traditional marriage must be upheld as the central piece of our society. Otherwise, Leslie warns us, there will be an unprecedented societal breakdown and disintegration never before seen in our country. It is time for Americans to avoid ignorance and apathy but to become informed and involved.
________________________________________
[1] The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage, Crisis Magazine, 2004
[2] The Male Couple; McWhirter and Mattison 1984
Gay couples must tolerate infidelity for the marriage to survive
[3] The Mendola Report; Only 26% of gay couples believe total commitment is necessary. 1980
[4] The Case for Marriage White and Gallagher, Doubleday, 2000
Yet, our American society has enacted, currently and historically, some discriminating laws which prohibit a certain class of people from engaging in certain behaviors. We prohibit those under 16 from driving a car. In some states we prohibit a certain class of people from drinking alcoholic liquors—if they are not of a certain age. There is some discrimination going on here—which most Americans accept as fair and correct.
Why does Society do this? By what right does Society pass these kinds of laws?
Tim Leslie, a California congressman, insists that the real case against SSM is social.[1] The origin of society’s right to pass certain kinds of laws focuses on the General Welfare. Certain practices, rather than benefit society, will destroy it. He argues that since Government is obliged to promote the General Welfare, it has the profound duty to protect children from the ill effects of drinking as well as to protect society in general from the dangers associated with youths driving powerful machines on public roads. These are called Prudential Judgments. Along these same lines, the General Welfare dimension can be reasonably applied to the case against SSM.
So, to the social and psychological questions.
Does society derive any benefit from two men (or two women) having sexual pleasure with each other in a kind of “marriage”?
Does society derive any benefit from a man and woman having sexual pleasure with each other in marriage?
If the reason for marriage is primarily for two people to have sex with each other, then there is no difference in the coupling—in terms of Purpose of marriage. Then, indeed government has no need or right to insist that Marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. Assemblywoman Sally Lieber (D. California) remarks “I don’t see how my marriage is any more moral that the same-sex couples I know.” As Tim Leslie observes this makes sense only if marriage is primarily for companionship and sexual pleasure.
If marriage has a deeper reason more beneficial for society’s good, then Sally’s remark seems somewhat superficial. Indeed, her superficiality is confronted in the street smart talk of my youth in Hell’s Kitchen, New York, where the observation of homosexual coupling was evaluated by the colloquial expression “the parts don’t fit.” One male genital plus one male genital equals nothing. One female genital plus another female genital equals nothing. In these cases, we can say that one plus one does not equal two. What does this imply? The plain truth of history is that the heart of marriage is the begetting and education of children. The happiness of two same-sex attracted persons – as such - does not produce definitive benefit to society. Families with children do!!!!
In the experience of the human race, the family is the very bed-rock of all things. Virtually, everything that happens in society, “for good or ill” can be traced back to family and family life. So, the basic reason for opposition to same sex “marriage” is that it would not only undermine marriage as it exists, it would effectively destroy it. Marriage is very weak in our times but it would be cheapened unbelievably should SSM be legalized. Marriage would become just another choice among others. Marriage would be enormously weakened. We would slither with greater speed down the slippery slope of social distress, confusion and Chaos.
Leslie argues that SSM would mean huge increases in marital infidelity and broken homes obviously inclining children toward all kinds of antisocial behaviors. Apart from the uniformed and apathetic, it is obvious, even from “Gay” sources[2], that only emotional fidelity is usually required, not sexual fidelity. Mary Mendola[3] studied 400 homosexual couples and found a definite distinction between sexual and emotional exclusivity. Leslie opines that this translates “into an almost unfathomable degree of sleeping around.” He reports on an Amsterdam study which found a cheating average of 8 partners annually. He notes that the average active homosexual has between 100 and 500 different partners in a lifetime! He notes a study which showed that 26% of homosexual persons have had 1,000 or more sex partners in a lifetime! On the other hand, most studies of heterosexual marriage stability report that around 75% of husbands are faithful and that 85/90% of wives are likewise. Explanation is patent. Emotional and sexual fidelity are linked.
So, against such a background, does one speak of gays “adopting” unwanted children? Generally, children growing up in a traditional home have problems but of a significantly diminished degree[4] over those who are from an SSM background. They have better emotional health, engage in less risky behaviors, less likely to engage in premarital sex and do better educationally and economically. But one of the most powerful arguments for traditional marriage and the standard is complementarity between the sexes. Regardless of wisecracks from Television comics, Dan Quayle had a point. Mothers have unique emotional gifts for children unlike the unique gifts which fathers have. Tim Leslie refers to a study of character traits by David Popenoe of Rutgers University which basically demonstrates that “…both dimensions (sic: male and female) are critical for an efficient, balanced and human child rearing regime.” The obvious conclusion is that SSM can never contribute to such optimal rearing of children. Leslie also notes that SSM partners are not only more promiscuous, but more prone to physical and mental health problems, die sooner and have short duration of their relationships. Is this a healthy world in which to raise children?
More frightening is his citation from the journal Adolescence which reports that 29% of children adopted by homosexual “parents” have been molested by one of the parents as compared with 0.6% of molested children with heterosexual parents. Being adopted by homosexual parents apparently increases the risk of incest by a factor of about 50.
To bring in the red herring of the menopause marriage in an attempt to justify the SSM movement is illogical. A basic principle of logic is that one does not equate the “particular” with the Universal. Here the anatomical parts “fit” ---something one can value from Nature’s point of view.
Leslie notes, also, that the pro-SSM group fails to take into account the experience of institutions which relaxed strictures against admitting same-sex attracted people. It is almost laughable when one hears how vigorously lobbyists pushed for the admission of gays into the Catholic priesthood on the grounds that the celibacy strictures would aid the Gay to be chaste. In spite of the hype and the sentimentality and pleas for tolerance, the Catholic Church suffered a terrible scandal mainly because of unchaste homosexual priests. Almost 90% of all cases involved homosexual priests. Sadly, we find even now that there is woeful sexual infidelity among homosexual Catholic priests.
Leslie frightens us even more when he quotes activist Michael Signorile who says “that the goal is to fight for same sex marriage…to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…. the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…..is to transform the notion of “family” entirely.”
It is, then essential, that SSM not be declared legal since it would seriously damage our society and culture. Traditional marriage must be upheld as the central piece of our society. Otherwise, Leslie warns us, there will be an unprecedented societal breakdown and disintegration never before seen in our country. It is time for Americans to avoid ignorance and apathy but to become informed and involved.
________________________________________
[1] The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage, Crisis Magazine, 2004
[2] The Male Couple; McWhirter and Mattison 1984
Gay couples must tolerate infidelity for the marriage to survive
[3] The Mendola Report; Only 26% of gay couples believe total commitment is necessary. 1980
[4] The Case for Marriage White and Gallagher, Doubleday, 2000
Friday, February 17, 2006
Weak Catholic Religious Education: How it Affects Faith
In 1936, the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, February 11th was a momentous day for devout Catholics. The apparition of the Mother of God at Lourdes to a simple peasant French girl was celebrated de rigueur in the uncomplicated household I called my home. For nine mornings and evenings, a Novena, we devoted ourselves to this powerful Celestial protector called Our Lady of Lourdes. Under the strong will of my Irish Grandmother and the sweet but unyielding direction of the Holy Cross Sisters, all of us (with the exception of my Jewish father), dutifully attended Mass each morning and services at night where we heard stirring sermons on God’s power and His desire to gift us provided we asked Him through the Great Lady we called Our Blessed Mother.
We made our petitions which ranged from requesting good health or a steady job to finding my beloved lost dog, Mickey Finn. We lit candles with a little prayer. After waiting on long lines we went to “Confession”, received absolution from our sins and resolved to amend our sinful ways. We dropped our nickel or dime in the poor box and felt very good about ourselves. We felt kinder to our fellow human beings, lied less and helped to clean up after dinner.
The huge Paulist Church was literally packed each Novena night. Unless one came reasonably early, standing room was the only option. The side chapels were crammed with folding chairs. The men sat on red pillows placed on the steps leading up to the great Sanctuary where we would witness the Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament at the conclusion of each evening ceremony. Faith was rampant. The Grace of Jesus fell like rain. Out of such a socio-religious matrix came the Greatest Generation, those who survived the Great Depression and the suffering of World War II.
Within such a matrix, however, it was easy to be actively religious. It was easy to incorporate one’s spiritual beliefs into daily life. But it was taken for granted that there was something to incorporate. Our meaningful spiritual life presupposed a whole structure of religious doctrine which we, as children, year after year, learned daily from religious Sisters. These “Nuns” had a special kind of infallibility which was “ Sister sez…..” beyond which there could be no question. Sister told us we would have a serious obligation to worship God each Sunday through the Holy Mass. We would receive Jesus in Holy Communion, not as a symbol but the Lord Himself. We could have our sins forgiven through the sacrament of Penance. We would have reasonable certainty about the Truths of the Faith through the leadership of the Pope, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth and the successor to Peter the Rock.
We could pray to a dazzling array of saints who were scholars, doctors, soldiers, beggars, married, single, rich, poor, Japanese, Irish, African and American--- all ready to help us in times of grief, fear or puzzlement. The Sisters taught us to aspire ourselves to such spiritual heights and to believe that it is possible for us, too, aided by the grace of the Lord we worshipped. Life made sense while we acknowledged absurdity and weakness. The large answers were clear even if the crosses remained difficult and painful. Catholicism for us was more than a Creed or philosophy. It was a pervasive way of Life. Affectively, we were close to God.
Unless one has been living in the Gobi desert for fifty years it is obvious that there has been a change in the Catholic way of life. On Feb. 11, 2006, 70 years later, there was hardly a mention of Our Lady of Lourdes. Today the great Paulist Church is hardly ever packed to the doors. There is merely a sprinkling of communicants. There are no more Holy Cross Sisters to open the young souls to the glories of the Faith. There is open and sometimes heretical dissent from the core Teachings of the Faith. Nearly one third of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Unbelievably, some priests doubt the Truth of Transubstantiation, alleging that Community building is more important than Faith. “Visits” to the Blessed Sacrament are rare. Making the Stations of the Cross as a devotion is a quaint anachronism. To see some adult “making his beads” (saying his Rosary), even in the case of Religious, might raise some “progressive” eyebrows. Catholic leaders, including Popes, are categorized and dismissed as Neanderthal, former young Nazi or mere Italian bureaucrat.
Few Catholics go to Confession. Many believe it doesn’t really matter what religion one professes. Some Catholics support abortion programs believing one’s immediate conscience trumps revealed Truth. Many Catholics support Same Sex “marriages” while others practice homosexual behavior with a mindset justifying illicit sexual pleasures. And of course, these persons often blatantly announce that –yes they are Catholics who go to “Church” often, have their children baptized or married in the Catholic manner and send in an occasional check for charity. They apparently see no dis-connect between their personal lives and the abstract Catholicism they murkily profess. This is, at times, publicly manifested in the cases of “Catholic” politicians who bristle whenever Bishops challenge them in the public forum.
What happened? Of course, there are many possible variables which have contributed to this sad state. The possible list is long. I suggest that one measurable variable which has fed into the decay is very weak religious instruction. But one suspects that many modern Catholics don’t even know what traditional religious instruction means. In their traditional ability to joke about their own weaknesses, my Jewish family told me this relevant story. A rich Jewish entrepreneur wishes to have his new Jaguar blessed. He approaches an Orthodox rabbi for the blessing who asks innocently: “What’s a Jaguar?” A Conservative rabbi similarly responds: “What’s a Jaguar?” But a hot shot/modern Reform Rabbi responds: “What’s a Blessing?”
Many modern Catholics will innocently wonder “what’s traditional religious instruction?” They usually lack the warm flexibility and confidence of the Jewish soul which has been refined in the furnace of bigotry and hatred. The Jew learned to laugh at himself in his quest for survival, seen tragically in the example of the Russian and Polish stettles. Not so with the modern sad Catholic, who might, in fact, be in objective heresy or schism. He is defensive and dour. His anger and depression is getting more widespread. A psychologist might wonder whether or not we are witnessing a colossal unconscious adolescent rebellion against a parental figure!
Some years ago, a columnist of the liberal National Catholic Reporter, himself the recipient of the riches of Catholic tradition, nostalgically pined for the glory of his religious youth. He watched the so-called religious education of his children, with dismay, where the dominant instruction core was not the Eucharist or grace or prayer or Lourdes but rather an elusive goal of “self esteem.”
Under the influence of so many Catholic educators, some of whom I met in my own graduate psychology work, the Religious ed. Programs focused on “feeling good about your self.” It was implied that a warm navel gazing stance would be more helpful for happiness than an awareness of life’s purpose and the means of reaching eternal happiness with God and inner peace in this life.
This columnist wrote of the Catholicism of his youth which was taught like a Gorilla triumphantly thumping his chest. He compared this past glory with the present state of religious instruction which features rills and rocks, running streams, sheaves of wheat flowing in the wind, quasi-animism and which, effectively, focuses, not on God , the Lord and Master, but on the self. The result is an uninformed, pallid, pale “religious” pablum.
Such an enormous disservice to the Catholic people is staggering. And the weakness is not confined to the laity alone. The New Oxford Review (April, 1997) challenged a Catholic bishop of Colorado who announced that he would never, in the future, preach against any kind of sin from the pulpit, lest some one might be offended!!! To speak of abortion or homosexual acting out for him is now out of bounds. He can’t challenge any sin because it might damage some one’s self esteem. The sinner might feel rejected or guilty! He is saturated with the “new” Catholicism but alas, what happens to those who look to him for guidance? Where is the call to repentance? Where is the awareness of the “Cross” so deep in the Faith and devotion of ’36?
We thank God for teachers like Bishop Fabian of Nebraska who will not be silent about sin. Thank the Lord for Dr. James Dobson and Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis who teach the deep truths of God. The Catholics of ’36 were raised on the simple Baltimore Catechism and have been condemned ever since as being underdeveloped and rigid. In spite of actual limitations of such a religious formation, Catholics of that time knew something of their Faith and they acted on it. By comparison with today’s disorientation and desert wandering, l936 looks “pretty good.”
Will we ever see the vigorous, enthusiastic Faith of my youth? Oh, yes, but not in our time since it will take a generation to erase the excesses and mistakes of the recent past. We need real teachers who, truly informed, are not afraid to speak God’s truth. We need real people who value goodness above popularity. May Our Lady of Lourdes protect us.
________________________________________
We made our petitions which ranged from requesting good health or a steady job to finding my beloved lost dog, Mickey Finn. We lit candles with a little prayer. After waiting on long lines we went to “Confession”, received absolution from our sins and resolved to amend our sinful ways. We dropped our nickel or dime in the poor box and felt very good about ourselves. We felt kinder to our fellow human beings, lied less and helped to clean up after dinner.
The huge Paulist Church was literally packed each Novena night. Unless one came reasonably early, standing room was the only option. The side chapels were crammed with folding chairs. The men sat on red pillows placed on the steps leading up to the great Sanctuary where we would witness the Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament at the conclusion of each evening ceremony. Faith was rampant. The Grace of Jesus fell like rain. Out of such a socio-religious matrix came the Greatest Generation, those who survived the Great Depression and the suffering of World War II.
Within such a matrix, however, it was easy to be actively religious. It was easy to incorporate one’s spiritual beliefs into daily life. But it was taken for granted that there was something to incorporate. Our meaningful spiritual life presupposed a whole structure of religious doctrine which we, as children, year after year, learned daily from religious Sisters. These “Nuns” had a special kind of infallibility which was “ Sister sez…..” beyond which there could be no question. Sister told us we would have a serious obligation to worship God each Sunday through the Holy Mass. We would receive Jesus in Holy Communion, not as a symbol but the Lord Himself. We could have our sins forgiven through the sacrament of Penance. We would have reasonable certainty about the Truths of the Faith through the leadership of the Pope, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth and the successor to Peter the Rock.
We could pray to a dazzling array of saints who were scholars, doctors, soldiers, beggars, married, single, rich, poor, Japanese, Irish, African and American--- all ready to help us in times of grief, fear or puzzlement. The Sisters taught us to aspire ourselves to such spiritual heights and to believe that it is possible for us, too, aided by the grace of the Lord we worshipped. Life made sense while we acknowledged absurdity and weakness. The large answers were clear even if the crosses remained difficult and painful. Catholicism for us was more than a Creed or philosophy. It was a pervasive way of Life. Affectively, we were close to God.
Unless one has been living in the Gobi desert for fifty years it is obvious that there has been a change in the Catholic way of life. On Feb. 11, 2006, 70 years later, there was hardly a mention of Our Lady of Lourdes. Today the great Paulist Church is hardly ever packed to the doors. There is merely a sprinkling of communicants. There are no more Holy Cross Sisters to open the young souls to the glories of the Faith. There is open and sometimes heretical dissent from the core Teachings of the Faith. Nearly one third of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Unbelievably, some priests doubt the Truth of Transubstantiation, alleging that Community building is more important than Faith. “Visits” to the Blessed Sacrament are rare. Making the Stations of the Cross as a devotion is a quaint anachronism. To see some adult “making his beads” (saying his Rosary), even in the case of Religious, might raise some “progressive” eyebrows. Catholic leaders, including Popes, are categorized and dismissed as Neanderthal, former young Nazi or mere Italian bureaucrat.
Few Catholics go to Confession. Many believe it doesn’t really matter what religion one professes. Some Catholics support abortion programs believing one’s immediate conscience trumps revealed Truth. Many Catholics support Same Sex “marriages” while others practice homosexual behavior with a mindset justifying illicit sexual pleasures. And of course, these persons often blatantly announce that –yes they are Catholics who go to “Church” often, have their children baptized or married in the Catholic manner and send in an occasional check for charity. They apparently see no dis-connect between their personal lives and the abstract Catholicism they murkily profess. This is, at times, publicly manifested in the cases of “Catholic” politicians who bristle whenever Bishops challenge them in the public forum.
What happened? Of course, there are many possible variables which have contributed to this sad state. The possible list is long. I suggest that one measurable variable which has fed into the decay is very weak religious instruction. But one suspects that many modern Catholics don’t even know what traditional religious instruction means. In their traditional ability to joke about their own weaknesses, my Jewish family told me this relevant story. A rich Jewish entrepreneur wishes to have his new Jaguar blessed. He approaches an Orthodox rabbi for the blessing who asks innocently: “What’s a Jaguar?” A Conservative rabbi similarly responds: “What’s a Jaguar?” But a hot shot/modern Reform Rabbi responds: “What’s a Blessing?”
Many modern Catholics will innocently wonder “what’s traditional religious instruction?” They usually lack the warm flexibility and confidence of the Jewish soul which has been refined in the furnace of bigotry and hatred. The Jew learned to laugh at himself in his quest for survival, seen tragically in the example of the Russian and Polish stettles. Not so with the modern sad Catholic, who might, in fact, be in objective heresy or schism. He is defensive and dour. His anger and depression is getting more widespread. A psychologist might wonder whether or not we are witnessing a colossal unconscious adolescent rebellion against a parental figure!
Some years ago, a columnist of the liberal National Catholic Reporter, himself the recipient of the riches of Catholic tradition, nostalgically pined for the glory of his religious youth. He watched the so-called religious education of his children, with dismay, where the dominant instruction core was not the Eucharist or grace or prayer or Lourdes but rather an elusive goal of “self esteem.”
Under the influence of so many Catholic educators, some of whom I met in my own graduate psychology work, the Religious ed. Programs focused on “feeling good about your self.” It was implied that a warm navel gazing stance would be more helpful for happiness than an awareness of life’s purpose and the means of reaching eternal happiness with God and inner peace in this life.
This columnist wrote of the Catholicism of his youth which was taught like a Gorilla triumphantly thumping his chest. He compared this past glory with the present state of religious instruction which features rills and rocks, running streams, sheaves of wheat flowing in the wind, quasi-animism and which, effectively, focuses, not on God , the Lord and Master, but on the self. The result is an uninformed, pallid, pale “religious” pablum.
Such an enormous disservice to the Catholic people is staggering. And the weakness is not confined to the laity alone. The New Oxford Review (April, 1997) challenged a Catholic bishop of Colorado who announced that he would never, in the future, preach against any kind of sin from the pulpit, lest some one might be offended!!! To speak of abortion or homosexual acting out for him is now out of bounds. He can’t challenge any sin because it might damage some one’s self esteem. The sinner might feel rejected or guilty! He is saturated with the “new” Catholicism but alas, what happens to those who look to him for guidance? Where is the call to repentance? Where is the awareness of the “Cross” so deep in the Faith and devotion of ’36?
We thank God for teachers like Bishop Fabian of Nebraska who will not be silent about sin. Thank the Lord for Dr. James Dobson and Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis who teach the deep truths of God. The Catholics of ’36 were raised on the simple Baltimore Catechism and have been condemned ever since as being underdeveloped and rigid. In spite of actual limitations of such a religious formation, Catholics of that time knew something of their Faith and they acted on it. By comparison with today’s disorientation and desert wandering, l936 looks “pretty good.”
Will we ever see the vigorous, enthusiastic Faith of my youth? Oh, yes, but not in our time since it will take a generation to erase the excesses and mistakes of the recent past. We need real teachers who, truly informed, are not afraid to speak God’s truth. We need real people who value goodness above popularity. May Our Lady of Lourdes protect us.
________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)