I Found the Priest Whose Fault It Is…

… that a large percentage of priests not only believe that it’s OK to spontaneously improve on the Church’s liturgical prayers, but that they, personally, are capable of doing so.

At a baptism a couple years ago, the priest simply couldn’t read the black – he ad libbed everything and – here’s the distressing part – he was really, really good at it. The new stuff he was making up flowed nicely, was in complete sentences, and even seemed appropriate and made sense. I was impressed. Not saying the new, improved spontaneous prayers were profound or even orthodox – but they weren’t obviously stupid or obviously inappropriate either.

I imagine that other priests think that that’s what they sound like when they wing it. Let me just say this to them: No, you don’t. Generally, what you make up is inconsistent, hard to comprehend and just plain silly. Of the hundreds of priests I’ve listened to over the years, exactly *1* could pull it off. You are not that one.

And to that one: This is all your fault!

Advertisements

TMI: Why I’ll Never Divorce…

Complaining to my beloved about having to go in for a further medical examination of the embarrassing sort us old guys seem particularly liable to:

“The last time, they discovered I still had a little dignity left, so I’m going in to have it removed.”

“You sure keep your dignity in an odd place.”

This, while she still likes me. I’m too cowardly to find out what it would be like if she didn’t.

All Right Thinking People Can Agree…

That, while the Marvin Gaye and Credence versions are very fine, the Gladys Knight version of ‘I Heard It Through the Grape Vine’ is the rockingest take on that song.

So why is it, when I’ve gotten an ear worm, that my mind keeps moving back to Marvin’s or Credence’s version? Why can’t I have Gladys’ version in my head on endless loop?

It’s Just Impossible

Thinking about an odd thing that I think anybody engaged in discussion about life issues or morality will find familiar: the unshakable, heart-felt belief that celibacy and sexual self-control are not possible. For many people, it is a core, foundational belief that, for a healthy human being, chastity in any of its forms is delusional and harmful. People who promote it are insane, and only the psychologically imbalanced could ever practice it.

If you truly believe this, then all those Catholic people, especially priests and nuns vowed to a life of celibacy can be nothing other than horrible lying hypocrites or sexually tortured lunatics. Or both.

Here’s where reality has no chance of breaking through – this belief becomes a filter, so that nothing that might contradict it is allowed to enter the mind. So, for example, among my friends are many happily married couples who have been faithful to each other for decades, even some who practice Natural Family Planning (meaning: they practice a particularly challenging form of sexual self-control: sharing a bed with a desirable and licit spouse with whom you have agreed to refrain from sex for a week or so at a time, for decades on end). There are evidently millions of couples around the world like this – and, in my unscientific sample, they are among the happier people on earth.

The True Believer, most often revealed in comments such as: “sex is natural, like breathing or eating”, has got to quibble with or out and out deny that this state of fulfilling and voluntary delayed sexual gratification is 1) possible, and, more important, 2) that it is desirable. The character of uptight sexually repressed bigot is as much a stock character in the comedy of the true believer’s life as Harlequin is to comedia dell’arte. More important, there is simply no place in their world for happy chaste people.

This makes conversation, let alone agreement, difficult. Like anyone who has spent half a century around all different kinds of Catholics, I’ve come across some bad ones. However, I’ve also been blessed to know dozens of happily celibate priests and nuns, and dozens of chastely married people. Some are just blessed – celibacy or chastity is not all that difficult for them, just as resisting greed or sloth or gluttony isn’t very difficult for some people. Others fight the good fight, and fight it and fight it until, exhausted, they die.  But theirs is a noble martyrdom, not a waste. I’m thinking of those priests and nuns I’ve know with the energy level of a nuclear power plant – there’s some mighty sublimation going on.  On the whole, even the ones who find it hard are not sexually tortured – they still laugh and smile and enjoy the company of people.

Now, this is of course anecdotal and personal, but it explains why, even as I struggled to behave well sexually, I never believed is was impossible, and, more important, I believed that chastity is a good thing. And I think many Catholics share this experience.

So, when we are challenged (I almost wrote ‘taunted’) with the claim that no sane person denies themselves sex any time they can get it, we think not of some white-knuckled fanatic with forehead veins throbbing, but we think of our friends, our brothers, our sisters, our aunts and uncles and so on – and we know, first hand, that chastity and celibacy are worthy goals, and that many good and sane people succeed in them.

Unless this issue is addressed, I don’t see how conversation is even possible between, for example, many pro- and anti-abortion people. If one side believes that sexual self-control is, while difficult sometimes, completely within the capacity of normal men and women – and a good thing – and the other believes that sexual self-control is out of reach for healthy men and women, and a bad thing in any event – that’s your quandary, right there.

West Coast Walk for Life

2nd year I’ve participated with my family.

Very moving.

Something like 35,000 – 40,000 people, on a lovely spring day in the middle of winter, showed up to walk. Maybe a few dozen people showed up to counter protest. As always, the very good and moving speakers spent as much time and emphasis on loving, healing and praying for the mothers and fathers and abortion providers as was spent mourning the children lost. This is a good thing. The babies are beyond our reach, but the people who make this horror possible are still our brothers and sisters, and it is they with whom we must work  and for whom we must pray if things are going to change.

And things do seem to be changing.

Years ago, we lived in San Francisco for a couple years, and I’ve experienced various protests and demonstrations staged there. The most prominent participants were totally confrontational – right in your face, often dressed bizarrely, clearly trying to challenge and dehumanize their perceived opponents. The Gay Pride parade springs particularly to mind here.

Walk for life is different. Sure, there are a few nuts – very few – but your typical walkers are a mom pushing a stroller, a gaggle of teenage girls, or priest in a cassock, who are much more likely to pass in silence than to give the occasional hooting counter-protester so much as a frown.

Final note, for both ‘teams’ – bullhorns are like tin-foil hats: it’s not written in stone anywhere that somebody wearing a tin-foil hat or wielding a bull horn is a nut, but that’s how the smart money is betting.

A Note on ‘Academics’

I often disparage ‘academics’ with quotes around the word. To be clear:

I’m totally down with books and studying and languages and music and art and all that. If that’s what was being taught under the label ‘academics’ in good schools, I’d have no problem.

But, is that what ‘academics’ means, in a good school? It should be obvious from a brief discussion with most any graduate from a good high school that little, if anything, worthy has been learned. Reading, writing and basic math can be taught to a willing student in a matter of months – what actually goes on over the 11+ other years? We should expect schools to crank out thousands of polyglot kids doing vector calculus between performances with the symphony orchestra, if in fact they were really learning anything during those thousands and thousands of hours.

Instead, we get graduates with 4+ GPAs and dozens of AP credits taking remedial writing when they get to college (about 50% of incoming students at Cal, according to one of their admissions officers). Compare and contrast, as they say, with people of actual distinction, both now and historically, and one thing repeatedly stands out: real high achievers get that way outside of school.

So, when I say ‘academics’ need to be de-emphasized, I mean that whatever passes for academics in the schools has to be gotten out of the way, so real learning can take place.

Education: Buying Manhattan, Square Pegs & Round Holes

We’ll use the well-known legend of the Dutch buying Manhattan from the Indians as a jumping off point. Similar stories abound.

In order to buy, as the Dutch understood the concept, an island, there must be someone or some group that owns the island as the Dutch understand ownership. If a Dutchman owned a piece of land, he’d assume he could put a wall around it, say who can or can’t use it and how, say who can pass through it and when, and so on – and the law would back him up.

It’s an open question, I think, if the Indians the Dutch bought the island from shared this understanding. (It’s been argued that the particular tribe they cut the deal with were not even from Manhattan, but lived out in Queens. It’s the original ‘want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?’ story.  I’ll leave it some native New Yorker to insert an appropriate quip here.)

In American history, there are a number of stories about treaties with the native Americans where the two sides had a very different understanding of what the treaty meant, even apart from any dishonesty or double-dealing. To put it perhaps a little simplistically, Europeans were, naturally, looking for the Indian equivalents of kings or landed gentry, from whom they could buy land fair and square, to own, use and enjoy European style. Regardless of how the Native Americans organized themselves and viewed ownership, our Europeans ancestors were almost fated to see them through a filter.  It would have been hard for the settlers to grasp that, while the Indians may have had very clear ideas about whose land was whose, and who could use it and for what, those ideas could be very different from and incomparable with European ideas.

When modern Americans think of school, we have a similar set of assumptions about what education looks like. For generations now, the kings and landed gentry of education have been a set of professional ‘educators’, who sell us graded classrooms and standardized tests – and the law backs these educators up.

But is that the only way it can be? Here’s where true ‘multiculturalism’ can help us – we can ask the very enlightening question: in other cultures we admire, how did people educate their young? Or, in other cultures we loath, how did people educate their young? Because real multiculturalism passes judgment – not all cultures are equal. Continue reading “Education: Buying Manhattan, Square Pegs & Round Holes”